starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by girly now that is totally not me my dear, oh well. Now that is apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist Now that is apparent. Girls girls lets keep it clean Hence the title of the thread stick to the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by siceone Girls girls lets keep it clean Hence the title of the thread stick to the issue. Im not a girl so obviously this comment is not directed at me...I think the topic has been laid to rest, unless someone new cares to share their opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by siceone Since when is it death? By death or court-martial for deserting during a time of war. Fact is, there is a provision for it, and no way to know if its done on the battlefield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania By death or court-martial for deserting during a time of war. Fact is, there is a provision for it, and no way to know if its done on the battlefield. since when was it carried out? in the past 100 years? and Im talking about surrendering and deserting not treason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by siceone since when was it carried out? in the past 100 years? and Im talking about surrendering and deserting not treason There is still a provision for it, so you, or I, might not know. The last time I can conceivably think of people deserting is probably WWII, and I was not there so I cannot tell if any deserters were brought to justice by death. My point is - there is still a provision for it.WHats your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Then can it not be said that they are acting disloyal to the country they are supposed to be serving? They are forced to serve in the armed forcesthrough conscription so the "loyalty" factor can't come into play.....They have no interest in dying for Saddam or his regime.....In fact, the people who are surrendering actually will welcome the fall of the governement..... they are in fact breaking a code of ethics in their unit and army force? So the fact that they are killed I dont view as wrong because killing is wrong, like most people are doing, and then going further as to calling them animals. The people who are killing the men that are surrendering are not part of the organized military....they are part of Saddams private terror squard (a non-government entity) that rules with an iron fist using tactics of terror, torture, and murder.....They have been doing this for 30 years.....Murdering or torturing innocents who do not want to be FORCED to live under oppresive dictorship....so my question to you is....How can it have anything to do with military ethics if the men doing the murdering are not part of the Iraqi military? If looked at from that perspective you could argue that they are in fact closer to the bare level of being "animals" being that they engaged in the activity long before this war started. Therefore, their actions are not a direct result of military action. They have been slaughtering dissenters, both military and non-military, for decades. so then to call Iraqi soldiers animals you would have to call American soldiers animals as well. thats what i have been saying all along.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania There is still a provision for it, so you, or I, might not know. The last time I can conceivably think of people deserting is probably WWII, and I was not there so I cannot tell if any deserters were brought to justice by death. My point is - there is still a provision for it.WHats your point? One can say when you enlist into the army, you do in fact become government property. That is why you sign on the dotted line, hehe. One can also argue that you in fact sign a binding contract to serve. Thus Iraqi troops in surrending to what they believed were "American troops" were in fact commiting treason and breaking a written or verbal contract. Now Im not sure how the law works in Iraq but in the U.S. such actions are punishable by law. The punishment in this situation was obviously death. Anywas I would have never guessed from the start of this thread that it would become so lengthy, hehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by underwater thats what i have been saying all along.... Thats what I have been saying for three pages. However your not the one my comment was directed to. It was to though who do not see this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist I see no point in calling either side "animals", that is what I am saying. I am further stating that if you are pro war and then call one side animals, you are a hypocrite.And you ask if they are acting like that now. Well what is your definition of being an animal? Is killing civilians one of them? For me this is part of war, but if you would like to know what our forces believe, The defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, said that the risk of civilian casualties in Iraq will increase with aerial bombardments, but added that the risk would not slow down the military campaign. Point being if you call Iraqi soldiers animals you should be anti war. you make no sense at all. Calling Iraqi soldiers "animals" does not = an anti war stance. I am not anti-war, I believe that we are over there for a reason, but the fact is that the Iraqis who are dressing up as civilians, using civilians as shields, and pretending to surrender are violating the laws of war, which therefore, makes them animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania There is still a provision for it, so you, or I, might not know. The last time I can conceivably think of people deserting is probably WWII, and I was not there so I cannot tell if any deserters were brought to justice by death. My point is - there is still a provision for it.WHats your point? you can absolutely shoot a soldier that will put the group in danger.....that provision is 100% correct.....however....you can't kill them unless his actions are putting your forces life in danger.....it is against geneva conventions to murder men who are standing and waving white flags trying to save their own lives and not endangering anyone.....that is murder.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania There is still a provision for it, so you, or I, might not know. The last time I can conceivably think of people deserting is probably WWII, and I was not there so I cannot tell if any deserters were brought to justice by death. My point is - there is still a provision for it.WHats your point? My point is That if the american Military killed anyone for refusing to fight or for surrendering I would say they were barberic as well.Are you saying that killing people for refusing to fight or surrendering isn't barberic, or are you disagreeing with me just to disagree with me?the iraqis are killing thier own people for surrenderingthe americans aren't provision or no provision the ACT is barberic which makes those who perpetuate the Act barbarians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 And yes the Fedayeen are getting orders directly from Saddam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by chrishaolin you make no sense at all. Calling Iraqi soldiers "animals" does not = an anti war stance. I am not anti-war, I believe that we are over there for a reason, but the fact is that the Iraqis who are dressing up as civilians, using civilians as shields, and pretending to surrender are violating the laws of war, which therefore, makes them animals. You obviously did not read the intial post, and you are confused as to what the subject matter is at hand. It is not Iraqis pretending to be surrending to U.S. troops and then killing troops. It is Iraqi's pretending to be U.S. troops and then killing the so called "traitors". Not only that but it is not even Iraqi troops who are doing this. It is Iraqi civilians doing it to Iraqi troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist Thus Iraqi troops in surrending to what they believed were "American troops" were in fact commiting treason and breaking a written or verbal contract. the are conscripted and forced to serve in the army.....are army is 100% comprised of people who volunteered to sign the dotted line..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by raver_mania Proof of order to kill deserters??!??! Do you know what the penalty for deserting the US army in a time of war is?BTW, this might be just *slightly* off topic, but I wanted to bring this up because there was talk of killing innocent people and such. Who was it that gave the order to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, in order to win a war? This was maybe 48 years ago, or so.War is an ugly thing, and calling one side animals for fighting a certain way is, again, extremely naive.BTW, I lean more toward the anti-war movement, though I agree Saddam and sons are evil and need to be dealt with somehow. However, introducing this doctrine of "pre-empetive strike" is ushering us into an extremely dangerous new era. I do not agree with Bush for not going through the UN, but what is it going to take for some people to realize that Saddam and these other fuckers are a credible threat to our national security, and need to be dealt with. And I very much prefer a pre-emptive strike over another national tragedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girly Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by chrishaolin you make no sense at all. Calling Iraqi soldiers "animals" does not = an anti war stance. I am not anti-war, I believe that we are over there for a reason, but the fact is that the Iraqis who are dressing up as civilians, using civilians as shields, and pretending to surrender are violating the laws of war, which therefore, makes them animals. ahhh thank you.. And the fact that people will disagree and agree is what makes this world wonderful.. isn't that so "starvingartist"?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by girly ahhh thank you.. And the fact that people will disagree and agree is what makes this world wonderful.. isn't that so "starvingartist"?! And your not to bright yourself for agreeing with someone who spoke about something with misinformation. That is not what makes this world wonderful, Because not everywhere in the world is this true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siceone Posted March 26 Author Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by underwater the are conscripted and forced to serve in the army.....are army is 100% comprised of people who volunteered to sign the dotted line..... Amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist You obviously did not read the intial post, and you are confused as to what the subject matter is at hand. It is not Iraqis pretending to be surrending to U.S. troops and then killing troops. It is Iraqi's pretending to be U.S. troops and then killing the so called "traitors". Not only that but it is not even Iraqi troops who are doing this. It is Iraqi civilians doing it to Iraqi troops. I understand the subject matter, and a horrible one at that. Unfortunately, I guess thats how they are dealing with their deserters. But I'm sure you're also aware of Iraqi troops pretending to surrender to coalition forces, and then opening fire on them - that is a pure act of evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by chrishaolin I understand the subject matter, and a horrible one at that. Unfortunately, I guess thats how they are dealing with their deserters. But I'm sure you're also aware of Iraqi troops pretending to surrender to coalition forces, and then opening fire on them - that is a pure act of evil. Yes, but you said I made no sense and then used my comments on a subject that i was not commenting on. Thats all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underwater Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 this thread is out of control Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvingartist Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by underwater this thread is out of control I think that is the only statement that we can all agree upon.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by starvingartist And your not to bright yourself for agreeing with someone who spoke about something with misinformation. That is not what makes this world wonderful, Because not everywhere in the world is this true. I did not speak with misinformation. I disagreed with your point that calling one side of a war "animals" <> an anti-war stance.And no matter which actions we're talking about here.. dressing up as US soldiers to kill their own soldiers, or pretending to surrender to ambush coalition forces, it all equals the same thing.. they are breaking rules of war and are animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girly Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Originally posted by chrishaolin I understand the subject matter, and a horrible one at that. Unfortunately, I guess thats how they are dealing with their deserters. But I'm sure you're also aware of Iraqi troops pretending to surrender to coalition forces, and then opening fire on them - that is a pure act of evil. you understood the subject matter completely.. This thread covered all areas and the main area I was talking about was the iraqi soldiers pretending to be civilians and then firing upon US troops.. I called them animals, and starvingartist went back and forth on that, but now shes telling you that you are speaking on the wrong subject matter:confused: This person just can't take hearing anyone elses opinion obiviously..and the point of this thread is gone now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.