PhillyKev 0 #76 August 24, 2004 I'm trying to figure out what the air did to them that it deserves to be shot at? I can see it now. Kill the air, and then order the civilian popluation to lay face down. Get your your 30,000 pairs of handcuffs and take them into custody. Dude, I share your sympathies regarding the overall situation, but how about a little common sense? (that's to Botellines, not Ron). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #77 August 24, 2004 QuoteOr he could put a tribunal with people who really hated SH in a country with death penalty. That would fool a few into thinking that it is democracy. Those who 'liked' Saddam, are primarily those who were in power along with him. Would you propose that the tribunal be stacked in their favor? With regards to the composition of the tribunal, what would make you happy? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #78 August 24, 2004 QuoteI'm trying to figure out what the air did to them that it deserves to be shot at? I guess same thing that those carboards at a shooting range. As a secondary effect, it usually draws attention. QuoteI can see it now. Kill the air, and then order the civilian popluation to lay face down. Get your your 30,000 pairs of handcuffs and take them into custody. There is no need to take into custody 30.000 civilians. It is only a mean to discriminate beetwen inocent people and not so innocents who has a drawn gun. Besides, it is much harder to shoot if you are on the ground with no weapons drawn and hands visble. How many units BTW have someone who speak their language? Anyway, now they use this little plastic bands instead of handcuffs and a single officer can carry around 100, just in case it was necesary to take into custody that many people Quote Dude, I share your sympathies regarding the overall situation, but how about a little common sense? (that's to Botellines, not Ron). I never said it was easy, i didn´t even say it was feasible without taking heavy casualties, but what the U.S cannot do is to show a total disregard for civilians life´s and then put all sort of moral justifications to it. The U.S should not be there, period. But if it has to be, one civilian life is one too many. If not the U.S has not the moral high ground as many in this forum claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #79 August 24, 2004 Quote QuoteOr he could put a tribunal with people who really hated SH in a country with death penalty. That would fool a few into thinking that it is democracy. Those who 'liked' Saddam, are primarily those who were in power along with him. Would you propose that the tribunal be stacked in their favor? With regards to the composition of the tribunal, what would make you happy? - Jim Hague tribunal where he will be judge by the most impartial people you could find (given the circumstances)and where he will face a life term in prison. (and you comply with the international tribunal BTW). However if the U.S did that, SH would not be executed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #80 August 24, 2004 QuoteI never said it was easy, i didn´t even say it was feasible without taking heavy casualties, but what the U.S cannot do is to show a total disregard for civilians life´s and then put all sort of moral justifications to it. Would you feel better if the US did take heavy casaulties during one of these operations? Would that make it easier to justify? QuoteThe U.S should not be there, period. But if it has to be, one civilian life is one too many. If not the U.S has not the moral high ground as many in this forum claim. We would, however, have the moral high-ground if we took casualties, right? When you go home tonight, do me a favor and say hello to Capt. Hook and give Tinker Bell a peck on the cheek, OK? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #81 August 24, 2004 Quote Would you feel better if the US did take heavy casaulties during one of these operations? Would that make it easier to justify? If the overall number of casualties drop, you can be damn sure it would make me happier. To me an American live is one point, and an Iraki live is one point. However, The public opinion would not tolerate that and would force Bush to live the irakies alone. QuoteWe would, however, have the moral high-ground if we took casualties, right? If you do all you can to spare innocent lives, you have the moral high ground. If not, you are not any better than the terrorist. QuoteWhen you go home tonight, do me a favor and say hello to Capt. Hook and give Tinker Bell a peck on the cheek, OK? Ok, you say hi to scooby-doo, alright? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #82 August 24, 2004 QuoteIf you do all you can to spare innocent lives, you have the moral high ground. If not, you are not any better than the terrorist. We could pull out completely, that would spare innocent lives, right? I have an idea that you won't be happy until the US (not necessarily the coalition, but the US) is completely out of Iraq. Why was making announcements the WEEK prior to attack unacceptable, but making announcements and the firing a few rounds into the air OK? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #83 August 24, 2004 QuoteIf people he order to kill and torture want to kill Bush for being a muderous asshole (or Cheney since he authorized the treatment at abu-grahib)... Great, are you saying he does not deserve it? If the American people want Bushes head on a platter you can bet they would get it...Same with SH... But you want to compare Bush to Hitler and now SH? Good Grief!!!! Last I checked Bush never ordered our military to go to Ohio and kill cililians. Or order civilians to be put to death ina meat grinder, or rape a guys wife while he watched. Maybe you have info ALL of the US does not? QuoteHe is the man who tried to kill my daddy Lame attempt..show me a cite. QuoteOr he could put a tribunal with people who really hated SH in a country with death penalty. That would fool a few into thinking that it is democracy. Part of Iraq becoming free is having a justice system in place. QuoteThat trial would be as legal as if you choose PhillyKev and myself to defend Bush against impeachment or peacefullJefrey, Juanesky and yourself to defend kerry for whatever. You have NO idea how anyone but yourself would defend anyone."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #84 August 24, 2004 QuoteYou cannot just tell someone to leave his city because you are goping to bomb it. Those people have their pride, and besides, where are they going to go? The US is the one doing the attacking, so it is responsible for the death of the innocents. if the US cannot bomb from the air because too many civilians will die, then the US shouldn´t do it. Better to send more soldier that will be much better at discriminating good people than bad people than a "smart" bomb dropped from 35000 feet. So your alternative is to not tell them and bomb any way - cuz guess what - that's what they wioll do to your or my or anyone elses building - city - metroplex whatever - if they even think that they don't agree with what you think - not even what you say - but think. You think you have the moral high ground because you think that one civillian is an unnacceptable loss - well - I have news for you - there is a real worlkd out there. Less people have died in this "War" than are killed every year in car accidents - do you protest by not buying a car?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #85 August 24, 2004 Quote You have NO idea how anyone but yourself would defend anyone. Well, i would think that everybody´s position is quite clear around here. Unless you have seen the light and you became a democrat in the last 30 minutes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #86 August 24, 2004 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have NO idea how anyone but yourself would defend anyone. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, i would think that everybody´s position is quite clear around here. Unless you have seen the light and you became a democrat in the last 30 minutes. I can stand next to a man I hate and defend his life from others if it is my job. Maybe you can't."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #87 August 24, 2004 >I can stand next to a man I hate and defend his life from others if it is my job. You'd defend a mass murderer/rapist if you were a laywer? I don't think I could do that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #88 August 24, 2004 Quote>I can stand next to a man I hate and defend his life from others if it is my job. You'd defend a mass murderer/rapist if you were a laywer? I don't think I could do that. What you don't believe in "innocent till proven quilty"?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #89 August 24, 2004 >What you don't believe in "innocent till proven quilty"? Before the law, yes. I just couldn't defend a man I knew to be guilty - although I would not try to stop him from getting a fair trial. A few years back a guy in San Diego kidnapped and murdered the 7 year old daughter of a friend of mine. We spent weeks combing the deserts looking for her body. They finally found it about a month after she'd disappeared. I'd see Westerfield in the courthouse on occasion; I had jury duty that week. I could not have defended him in court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #90 August 24, 2004 QuoteBefore the law, yes. I just couldn't defend a man I knew to be guilty Are you a judge and jury? Cause how do you "know" if a guy is quilty? Tarrot Cards? Throwing Bones? Voices from beyond the grave? QuoteI'd see Westerfield in the courthouse on occasion; I had jury duty that week. I could not have defended him in court. Good thing juries don't normally get asked to be on the defense team huh?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #91 August 24, 2004 Ummm, lawyers don't have a duty to defend someone who has admitted their crime to them. They can be their advocates in getting the best possible sentence, or plead based on exhigent circumstances. But if their client tells them they did it, they have every right to not try and prove they didn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #92 August 24, 2004 QuoteUmmm, lawyers don't have a duty to defend someone who has admitted their crime to them. They can be their advocates in getting the best possible sentence, or plead based on exhigent circumstances. But if their client tells them they did it, they have every right to not try and prove they didn't. Well if they admit it, then they are basicly admitting quilt..And then you don't have to defend them. But until they are proven quilty, or admit it...then you should not assume they are quilty."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #93 August 24, 2004 >Cause how do you "know" if a guy is quilty? Danielle's blood on his clothing, car and house. A witness that heard Danielle inside his RV when he drove it out to the desert. Might it all have been an elaborate frame job? Maybe - but I still could not have brought myself to defend him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #94 August 24, 2004 Quote>Cause how do you "know" if a guy is quilty? Danielle's blood on his clothing, car and house. A witness that heard Danielle inside his RV when he drove it out to the desert. Might it all have been an elaborate frame job? Maybe - but I still could not have brought myself to defend him. So you are judge and jury...I don't expect you to kill the guy. So much for innocent till proven quilty"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #95 August 24, 2004 >So much for innocent till proven quilty In the eyes of the law, he is innocent until proven guilty. I am not the law. If someone mugs me, I don't need a court to know he's broken the law - although I will accept that I have to wait for the court case to prove it. I suspect you feel the same way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #96 August 24, 2004 I have just recomposed myself. After reading that botellines wasn't being humorous in that post that cracked me up I laughed myself to tears. Botellines, you've put me off of my booster seat twice now laughing so bloody hard! Ahhh well... Quote What a total bunch of BS. Glad you have an opinion - you're certainly welcome to it. Quote Compare the 'regret' shown for the <3,000 victims of 9/11 compared to the 'regret' shown for the loss of >10,000 victims in Iraq. And your metric for that would be...what, exactly? What unit? What measurements have you taken? How has your metric been calibrated? What's your standard? Ahhh...I see...I don't belive you have one, other than your own opinion - to which, of course, you are most welcome. Quote There is sod-all regret shown by the US for the loss of Iraqis, and even if there were, so what? Does it make it ok to murder civvies so long as you regret it? Ahhh...so now you know the feelings of regret felt by the entire US, eh? Odd - I'd say you are generalizing without factual basis. Your seeming to equate collateral civilian casualties incurred in a war-zone with criminal murder is almost as funny as botellines meaning his last post in earnest. Almost, but not quite. Actually, not even almost - it's just damned funny, but not enough to put me on the floor laughing. Think that if it makes you feel better in making facts comport with the paradigm of life you've constructed for yourself. Quote The fact that they are Arabs and they are not US citizens and they are a long way a way makes their lives less important by definition. Only to the racially prejudiced among us. I for one don't care what race anyone is and don't believe most Americans do either. But, then again, it takes all kinds. To each their own. If it makes you feel better and makes it easy to comport the actual facts to your own paradigm of life - so be it. Quote So much less important that sacrificing 10,000 of them is an acceptable price to pay for 'liberating' the rest of them, or whatever the hell this weeks reason for the war is. Ahhhh...the perfect follow up to an accusation of racial prejudice...and combined with a slam on the grounds for the invasion. Most amusing. You assume that the lives of the 10,000 folks killed are less important - less important than what you never mention - because of a racial prejudice I say doesn't pervade the citizenry of the US (most of it at least). Amusing argument you've build for yourself. Postulate all you like on Mr. Bush's reasons for going to war. The fact remains that he - having far more access to far superior data than any of the rest of us - chose to do so and the US is there now. Quote How many people have died at the hands of Al-Quaeda vs died at the hands of the US government in the last 5 years? Hmmm...lot's of definition problems here. I assume you're now attempting to make some grandiose point by comparing civilian casualties in a war with the victims of terrorist attacks. If you consider such a comparison fruitful and profound you are most welcome to your opinion - I don't share it and find such a comparison rather inane, but if you don't that's just peachy for you. Takes all kinds. Quote Does that statistic tally with the idea that the US values life more than they do? You've given no statistic and lack the ability to do so accurately. Quote Like fuck it does. An indefensible conclusion, but it's definitely yours to make. Have a nice day. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #97 August 24, 2004 QuoteHmmm...lot's of definition problems here. I assume you're now attempting to make some grandiose point by comparing civilian casualties in a war with the victims of terrorist attacks. If we are in an undeclared war on terror (as your man George keeps telling us) then the terrorists are, ipso facto, at war with us (he's told us that too). So a terrorist attack that kills civilians is just as much an act of war as a US attack that kills civilians.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #98 August 25, 2004 Nope. US kills civilians when targeting militants/combatants. Terrorist scumbags target civilians themselves. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #99 August 25, 2004 QuoteNope. US kills civilians when targeting militants/combatants. Terrorist scumbags target civilians themselves. ] I agree with your statement, Vinny, but for this topic, I think it should be a little more specific... Al-Queda killed 3,000 of our civilians on purpose, and we have killed 13,000 Iraqi civilians by accident. Plain and simple... Any other explanation sounds like a an excuse for mass casualties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #100 August 25, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope. US kills civilians when targeting militants/combatants. Terrorist scumbags target civilians themselves. ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with your statement, Vinny, but for this topic, I think it should be a little more specific... Al-Queda killed 3,000 of our civilians on purpose, and we have killed 13,000 Iraqi civilians by accident. Plain and simple... Any other explanation sounds like a an excuse for mass casualties. Ask yourself this: If an American solider can avoid killing a civilian does he? Would a Terrorist kill 10,000 innocent civilians if he could?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
