Trent

Get all the Mexicans fired up! We're on our way on the 26th to spend our New Year and post Christmas days with all of our amigos! I can't wait to see our friends and make some new ones on the beach! We'll be coaching, organizing and partying! Oh, hello again!

I KNOW all arabs don't want to die for a cause, it's just the ones that do that we have a problem with. Let's say we get to that point. What do we do when the fundamentalists declare victory over the west and the hate doesn't decrease? Not that it'll happen... but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. Oh, hello again!

Yes, you're right. That's when we have to stand up and fight for what we beleive is right. That's why there will probably always be war. It is a serious compromise of moral character to avoid doing what you think is right, because someone might not like it. Oh, hello again!

I can definitively state that the US was not responsible for the crusades. Yes, I know you'll say that the muslim world has a long memory and since we're predominantly christian, we're guilty... but that's just the BS the clerics use to rile people up. It isn't a valid reason for anything going on today. Even if it were, the arab world should be going after spain, france, and england exclusively. Shah of Iran: oops, it looks like a lot of people preferred that time to the current leadership, but let's forget that because we want the US to look bad. Israel: just an excuse to be angry... the arab world doesn't give a shit about the Palestinians and has repeatedly shown that. Saudi Arabia: If they're so mad about us doing business with SA, why don't we see any anger towards SA directly? Instead we see them coming after us because, allah forbid they attack a muslim ruler (kinda like Saddam, right?). I agree with Josh here (SURPRISE!)... people need to start calling a spade a spade. MANY of the problems in the middle east are of their own leader's making. The US's hands aren't clean either, but the arab leadership in the ME so far seems (to me) to be WAY more hypocritical than ours (yes, including the dems!). Right, neither side will really disengage. It would be nice to see that de-escalation happen sometime in the near future... BUT (you knew it was coming)... with all the vehement anti-western, anti-Israeli, fundamentalism over there, that de-escalation HAS to involve the arab world cleaning up their own shit. The ridiculous rhetoric has got to stop, and it can only be done from within. Oh, hello again!

Actually, us doing what we feel is right (as a nation), whether it is supporting Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or formerly S.Vietnam should not depend on the perceptions of others. If we decide something is the right thing to do, it doesn't matter what people think. The problem here isn't that we're doing things that people are perceiving as evil or wrong... the problem is that Al-Jazeera, radical clerics, and a western press looking to sell advertising are shaping the perceptions in the wrong way. No, this doesn't mean that mistakes aren't made, but even if we were doing what the left thought was right... the same suspects would be molding perceptions against it as well. Oh, hello again!

Done yesterday. Oh, hello again!

The Viet Cong did not. They were all but eliminated during the Tet offensive. The NVA reaped the benefits of the US withdrawal, after sacrificing the VC and after our military was put in handcuffs by politicians who think amazingly similarly to you. I hope that's the last time you accuse me of being a racist or prejudiced. Even the reporter that filmed the incident claimed that the iraqis in the mosque were wounded terrorists. Oh, hello again!

That's not what I meant and you know it. It's infuriating that you repeatedly do that, Bill. Show me how to win a war by dying more than the enemy. And if the Marine did indeed kill that man for the sake of killing him, good riddance. He will pay for the rest of his life and after. I, however, am going to give our soldier the benefit of the doubt first. When did I say that, Bill? I have as little tolerance for people who try to but words in my mouth just to further their argument. I see now that you're only going to Michael Moore-ize my posts to get them to say something that you can get up in arms about. Did you forget to read the entire paragraph you quoted? Here it is again for you. But nice selective thinking for you... What part are you not getting??? If we wanted to wipe out an entire city that "might be terrorists" do you think for one second that we would be in there fighting house to house? What part of allowing our troops to eliminate probable threats in an active combat zone saves their lives do you not understand? Ahhh, 2 interesting things here. One, the arab world will never be convinced we are there to help with Al-Jazeera tearing apart our troops and propagandizing at every chance. Do you think Al-Jazeera would report that we were really the good guys if we did everything that you want us to do to fight a "nice" war? I bet not. The second interesting thing in that quote is your definition of an "innocent" Iraqi. Apparently the terrorist killed by the marine became an innocent Iraqi once it suited your purpose. The guys in that mosque were not innocent civilians by any means. Go read. Oh, hello again!

Show me how to win a war by dying more. You also didn't read closely, again. I said "I believe in a USA that, once involved in a conflict, does its best to win. That means dying less." Sure we could die less by never fighting at all. But then you'd be bitching about how we don't do enough to help rid the world of bad guys. This is a different argument than the thread is about anyway, Bill, but I know you like to always get back to "NO WAR FOR OIL, US OUT OF IRAQ!!" So have fun. Enlighten us, great thinker! We DO act that way, people like you chose to expound on events like the recent video and Abu Ghraib and try to apply it to the whole of our armed forces. That's the Stockholm/Al-Jazeera syndrome getting to you. A soldier in the field making the split second decision to kill someone who they feel may pose a direct threat to them or their unit is their own decision. Try to armchair quarterback that all you want. Prisoner? Where? No, you seem to think that we're the bad guys and you're more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the enemy than to our troops. Am I saying that? Nope. I'm saying this Marine did what he thought was right at the time. In light of recent events, he had reason to worry that injured or terrorists faking injury could still pose a threat. Good, Bill. Way to change the context of the question. How about if the soldier thinks the wounded terrorist still poses a threat? No one here, besides you assumes the soldier wanted to kill someone that day and just chose that "innocent" victim. You're right about one thing though... we could have let Iraq lie and not lost any soldiers over the last 18 months. People thought it was more dangerous to do that, and now we're there. That isn't going to change, so accept it and talk about the situation at hand. We're involved in irregular combat with an irregular enemy. People like you want to put our troops in handcuffs. That has been proven not to work. There is a difference between letting the military do its job the best it can and unleashing a genocidal killing spree. You don't think it can be done and you're going to piss your pants every time NBC and Al-Jazeera show a dead terrorist wondering if he was killed "appropriately". Meanwhile, the troops will be doing the best they can to reach their objectives while making sure they lose as few friends as possible. The way that is done, is to eliminate any perceived immediate threats. I'll continue to believe our troops are the good guys and that they DON'T shoot injured people as a rule. You continue to believe the opposite. Oh, hello again!

Try reading the thread before throwing in your 2 cents. They weren't prisoners. Oh, hello again!

Try not to answer questions for me next time. I did answer your question, albeit in a long-winded manner. No one should be "okay" with civilians or soldiers being shot or tortured unnecessarily. However, you cannot claim that someone is guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions if the "victim" is not protected under them. Case in point... the guy that was not dead in the Mosque. If you'd taken the time to read what I said in my responses to Zenister you'd have saved your typing for my more recent posts in here. SINCE we've seen injured and seemingly dead terrorists attack our troops, I do not see a problem with our troops being cautious in these scenarios. Have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice their ranks and themselves to get a last shot in at our guys, they are still a threat until they make it abundantly clear that they do not intend harm. If our troops had adopted the practice of blowing up our dead, and our wounded blowing themselves up, I would expect the terrorists to not trust an injured, surrendering, or dead US troop either. And by the way, the Iraqi in the tape was not a prisoner since he was not in US custody, and was definitely a potential threat. I believe in a USA that, once involved in a conflict, does its best to win. That means dying less. That means adapting to combat the unconventional tactics of the terrorists. Any US soldier torturing excessively, raping, or executing prisoners in US custody should and most likely will be tried and I agree that they should. We ARE better than the enemy we're fighting. We do not hide behind civilians, decapitate civilians, store our hardware in mosques, deliberately target civilians in terror attacks. We can be better than the enemy all day and lose the war. Learning enemy tactics from prior engagements, and proactively combating them is not stooping to their level... it's protecting our troops' lives. You've lost sight at how much difference there is between the two sides. This isn't just a personal debate between you and me, Bill. Go read what others have said. AND SINCE no one replied to my question, I'll ask again... and it brings this back to the subject. If the situation had been that a Marine shot an apparently injured and unarmed person in a definite battle zone where hostilities were continuing, what would your opinion be if it were later found that the victim was concealing a explosive vest? Since the Marine did not KNOW that he was concealing a weapon at the time, would he still be a murderer as you see him today? Or would you be here calling him a murderer who just got lucky? Oh, hello again!

No, but what do the rules say about injured or wounded enemies who continue to pose a threat to our forces, or are believed to pose a continued threat... as in the case of a wounded enemy with his finger on a detonator for the soldiers who attempt to adhere to the law and aid him? This is the gray line we are arguing here, and I see it from the perspective that the burden of proving that an injured or surrendering enemy is indeed done taking an active part in the hostilities lies with the enemy. Of course, my opinion is solely based on the reality that exists in fighting the unconventional forces we see in Iraq. No, I never said it justified looting or raping. Where do you get your extreme distortions of the argument? Again, like I just said... in reality there are cases when people that may fall under GC protections clearly do NOT, since they are NOT clearly disengaged from the hostilities (blowing yourself up while wounded, etc.). You'd rather we lose 100s of soldiers trying to approach wounded terrorists to frisk them to confirm that they are indeed out of action, while I prefer the possible occasional "mistake" made by our soldiers being cautious. Again, in a war, by definition the lives of "our side" are more valuable than the lives of the enemy. RE: your transcript of the video... which I've seen, since its been aired pretty much all over the world. I see a soldier who is afraid that someone may still pose a threat, and based on events of the previous days... has a reason to believe so. If the man was indeed not a threat at all, then the soldier will have to live with what he did, just as anyone who takes a life either in hostile action or otherwise will have to live with it. The first link in your second post was interesting (the PDF file), and it seemed to agree with the Wikipedia definition of "enemy combatant". Otherwise, it focuses on the inclusion of non-military civilians on our side, focusing on the consequences as if we were fighting someone who also tried to adhere to the laws of war. It basically says that contractors ARE at risk and the employers should know that as well as the individual contractors. The second link was not working when I checked it. My turn to ask a question. If the situation had been that a Marine shot an apparently injured and unarmed person in a definite battle zone where hostilities were continuing, what would your opinion be if it were later found that the victim was concealing a explosive vest? Since the Marine did not KNOW that he was concealing a weapon at the time, would he still be a murderer as you see him today? Or would you be here calling him a murderer who just got lucky? Oh, hello again!

Thanks for your service, but if you disagree with the definitions... why don't you provide us with THE definition. It appears that the definition I listed was applicable for the Geneva Conventions, not for any other purpose. Point being, if that definition for the Conventions is true, the Conventions cannot be violated in fighting terrorists in Iraq. Yes, I've seen the video. How were the marines investigating this BEFORE it became news when the event occurred on the 12th (friday) and it was all over the news by the 15th (monday)? The investigation wasn't announced until the 16th (tuesday) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6496898/. Of course, since NBC sent this footage to every network on earth, including the reputable Al Jazeera... the military doesn't have much choice in investigating this. Since you clearly know more about "THE" rules than we do, find me where it says that if you're in fear for you life or of those in your unit that you can't use lethal force in a combat situation? Read the bottom of the article I posted above... 5 wounded and 1 killed when investigating a body. Like I said before, you give us THE definition because the one I listed pertained to the Geneva convention. Understand that. IMAGINE my disgust at a video of the terrorists not following rules???? I don't have to... when have they EVER followed any rules of moral or even human decency? To point at an opposite situation like you do, I say this: If the US had a practice of boobytrapping bodies, suicide attacks, and wanton disregard for any life... it'd be hard to blame an Iraqi for doing the same. I'd still be pissed that a US soldier was killed. Oh, hello again!

Are security contractors legal combatants? Let's just use the definition I posted here before... In Uniform: Some Are. Openly Bearing Arms: Check. Under Officers: Check. Fighting According to Laws of War: Check. So, at least some of them would be protected under the Geneva conventions. Others should know that they are not and judge their involvement accordingly. I'm sure they're aware of the risks. So just to fit the narrow pigeonhole of a question: Given that some of the security contractors do meet the Geneva requirements, those that do not should not expect treatment according to the conventions. Here's the REALITY version of the answer (I know you like to avoid this): Do you honestly think that for one second, any US soldier, contractor, or citizen captured by any Iraqi terrorist group would receive anything CLOSE to Geneva Convention treatment? If you think so, you're farther gone than I thought. I don't think any captured US soldier or civilian expects civil treatment, or even survival. And by the definitions listed before, I am okay with the US doing everything expected of them by the agreements they signed. Fortunately, not one of the people we're fighting are subject to those agreements... so the agreements cannot have been violated. Oh, hello again!

That is a different subject than we're arguing here. For our troops in the field, it is irrelevant. They have their jobs to do, and some of us want them to stay alive while doing it. If the US was as warmongering as you'd like it to be... we'd have just carpetbombed all of Fallujah. For you to try to portray our troops as indiscriminate murderers is asinine. Against a superior force, you'd die doing it. If you're not part of the terrorism in Iraq, you have nothing to fear by letting our troops know you're in the house and unarmed. Our guys aren't fighting house to house because it's fun, they're doing it so they don't have to destroy everything and everyone in Fallujah. As were mine. Although they want people to appreciate what they have in peace, they beleive that some things are worth fighting for. I am thankful for some people standing up when they have to. Oh, hello again!

I've bitten my tongue on this for quite some time, but seeing as this is now on its tenth page... no one will probably notice what I write. There are 2 major problems surrounding this incident. The first being that this is even an issue in the media at all. Embedded reporting is a BAD idea. If journalists REALLY want the story, they should go at their own risk. The last thing any soldier needs is a camera at their back. Now, moving on to the reality... we DO have embedded reporters. What are they doing? Looking for a story. What do networks look for in a story? Ratings. What if they find something that isn't really a story, but it's all they have? Sensationalize it. I've written to NBC to express my disgust that they supplied the footage to Al-Jazeera, of all places, and sensationalized this incedent to the point that it takes precedence over the killing of KNOWN innocent woman. NBC's desire to have a scorching story just supplied the entire Arab world with a reason to blame someone else, instead of looking at what "their own" have done to someone that was helping. NBC should be ashamed of themselves for not reporting any supposed wrongdoing to the military before fueling the fire like they did. Second, I value the lives of our troops WAY more than the lives of the people we're fighting. Call me crazy, but that's what a war is. We kill more of them than they us. If you have house to house clearing going on and you scream into a house for any occupants to come out, and no one does and no one responds... you're left to assume that the house is either empty or someone doesn't want you to find them in there. Given the propensity of these terrorists to blow themselves up to get at our troops, it seem a bit counterintuitive to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Wounded and even dead terrorists have proven themselves to be a threat over and over again. Perhaps some of you would rather hear of our soldiers following your view of "the rules" and getting themselves killed. Meanwhile, there are plenty of families that just want their soldiers to come home alive. Just FYI, a wikipedia definiton of combatant... argue this till you're blue in the face, but here it is. A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Geneva Conventions, persons waging war must have the following four characteristics to be protected by the laws of war: In uniform: Wear distinctive clothing making them recognizable as soldiers from a distance. Openly bearing arms: Carrying guns or small arms and not concealing them. Under officers: Obedient to a chain of command ending in a political leader or government. Fighting according to the laws of war: Not committing atrocities or crimes, not deliberately attacking civilians or engaging in terrorism. A combatant who has surrendered or been captured becomes a prisoner of war. A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a lawful combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of war. Such persons should be treated according to applicable civilian laws (if any). In practice they may be tortured or executed. Oh, hello again!

Clearly this is a bigger deal than many here made out of it originally. At the lowest level, it will uncover that the UN is shady and incompetent. At the highest level, it will explain, in part, why a select few governments did not want SH out of Iraq. It will be interesting to see what the people who believe in the "infallible" UN have to say about it. Oh, hello again!

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, Bush would've won EVEN if we had a simple democracy of popular voting. Yeah, IF we had a simple democracy, Gore would've won too, but this time Bush did no matter how our system could've been designed. What is the most recent amendment to the consitution, Bill? Please tell me where my rights are being infringed so that I may be as angry as you are. I don't know anything about your friend's particular situation, but if that's in another thread, I'll go read about it and offer an opinion. What should we be tearing down? I've got my list that I know you won't agree with. Since you brought slavery into it, remember that the turning point in that "tearing down" was the Civil War, which cost more American lives than any other war to date. Make sure that you're okay with the consequences or means of "tearing down" because, like many people, I think that a certain group of people will piss and moan even if they get their way. If I really feel that my rights are infringed, I'll be just as angry as anyone. Keep in mind that people on both sides of our arguments want America do succeed, there's just different ideas of how to make that happen. Try not to forget that our goals, in the end, are the same. Oh, hello again!

Good morning Bill, welcome to reality. And Bush would have won no matter what kind of democracy we had. Popular vote, you know. The system worked, it just didn't work for the 48%ers, but that's how it goes. How about focusing on the future now? Well I propose a time machine for all who want to live in the past versions of the US, and also for you to go be REALLY sure about what the English thought in 1720. Think we could get funding for that? Either way, England's not doing so bad after us splitters left. What's the problem? So is the ubiquitous "Religious Right" doing the shoving, or is it the government? The government is not shoving any religion down our throats. It's just funny that you think that way since religious folk seem to think that people like you are actively trying to destroy their religions. Who's right? I bet neither one of you is. As for your friend who's marriage may be ripped apart, is that the government doing it or one of the partners' religions? There's really too much conspiracy thinking going on on both sides, and you're just contributing to it. America is still a great place to be and people like you and others here can help, or try to tear things down. Right now, most of the left seems to just want to tear down out of bitterness. People seem to think that Republicans or conservatives are blindly following the leader here, but that isn't true and you all know it. If the government tried to (in our own opinions) infringe upon our rights, we'd take it to the mattress like any of you. No one is looking for a fascist police state, although I know it makes you feel better about your position to think that. Oh, hello again!

Seriously, Bill... you're slipping. Are you feeling alright? Do you, or do you not believe in democracy? Do you think that this country should be run by someone selected by a minority of people just because they thought like you? From the irrational posts you're making in this thread, maybe I could suggest somewhere where they already have the government that these whiners want... North Korea. It seems like everything they could ask for, in fact... there are very few evil white anglo-saxon protestants in that country. It's getting fucking ridiculous that anyone thinks that religion is being shoved down their throat. If the over-reacting folk want to leave, go ahead. This is the US, we'll grow more good small business owners... no matter what line of politics they follow. Oh, hello again!

Get off it, Bill. If people want to leave because they can't handle their candidate losing an election, let 'em go. It's the childish thing to do, and they really never go through with it. The majority of voters DID NOT see it the way they did, better luck next time. Based on your reply, I take it that you really do think that everyone that voted for Bush is a Bible-beating, uptight, mindless redneck. That's very condescending of you. Is that working out for you? If people want to leave because of who's president, they have that freedom... just like those of us who will stay and do our best for the country have the freedom to say, "Have a nice trip!". Oh, hello again!

You sure? I thought the UN agreed that he wasn't fully compliant with the inspectors, so the UN issued a mandate saying there would be serious consequences if he didn't comply. The UN gave them Oil-For-Food instead of consequneces of non-compliance. I wasn't arguing that, just like you can't argue that Saddam's forces didn't fire on US and UN aircraft in the No Fly Zones. Both are violations. So it's only okay to sort things out when someone has already killed people that you like? And now the UN has given themselves the right to use any means necessary to quell the fighting. Sounds like it could get harsh. How will they enforce a cease-fire agreement without being IN the country? They're just as much invaders as the coalition is in Iraq. I agree with people defending their own, I just think its strange that the UN basically gave free reign in this case, when they basically ignored the fact that Saddam was one of the most despicable dictators in recent history. But who can figure out the UN? Oh, hello again!

Well said Josh, and I agree with your position here. It's always interesting to hear peoples' interpretation of what others think is fairly simple and straightforward. Want real confusion? Ask a lawyer. Oh, hello again!

I wasn't making a strong comparison, BUT, since you brought it up bro... Replace Cote d'Ivoire and all its variations with Iraq, French with American, and "Zone of Confidence" with "No Fly Zone"... then re-read your quoted articles. You can also replace, in your own part of the post, "cease fire agreement" with "unlimited access to weapons sites"... then the only difference is that the UN didn't have the gumption to back up their own security council resolution for good ol' Saddam. Oh, hello again!

Read closer big guy, they were also attacking French military installments. Or is it just okay when civilians get attacked? Oh, hello again!