Alias

Not saying this one didn't have it coming...but it kind of destroys your point...or maybe the restrictions you site aren't as "insane" as you think http://www.big-boys.com/articles/iraqbomb.html helluva shot! Carpe Diem

hahahahahahaha that was a good one! Carpe Diem

This is one I don't mind. Frankly, as a transporter, some of these 88M's get stuck in places where some Ranger training and knowledge would come in handy. Everybody's secondary MOS is 11B. And if I were to see a truck driver with a Ranger Tab, I'd want that guy on my convoy. Agreed. But by previously limiting it to combat arms soldiers and those who were assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment or Ranger Training Brigade, the instructors are working hard to train "fighters" Seems like a huge stress will be put on the training resources. Some think it will lesson the effectivness of the school overall. And is oart of the "feel good" BS Carpe Diem

or wait until you hear about Ranger School being open to any MOS - cooks, truck drivers etc Carpe Diem

Please show me where I claimed to be an expert... I simply was showing that I understood that "colateral damage" is occuring while targeting small numbers of insuregents "believed" to be there. And under those circumstances it can't be avoided in many cases. Oh, but I forgot you know me personally and my past/current expeiriances with the military. I'll assume by your remarks that you ARE a military expert? Which only allows YOU to comment. Lame position Again, you act like you know me. Slow down Sparky. I do understand the current ROE You'll admit it is very broad. I'm not in the camp that hates the US, the military or Bush for that matter. But you cannot deny that the US has bombed or used missles on civilian area's killing many innocent women and children based on "intellegence" that an unknown number of insurgenst are present - YES because Iraqi and insurgent forces have used those areas for "military instaltions" Military instalations such as small arms fire directed at US units, from an apartment building. Boom - there go the rockets from supporting aircraft. Yes, it is urban warfare which creates the situation along with enemy positions located among residential areas. but lets not forget how nasty Fallujah got. The United States military bombed suspected insurgent positions causing civilian deaths. That was my point - and I fail to see your evidence to the contrary. Do you consider US helocoptors firing rockets an airstrike? The US military said it dropped a 500lb laser-guided bomb on a house, mistaking it for a nearby suspected hideout of fighters. It said five people were killed. An official from a joint US-Iraqi security centre for the Salahuddin province put the toll at 13, including four women and three children. He said the dead were all from the same family. Reuters pictures showed a house in the village of Aaytha, southeast of the northern city of Mosul, reduced to rubble. They also showed rows of freshly dug graves where locals said the dead had been buried. The US army said its warplanes had bombed houses because it had intelligence about the presence of fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom the US sees as the guiding hand behind many attacks on its forces. US helicopter killed people near a damaged US tank left behind by its crew. A journalist, Mazen al-Tomaisi, was among 13 people killed. Photo from The Guardian, UK newspaper, of the aftermath of US helicopter attack which killed civlians, including a journalist: So, the US does fire on locations intelligence indicates insurgents operating from. But maybe your right. We ONLY use "airstrikes" on locations that cannot be attacked by ground forces - although I seem to be able to find information to the contrary Carpe Diem

Again, finding a "count " is extremely difficult. Too many sources that can't be verified. Did come across this... http://www.infovlad.net/ weird site with strange stuff. One moment it seems pro American, the next a Jihad site. But lots of "info" none the less - check it out - it's crazy! Carpe Diem

Only long-term history can properly make that determination. Check back in 50 years and let's see where things stand. I guess your right. We recognized a major reliance on oil 25 years ago, and did almost nothing to change. Here we go again. Maybe in 50 years we'll have learned to use a renewable energy source or simply control oil reserves abroad.. ..or were we talking about all this for another democracy in the Middle East? Because if you separate oil and stabilizing the dollar from the conclusion...too me, the price is getting high for the return imho Carpe Diem

The price is getting high for the return imho Carpe Diem

Glad to hear you stressing the children - it is a ugly, lonely confusing mess for them! Alias < product or 5 divorces between both parents but am currently wed 15 years! So the chain can be broken

Agreed - Went looking for more info on this - and found the same stuff. No way to tell for sure. It's a draw Guy across the street is "DOD Security" (xSF) or current SF/CIA for all I know. In between Afghanistan and Iraq - 2 weeks there, then back here then two weeks there - Although I see him loading TAC bags in his truck, he is very vauge about what he does. But when discussing Afghanistan, he is full of passion about our role there - when Iraq comes up, he rolls his eyes and refuses to elaborate. I think he feels misled also, but that's just my take. He does remind me that we have some bad ass Americans out there - doing all sorts of things - who knows what Carpe Diem

From your own source: So the 60% figure is bogus. I wonder if they got their information from Newsweek. Like to try again? The BBC chose not to use the Iraqi Ministries numbers but others did use it. Mainly because of the lack of hard sources other then hospital reports and witness's. The Pentagon will not release civilian death counts. I also found other sources that picked apart the civilian death count as having insurgent and Iraqi killed by insurgents counted as US related. So I this debate is mute. Youre right Unless you take into consideration there is a good idea of insurgent related civilian deaths and spectulation on those caused by the US -nearly all news corrospondants there agree that civilian deaths caused by the US are very high and can never really be calculated correctly. Over 600 in Falluhja (sp) alone. Innocent men, women and children No time to count up the insurgent reports, but 15 here, 50 there and 100 there - still seems lower then 600 here and untold amounts there. Maybe I _am_ wrong Hard to prove either way Carpe Diem

nice post -I'm outta energy on this and gotta hit the hills It's was a pleasure

So using your logic, if he US wasn't there at all, the insurgents would not be shooting at the US, which causes the US to fire at them. I know it seems I'm being sympathetic to the insurgents, I'm not. The "insurgents" seem to be made up of many factions that represent many separate goals other then removing US forces from Iraq. The connection between that and our revolution was the discussion with my Super Lib Bud that led to my comments. I like trying to hear the other side. I understand that US GI's operate under rules of engagement (ROE) that give them the authority to open fire whenever they have reason to believe that they or any others in their unit may be at risk of suicide bombings or other insurgent attacks. Clearly understandable too me. I can't fault a G.I. at a checkpoint who fires on a vehicle which refuses to stop, because the insurgency has constantly targeted checkpoints . In addition to being located in residential populations intentionally. The ROE is understandable, but broad and subjective. This is why the "collateral damage" is so high. The US has killed more then the insurgents, according to many reports. Although the numbers and sources vary? the US still leads. That was the point I thought My point Explain why? So from the above statement, it's fine to go to war under "enforcement" of UN resolutions, even though the UN did not santion our invasion, occupation, and liberation. That again is where we differ in opinions. Too me? Invading and occupying another country is a HUGE deal! And better be for valid defense reasons. The WMD, even if we found them, could not reach the mass of America. Not good enough for me. They were told it was bad before the invasion. That's why I have a problem with the motives provided by the Bush Admin. The US seems to have fucked up in every major issue so far. That again is why I have a problem with this war. And because Iraq did, it was ok to invade? I disagree. There seems to be a few more anti American Tyrants that might have WMD programs. Shall we now attempt tp invade and occupy each one? Even after what we have learned? The American cost is too great unless we are directly threatened. Sorry. I assumed Oh calm down I merely generalized. I did not say you. Did I? Although you seem to fit all but one of those generalizations. I can see where it seemed insinuated. So now you need proof? Did you see proof with our shitty intel. What proof did you see? This book certainly offers no more proof then the US citizens were offered. But a good case for the oil logic. Let's keep our minds open for other motives also. Until you can make a case (proof) that those motives are incorrect? - Crossing the Rubicon - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865715408/102-6831785-0246539?v=glance Not that I believe everything written in this book, but there are many good points. All used in debate against me while defending the same position you have. This guy is a Bush hater - no doubt. But I cannot disregard all of his information just because of that. Carpe Diem

Ya gotta love this particular line of thought, if you can't help them all you shouldn't help any. - Jim Nope, you're mistaken by my point. It was that we are not only in Iraq to save the people. We have other interests there that drives us to the goal. The others provided as an example DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING THERE FOR THE US - so it is not only about the liberation of Iraqi people - believe that if it makes you feel more comfortable with whhat is going on. As Ron said, it is a good by product. But THAT was one of the reasons, the last and final, given by this administration to justify the war. To rest on the logic that we are there to rescue the population, and we have no other interests (oil & $) is incorrect and a bit naive in my opinion. The motives are clear whether the Bush Admin admits it or not. OIL/$ - It's like some people feel like traitors if they admit that oil was a large part of this. Why did we go in during Desert Shield? To only liberate Kuwait? No, to protect the Saudi's. Why? So I hope you now better understand "this line of thought" We are not only there to liberate the Iraqi's WE HAVE OTHER INTERESTS ALSO! WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE IN THE COUNTRIES I GAVE AS AN EXAMPLE. THUS IS WHY WE ARE NOT THERE "LIBERATING" THEM. SO yes, The US will liberate populations of countries that have dictators, only when there is a US interest involved. Face it. It is the UN's job to do these things, yes we are the major portion of the resources, but they should be dictating it, not the US. And when the UN says NO, and we GO anyway, what does that tell you? WE HAVE OTHER INTERESTS OTHER THEN U.N. INTERESTS Carpe Diem

mmmmmm - so your position is that since the "insurgents" revolt against occupiers, all is fair against civilians? I do not agree. I understand war, that civilians will be killed. But to not reconize that the US does and will drop a bomb on a residential neighborhood because of "reports" that insurgents or 1 insurgent is present, is taking the head in the sand position. I guess we'll see how the majority of the Iraqi population feel when it's all said and done - because when it comes down to it - it really is their country, their people (women and children included) and their freedom at stake. That opinion will mean more to me then the typical US party line/borderline propaganda. The whole thing is a damn mess - or oil or can upset the dollar Wow Ron, that really leaves the door open for Korea, Iran and on and on, doesnt it? "Sorry, we cannot be certain you are following our rules, unless we invade, occupy and see that you are" What have we turned into at this point? Something close to what the rest of the world views us as - strong arming, our way is better, we have a bigger army, and will use it even though the UN and many allies say NO....because we're the US DAMN IT! Ok, I know where you stand. I also swallowed that at first. But again, I have a hard time using our troops for removal of every dictator tha treats their population like shit - it's a long list! And not our sole responsibility! For people that also hold on to your postion, it must really suck seeing that there were no WMD or link to 9/11 for that matter - I guess that only leaves the "rescue them from the dictator" reasoning. A little research and an open mind might enlighten people that after the 9/11 commission stated no Bin laden connection and the US found no WMD - thus striking the first two reasons, it only leaves "rescue". two out of three proved wrong - not a good record. Oil and the dollar certainly had nothing to do with it Like I said - too bad they can't find oil there, we'd be right there to set things straight for them. By our definition of "straight" that is. That will be a long wait! Another corrupt organization trying to make the global governmet concept work - ugh To say that this situation has rocked my loyalty to Repubilcans, US foriegn policy and Bush for that matter is an understatement. Up until this shit, I was a flag waving republican that would argue for US policy regardless if it made sence or not. Now I listen to every side, do my own research and see things through my eyes, not a republican eye as it was. I lost a great great freind in the towers, lost a Gun Club member in the Pentagon and have supported my Bro In Law with supplies and moral boosts serving with the 160th Night Stalkers in both countries. But that does not mean I have to tow the party line. Carpe Diem

and military related targets! Not just civilians Carpe Diem

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2813601 Just a quick search - not verified - but does show you might be mistaken "Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by multinational forces and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks. The ministry began sorting attacks June 10" http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/babc.htm "They show coalition troops and Iraqi security forces were responsible for 60% of Iraqi civilian deaths in conflict-related violence in a six month period. A total of 2,041 civilians were killed and a further 8,542 are believed to have been wounded by them between July 2004 and January 2005. This compares with 1,233 killed and 4,115 wounded by insurgents. The data comes from conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries recorded by Iraqi public hospitals." It really is hard to tell from the assorted sources what the true numbers are. So we both are debating without real numbers And Sudanese, Cambodians, Rawandans on and on and on would disagree also, yep, you're right about that one. What is our troop count in Darfur? Oh that's right - we don't have any interests there pertaining to energy (OIL) or global economics ($) So I guess us rushing into "save" a population only pertains to certain "populations" Funny, I don't seem to recall reading any history books that mentioned Americans blowing up other Americans with wagon bombs because they were for a return to a repressive dictatorship. Many Americans gave up their lives in the Revolutionary Wars because they were willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause of freedom because they believed it would make a better life for their children. I suspect many Iraqis feel the same way because of the risks they took to turn out in large numbers to participate and cast their votes in the election. Again - simple search that cannot be verified http://www.pennyparker2.com/revolution.html By 1779, there were more Americans fighting with the British than with Washington. There were no less than 21 regiments (estimated to total 6,500 to 8,000 men) of Loyalists in the British army. Washington reported a field army of 3,468. About a third of Americans opposed the Revolution. So maybe not "wagon bombs" - more along the lines of rifles and cannons I hope you see my point Carpe Diem

But lets not forget that at this rate, in the near future - The US might just have a higher body count of innocent civilians then SH did. Certainly should not be excluded as a possibility. It is still an open ended situation. As in we're still there and not looking to leave any time soon. Plus I'm in the camp of not using this extent of military to "rescue" a population from their "leader" - and I feel that is just one part of the BS we use to justify this war- I'm not in the WMD, Bin Laden, save the people camp anymore. My conclusions have changed yes I'm in the oil/Euro camp - Which I would almost support. Just keeps getting ugly I'm not a US basher or terrorist sympathizer, I voted for Bush, McCain in the primaries. But an interesting point was made to me the other day (by a super lib) that if you were to change the occupiers to British, the occupied to Americans and the years to the 1700's - we might consider their actions as patriotic. It was an intersting perspective to think about ...rip away Carpe Diem

I think the point was the US has killed far more INNOCENT civilians then the "terrorists" have in Iraq. Carpe Diem

__________________________________________________ Let's see here, so you don't really have any factual evidence that this Zarqawi is even in Iraq, has ever been in Iraq, has ever commited any crime I understand feeling as if the US "creates" propaganda to further support for activities in Iraq, but when the Jordanians and the French, among others, pin point him as the cause of many activities related to what the US says, you have to at least lend some credence to the statements....if not any other reason then it was not from the US. Face it guys, as much as I would like to argue this, there just isn't any hard evidence that Zarqawi is what he is other then what I stated above. Speculation at this point. Claims and rumors do not hard evidence make - But we will get him none the less! Eventually. Carpe Diem

got that right Carpe Diem

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/democrats_open_fire_filibuster_509.htm I'm not Bill, but can help. Although it does seem that majority of these examples "voted" to filibuster The Unprecedented, break in tradition began in 1968, when Goopers Filibustered LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas. Fortas, who had been on the Supreme Court, as an Associated Justice, since 1965, was nominated to replace Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1968 Some senators, like Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), have filibustered as many as 13 nominees Senator Allard blocked two of Clinton’s judicial nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote: James Lyons, 10th Circuit-Colorado and Patricia Coan, a District Court nominee and on and on Carpe Diem

Nice read http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/intro5.html Biologists were unanimous in agreeing that life starts at fertilization, and that there was no dispute in the scientific literature. Besides being a parody of science (i.e., that scientific facts are the objective truth and that all scientists agree what these facts mean), it is wrong. I have read a wide range of scientific positions on when life begins, and these positions depend on what aspect of life one privileges in such discussions. Here is my classification scheme concerning when human life begins. You may have others. 1. The metabolic view. There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism. 2. The genetic view. A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties. 3. The embryological view. In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as a "pre-embryonic". This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning after pills", and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks). 4. The neurological view. Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions). 5. The ecological/technological view. This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 wks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted). 6. The immunological view. This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth. 7. The integrated physiological view. This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut. Carpe Diem

I think a new individual human being begins at fertilization, when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1644783;#1644783 I have come to the same conclusion that it is a major part of US motivation, among energy Edit: The US will not invade anywhere in S America though - we can manipulate in other ways - as we all have seen Carpe Diem