Skip to comments.
Iraqi troops used "ruses" to kill U.S. troops -U.S.
Reuters
| 3/23/03
Posted on 03/23/2003 12:04:47 PM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 last
To: Wthrman13
Astute observation. Our approach serves to drive a wedge between the enemy soldier and his leadership.
61
posted on
03/23/2003 1:50:38 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: over3Owithabrain
I think we question the fact as to why so many of our brave soldiers must die just to prove we don't want to kill Iraqis Me? I question just what the hell we are going to do when confronted with an enemy that can actually have some sort of technological advantage and chooses to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to wipe their butt? We are gonna be in some big trouble when that day comes. China comes to mind.
62
posted on
03/23/2003 1:52:54 PM PST
by
riri
To: EternalVigilance
Thanks for the tip, and for the welcome.
To: riri
Me? I question just what the hell we are going to do when confronted with an enemy that can actually have some sort of technological advantage and chooses to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to wipe their butt? We are gonna be in some big trouble when that day comes. China comes to mind. Each war is different. I doubt the strategy would be the same in a situation such as what you describe.
To: Hugin
It would be a war crime because the Geneva Convention states that surrenders must be accepted. War crimes on the part of the Iraqis don't justify them on our part. We won't sink to their level.I'm sorry chief, but that is just stupid.
This whole "war crimes" thing has always blown my mind. War is a crime. It may be necessary at times, but let's face it: two groups going out and killing as many of the other as possible is not a very nice thing to do.
Be that as it may, war is won by he who does the most damage to his opponent. In other words, he who is able and willing to stoop to thew lowest level and do the most horrible things.
Case in point, WWII. We won it by dropping two nukes on Japanese civilians and killing nearly half a million of them in a matter of seconds. It was a horrible and deplorable thing to do, but it did win the war for us. The Japs knew that they could not keep up with the attrocities we were capable of.
Personally, I'd wipe my ass with the Geneva Convention "laws". Just like all our enemies do.
To: Wthrman13
Ok, let me try that again...(disregard the last post)
Me? I question just what the hell we are going to do when confronted with an enemy that can actually have some sort of technological advantage and chooses to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to wipe their butt? We are gonna be in some big trouble when that day comes. China comes to mind.Each war is different. I doubt the strategy would be the same in a situation such as what you describe.
To: Wthrman13
One more time... Bear with me here
Me? I question just what the hell we are going to do when confronted with an enemy that can actually have some sort of technological advantage and chooses to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to wipe their butt? We are gonna be in some big trouble when that day comes. China comes to mind.
Each war is different. I doubt the strategy would be the same in a situation such as what you describe.
To: kattracks
Those are not legitimate "ruses de guerre".
those out of uniform should be hung. those who claim false surrender should be shot down like the dogs they are.
Regards,
68
posted on
03/23/2003 2:40:55 PM PST
by
Jimmy Valentine
(DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
To: Hugin
the Geneva Convention states that surrenders must be accepted
not if they are used as military tactics. foolishness... and you are of course, WRONG to advocate we intend to continue such a dangerous course of action, in the clear evidence indicates they are using this to kill American soldiers.
you support the iraqis at your own discretion.
I say they should be killed, rather than sacrificing our own boys.... you disagree? Then I say you are one of them.
To: Beck_isright
My soul will not be at rest until I see Jacques Chirac, Gerhardt Schroeder, and all of our so-called friends who have been arming Saddam for years in order to wage war against the US by proxy, in the same condition as our boys in these images. God bless our troops, and God utterly curse every depraved creature who supports Saddam, from the Eurotrash to the Hollywood liberals to the protesters in our streets.
70
posted on
03/23/2003 2:51:27 PM PST
by
laz17
(Socialism is the religion of the atheist.)
To: Cboldt
So, what do you suggest? The last Gulf War, a Marine had 20 Iraqi POWs to take care of. Aware that they could overwhelm him he used the simple expedient of wrapping one long length of det cord around each of the POW's necks and promising the group that one wrong move would result in a loud noise and 20 headless POWs. He then walked them 5 miles to a POW collection center, with a hell box in one hand. He got in trouble for violating Geneva Convention protocols.
71
posted on
03/23/2003 3:00:47 PM PST
by
jonascord
(Fie on Marxist quotes!)
To: over3Owithabrain
it will be far messier because we chose the "nice guy" route. The biggest mistake anyone can make is being nice to the bad guy. The bad guy simply doesn't give a f*ck if you're nice, because HE'S not nice. The bad guy will exploit your goodness and use it to kill you. Mercy and compassion are utterly wasted on the evil. Evil needs to be destroyed, without mercy, without compromise. Did God ask Joshua to show mercy to the Canaanites?
Dealing with these evil bastards is like dealing with rattlesnakes. Do you try to be nice to a rattlesnake when you encounter one and it tries to strike? No. You either run away, or you kill it, simple as that.
72
posted on
03/23/2003 3:00:48 PM PST
by
laz17
(Socialism is the religion of the atheist.)
To: jonascord
So, what do you suggest? I suggest not summarily executing people who are surrendering. Use defensing measures as prudent. Your Marine story didn't include klilling the prisoners, as the previous poster advocated.
73
posted on
03/23/2003 3:05:06 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Robert_Paulson2
you support the iraqis at your own discretion. If I don't want our soldiers to behave like Hitler's SS, I support the Iraqis? That's a twisted mind you have.
I say they should be killed, rather than sacrificing our own boys.... you disagree? Then I say you are one of them.
And I say you are a stupid @ssh*le. Our troops are perfectly capable of taking prisoners. I never suggested they take unreasonable chances to do so.
74
posted on
03/23/2003 4:38:14 PM PST
by
Hugin
To: over3Owithabrain
Well, they're fighting back and show no signs of looking for liberation.Oh, BS. Your entire post is uninformed BS. The war planners planned for resistence, resistence has been encountered, and it has been sporadic.
For hell's sakes, four days into this thing and we've suffered a .0001 fatality rate. Tell me: if you're soldier, which side of this fight would YOU rather be on?
We're rolling on without a significant hiccup.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson