'IRAQ USING HUMAN SHIELDS'

Headline news from Sky News - Witness the event ^ | 3/25/03

[EternalVigilance]

I guarantee that what they did to our POWs is THE number one issue of our men in the field.

You are correct that we are unlikely to hear a peep from the Friends of Saddam, either in the Islamic world or amongst the Left.

I'd call them dogs, which would be the most appropriate insult in their culture, but that would be too demeaning to the many good dogs I have known.

Rabid jackals, only fit for one thing---destruction.

[driftless]

What's racist about it? Oh, I get it...Iraqis are members of that wonderful new politically correct group "persons of color" as told to us by that all-wise lover of America Red Ed Asner. Get off your high horse. No one here except for a few nuts wants to see Iraqi civilians slaughtered. But we also don't want coalition forces to die because they were too politically correct. Unfortunately numbers of Iraqis will die because of the criminals who are running their country.

[LUVYA DUBYA 2000]

Maybe they are afraid allah is running out of virgins.

[LUVYA DUBYA 2000]

lighten upl, we have to blow off a little steam somtimes too. This war would destroy us all if we didn't. No one wants true innocent people to suffer. Unfortunatly we are risking our troops to assure that will not happen.

[RaceBannon]

In Korea, the North did the same thing. The only answer was artillery.

Yes, it's awful, but it is not our fault. The job of the military is to enforce the political will of one nation upon another by means of extreme violence.

If they use innocents to cause us to not fight, they win, we lose.

We must respond in a way that shows their tactics are murder, and do not stop us. Those innocent deaths are the fault of the Iraqis, no the US.

Better think it through, you are the type of person that will be kind to the evil ones, causing us to be killed.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

In Korea, had we made it to Pyongyang in 6 days? Did we have absolute air superiority and GPS guided munitions? Did we have major towns and cities surrounded with no need to invade for military objectives?

This is different than Korea. We have no need to charge in and get ourselves and civilians killed when a little patience will bring down the hostiles while leaving our forces and civilians unharmed for the most part. Let the snipers and SpecOps do their work. Let none of our guys come back with nightmares because they did what they had to do. Let the Iraqi people remember that we spared what Saddam would destroy.

We are being victorious while being compassionate. Much to the disappointment of several on this forum.

[BSunday]

Yeah, you should be ashamed. We all know that free speech is for ourselves and not anybody that disagrees with us!

[BSunday]

LOL you go girl!

[bvw]

So nada is femine gender?

[BSunday]

latina = female latin
latino = male
end of spanish lesson

[bvw]

Yeah, this kind of thing is why you need either (1) to train a few boatloads of tactical snipers, and provide the needed silencers, flash suppressors, ammo and scopes to keep them hidden, so they can take out a bunch of targets before being noticed (*) (2) develop remote controlled sniping capability.

(*) Like the Israeli snipers who use sub-sonic small caliber rounds to inflict wounds the the person who has been shot isn't hardly aware of until he's lost enough blood.

[RaceBannon]

Were you ever in the Service?

Can you imagine sitting outside in a dirt pile getting shot at while the enemy continues to build up forces that are eventually greater than yours on the ground all because you dont want to kill civilians, and that means you die instead?

There are no real rules in combat. It is survival. If I could avoid it, I am sure I would not taret civilians. But, if you put a civilian in front of yourself while I am on theoffensive, their death is not my fault. My survival is my responsibility, and I will not die intentionally to let an Iraqi civilian live who is being held as a hostage for a terrorist who is actively trying to blow my brains out! That civilian will die as well as the terrorist who is holding them up as a human shield!

It is not the Americans who are putting the civilians on the front lines as targets to defend terrorists, it is the Iraqis.

[bvw]

Soy lista.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Can you imagine sitting outside in a dirt pile getting shot at while the enemy continues to build up forces that are eventually greater than yours on the ground all because you dont want to kill civilians, and that means you die instead?

Now Mr. Bannon, that isn't the situation here and you know that.

Can you imagine sitting outside in a dirt pile getting shot at

Our Brit allies are not sitting in a dirt pile, they are in a much better defensive position than that.

while the enemy continues to build up forces that are eventually greater than yours

This is clearly not what is happening in Basra. We have the city contained, these hostiles are not getting reinforcement, they are losing numbers everytime they expose themselves.

all because you dont want to kill civilians, and that means you die instead?

How many Brits have been lost down in Basra? Two, by friendly fire if I recall correctly. Do you think that the number would be higher or lower if the Brits went in guns blazing? No, we are being patient and deliberate and it is paying off. Live civilians, live soldiers, dead hostiles. Isn't that the best result?

[md2576]

Hopefully!

[RaceBannon]

Now Mr. Bannon, that isn't the situation here and you know that.

It's not? What difference does it make if it is a sand dune or a brick wall? If the enemy is using his own people as a shield in order for him to gain tactical advantage, then he is the one responsible for their death, not us, and it is the responsiblity of the individual soldier/Marine to take out that enemy, taking as little innocent life as pssible, but when necessary. This is not cops and robbers, this is a group of terrorists with machine guns and mortars and tanks using their own people to make us defenseless.

Our Brit allies are not sitting in a dirt pile, they are in a much better defensive position than that.

House to house fighting is not that simple, the defensive position does not exist any more than the next brick wall.

This is clearly not what is happening in Basra. We have the city contained, these hostiles are not getting reinforcement, they are losing numbers everytime they expose themselves.

They are still armed, they are still attacking in small groups and in occcasional greater numbers than squad numbers and with automatic weapons that mean death to the individual Marine or Soldier who hesitates to take his life just because a terrorist has a woman or small child in front of him.

How many Brits have been lost down in Basra? Two, by friendly fire if I recall correctly. Do you think that the number would be higher or lower if the Brits went in guns blazing? No, we are being patient and deliberate and it is paying off. Live civilians, live soldiers, dead hostiles. Isn't that the best result?

Not once here (that I saw) has anyone said that the best result isnt fewer civilian deaths, the arguement here is whether it is ok to kill civilians when your own life is in danger, or the success of the mission is in jeopardy.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I do not disagree that civilian deaths may result from the Iraqi soldiers actions, nor do I think that we should have any form of guilt over it. However, you are under the continuing assumption that we must move in immediately. We don't. There is no military need to destroy this force if containing it will work now. Reinforcements are not coming for them, nor are supplies. Time is on our side. We are in a defensive posture around Basra waiting them out. When they expose themselves, we hit. When they hide behind civilians, we wait. Time is running out for them, not us. We hold a large lead as the clock runs down, if they want to keep the clock running, let them.