posted on December 9, 2003 09:20:28 AM new
Helen, once again you go out to the extreme to show just how much you hate the US
Any parent that would allow Saddam, considering that he no longer has any power, to use their children to "protect" him, is not worthy of those children.
Saddam using children as a shield, really shows what a maggot he really is and needs killing...
But in your anti-american mind, it just another US atrocity, you are quite pathetic in your constant blaming our President for your derangement of hate...
posted on December 9, 2003 09:36:52 AM new
Austi, Is that a picture of you when you were hatched? The offspring of a dingo & a roo. No wonder you have such a shi??y outlook on life.
Through out history children have been killed in war and in peace. If you remember in the bible King Herod in an attempt to kill Jesus had all the the male children under the age of 2 killed in Bethlehem.
How many Jewish children were killed under orders from Hitler.
How many Jewish children have been killed by Palestinian suicide bombers?
I'm not saying it is right. I'm saying it happens. In war it is called collateral damage when innocents are inadvertly killed.
When they are killed on purpose it is called an atrocity.
No where in the War against terrorism has the U.S. committed an atrocity and killed children on purpose.
Unlike Hitler, Saadam and King Herod.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 9, 2003 04:08:25 PM new
So what 12?
Where did Saddam get the goodies from?
Certainly not from UN.
Reasonably important???
but brushed under the carpet!
A typical day in 12’s America
Saddam Hussein - A CIA Puppet?
“Banca Nacional del Lavoro, relying partly on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff “
"In fact, we now know that in February 1990, then Attorney General Dick Thornburgh [appointed by George H.W. Bush] blocked U.S. investigators from traveling to Rome and Istanbul to pursue the case."
“While Democrat Henry Gonzales, Chairman of the House Banking Committee during the period, stood as the lone voice in the wilderness in raising alarms about Bush's obvious corruption, the rest of the Congress sheepishly ignored all the signs demanding immediate action. Gonzales' voice reportedly fell silent after his empty car was machine-gunned in a Washington”
“L.A. Times, on Feb 23, 1992, dug deep enough to find secret National Security Decision Directives by the Bush Administration in 1989 ordering closer ties with Baghdad and paving the way for $1 billion in new aid.”
" Under that same [weapons transfer] program, 19 containers of Anthrax bacteria were supplied to Iraq in 1988 by the American Type Culture Collection company, located near Fort Detrick, MD, the site of the US Army's high security germ warfare labs."
12, You, your people, and the world are being played like suckers by those speaking in tongues (fork tongues).
They are a few steps down from a paedophile, at least a paedophile lets kids live.
Someone who won’t speak the truth is as bad as a common liar, because they fail to speak truthfully for spineless fear that the truth will be revealed.
http://www.thetip.org/art_Americans_Not_Deceived428_icle.html
Robert Novak on Capital Gang agreed that calls coming into the capital were running 100 to 1 against a pre-emptive war against Iraq. But he, like his peers, called us the "lunatic fringe."
MORE FOR THE SUCKERS
2003-11-21Occupied America
“MIAMI ? Protestors seemed to skirmish with heavily armored Miami police outside the Riande Hotel Thursday morning, but nothing is at it seems this week. These "anarchists" were undercover police officers whose mission was to provoke a confrontation.
The crowd predictably panicked, television cameras moved in, the police lines parted, and I watched through a nearby hotel
window as two undercover officers disguised as "anarchists," thinking they were invisible, hugged each other. They excitedly pulled tasers and other weapons out of their camouflage cargo pants, and slipped away in an unmarked police van. “
It all looks intentional and calculated to me bear.
Collateral damage, just a bonus.
bear1949 "No where in the War against terrorism has the U.S. committed an atrocity and killed children on purpose."
What! Do tyou want it in writing??
See my earlier post where the US 8th Army, the highest level of command in Korea, issued orders to stop all Korean civilians.
Note it doesnt say, leave the kids alone.
The Yellow-Bellied-Gosh-Chicken-Hawks... never far from the nest.
posted on December 9, 2003 06:30:48 PM new
So tell me Austi, How much operational combat time do you have?
Am I correct in the presumption it is ZERO.
You KNOW NOTHING of the confusion that occurs in combat.
The massacre you allude to occurred with inexperienced troops, following vague orders from their commander. It was not a sanctioned action ordered by military high command.
To be precise, Korea was not a war. It was a U.N. sanctioned police action. If you want to blame anyone, blame it on the Chinese for forcing the civilians to flee their homes.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 9, 2003 07:33:33 PM new
Bear "No where in the War against terrorism has the U.S. committed an atrocity and killed children on purpose."
“The massacre you allude to occurred with inexperienced troops, following vague orders from their commander. It was not a sanctioned action ordered by military high command. “
Hmmm!
So that particular atrocity, you are only prepared to pin blame on ‘higher’ command and not ‘highest’ command.
Kind of like the Oliver North story???
HaHaHaHa,,,HoHoHoHo….HeeHeeHeeHee…HawHawHawHaw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So ‘pro gun bear’ again, blames the gun and not the shooter.
That’s right bear…. support atrocities… just let it slide.
Combat vets know there is confusion in battle, you know it & I know it, so do those that give what you call ‘vague orders’.
This ‘confusion’ can be, and is exploited, for max. effect.
Next, bear will tell us that US military receives training in Buddhism philosophy as no 1 objective.
posted on December 9, 2003 09:07:36 PM new
So Austi tell all of us of the atrocities that never happened to your native kinsmen. How many cover ups have there been in Australia over the murder & torture of the only real natives, the aborigine.
You have no experience in anything but in your own narrow circle of naivety. You know nothing of the meaning of national pride, of a sence of belonging.
Your answer to the worlds problems is to blame it on the US.
You really should stick to a topic to which you have had personal experience. But then your only experience is making a fool of your self by spouting second hand garbage.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 10, 2003 05:46:01 AM new
When you decide to send armed men in you simply know atrocities are going to happen. That's part of the cost and you have to balance that against the need if you are not an idiot.
If you decide to be a soldier you had better have the stomach to do almost anything you are ordered to do and be sure your side will win.
Even if you are ordered to do the equal of sending jews to the death chambers you are pretty much commiting suicide to speak for your conscience so you better be on the side that wins because they don't get prosecuted for war crimes.
posted on December 10, 2003 05:56:02 AM new
No one has botherd to point out what atrocities we supposedly have commited, other than burying the dead...
posted on December 10, 2003 03:01:34 PM new
Bear, I have no problem ‘admitting’ my nations ‘wrongs’; but you seem to live in denial regarding your nation’s ‘wrongs', as do many in Australia.
If America’s and Australia’s development relied on the consciences (or national pride?) of the likes of you, then we would still be turning in Aboriginal and Indian scalps or ears for bounties.
That’s the whole point of being open, analytical and ‘critical’ of some practices in a moral democracy.
’Proud’ to leave things as they are.
What exactly is wrong with having the ‘shame’ to seek improvements.
posted on December 10, 2003 05:22:03 PM new "You're not really waiting for an answer from helen are you?'
Easy answer, delayed only because I just read this thread....Burying the dead is not an atrocity. Being responsible for the death of ten thousand innocent people and the destruction of the country is a monstrous atrocity.
posted on December 10, 2003 07:59:13 PM new
KABUL, Afghanistan, Dec. 9 — For the second time in a week, the U.S. military admitted Wednesday that Afghan children were killed in attacks against Taliban and al-Qaida suspects, crushed under a wall at a compound stacked with a fugitive militant's weapons.
Children can be replaced in 9mos...it takes years to make a Saddam.
Ya, it's just war and they're not your kids so what do you care? It's like you have no thought for human life at all and that's sad. But aren't you the one that was against abortion? It's wrong to abort a child but okay to have it shot and killed after it's born because it can be replaced in 9 months? Maybe I'm wrong but that seems to be your way of thinking.
All the "accidents" that kill all the children probably just make those countries hate the US even more I think. People won't just "forget" these things.
As many as 15,000 Iraqis were killed in the first days of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, a study produced by an independent US thinktank said yesterday. Up to 4,300 of the dead were civilian noncombatants.
The report, by Project on Defence Alternatives, a research institute from Cambridge, Massachussets, offers the most comprehensive account so far of how many Iraqis died.
The toll of Iraq's war dead covered by the report is limited to the early stages of the war, from March 19 when American tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border, to April 20, when US troops had consolidated their hold on Baghdad.
Researchers drew on hospital records, official US military statistics, news reports, and survey methodology to arrive at their figures.
They were also able to make use of two earlier studies on Iraq's war dead from Iraq Body Count, a website which has kept a running total of those killed, and the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, which has sought to count the dead and injured of the war in order to pursue compensation claims for their families.
The new report, which estimates Iraq's war dead at between 10,800 and 15,100, uses a far more rigorous definition of civilian than the other studies to arrive at a figure of between 3,200 and 4,300 civilian noncombatants.
It breaks down the combat deaths of up to 10,800 Iraqis who fought the American invasion. The figures include regular Iraqi troops, as well as members of the Ba'ath party and other militias.
The killing was concentrated - with heavy casualties at the southern entrances of Baghdad - but as many as 80% of the Iraqi army units survived the war relatively unscathed, in part because troops deserted.
As many as 5,726 Iraqis were killed in the US assault on Baghdad, when the streets of the Iraqi capital were strewn with the bodies of people trying to flee the fighting.
As many as 3,531 - more than half - of the dead in the assault on the capital were noncombatant civilians, according to the report.
Overall in Iraq, the ratio of civilian to military deaths is almost twice as high as it was in the last Gulf war in 1991. The overall toll of the first war was far higher - with estimates of 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,500 civilians killed.
However, Operation Iraqi Freedom, as the US military calls this year's war, has proved far deadlier to Iraqi civilians both in absolute numbers, and in the proportion of noncombatant to military deaths.
The findings defy the reasoning that precision-guided weapons spare civilian lives. According to the author of the study, Carol Conetta, 68% of the munitions used in this war were precision-guided, compared with 6.5 % in 1991.
However, he argued yesterday that his report demonstrated that sophisticated weaponry did not necessarily offer protection to civilians in war zones.
"Many of the recent wars have been fought with the notion of a new type of warfare that produce very low civilian casualties. What we see here is that in fact we don't have that magic bullet," he said.
"In this war in particular we see that improved capabilities in precision attacks have been used to pursue more ambitious objectives rather than achieve lower numbers of civilian dead."
posted on December 10, 2003 09:27:48 PM new
F,,,,ing ,,,,,,,,Insanities!!!!!!!! WAR!!!!!!!,,,,What it is Good for? Absolutely,,Nothin'''''Sayit again,,,,,,,WAR,,,wHAT IT IS gOOD FOR,,,,,,,Only the Undertaker.......
posted on December 10, 2003 09:35:36 PM new
Two more Americans today,,,,,,Semper Fi.......Always Faithful......taps.....Protest! Bring them HOME Now!!!!!!! Insanity!!!!!! 1,,3,5, a day,,,,,No more..........stalemates,,,,,Korea,Vietnam,,,,,,,All for Not........just dead kids........
posted on December 11, 2003 01:22:35 AM new
What atrocities?
A few have already been outlined but you have tunnel vision.
Bear prefers to call it ‘national pride’.
How can anyone possibly convince 12pole of an atrocity,
when in response to this topic ‘Children killed in WAR’, he comes back with
“BDS'ers UNITE!
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...” (Bush Derangement Syndrome)
&
“Boo Fkn Hoo....”
As far as these guys are concerned, it ain’t an ‘atrocity’ it is ‘collateral damage’.
12 humour…. “Children can be replaced in 9mos...it takes years to make a Saddam.”
posted on December 11, 2003 04:45:50 AM new
what is sad is people who are willing to be quiters because some kids got killed, becauase their parents were helping the enemy...
No I don't care about those kids... I care about those kids wearing the uniform over there and have to listen to BS garbage.
posted on December 11, 2003 05:40:18 AM new""No I don't care about those kids...I care about those kids wearing the uniform over there and have to listen to BS garbage.""
Your callous disregard for human life is not shared by "those kids wearing the uniform". Do you care about *their feelings when they discover that they've killed so many children? Do you care that they will have to live with such knowledge for the rest of their lives along with other horrors of this unjustified and illegal war....memories of those killed and wounded??? Do you care about anything????
So, George Bush trots out his two hour turkey event and you just lap it up while some of "those kids" are returning home dead in transfer tubes.
Unbelievable!
Helen
From "those kids wearing the uniform"
"We were conducting a night assault on the compound," Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said at a news conference in Kabul. "We observed a heavy machine gun firing from a compound that we had no indication there were noncombatants in. We fired on the compound from the air and the machine gun stopped."
It was only the next morning that troops searched the compound and found the bodies of six children and two adults under a collapsed wall.
posted on December 11, 2003 07:27:06 AM new
I care that people like you Helen will remind them of what they had to do and then attempt to discredit their service...
I am not surprised that people like you, who have done NOTHING, for their country continue to make the remarks they do...
My nephew is going over in January... I have already told him, shoot first and worry later... better them than you...
I also told him it will be hard and not pleasant but those of us at home support him no matter what he may have to do...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Dec 11, 2003 07:28 AM ]
posted on December 11, 2003 08:25:24 AM new"I care that people like you Helen will remind them of what they had to do and then attempt to discredit their service...:
I doubt that any American will remind them of what they had to do and then attempt to discredit their service.
Exactly where have I attempted to discredit their services? My previous comment included concern for their welfare and emotional health.
"What I want is so simple I almost can’t say it: elementary kindness. Enough to eat, enough to go around. The possibility that kids might one day grow up to be neither the destroyers nor the destroyed. That’s about it…”
posted on December 11, 2003 09:53:20 AM new
Austi, I now have come to understand your obsession with critizing the USA. From reading your local newspapers, Australia is so dam boring & backwards (in news & politicts) and its citizens so willing to give up their rights without a fight ("I.E." rolling over like a whipped dog), you have to focus your pent up frustration on a country you recognize is greater & better that your own. So you are excused for now.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 11, 2003 01:08:56 PM new
Children killed in war a very good thread for thought & expression. Problem is, so far there is very little of both. Children have been used in all wars. 1. To fight. 2. To protect those engaged in fighting. 3. As an instrument of death. 4. political advantage. These are the 4 that I will try to engage. It will be without quotes outside this tread or news articles that show someone else's view or political advantage.
!. To fight. The only country in this world that has not used children in combat willingly or unwillingly as a force in combat is the United States of America. How ever American children have fought in most of our wars, but not as a unit. During World War Two. France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia used children in units. Korean War, China & North Korea used children & women mixed in adult units. Vietnam War. North Vietnam & Viet-Cong used children & women mixed in combat units.
2. To protect those engaged in fighting. Only the United States has not used children, old men, wounded solders & women as shields in combat.. Helen said "Maybe someone here with combat experience will shed some light on this situation. How, for example, would you handle a situation in which Saddam was surrounded by children? " That Helen is a dammed if you do & dammed if you don't Political Advantage question..
3.Instrument of death. Only the United States has not used children, as an instrument of Death in combat or terrorists operations. All other Nations have from the beginning of time.to now in some form used this mode to kill.
4. Political Advantage. All Nations & people ( inclulding Helen ) have used the death of Children and those not connected or connected combat deaths as a Political Advantage to promote their own cause. Now to Helen,s political advantage question. "Maybe someone here with combat experience will shed some light on this situation. How, for example, would you handle a situation in which Saddam was surrounded by children?
That is easy Helen. I would tell all the children, good job! you have captured Saddam. The 25 million belongs to you, move away and proceed to place a round right between his eyes... Political advantage to Bush.
The Dow closed above 10,0000.
........The Pentagon has made a concerted effort to reach young people at much earlier ages than 18. Government spending on pre- and paramilitary programs for youth has expanded dramatically in the last decade. There is a growing debate in Washington legislative circles about whether pre-enlistment military-run youth programs are more effective recruitment tools (in terms of both cost and productivity) than traditional recruiting programs. Programs such as the Civil Air Patrol, Project Focus, the Young Marines, and JROTC have as their primary targets young people under the age of 18, sometimes as young as elementary school.
~
Proliferation of these pre- and para-military programs is likely to result in an increase of enlistment of 17-year-olds. Young people are often led to adopt an uncritical view of military service and warfare, coming to view soldiering as their best or only employment option, especially when faced with high pressure tactics from recruiters. Frequently, social and economic pressures lead young people to believe that they have no options other than the military; they join "voluntarily," under duress.
Additionally, the agreement does not specify a complete ban on the use of children in combat, but calls for "all feasible measures" to prevent their "direct" participation. In the 1990s US soldiers under 18 were deployed to war zones in the Gulf, Somalia, and Bosnia. What constitutes a "direct part in hostilities" is quite murky in today's wars. Such loopholes in the agreement leave much open to interpretation.
posted on December 12, 2003 07:49:55 AM new
What an obscene question. In other words, do our victims -- in this case a little boy -- understand why we need to maim and kill them.
CNN Reporter, PHILLIPS: "Doctor, does he understand why this war took place? Has he talked about Operation Iraqi Freedom and the meaning? Does he understand it?"
