That is the dumbest thing that I have heard today. Sorry, I mean the least inteligent remark of the day.

The Geneva convention has not helped the US in any war, it has only handcuffed our troops and made many think twice when they only had enough time to react once.

It does not help to play by the rules when everyone else does not. Do you have any idea what kind of propaganda these people have been under? They hated us before we got there, we have never been in Iran and they have a "Death to America" celibration every Friday, and not just these last few years since the invasion began.

The Japaneese were indoctrinated to believe that the Allies wanted to kill and rape their citizens before we ever set foot on their soil. The same is true with Iraq.

I'm not saying that its OK to commit crimes, I'm saying that you can't take a couple of million people, put them in a situation where they being killed by an enemy that wears no uniform and hides in schools, hospitols, relegious buildings and not expect a small portion to do horrible things. I'm saying that its stupid to judge the body and the effort by the actions of a very small portion of the troops.

People who subscibe to that are no better than ignorant racists, its the same idea, highlight the actions of a few and judge the group.

Plain and simple, don't further spread the ignorance in here.

Absolutely not. And I pray we're never put in such a position.
But I do agree with the poster saying our training is pretty good.
We don't have nearly the money/machinery/manpower the US military does, and we would be mushed very quickly if Mr. Bush decided to attack us. On a 1:1 basis however, we do very well.



Perhaps you should be quiet until you learn how to put out writing that wins people to your side of the argument, instead of coming across as an angry child. Possibly a teenager perhaps. Insulting those you are trying to convince is simply stupid....oh wait...extremely non-intelligent.

(and yes, I see the irony in allowing myself to put in that last sentence.)

heheheh

I'm not trying to win anyone to my side of the argument, just calling out a dumb, thoughtless comment when I see one.

You show me what wasn't dumb about that comment and I will apologize, I did not mean it as an insult, it was an observation.

Thanks Pen I did not know that that is a big difference.

First of all, my reply to you was a similar observation. As this is an internet forum, we all can expect a certain lack of respect (as opposed to someone acting in a similar manner and getting thumped in real life).

However, I'll do what I can to explain why I felt I needed to reply.

You seem to have made your post based on:



and it was this that set your tone including telling the poster to stop making stupid comments.

Now, I am going to be at a bit of disadvantage here, because your have your opinion on how that reads, and I have mine...but here goes...

We both agree the US military is one of the (probably THE) most powerful war machine on the planet.

I hope we both agree that Iraq, from a military perspective, shouldn't be considered that powerful. If the US and Iraq each had their forces lined up and went at it head to head...I think we all know who would quickly crush the other side.

HOWEVER, with their limited manpower/funding/equipment (in comparison to the US forces) I agree with RdSnt that the Iraqi forces are doing a hell of job against the US. Mainly because they are playing to their strengths and hiding within the Iraqi population. Hard to hit what you can't find.

Now, as a Canadian, I know my country's future is heavily tied to that of Unites States, whether I agree with their foreign policy or not. I know some hard decisions have to be made, and not everyone will be pleased with those decisions however they may be made. But please don't think I want the US to fail in Iraq. I don't. I may be happy they went over there in the first place, but since they ARE there, I want them to succeed and to come home safe.

My point here is I don't feel it's right or fair to call RdSnt stupid for his opinion on the current situation over there...US forces have been there for quite some time and have NOT pacified their opponents, they are wasting an enormous amount of cash, and if I understand correctly, the Iraq public are the closest to civil war they have ever been.

How can you say his comment is stupid? Differing from your opinion? Okay, absolutely...

But stupid?

I feel it's a fair opinion, even if I don't like what it means.

Dang it. That should have been "I may NOT be happy..."

jbeckton,

US Ground troops hardly fired a shot in the first gulf war for the simple reason Iraqi soliders surrendered in droves, bc they knew they would be treated well. At that time, the Iraqi people were waiting for us to enter and would have welcomed us with open arms, but, we didn't for our own selfish political reasons.

Bottom line is this, I question whether you were a vet, bc you are ignorant as to the teachings of the Geneva Conventions in US Force structure and why our troops are taught, at the troop level and command level, why Geneva Conventions are respected and implemented, started with the Five S's. The Geneva Convention is not an inhibitor to fighting wars, its an enabler, and the lack of respect for it, as attested by Cheney, Rummy etc and now you is a testament to why we are losing the war in Iraq.

What would your definition of "thumping" be there in Canada? If it means carrying out cowardly attacks that have killed more Iraqi people then Americans, then thats a good observation.

However, I think that you and I both know what he meant, he meant that the US troops were being badly defeated (sounds like a pretty good definition of thumping). He is clearly angry at the administration but feels that its ok to take out that frustration on the troops who do not decide what is done, they just do it. I think that only the unrealistic believed that we were going to topple a government that was using force to stave off civil war and not expect to see these peoblems for years to come.

I stand by my observation that saying the Iraqi insurgents are thumping the Americans is a dumb statement that unravels when put into context when comparred to other wars. If you want to say that they are having success using cowardly tatics to prolong the conflict and the resistance, I would agree but I would not say that that is what thumping means.

I did not just say "thats dumb", I said that it was a dumb statement and then presented evidence to support my conclusion.

Thumping means huge and resounding, not slow and sparatic successes.

By your definition, I may not agree with your choice of wording, but I can appreciate your sentiment.

For me, "thumping" means beating up, harassing, doing serious damage to.

And I still think that in that respect, the US forces ARE being thumped on (not sure if my way of looking at it is typical), in that while I do not think they are being defeated, they are suffering damage. Of course, the pounding US forces is giving back is also significant. I am not suggesting in any way that the damage is one sided.

I think when we consider damage to machinery and equipment, loss of lives, and loss of global goodwill, there is significan damage being done to the US military machine.



I agree with you 100% than hiding within a civilian population and attacking is cowardly and quite despicable. But from the perspective of wanting to win...it does make sense on their part. It's not bad tactically, but it is morally reprehensible.

I did notice you mentioning him attacking the troops rather than the administration. I don't know if he meant it that way or not, but personally, I put 100% of the blame on the leadership. That goes from the President and flows down through the entire chain of command.

I know some generals are against some of the decisions and have been replaced. I also know how hard it is to say no when your livelihood depends on you saying yes. Those generals who were removed have nothing but my respect. Please do not think I blame the troops over there, I believe they are doing the best they can under some very unfavorable conditions.

I think we still have a difference of opinion. I'm still not crazy on how you worded your statement. But let's just agree to disagree regarding the reasons for those statements. I don't think I will be able to change your opinion on the matter, and doubt I'll see a retraction on the comments...and you won't be changing my mind either I don't think.

At the same time, it's not a big thing we're discussing here. I just really enjoy the time I spend reading here, and I don't want this forum to change into something where people don't share their opinions for fear of being called names. Of course, on any online medium, we should all have thick skins anyhow

Not my definition, MSN Encarta's


http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18617 ... mping.html

Do you still believe that they are being thumped?

He also said :


Which sounds like an attack on the troops as well as the administration.

I have a question.

What exactly defines a "cowardly attack"?

You could argue that a suicide bombing in a market place is cowardly, I agree, because it kills innocent people shopping. Is an IED cowardly? Or is it merely the Iraqi version of mass produced land mines made in the west and used in countless wars.

What about dropping a 500lb bomb on a house to flush out two guys with AK-47's, is that cowardly because troops on the ground would rather not storm in and take casualties? Or how about using air power in general against people on the ground, wouldn't it be more manly to "dismount" and fight a ground war only.

I'm pretty sure that American troops are tired of getting hit with "cowardly" roadside bombs just as much as Iraqi's are tired of getting bombed by "cowardly" pilots.

You have really exposed your ignorance on this one. Do you really not know that the internal problems in Iraq were there long before we arrived? Half of the population would have been just as willing to fight us (and eachother) then as they are now. Do your homework.



Search
Silence
Segregate
Safeguard
Speed to the Rear

The geneva convention consists of much more than the 5 S's. How does following hummane treatment standards not contribute to lower war crimes?

jbeckton,

Chill! I was getting pretty worked up as well with the American bashing. I have to remind myself that you are dealing with a well rounded diverse group of folks at PO.com. Some of which have wild video game hallucinations which lead them to self mental masturbation of taking out the fictional GI Joe for real.

Every now and then you do get something out of the mental wargame exercise though.

You mentioned market bombings that kill many innocent people but let me elaborate.

Rigging children with bombs and sending them to checkpoints.

Waving surrender flags then ambushing troops when the enter to take prisoners.

Killing a mans wife and kids in front of him because he gave up information.

Sending a truck carrying chlorine gas to explode in Taji, just north of Baghdad, killing six people on the spot but also poisoning scores more as the toxic gas spread through the area, overcoming women and children.

Storing weapons in schools and staging bodies after it has been hit with a bomb to ploy the media into a misguided story.

I blame the insurgents for those bombings more than the pilots, they store and operate out of those facilities by no accident, they want innocent people to die for their propaganda.

So yes, those are all cowardly attacks, the United States does everything within reason, sure there have been exceptions as there always are, to engage the enemy without killing innocent people.

Do you want to go clear a building full of IED's?

Not particularly, unless of course there was a really hot chick that needed rescuing.