US Troops Kill Seven Women and Children at Checkpoint: EDIT 10 Killed Conflicting Accounts of Event

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Morph
And the moral of the story is... we shouldn't f***in be there in the first place!

Tell me again how the Iraqi people are better off if we do nothing and continue to let Hussein and his thugs murder them by the hundreds.

Keep spouting that crap. Hasn't it become obvious to you yet that these people never asked for your help and don't want it? So don't try to force your moral and altruistic hand on a people that would just as soon cut it off. And if you think your governemt is there for the Iraqi people, you sir are very naive.

Answer the question. Then try this one.

How do you know the Iraqi people don't want our help? Have you personally been there and spoken with them?

Are we there purely for the Iraqi people? No, but the war will have a very nice side effect of making them more free than they have been since Hussein came to power.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Yes, that's the ticket. We should simply allow Saddam to spend another decade killing his citizens by the hundreds, spitting in the face of UN resolutions, and wait until he develops biological weapons that he can then distribute to terrorists. Simply brilliant! WTG, Morph!

No, we should be there killing hundreds of civilians, spitting in the face of the UN and still unable to find any WMD.

Blix and ElBarradei were keeping Hussein in check with UN sanctioned inspections.

Bush had to escalate unnecessarily to war.

Now we are beginning to see the results of his irresponsible, unsupported action.

Riiiiight. Another oh the sanctions were working post. Sure they were.....

Spitting in the face of the U.N? Errr...only if you mean we were spitting in it by enforcing the resolutions against Iraq that were unanimously passed by the Security Council which then didn't have the balls to do anything about their violation.

 

[Bleep]

I attempted to find out the new rules of engagement and this is the best I could find.

The exact rules remain classified, but it is understood that stiffer-than-expected resistance, the use of soldiers dressed as civilians, and the suicide bombing of a US checkpoint have forced Pentagon lawyers to drop many of the restrictions placed on soldiers. The new rules have also broadened the powers of arrest.they may now shoot any Iraqi carrying a weapon, whether in uniform or not, according to front-line reports. "All this 'nice guy' rules of engagement, that's going out the window," a senior US marine officer said.

This was from the DOD weebsite.
What a deal, the Pentagon lawyers making military decisions.

Bleep

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Yes, that's the ticket. We should simply allow Saddam to spend another decade killing his citizens by the hundreds, spitting in the face of UN resolutions, and wait until he develops biological weapons that he can then distribute to terrorists. Simply brilliant! WTG, Morph!

No, we should be there killing hundreds of civilians, spitting in the face of the UN and still unable to find any WMD.

Blix and ElBarradei were keeping Hussein in check with UN sanctioned inspections.

Bush had to escalate unnecessarily to war.

Now we are beginning to see the results of his irresponsible, unsupported action.

I see Britian.....! Do you honestly think Saddam is going to show us his WMD's? So far we've found anti never agents and gas masks and uniforms. Now why would a contrey like that have those stockpiled? I wonder why...

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Troops: After the recent suicide bomber attack I can understand why they would be on edge.

Van of civilians: Likely scared half to death, probably don't know english, and just wanting to get the hell away from where they were.

This is a tragic accident, but sadly thousands more civilians will die before this conflict is over.

You have it right I believe. It's easy to imagine a scenario where the driver just didn't understand the commands to stop, and then freaked out and floored it when the started shooting. I can't fault the U.S. troops though, they can't take chances.

 

[Phokus]

THIS IS FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

The Post said that after viewing the carnage through binoculars, Johnson said to his platoon leader: "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Phokus
THIS IS FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

The Post said that after viewing the carnage through binoculars, Johnson said to his platoon leader: "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"

After the Car Bombing of the other day it's amazing that this situation isn't the norm. Look it was an unfortunate situation, very regrettable and hopefully they will find a solution to make sure this doesn't happen again, but for some Wanker tucked away safely behind the anonymity of his keyboard to criticize the troops is despicable.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bleep

They fired warning shots and warning shots are not normally part of ROE's

How would you know what the ROE's are for the US Army or any other ground force. This rule was always in effect the last 2 years of the Korean war.

Bleep

I have done security ops with Marines. I spend more than a little bit of time at Ft. Campbell where my brother- in - law is stationed and I have a few friends there. I also do not live in a vacuum. Whatever the case I am certainly in a better position to know than somebody who was last in the loop 50 years ago.

If you want to have another pissing contest with me, send me a PM. Only this time don't put me on your ignore list before I can respond.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Well, from what I heard on the BBC they've been all over the bodies + survivors and it doesn't look like there's any weapons - nor any men. Maybe they were just scared? stupid? who knows?

Andy

Bad brakes?

I know a few days ago a civilian vehicle that DID stop was fired on and the occupants killed when it's engine backfired.
(really bad timing . . . or carbueration . . . )

Coalition forces have the RIGHT to fire on vehicles that don't stop when ordered. Of course, it won't make the slightest difference to those people killed or their families . . . and it won't win the hearts of the Iraqi people.

 

[Morph]

Here's the link to the Wash Post article:
Ten Iraqis Killed at U.S. Checkpoint
The story given hear sounds a lot different from what I've been hearing. Seems to be questionable whether they even got the warning shots off, or if they did, they came much too late. Sounds to me like they really bungled this. Go ahead and flame me now, but I'm just making an observation.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Leon

2000 Presidential Election - Total Votes

Gore: 50,999,897 votes
Bush: 50,456,002 votes

Your results are wrong.

Electoral vote:

Gore: 266
Bush: 271

Remember, hippies, our founding fathers (that you like to quote so much) created this system. If you don't like it, lobby your Senator to create a new system.

Leon

Forget all that "electorial voting crap" . . . What really mattered -

Supreme Court:

Bush: 5
Gore: 4

But this is BESIDE the point. Aren't we discussing the War and the ME?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Morph
Here's the link to the Wash Post article:
Ten Iraqis Killed at U.S. Checkpoint
The story given hear sounds a lot different from what I've been hearing. Seems to be questionable whether they even got the warning shots off, or if they did, they came much too late. Sounds to me like they really bungled this. Go ahead and flame me now, but I'm just making an observation.

After reading most of your posts I believe that you are rather disappointed that it was 20 or 30 civilians killed.

 

[etech]

Damnit, I am tired of the ill informed, stupid, illogical miscreants and trolls that think the USSC had anything to do with Pres. Bush being elected.

My challenge to anyone of you cretins is this. Start a separate thread and prove it. Prove that either way that the USSC voted that it would have affected the outcome of the election. Use any of the numerous recounts that have been held and show where it would have made a difference. While you are doin that also explain why Gore only wanted certain counties recounted and not the entire state.

Either do that or just stop showing how seriously uninformed you really are about what happened.

In other words, put up or STFU. Stop disrupting threads with this crap.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: etech
Damnit, I am tired of the ill informed, stupid, illogical miscreants and trolls that think the USSC had anything to do with Pres. Bush being elected.

My challenge to anyone of you cretins is this. Start a separate thread and prove it. Prove that either way that the USSC voted that it would have affected the outcome of the election. Use any of the numerous recounts that have been held and show where it would have made a difference. While you are doin that also explain why Gore only wanted certain counties recounted and not the entire state.

Either do that or just stop showing how seriously uninformed you really are about what happened.

In other words, put up or STFU. Stop disrupting threads with this crap.

Post Election Thread HERE!

My post was to "make fun" of the disruption . . . . howz your blood pressure?

 

[etech]

My "blood pressure" is fine. My tolerance for misinformed idiots is running a little low.

 

[lowtech1]

I can just imagine the poor young men who found themselves having to do such an awful thing because they were fearful of another Suicide/Homicide Bombing.

No one has forced or put a gun to these gun-slingers head and made them go to Iraq to gitt themselves a few rag-heads.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: etech
My "blood pressure" is fine. My tolerance for misinformed idiots is running a little low.

"Someone" PM'd me - I guess "they" still don't understand, so here is (only) my reply (with a slight edit):

RE read my REPLY. I could give a crap less about the election results NOW (you MUST be CONFUSING me with Moonbeam).

For the last time - I was MAKING FUN of the election results "thread disrupters". The first one posted the popular vote in his sig; the second one commented on it; the third one mentioned the electorial vote; so I went ahead and escalated it; made it LOOK RIDICULOUS with the 5/4 comment.

I am going to post this in the thread (without mentioning you) to CLEAR this up. I hate thread-crapping also (but still have a "mean" sarcastic streak that is hard to tone down).

I am (ONLY) guilty of not making it clear that I was "making fun". I thought my 2nd post made it clear. If this doesn't . . . well, I tried.

Now can we PLEASE get on with the TOPIC!

 

[Sxotty]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
I find it kind of ironic that they send their women at us in a truck unarmed and we send ours at them in f-18's.

LOL well I guess when you care about life you equip those that have to fight, when you care about yourself you build palaces and tell people you will kill them unless they fight for you, then you give them a rifle to charge a tank. what a wonderful guy

And the soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong, those people knew to stop they were just being stupid and they paid the price.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I won't respond to your ignorance directly . . . there's not a single soul in the Israeli marketplace that asked for Palestinians to bomb them while they shopped, not a single soul at WTC asked for Saudis to attack them while they worked, and not a single person on that bus asked US forces to shoot them while they traveled . . . unarmed . . . in THEIR country.

US troops are certainly in harm's way. Our President sent them there for the purpose deposing Saddam, disarming Iraq's WMD program, and/or liberating Iraqis . . . depending on the week and the speech. Those people were killed for no good reason but the blame does not rest with the victims. Our troops (according to William Wallace) were not prepared for their adversary but the blame does not rest with the troops. Some units have gotten by on one MRE a day but the blame does not rest with the troops. You could blame Saddam . . . then again he did not put anybody on that bus (presumptively), he definitely did not request a US invasion or plan their logistics.

Then again you could just watch FOXNews . . . all the good news you want to hear.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I won't respond to your ignorance directly . . . there's not a single soul in the Israeli marketplace that asked for Palestinians to bomb them while they shopped, not a single soul at WTC asked for Saudis to attack them while they worked, and not a single person on that bus asked US forces to shoot them while they traveled . . . unarmed . . . in THEIR country.

US troops are certainly in harm's way. Our President sent them there for the purpose deposing Saddam, disarming Iraq's WMD program, and/or liberating Iraqis . . . depending on the week and the speech. Those people were killed for no good reason but the blame does not rest with the victims. Our troops (according to William Wallace) were not prepared for their adversary but the blame does not rest with the troops. Some units have gotten by on one MRE a day but the blame does not rest with the troops. You could blame Saddam . . . then again he did not put anybody on that bus (presumptively), he definitely did not request a US invasion or plan their logistics.

Then again you could just watch FOXNews . . . all the good news you want to hear.

You can blame the UN for not following up on their responsibilities and empowering Hussien because of their indecisiveness.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I won't respond to your ignorance directly . . . there's not a single soul in the Israeli marketplace that asked for Palestinians to bomb them while they shopped, not a single soul at WTC asked for Saudis to attack them while they worked, and not a single person on that bus asked US forces to shoot them while they traveled . . . unarmed . . . in THEIR country.

US troops are certainly in harm's way. Our President sent them there for the purpose deposing Saddam, disarming Iraq's WMD program, and/or liberating Iraqis . . . depending on the week and the speech. Those people were killed for no good reason but the blame does not rest with the victims. Our troops (according to William Wallace) were not prepared for their adversary but the blame does not rest with the troops. Some units have gotten by on one MRE a day but the blame does not rest with the troops. You could blame Saddam . . . then again he did not put anybody on that bus (presumptively), he definitely did not request a US invasion or plan their logistics.

Then again you could just watch FOXNews . . . all the good news you want to hear.

You can blame the UN for not following up on their responsibilities and empowering Hussien because of their indecisiveness.

You could blame the US administration for mishandling the UN politics and alienating our allies. You could blame GW for rushing into a war without adequate preparation.

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

The inspections were keeping Saddam at bay

You anti war dolts do realise that 1441 was put in place for Saddam to SHOW the destroyed WMD to the inspectors, not lead them around on a wild goose chase offering no proof of such thing. We most certainly DO have legal grounds to be there...He was not complying with said resolution.

Inspectors driving around HUNTING was not the deal, Hussein was supposed to put the proof in their lap, which he obviously could not do.


The incident where civilians were killed is certainly an unfortunate one, but being witness to a few fatal suicide bombing attacks would make me a bit trigger happy as well, seeing a van rolling towards them that refuses to stop (if a bullet in the engine isnt the universal sign for STOP, not sure what is)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I won't respond to your ignorance directly . . . there's not a single soul in the Israeli marketplace that asked for Palestinians to bomb them while they shopped, not a single soul at WTC asked for Saudis to attack them while they worked, and not a single person on that bus asked US forces to shoot them while they traveled . . . unarmed . . . in THEIR country.

US troops are certainly in harm's way. Our President sent them there for the purpose deposing Saddam, disarming Iraq's WMD program, and/or liberating Iraqis . . . depending on the week and the speech. Those people were killed for no good reason but the blame does not rest with the victims. Our troops (according to William Wallace) were not prepared for their adversary but the blame does not rest with the troops. Some units have gotten by on one MRE a day but the blame does not rest with the troops. You could blame Saddam . . . then again he did not put anybody on that bus (presumptively), he definitely did not request a US invasion or plan their logistics.

Then again you could just watch FOXNews . . . all the good news you want to hear.

You can blame the UN for not following up on their responsibilities and empowering Hussien because of their indecisiveness.

You could blame the US administration for mishandling the UN politics and alienating our allies. You could blame GW for rushing into a war without adequate preparation.

They are due their crticism for the way they handled thios situation too.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog
The inspections were keeping Saddam at bay

You anti war dolts do realise that 1441 was put in place for Saddam to SHOW the destroyed WMD to the inspectors, not lead them around on a wild goose chase offering no proof of such thing. We most certainly DO have legal grounds to be there...He was not complying with said resolution.

Inspectors driving around HUNTING was not the deal, Hussein was supposed to put the proof in their lap, which he obviously could not do.

Iraq claimed to have destroyed the WMDs a long time ago and presented reams and reams of (mostly BS) evidence that was still being waded through. We have NO legal grounds (whatsoever) to be there as this action IS NOT sanctioned by the UN - EXCEPT as a UNILATERAL PREEMPTIVE STRIKE by the US/Britain.

This is certainly going to the World Court. The verdict may go against the coalition.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog
The inspections were keeping Saddam at bay

You anti war dolts do realise that 1441 was put in place for Saddam to SHOW the destroyed WMD to the inspectors, not lead them around on a wild goose chase offering no proof of such thing. We most certainly DO have legal grounds to be there...He was not complying with said resolution.

Inspectors driving around HUNTING was not the deal, Hussein was supposed to put the proof in their lap, which he obviously could not do.

Iraq claimed to have destroyed the WMDs a long time ago and presented reams and reams of (mostly BS) evidence that was still being waded through. We have NO legal grounds (whatsoever) to be there as this action IS NOT sanctioned by the UN - EXCEPT as a UNILATERAL PREEMPTIVE STRIKE by the US/Britain.

This is certainly going to the World Court. The verdict may go against the coalition.

And if it goes to the world court, what will be the punishment if the US/UK is found guilty? Who will enforce the punishment? HEck the world could not even enforce the rules on Iraq, what can it exect to do with the US/UK?