Children Shooting at Marines

[Dreadsox]

I am sincerely curious about what you would do if you were a Marine and this was happening to you? What would your decision be facing life or death and the enemy has given weapons to kill you to children?

Garvin said some of the Iraqi fighters were using women as shields and had given guns to children.

"Unfortunately some of the children have been firing at our Marines and our Marines have been forced to defend themselves," he said.

The wounded appeared to be in addition to 15 Lejeune Marines who have been reported injured during the Iraqi conflict. Eleven Lejeune Marines have died, nine in combat in the An Nasiriyah area and two in accidents.

http://newsobserver.com/nc24hour/ncnews/story/2379455p-2217701c.htmlhttp://newsobserver.com/nc24hour/ncnews/story/2379455p-2217701c.html

 

[Basstrap]

that is horrible

and I expect more when they get into baghdad...I'm actualluy starting to doubt that the US can do this.
When they get into the city it may be a good possibility that almost all civilians take up arms or fight in some way. This is couold be a bloody mess

sweet Lord

 

[U2girl]

I dunno...I guess they have to self-defend themself if they're fired upon (and even then just try to wound them so they would not fire) - or try to disarm them even before that.
On the other hand, how old are the youngest Coalition soldiers?

Not related, but this reminds me of the last days of Germany's regime in WWII. Didn't Hitler used kids the last time they defended Berlin?

 

[verte76]

Good Lord this is ugly. I was afraid a scenario like this would develop. It's too much.

 

[nbcrusader]

I hope and pray this doesn't turn into another Mogadishu.....

 

[melon]

By the end of World War II, Nazi Germany was using soldiers as young as 13.

I think what this is is a reality check. We've grown accustomed to efficient, Clinton-era military excursions. Kosovo, for instance, was liberated solely using airstrikes (although the GOP was getting impatient, pushing for ground troops). Bush sold this war on the American public, implying this would be quick. Sure, he had his "fine print" saying that it might be longer, but he certainly didn't try too hard to stop public opinion from expecting a short war. "Shock and awe," as we see, was a theory that did neither.

I think my issue with the GOP and wars is that, while they have the confidence, I don't approve of their military tactics, per se. I think ground troops were sent in too early; we should have bombed the shit out of them before we stepped in. Having a military tactic that assumes "mass surrender" is not a tactic at all.

Melon

 

[melon]

Oh and I doubt that neither the U.S. nor the rest of the world will have patience for Bush after Iraq here, if he chooses to destroy the rest of the "Axis of Evil." I also think that international relations are in terrible shape, and that if we want any hope of repairing them, we will need to kick Bush out into the cold in 2004.

Melon

 

[V Nura]

this regime sinks lower and lower every day.



I hope they soften up baghdad with more sirstrikes before seding our troops in. And I hope civiliians dont' take to arms....it will result in a lot more innocent deaths than necessary.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

this regime is getting worse every day...

you fail to realize that these people hate the americans. whether we think it makes sense or not - they do! they see the americans as invaders and crusaders NOT liberators.

this is another example of that. believe it or not, there are people and nations that dont want to be occupied by the united states.

 

[anitram]

I don't think you can really soften Baghdad in the sense that nearly everybody there has a gun. So, unless you plan on carpet bombing the city, this will be hell once the forces step in.

The US relied too much on this surrender and joyous celebration tactic, particularly among the Shiites. Well, this is what their prominent leadership is saying:

A prominent Iraqi Shiite leader on Tuesday signed a fatwa (religious decree), calling for expelling "infidel followers" who invaded Iraq.

"It is necessary for Muslims all over the world to come back to Allah and ask him to help us in a fierce battle against infidel followers who invaded our homeland," Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani said in the decree in the Shiite city of Najaf in southern Iraq.

In a foretaste of what the future may hold for the coalition forces, Sheikh Mohammed al-Khakani, a leading religious authority in Najaf, on Tuesday called on Iraqis to ?defend their country, honor and religion by expelling the unbelievers from the land of Islam.?
Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the largest Shiite opposition group, warned on Tuesday that his followers are ?ready to take up arms? should the coalition troops become an occupation force. The Badr Brigades, SCIRI?s 15,000-strong military wing mainly deployed in Iran with some units in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, has so far stayed out of the fighting. But they could represent a formidable obstacle to US plans for post-Saddam Iraq if Shiite interests are not taken fully into account.
?The American troops will face a very strong resistance in just a couple of months. They will have to leave the cities and move into the desert,? said a veteran Hizbullah fighter who spent his childhood in Najaf. ?I know the Iraqi people and I think the Americans will face the same resistance the Israelis faced in Lebanon, even harsher.?

Leave After War, Iraqi Opposition Tells US
Reuters



TEHRAN, 26 March 2003 ? The leader of Iraq?s main Shiite opposition group warned Washington yesterday that US troops would face armed resistance if they stayed in Iraq once President Saddam Hussein was toppled. ?Iraqis are against foreign dominance, and if they (the Americans) don?t want to leave Iraq, the nation will resist,? said Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir Hakim, head of the Tehran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). ?One of the legitimate ways of resistance against occupiers is force and weapons,? he told a news conference.

The gray-bearded Hakim said SCIRI, which draws its support from Iraq?s Shiite majority, said he had tens of thousands of troops stationed inside and outside Iraq, ready to resist any foreign occupation. The group?s armed wing, known as the Badr Brigade, has paraded hundreds of lightly armed fighters in Kurdish-ruled northern Iraq. But it has tended to keep the size and whereabouts of its other forces a closely guarded secret.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

besides the obvious iraqi resistance to the americans, you must realize that internal resistance will begin at home if this war should be drawn out over a long period of time. and as gruesome as it sounds, if body bags start pouring into the states, it wont be a good thing either. not that anyone wants that, but im just saying.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

gickies i understand and agree with you. i had this same discussion w/ several friends and members of my family the other day and your points were all brought up.

 

[pub crawler]

I am sincerely curious about what you would do if you were a Marine and this was happening to you? What would your decision be facing life or death and the enemy has given weapons to kill you to children?

Dread, seriously, what is the point in asking such a leading question? Of course this situation is sad and deplorable. What answer would you expect?

I've become numbed by and disillusioned with the discussion in this war forum.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

gickies i understand and agree with you. i had this same discussion w/ several friends and members of my family the other day and your points were all brought up.

 

[nbcrusader]

We've grown accustomed to efficient, Clinton-era military excursions.

And Somalia.


sorry for the unnecessary detour. I couldn't help note the statement - efficient, military and Clinton in the same sentence

 

[Screaming Flower]

I think my issue with the GOP and wars is that, while they have the confidence, I don't approve of their military tactics, per se. I think ground troops were sent in too early; we should have bombed the shit out of them before we stepped in. Having a military tactic that assumes "mass surrender" is not a tactic at all.

 

[melon]

And Somalia.


sorry for the unnecessary detour. I couldn't help note the statement - efficient, military and Clinton in the same sentence

Don't forget which president got us in Somalia in the first place: Bush, Sr.

Melon

 

[ALEXRUS]

And I hope civiliians dont' take to arms....it will result in a lot more innocent deaths than necessary.

Do you have exact figure of how many innocent deaths are necessary?

Bismark once said something like that: "Most of the boasting is done either after hunting or before a war."

Still waiting for cheering in Baghdad?

 

[Screaming Flower]

alexrus i do not think it is very fair that you are constantly putting words in people's mouths and twisting their words. it's ridiculous. you are doing it all over the place. please stop. you know damn well that arun, nor anyone else, doesn't think innocent deaths are "necessary" so to speak. inevitable yes, but to assume that arun thinks of these people as numbers rather than humans is obnoxious and wrong.

 

[rich]

Don't forget which president got us in Somalia in the first place: Bush, Sr.

Melon

Sure he did, on a humanitarian mission. And then Clinton pulled everyone right back out 5 months later. However, what the Clinton adminstration did after that point I wouldn't exactly call "efficient". In fact, it's what led to the death of many of our boys over there.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002091

 

[melon]

The fact that "many" is "18" really shows what a luxurious lifestyle we live in today. I'm sure "18" would have been a good day in Vietnam.

But I guess we've gotten off track to my point, which is not to defend Clinton, but to point out that people are used to quick, bloodless conflicts that the Clinton-era was known for. Again, I'm more interested in "perception," rather than debating "reality."

Melon

 

[V Nura]

Do you have exact figure of how many innocent deaths are necessary?

Bismark once said something like that: "Most of the boasting is done either after hunting or before a war."

Still waiting for cheering in Baghdad?

well genius..in a war civillian casualties occur..it's a sad thing that occurs in war...the word implies it


can you name me one major conflict in which no civilian casualties occured???


if there were no civilian casualties in war...I doubt ppl would object to it so much.




What I'm saying is..your country doesn't have a perfect history either...so don't twist my words in an attempt to villify me...it's an insult to the real villians in history.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Children Shooting at Marines

Dread, seriously, what is the point in asking such a leading question? Of course this situation is sad and deplorable. What answer would you expect?

I've become numbed by and disillusioned with the discussion in this war forum.

Ummmm....Usually when I start a question saying I am sincerely curious I mean it. If you find it too emotional a question then ignore it and move on. It was a sincere question.

I honestly think I would be dead if a kid pointed a weapon at me. I do not think I have it in me to fire back. And having been through boot camp and military police school, there is nothing in all of the training I went through in eight years that would have prepared me for this situation.

Yes it is sad and deplorable. It is the first issue of this war that troubles me on a different level.

Matt

 

[pub crawler]

I guess my cynicism got the best of me. I'm sorry for that, Matt. I know you're a good guy.

Peace.
Kevin

 

[Dreadsox]

I guess my cynicism got the best of me. I'm sorry for that, Matt. I know you're a good guy.

Peace.
Kevin

It's all good it is an emotional issue.

Peace

 

[ALEXRUS]

alexrus i do not think it is very fair that you are constantly putting words in people's mouths and twisting their words. it's ridiculous. you are doing it all over the place. please stop. you know damn well that arun, nor anyone else, doesn't think innocent deaths are "necessary" so to speak. inevitable yes, but to assume that arun thinks of these people as numbers rather than humans is obnoxious and wrong.

I never put my words in smb else's mouth. Sorry if you percieve it like that. But the very combination of words "civilian deaths necessary' enrages me.
It is obnoxious to call civilians killed 'collateral damage'. It is not my term. This "euphemism" is what I call word twisting.

 

[ALEXRUS]

if there were no civilian casualties in war...I doubt ppl would object to it so much.
What I'm saying is..your country doesn't have a perfect history either...so don't twist my words in an attempt to villify me...it's an insult to the real villians in history.

Hm, genius... I do feel flattered.
"If there were no civilian casualties in war..." Do not you understand that with every day of this war, you will have to kill more and more civilians. Do you really think that people in Iraq still remember that you go after SH? They are just fighting 'foreign agressors' who occupied their land. Guerilla war will continue until the last Iraqi is dead or until the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq. Humanitarian aid will not change their attitude. They will be biting the feeding hand.

As for the history of my country, I do not understand why you raise the issue here now. Start another thread. Just for information: "The only perfect place with perfect history is paradise".

 

[V Nura]

Hm, genius... I do feel flattered.
"If there were no civilian casualties in war..." Do not you understand that with every day of this war, you will have to kill more and more civilians. Do you really think that people in Iraq still remember that you go after SH? They are just fighting 'foreign agressors' who occupied their land. Guerilla war will continue until the last Iraqi is dead or until the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq. Humanitarian aid will not change their attitude. They will be biting the feeding hand.

As for the history of my country, I do not understand why you raise the issue here now. Start another thread. Just for information: "The only perfect place with perfect history is paradise".

what I'm saying is..I wouldnt' be so quick to judge.


Are you telling me that war can be conducted with no civilian csualties? if so...enlighten us....I'm sure there are many ppl who'd love to hear this plan. ....you'll be quite the name....I'll call time and have them save the cover.



We dropped an A bomb on japan...after rebuilding their economy we've have good relations with them. We fought a war with germany and until recently we've had VERY cordial relations with the germans. So if you telling me that civilian casutlites inflicted today will impact the way iraqis view the united states historically..you may in fact be wrong. That being said lets move on


Let's jsut stop being foreign agressors and let sanctions kill far more iraqis...that of course is a better course of action according to you?....the long term well being of the iraqi ppl is then in very serious jeopardy.

 

[adamswildhoney]

thats horrible but Saddam does that kind of stuff and so did Vitenam. I just hope this war is over as soon as possible.

 

[hiphop]

...that of course is a better course of action according to you?....

Now who?s putting words in whose mouth?

Relax, both of you. Your quarrel won?t make this war less cruel.

I wonder about people who support this war and are innocently wondering about those cruelties. After all, thats what war is about. As if you hadn?t known that in the first place. Supporting this war and at the same time being shocked by death and cruelties is a little naive in my opinion, but nevermind,... I don?t mean it personal or anything, just keep supporting the leader of the free world and call cruelties inevitable, but then don?t wonder about it, where?s the point.