Since I was listening too Boortz and Savage....

[MrVicchio]

What is ya'lls take on the Human Shields heading to Iraq?

Bomb em or avoid those areas they are in?

I say they are aiding and abetting the enemy, and willing to die for thier cause.. let em die.

[Navaron]

Don't kill them if you can avoid it. IF they're in the way, then it's just another skull on the side of the jet for me.

[Lexington_Steele]

You know which way I voted.

[Unregistered]

Fucking Hippies are ruining this country. The more we can get to stand infornt of bullets the better. Too bad they didn't get this bright Idea durring Viet Nam, we'd all be a lot better off.

[Lexington_Steele]

What if parents have brought their children there? Do you doom the children to die as well?

[Manitou]

The parents are unltimately responsible for the health and welfare of their children. If they choose to condemn their own children to death, then so be it.

The consequences, whether you believe in a final judgement or karma or whatever, will be upon the heads of the parents.

[Navaron]

a) That means they're the worst parents ever and deserve to die and
B) The apple doesn't far from the tree. Darwin was right...kinda like the gay thing, they just find each other.

[Lexington_Steele]

So if the parents have been irresponsable with the childrens lives, you punish the children. The parents put them in the line of fire, but it is still you pulling the trigger when you know they are there.

Whats so tough about atleast trying to aviod civilians. Yes some are going to get taken out, however I don't think we should go in with a no holds barred mind set. We will do what we have to do, however I am sure it is worth our while to find ways to minimize civilian casulties.

Whats wrong with trying to minimalize civialn casulties?

[Navaron]

I think it is obvous that we all would avoid killing any innocent by any reasonable means. That's not the question. The question is if you have to destroy target A and some schmucks brought a kid with them, do you still hit it? The answer is yes if it means saving more lives. The parents will be the ones burning in hell, not the pilot.

[MrVicchio]

Here is the million Dollar Question:

Saddam HAS killed tens of thousands of Women and Children with WMD. He has stated he would like to park a nuke in NYC. If we DON'T disarm him, and lets just say it boils down to war, because of some children of Human Shields... and NYC is nuked... and we can trace it back to Saddam...

Would you still say it was the right thing to do not bombing Iraq because we might killa few children whose parents were human shields?

If the answer is yes... then I ask whose more heartless and cruel?

[Unregistered]

You fucking hippies make me sick. You instantly assume that we're out to kill civillains and children when you know damn well that the United States does everything within it's power to prevent civillin casulties.

It's the same as if you drive around drunk and get your kid killed. You blew it, and your to blame. If you join the enemy forces, and your kid get's shot you deserve to die.

Besides the fact they should all be arrested for child endangerment the second the set foot on U.S. Soil.

[Lexington_Steele]

I think the real question here that we must ask ourselves is how many Iraqi civilians lives is an American soldier's worth? That is a very tough question for me and I find myself with no answer.

We could take a slower aproach that would lessen civilian casulties but would invariably put more soldiers lives at risk.

One half of me says that the lives of American Soldiers are of paramount importance, while the other half of me has trouble sacrificing many to save a few. One sees people in world as belonging to the brotherhood of man, the other sees it as Americans against the world. The two are wrestling with no clear winner.

[Unregistered]

So you think it's better to let Saddam slowly kill off his own people then us maybe killing a few in order to save even more?

You personify flawed logic.

[�io]

Death is never a good thing period.

[Unregistered]

You sound like Brooke Shields talking about smoking.....

Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life.
-- Brooke Shields

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
So you think it's better to let Saddam slowly kill off his own people then us maybe killing a few in order to save even more?

You personify flawed logic.

I am just saying that the presence of civilians should be taken into account when military strikes are planned.

In your post you are insinuating that a signifiact goal of attacks on Iraq is to save the Iraqi people from Saddam. Isn't that particular purpose defeated by killing civilians?

(btw, Saddam mistreating his people has very little to do with the reason that we are going into Iraq. That would fall into the realm of invading a countries Soverign rights)

If there is a strategic target and no civilians present, take it out.

If there is a strategic target and civilians are present, the military should revaluate the necessity of the target and weight it against the live of the civilians. The target might be of such importance that it still need to be taken out and civilians might die, however I believe that our nation and our military have a moral obligation to make that extra evaluation.

Taking human life, especially when they are not military, is not something that should be taken lightly.

[Unregistered]

Great job of Describing how the U.S. Military already opperates.

What exactly was your complaint again?

My Bitch is about the idiot Canadians and Americans that went to Iraq expressly for the purpose of standing in the line of fire. If your going to stand between 2 opposing Armys that are at war you are declaring yourself a combatant then you need to be shot.

Natural Selection and all.

If your minding your own bussiness trying to live your life peacefully and the crazy Dictator that runs your country orders his chicken shit Army to hide in your home then yes every measure possible should be taken to ensure your saftey.

Remember. Your talking about the United States of America here. We have not ever gone out and slaughtered inocent people.

[Incompetent]

:stupid:

[Unregistered]

Are you trying to piss me off?

[�io]

I'm starting to think we should just nuke Iraq and get it over with, i'm tired of hearing about it. :)

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
Are you trying to piss me off?

Do you mean me? If so then no, I am definately not trying to piss you off.

I am just saying that we shouldn't just blow away civilians cause they are in the way like one of the poll answers was suggesting.

[MrVicchio]

Who said Civilians??? I was reffereing to Human Shields, they fall under the catagory of Target of Oppurtunity because they decided to get in the way... I don't see the big deal here... your free to do what you want to do in this world, and If you choose to sit ona strategic target in the middle of a war.. you pay the price.. which is a front row seat to seeing what a cruise missle looks like on final approach...

Really, life has consequences, and if you choose to get in the way of a war.. you are gonna get run over... your problem..

[Navaron]

I think the problem is that people have the misconception that America wants to use it's army all the time. We don't want to go to war. However, we want another terrorist attack even less.

As press concious as today's military is, I strongly doubt they'd just run roughshod over those morons. It just wouldn't happen. Besides, those retards could only stay out there so long, our boys can stay up allll week.

[�io]

Nav i do believe the majority of american people do not want war anymore than the rest of the world. However you have to admit there are quite a few americans that are very vocal about wanting war including your own leader. :)

[Incompetent]

It's not so much we want war, its more we want to make sure a sadistic madman doesn't set off a nuke in our backyard.

[�io]

Yeah that's a given i just worry about how it's done, it's like your mom always says violence isn't the way, granted with that wacko it's probably the only way but i just worry that the US gov. might not be trying to hard to solve this peaceful and concentrating more on doing it by force.

[Toimu]

Originally posted by Dio
Yeah that's a given i just worry about how it's done, it's like your mom always says violence isn't the way, granted with that wacko it's probably the only way but i just worry that the US gov. might not be trying to hard to solve this peaceful and concentrating more on doing it by force. He has had 8+ years. How much more peaceful can we get? No I don't a war if we can help it. The econ sucks right now, and will only get worse with a war. I don't want to get laid off like a few of my friends, and not be able to find a job that pays 75% of my current one.

[CDaws]

Our boys will get the job done if need be. Whether it be through peace talks which seem to be doing nothing at this moment, covert ops, or a public war. If someone is stupid enough and willing standing in the way of a bullet or a target getting taking out that is there own decession. No one put a gun to there head and forced them to do it, at least not on our side. As we all know or should knows that the US military does everything possible not to take the lives of civilians but, if you are on a battle field or are in a hostile area and willing step infront of a military force then you willing become a target of oppertunity by a stray bullet. Just like willing steping out in the middle of heavy traffic at rush hour, your asking to get creamed all over the pavement or that person is messed up in the head some how for doing something that idiotic. If you act that stupid and get killed it's that persons fault and there fault alone. Sorry if that seems hartless but it's reality and it's a cruel world.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Do you mean me?

No.

I ment Incompetent, but that was yesterday and I am in a better mood today.l