[Mulderator]

Originally posted by Tipacanoe:
Americans love savagery. They go to the cinema, many of them, to consume their regular diet of it. You see them there licking their popcorn flavoured fingers as the blood and guts spurt everywhere on the screen. It puts smiles on their faces. It is a catharsis for them and helps them cope with the savagery in their every day lives.

So the Canadians don't watch American movies? Hollywood will wonder where all the money comes from!

This has more to do with the entire industry being at fault. This conditions the public in an unacceptable way to BECOME violent.

Time for a moral board of film censors who are more concerned about the well-being of the public rather than the cash turnover at the box-office.

Maybe then we can get away from conditioned copy-cat reflex and away from crime.

"Hergé"

Nota Bene: Check for AdAware update.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by plschwartz:
Sarge:
1. I am sure if you had shot civiians in a panic your marshal spirit would over come any guilt Good for you You are luckier then some
2. you said:
$h!t Happens. Innocent people die. Murderers rule countries with iron fists.
So you would disagree with the current version of why we went into Iraq?
Hey planes crash into twin towers whats got your a$$ in am uproar

BTW did you actually see combat ?

1. No I did not shoot any innocent civilians while I was deployed in Iraq.

2. Whether I agree with it or not, I made an oath to obey the officers appointed over me and defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Saddam was/is an enemy of the United States, that was reason enough.

3. from 21 March 03-10 July 03

Originally posted by Sarge:
1. No I did not shoot any innocent civilians while I was deployed in Iraq.

2. Whether I agree with it or not, I made an oath to obey the officers appointed over me and defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Saddam was/is an enemy of the United States, that was reason enough.

3. from 21 March 03-10 July 03

Would you consider him to be an enemy of all people everywhere, rather than just the United States alone?

Or would you consider the papacy to be an even bigger enemy of the people?

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Hergé:
Would you consider him to be an enemy of all people everywhere, rather than just the United States alone?

Or would you consider the papacy to be an even bigger enemy of the people?

Herge, What in the world are you talking about?
I said Saddam was/is a US enemy, not an enemy of all people everywhere. What does this even have to do with the papacy? Save it for a different thread.

[plschwartz]

Sarge:
It never occurred to me that you did shoot any civilians.







.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by plschwartz:
Sarge:
It never occurred to me that you did shoot any civilians.

plschwartz, a civilian is no longer a civilian when he picks up a weapon. He is now a combatant. I stand by my word and my conscious is clear. I have never shot any innocent civilians.

Originally posted by Sarge:
Herge, What in the world are you talking about?
I said Saddam was/is a US enemy, not an enemy of all people everywhere. What does this even have to do with the papacy? Save it for a different thread.

Is not a "Christian" West fighting with "non-Christian" Islam?

As these people are ALL Human Beings why is anyone fighting at all, and what is it that they are fighting for ... a hole?

Do you not think that with a population increase from 1.5 billion to 6.0 billion in 300 years that "someone" "somewhere" is doing "something" wrong?

Where is the proper application of the Ten Commandments guidelines given by God to us ALL for example?

And STILL the people living here on this planet Earth are not living in peace.

Which sectarian faction is it that seems to think that it is all about having babies, and why are people competing with each other and warring rather than co-operating with each other to live in peace?

Where does getting rich equate with living in peace?

Why so much hate instead of love?

Hergé

[plschwartz]

Sarge:
you said:
plschwartz, a civilian is no longer a civilian when he picks up a weapon. He is now a combatant. I stand by my word and my conscious is clear. I have never shot any innocent civilians.

Americans of course have the right to bear arms and many do so.
I understand from the media that Iraqi men follow the same sort of rules and that routinely many of them will be bearing arms.
Following your logic, or perhaps the logic of the Army, then most Iraqi men are combatants, and therefore dangerous.
If I may suggest that in the many states that allow the carrying of weapons the same logic if applied by the police would assume that everyone is dangerous. There are still very stringent rules (even in LA
) delimiting the use of dangerous force.
It does not seem as if the Army has any such limits on the use of dangerous force; instead it does seem to put the responsibility back onto the individual GI without the kind of training cops get.
If you are suggesting that you and other GIs have been given the right to shoot any armed man then there is the right to shoot almost any adult male Iraqi.
Some of us believe that there is a higher authority then even G.W.Bush. Any GI who shoots first and asks questions later may or not be judged by this higher authority. The Vietnam vets I discussed in an earlier post seemed to have undergone that judgement.
As I understand it from those more skilled in the God business first comes confession then penience and then finally forgiveness

[khaki]

it seems that you are jumping to some rather extreme conclusions, plschwartz.

you appear to be saying that anyone who carrys a weapon in Iraq is destined to be shot and killed by American forces.

And you also appear to be saying that people in America carry weapons all the time.... and do not risk the same consequence.

What "state" do you live in where gun-carrying individuals are free to roam around without anyone taking notice or wondering about thier motives???

perhaps if you had loved-ones stationed in Iraq....
you would be less judgemental.

In my opinion....
if you are a citizen in Iraq....
leave the gun at home.

otherwise...
you are not very "civilian"... as far as I am concerned.

[ComputerFix]

PL,

Somehow I have a hard time relating even South Central LA to Iraq, and a cop there to a soldier in a true war zone. While there may be little difference figuratively, in reality there are HUGE differences.

BTW, a cop approaching an armed individual, unless also wearing a badge, will assume them to be dangerous until shown otherwise.

[plschwartz]

Khaki:
Good morning.
The quote is from Sarge not from me as I quoted first thing:
plschwartz, a civilian is no longer a civilian when he picks up a weapon. He is now a combatant. I stand by my word and my conscious is clear. I have never shot any innocent civilians.

If does happen to be their country and there men do carry guns. Do you suggest that we have a right to try and change their time-honored rules.
If a man came into your house and started telling you what to do how would you feel. But this is exactly what you are suggesting is OK for us to continue to do in Iraq.
I suggest that sometime you take a step back and see where the denfense of support for the invasion is forcing you thinking.
We have no more right there then would the man with a gun in your house. We have invaded them and are indeed on a regular basis within their culture violating them as surely as as that man would be tearing off your cloths and raping you in front of your family

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by plschwartz:
Khaki:
Good morning.
The quote is from Sarge not from me as I quoted first thing:
plschwartz, a civilian is no longer a civilian when he picks up a weapon. He is now a combatant. I stand by my word and my conscious is clear. I have never shot any innocent civilians.

If does happen to be their country and there men do carry guns. Do you suggest that we have a right to try and change their time-honored rules.
If a man came into your house and started telling you what to do how would you feel. But this is exactly what you are suggesting is OK for us to continue to do in Iraq.
I suggest that sometime you take a step back and see where the denfense of support for the invasion is forcing you thinking.
We have no more right there then would the man with a gun in your house. We have invaded them and are indeed on a regular basis within their culture violating them as surely as as that man would be tearing off your cloths and raping you in front of your family

WAY WAY WAY THE HELL OUT OF LINE

[plschwartz]

CF
IT IS EXACTLY IN LINE

I am glad I got such a visceral response, albeit from you and not Khaki

DONT YOU UNDERSTAND THIS IS HOW MANY ORDINARY IRAQIS FEEL ABOUT AMERICAN SOLDIERS????

This my dear is not in an electronic fantasy but in real life. Men are dragged out of their houses in front of their woman trowm to the ground and tied up while their faces are pressed into the dirt. A man will feel as violated as you would naked at gunpoint.
As I understand it an Iraqi man feels that his gun is part of his manhood, a view obviously shared by many american men. Taking it away as Khaki suggested to suggest that he give up his manhood as much a violation of person as a woman feels about the violation of her body

If you have the courage take you feeling of violation and turn it not toward me, I am only the messanger but in sympathy toward those Iraqis who we have invaded and are violated on a daily basis and toward the GIs who with the encouragement of their chain of command are doing the violating

[khaki]

Originally posted by plschwartz:
Khaki:
Good morning.
The quote is from Sarge not from me as I quoted first thing:
plschwartz, a civilian is no longer a civilian when he picks up a weapon. He is now a combatant. I stand by my word and my conscious is clear. I have never shot any innocent civilians.

If does happen to be their country and there men do carry guns. Do you suggest that we have a right to try and change their time-honored rules.
If a man came into your house and started telling you what to do how would you feel. But this is exactly what you are suggesting is OK for us to continue to do in Iraq.
I suggest that sometime you take a step back and see where the denfense of support for the invasion is forcing you thinking.
We have no more right there then would the man with a gun in your house. We have invaded them and are indeed on a regular basis within their culture violating them as surely as as that man would be tearing off your cloths and raping you in front of your family

well.... we strongly disagree on the situation in Iraq.
Like it or not.... America and her allies liberated the Iraqi people of a dictator and it's government.
Not all "soldiers" from that regime are fighting openly (they pose as citizens.... and they possess weapons).

And who says that Iraqi's have "time-honored rules" to carry weapons??? (we don't even have consistent rules on that issue here in the US). Face it.... the Iraqi people are being occupied my foreign military forces.....
Is it in their best interest to walk around "innocently" with weapons???
(and how many innocent NRA card-carrying "time-honored" weapon toters roam your neighborhood with loaded weapons?).

your argument is not about Iraqi civilians who carry weapons...
it's about the US presence in Iraq.
You equate that with raping and killing.
I equate it with liberation.

we will need to agree to disagree on that topic.....
but Sarge's statement is solid and justified.... and you have no right to judge him or any other defender of this country with your idealistic fantasy of allowing armed Iraqi's to walk around freely as though all they are doing is excercising thier "time-honored rule" to carry weapons in public areas.

(I'll pass on the opportunity to address your rape scenario. I will hope that your argument got the best of you, and you can actually think more clearly than that)