NationStates Jolt Archive

One hell of a shot, it was: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/01/wirq01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/01/ixnewstop.html)

Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier.

His quarry stood nonchalantly in the fourth-floor bay window of a hospital in battle-torn Ramadi, still clasping a long-barrelled Kalashnikov. Instinctively allowing for wind speed and bullet drop, Shadow's commander aimed 12 feet high.

A single shot hit the Iraqi in the chest and killed him instantly. It had been fired from a range of 1,250 metres, well beyond the capacity of the powerful Leupold sight, accurate to 1,000 metres.

"I believe it is the longest confirmed kill in Iraq with a 7.62mm rifle," said Staff Sgt Gilliland, 28, who hunted squirrels in Double Springs, Alabama from the age of five before progressing to deer - and then people.

"He was visible only from the waist up. It was a one in a million shot. I could probably shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."

Wow, this guy is good.

Yeah, that's a hell of a good shot. Wow.

Edit: While it is a good shot, a Mauser Gewehr 98 could do the same thing, even with its larger (and less efficient) shell casing.

wowie

Damn, that's a good luck shot.

Whoa...

I thought this portion of the article was even more interesting:

"The insurgent was one of between 55 and 65 he estimates that he has shot dead in less than five months, putting him within striking distance of sniper legends such as Carlos Hathcock, who recorded 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam. One of his men, Specialist Aaron Arnold, 22, of Medway, Ohio, has chalked up a similar tally."

I thought this portion of the article was even more interesting:

"The insurgent was one of between 55 and 65 he estimates that he has shot dead in less than five months, putting him within striking distance of sniper legends such as Carlos Hathcock, who recorded 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam. One of his men, Specialist Aaron Arnold, 22, of Medway, Ohio, has chalked up a similar tally."
For which reason?

You provided the quote, now how about the actual opinion part. You have no shortage of opinions, so, provide is with some more, Eut. ^__^

I'm not sorry the insurgent was killed, and respect to the bloke for making the kill...

(Can you tell I'm about to say 'but'?)

...but how wise a thing was it to do? 1) Shooting into a hospital; 2) well beyond the recommended limits of your equipment 3) at an obscured target you could "shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."?! It's a fine act, but a ridiculous decision to make; it ended up fine for all parties, but it's not the sort of action you want replicated - who would the other 999,999 shots hit?

One hell of a shot, it was: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/01/wirq01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/01/ixnewstop.html)

Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier.

His quarry stood nonchalantly in the fourth-floor bay window of a hospital in battle-torn Ramadi, still clasping a long-barrelled Kalashnikov. Instinctively allowing for wind speed and bullet drop, Shadow's commander aimed 12 feet high.

A single shot hit the Iraqi in the chest and killed him instantly. It had been fired from a range of 1,250 metres, well beyond the capacity of the powerful Leupold sight, accurate to 1,000 metres.

"I believe it is the longest confirmed kill in Iraq with a 7.62mm rifle," said Staff Sgt Gilliland, 28, who hunted squirrels in Double Springs, Alabama from the age of five before progressing to deer - and then people.

"He was visible only from the waist up. It was a one in a million shot. I could probably shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."

Wow, this guy is good.

Canadian Press

A world-record shot by a Canadian sniper detachment could never have been made with the ammunition they were issued when they left Edmonton last winter, the triggerman said in a recent interview.

The Canadian .50-calibre rounds have a maximum range of between 2,200 and 2,300 metres. The U.S. rounds, they discovered, "fly farther, faster," said Cpl. "Bill", a 26-year-old native of Fogo Island, Nfld. The two-man Canadian team, coupled with American Sgt. Zevon Durham of Greenville, S.C., made the kill from 2,430 metres on the second shot. The first blew a bag from the hand of their target, an al-Qaida fighter walking on a road.

"He didn't even flinch," said Bill, who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition that his real name not be used.

"We made a correction and the next round hit exactly where we wanted it to. Well, a bit to the right."

The kill, one of more than 20 unofficially accredited to Canadian snipers during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan's Shah-i-Kot Valley, beat the 35-year-old record of 2,500 yards, or 2,250 metres, set by U.S. Marine Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock in Duc Pho, South Vietnam.

Saudi business man kills 3000 in one coherent strike half a world away!

Isn't glorifying killing fun, kids? *sigh* This is just sad. :(

Saudi business man kills 3000 in one coherent strike half a world away!

Isn't glorifying killing fun, kids? *sigh* This is just sad. :(
While I agree that it is sad, and the glorification of violance is gone too far, this person, was... uhm... <.< uhmm... never mind.

For which reason?

You provided the quote, now how about the actual opinion part. You have no shortage of opinions, so, provide is with some more, Eut. ^__^
I suppose I do have lots of "opinions," but one of my "opinions" is worth about ten of most others' so-called "facts!" So there! :p

I just thought it was interesting that this Sergeant was closing in on Hathcock's record. Deliberate, aimed fire has always been the most effective way of engaging the enemy. Unfortunately, it's not always possible.

Saudi business man kills 3000 in one coherent strike half a world away!

Isn't glorifying killing fun, kids? *sigh* This is just sad. :(
Of course it's sad. DUH!

But if you have to do something, it's much better to do your very best at it, especially when it's a matter of life or death. :p

15fan beat me to posting the world's record sniper shot is actually held by a Canadian.
That is a heck of a shot, but I want to bet there is a lot more to it than what the article said. Why take such a lng shot if there wasn't pressing need, for one, which the military does keep in mind.
Glorifying killing kids? Where do you get that? Or is that a slam at Osama bin Killin'?

good :sniper:

Elgesh']I'm not sorry the insurgent was killed, and respect to the bloke for making the kill...

(Can you tell I'm about to say 'but'?)

...but how wise a thing was it to do? 1) Shooting into a hospital;
How wise a thing was it for the insurgents to shoot OUT of the hospital?


2) well beyond the recommended limits of your equipment 3) at an obscured target you could "shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."?! It's a fine act, but a ridiculous decision to make; it ended up fine for all parties, but it's not the sort of action you want replicated - who would the other 999,999 shots hit?
His target was actively firing at his comrades and had already killed one. Even if it was a gamble, it was better than doing nothing.

Glorifying killing kids? Where do you get that? Or is that a slam at Osama bin Killin'?
In all fairness to Fass, he was referring to all of us posting in this thread, not to the targets. Read it again and note the comma just before "kids." :p

Saudi business man kills 3000 in one coherent strike half a world away!

Isn't glorifying killing fun, kids? *sigh* This is just sad. :(
You're such a sad case.

You're such a sad case.

Yes, flame me when you are the one glorifying killing. Yes, I'm certainly the sad case here.

How wise a thing was it for the insurgents to shoot OUT of the hospital?

His target was actively firing at his comrades and had already killed one. Even if it was a gamble, it was better than doing nothing.

The circumstances weren't mentioned in the original post, so thank you for filling in some of the details for me :)

I still say it was an unneccessary risk to take. By the terms of the posts, the terms you're giving me, the sniper was out of position and as you and he say, taking a huge gamble that A) he'd do something good B) he'd avoid doing something bad. It's not sensible or professional. I'm not gainsaying the results, but it was a dumb risk to take.

Canadian Press

A world-record shot by a Canadian sniper detachment could never have been made with the ammunition they were issued when they left Edmonton last winter, the triggerman said in a recent interview.

The Canadian .50-calibre rounds have a maximum range of between 2,200 and 2,300 metres. The U.S. rounds, they discovered, "fly farther, faster," said Cpl. "Bill", a 26-year-old native of Fogo Island, Nfld. The two-man Canadian team, coupled with American Sgt. Zevon Durham of Greenville, S.C., made the kill from 2,430 metres on the second shot. The first blew a bag from the hand of their target, an al-Qaida fighter walking on a road.

"He didn't even flinch," said Bill, who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition that his real name not be used.

"We made a correction and the next round hit exactly where we wanted it to. Well, a bit to the right."

The kill, one of more than 20 unofficially accredited to Canadian snipers during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan's Shah-i-Kot Valley, beat the 35-year-old record of 2,500 yards, or 2,250 metres, set by U.S. Marine Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock in Duc Pho, South Vietnam.

The difference here is that the Canadian was using a .50 caliber sniper rifle, which has a much longer effective range, and the round doesn't go subsonic for nearly double the distance of the 7.62 NATO round.

The M118 7.62 NATO round is rated to be effective out to 1200 meters (I remember shooting for qualification out to 1200 meters with the M-21 and M-24). At that distance, the round has already gone subsonic and gone through a potential destabilization that makes hitting at that distance EXTREMELY difficult. The fact that he hit the guy AND dropped him with the 7.62mm round is an amazing feat.

I've been able to hit an 8 x 8 ft target at 1900 yards with a 7.62 round, and I've hit the E silhouette at 1200 meters roughly 80 percent of the time with a 7.62 round. By comparison, shooting the 50 caliber round is easy - you just have to get the range correct, which, if you have a laser rangefinder is rather easy. Most snipers can get first round hits at a target the size of a common house window at 2500 meters with the 50.

One of the problems with the 50 is that the rifle is extremely heavy, the rounds are extremely heavy, and the proportion of targets that require that extreme range are rare - which is why the 7.62 round is far more common in sniper rifles.

Elgesh']
(Can you tell I'm about to say 'but'?)

...but how wise a thing was it to do? 1) Shooting into a hospital; 2) well beyond the recommended limits of your equipment 3) at an obscured target you could "shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."?! It's a fine act, but a ridiculous decision to make; it ended up fine for all parties, but it's not the sort of action you want replicated - who would the other 999,999 shots hit?

First off I would doubt he has ammo for 1,000,000 shots, but anyhow I think that the limits that the army affords it's guns is quite low, how would such a portion outdo them so much otherwise? Which means that yes officialy it was beyond the guns range but well within his personnal ability. And the bit about a hospital, I wonder who is saying the insurgents play by the Geneva Convention?

. It was a one in a million shot. I could probably shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again.


This says more about him than it does about sniping in general. There are confirmed kills in Vietnam (read: thirty fucking years ago) at that same range, with old-style scopes and good old-fashioned patience.

That the new crop is proud of what is, at best, mediocre sniping is indicative of their own mediocrity and doomed future in Iraq.

Elgesh']The circumstances weren't mentioned in the original post, so thank you for filling in some of the details for me :)
Yes they were.

Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier.


I still say it was an unneccessary risk to take. By the terms of the posts, the terms you're giving me, the sniper was out of position and as you and he say, taking a huge gamble that A) he'd do something good B) he'd avoid doing something bad. It's not sensible or professional. I'm not gainsaying the results, but it was a dumb risk to take.
It's a strange view. If there were civilians in the crossfire, that's another matter. But the article gives no indication of that, so just what were the risks? Wasting ammo? Denting the wall a few more times? How does that outweight a chance of saving his comrades from enemy fire?

Oh and if you have clicked on the link, you would know he was not out of position either.

Saudi business man kills 3000 in one coherent strike half a world away!

Isn't glorifying killing fun, kids? *sigh* This is just sad. :(
Seems to be more glorifying skilled marksmanship.

But if you want to get political: the victims of the 9/11 attacks were civilians, whereas the victim of this sniper was a combatant.

Elgesh']...but how wise a thing was it to do? 1) Shooting into a hospital;

Well the insurgent was shooting from a hospital window which is a violation of international law and therefor made it a legal target so it was a wise thing to do.

2) well beyond the recommended limits of your equipment

Proof of that please?

3) at an obscured target you could "shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."?!

Again proof please? A sniper hardly misses. If he did, he wouldn't be much of a sniper.

Yes, flame me when you are the one glorifying killing. Yes, I'm certainly the sad case here.
Yes you are, obviously.

I am not glorifying killing, I am giving credit to a soldier for a job well done- killing an enemy who had already killed one of his comrades. Under these circumstances, killing may be unfortunate, but it is necessery.

I don't believe I gave any reason to believe that I am in favor of all forms of killing- if I did, do remind me. In the meanwhile, you're being ridiculous, and your attempt to compare the incident described to the actions of Al-Qaeda is very telling.

Yes they were.

Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier.


It's a strange view. If there were civilians in the crossfire, that's another matter. But the article gives no indication of that, so just what were the risks? Wasting ammo? Denting the wall a few more times? How does that outweight a chance of saving his comrades from enemy fire?

Oh and if you have clicked on the link, you would know he was not out of position either.

Out of range, obscured view? What a great position to be shooting from, I stand corrected!

Risks - it's a hospital. If it said it was an abandoned hospital filled with insurgents, wth, shoot it as much as you want! Trusting to luck you hit the bloke you're aiming at when he's shooting from a hospital, a place usually containing civilians, is something of a risk, one might think...

Proof of that please?



Again proof please? A sniper hardly misses. If he did, he wouldn't be much of a sniper.

My proof is what was posted - apparently, the soldier's gun wasn't meant to be fired that far, and he himself said it was a million to one chance he hit the person he was aiming at under those conditions.

That the new crop is proud of what is, at best, mediocre sniping is indicative of their own mediocrity and doomed future in Iraq.
Unadulterated bullshit! I'm so incredibly proud of those young men and women I could burst! :p

Elgesh']Out of range, obscured view? What a great position to be shooting from, I stand corrected!

Apparently it wasn't out of range.

Risks - it's a hospital.

So we shouldn't be shooting into it regardless of the fact that we were getting shot at from it? Thank God your not in command. Go back and read up on International Law.

If it said it was an abandoned hospital filled with insurgents, wth, shoot it as much as you want! Trusting to luck you hit the bloke you're aiming at when he's shooting from a hospital, a place usually containing civilians, is something of a risk, one might think...

Once your enemy shoots at you from a hospitol, it makes it a target. Proper procedure is to fire back and that is what the sniper did. Kudos to the sniper for killing the SOB.

Yes you are, obviously.

Your flames do add nothing to your squalid arguments.

I am not glorifying killing, I am giving credit to a soldier for a job well done- killing an enemy who had already killed one of his comrades. Under these circumstances, killing may be unfortunate, but it is necessery.

This is not a job well done, as several people have pointed out, but a fluke.

I don't believe I gave any reason to believe that I am in favor of all forms of killing- if I did, do remind me. In the meanwhile, you're being ridiculous, and your attempt to compare the incident described to the actions of Al-Qaeda is very telling.

Yes, because a member of a foreign occupying force killing a member of the domestic resistance is a much more honourable feat, and we should weep less for him than for those in the towers, because their lives are indeed not equivalent.

It would be fun to see the reaction here if someone were to post a celebratory thread about the death of US soldiers at the hands of the resistance, and how many would be exclaiming what a good show that was, putting that bomb there and detonating in at the right time to kill as many occupiers as possible, compared to how many would be calling for bannination due to trolling, not to mention frothing at the mouth for glorification of the killings committed by the other side.

Wow, so now the US army is planting news in gaming sites... cool.

So we shouldn't be shooting into it regardless of the fact that we were getting shot at from it? Thank God your not in command. Go back and read up on International Law.

Once your enemy shoots at you from a hospitol, it makes it a target. Proper procedure is to fire back and that is what the sniper did. Kudos to the sniper for killing the SOB.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your main points - if the situation on the ground required firing into a hospital, you need to fire into a hospital. I'm disagreeing with the sniper's specific actions. Your enemy's firing from a position where return fire could hit innocent civilians, you take extra precautions in your shooting, not fewer!

No strawmanning required, I think :)

Elgesh']I'm not disagreeing with any of your main points - if the situation on the ground required firing into a hospital, you need to fire into a hospital. I'm disagreeing with the sniper's specific actions. Your enemy's firing from a position where return fire could hit innocent civilians, you take extra precautions in your shooting, not fewer!

No strawmanning required, I think :)

Sorry but if someone is shooting at me from a target that is supposed to be offlimits, I'll fire back into it. I'll have International Law on myside if anything is said so precautions be damned.

Yes, because a member of a foreign occupying force killing a member of the domestic resistance is a much more honourable feat, and we should weep less for him than for those in the towers, because their lives are indeed not equivalent.
Exactly. Excellent exposition, Fass! :D

Sorry but if someone is shooting at me from a target that is supposed to be offlimits, I'll fire back into it. I'll have International Law on myside if anything is said.

<sigh> I'm not saying the target is offlimits, I'm saying it was a stupid risk to take.

Exactly. Excellent exposition, Fass! :D

Your sarcasm detector is faux-broken, and I weep not for you.

Elgesh']<sigh> I'm not saying the target is offlimits, I'm saying it was a stupid risk to take.

Sorry but no it wasn't. First rule of warfare is to kill the guy before he kills you. In this case, a soldier died from the insurgent's weapon and his death was avenged by killing the insurgent. I would've done exactly the samething and I wouldn't call it a stupid risk.

Your flames do add nothing to your squalid arguments.
You have earned this flaming.


This is not a job well done, as several people have pointed out, but a fluke.
Not quite. Those claiming that it was a fluke haven't actually read the article... kind of like you haven't.


Yes, because a member of a foreign occupying force killing a member of the domestic resistance is a much more honourable feat, and we should weep less for him than for those in the towers, because their lives are indeed not equivalent.
Of course they aren't. Those in the towers weren't combatants. When you grab a rifle and go out shooting at other people, even if they are "members of a foreign occupying force", you lose your status of a protected person even under the Geneva conventions status.


It would be fun to see the reaction here if someone were to post a celebratory thread about the death of US soldiers at the hands of the resistance, and how many would be exclaiming what a good show that was, putting that bomb there and detonating in at the right time to kill as many occupiers as possible,
Some people here have been known to do just that.


compared to how many would be calling for bannination due to trolling,
"Bannitation" is not a word. Get a dictionary.

Come on people that guy killed a soldier, what was the sniper supposed to do? change position so the killer can escape or kill even more soldiers?
He did great...
I wonder when people will stop calling insurgents "domestic resistence". When 90% of Iraqis go voting will you still be calling those guys freedom fighters??
:rolleyes:

Sorry but no it wasn't. First rule of warfare is to kill the guy before he kills you. In this case, a soldier died from the insurgent's weapon and his death was avenged by killing the insurgent. I would've done exactly the samething and I wouldn't call it a stupid risk.

Well, there we differ. I call shooting out of the specified range, at an obscured target, into a hospital on a 'million-to-one chance' of hitting who you aimed at a stupid risk. The act of shooting into a hospital is itself a risk, but an acceptable one under the apparent circumstances. What's stupid is increasing the risk when you don't have to.

Elgesh']Well, there we differ. I call shooting out of the specified range, at an obscured target, into a hospital on a 'million-to-one chance' of hitting who you aimed at a stupid risk. The act of shooting into a hospital is itself a risk, but an acceptable one under the apparent circumstances. What's stupid is increasing the risk when you don't have to.

We'll agree to disagree because I call it an appropriate response.

We'll agree to disagree because I call it an appropriate response.
Fair dues :)

Elgesh']Well, there we differ. I call shooting out of the specified range, at an obscured target, into a hospital on a 'million-to-one chance' of hitting who you aimed at a stupid risk. The act of shooting into a hospital is itself a risk, but an acceptable one under the apparent circumstances. What's stupid is increasing the risk when you don't have to.

But the guy killed a soldier, possibly wanted to kill more... Would you risk the lives of your comrades so the hospital can have 1 less hole in it?

You have earned this flaming.

I beg to differ, as I have just mirrored you. If I deserve flaming, so do you, unless the hypocrisy is to continue further.

Not quite. Those claiming that it was a fluke haven't actually read the article... kind of like you haven't.

"I could probably shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again." Such a pesky admission, no?

Of course they aren't. Those in the towers weren't combatants. When you grab a rifle and go out shooting at other people, even if they are "members of a foreign occupying force", you lose your status of a protected person even under the Geneva conventions status.

I find their lives equivalent (even if the actions of a resistance are more honourable), and am upset at the glorification of the killings of either.

Some people here have been known to do just that.

And you mimic them, here.

"Bannitation" is not a word. Get a dictionary.

You mean like this one? (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bannination) "Slang." You may want to look that up. Oh, and that cut of yours is duly noted.

But the guy killed a soldier, possibly wanted to kill more... Would you risk the lives of your comrades so the hospital can have 1 less hole in it?

I'm not concerned with the fabric of the building, but the risk of hitting civilians, as you know full well.

Elgesh']I'm not concerned with the fabric of the building, but the risk of hitting civilians, as you know full well.

It was the insurgent that put the civilians at risk. Not the soldiers themselves.

Elgesh']I'm not concerned with the fabric of the building, but the risk of hitting civilians, as you know full well.

The chances of that are small but anyways I don't think we have enough info to discuss this... maybe the hospital was empty? Maybe the was nobody on the 4 floor except for that guy? we don't know...

Your sarcasm detector is faux-broken, and I weep not for you.
Kewl. Unfortunately, though, it's not my "sarcasm detector" that's broken. Sigh. :(

Kewl. Unfortunately, though, it's not my "sarcasm detector" that's broken. Sigh. :(

Aww, something amiss? You feeling all right? :(

It was the insurgent that put the civilians at risk. Not the soldiers themselves.

I know! Of course they did... god, I don't know why you think I'd disagree with _that_! I don't support wifebeating either, if you're about to imply that next!:D Of course it's the insurgents' fault that the situation arose, but equally the soldiers, our side, need to give an 'appropriate response', as you said. We differ on what we judge to be an appropriate response in this situation, that's all. Kill the insurgents while placing the civilians at a minimum amount of risk, that's the deal; that sniper's actions, judging from the report and his testimony, were more appropriate to a situation, where no civilians could possibly be at risk, a firefight without civilians in the way. Now, if the hospital _was_ abandoned, the problem goes away and we're cool!

Elgesh']I know! Of course they did... god, I don't know why you think I'd disagree with _that_! I don't support wifebeating either, if you're about to imply that next!:D

Nice Sarcasm.

Of course it's the insurgents' fault that the situation arose, but equally the soldiers, our side, need to give an 'appropriate response', as you said.

They did.

Nice Sarcasm.



They did.

Thank you - I thought sarcasm was an appropriate response to the assumptions about my view your post implied. And, as I've said, the general response was appropriate, that particular sniper's was not, for the reason mentioned above: 'million to one chance' of him hitting who he aimed at in a situation where there are civilians about. Equally, we've agreed to disagree on that point, so I guess there's no point going into it any further.

There is one VERY good lesson from this article.

Don't fuck with Marine STAs OOORAH!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, they kick ass. One sniper who just wrote a book has 75 confirmed kills from this war.

There is one VERY good lesson from this article.

Don't fuck with Marine STAs OOORAH!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, they kick ass. One sniper who just wrote a book has 75 confirmed kills from this war.

:D That's the right attitide! :) :sniper:

Yahoo for imperialism?:confused:

Before I make a judgement could somebody answer one question for me: was the sniper ammo capable of penetrating walls or does stuff like that only exist in movies?

Before I make a judgement could somebody answer one question for me: was the sniper ammo capable of penetrating walls or does stuff like that only exist in movies?
depends on what type of wall, and what type of ammo, what type of gun, and how far from the wall.

Elgesh']I'm not sorry the insurgent was killed, and respect to the bloke for making the kill...

(Can you tell I'm about to say 'but'?)

...but how wise a thing was it to do? 1) Shooting into a hospital; 2) well beyond the recommended limits of your equipment 3) at an obscured target you could "shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."?! It's a fine act, but a ridiculous decision to make; it ended up fine for all parties, but it's not the sort of action you want replicated - who would the other 999,999 shots hit?

He was at the hospital, looking out. 2.) If you saw someone threating you and the lives of your companions you would do the same. 3.) He had to try anyway, it was his duty.

Now if an insurgent sniper kills a prominent U.S. official in Iraq (maybe even inside the supposed safety of the Green Zone), the people who celebrated in this post forfeit their right to howl and bitch and call it a cold-blooded Islamic murder hate spree, etc. etc.

Now if an insurgent sniper kills a prominent U.S. official in Iraq (maybe even inside the supposed safety of the Green Zone), the people who celebrated in this post forfeit their right to howl and bitch and call it a cold-blooded Islamic murder hate spree, etc. etc.

Well put.

Somebody earlier pointed out that the target was an insurgent while those killed in New York were civillians, and while this is quite true, it should be remembered that the 20,000 or so Iraqis killed by the "coalition for killing" were also civillians, of a nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with that attack. Perhaps it would have been better had the skills of this soldier been employed on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, rather than securing American "imperial" interests in the Gulf.

Well put.

Somebody earlier pointed out that the target was an insurgent while those killed in New York were civillians, and while this is quite true, it should be remembered that the 20,000 or so Iraqis killed by the "coalition for killing" were also civillians, of a nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with that attack. Perhaps it would have been better had the skills of this soldier been employed on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, rather than securing American "imperial" interests in the Gulf.

What about the civilians that were killed by the Iraqis themselve? Not to mention the terrorists.

Yeah between Afghanistan and Iraq there have been some amazing kills. This is one of them. There was the Canadian soldier who shot over 2,500m IIRC and beat Carlos Hathcock for the longest kill ever, using a .50BMG. Then there was the awesome double-split kill from 1400m with an XM107 where it split the target in half at the waist.

Wow...I'm glad I don't live in Iraq

That is one hell of a shot! kudos to this dude!!

What about the civilians that were killed by the Iraqis themselve? Not to mention the terrorists.

Neither Terrorist nor Iraqi leader appear in the headlines on a regular basis portrayed as the face of decency and reason. I don't think theres any doubt that Osama is portrayed much as he is - a fanatic. However there is far too soft an approach towards the Bush/Blair duo, in that they proposed a war on a false prospectus for Americas gain, killed a large number of innocent people, and will undoubtedly never be brought to account for it. When one resorts to violence, there should be a reason for it other than personal gain. The age of empries should be let die.

yeah i guess its pretty cool to be able to kill people :)

U.S.A. ! U.S.A. !

Yeah between Afghanistan and Iraq there have been some amazing kills. This is one of them. There was the Canadian soldier who shot over 2,500m IIRC and beat Carlos Hathcock for the longest kill ever, using a .50BMG. Then there was the awesome double-split kill from 1400m with an XM107 where it split the target in half at the waist.
I know we have a sniper rifle, the Barret 82, that is extremely powerful and designed for destroying artillery or trucks. I'd love to see what that would do to these bastard terrorists in Iraq.

Neither Terrorist nor Iraqi leader appear in the headlines on a regular basis portrayed as the face of decency and reason. I don't think theres any doubt that Osama is portrayed much as he is - a fanatic. However there is far too soft an approach towards the Bush/Blair duo, in that they proposed a war on a false prospectus for Americas gain, killed a large number of innocent people, and will undoubtedly never be brought to account for it. When one resorts to violence, there should be a reason for it other than personal gain. The age of empries should be let die.

We are not forming an empire and you never answered my question. The terrorists have killed far more people than the coalition did and yet your trying to say that we are doing most of the killing. The only people we are primarily killing are the terrorists/insurgents.

Wow...I'm glad I don't live in IraqSo am I. I don't speak a word of Arabic, can't stand hot weather and the daily commute to the UK would be a bit tiring...


(This flippancy is aimed at diffusing the tension. If it doesn't work, please just ignore me.)

I'm afraid you are wrong about the "terrorists" killing more Iraqis than America etc. The vast majority were killed via aerial bombardment and I don't recall any reports of suicide bombers and hang gliders during the invasion, or during the initial stages of the occupation.

Yes, the "terrorists" are wrong to target fellow Iraqis on the basis of religon, which some most certainly seem to do. However, as with the outline I gave earlier with blair/Bush, I have not seen Western Media portray the foreign Jihadis as anything other than religous fanatics. The same doesnt seem to apply to the almost "free fire zone" tactics adopted by the US military, in what must again be stressed is an unnesscary and pointless war.

I find their lives equivalent (even if the actions of a resistance are more honourable), and am upset at the glorification of the killings of either.

I'm not going to touch the glorification question, but I find it troubling that the killing of civilians can be made equivalent to deaths of soldiers in a war zone. A civilian had no intention of participating in a battle or committing themselves to fighting and trying to kill someone else. Soldiers have made a commitment to fight for their side, and thus are willing to kill, making every time a soldier kills another soldier (while the soldier killed is still capable of fighting and/or armed) essentially self-defense. Slaughtering innocent civilians is certainly not.

Therefore, it is morally acceptable to snipe an insurgent whereas it is morally unacceptable to crash a plane full of civilians into the Twin Towers to kill more civilians. Were the plane unnocuppied and the target military, it would be a different story. But that wasn't the case.

Now if an insurgent sniper kills a prominent U.S. official in Iraq (maybe even inside the supposed safety of the Green Zone), the people who celebrated in this post forfeit their right to howl and bitch and call it a cold-blooded Islamic murder hate spree, etc. etc.
Gauthier, you have a definite talent for overstating the obvious.

I'm afraid you are wrong about the "terrorists" killing more Iraqis than America etc. The vast majority were killed via aerial bombardment and I don't recall any reports of suicide bombers and hang gliders during the invasion, or during the initial stages of the occupation.

ACtually, more of them have died after the invasion was accomplished and the insurgency started. More innocent Iraqis have died view IEDs and homicide bombings than by US Troops.

Now if an insurgent sniper kills a prominent U.S. official in Iraq (maybe even inside the supposed safety of the Green Zone), the people who celebrated in this post forfeit their right to howl and bitch and call it a cold-blooded Islamic murder hate spree, etc. etc.
Heck i was equally impressed by the Iraqi Sniper/Stalker who and possibly still is bagging US Forces.

Bravo to both of them for being good at their jobs.

The terrorists have killed far more people than the coalition did and yet your trying to say that we are doing most of the killing.

Take it up with Iraq Body Count:

Who did the killing?

* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

Take it up with Iraq Body Count:

Who did the killing?

* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

I'm sorry but I do not trust them.

American snipers still have nothing on Mr. Simo Häyhä. :sniper:

Take it up with Iraq Body Count:

Who did the killing?

* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
That doesn't add up...where did the rest of the civilian deaths come from?

I'm sorry but I do not trust them.

Well the Chimp in Chief let slip the figure of 30,000, which is a figure that I find realistic. In fact, I was suprised as it tallied with what many had estimated, given the nature of bodycounts methodology makes them somewhat conservative.

Why don't you trust them? not enough "mom" and "apple pie"?

One hell of a shot, it was: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/01/wirq01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/01/ixnewstop.html)

[i]Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier...

Interesting that nobody has seen fit to post the paragraph which comes later in that article:

Col John Gronski, the overall United States commander in Ramadi, said there could not be a military solution. "You could spend years putting snipers out and killing IED emplacers and at the political level it would make no difference."

Before I make a judgement could somebody answer one question for me: was the sniper ammo capable of penetrating walls or does stuff like that only exist in movies?
No, or at least most likely not, 7.62 Nato ammo doesn't have that great of penetration, especially not at approximately 3/4 of a mile; if the sniper had been using a .50 then that would be another story

I'm sorry but I do not trust them.

Personally I don't trust the Coalition: they have been in charge of Iraq, and yet they haven't considered it worthwhile to actually attempt to keep a record of the civilian casualties.

Take it up with Iraq Body Count:

Who did the killing?

* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
Oh don't worry. Others have dealt with it already: (http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm)

The most comprehensive study of civilian casualties is available from a group opposed to the Coalition intervention in Iraq called Iraq Body Count. This summer, the Iraq Body Count project published an analysis of casualties in the Iraq War that must be admired for its meticulous documentation.

This study reports 24,865 civilian deaths in the first two years of the Iraq War, an apparent ringing endorsement of the "Iraq in chaos" position. But a curious statistical anomaly jumps right off page one: over 81% of the civilian casualties are men. Even stranger, over 90% of civilian casualties are adults in a country with a disproportionate percentage of the population under 18 (44.5%). This contradicts a basic tenet of the civilian casualty argument, namely that we are describing collateral damage during a time of war. Collateral damage does not differentiate between male and female, between child and adult. A defective smart bomb falling in a marketplace, stray bullets ripping through bedroom walls, city warfare in Fallujah – all these activities should produce casualties that reflect the ratio of men to women or adults to children that prevail in Iraq as a whole.

This question is particularly relevant when one side in the conflict does not wear uniforms, is predominantly adult and of one gender, and engages in a practice of concealing its combatants within the civilian population. The statistics are further distorted if the Iraqi security forces – essentially the free Iraqi military on the side of the U.S. coalition – are classified as civilians, as they are in this study.

Read the whole thing, it is interesting in the extreme.

Read the whole thing, it is interesting in the extreme.


"For those who claim the United States is indirectly responsible for the several hundred deaths a month caused by insurgents and criminals, they would do well to note two facts: 1) just over 32% of the fatalities in the chronological table represent civilians, and 2) that this figure is a 93% decline from the monthly average piled up by Saddam Hussein over 24 years "

That period of 24 years for half of which he was being supported by the US?

I know we have a sniper rifle, the Barret 82, that is extremely powerful and designed for destroying artillery or trucks. I'd love to see what that would do to these bastard terrorists in Iraq.
Actually it is not designed for "destroying artillery or trucks." It was designed as a hunting rifle, the U.S. Army however feels it's only military use is as a anti-vehicle weapon.

Well the Chimp in Chief let slip the figure of 30,000, which is a figure that I find realistic. In fact, I was suprised as it tallied with what many had estimated, given the nature of bodycounts methodology makes them somewhat conservative.

Even Iran put it at that number too.

Why don't you trust them? not enough "mom" and "apple pie"?

I don't know how they define an insurgent or a terrorist. They don't wear uniforms so I guess you can count them as a civilian?

Personally I don't trust the Coalition: they have been in charge of Iraq, and yet they haven't considered it worthwhile to actually attempt to keep a record of the civilian casualties.

Well I don't trust this statement at all.

Elgesh']I'm not sorry the insurgent was killed, and respect to the bloke for making the kill...

(Can you tell I'm about to say 'but'?)

...but how wise a thing was it to do? 1) Shooting into a hospital; 2) well beyond the recommended limits of your equipment 3) at an obscured target you could "shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."?! It's a fine act, but a ridiculous decision to make; it ended up fine for all parties, but it's not the sort of action you want replicated - who would the other 999,999 shots hit?

This guy was just being modest...and the point is that there was only 1 shot; not 999,999. And even if there were 999,999, not all of them would hit people. Theres a calculated risk, and this guy thought the kill was worth the risk.

Well I don't trust this statement at all.

I would be delighted to actually see an official tally.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3672298.stm

No, or at least most likely not, 7.62 Nato ammo doesn't have that great of penetration, especially not at approximately 3/4 of a mile; if the sniper had been using a .50 then that would be another story

In that case I think the sniper was right to shoot as he couldn't really hurt the people in the hospital if he missed.

The point with Snipers is that they don't shoot to defend themselves. They are usually in a position where there is no immediate risk to them - they are the aggressors, so to speak.

Nonetheless, sniping people can go both ways.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html

Nonetheless, sniping people can go both ways.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html

Except one may be defending his country, or at least trying to even the score somewhat, while the other went there for a number of reasons now known to be entirely without foundation.

The point with Snipers is that they don't shoot to defend themselves. They are usually in a position where there is no immediate risk to them - they are the aggressors, so to speak.

Nonetheless, sniping people can go both ways.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html

Well duh

you want to kill the enemy when they cannot see or fire at you.

lucky bastard. I wish I could shoot like that.


Nonetheless, sniping people can go both ways.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html
I think I read an article about that bloke in the independant... it was definetly about an Insurgent, he was talking about how he killed a US soldier who was pissing in public from the top of his APC, or something...

Gauthier, you have a definite talent for overstating the obvious.

Even with overstatement, anyone who worships Bush as their Messiah have a definite talent for overlooking the obvious. You were part of the celebration here, and prove me wrong that you'll howl and bitch if an insurgent sniper picks off a lot of U.S. targets, especially a major one in the Gulf.

15fan beat me to posting the world's record sniper shot is actually held by a Canadian.
That is a heck of a shot, but I want to bet there is a lot more to it than what the article said. Why take such a lng shot if there wasn't pressing need, for one, which the military does keep in mind.
Glorifying killing kids? Where do you get that? Or is that a slam at Osama bin Killin'?

did u hear what happened to the sniper. apparently he was forced to have a desk job because he refused to believe it when a priest said he had done the wrong thing. see the problem here is if the target is there u take the shot because you dont know if hes carrying the ammunition with your name on it, who says the next building you turn around he wont be up the road with u in his sights (mind u thats if they can aim) lol

Canadian Press

A world-record shot by a Canadian sniper detachment could never have been made with the ammunition they were issued when they left Edmonton last winter, the triggerman said in a recent interview.

The Canadian .50-calibre rounds have a maximum range of between 2,200 and 2,300 metres. The U.S. rounds, they discovered, "fly farther, faster," said Cpl. "Bill", a 26-year-old native of Fogo Island, Nfld. The two-man Canadian team, coupled with American Sgt. Zevon Durham of Greenville, S.C., made the kill from 2,430 metres on the second shot. The first blew a bag from the hand of their target, an al-Qaida fighter walking on a road.

"He didn't even flinch," said Bill, who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition that his real name not be used.

"We made a correction and the next round hit exactly where we wanted it to. Well, a bit to the right."

The kill, one of more than 20 unofficially accredited to Canadian snipers during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan's Shah-i-Kot Valley, beat the 35-year-old record of 2,500 yards, or 2,250 metres, set by U.S. Marine Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock in Duc Pho, South Vietnam.
.50 cal rounds have a longer range than .308 and are much more likely to eliminate their target, especially with military FMJ.

Elgesh']<sigh> I'm not saying the target is offlimits, I'm saying it was a stupid risk to take.
Why? It's highly unlikely at that range that a .308 round would penetrate the walls of the hospital. Since the meatsack was the only thing in the window, he didn't exactly have that much worry of hitting anyone else inside the hospital.

"The world distance record for a confirmed kill is 2310 meters, scored by a Canadian sniper during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. The kill was made with a MacMillan 50-cal, using AMAX ammo and a Leupold 16t scope."

http://www.snipersparadise.com

This excert from "World's Most Dangerous Places" 5th edition (also known as the bible for spooks and journos of the world).

Other kills have been made by Canadian snipers at at ranges of 2500 meters in Afghanistan but none official. It's the reason why a special citation was given to Canadian snipers for their work in Afghanistan. Americans were making their kills at one km and the Canadians at 2 km. The Taliban would often be able to spot the US sniper and get out of harm, but the first sign of the Canadian snipers was dead people. That really scared them. Having met a few Canadian snipers and watched some out of this world shooting, chamo, and stalking, I don't think they have an equal in the West. They'd give the Spetzas snipers a run for their money any day.

The Bruce

Why? It's highly unlikely at that range that a .308 round would penetrate the walls of the hospital. Since the meatsack was the only thing in the window, he didn't exactly have that much worry of hitting anyone else inside the hospital.
Exactly the point a number of us have been trying to make

Elgesh']Out of range, obscured view? What a great position to be shooting from, I stand corrected!

Risks - it's a hospital. If it said it was an abandoned hospital filled with insurgents, wth, shoot it as much as you want! Trusting to luck you hit the bloke you're aiming at when he's shooting from a hospital, a place usually containing civilians, is something of a risk, one might think...

You obviously don't know much about snipers. The miss rate is incredibly low. If you're going to take the risk of shooting at a hospital (which is legal if anyone at all is shooting from the hospital), would you rather they used snipers to pick off insurgents, or would you want them to use the perfectly LEGAL method of calling in an airstrike and levelling the building, patients and insurgents alike, with several 2000-lb bombs?

When you shoot, you don't shoot to the published limits of the rifle - you shoot to your personal limits with that rifle. If you can't shoot as far as the published limits, you're going to have a shorter range - and if you can shoot further than the published limits, you're going to have a longer range.

As records go, the Canadians do indeed hold the longest shot - but as I pointed out, the rifle they use has a much longer range cartridge. While useful in mountainous terrain, it's not as useful in an urban environment, as the range is only infrequently great enough to require such a large cartridge.

Compromises such as the Cheytac and the 338 Lapua have been made, to allow for a rifle that can still be carried handily and still have greater range than the 7.62x51mm M118 cartridge.

Simo Hayha holds the record for the most kills as a sniper, and you can add over 200 to that tally for men he killed with a submachinegun.

The US record used to be Hathcock, but recently, Mawhinney of the USMC has taken that record (also a Vietnam vet, came out on top due to a recount).

Tallies from current US snipers are not made public. I suppose that years from now, we'll all hear how many.

But for anyone who thinks that sniping is not a useful tool, consider the alternatives when dealing, for instance, with insurgents firing from a hospital. Any other option involves either losing hundreds of men in a single day or losing all the patients in the hospital (suicidal frontal assault on the building or bombing or shelling the building).

It also has a profound psychological effect. People get the hint when several people in their group suddenly have their heads explode with a minimum of incoming fire. Men who would have braved the zing of near misses will drop their weapons and run in all directions when they feel that a sniper has them.

Yes, there's been an enemy or two that has sniped at US forces. The problem, however, is that there are far more US snipers, with far higher quality equipment.

I've shot the Dragunov for weapon familiarization before - it has a crap scope, the whole thing rattles and is not solid, and the cartridges have great variation in quality and muzzle velocity - making any long range hit a real roll of the dice.

I have my own civilian version of the M-24 (built up from parts - the only difference is that I don't have an Atkinson barrel - it's a Hart), and I can regularly put a round into the open end of a teacup at 300 yards with no warmup. The Dragunov had trouble putting a round onto a 12 inch disk at that distance.

One other consideration for shots over 1000 meters - it takes about a second for the bullet to get there. In the time between the firing of the cartridge and the impact of the bullet, the target, which may have originally been stationary, may sit down, move, or otherwise "not be there" when the bullet gets there. The true mark of the skilled sniper is knowing, by watching the man, what he'll be doing in the next few seconds - bending down to pick up ammunition, or leaning back into concealment - or staying put.

Aside from mistakes in estimating range (the primary cause of misses past 400 yards - and mistakes in reading wind are rare), the primary cause of misses is this "movement uncertainty" - the target moving AFTER the bullet takes off.

Personally I don't trust the Coalition: they have been in charge of Iraq, and yet they haven't considered it worthwhile to actually attempt to keep a record of the civilian casualties.

Well I don't trust this statement at all.

I would be delighted to actually see an official tally.

Anybody managed to uncover one yet?

Anybody managed to uncover one yet?

Something you may want to consider in the future (I know it's not the tally you're looking for).

When ordinary soldiers from any army fire at a target, they expend tens of thousands of rounds in order to hit a single target (the US reached a high of 77,000 rounds per Viet Cong killed during Vietnam - we're lower today, but still in the tens of thousands, along with every other Army in the world).

US snipers, from WW I to the present, expend a little over 1 round on the average - per enemy killed.

When you need precision fire at insurgents who are in a hospital or mosque, and you don't want to destroy the building and you don't want to sacrifice your own men and you want to minimize the risk of killing innocent people, you call for a sniper.

Something you may want to consider in the future (I know it's not the tally you're looking for).

US snipers, from WW I to the present, expend a little over 1 round on the average - per enemy killed.

When you need precision fire at insurgents who are in a hospital or mosque, and you don't want to destroy the building and you don't want to sacrifice your own men and you want to minimize the risk of killing innocent people, you call for a sniper.

Quite possibly true, but I fail to see the relevance (other than to show that the Coalition are not clustering bombing hospitals at present).

What about the civilians that were killed by the Iraqis themselve? Not to mention the terrorists.

Still doesn't give US forces a "get out of jail free card"

Don't you people ever get tired of the "they did it, so we can't be all that bad for doing it too" argument?

Still doesn't give US forces a "get out of jail free card"
Yes it does, they're just doing their job.

Don't you people ever get tired of the "they did it, so we can't be all that bad for doing it too" argument?
"You people?"

Yes it does, they're just doing their job.
And if they make a mistake, they need to be held accountable.
Just because they happen to be US Soldiers does not excuse anything - I may be a certified operator of a motor vehicle, but if I run someone over, I am responsible, and treated accordingly.

"You people?"
Bushevists and people who ignore violations of human rights, rules of war and so on just because the perpetrators happen to have the stars and stripes on their sleeves.

I'd like to add though that I agree with DK here - shooting someone with a sniper might not be ideal, but it's better than bombing a place, or storming it with a bunch of half-witted grunts (or full-witted, depending on what you can find...:p )

Yes it does, they're just doing their job.

How is that any different from resistance groups and the use of IEDs then if US forces happen to be the target and civilians just "collateral damage"? They are also just doing their job. It just happens to be that they don't get bankrolled by US paymasters.

Take for example several cases of aerial bombardment and/or artillery use during the early days of the US invasion. Are you telling me that none of those ever produced civilian casualties? Is that excusable? Because if it is, then it is doubly so when US forces are targetted and produce civilian casualties.


"You people?"

Stick around long enough, and you'll see the kinds of people I'm talking about.

How is that any different from resistance groups and the use of IEDs then if US forces happen to be the target and civilians just "collateral damage"? They are also just doing their job. It just happens to be that they don't get bankrolled by US paymasters.
I agree
Take for example several cases of aerial bombardment and/or artillery use during the early days of the US invasion. Are you telling me that none of those ever produced civilian casualties? Is that excusable?
Yes it is, it's unfortunate, but the simple fact is that people die in combat.
Because if it is, then it is doubly so when US forces are targetted and produce civilian casualties.
Afraid I can't agree with you there, I will (and already have) agree that it is excuseable (sp?) but not that it is "doubly so"
Stick around long enough, and you'll see the kinds of people I'm talking about.
I know what kind of people you're talking about, I just don't appreciate being lumped together with them.


Yes it does, they're just doing their job.
And if they make a mistake, they need to be held accountable.
Just because they happen to be US Soldiers does not excuse anything - I may be a certified operator of a motor vehicle, but if I run someone over, I am responsible, and treated accordingly.
Different set of rules there, and not because they are "US soldiers", but because they are soldiers in a war zone, this applies to the insurgents too

"You people?"
Bushevists and people who ignore violations of human rights, rules of war and so on just because the perpetrators happen to have the stars and stripes on their sleeves.
I'd like to add though that I agree with DK here - shooting someone with a sniper might not be ideal, but it's better than bombing a place, or storming it with a bunch of half-witted grunts (or full-witted, depending on what you can find... )
Warfare has no rules, the Geneva convention is a sad attempt to civilize something which by the very nature of it is uncivilized. The Geneva convention should be followed only until you're enemy proves themselves to not be following it, to do otherwise is just stupid.

The Geneva convention should be followed only until you're enemy proves themselves to not be following it, to do otherwise is just stupid.
Well, you've just given anyone and anything in the world the okay to ignore the Geneva Convention when fighting the US. AQ, Iran, China, anyone.

Quite possibly true, but I fail to see the relevance (other than to show that the Coalition are not clustering bombing hospitals at present).
Totally specious, and an unwarranted inference. When, pray tell, did the US ever use cluster bombs on a hospital? Do you even know what cluster bombs are, or what their purpose is?

Well, you've just given anyone and anything in the world the okay to ignore the Geneva Convention when fighting the US. AQ, Iran, China, anyone.
And your point is?

did u hear what happened to the sniper. apparently he was forced to have a desk job because he refused to believe it when a priest said he had done the wrong thing.

Proof Please?

see the problem here is if the target is there u take the shot because you dont know if hes carrying the ammunition with your name on it, who says the next building you turn around he wont be up the road with u in his sights (mind u thats if they can aim) lol

Amen.

I thought this portion of the article was even more interesting:

"The insurgent was one of between 55 and 65 he estimates that he has shot dead in less than five months, putting him within striking distance of sniper legends such as Carlos Hathcock, who recorded 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam. One of his men, Specialist Aaron Arnold, 22, of Medway, Ohio, has chalked up a similar tally."

Mr Arnold lives very close to my grandparents. Maybe I should get a case of beer and drop it by his place when he returns.

Mr Arnold lives very close to my grandparents. Maybe I should get a case of beer and drop it by his place when he returns.
LOL! I'm sure he would appreciate that. :D

Totally specious, and an unwarranted inference. When, pray tell, did the US ever use cluster bombs on a hospital? Do you even know what cluster bombs are, or what their purpose is?

What's with this blurring between the Coalition and the US here?

My whole post was intended to show that the Coalition forces were operating on the ground with some measure of use of the appropriate kind of responses: thus the spurious scenario.

If I had written 'other than to show that the Coalition are not using nuclear bombs to swat flies at present' would I have provoked the same response?

However, for me, the fact that the Coalition do not seem to have been attempting to track civilian casualties in Iraq leads me to question just how rigorously they are attempting to apply such minimum appropriate measures. It calls into question how much weight is given to Coalition casualties, to civilian casualties and to insurgent casualties.

I'd like to add though that I agree with DK here - shooting someone with a sniper might not be ideal, but it's better than bombing a place, or storming it with a bunch of half-witted grunts (or full-witted, depending on what you can find...:p )

It's perfectly legal to shoot at a hospital or mosque if you are receiving fire from the building in question.

You are expected to moderate your response without losing men. This usually means that you won't be bombing the building into rubble, although if that's all that you have at hand, that's what you'll do - and it's perfectly legal.

Same for ambulances, if they are being used to ferry combat troops who are not wounded (i.e., you see it's full of armed men), or if they are firing from the vehicle.

Usually, an officer on the spot makes the call. Which is why in this case, they seem to have called for a sniper.

thats why I say "hey man nice shot".

thats why I say "hey man nice shot".
And then it's Miller Time...

Yes it is, it's unfortunate, but the simple fact is that people die in combat.

Hence why the use of IEDs when producing civilian casualties as a side effect deserves no more condemnation than say, a plane dropping a 500kg bomb on a village for one target. Or the firing of a missile at a suspect car in the middle of a crowded marketplace. Different tools, same goals, same results.


I know what kind of people you're talking about, I just don't appreciate being lumped together with them.

I was referring to Corny and his ilk.


Warfare has no rules, the Geneva convention is a sad attempt to civilize something which by the very nature of it is uncivilized. The Geneva convention should be followed only until you're enemy proves themselves to not be following it, to do otherwise is just stupid.

Which means that the Geneva Convention is completely worthless now so far as the majority of militarily active nations are concerned.

Which means that the Geneva Convention is completely worthless now so far as the majority of militarily active nations are concerned.

No, it holds value only among signatories, as is expressed in the Conventions themselves.

It's an old document, which hasn't been updated to handle modern conflict.

And firing at a hospital is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions, if so much as a single person within the building shoots at you. The violator is the person who fired from the building. Once that happens, while the response should be moderate (a sniper is more moderate than an airstrike), you are allowed to shoot at the building after that point.

No, it holds value only among signatories, as is expressed in the Conventions themselves.

It's an old document, which hasn't been updated to handle modern conflict.

And firing at a hospital is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions, if so much as a single person within the building shoots at you. The violator is the person who fired from the building. Once that happens, while the response should be moderate (a sniper is more moderate than an airstrike), you are allowed to shoot at the building after that point.

When they update it, it will require US forces to send an FTD Bouquet-a pretty little "why cant we be friends?" mug full of carnations and baby's breath.

GET SOME! Sucky day to be a hadji (But hey, since when is it a good day to be a Hadji?)!


So much for US forces being incompetent and lacking leadership :rolleyes: .

If you are impressed enough, go and donate to www.americansnipers.org. Snipers require much different equipment and gear than normal combat infantrymen for their rifles and themselves.

US sniper in Iraq wearing an ASO t-shirt.

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/6010/1224293818wa.jpg

It's perfectly legal to shoot at a hospital or mosque if you are receiving fire from the building in question.

You are expected to moderate your response without losing men. This usually means that you won't be bombing the building into rubble, although if that's all that you have at hand, that's what you'll do - and it's perfectly legal.

Same for ambulances, if they are being used to ferry combat troops who are not wounded (i.e., you see it's full of armed men), or if they are firing from the vehicle.

Usually, an officer on the spot makes the call. Which is why in this case, they seem to have called for a sniper.

You could even cluster-bomb a hospital or mosque if you are receiving fire from it. Holy site my ass!

:D

You could even cluster-bomb a hospital or mosque if you are receiving fire from it. Holy site my ass!

:D

Yes, if that's all you have. The officer will be expected to come up with a plan that uses the appropriate amount of force while preserving his troops.

Of course, all of that is ass-covering doublespeak for "kill the insurgents and take the building".

No, it holds value only among signatories, as is expressed in the Conventions themselves.

And a fair number of those signatories aren't exactly doing a good job of following that document old or not.

And a fair number of those signatories aren't exactly doing a good job of following that document old or not.

Read the document.

You are only required to observe the Conventions if your opponents are High Contracting Parties, or are affiliated with the armed forces of a High Contracting Party, or your opponents have made a public demonstration of their willingness to abide by the conventions.

This means that members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not protected by Geneva. Period. So even if we took them out and flayed them alive, we would not be violating the Geneva Conventions.

Iraqi prisoners, on the other hand, should be subject to the protection of the Conventions, as long as they are not foreign fighters. The lives of the foreign fighters, by the Conventions, are unprotected, and therefore forfeit.

Iraqi prisoners should be taken care of according to the Conventions - but at this time, Iraq is running the prisons and considers this an internal affair.

If we count the number of violations of the Conventions at places like Abu Ghraib, and compare them to the number of violations during WW II by any and ALL of the High Contracting Parties, I'd say we're doing quite well.

One hell of a shot, it was: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/01/wirq01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/01/ixnewstop.html)

Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier.

His quarry stood nonchalantly in the fourth-floor bay window of a hospital in battle-torn Ramadi, still clasping a long-barrelled Kalashnikov. Instinctively allowing for wind speed and bullet drop, Shadow's commander aimed 12 feet high.

A single shot hit the Iraqi in the chest and killed him instantly. It had been fired from a range of 1,250 metres, well beyond the capacity of the powerful Leupold sight, accurate to 1,000 metres.

"I believe it is the longest confirmed kill in Iraq with a 7.62mm rifle," said Staff Sgt Gilliland, 28, who hunted squirrels in Double Springs, Alabama from the age of five before progressing to deer - and then people.

"He was visible only from the waist up. It was a one in a million shot. I could probably shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."

Wow, this guy is good.
One shot, one dead bad guy. Go see Allah in Hell.

One shot, one dead bad guy. Go see Allah in Hell.
I'm glad you have an eye for all the different nuances in this conflict...

I'm glad you have an eye for all the different nuances in this conflict...
There are no "nuances." I thought we were done with "nuances" once Jean Francois Kerry admitted defeat in Nov 2004. There are two simple sides to this situation...one side plays by the internationally accepted rules of war...the other hides its fighters in a cowardly fashion among those its trying to kill, and uses hospitals and shrines as fighting positions. For all I care, that "insurgent"...no, let's use the correct term...that TERRORIST who took a bullet from 3/4 of a mile away can go to Hell and try to collect his 72 virgins.

I thought we were done with "nuances" once Jean Francois Kerry admitted defeat in Nov 2004.
http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Priceless. That goes straight into my sig.

Thanks mate.

http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Priceless. That goes straight into my sig.

Thanks mate.
Don't mention it.

You could even cluster-bomb a hospital or mosque if you are receiving fire from it. Holy site my ass!

:D
Cluster bombing the building is not a smart idea. If you use CBUs on a multi-storied building, only the upper levels would be damaged heavily by the bomblets. a Mk-84 or JDAM 2,000 lb bomb will just level the damn place. That is what I'd drop.

ONE SHOT, ONE KILL

I was referring to Corny and his ilk.

Oh for pete's sake. NAS, this is a flame. I want to know what your refering to! Was it the fact that we applaud the sniper for taking this shot and killing the bastard? Or for the fact that we are applauding the death of an insurgent who was firing from a hospital?

Which means that the Geneva Convention is completely worthless now so far as the majority of militarily active nations are concerned.

If your refering to this incident, it was perfectly legal for the sniper to fire into the hospital. Why? Because an insurgent fired from a hospital window making the hospital a target.

...one side plays by the internationally accepted rules of war....

Well....no. The war was initiated "outside the UN charter" which means outside the rule of law. Plus theres the holding undeclared prisoners business, the "renditions" and those 30,000 or so Iraqi civillians didnt die of the Flu....

Elgesh']Out of range, obscured view? What a great position to be shooting from, I stand corrected!

Risks - it's a hospital. If it said it was an abandoned hospital filled with insurgents, wth, shoot it as much as you want! Trusting to luck you hit the bloke you're aiming at when he's shooting from a hospital, a place usually containing civilians, is something of a risk, one might think...



who cares, they are just iraqi's. J/K.

But seriously though, if he had already engaged American targets, would you rather that they

A. Let him go
B. Engaged him with one of their own Heavy Weapons (Depending on what sort of Unit they It could be a 40mm Grenade Machinegun, M2 .50 Cal Heavy Machine Gun. 25mm Bushmaster Cannon. 120mm Smoothbore Cannon. TOW Missile, Javelin Missile[not sure that really has the range for that] 81mm Mortar, 120mm Mortar or other big stuff that makes REALLY big holes in stuff
C. Let a Sniper that was nearby take a chance so they don't fuck up the rest of the Hospital.
D. Called in Air Support

And if they make a mistake, they need to be held accountable.
Just because they happen to be US Soldiers does not excuse anything - I may be a certified operator of a motor vehicle, but if I run someone over, I am responsible, and treated accordingly.


Bushevists and people who ignore violations of human rights, rules of war and so on just because the perpetrators happen to have the stars and stripes on their sleeves.

I'd like to add though that I agree with DK here - shooting someone with a sniper might not be ideal, but it's better than bombing a place, or storming it with a bunch of half-witted grunts (or full-witted, depending on what you can find...:p )





....Half witted Grunts.


Be Careful who you say that around...

Well....no. The war was initiated "outside the UN charter" which means outside the rule of law.

Outside the rule of law my ass. Also, it was not initiated outside the UN Charter either. The War in Iraq is as legal as my parents marriage. Its not our fault that the UN was so corrupt it wouldn't budge. Not our fault that Russia and France violated UN Resolutions and supplied Iraq with illegal material. Not our Fault that Hussein violated UN Resolutions as well as the Cease-Fire.

Under International Law, once a Cease-Fire is violated, war picks up where it left off. Therefor, the war in Iraq is legal.

....Half witted Grunts.

Be Careful who you say that around...

Indeed, they might kill half of Canada, invade Brazil and launch sanctions against Argentina in their search for this cheeky Swede....


Also, it was not initiated outside the UN Charter either....

According to the UN it was.

According to cabinet level leaked British documents

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult."
Full text of July 2002 memo originally published in the Times here (http://memoryhole.freedomunderground.org/downing/rycroft020723.html)

Doesnt sound like your "Under International Law, once a Cease-Fire is violated...." nonsense was even considered by Tony Blair and his cronies. I must admit thats the first time I've heard that one myself. Normally its the "corrupt UN/Violation of UN resolutions" line. Speaking of which.....

Its not our fault that the UN was so corrupt it wouldn't budge. Not our fault that Russia and France violated UN Resolutions and supplied Iraq with illegal material....

Some 3,000 individuals from 60 different countries participated in the oil-for-food scam. None of those individuals have a vote on the security council. They come from America and Britain as well as Russia and France. Some Companies that were involved also come from America. The biggest immediate beneficiaries of the illegal trade were Jordan and Turkey - both supporters of the US (for a price, of course).


Not our Fault that Hussein violated UN Resolutions ....

Well, he didnt violate any of the ones concerning WMD, because he had none.

And more to the point, Israel has been in Violation for over three decades - wheres the rush to invade them?

It was an illegal war fought on a broad agenda that sought to further American interests. Nothing to do with Iraqis, freedom, or helping Bambi....

*snip*

Nice Talking points. Inaccurate, but nice talking points just the same.

Truly the Witty Repartee is flowing.....

Truly the Witty Repartee is flowing.....

If he had no WMD then why the hell did he violate all those resolutions demanding unconditional access to supposed weapons facilities? That is a violation of 687 and 688.

Also he didn't follow through on 686 either. That was the cease-fire resolution that he violated.

So yes he did violate the resolutions dealing with WMD.

Well....no. The war was initiated "outside the UN charter" which means outside the rule of law. Plus theres the holding undeclared prisoners business, the "renditions" and those 30,000 or so Iraqi civillians didnt die of the Flu....

No. It was launched because Saddam violated the cease fire of 91.

I couldn't care less about the "undeclared" prisoners. Guess it's what comes with fighting an "un-declared" war against your own country's future.

The Iraqis who died? Sorry, but it's a far cry from the million or so massacred by Saddam. Look at Dresden....

If he had no WMD then why the hell did he violate all those resolutions demanding unconditional access to supposed weapons facilities? That is a violation of 687 and 688.

Easy, he didn't want the coalition to find the birthday presents he bought for them!

Also he didn't follow through on 686 either. That was the cease-fire resolution that he violated.

So yes he did violate the resolutions dealing with WMD.

Yep. Not to mention they did find some Sarin gas artillery shells that were being used by the insurgents.

But the inspectors hadn't finished, rather famously. Some people FOR REASONS WHICH MUST REMAIN A MYSTERY didnt want to wait until they'd completed their task. And O, What shock when, as we all now know, there was no WMD there afterall.

Would it be that it would be a safe bet that a paranoid dictator might be a bit slow to agree to things, and that he might easily be accused of "reluctance" in his compliance? Because that would make the following..

"We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html)

...a bit of a plot now, wouldn't it? But when old Saddam actually looked like he'd fully co-operate, they had to move.

And as the Iraq Arms survey group reported that all his weapons had been destroyed well before 2000, how could have he been in violation?

Yep. Not to mention they did find some Sarin gas artillery shells that were being used by the insurgents.

Are you refering to the single shell that was used in May, 2004?

No. It was launched because Saddam violated the cease fire of 91.



But according to your British partners, it wasn't. If you want to make up a reason that sounds good to you though, feel free - it seems to be an American habit these days.

..I couldn't care less about the "undeclared" prisoners. Guess it's what comes with fighting an "un-declared" war against your own country's future...

A future as a client of America...how brighter can it get, I ask. Their wives will undoubtedly earn vast amounts of dollars selling themselves to US "advisors" to put bread on the table as the wealth is leeched from their country by America and a westernised elite....lucky them.

But the inspectors hadn't finished, rather famously. Some people FOR REASONS WHICH MUST REMAIN A MYSTERY didnt want to wait until they'd completed their task. And O, What shock when, as we all now know, there was no WMD there afterall.

And yet Saddam Hussein stalled the inspection process. Kinda hard to finish something when your being stonewalled by a dictator. I guess that didn't enter into your equation did it?

Would it be that it would be a safe bet that a paranoid dictator might be a bit slow to agree to things, and that he might easily be accused of "reluctance" in his compliance? Because that would make the following..

A paranoid dictator is a dangerous dictator. Shall we take a look at Stalin and his paranoyia and see where it led to? How about Hitler's?

"We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/ (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html)

We gave him every opportunity in the world but alas, it was no use. Hussein never wanted to cooperate even though he agreed to cooperate with the UN back with Resolution 686.

...a bit of a plot now, wouldn't it? But when old Saddam actually looked like he'd fully co-operate, they had to move.

HAHAHA! Rich. I guess your buying all the propaganda that he wanted to comply. Oh brother. Now I'm busting a gut.

And as the Iraq Arms survey group reported that all his weapons had been destroyed well before 2000, how could have he been in violation?

He didn't let the UN Inspectors verify it by playing games. If he didn't have any then why the hell did he stonewall the inspection process AND why didn't he hand over the evidence that he destroyed them? It would've been a hell of alot easier to do than play games with the UN.

Yep. Not to mention they did find some Sarin gas artillery shells that were being used by the insurgents.

The buried one somebody dug up - that had become inert in the intervening period since it was buried some years before?

And yet Saddam Hussein stalled the inspection process. Kinda hard to finish something when your being stonewalled by a dictator. I guess that didn't enter into your equation did it? .

But again, they just asked for more time. They didnt say they couldnt finish. The people that prevented them finishing were Bush/Blair




A paranoid dictator is a dangerous dictator. Shall we take a look at Stalin and his paranoyia and see where it led to? How about Hitler's?.

Please lets not, as I shudder to think what misconceptions of yours will surface in the ensuing debacle.

However, we can again quote our old friends the leaky British Government when we want to see how "dangerous" Saddam was considered....."It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours,....." (you've got the link already). Great little document that. Bush decideded on military action before weapons inspectors even go in? (memo was July 2002) Saddam not threatening his neigbours? Dear me.

We gave him every opportunity in the world but alas, it was no use.?.

Bush wants war already in July but thats giving Saddam "every opportunity"....American english is very hard to follow betimes...how can Bush give him "every chance" when his allies know hes made up his mind to have a little war?

AND why didn't he hand over the evidence that he destroyed them?.

He did, but for that MYSTERY REASON the Americans didnt believe him.

They could hardly have him spoil the war now, could they?

But again, they just asked for more time. They didnt say they couldnt finish. The people that prevented them finishing were Bush/Blair

Just continue to tell yourself that.

Please lets not, as I shudder to think what misconceptions of yours will surface in the ensuing debacle.

Oh my god. DOn't you know that Stalin had purges due to his paranoia? I guess you didn't know that. I shudder to think what type of education you had.

*snip*

The rest, I'm not even going to bother to respond too because frankly, it is relatively pointless not to mention opinionated.

The buried one somebody dug up - that had become inert in the intervening period since it was buried some years before?

No, there was one that was use in an attack on a coalition convoy. 2 GIs were treated for exposure to sarin.

No, there was one that was use in an attack on a coalition convoy. 2 GIs were treated for exposure to sarin.

Source?

Saudi business man kills 3000 in one coherent strike half a world away!

Isn't glorifying killing fun, kids? *sigh* This is just sad. :(

when its an innocent, yes its sad, when its an iraqi insurgent who has killed an american, ahh, no

No, there was one that was use in an attack on a coalition convoy.

So why the use of the plural 'shells'?

So why the use of the plural 'shells'?

More than one was found. They tried to use the shells as part of an IED but it didn't work as planned.

More than one was found. They tried to use the shells as part of an IED but it didn't work as planned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

No mention of more than one shell there...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm

...nor here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

No mention of more than one shell there...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm

...nor here.

I could have swore that they found more in a raid at a cache.

Apparently the shell had only trace amounts of sarin because it was a binary-the chemicals that form sarin are mixed together when the shell is fired. The insurgents didn't think to use their kitchen mixer before detonating it. Trace amounts of sarin were still found though, because the chemicals reacted with each other at reduced rate.

Either way, that one shell is justification for the war. Would it make any difference if it was over there or over here? Used right that shell could have killed far more people than 9/11 did.

Either way, that one shell is justification for the war. Would it make any difference if it was over there or over here?

In saying this you are flying in the face of the wisdom of all those senior members of the coalition and UN weapons inspectors who have declared that it wasn't sufficient justification, and was most likely just a holdover from the Iran-Iraq war.

Would it make any difference if it was over there or over here? Used right that shell could have killed far more people than 9/11 did.

Possibly, but what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Either way, that one shell is justification for the war. Would it make any difference if it was over there or over here? Used right that shell could have killed far more people than 9/11 did.we knew you were going to find justification for the war.. one way or another. :rolleyes:

We gave him every opportunity in the world but alas, it was no use. Hussein never wanted to cooperate even though he agreed to cooperate with the UN back with Resolution 686.

He didn't let the UN Inspectors verify it by playing games. If he didn't have any then why the hell did he stonewall the inspection process AND why didn't he hand over the evidence that he destroyed them? It would've been a hell of alot easier to do than play games with the UN.

Simple. So Iran wouldn't try picking a fight with him. The United States and most of the other Western powers boldly declared that Saddam Hussein had WMD. His neighbors wouldn't have known any better, but them believing that he possesses some makes it less likely a rowdy neighbor would get involved.

The fact that we invaded Iraq in the first place proves that the President didn't believe that Saddam had nukes. Or if he did, he was willing to prove his theory in a radioactive cloud costing the lives of tens of thousands of American and/or allied soldiers. Not to mention civillian casualties.

The fact that we invaded Iraq in the first place proves that the President didn't believe that Saddam had nukes. Or if he did, he was willing to prove his theory in a radioactive cloud costing the lives of tens of thousands of American and/or allied soldiers. Not to mention civillian casualties.

Saddam would've known that if he used a nuke against the US or our allies, his nation would be turned to radioactive glass. Heck, even if he used Chemical weapons against us, his nation would've been turned to radioactive glass.

Saddam would've known that if he used a nuke against the US or our allies, his nation would be turned to radioactive glass. Heck, even if he used Chemical weapons against us, his nation would've been turned to radioactive glass.

The fellow is likely to receive a death sentence anyhow: why would taking some more of his popualce with him have worried him? His track record was hardly one of compassion.

Which means that the Geneva Convention is completely worthless now so far as the majority of militarily active nations are concerned.

As much as I hate saying this... the person who wins the war doesn't do so by following the rules placed on him by his opponent. He does so by writing his own and imposing them on his enemy. That's how Genghis Khan created the first empire on which the Sun Never Set.

The fellow is likely to receive a death sentence anyhow: why would taking some more of his popualce with him have worried him? His track record was hardly one of compassion.
Isn't that most of the players on NS, if you look at the "countries" they run?

Makes you wonder if Saddam was a player on NS.

The fellow is likely to receive a death sentence anyhow: why would taking some more of his popualce with him have worried him? His track record was hardly one of compassion.

Saddam is many things but the one thing he is not is stupid. He wanted world opinion on his side and using WMD wouldn't have done that and he knew it.

The fellow is likely to receive a death sentence anyhow: why would taking some more of his popualce with him have worried him? His track record was hardly one of compassion.

Moreover, we wouldn't have deployed nuclear weapons against them. The instant we did, warning lights would be going off all over the former Soviet Union, which would increase tensions and the likelihood of a full-blown nuclear holocaust higher than it has been since the end of the Cold War.

Moreover, doing so would earn the condemnation of the entire UN and most of our allies, including Britain and possibly even Japan. Once that happened, moreover, Russia would view it as being a-OK for Chechnya to suffer under a radioactive storm cloud the next time they get uppity.

If you think our relations are strained now, just wait until you see what happens when we turn a nation into a sheet of glass because our naked aggression led to the use of a nuclear device.

Nuclear weapons should never be used. The only time they are used by those who have them is when they are out of options. Saddam knew he couldn't win against the US, as our military had grown stronger since Desert Storm and his was a small shadow of what it once was. Therefore, because of the improbability of him winning such a war against the US, he would have resorted to extreme measures: the red button.

But he didn't.

Saddam is many things but the one thing he is not is stupid. He wanted world opinion on his side and using WMD wouldn't have done that and he knew it.

Except he already had it on his side and world opinion is of absolutely no use to a man whose empire he hoped to have saved by said opinion when said empire is collapsing around him and there's no way to stop the juggernaut, except by detonating a WMD and then telling Bush that if one American soldier makes one more step into Iraqi territory, he'll detonate another.

Moreover, we wouldn't have deployed nuclear weapons against them. The instant we did, warning lights would be going off all over the former Soviet Union, which would increase tensions and the likelihood of a full-blown nuclear holocaust higher than it has been since the end of the Cold War.

I actually doubt it. We would actually be justified in using nukes since Saddam used WMD against us. I doubt it would've led to full scale nuclear war however.

Moreover, doing so would earn the condemnation of the entire UN and most of our allies, including Britain and possibly even Japan.

Wanna bet?

Once that happened, moreover, Russia would view it as being a-OK for Chechnya to suffer under a radioactive storm cloud the next time they get uppity.

Actually no. As far as I know, no wmd have been used in that internal conflict. Russia would not have justification to use it.

If you think our relations are strained now, just wait until you see what happens when we turn a nation into a sheet of glass because our naked aggression led to the use of a nuclear device.

Even though Saddam violated every tenet by using wmd first thus precipitating our use of nuclear force?

Nuclear weapons should never be used. The only time they are used by those who have them is when they are out of options.

Then explain Hiroshima. We had another option there.

Saddam knew he couldn't win against the US, as our military had grown stronger since Desert Storm and his was a small shadow of what it once was. Therefore, because of the improbability of him winning such a war against the US, he would have resorted to extreme measures: the red button.

And then BOOM! goes Iraq.

But he didn't.

Praise be the Lord on High.

Except he already had it on his side and world opinion is of absolutely no use to a man whose empire he hoped to have saved by said opinion when said empire is collapsing around him and there's no way to stop the juggernaut, except by detonating a WMD and then telling Bush that if one American soldier makes one more step into Iraqi territory, he'll detonate another.

If Saddam had used WMD against the allied forces that invaded him this time, it would've justified our actions 100%. You do realize that don't you? Even though our actions were still 100% justified, the reasons that Bush gave that would've turned out accurate would make France, Russia, and Germany look like fools. Hussein knew that.

However, he never proved that he didn't have WMD so we went in. If he had proved that he didn't have WMD, we wouldn't have gone in in the first place. If he had followed through on 686, we wouldn't have gone in in the first place. Hell, if he pulled out of Kuwait when told to do so, we wouldn't have had Persian Gulf I that precipitated Gulf War II.

Hell, if he pulled out of Kuwait when told to do so, we wouldn't have had Persian Gulf I that precipitated Gulf War II.

Hell, if Kuwait hadn't been slant drilling Iraqi oil, there wouldn't have been a direct and immediate provocation for Iraq to invade them.

Hell, if Kuwait hadn't been slant drilling Iraqi oil, there wouldn't have been a direct and immediate provocation for Iraq to invade them.

That's speculation. And if Iraq had followed proper procedure instead of embarking on a war of aggression.....

Even though our actions were still 100% justified, the reasons that Bush gave that would've turned out accurate would make France, Russia, and Germany look like fools.
And as it happened now, Bush looks like a fool. Except of course in the eyes of a select few Bushevists.

And as it happened now, Bush looks like a fool. Except of course in the eyes of a select few Bushevists.

The whole intel community of this planet looked like a fool since they all thought he had them. I really love this myth that it was only Bush who looked like a fool.

I do believe that Saddam had chemical weapons in his inventory and shipped them off to Syria before we struck (he has plently of time to), just to make Bush (and America) look like a dumbass(es).

If Saddam had used WMD against the allied forces that invaded him this time, it would've justified our actions 100%. You do realize that don't you? Even though our actions were still 100% justified, the reasons that Bush gave that would've turned out accurate would make France, Russia, and Germany look like fools. Hussein knew that.

Why would they look like fools? Why would he care that they looked like fools? They never said that Saddam didn't have nukes, they never said Saddam wouldn't use them against an invading army. They said the war was wrong and that the inspectors should be given more time. Period.

However, he never proved that he didn't have WMD so we went in. If he had proved that he didn't have WMD, we wouldn't have gone in in the first place. If he had followed through on 686, we wouldn't have gone in in the first place. Hell, if he pulled out of Kuwait when told to do so, we wouldn't have had Persian Gulf I that precipitated Gulf War II.

And if he had said "No, I don't have any WMD," he would have made his little self-made empire ripe for the pickings by his neighbors. And by us.

Which is beside the fact that it's rather difficult to prove that you don't have something, isn't it? It's not like he could dismantle his non-existent nukes and lay them out over the desert for our spy-sats to photograph at leisure, like we did with the Soviets when we were engaging in reducing our nuclear stockpiles.

There would be nothing there to photograph but empty desert. And we'd say that he's hiding them and use it as a pretext for a war of aggression. Even if we had waited the extra six months for the inspectors to tell us that they can't find any weapons, we'd still say that he's hiding them. And we'd still have invaded.

So far, all I'm getting is that you need to study foreign policy crisis management.

That's speculation. And if Iraq had followed proper procedure instead of embarking on a war of aggression.....

If Iraq hadn't have lost a costly and long war with Iran, they would not have invaded Kuwait, because they would not have needed the oil money to keep his nation going.

I do believe that Saddam had chemical weapons in his inventory and shipped them off to Syria before we struck (he has plently of time to), just to make Bush (and America) look like a dumbass(es).

I've heard this theory before. But, yes, I agree. Saddam must have given his non-existant WMD to one of his regional rivals when he would have needed them most to hold off an army of "Crusaders".

If Iraq hadn't have lost a costly and long war with Iran, they would not have invaded Kuwait, because they would not have needed the oil money to keep his nation going.

Except it wasn't about oil. Don't you remember that when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait they headed straight for the hospital, threw the newborn babies out of their incubators, leaving them to die on the cold hard ground, and took away these vital pieces of medical equipment? It was all about incubators.

Except it wasn't about oil. Don't you remember that when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait they headed straight for the hospital, threw the newborn babies out of their incubators, leaving them to die on the cold hard ground, and took away these vital pieces of medical equipment? It was all about incubators.
Dear god, tell me your joking. :eek:

I actually doubt it. We would actually be justified in using nukes since Saddam used WMD against us. I doubt it would've led to full scale nuclear war however.

No, it wouldn't have, in all probability.

Wanna bet?

My internationalism against your nationalism... let's see, they were against you when you went to war for no reason, when you followed the same rules as your opponent in fighting a relatively fair, 'regular' war, and whenever you shot at hospitals and mosques containing loads of Jihadists with out a single innocent person with in.

No, I think we'd see the UN act the fastest it ever has in declaring that the US is waging a genocidal war against the Iraqi people.

Actually no. As far as I know, no wmd have been used in that internal conflict. Russia would not have justification to use it.

You're right, they haven't been used. But once we do it, Russia will, too. Why? Because we did and we won't be able to bitch about it.

Even though Saddam violated every tenet by using wmd first thus precipitating our use of nuclear force?

Yup.

Then explain Hiroshima. We had another option there.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were different. Different war, different time.

And then BOOM! goes Iraq.

And BOOM! goes NYC, because Saddam decided that if he's going to lose the war, he may as well give them to his allies-of-opprotunity in al-Qaida and let them use it against us. And his hands would be clean.

Praise be the Lord on High.

...That he didn't have a red button to push.

Why would they look like fools? Why would he care that they looked like fools? They never said that Saddam didn't have nukes, they never said Saddam wouldn't use them against an invading army. They said the war was wrong and that the inspectors should be given more time. Period.

If he used them, there goes the whole inspection process since they didn't uncover anything during ANY inspection period now would it? You really need to study this abit more. France stonewalled the Security Council and if Saddam used WMD, France would've lost all credibility. Hussein may not care about that, but the French and their supporters will. There is more to politics than meets the eye and to try to simplify it as many on here try to do, me included, is being really immature about it.

And if he had said "No, I don't have any WMD," he would have made his little self-made empire ripe for the pickings by his neighbors. And by us.

However, by playing that game, he made himself a target. It had consequences and I doubt any army could withstand Iraq. Even without WMD, the Iraqi army was formidible for a middle eastern nation.

Which is beside the fact that it's rather difficult to prove that you don't have something, isn't it?

Actually, its quite easy to prove you don't have something. That is, if you cooperate 100%. Hussein didn't do that. If he had just cooperated, I doubt we would be inside Iraq right now.

It's not like he could dismantle his non-existent nukes and lay them out over the desert for our spy-sats to photograph at leisure, like we did with the Soviets when we were engaging in reducing our nuclear stockpiles.

And yet, he made believe he still had a nuke program as well as a WMD program.

There would be nothing there to photograph but empty desert. And we'd say that he's hiding them and use it as a pretext for a war of aggression. Even if we had waited the extra six months for the inspectors to tell us that they can't find any weapons, we'd still say that he's hiding them. And we'd still have invaded.

You have no proof of that and now u just moved into the realm of speculation.

So far, all I'm getting is that you need to study foreign policy crisis management.

HAHA! Sorry. I live in the real world where you must cooperate with everyone. Hussein didn't cooperate with the UN for 12 years. He got his just desserts because of it. Apparently, it is you that needs to study international politics abit more. It is not black and white as you are portraying it to believe.

Except it wasn't about oil. Don't you remember that when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait they headed straight for the hospital, threw the newborn babies out of their incubators, leaving them to die on the cold hard ground, and took away these vital pieces of medical equipment? It was all about incubators.

Yes, and our invasion of Iraq wasn't about oil.

No, it wouldn't have, in all probability.

We agree on that point then?

My internationalism against your nationalism...

Nationalism? Whose showing nationalism? Not me. I'm stating a truth.

let's see, they were against you when you went to war for no reason, when you followed the same rules as your opponent in fighting a relatively fair, 'regular' war, and whenever you shot at hospitals and mosques containing loads of Jihadists with out a single innocent person with in.

Are we still saying that Hussein uses wmd against us thus precipitating our use of nukes on him? If he uses WMD against it, it does justify Bush's reasons for war now would it? Oh yes it does. Imagine that.

No, I think we'd see the UN act the fastest it ever has in declaring that the US is waging a genocidal war against the Iraqi people.

GENOCIDAL WAR? *CRACKS UP LAUGHING* Thanks, I needed a laugh tonight. I've been blue the last few days and now you gave me reason to laugh. You sir, by making this statement, either have no idea what genocide is, or what a proportional response is.

You're right, they haven't been used. But once we do it, Russia will, too. Why? Because we did and we won't be able to bitch about it.

Actually, we can complain because NO wmd so far has been used in the Chechen war. If Hussein used them against the Allies, the US and allies would be justified in using Nukes against them.

Yup.

Go back and study the rules of war then.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were different. Different war, different time.

Nice back out. We had an option there but opted to use the bomb anyway. Why did we use the bomb there when we had another option?

And BOOM! goes NYC, because Saddam decided that if he's going to lose the war, he may as well give them to his allies-of-opprotunity in al-Qaida and let them use it against us. And his hands would be clean.

That is assuming he had a nuke to give to Al Qaeda.

...That he didn't have a red button to push.

Yep.

Yes, and our invasion of Iraq wasn't about oil.

Correct, it wasn't about Oil. About time you said something intelligent.

Well didn't take long for this thread to become a thread arguing about whether it was right to invade Iraq.

Well didn't take long for this thread to become a thread arguing about whether it was right to invade Iraq.

It seemed kind of empty and pointless when it was just another triumphalist party celebrating killing people. Who would have thought that this could raise ethical questions?

If he used them, there goes the whole inspection process since they didn't uncover anything during ANY inspection period now would it? You really need to study this abit more. France stonewalled the Security Council and if Saddam used WMD, France would've lost all credibility. Hussein may not care about that, but the French and their supporters will. There is more to politics than meets the eye and to try to simplify it as many on here try to do, me included, is being really immature about it.

So... Saddam would care about France... why?

However, by playing that game, he made himself a target. It had consequences and I doubt any army could withstand Iraq. Even without WMD, the Iraqi army was formidible for a middle eastern nation.

And we know, for a veritable fact, that Kim Jong-Il has around a half-dozen nukes. They practically fly the text "WE GOT DA NUKES, NA-NA-NA!" on their flag. I don't see any invasion by anybody... and the North Koreans are doing and excellent job of playing the game. So far everyone else has to give Kim what he wants... "or else".

Actually, its quite easy to prove you don't have something. That is, if you cooperate 100%. Hussein didn't do that. If he had just cooperated, I doubt we would be inside Iraq right now.

Yes, he'd let his honor and nation get raped by infidels right where all his neighbors can watch him.

And yet, he made believe he still had a nuke program as well as a WMD program.

So did the Israelis. So does Kim Jung-Il. You don't see their neighbors jumping all over each other to violate their sovereignty, do you?

You have no proof of that and now u just moved into the realm of speculation.

As much proof as you have of Saddam possessing a single WMD.

HAHA! Sorry. I live in the real world where you must cooperate with everyone. Hussein didn't cooperate with the UN for 12 years.

Really? So, I guess we don't have any use for sovereignty, then. I mean, if co-operation is everything, the UN should be the world's government. They should be able to levy taxes and a nation can't say no! And they should be able to declare war against any nation that doesn't get along with... wait.

This war was waged by the US. The UN had nothing to do with it.

He got his just desserts because of it. Apparently, it is you that needs to study international politics abit more. It is not black and white as you are portraying it to believe.

Me? Portray as black and white? You're the one portraying things as black and white.

Correct, it wasn't about Oil. About time you said something intelligent.

Thank you. Now it's your turn.

If Iraq hadn't have lost a costly and long war with Iran, they would not have invaded Kuwait, because they would not have needed the oil money to keep his nation going.

In reality, they didn't lose the Iran Iraq war. No one actually won that war. Also, Kuwait told Saddam to pony up the money they loaned. Anyone here know about the ICJ? That is the International Court of Justice. If Saddam had a problem with slant drilling, that wouldve been the place to go but instead, he embarked on a war of agression that he LOST.

I'm not going to touch the glorification question, but I find it troubling that the killing of civilians can be made equivalent to deaths of soldiers in a war zone. A civilian had no intention of participating in a battle or committing themselves to fighting and trying to kill someone else. Soldiers have made a commitment to fight for their side, and thus are willing to kill, making every time a soldier kills another soldier (while the soldier killed is still capable of fighting and/or armed) essentially self-defense. Slaughtering innocent civilians is certainly not.

Therefore, it is morally acceptable to snipe an insurgent whereas it is morally unacceptable to crash a plane full of civilians into the Twin Towers to kill more civilians. Were the plane unnocuppied and the target military, it would be a different story. But that wasn't the case.

what he said!!!

It seemed kind of empty and pointless when it was just another triumphalist party celebrating killing people. Who would have thought that this could raise ethical questions?

RAH RAH an insurgent dead. One less bad guy to kill our forces. Now if the Iraqi government can get the Sunnis to play ball.....

Come to think of it, anyone here know anything about the baathists/Government negotiations?

Thank you. Now it's your turn.

I've been talking intelligently the whole time. Not my fault your not comprehending what I'm saying.

GENOCIDAL WAR? *CRACKS UP LAUGHING* Thanks, I needed a laugh tonight. I've been blue the last few days and now you gave me reason to laugh. You sir, by making this statement, either have no idea what genocide is, or what a proportional response is.

Yes, I know what genocide it. We're talking about the UN, remember?

I've been talking intelligently the whole time. Not my fault your not comprehending what I'm saying.

Forgive me, you've been doing an excellent job and most intelligently defending an illogical position backed by no facts. My hat is off to you sir!

damn-i thought the point the thread originator was making is that someone made a near impossible shot. he could have been shooting at a beer can as far as the point of the story goes.
the insurgent had just killed someone....its war-what do you expect him to do.....send him a note saying 'that wasnt very nice." ?

If i was in charge of the Squad or platoon or whatever that was taking fire from the Insurgent. If i couldn't Identify exactly where he was coming from


FIRE MISSION FIRE MISSION


and then Steel Rain.

(Overkill yes, but a standard procedure)

So... Saddam would care about France... why?

Did I ever state the he cared about France? No I didn't. So much for reading comprehension.

And we know, for a veritable fact, that Kim Jong-Il has around a half-dozen nukes. They practically fly the text "WE GOT DA NUKES, NA-NA-NA!" on their flag. I don't see any invasion by anybody... and the North Koreans are doing and excellent job of playing the game. So far everyone else has to give Kim what he wants... "or else".

That's because they are making no secret of the fact. Besides that, no one knows if they actually do or not. THey could also be playing a very good game as well and seeing what comes of it.

Yes, he'd let his honor and nation get raped by infidels right where all his neighbors can watch him.

Nice sarcasm. When cornored with a fact, resort to sarcasm. Seems to be the number 1 rule here on NS.

So did the Israelis. So does Kim Jung-Il. You don't see their neighbors jumping all over each other to violate their sovereignty, do you?

North Korea and the UN are still in a state of war. No Peace treaty has been signed yet and no one will dare attack Israel. Not if they want to live a long healthy life.

As much proof as you have of Saddam possessing a single WMD.

I know he had them. If he didn't, then Operation Desert Fox (December 1998) would not have been launched. Clinton thought he had them as did the Democratic party during that operation.

Really? So, I guess we don't have any use for sovereignty, then. I mean, if co-operation is everything, the UN should be the world's government.

AHHH!! Ignorance. Hussein lost the Persian Gulf War. He aggreed to abide by the terms of the Cease-Fire. He didn't do that. He broke his agreement. He got what he deserved in my book.

They should be able to levy taxes and a nation can't say no! And they should be able to declare war against any nation that doesn't get along with... wait.

Just like they did in 1991 and still was in a state of war with Iraq since no peace treaty was ever signed. Just like the UN authorized troops for action in North Korea. Guess what? No peace treaty there either.

This war was waged by the US. The UN had nothing to do with it.

ACtually the UN does have something to do with it since it was the UN in the first place that authorized the 1st Gulf War and approved of UNSC 686. Hussein violated 686 thereby invoking the paragraph that authorized the 1st Gulf War.

Me? Portray as black and white? You're the one portraying things as black and white.

Actually I'm not.

Yes, I know what genocide it. We're talking about the UN, remember?

Unfortunately. The UN wouldn't declare it a genocide however.

Forgive me, you've been doing an excellent job and most intelligently defending an illogical position backed by no facts. My hat is off to you sir!

HAHA! No facts my ass. Your the one that is running on pure speculation. You brought up the scenerio and you got pounced on. Now your doing an excellent job of trying to weasle out of it.

damn-i thought the point the thread originator was making is that someone made a near impossible shot. he could have been shooting at a beer can as far as the point of the story goes.
the insurgent had just killed someone....its war-what do you expect him to do.....send him a note saying 'that wasnt very nice." ?
ROFLMAO!!! SIC 'em, Peechy! :D

ROFLMAO!!! SIC 'em, Peechy! :D


I swear....people just cant wait to get into an argument in here! You could make a thread about who's the cuddliest Care Bear and before it was on page 3 it would turn into how Tender Heart Bear is gay and should be boycotted and how gay care bears wont be let into heaven and onto there is no heaven and so on and so on....

i think i need a snack.....im awfully grumpy arent i?

HAHA! No facts my ass. Your the one that is running on pure speculation. You brought up the scenerio and you got pounced on. Now your doing an excellent job of trying to weasle out of it.

You really haven't read the disclaimer in my sig, have you?

Oh don't worry. Others have dealt with it already: (http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm)

The most comprehensive study of civilian casualties is available from a group opposed to the Coalition intervention in Iraq called Iraq Body Count. This summer, the Iraq Body Count project published an analysis of casualties in the Iraq War that must be admired for its meticulous documentation.

This study reports 24,865 civilian deaths in the first two years of the Iraq War, an apparent ringing endorsement of the "Iraq in chaos" position. But a curious statistical anomaly jumps right off page one: over 81% of the civilian casualties are men. Even stranger, over 90% of civilian casualties are adults in a country with a disproportionate percentage of the population under 18 (44.5%). This contradicts a basic tenet of the civilian casualty argument, namely that we are describing collateral damage during a time of war. Collateral damage does not differentiate between male and female, between child and adult. A defective smart bomb falling in a marketplace, stray bullets ripping through bedroom walls, city warfare in Fallujah – all these activities should produce casualties that reflect the ratio of men to women or adults to children that prevail in Iraq as a whole.

This question is particularly relevant when one side in the conflict does not wear uniforms, is predominantly adult and of one gender, and engages in a practice of concealing its combatants within the civilian population. The statistics are further distorted if the Iraqi security forces – essentially the free Iraqi military on the side of the U.S. coalition – are classified as civilians, as they are in this study.

Read the whole thing, it is interesting in the extreme.

very interesting observation,thank you for that.

as for my opinion,what a good shot man...keep it up and keep safe.

if people want to change their society,do it thru the political process,that we have initiated..wobbly as it may be...it is a far cry better then what they had.

however i suspect,that the majority of iraqis,hell most middle easterners would prefer democracy of some form.

and the scum bag idealoques(insurgent/freedom fighter/whatever)realises he has no chance winning in a lawfull or fair election,so he is terrorizing the community to A.be afraid to participate in open elections or the political process
B.shift opinion of the average person to his will,that if the americans were not here..we wouldn't be dying and the violence would go away,however that overlooks the fact that saddam has killed more of his own,as have the "freedom fighters" then we would ever dream of.

i was against going there personally,i felt we should mop up the mess in afghanistan and pakistan first.that said,we are there now.
i have hope for the iraqis now,and have a deep feeling of pride in our men and women over there trying to help these terrified people.

are there tons of other places that could use our help?africa,etc.
of coarse,we do have a strategic interest in the middle east,as does europe,and if helping our national interests and europes(a free iraq will benefit europe)and at the same time help the iraqis out from under a murderous/evil/tyrant..then i say good for everyone...that unfortunately applies to the innocent victims caused by us,however,how would they have faired if saddam was there.

and last but not least,and cynically of coarse...we get to kill some lunatic religous fanatics that want to stone their women for working and keep there society in the stoneage so they can basically control every aspect of there women...then good again

:sniper:
B.

I swear....people just cant wait to get into an argument in here! You could make a thread about who's the cuddliest Care Bear and before it was on page 3 it would turn into how Tender Heart Bear is gay and should be boycotted and how gay care bears wont be let into heaven and onto there is no heaven and so on and so on....

GO HERE PLEASE:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462302

i think i need a snack.....im awfully grumpy arent i?
No, I don't think you're "gumpy." Earlier today, I was, however. Heh!

I posted on that "spam forum" thang. Answered your question. :p

It was a very fine shot. I don't see what anyone has to complain about, given the alternatives. Namely more dead coalition forces, a fire-team spraying the window with bullets, an Abrams, Bradley, or Stryker rolling into position and then blazing away at the window with coaxial MGs or the main gun, or calling in a Cobra or Apache to put a Hellfire in the room or an airstrike. And a lot faster, too.

It seemed kind of empty and pointless when it was just another triumphalist party celebrating killing people. Who would have thought that this could raise ethical questions?

It was celebrating the fine shot made by the sniper, not the fact that it killed the enemy. That is just a bonus.

The whole intel community of this planet looked like a fool since they all thought he had them. I really love this myth that it was only Bush who looked like a fool.
Everyone sorta assumed he had them.
But not all actually went to their governments and said: "Yes, he has them - Informant X told us!"
Some instead went and said "He probably has them, but the case is not clear. Informant X is not trustworthy, we'd suggest the evidence can only be verified by the UN inspections on the ground."

Oh for pete's sake. NAS, this is a flame.

Statements of fact can hardly be considered to be flames. Else the entire judicial system would collapse. However, if you do feel it to be a flame, please, do feel free to report me. I look forward to seeing the response to your complaint. Equally, I look forward to fishing in the past for your posts that would give my statement the status of fact.


I want to know what your refering to! Was it the fact that we applaud the sniper for taking this shot and killing the bastard? Or for the fact that we are applauding the death of an insurgent who was firing from a hospital?

Neither. I would have thought a person of sufficient astuteness would have gone to check as to what I was referring to, as anyone who bothered to look at the wording would have realized there was an even earlier point in the thread where I had referred to the actual meat of the matter.

However, since it is apparent that you did not check or you missed, I give you the undeserved benefit of a doubt, I will repeat myself verbatim.

Don't you people ever get tired of the "they did it, so we can't be all that bad for doing it too" argument?

As to what I refer to with this statement, I point you to this statement.


What about the civilians that were killed by the Iraqis themselve? Not to mention the terrorists.

It is quite clear that you are using this to discount civiliand deaths caused by US forces as merely inconsequential in the light of deaths caused by other parties.

However, this goes to you too Deep Kimchi AKA Whispering Legs, just because you have only murdered five people less than a person who has killed twenty, does not excuse you from the charge of murder. Just as is the case of the Geneva Convention and the subsequent Abu Ghraib issue. Can you really say that because you did it less, you should be able to get away with it? If so, I should be able to rob twenty federal banks and get away with it because I robbed less than some of the more prolific bank robbers.


The Iraqis who died? Sorry, but it's a far cry from the million or so massacred by Saddam. Look at Dresden....

Dresden, unless there is another city with that name, is a German city. And unless I am much mistaken, it was firebombed by the RAF in WWII using inciendary munitions specifically designed to maximize casualties in the target area, what with the gale strength winds caused by the inferno pulling people into the flames. Civilian casualties I might add.

What did Saddam have to do with Dresden? Absolutely nothing so far as such acts of war go.

goddamnit why don't we just carpet Nuke the middle east, use up our oil till it runs out and then since the Mideast would be a wasteland we can exploit their reserves without the whole pesky "people that actually live ther problem"

Would prevent my unit from Rotating into Iraq in 2007


much simpler this way, besides we are overpopulated anyway.

I personally believe that all of the killing by all of the factions in this world is ridiculous. However, I also realize that it will most likely never stop. I am appalled that news of killing gets more headlines then news of humanitarian aid and other types of compassionate behavior.

goddamnit why don't we just carpet Nuke the middle east, use up our oil till it runs out and then since the Mideast would be a wasteland we can exploit their reserves without the whole pesky "people that actually live ther problem"

Would prevent my unit from Rotating into Iraq in 2007


much simpler this way, besides we are overpopulated anyway.


wow what a perfect stereotype of america, no wonder your so hated.

me= drunk.


Honestly i couldn't hurt a fly, normally. But I am in the Army and will do what i have to do when the time comes. I guess i'm in this position because i have this idealistic desire to serve the greater good. And honestly i could give two shits what the world thinks of me or my army.

me= drunk.


Honestly i couldn't hurt a fly, normally. But I am in the Army and will do what i have to do when the time comes. I guess i'm in this position because i have this idealistic desire to serve the greater good. And honestly i could give two shits what the world thinks of me or my army.



bahhhhhhhhahahhahha, you should recognize that sounds, its the sound of sheep being hearded.

The rest, I'm not even going to bother to respond too because frankly, it is relatively pointless not to mention opinionated.

You mean you're more used to spouting opinions without reference to events and documents? Tough.


could have swore that they found more in a raid at a cache..

Of course, because its along the lines of what you'd like to believe, and people say it on boards like this and American talk radio all the time. It isnt true though, like much else that you see flying about the place.

Either way, that one shell is justification for the war. Would it make any difference if it was over there or over here? Used right that shell could have killed far more people than 9/11 did..

I refer you to "bodies..." answer.

Even though Saddam violated every tenet by using wmd first thus precipitating our use of nuclear force?..

If there was an olympic medal for "100 metre dash to the comfort of hypothetical argument" you'd be a winner.

The whole intel community of this planet looked like a fool since they all thought he had them. I really love this myth that it was only Bush who looked like a fool. ..

But didn not Vladmir Putin, standing not 3 feet from a sweaty looking Tony Blair, say that he was entirely unaware of the existence of WMD? If you read the Butler report on British pre-war intelligence you will see ifs buts and maybes but no definite "he has..." claims on size and extent.

do believe that Saddam had chemical weapons in his inventory and shipped them off to Syria before we struck (he has plently of time to), just to make Bush (and America) look like a dumbass(es)...

Then ring the Pentagon, o enlightened one, because according to the final report of the American arms inspectors of the Iraq Arms Survey group, that didnt happen.

bahhhhhhhhahahhahha, you should recognize that sounds, its the sound of sheep being hearded.

It is grosly unfair of you to make fun of this individuals chosen profession. I seriously doubt they joined the army to kill people. Joining an army is one of the most noble things on the planet. Generally people join the army to help those who cant help themselves while putting themselves at great personal risk. And that is what we are now doing in Iraq.

No killing shot is a good shot. The fact that he had just killed another person doesn't matter. No-one should be killed.

No killing shot is a good shot. The fact that he had just killed another person doesn't matter. No-one should be killed.
As barbaric as this sounds people were meant to kill each other. This world is becoming incredibly overcrowded come spend a couple years in rural alaska then go to the US east coast and tell me which is the way the world should be.

No killing shot is a good shot. The fact that he had just killed another person doesn't matter. No-one should be killed.

Hey, that guy he shot killed another soldier. I feel sorry 'cause the guy couldnt' hear his target's chest splatter on the wall behind him.

I think there are people that are killed and should be killed. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Iraq war but I'm all for the soldiers, and if a soldier thumps a guy in the chest 'cause he's killing other soldiers he deserved what he got.

That guy shot first, and in that instant he went from person to 6 feet of meat with a bulls-eye on it. I say F**K the insurgent dumbass. I personally think all these asses that keep firing on our troops need to put their AK47's away. If you want the US out so much stop fighting, and we'll be out.

If you want to fight, fight politically. The ironic thing is by setting up a Democratic government this is entirely possible. Hell, they can get rid of the democratic set-up DEMOCRATICALLY! Don't like it? Vote it out. But no... they'd rather get their lungs blown out by badass US snipers 'cause they won't stop attacking our troops.

Their choice. :sniper: -BAM!! cha-clink-

[QUOTE=Rukaine] If you want the US out so much stop fighting, and we'll be out.

QUOTE]


you cant actually believe that, your there for the oil, plain and simple.

You really haven't read the disclaimer in my sig, have you?

And yet, another cop out answer.

It was a very fine shot. I don't see what anyone has to complain about, given the alternatives. Namely more dead coalition forces, a fire-team spraying the window with bullets, an Abrams, Bradley, or Stryker rolling into position and then blazing away at the window with coaxial MGs or the main gun, or calling in a Cobra or Apache to put a Hellfire in the room or an airstrike. And a lot faster, too.

Now this is quite intelligent to say. You are indeed right. A sniper killing an insurgent is better than spraying bullets or dropping bombs on it.

Everyone sorta assumed he had them.

The whole intel community thought he had them. If everyone is saying the samething...... and they aren't cooperating after promising they will......yea, I would've done the exact same thing. Even Kerry himself said that if he was president and had the same information that Bush did, he probably would've done the samething that Bush did.

I personally believe that all of the killing by all of the factions in this world is ridiculous. However, I also realize that it will most likely never stop. I am appalled that news of killing gets more headlines then news of humanitarian aid and other types of compassionate behavior.

First rule of Journalism. If it bleeds it leads.

You mean you're more used to spouting opinions without reference to events and documents? Tough.

Whats tough about actually studying an issue? It isn't that difficult and I've been feverishly studying this issue since Bush made an announcement that we're going back into Iraq. I read ALL the UN resolutions and I see where Hussein violated them. Even pointed them out on this forum from time to time. It isn't that hard to actually read and study.

If there was an olympic medal for "100 metre dash to the comfort of hypothetical argument" you'd be a winner.

Nice flame.

But didn not Vladmir Putin, standing not 3 feet from a sweaty looking Tony Blair, say that he was entirely unaware of the existence of WMD?[/quote]

HAHA! He was lying through his teeth since the USSR supplied them with it.

If you read the Butler report on British pre-war intelligence you will see ifs buts and maybes but no definite "he has..." claims on size and extent.

Welcome to the Intelligence came. Not everything can be concrete and anyone who thinks differently is a fool.

No killing shot is a good shot. The fact that he had just killed another person doesn't matter. No-one should be killed.

So what are you going to do if someone shoots at you?

"The world distance record for a confirmed kill is 2310 meters, scored by a Canadian sniper during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. The kill was made with a MacMillan 50-cal, using AMAX ammo and a Leupold 16t scope."

http://www.snipersparadise.com

This excert from "World's Most Dangerous Places" 5th edition (also known as the bible for spooks and journos of the world).

Other kills have been made by Canadian snipers at at ranges of 2500 meters in Afghanistan but none official. It's the reason why a special citation was given to Canadian snipers for their work in Afghanistan. Americans were making their kills at one km and the Canadians at 2 km. The Taliban would often be able to spot the US sniper and get out of harm, but the first sign of the Canadian snipers was dead people. That really scared them. Having met a few Canadian snipers and watched some out of this world shooting, chamo, and stalking, I don't think they have an equal in the West. They'd give the Spetzas snipers a run for their money any day.

The Bruce

the only reason for that is that the Canadians are issued much more powerful rifles than the Americans. Well most of the time, there are snipers issued 50cals in the US military but they are not as common.

WMDs are not the only reason that the US went to war with Iraq, there are over 100 other reasons.

WMDs are not the only reason that the US went to war with Iraq, there are over 100 other reasons.

Indeed you are correct but the left doesn't seem to recognize that.

Indeed you are correct but the left doesn't seem to recognize that.
Oil, economic imperialism, Bush's daddy complex, hubris... what do you mean the left acknowledges no other reasons, we give loads! :p </jk>

Whats tough about actually studying an issue? .

If you had "studied" perhaps you'd be more familiar with the circumstances, rather than the usual second hand opinions by third rate Rush Limblaughs


HAHA! He was lying through his teeth since the USSR supplied them with it..

Supplied them with what, precisely? There were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion. This is the conclusion of the British, the UN, and the US investigations. Now if you know differently, please inform us, with reference to the weapons, where they were, and why the US Government doesnt know about them but you do.

Welcome to the Intelligence came. Not everything can be concrete ..

Not according to Dick Cheney. He had no doubts....strangely.....

WMDs are not the only reason that the US went to war with Iraq, there are over 100 other reasons...

Well there was no Al Qaeda link, so you've 99 left...."Don't like...." doesnt count, by the way.

If you had "studied" perhaps you'd be more familiar with the circumstances, rather than the usual second hand opinions by third rate Rush Limblaughs

I have studied the issue. I've studied it more indepth than you apparently. I am familiar with the circumstances of this war as well as the previous Gulf War. I have studied everything I can get my hands on in regards to this and have followed the lead up to this war as well as the actual invasion itself.

Supplied them with what, precisely?

I guess you didn't know that the USSR supplied WMD to Iraq?

There were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion.

If that was the case then why didn't Hussein fully comply with the UN Weapons inspectors?

This is the conclusion of the British, the UN, and the US investigations.

Yep.AFTER the invasion and we could scurry the countryside without interference from Saddam. At least we finally know what happened to that missing antranx. Something we wouldn't have known without the invasion.

Now if you know differently, please inform us, with reference to the weapons, where they were, and why the US Government doesnt know about them but you do.

Why did Saddam stonewall the inspections if he didn't have them? That is something that no one has been able to answer.

Not according to Dick Cheney. He had no doubts....strangely.....

A president or vice president can only make comments and/or policy based on the information at hand. That goes for any leader. Obviuosly Bill Clinton thought Hussein had them in 1998 otherwise Operation Desert Fox (minus a UN Resolution) wouldn't have been ordered to take place. I also suggest you go back and look at the comments made by both parties. If ya noticed, their positions flipped.

Well there was no Al Qaeda link, so you've 99 left...."Don't like...." doesnt count, by the way.

I didn't say that so I suggest you remove my name from that quote. And he did have terror links.

Indeed you are correct but the left doesn't seem to recognize that.

Hey, I said it was about incubators, wasn't that good enough for you?

Hey, I said it was about incubators, wasn't that good enough for you?

HAHA! I didn't see that. That's a good one :D

One hell of a shot, it was: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/01/wirq01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/01/ixnewstop.html)

[i]Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent...

What a fantastic shot! I am sure the guy is just being modest! Snipers rule!

HAHA! He was lying through his teeth since the USSR supplied them with it.

Riiiiight. Putin supplied imaginary WMDs and then lied about it. Corny, if there was anyone who ever had a major failure in logical thought process, it would be you.

Or do you mean pre-first gulf war? The same WMDs that came with "Made in America" labels? Did you mean those? The same ones which were destroyed later on?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I have studied the issue. I've studied it more indepth than you apparently. I am familiar with the circumstances of this war as well as the previous Gulf War. I have studied everything I can get my hands on in regards to this and have followed the lead up to this war as well as the actual invasion itself..

Yet make claims that go against the facts concerning WMD and the causes for war which contradict both the US and UK governments.

I guess you didn't know that the USSR supplied WMD to Iraq? ..

There were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion or immediately prior to it. Not even WMD components originating in America were there.

If that was the case then why didn't Hussein fully comply with the UN Weapons inspectors?..

He was complying, hence no second resolution and the "rush to war".

Yep.AFTER the invasion and we could scurry the countryside without interference from Saddam. At least we finally know what happened to that missing antranx. Something we wouldn't have known without the invasion...

Great idea that...kill 30,000 people on suspicion.


A president or vice president can only make comments and/or policy based on the information at hand. That goes for any leader. Obviuosly Bill Clinton thought Hussein had them in 1998 otherwise Operation Desert Fox (minus a UN Resolution) wouldn't have been ordered to take place. I also suggest you go back and look at the comments made by both parties. If ya noticed, their positions flipped....

Clinton did not invade

I didn't say that so I suggest you remove my name from that quote. And he did have terror links.

I did so, my apologies. And he had no link to Al Qaeda, which was part of the basis for the war.

Elgesh']I'm not sorry the insurgent was killed, and respect to the bloke for making the kill...

(Can you tell I'm about to say 'but'?)

...but how wise a thing was it to do? 1) Shooting into a hospital; 2) well beyond the recommended limits of your equipment 3) at an obscured target you could "shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."?! It's a fine act, but a ridiculous decision to make; it ended up fine for all parties, but it's not the sort of action you want replicated - who would the other 999,999 shots hit?

Collateral damage. Besides, the insurgent was in a hospital shooting at a U.S. soldier... Would you honestly expect that any doctors or patients would be in that room or the nearby room?

Back to the idea of collateral damage, the patients could be killed, because most of them were in some way hurt by coalition forces, so that would be like getting rid of a future insurgent pre-empitvely.

Yes, I know, I'm evil.

Yet make claims that go against the facts concerning WMD and the causes for war which contradict both the US and UK governments.

If WMD were the ONLY reason then you have a case but u don't have a case because there was more than one reason for this war.

There were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion or immediately prior to it. Not even WMD components originating in America were there.

WMD may have been wrong but the other reasons for this war weren't.

He was complying, hence no second resolution and the "rush to war".

Prove he was complying.

Great idea that...kill 30,000 people on suspicion.

As opposed to hundreds of thousands dying because of Saddam and his goons/

Clinton did not invade

4 day air assault on a suspicion.

I did so, my apologies. And he had no link to Al Qaeda, which was part of the basis for the war.

Actually I believe the quote was terror groups.

Back to the idea of collateral damage, the patients could be killed, because most of them were in some way hurt by coalition forces, so that would be like getting rid of a future insurgent pre-empitvely.

Or hurt by an insurgent attack.

Or hurt by an insurgent attack.

Over 100,000 Iraqis were killed in the first year of the "war" after major combat operations ended. More Iraqis have been killed/injured by American forces then by Insurgents.

That is an actual fact, something the major news networks (controlled by corporations) won't tell you.

Over 100,000 Iraqis were killed in the first year of the "war" after major combat operations ended. More Iraqis have been killed/injured by American forces then by Insurgents.

That is an actual fact, something the major news networks (controlled by corporations) won't tell you.

I see someone here is believing in propaganda again.

Over 100,000 Iraqis were killed in the first year of the "war" after major combat operations ended. More Iraqis have been killed/injured by American forces then by Insurgents.

That is an actual fact, something the major news networks (controlled by corporations) won't tell you.
Even the disgracefully unobjective www.iraqbodycount.net site only claims 32,000 and that is based off of blaming deaths caused by Iraq's poor infrastructure on the coalition as well as people actually killed by the coalition.

If WMD were the ONLY reason then you have a case but u don't have a case because there was more than one reason for this war..

Yes, the reason given being most specifically Al Qaeda. There was no Al Qaeda link.


Prove he was complying.
..

The Inspectors did not say they could not continue because of non-co-operation.

As opposed to hundreds of thousands dying because of Saddam and his goons/..

The vast majority killed by Saddam died in his campaign against the Kurds in the 80's. A second campaign was made impossible by the no fly zone.

The whole intel community of this planet looked like a fool since they all thought he had [WMDs]. I really love this myth that it was only Bush who looked like a fool.

I'm reminded something from an old movie. Could be Marx Brothers, in which case probably "A Day At The Races".

Someone (could be Groucho) wants to alter the given odds on the course to something favourable to his intended bet, so he starts a rumour that another horse is a cert. The rumour spreads among the racegoers, gaining momentum and eventually reaches the ears, of "The Colonel", the 'old and respected expert' sort of guy you'd find in that situation and convinces him. Then the rumour comes full circle and our original protagonist hears that The Colonel is convinced and assumes that this is the truth, despite it being full circle.


Anyway, you can see the (possible, but probably not provable) parallel.

Could be as easy as someone saying "find me proof that he has WMDs", either to isolate all the positive data (which might be a disingenuous and deliberate attempt to propo up a baseless theory) or just as a way of asking that "if the balance of proof is that he has, then tell me, otherwise don't bother me". One way or the other (or another) the fact that facts are being sought for might have precipitated them being found (legitimately or otherwise), the counter-evidence either ignored or 'boiled off' to order and the mistake wrapping full circle and convincing everyone (that mattered, and who were not also deliberately corrupt) that there was that foundation, when it was essentially an Escheresque staircase in mid-air, supporting only itself.


But that's just one part of the puzzle. The other parts are that once things got to the stage when the words "comply, or we invade" were uttered, with Iraq unwilling or unable to comply for practicle reasons, it was inevitable that an invasion had to happen. The US could not be seen to say this and then /not/ invade. When the US raises the stake and asks to see Saddam's cards, expecting to see a Royal Flush, it would have taken a huge diplomatic effort for the resolution to have been that the cards were shown, and acknowledged merely to be Mr Bun The Baker and most of his family. Or so is my feeling about this whole debacle.

I'm reminded something from an old movie. Could be Marx Brothers, in which case probably "A Day At The Races".

Nope, its not 'A Day At The Races'.