NationStates Jolt Archive

The moral of the story: Even INSIDE the green zone, stay the fuck away from the troops. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060201/wl_canada_nm/canada_iraq_shooting_canada_col_1)




BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops in Iraq fired warning shots at the Canadian envoy's car on Tuesday after his convoy failed to slow down while approaching an American military convoy, the U.S. military said on Wednesday.

A statement said the shots were fired inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses the Iraqi government and diplomats and is the headquarters of the U.S. military.

"The Canadian ambassador's vehicle did sustain damage yesterday from U.S. military gunfire," said the statement.

"The rear guard on a U.S. convoy signaled the vehicle to stay back. After it failed to do so and continued moving toward the convoy from behind, warning shots were aimed at the front of the vehicle, away from the passenger area."

The U.S. military said there were no injuries.

"The incident is under review to determine why it was necessary to fire warning shots," said the statement.

Iraqis often complain that U.S. troops are too quick to fire. American soldiers, who have come under attack by suicide bombers in cars, say they give motorists ample time to slow down before firing shots.

Do suicide bombers even kill US troops anymore?
Face it - these days, the soldiers never even get to see the guy who blows them up. They need to relax.

Do suicide bombers even kill US troops anymore?
Face it - these days, the soldiers never even get to see the guy who blows them up. They need to relax.
"Relax?" In a combat zone? As if!

A car approaches their convoy in Iraq, doesn't slow down when they signal it to, and they're supposed to chill out?

"The incident is under review to determine why it was necessary to fire warning shots," said the statement. <-- The statement seems to be suggesting that 'why did they bother with warning shots' rather 'why did they get as far as firing a warning shot'... c.c

A car approaches their convoy in Iraq, doesn't slow down when they signal it to, and they're supposed to chill out?Ever heard of diplomatic number plates?

"Relax?" In a combat zone? As if!
A car approaches their convoy in Iraq, doesn't slow down when they signal it to, and they're supposed to chill out?
The Green Zone is supposed to be combat free, remember?

It's a matter of professionalism. We've probably had that discussion before...my standards for soldiers are ridiculously high.
These people are sent to kill on my behalf - they better be a whole lot better than normal people.
Being able to make a good and calm decision even in very stressful situations is a part of that - and that is why I don't tolerate "incidents" like this, the Giuliana Sgrena shooting and the attack on the Palestine Hotel.

Do suicide bombers even kill US troops anymore?
Face it - these days, the soldiers never even get to see the guy who blows them up. They need to relax.

Yes they should just face it, relax and let cars approach even though they were warned. I thought you were smarter than that. It's a f-in war zone - green zone or no - relaxation could mean death.

"The incident is under review to determine why it was necessary to fire warning shots," said the statement. <-- The statement seems to be suggesting that 'why did they bother with warning shots' rather 'why did they get as far as firing a warning shot'... c.c

Ever heard of diplomatic number plates?

Ever heard of car=jacking? Plate swapping?

Yes they should just face it, relax and let cars approach even though they were warned. I thought you were smarter than that. It's a f-in war zone - relaxation could mean death.
They are there not to save their own arses, but to liberate the Iraqi people, and if necessary, to die for that and for their country's interests.
Remember that - that's not meant to be empty rhetoric.

The Green Zone is supposed to be combat free, remember?

It's a matter of professionalism. We've probably had that discussion before...my standards for soldiers are ridiculously high.
These people are sent to kill on my behalf - they better be a whole lot better than normal people.
Being able to make a good and calm decision even in very stressful situations is a part of that - and that is why I don't tolerate "incidents" like this, the Giuliana Sgrena shooting and the attack on the Palestine Hotel.
Being able to make a "good and calm decision" in a combat zone translates to "having the best training possible." Many, many times he who hesitates is dead!

Ever heard of diplomatic number plates?
gee... so Diplomatic cars are also thieft proof?

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops in Iraq fired warning shots at the Canadian envoy's car on Tuesday after his convoy failed to slow down while approaching an American military convoy, the U.S. military said on Wednesday.

A statement said the shots were fired inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses the Iraqi government and diplomats and is the headquarters of the U.S. military.

"The Canadian ambassador's vehicle did sustain damage yesterday from U.S. military gunfire," said the statement.

"The rear guard on a U.S. convoy signaled the vehicle to stay back. After it failed to do so and continued moving toward the convoy from behind, warning shots were aimed at the front of the vehicle, away from the passenger area."
The U.S. military said there were no injuries.

"The incident is under review to determine why it was necessary to fire warning shots," said the statement.

Iraqis often complain that U.S. troops are too quick to fire. American soldiers, who have come under attack by suicide bombers in cars, say they give motorists ample time to slow down before firing shots. True moral of the story: when the US soldier signals you.... listen!

Diplomatic immunity don't mean Jack to bullets.

I hate PR. Even on my small time job of life-gaurding. If your seen as an authority figure, people always give you crap. If you have a gun, you get even more. Its the same here. The car should have slowed down, and its understandable that the soilders are edgy. Leonstein has a point, though.

Are the "signals" warning shots to show they mean business? A hand signal? What?

What is the signal to stay back? Do they wave friendlily? Maybe they should start holding up signs, because it is obvious their current manner of signalling sucks.

And wouldn't these guys have been informed of a Canadian envoy visit? I wonder how many cars they fire on in the Green Zone regularly. Do any of the US politicians who visit ride around in cars? Maybe they know better.

I hate PR. Even on my small time job of life-gaurding. If your seen as an authority figure, people always give you crap. If you have a gun, you get even more. Its the same here. The car should have slowed down, and its understandable that the soilders are edgy. Leonstein has a point, though.

Are the "signals" warning shots to show they mean business? A hand signal? What?
Usually signals to slow down is a 'Stop'-like motion with the hands.

tho one tends to wonder... perhaps the drivers are taking that to mean step on the gas.

A friend of mine was stationed in the sandbox (as they call it, won't say where) and he mentioned that the intersections are designed so, that when the lights turn green, the other cars honk, not to tell you to hurry up, but to inform the lead car that the light is green. Apparently the lights are positioned in such a way that the first car can't see them... weird.

Being able to make a "good and calm decision" in a combat zone translates to "having the best training possible." Many, many times he who hesitates is dead!
I'll wait for the investigation (oh, how I wish they would do an independent one for a change, a bit of transparency has never hurt anyone) before I make my decision.
I'm talking about the possibility that for example the car wanted to overtake, or simply not wanted to stop because of the threat of kidnapping, and the soldiers getting scared and shooting first, asking questions at some point in the future...

But to be quite honest - I'd prefer a soldier dying to an innocent bystander dying. Soldiers signed up for this - civilians didn't. In my view, that makes a soldier's death less of a tragedy than the death of someone who just happens to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I wouldn't expect to be treated any different myself.

I'll wait for the investigation (oh, how I wish they would do an independent one for a change, a bit of transparency has never hurt anyone) before I make my decision.
I'm talking about the possibility that for example the car wanted to overtake, or simply not wanted to stop because of the threat of kidnapping, and the soldiers getting scared and shooting first, asking questions at some point in the future...

But to be quite honest - I'd prefer a soldier dying to an innocent bystander dying. Soldiers signed up for this - civilians didn't. In my view, that makes a soldier's death less of a tragedy than the death of someone who just happens to get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I wouldn't expect to be treated any different myself.
Well, I certainly wouldn't give those who opened fire a medal, but then again, I wouldn't castigate them either.

I'll wait for the investigation (oh, how I wish they would do an independent one for a change, a bit of transparency has never hurt anyone) before I make my decision.agreed, on all counts. I'm talking about the possibility that for example the car wanted to overtake,a military convoy? with all reports about road side bombs going off and motar attacks even in the 'Green Zone?' I would slow down to the point where I could barely see the convoy. or simply not wanted to stop because of the threat of kidnapping, a kidnapping attempt with a military convoy right there... um... right. and the soldiers getting scared and shooting first, asking questions at some point in the future... well, that did happen because the driver chose to ignore/mis-interprete the signal to slow down

-snip-
So why do you suppose the Canadians didn't slow down? Sheer malice?

Usually signals to slow down is a 'Stop'-like motion with the hands.

tho one tends to wonder... perhaps the drivers are taking that to mean step on the gas.

A friend of mine was stationed in the sandbox (as they call it, won't say where) and he mentioned that the intersections are designed so, that when the lights turn green, the other cars honk, not to tell you to hurry up, but to inform the lead car that the light is green. Apparently the lights are positioned in such a way that the first car can't see them... weird.
I have a number of friends in Iraq at the moment, and the local rock station always has drives for "those boys over in the big sandbox". Which I find quite charming.

Its my opinion that the signal is obviously not clear enough yet. A simple stop motion with the hands, which I imagine is a straightened out arm and hand with the palm facing the car in question, may actually not be as clear as people think. Especially if you are in potentially hostile terrirtory and flustered. There could also be different ways, or inconsistency in the signals, and that should be addressed (its always the little things). But, I wouldn't be too keen on slowing down myself. A better way to address this would be signs, and lots of them. I wouldn't go as far as giving the soldiers bright coloured clothes and attention getting objects, as that would be a danger to them.

Those cars need to stop further back. :p

What is the signal to stay back? Do they wave friendlily? Maybe they should start holding up signs, because it is obvious their current manner of signalling sucks.

And wouldn't these guys have been informed of a Canadian envoy visit? I wonder how many cars they fire on in the Green Zone regularly. Do any of the US politicians who visit ride around in cars? Maybe they know better.

Jimmy Massey was speaking here in Trinity College last night and he told a little story about that. He was talking to a Muslim woman at some talk or event, and she asked him what signal they gave - raising up their arm, sorta like the black power salute. She asked "Couldn't that be the solidarity sign?" So instead of thinking they're being told to stop, they think they're getting a gesture of friendship.
Warning shots are the same too - after all, what's the first thing we see on TV when we see people in Arab countries celebrating? Guys in groups firing guns in the air.
Cultural insensitivity is not going to help you prevent civilian deaths. I think having a little sign which is the Iraqi equivalent of a Stop sign, or even had 'stop' written on it in Arabic, might be a good idea actually, like Pantless suggested.

So why do you suppose the Canadians didn't slow down? Sheer malice?
not paying attention...
the passenger might be Canadian but the driver might not be, so mis interpretation of signal...
being dumb into thinking that they were special because of the envoy status they had... .who knows... the only person who can answer that is the driver.

...she asked him what signal they gave - raising up their arm, sorta like the black power salute...
If that is the sign to stop on the American side, they need to get unifrom signals. Just like I said earlier.

Do suicide bombers even kill US troops anymore?
Face it - these days, the soldiers never even get to see the guy who blows them up. They need to relax.
Yes, suicide bombers still kill and wound US troops.

Manning a checkpoint, you have specific orders and rules of engagement. IMHO, they followed the rules given.

Failure to follow the rules of engagement can result in court martial. That is, if you fire when you're not supposed to, you're nailed.

You're also nailed if you fail to fire when the rules of engagement specify that you MUST do so.

It's not a matter of relaxing - it's a matter of orders. At the level where people open fire, they have no leeway whatsoever in their instructions at a guard post.

Perhaps this would all be made easier if the insurgents were required to wear an obvious, standard uniform, badges of rank, and were to always paint the vehicles they use with an official emblem or paint scheme representing their side. But of course, they would be following the law of land warfare by doing so, and since that would be "unfair" they will continue to dress as civilians and drive civilian vehicles.

Manning a checkpoint, you have specific orders and rules of engagement. IMHO, they followed the rules given.
They wern't manning a check point.

Perhaps this would all be made easier if the insurgents were required to wear an obvious, standard uniform, badges of rank, and were to always paint the vehicles they use with an official emblem or paint scheme representing their side. But of course, they would be following the law of land warfare by doing so, and since that would be "unfair" they will continue to dress as civilians and drive civilian vehicles.Scene: a Car drives towards the US Checkpoint... on the side, in bright red paint are the words NOT A CAR BOMB. the soldiers open fire, reducing the car to a smodering heap.

several blocks away, two terrorists look at each other and wonder.
"how did they know?"

:D :D :D

They wern't manning a check point.
You still have rules of engagement, even if you're just driving down the road or standing around looking like an American soldier.

Follow orders, or spend a decade in Leavenworth. Your choice.

When I was in the Army, I was temporarily assigned to duty with a nuclear missile unit. My job was to shoot anyone who even remotely looked like they were giving an illegal order, damaging the missile or warhead, or attempting an illegal launch.

I was armed and they were not. I was to ignore their rank no matter how much they outranked me.

People knew that I and others like me would follow orders and shoot them dead if they screwed up. Made everyone quite honest and careful.

*cough*

yayyy! hey, let's take out the whole damn continent of north america while we're at it. YOU know.. two birds with one stone!

*gag*

What about the professionalism of the Driver of the car in the Canadian Envoy, maybe he should have been "professional" enough to realize not to approach an american vehicle. And the HALT! sign is pretty universal. Listen Part of my job is directing traffic or stopping it at a gate, i've yet to run into someone that doesn't understand stop.


And Neu Leonstein, you say your standards for soldiers are high eh? Are you a soldier? have you ever served anywhere, and as far as "knowing" people or being related to people that are soldiers, being one is a little different, so get off your high horse preaching about your standards unless you have some actual experience.




Lets see, warning shots fired, car backed off, no one was hurt. Hmm I don't see a problem with this incident. Green Zone or not, its still frickin Iraq.

Perhaps this would all be made easier if the insurgents were required to wear an obvious, standard uniform, badges of rank, and were to always paint the vehicles they use with an official emblem or paint scheme representing their side. But of course, they would be following the law of land warfare by doing so, and since that would be "unfair" they will continue to dress as civilians and drive civilian vehicles.
Just a minor point, they aren't actually required to do so - according to the first Additional Protocol of 1977, they only have to carry their arms before an attack to be lawful combatants.
Of course, they have to follow the laws of war too (especially those on humane treatment), so myeh. And the US never signed that protocol, so I'm not sure exactly what that means under international law (but under US law, it means they aren't lawful combatants, I'd say). Nor did Iraq, so according to crimesofwar.org, it doesn't apply.

What about the professionalism of the Driver of the car in the Canadian Envoy, maybe he should have been "professional" enough to realize not to approach an american vehicle. And the HALT! sign is pretty universal. Listen Part of my job is directing traffic or stopping it at a gate, i've yet to run into someone that doesn't understand stop.
Have you done it in Iraq though? Read the little anecdote of Jimmy Massey's I supplied. The halt signal they use is not unambiguous. Nor even are warning shots. They might be to you, might be to me, but not to everyone.

And the HALT! sign is pretty universal.
There are two people contradicting eachother here on that signal.
The HALT! sign may be universal, I think that as well, but is it clear to someone fearing for their life? Is it consistent throughout all of Iraq? I wish I knew.

Just a minor point, they aren't actually required to do so - according to the first Additional Protocol of 1977, they only have to carry their arms before an attack to be lawful combatants.
Of course, they have to follow the laws of war too (especially those on humane treatment), so myeh. And the US never signed that protocol, so I'm not sure exactly what that means under international law (but under US law, it means they aren't lawful combatants, I'd say). Nor did Iraq, so according to crimesofwar.org, it doesn't apply.

The US is a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, but did not sign the additional 1977 Protocol.

So the US fights under the assumption that enemies who wish to abide by the Conventions must fit the definition given in Convention I, Article 2, in its entirety.

The insurgents are to be considered members of a High Contracting Party to the Conventions if they are native Iraqis. If they are not, they are unprotected, even under the 1977 Protocols.

In any case, the insurgents seem to as a rule violate every law of land warfare that's ever been printed, short of using poison gas, on a daily basis.

And Neu Leonstein, you say your standards for soldiers are high eh? Are you a soldier? have you ever served anywhere, and as far as "knowing" people or being related to people that are soldiers, being one is a little different, so get off your high horse preaching about your standards unless you have some actual experience.
You should know better than to expect that to work with me. Soldiers are people, and if their training or character is not up to the job, they shouldn't be doing that job. Simple.

But as I said, I'm waiting for any results of the investigation before assigning guilt.

You should know better than to expect that to work with me. Soldiers are people, and if their training or character is not up to the job, they shouldn't be doing that job. Simple.

But as I said, I'm waiting for any results of the investigation before assigning guilt.

Speaking from military experience, if the rules of engagement they were given at the time required them to fire on vehicles that did not slow or stop on command, then even if everyone had been killed in the vehicle, it would be OK and the investigation would conclude that it was the right thing to do.

So get ready for disappointment.

You should know better than to expect that to work with me. Soldiers are people, and if their training or character is not up to the job, they shouldn't be doing that job. Simple.

But as I said, I'm waiting for any results of the investigation before assigning guilt.


yes but how do you define your supposed "standards"?


Ever heard of the term "armchair General", it's very easy to criticize when you aren't there, don't know the situation, you don't know if those specific soldiers have been attacked like that in a Green Zone before?

Basically I have no respect for those that criticize about training and character when they haven't put THEIR character up to the test or gone through the training. Put up or shut up.

This shit will get fixed quick, fast, and in a hurry when they fire on a US politician.

Speaking from military experience, if the rules of engagement they were given at the time required them to fire on vehicles that did not slow or stop on command, then even if everyone had been killed in the vehicle, it would be OK and the investigation would conclude that it was the right thing to do.

So get ready for disappointment.


Word.

This shit will get fixed quick, fast, and in a hurry when they fire on a US politician.
Yeah I somehow believe for some reason that the reaction would be different both on our political front and in the civilian/news front if this had been a US politician

This shit will get fixed quick, fast, and in a hurry when they fire on a US politician.

What needs fixed here?
I still have yet to see a problem with this situation and if the politician is doing something stupid, the Military will back up the soldiers if they had been following ROE.

This shit will get fixed quick, fast, and in a hurry when they fire on a US politician.
Won't happen, because US drivers will know what the "stop" or "Slow down" signal means. and if the driver continues on, then the passenger will say that their driver was 'Stupid.'

...and the investigation would conclude that it was the right thing to do.
It's the military investigating the military. Should I expect any different?

Basically I have no respect for those that criticize about training and character when they haven't put THEIR character up to the test or gone through the training. Put up or shut up.
http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif
Incidentally, where I come from, there is quite a lot of people who would no longer respect me if I went through the training, or went to war.

Not that I needed your respect, but if I went home to Germany right now, I'd probably do military service (if they needed me). But then, training there is different, and includes teaching people the value of a life, even if it's not American, so that might not count.

The US is a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, but did not sign the additional 1977 Protocol.

So the US fights under the assumption that enemies who wish to abide by the Conventions must fit the definition given in Convention I, Article 2, in its entirety.

The insurgents are to be considered members of a High Contracting Party to the Conventions if they are native Iraqis. If they are not, they are unprotected, even under the 1977 Protocols.

In any case, the insurgents seem to as a rule violate every law of land warfare that's ever been printed, short of using poison gas, on a daily basis.
Aye, I pointed that one out (apart from the foreigners bit, I didn't know that one, thanks). Would it make a difference if the Iraqis had signed the 1977 protocol? The British, I think, are signatories.
And it seems to me like a pretty fair rule, to be honest - that is, assuming that the insurgents followed the laws of war.
On a side note, the 1977 protocol would make Guantanamo illegal - there's a provision in there for judicial review of POW status, and something about kids too... OT I know, but interesting nonetheless.

What needs fixed here?
I still have yet to see a problem with this situation and if the politician is doing something stupid, the Military will back up the soldiers if they had been following ROE.

The problem is that stop signs are not universal. There are cultural differences.

You might work at a gate... but tell me, isn't it all the same people who go through that gate? I mean, don't they all, in one way or another, come from the same culture as you? Or one very similar?

Putting up your hand could just be seen as a friendly gesture, like a hi or something. Shooting a gun in the air would to some be seen as celebrating. Therefore, it might be an idea to inform people of the stop signals and to get some uniform ones too.

What needs fixed here?
I still have yet to see a problem with this situation and if the politician is doing something stupid, the Military will back up the soldiers if they had been following ROE.
I think the problem is not that what they were doing was against ROE, but that the signalling they are using is not getting the message across, meaning people end up dead who wouldn't have if there was better signalling.
EDIT: As Seathorn said. Damn these faster-than-me type people!

yes but how do you define your supposed "standards"?


Ever heard of the term "armchair General", it's very easy to criticize when you aren't there, don't know the situation, you don't know if those specific soldiers have been attacked like that in a Green Zone before?

Basically I have no respect for those that criticize about training and character when they haven't put THEIR character up to the test or gone through the training. Put up or shut up.

armchair general...? you wouldn't by chance be talking about the man that ordered all of the troops into iraq? one guess: starts with "B" and ends with "USH".

i take it to mean then that you have no problem with someone who has never been in combat sending others to die or kill others, but someone who would attempt to impose some humanity on a soulless affair, you have no patience. uhhuh.

It's the military investigating the military. Should I expect any different?


http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif
Incidentally, where I come from, there is quite a lot of people who would no longer respect me if I went through the training, or went to war.

Not that I needed your respect, but if I went home to Germany right now, I'd probably do military service (if they needed me). But then, training there is different, and includes teaching people the value of a life, even if it's not American, so that might not count.

Wow, and to think i was trained to treat people with respect and value life in my American Military training. Cause don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for the Bundeswehr but historically they aren't really the ones that we should be looking up to about value of life. Get off your soapbox and get a clue. We aren't going in rounding up babies and spitting them on the ends of our bayonets nor are we carpet bombing whole cities. We are making the Utmost effort to limit Collateral Damage. War happens, people die, no amount of training or experience is going to change that.

Won't happen, because US drivers will know what the "stop" or "Slow down" signal means. and if the driver continues on, then the passenger will say that their driver was 'Stupid.'
You assume you know what signal they are even using.

armchair general...? you wouldn't by chance be talking about the man that ordered all of the troops into iraq? one guess: starts with "B" and ends with "USH".

i take it to mean then that you have no problem with someone who has never been in combat sending others to die or kill others, but someone who would attempt to impose some humanity on a soulless affair, you have no patience. uhhuh.


Don't get me started on Bush, I hate him, I voted for Kerry.

yes but how do you define your supposed "standards"?


Ever heard of the term "armchair General", it's very easy to criticize when you aren't there, don't know the situation, you don't know if those specific soldiers have been attacked like that in a Green Zone before?


Searching the news, bombings INSIDE the green zone are almost unheard of. The last incident was last OCtober where a car made it as far as the checkpoint inside the employee entrance.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/10/04/car_bomb_blows_up_inside_baghdad_green_zone_3_dead?mode=PF

Prior to that, it had been a year.

Now, I don't know if diplomatic convoys are well marked inside the green zone. Nor do any of us know exactly what happened in this incident - i.e. The time between the signal to stop and the warning shots. And potentially a driver could concievably be distracted by a question from the VIP in his back seat (or be glancing in the rear-view mirror) and miss a signal if it is given very quickly.

According to a local news report I heard on the radio, one shot went above the car, two went into the engine block, and one went through the windshield.

But yes, we'll wait for the reports to come out. Issues at play could include if these were new troops to the country who were a bit nervous. The exact timeline. The actual distance from the convoy the cars were when the shots were fired. etc.

Still, between this and last week's Ambassadorial gaffe where the US envoy to Canada choose to challenge the PM designate on one of his campaign issues before the guy even took office - it is going to be harder for Mr. Harper to warm relations with Washington (as Washington seems to hope will happen) if these potential PR problems keep popping up.

The soldiers did the right thing, end of story.

They are there not to save their own arses, but to liberate the Iraqi people, and if necessary, to die for that and for their country's interests.
Remember that - that's not meant to be empty rhetoric.

And how is the death of a solider due to a car bomb in anyone's best interest?

Wow, and to think i was trained to treat people with respect and value life in my American Military training. Cause don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for the Bundeswehr but historically they aren't really the ones that we should be looking up to about value of life. Get off your soapbox and get a clue. We aren't going in rounding up babies and spitting them on the ends of our bayonets nor are we carpet bombing whole cities. We are making the Utmost effort to limit Collateral Damage. War happens, people die, no amount of training or experience is going to change that.
For that comment you deserve to be slapped. Unless, of course, I'm totally mistaken, and the German Army trains its people nowadays to perpretrate war crimes. And if it doesn't, and we're just going on the past, then America isn't spotless on the genocide front either.
Germans ARE NOT necessarily Nazis. And that comment has made me very very goram mad.

Wow, and to think i was trained to treat people with respect and value life in my American Military training. Cause don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for the Bundeswehr but historically they aren't really the ones that we should be looking up to about value of life. Get off your soapbox and get a clue. We aren't going in rounding up babies and spitting them on the ends of our bayonets nor are we carpet bombing whole cities. We are making the Utmost effort to limit Collateral Damage. War happens, people die, no amount of training or experience is going to change that.

While those of us who are forced to do military service first learn to be disciplined.

Then, before they teach us how to use a gun, they teach us first aid.

I'll tell you more when I find out about it... if I do. And I hope I don't.'

(actually, there's a short version: The military service in Denmark is training the kind of people you needed in New Orleans. It takes four months. I don't think Germany's military training is significantly different).

The moral of the story: Even INSIDE the green zone, stay the fuck away from the troops. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060201/wl_canada_nm/canada_iraq_shooting_canada_col_1)

The blurp you quoted gave the troops sufficient reason to shoot.

We are making the Utmost effort to limit Collateral Damage. War happens, people die, no amount of training or experience is going to change that.

And part of that is recognizing when something went wrong not just blindly declaring that nothing went wrong and accepting the death.

Just writing off the death as unavoidable may be the pragmatic thing to do, but by stetting high standards for the military hopefully they can work towards and achieve them not just settle for what they are right now.

You assume you know what signal they are even using.
U.S. soldiers signalling to a US ambassador? I believe they would understand the signals... possibly better than an Iraqi who may never have seen any American film, news, or person untill this war.

"Ever heard of diplomatic number plates?

It could've been a suicide attack using diplomatic plates. In a combat zone, when told to slow down, SLOW DOWN!

And how is the death of a solider due to a car bomb in anyone's best interest?
How is the death of an innocent civilian due to a mistaken perception of something as a car bomb in anyone's best interest either?

Searching the news, bombings INSIDE the green zone are almost unheard of. The last incident was last OCtober where a car made it as far as the checkpoint inside the employee entrance.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/10/04/car_bomb_blows_up_inside_baghdad_green_zone_3_dead?mode=PF

Prior to that, it had been a year.

Now, I don't know if diplomatic convoys are well marked inside the green zone. Nor do any of us know exactly what happened in this incident - i.e. The time between the signal to stop and the warning shots. And potentially a driver could concievably be distracted by a question from the VIP in his back seat (or be glancing in the rear-view mirror) and miss a signal if it is given very quickly.

According to a local news report I heard on the radio, one shot went above the car, two went into the engine block, and one went through the windshield.

But yes, we'll wait for the reports to come out. Issues at play could include if these were new troops to the country who were a bit nervous. The exact timeline. The actual distance from the convoy the cars were when the shots were fired. etc.

Still, between this and last week's Ambassadorial gaffe where the US envoy to Canada choose to challenge the PM designate on one of his campaign issues before the guy even took office - it is going to be harder for Mr. Harper to warm relations with Washington (as Washington seems to hope will happen) if these potential PR problems keep popping up.


I don't trust the news, to be honest, you never get the full story.

Who knows what is really going on there other than the ones involved, we don't know how many times they have to fire warning shots or ram people out of their convoys that try for some strange reason to cut in. (it happens, a buddy of mine tells me about always having to Ram Iraqi cars that would just try to jump into the middle of a convoy.)

We don't even know if this is a common occurance in a green zone. (and actually just recently there was a mortar attack upon a Ceremony in baghdad that was in a green zone, yes i know that it probably came from outside the green zone but yeah it still happened. Green means "Safeish" not Safe.

How is the death of an innocent civilian due to a mistaken perception of something as a car bomb in anyone's best interest either?
shouldn't that be "How is the death of an innocent civilian due to a mistaken perception/interpretation of signals given to them by a US Soldier in anyone's best interest either?"

War happens, people die, no amount of training or experience is going to change that.
See, there is the central difference between my view of the world, and yours.

I see war as something we humans invented, we humans define, and we humans create new every time. These days, there is no enemy the West has to fight which could actually challenge it.
That gives us the unique chance to fight war humanely. We can afford it, precisely because we are capable of so much worse. It's just a matter of completely redefining the rules of engagement.

The soldiers did the right thing, end of story.


Of course. They ALWAYS do.

And their word on the sequence of events is guaranteed to be 100% accurate. After all, they're soldiers. In Iraq.

No stress, contavention of protocols, or incidents of trigger-happiness have ever occurred.

Not one.

Because soldiers NEVER screw up.

Gosh. you're right. In fact, the US military is so sure of this fact that they're..... investigating the incident.



But what do they know.

They're only..... soldiers.

:rolleyes:

U.S. soldiers signalling to a US ambassador? I believe they would understand the signals... possibly better than an Iraqi who may never have seen any American film, news, or person untill this war.
You completely evade the question and the issue.

shouldn't that be "How is the death of an innocent civilian due to a mistaken perception/interpretation of signals given to them by a US Soldier in anyone's best interest either?"
I tried that with my brother once: Told him that if he took my toy, I'd smack him. He took my toy, I smacked him.
Strangely enough, my parents punished me for smacking nonetheless...

Of course. They ALWAYS do.

And their word on the sequence of events is guaranteed to be 100% accurate. After all, they're soldiers. In Iraq.

No stress, contavention of protocols, or incidents of trigger-happiness have ever occurred.

Not one.

Because soldiers NEVER screw up.

Gosh. you're right. In fact, the US military is so sure of this fact that they're..... investigating the incident.



But what do they know.

They're only..... soldiers.

:rolleyes:


You might get ready to be disappointed. If the soldiers were following rules of engagement, they'll be let off.

Just like the soldiers that fired up the Italians a while back.

For that comment you deserve to be slapped. Unless, of course, I'm totally mistaken, and the German Army trains its people nowadays to perpretrate war crimes. And if it doesn't, and we're just going on the past, then America isn't spotless on the genocide front either.
Germans ARE NOT necessarily Nazis. And that comment has made me very very goram mad.



I was trying to knock Neu Leonstein off is high horse. Like I said I respect the Bundeswehr(Hell my company is supposed to try out for the German Infantry Badge). But the German army has a history and like it or not its not a nice one.

And I do apologize for any German that I Insulted, other than Neu Leonstein, bad comment, it was a mistake.

I don't trust the news, to be honest, you never get the full story.

Who knows what is really going on there other than the ones involved, we don't know how many times they have to fire warning shots or ram people out of their convoys that try for some strange reason to cut in. (it happens, a buddy of mine tells me about always having to Ram Iraqi cars that would just try to jump into the middle of a convoy.)

We don't even know if this is a common occurance in a green zone. (and actually just recently there was a mortar attack upon a Ceremony in baghdad that was in a green zone, yes i know that it probably came from outside the green zone but yeah it still happened. Green means "Safeish" not Safe.



Oooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the all The Big Media Conspiracy is it?

In that case, maybe this incident didn't really happen.



After all - it's in The News!


Can't trust that!


What REALLY happened is that the driver of the convoy stubbed his toe on the brake pedal, fired his weapon into the air in anger, and shot his OWN car up!


Yeah.... that's the ticket!

See, there is the central difference between my view of the world, and yours.

I see war as something we humans invented, we humans define, and we humans create new every time. These days, there is no enemy the West has to fight which could actually challenge it.
That gives us the unique chance to fight war humanely. We can afford it, precisely because we are capable of so much worse. It's just a matter of completely redefining the rules of engagement.

yes, but the definition of 'humanely' is open to interpretation. whose side is it humane for? it's pretty damn humane overall for the side that can use cruise missiles and smart bombs. of course, then the problem is having a military that is even trained for real combat anymore, especially urban warfare.

shouldn't that be "How is the death of an innocent civilian due to a mistaken perception/interpretation of signals given to them by a US Soldier in anyone's best interest either?"
Yes, but my brain is quite frazzled due to not quite enough sleep.
Council of Clan, the news is our only source for all this, so it's what we get to go on. Yes, you don't get everything, but nor do you get everything from the military, from history, etc.

Oooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the all The Big Media Conspiracy is it?

In that case, maybe this incident didn't really happen.



After all - it's in The News!


Can't trust that!


What REALLY happened is that the driver of the convoy stubbed his toe on the brake pedal, fired his weapon into the air in anger, and shot his OWN car up!


Yeah.... that's the ticket!


No, what is probably true is that the rules of engagement are written in ass-covering doublespeak, and the military investigators will find that the actions of the soldiers fell well within the rules of engagement.

End of story, and a proclaimation by Silli that there's a conspiracy to cover up the dastardly actions of ignorant US troops.

This shit will get fixed quick, fast, and in a hurry when they fire on a US politician.
Won't happen, because US drivers will know what the "stop" or "Slow down" signal means. and if the driver continues on, then the passenger will say that their driver was 'Stupid.'You assume you know what signal they are even using.U.S. soldiers signalling to a US ambassador? I believe they would understand the signals... possibly better than an Iraqi who may never have seen any American film, news, or person untill this war.You completely evade the question and the issue. Nope, answered your question head on.

You might get ready to be disappointed. If the soldiers were following rules of engagement, they'll be let off.

Just like the soldiers that fired up the Italians a while back.


Oh, I expect that it will be deemed correct. And I expect that there will also be a word or two given to the troops involved behind the scenes if they think it was borderline.


I have no expectation of anything beyond that at all.

See, there is the central difference between my view of the world, and yours.

I see war as something we humans invented, we humans define, and we humans create new every time. These days, there is no enemy the West has to fight which could actually challenge it.
That gives us the unique chance to fight war humanely. We can afford it, precisely because we are capable of so much worse. It's just a matter of completely redefining the rules of engagement.


Ah, now we're getting into Nurture vs. Nature aren't we?


Well I have a challenge for you then, why don't you go out, and redefine the Rules of Engagement so that NO one but the bad guys die.

This shit will get fixed quick, fast, and in a hurry when they fire on a US politician.

If that politician didn't slow down when told to, that'll be his tough luck.

No, what is probably true is that the rules of engagement are written in ass-covering doublespeak, and the military investigators will find that the actions of the soldiers fell well within the rules of engagement.

End of story, and a proclaimation by Silli that there's a conspiracy to cover up the dastardly actions of ignorant US troops.


Err, no - I'm not much into consipracies.

Not like the person I was responding to at any rate.

I was trying to knock Neu Leonstein off is high horse. Like I said I respect the Bundeswehr(Hell my company is supposed to try out for the German Infantry Badge). But the German army has a history and like it or not its not a nice one.

And I do apologize for any German that I Insulted, other than Neu Leonstein, bad comment, it was a mistake.
Ad hominem attacks are bad. And far from knocking him from his high horse, you lowered yourself to the gutter. The American army has a history too - Trail of Tears ring any bells, for example?
You owe Neu Leonstein an apology too.

Not that I needed your respect, but if I went home to Germany right now, I'd probably do military service (if they needed me). But then, training there is different, and includes teaching people the value of a life, even if it's not American, so that might not count.

What exactly do you mean by this?

I tried that with my brother once: Told him that if he took my toy, I'd smack him. He took my toy, I smacked him.
Strangely enough, my parents punished me for smacking nonetheless...
ahh.. but it wasn't your job to punnish your brother (younger I assume) but you should've reported the theift to the Authorities (parents) You took the law into your own hands and became a vigilante...

The Punnisher. :D

Oooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the all The Big Media Conspiracy is it?

In that case, maybe this incident didn't really happen.



After all - it's in The News!


Can't trust that!


What REALLY happened is that the driver of the convoy stubbed his toe on the brake pedal, fired his weapon into the air in anger, and shot his OWN car up!


Yeah.... that's the ticket!


what I meant is that not everything that is happening is getting reported in the press. Because every reporter no matter what station they work for has their own political views and if they want to portray something a certain way by reporting on one incident and not another they can do that.


The only way you'll get a total picture of whats going on is taking what the media reports, then what the Army reports, and then if you can get at them read the Incident reports for the day that every commander has to write up when something happens.

armchair general...? you wouldn't by chance be talking about the man that ordered all of the troops into iraq? one guess: starts with "B" and ends with "USH".

i take it to mean then that you have no problem with someone who has never been in combat sending others to die or kill others, but someone who would attempt to impose some humanity on a soulless affair, you have no patience. uhhuh.

Hey, if it worked for Bill Clinton who never did serve a day in uniform.....then you cannot compalin about Bush who did serve in uniform.

You assume you know what signal they are even using.

most people in the military know the hand signals for slow down and stop.

Ad hominem attacks are bad. And far from knocking him from his high horse, you lowered yourself to the gutter. The American army has a history too - Trail of Tears ring any bells, for example?
You owe Neu Leonstein an apology too.


Listen, I will not apologize to him until he stops his blatant anti-american soldier attacks. Which are personal attacks on me because i'm an american soldier so everytime he insults the army, the soldiers in it, training and etc. I take all of that personally because I'm related to it. Sorry.

most people in the military know the hand signals for slow down and stop.
The argument tho, is that the driver (military or not... possibly not) may not have understood the signal to stop.

The argument tho, is that the driver (military or not... possibly not) may not have understood the signal to stop.

He understood signals to stop, because as soon as they started shooting i assume he stopped. But as far as the HAND signals go, I guess he got some refresher training.

The argument tho, is that the driver (military or not... possibly not) may not have understood the signal to stop.

It's more likely that the driver was fooling around with the CD player and was preoccupied.

The argument tho, is that the driver (military or not... possibly not) may not have understood the signal to stop.

Then it is up to the people in the back to tell them.

Listen, I will not apologize to him until he stops his blatant anti-american soldier attacks. Which are personal attacks on me because i'm an american soldier so everytime he insults the army, the soldiers in it, training and etc. I take all of that personally because I'm related to it. Sorry.
He never was blatantly anti-soldier - he merely said he had a high expectation of soldiers. And even if he did, first, you should rise above that, and secondly, you took it way too far. Calling the army of an entire nation genocidaires is not in the slightest way an appropriate response to him saying that he thinks soldiers should have a very high standard of conduct and training.

Then it is up to the people in the back to tell them.
And if they don't?

Then it is up to the people in the back to tell them. To be fair, the envoy in the back was probably deep in his thoughts. Not saying the soldiers were wrong, mind you. just that it wasn't their fault. they did signal the car to stop/slow down and it didn't.

And if they don't?

Tough luck.

Well I have a challenge for you then, why don't you go out, and redefine the Rules of Engagement so that NO one but the bad guys die.
A quick idea for everyday patrol sort of duty in Iraq would be:
a) Don't fire unless you're getting fired at.
b) If you are getting fired at and there are civilians, retreat to a safe position, wait and calm down, then evaluate the situation and evacuate any remaining civilians while doing so.
c) At all times remember that any civilian is more important than you. You have to give your life to protect any civilian, from any side, if it should become necessary.
d) Once you have made it very certain that no collateral damage can occur, proceed to take out those that attacked you, trying to minimise damage done to other people's property. If collateral damage is possible, don't attack and wait for a better chance.
e) Heavy weapons are not to be used in an urban environment. No LAWs, no aircraft or helicopters, no tank grenades. If you have to storm a house with flashbangs and handguns, so be it - you're better trained than they are anyways.

You'd have to modify it of course if you actually had to fight an offensive (in which case I would want the priorities to be:
1. Winning.
2. Civilians.
3. Your own guys.
4. The other guys. Capture rather than kill, if possible.

I have to say that I'm not familiar what the rules of engagement are at the moment in Iraq, and I'm sure theirs and mine overlap at some point. But I don't think they are going far enough.
Obviously this doesn't guarantee that no civilian dies, but it hopefully would go a long way in decreasing the number of innocent people and their property hurt in this mess.

To be fair, the envoy in the back was probably deep in his thoughts. Not saying the soldiers were wrong, mind you. just that it wasn't their fault. they did signal the car to stop/slow down and it didn't.

True as well.

He never was blatantly anti-soldier - he merely said he had a high expectation of soldiers. And even if he did, first, you should rise above that, and secondly, you took it way too far. Calling the army of an entire nation genocidaires is not in the slightest way an appropriate response to him saying that he thinks soldiers should have a very high standard of conduct and training.



Listen, this is a problem i've been having with this guy for a LONG time in NS General.

This is minor compared to the past.

Yes i know your going to ask for links, but i'm not going to give them because that is a lot of friggin work for a stupid arguement. It's pointless and its 10am and I haven't gone to bed yet. So I'll probably be getting offline here anyway.

Tough luck.
Wouldn't it be better, though, if they found out what the signal to stop is in Iraq and used that instead? Meaning fewer people killed, less bad press among Iraqis, hell, even fewer bullets fired.

Wouldn't it be better, though, if they found out what the signal to stop is in Iraq and used that instead? Meaning fewer people killed, less bad press among Iraqis, hell, even fewer bullets fired.and if there was no hand signal to stop/slow down?

however, I do believe it works, because more often than not, they do stop before the guns are fired.

A quick idea for everyday patrol sort of duty in Iraq would be:
a) Don't fire unless you're getting fired at.
b) If you are getting fired at and there are civilians, retreat to a safe position, wait and calm down, then evaluate the situation and evacuate any remaining civilians while doing so.
c) At all times remember that any civilian is more important than you. You have to give your life to protect any civilian, from any side, if it should become necessary.
d) Once you have made it very certain that no collateral damage can occur, proceed to take out those that attacked you, trying to minimise damage done to other people's property. If collateral damage is possible, don't attack and wait for a better chance.
e) Heavy weapons are not to be used in an urban environment. No LAWs, no aircraft or helicopters, no tank grenades. If you have to storm a house with flashbangs and handguns, so be it - you're better trained than they are anyways.

You'd have to modify it of course if you actually had to fight an offensive (in which case I would want the priorities to be:
1. Winning.
2. Civilians.
3. Your own guys.
4. The other guys. Capture rather than kill, if possible.

I have to say that I'm not familiar what the rules of engagement are at the moment in Iraq, and I'm sure theirs and mine overlap at some point. But I don't think they are going far enough.
Obviously this doesn't guarantee that no civilian dies, but it hopefully would go a long way in decreasing the number of innocent people and their property hurt in this mess.

Did you actually think through these, or did your fingers work faster than your brain?

A quick idea for everyday patrol sort of duty in Iraq would be:
a) Don't fire unless you're getting fired at.

Already a rule.

b) If you are getting fired at and there are civilians, retreat to a safe position, wait and calm down, then evaluate the situation and evacuate any remaining civilians while doing so.

All the while getting killed in the process.

c) At all times remember that any civilian is more important than you. You have to give your life to protect any civilian, from any side, if it should become necessary.

Already a rule.

d) Once you have made it very certain that no collateral damage can occur, proceed to take out those that attacked you, trying to minimise damage done to other people's property. If collateral damage is possible, don't attack and wait for a better chance.

OMFG! What if they are shooting at you from a building. Now what?

e) Heavy weapons are not to be used in an urban environment. No LAWs, no aircraft or helicopters, no tank grenades. If you have to storm a house with flashbangs and handguns, so be it - you're better trained than they are anyways.

Accurate but what if you cannot approach the building? now what?

I have to say that I'm not familiar what the rules of engagement are at the moment in Iraq, and I'm sure theirs and mine overlap at some point. But I don't think they are going far enough.

I agree with this!

Obviously this doesn't guarantee that no civilian dies, but it hopefully would go a long way in decreasing the number of innocent people and their property hurt in this mess.

At the expense of military casualties?

Wouldn't it be better, though, if they found out what the signal to stop is in Iraq and used that instead? Meaning fewer people killed, less bad press among Iraqis, hell, even fewer bullets fired.

Who won?

Listen, this is a problem i've been having with this guy for a LONG time in NS General.

This is minor compared to the past.

Yes i know your going to ask for links, but i'm not going to give them because that is a lot of friggin work for a stupid arguement. It's pointless and its 10am and I haven't gone to bed yet. So I'll probably be getting offline here anyway.
No, I'm not going to ask for links, I don't think they're particularly relevant. The thing is, it was an attack on an entire group that was unfair and wrong, no matter what the context. Even if he regularly dances around singing the "I Hate America" song and stealing from the VA, it doesn't make it right for you to taran entire group of murderers when they are patently not. It doesn't make whatever he does right (I have no idea what this is, or whether he does anything). It just means that what you did was wrong, and you wronged him too.

Wouldn't it be better, though, if they found out what the signal to stop is in Iraq and used that instead? Meaning fewer people killed, less bad press among Iraqis, hell, even fewer bullets fired.

I'm fairly sure that official drivers, even if they are Iraqis, are briefed as to what to do when approaching a convoy.

and if there was no hand signal to stop/slow down?

however, I do believe it works, because more often than not, they do stop before the guns are fired.
The, find out what the Arabic for Stop is and stick it on a sign, and issue it to every unit that will be on a checkpoint, or get them to make signs, or something similar.
Corneliu, I don't get what you mean by who won... Could you elaborate please?

The, find out what the Arabic for Stop is and stick it on a sign, and issue it to every unit that will be on a checkpoint, or get them to make signs, or something similar.

And if it is universal?

Corneliu, I don't get what you mean by who won... Could you elaborate please?

Are you serious? You honestly don't know what I ment by who won? Oh brother. Who won the war?

I'm fairly sure that official drivers, even if they are Iraqis, are briefed as to what to do when approaching a convoy.
Maybe. Maybe not. What about the normal drivers, though? They sure as hell aren't.

The, find out what the Arabic for Stop is and stick it on a sign, and issue it to every unit that will be on a checkpoint, or get them to make signs, or something similar.
I believe they do have such signs at the checkpoints but to require every soldier to carry one? Besides, I really don't think it's needed. what is needed is education that no matter how important you are, the bullet fired won't be impressed.

What exactly do you mean by this?
Well, it was probably an overdone way of highlighting the differences in the way the US Military works and the way the Bundeswehr works.

Because of the whole history thing, the Bundeswehr answers to the constitution. It overrides any general, admiral or chancellor, for one thing.
The first sentence of that constitution is "The dignity of a human being is inviolable." And there you see where it starts.

They have developed this whole concept of "Innere Führung (http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/orga/03organs/06armforce/armfor05_2.html)" ("Internal Leadership") that is supposed (I think) to bring back humanity into the rather dehumanising purpose and methods of any military.
I think it is a pretty good idea, and that the US would do well to have a look into that sort of thing as well - even if it is just to get those "bad apples" and sort them out. The times when there was simply an enemy to defeat are over - conflict is a lot more complex today, and we need a lot more complex men and women to deal with it.

Well, it was probably an overdone way of highlighting the differences in the way the US Military works and the way the Bundeswehr works.

Because of the whole history thing, the Bundeswehr answers to the constitution. It overrides any general, admiral or chancellor, for one thing.
The first sentence of that constitution is "The dignity of a human being is inviolable." And there you see where it starts.



Are you claiming that the US Military is above the constitution?

And if it is universal?
Then why are Iraqi civilians getting killed?

Are you serious? You honestly don't know what I ment by who won? Oh brother. Who won the war?
I thought you might have meant that, but I didn't see the relevance - that quote hasd nothing to do with winning the war. Still don't, actually, so could you explain how it is? I'm sure it's probably pretty obvious and it's just going over my head cos I'm tired and typing in French while I'm doing this as well.
The coalition forces won the war against Iraq. No-one's won the war in Iraq.

Did you actually think through these, or did your fingers work faster than your brain?
A mixture...it's 1:31 AM here, and I had to get some of my basic beliefs and work them into some sort of meaningful (or semi-meaningful) piece of text. Not easy, but it's more an indication of what I'm aiming at than an actual list.

Accurate but what if you cannot approach the building? now what?
Then you wait and monitor. If needed, you can call in an APC that should help.

At the expense of military casualties?
Well, winning is number one. You shouldn't lose so many guys that you lose the war.
But after that: Remember that soldiers (at least in modern times) signed up for it all. It was their choice. That has got to be important.
Civilians on the other hand never go to war. War comes to them in the form of soldiers with weapons.

Then why are Iraqi civilians getting killed?


I thought you might have meant that, but I didn't see the relevance - that quote hasd nothing to do with winning the war. Still don't, actually, so could you explain how it is? I'm sure it's probably pretty obvious and it's just going over my head cos I'm tired and typing in French while I'm doing this as well.
The coalition forces won the war against Iraq. No-one's won the war in Iraq.

You have a contradictory statement at the end of your post.

Are you claiming that the US Military is above the constitution?

apparently the commander-in-chief is...

Then you wait and monitor. If needed, you can call in an APC that should help.

An APC could destroy a building ya know!

Well, winning is number one. You shouldn't lose so many guys that you lose the war.

And yet we won the Iraq War. So what are you going on about?

But after that: Remember that soldiers (at least in modern times) signed up for it all. It was their choice. That has got to be important.

Yep! They do sign up and know what they are getting into.

Civilians on the other hand never go to war. War comes to them in the form of soldiers with weapons.

Can't argue there.

Are you claiming that the US Military is above the constitution?
In a way, it is, in that winning seems to be put before the principles inherent in that constitution. Today, the US Military is a weapon of attack moreso than defense, and that is probably not something the founding fathers would have wanted.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the postwar history of Germany, and the remilitarisation and all the debate that came with it, but there are some pretty strict rules put on the German army as a whole, and the German soldier as an individual, and a debate on whether or not it should even exist is discussed time and time again.
Maybe it's the lack of patriotic, popular support that also makes a big difference.

apparently the commander-in-chief is...

:rolleyes:

You have a contradictory statement at the end of your post.
As in, the war against the Iraqi government versus the ongoing war against the insurgency (the first was against Iraq, the second in Iraq.)
Like I said, I'm tired, I mightn't be expressing myself too clearly - assuming people can understand what I say when I say it in strange ways is a habit of mine.

In a way, it is, in that winning seems to be put before the principles inherent in that constitution.

Oh BULLSHIT!!!!!

And yet we won the Iraq War. So what are you going on about?
Hey, comparatively few people died in the war on all sides. No real issues there (except of course that your cruise missiles are a little dumb sometimes - new European ones can be configured to abort if the risk of collateral damage is too high).
My problem is much more in dealing with the country afterwards, which was pretty much a total failure, and has shown up instances in which the US Military's priorities were different to mine, or those I would've thought even the US stood for.


Yep! They do sign up and know what they are getting into.
Can't argue there.
So that would then mean that the death of a soldier is less of a problem than the death of a civilian.
Ergo, you should be ready to sacrifice quite a lot of yourself and your comrades to save civilian life.
Ergo, collateral damage can only ever be accidental, never calculated.

And yet we won the Iraq War. So what are you going on about?
Good to know we won an imaginary war against an unprepared force.

Good to know we won an imaginary war against an unprepared force.
The Iraqi military was prepared.

It wouldn't have mattered what military it was, prepared or not.

Oh BULLSHIT!!!!!
The Bill of Rights (which is, as I understand it, an amendment, ie a part of the constitution).
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Strictly speaking, this may apply to any owner of any house in the world, couldn't it? And does the US Army not utilise houses for all sorts of purposes, without the consent of the owners? And is the war (which never really was declared) not over already?

And then you could of course question whether various wars have actually been for the "common defence of the people", in which case the actions of the US Military are at least not explicitly provided for by the constitution.

There. They are banalities, but what do you expect from me at this time of night. You are one of those who are not generally prone to accepting the underlying perceptions and visions beneath laws and statements, and rather like to have exact wordings - well, I suppose this is an exact wording that shows you that the US Army acts unconstitutionally for the purposes of winning a war.

EDIT: My point could of course be entirely invalid if there was a law that says how US Soldiers can occupy buildings without the owner's consent and in which manner that can occur.
My hope is that that is not explicitly mentioned anywhere. I shall see. Good Night. ;)

Pray tell, are there US solidiers being housed with persons against thier consent?

The Bill of Rights (which is, as I understand it, an amendment, ie a part of the constitution).

And your point being?

Strictly speaking, this may apply to any owner of any house in the world, couldn't it? And does the US Army not utilise houses for all sorts of purposes, without the consent of the owners? And is the war (which never really was declared) not over already?

Uh dude, Iraq is not a part of the United States.

Strictly speaking, this may apply to any owner of any house in the world, couldn't it? And does the US Army not utilise houses for all sorts of purposes, without the consent of the owners? And is the war (which never really was declared) not over already?

And then you could of course question whether various wars have actually been for the "common defence of the people", in which case the actions of the US Military are at least not explicitly provided for by the constitution.

There. They are banalities, but what do you expect from me at this time of night. You are one of those who are not generally prone to accepting the underlying perceptions and visions beneath laws and statements, and rather like to have exact wordings - well, I suppose this is an exact wording that shows you that the US Army acts unconstitutionally for the purposes of winning a war. are you actually suggesting that the WORLD is covered by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? :eek:

then that makes us, USA: World Police!

Meh. If you approach a checkpoint and don't slow down, you deserve to get a car full of bullets.

are you actually suggesting that the WORLD is covered by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? :eek:

then that makes us, USA: World Police!

And here I thought we shouldn't be. Also, doesn't that make us the de facto rulers of the world too?

And here I thought we shouldn't be. Also, doesn't that make us the de facto rulers of the world too?
:D ha, we'll let the countries fight for what state number they'll be... tho our flag would be pretty damned crowded! :p

Meh. If you approach a checkpoint and don't slow down, you deserve to get a car full of bullets.
This was not a car approaching a check point, read the bloody topic post, not all the posts of people who think they know what they are talking about.

:D ha, we'll let the countries fight for what state number they'll be... tho our flag would be pretty damned crowded! :p

Then maybe we should change our flag :D

This was not a car approaching a check point, read the bloody topic post, not all the posts of people who think they know what they are talking about.

This would, I assume, include everything posted by Teh Pantless Hero?

This would, I assume, include everything posted by Teh Pantless Hero?

OWNED!!!!

*hands Newtsburg a cookie*

My take on this:
Someone fucked up. The driver? the signaler? Trigger-happy soldier? I don't know. But they proceeded with their ROE and there was minimal dammage and no loss of life.

I made bigger fuck up at work. This whole thread is a tempest in a teacup.

All there is to determine is who's going to pay for the repair on the car. Ergo, who fucked up.

This would, I assume, include everything posted by Teh Pantless Hero?ROFLMAO! :D :D :D :D
(Can't believe I didn't see that reply coming.)

My take on this:
Someone fucked up. The driver? the signaler? Trigger-happy soldier? I don't know. But they proceeded with their ROE and there was minimal dammage and no loss of life.

I made bigger fuck up at work. This whole thread is a tempest in a teacup.

All there is to determine is who's going to pay for the repair on the car. Ergo, who fucked up.Woah! I need some sleep... I actually agree with East Canuck this time... :eek:

gee... so Diplomatic cars are also thieft proof?

True moral of the story: when the US soldier signals you.... listen!

Diplomatic immunity don't mean Jack to bullets.They should be near 100% theft proof as diplomatic immunity means a lot. Violation of diplomatic immunity either way is taken very seriously.

If the car was stolen then there would have been a lot of questions asked of the Canadians. It's not worth the ambassador's job to let his car be stolen.

And firing on a person covered by diplomatic immunity can be construed as an act of war. However, I don't think the Canadians would be willing to go to war over this (though they have the legal right now).

My take on this:
Someone fucked up. The driver? the signaler? Trigger-happy soldier? I don't know. But they proceeded with their ROE and there was minimal dammage and no loss of life.

I made bigger fuck up at work. This whole thread is a tempest in a teacup.

All there is to determine is who's going to pay for the repair on the car. Ergo, who fucked up.

Either I"m dreaming or this is actually real!

I agree E.C.

They should be near 100% theft proof as diplomatic immunity means a lot. Violation of diplomatic immunity either way is taken very seriously. Should... no guarentee that the car isn't stolen then. and with the state of affairs in Iraq, Most Diplomants would have an Escort and someone would've seen the signal to slow down/stop If the car was stolen then there would have been a lot of questions asked of the Canadians. It's not worth the ambassador's job to let his car be stolen.Depending on when it was stolen, and when it was reported.And firing on a person covered by diplomatic immunity can be construed as an act of war. However, I don't think the Canadians would be willing to go to war over this (though they have the legal right now).don't know if the envoy was a diplomat or just someone with official business.

I'm Canadian. Those Ameican troops were in the right, anyway you look at it. They are the authority. When they say jump, you say "how high?"

they had no reason to pass them. none. Any driver should have been informed of the rule of the road there.

OWNED!!!!

*hands Newtsburg a cookie*
He didn't own anything, I was about to agree with him. But I had to rain on your foolish parade first.

And sure, I don't give a fuck if you don't read anything by me, if you read the fucking topic article. Apparently, Deep Kimchi has lead all the other lemmings to believe this was about a checkpoint. It wasn't, the end.

I'm just glad no one was hurt.

My take on this:
Someone fucked up. The driver? the signaler? Trigger-happy soldier? I don't know. But they proceeded with their ROE and there was minimal dammage and no loss of life.

I made bigger fuck up at work. This whole thread is a tempest in a teacup.

All there is to determine is who's going to pay for the repair on the car. Ergo, who fucked up.

Is tempest in a teacup a name of a song?

Is tempest in a teacup a name of a song?
it could be. Probably is.

But in this instance, it is an expression meaning that people worry and argue about something that is meaningless.

They are making a mountain out of a molehill
They are making much ado about nothing
They are running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling

The Canadian diplomats in the car have released their own press release, which differs from the American version.

Originally, the Canadian diplomats chose not to bring the incident to the public. However, once they saw the US version, they felt the need to release their own perspective of the event.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/01/diplomats060201.html

Essentially, one of the envoys asserts that the US soldiers fired without warning, after the diplomats' car passed the convoy when it pulled off the road and stopped.The diplomat, who was not named, said the Canadian vehicle had just pulled out of the British compound in the Iraqi capital's heavily fortified Green Zone, an area in the centre of Baghdad where the Iraqi government office and the U.S. military's headquarters are located.

She said the Canadian vehicle was following the convoy at a "safe distance" at about 20 to 25 kilometres an hour. They drove for about five minutes before the U.S. convoy pulled off the road and into a staging area behind a barrier.

"Again this kind of thing has happened all the time, according to this official, so the Canadian vehicle now carried on down the road after the convoy had pulled all the way over and off to the side," Sorensen said.

"Kaboom! They don't know what's happened. They feel they've been hit by a bomb," said Sorensen, who added that the diplomat said coarse dust had flown into their faces.

"The car comes to a stop. The driver puts his arm outside the car to signal that 'we're not part of whatever blast just happened, we're just stopped here for the moment.' They all ducked down."

One bullet entered passenger compartment, diplomat says
The diplomat said a U.S. soldier came running over to see whether they were all right, and they all got out of the vehicle. It was only at that point that they realized what had happened:

"They realized that two bullets had been fired that hit across the front into the hood of the car, hitting on the passenger side, and one other bullet actually passed across the front of the windscreen and just over the windshield wiper into the front of the passenger compartment. So very close call that way."

The diplomat told Sorensen that no one in the Canadian vehicle remembered seeing anyone signalling to them.

"They just remember kaboom, it happened."

Canadians decide to go public after hearing U.S. version
The chargé d'affaires was whisked away while the others were debriefed, and then they all thought that was an end to the incident.

They only decided to speak up after the U.S. military came out with a different version of events, the diplomat told CBC News.

The Canadian diplomats in the car have released their own press release, which differs from the American version.
See? There we have the controversy I was talking about the whole time.

Uh dude, Iraq is not a part of the United States.
You don't get it at all, do you?
The Bundeswehr is obliged to adhere to the constitution at all times and all over the world. It's part of the code of conduct of acting in the same manner, regardless where you are.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated right here the double standard I was talking about - ignore the principles of the constitution, if it gives you a better chance of winning.

are you actually suggesting that the WORLD is covered by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? :eek:
No, but the behaviour of US citizens (particularly government-employed killing citizens) should be. And notice how it doesn't mention "citizen" but just person.

then that makes us, USA: World Police!
Face it - you are.
Maybe you shouldn't be (I think that all depends on your outlook on things), but the fact of the matter is that your troops are stationed all around the world and that they should be adhering to high standards regardless where they are and what they are doing. They are supposed to represent you, to kill in your name, remember?

The Canadian diplomats in the car have released their own press release, which differs from the American version.

Originally, the Canadian diplomats chose not to bring the incident to the public. However, once they saw the US version, they felt the need to release their own perspective of the event.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/01/diplomats060201.html

Essentially, one of the envoys asserts that the US soldiers fired without warning, after the diplomats' car passed the convoy when it pulled off the road and stopped.

Well this was expected. I wonder what took them so long.

You, on the other hand, have demonstrated right here the double standard I was talking about - ignore the principles of the constitution, if it gives you a better chance of winning.

I guess you do not understand the US military. In the Oath of Enlistment/Officership "....to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES...."

You were saying?

"Relax?" In a combat zone? As if!Relax in a hot tub in one of Saddams palaces. :D

You were saying?
I was saying that those are empty words if your actions are dictated by military necessity and being scared for your own skin rather than by the ideals inherent in the constitution.

The day US Troops left the States to fight was the day the constitution was left behind, with the politics of the day taking precedence.

I was saying that those are empty words if your actions are dictated by military necessity and being scared for your own skin rather than by the ideals inherent in the constitution.

The day US Troops left the States to fight was the day the constitution was left behind, with the politics of the day taking precedence.

To support and defend the constitution is the oath of the military. Even if they go somewhere, they are obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

I'm not going to take time and read what everyone's said, because I really don't care.

The US troops had every right to fire on that envoy's vehicle. They did exactly what they were trained to do, and I'm sure their CO told them "Good job," when they returned to the FOB after being relieved. When a vehicle doesn't slow down when coming upon a checkpoint, you use every means necessary to not allow penetration of the checkpoint. As I was instructed:

I don't give a f*ck if it's Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, or George Motherf*cking Bush in that vehicle; if they don't slow down for you, you shoot the motherf*ckers.

Now, why Senior Drill Sergeant Waklatsi put George Bush in there with Christ and the Virgin Mary, I don't know. But he got his point across. When you're on CheckPoint Ops, you own it. It's your baby. And if somebody, anybody, does anything other than what you tell them to do, you are weapons free.

If I was in their position, and the envoy's vehicle kept coming when we signaled to stop, I'd do the exact same thing. Because nobody knows what's really going on. For all you know, there's a terrorist in the vehicle with them. You have no idea. So yeah, I'll shoot up an envoy that won't stop over risking the lives of my men on a checkpoint anyday.

gee... so Diplomatic cars are also thieft proof?

True moral of the story: when the US soldier signals you.... listen!

Diplomatic immunity don't mean Jack to bullets.

Before you say "Canadians are stupid because they didn't listen to US soldier's signal". You should read THIS article:

U.S. fired on Canadian diplomats without warning, envoy says
Last Updated Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:58:32 EST
CBC News

Canadian officials dispute the U.S. version of an event in Iraq and insist that American soldiers fired without warning on a consular vehicle carrying four Canadian diplomats, CBC News has learned.

The U.S. military issued a statement saying that American troops in a convoy shot a vehicle carrying the Canadian chargé d'affaires to Iraq and three other diplomats in Baghdad on Tuesday.

The U.S. military said that, as the Canadian vehicle approached the convoy on the road, American troops used hand and arm signals ordering it to stop. The statement said the vehicle did not slow down so U.S. troops fired what they called warning shots, fearing a suicide bombing attack.

"The rear guard on a U.S. convoy signalled the vehicle to stay back," the statement said. "After it failed to do so and continued moving toward the convoy from behind, warning shots were aimed at the front of the vehicle, away from the passenger area."

But a Canadian diplomat who was in the vehicle told a very different version of the incident to CBC News reporter Eric Sorensen.

'Kaboom! They don't know what's happened'

The diplomat, who was not named, said no one in the Canadian vehicles remembered seeing anyone signalling to them. The first sign they had of a problem was when they heard a booming sound.

"They just remember kaboom! It happened," said Sorenson, who spoke to the diplomat by telephone from Ottawa.

The incident took place after the Canadians pulled out of the British compound in the Green Zone, a heavily fortified area in the centre of Baghdad where the Iraqi government office and the U.S. military headquarters are located.

The diplomat said the Canadian vehicle – which had a Canadian flag symbol on its dash – waited for a U.S. convoy of five Humvees to pass. Then it followed at a safe distance at about 20 to 25 km/h for about five minutes. She said Canadian officials often share the road with U.S. military vehicles and saw nothing unusual about the situation.

Unlike the version offered by the U.S. military, the Canadian diplomat told CBC News that the American convoy had pulled entirely off the road and into a staging area behind a barrier.

"Again this kind of thing has happened all the time, according to this official, so the Canadian vehicle now carried on down the road after the convoy had pulled all the way over and off to the side," Sorensen said.

That's when they heard a loud noise as dust flew up around their vehicle.

"They don't know what's happened. They feel they've been hit by a bomb," said Sorensen.

"The car comes to a stop. The driver puts his arm outside the car to signal that 'we're not part of whatever blast just happened, we're just stopped here for the moment.' They all ducked down."

One bullet entered passenger compartment, diplomat says

The diplomat said a U.S. soldier came running over to see whether they were all right, and they all got out of the vehicle. It was only at that point that they realized what had happened.

"They realized that two bullets had been fired that hit across the front into the hood of the car, hitting on the passenger side, and one other bullet actually passed across the front of the windscreen and just over the windshield wiper into the front of the passenger compartment," said Sorensen.

U.S., Canadian military launch investigations

The chargé d'affaires, Stewart Henderson, was whisked away while the others were debriefed. They all thought that was the end of the incident.

They only decided to speak up after the U.S. military came out with a different version of events, the Canadian diplomat told CBC News.

Both the Canadian and U.S. military have launched investigations.

"Right now, we've talking to the Canadian government about the incident," Todd Vician, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement issued Wednesday. "It's a regrettable incident and we're going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened."

Canada's incoming prime minister, Stephen Harper, also said the two countries were working together to resolve the incident.

"We're obviously very glad that no one was hurt," he said during a news conference in Ottawa.

Copyright ©2006 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/01/diplomats060201.html

*snip*

This will turn into a He said he said arguement. Did you expect the Envoy to say anything else?

To support and defend the constitution is the oath of the military. Even if they go somewhere, they are obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
They swear an oath as a ritual for the cameras. Then they just follow orders.
The US Military does not encourage its soldiers to think for themselves, to make decisions for themselves, to use any sort of ethical judgement in their actions.
It is an old-school military in which you get told what to do, and you do it, no questions asked. IMHO, that is no longer appropriate in a time where traditional war no longer exists and in which the complexity of the situation is far beyond the "shoot the bad guy" scenario.

Not to forget that so many of the soldiers in Iraq right now are reservists...part-time soldiers. You'd be better off sending conscripts, or better still, actual professionals.

They swear an oath as a ritual for the cameras. Then they just follow orders.

Yes they follow LAWFUL ORDERS! And the Oath is not done infront of cameras my friend.

The US Military does not encourage its soldiers to think for themselves, to make decisions for themselves, to use any sort of ethical judgement in their actions.

Apparently you know jack about the US military.

It is an old-school military in which you get told what to do, and you do it, no questions asked. IMHO, that is no longer appropriate in a time where traditional war no longer exists and in which the complexity of the situation is far beyond the "shoot the bad guy" scenario.

This proves my point that you don't know jack about the US military.

Not to forget that so many of the soldiers in Iraq right now are reservists...part-time soldiers. You'd be better off sending conscripts, or better still, actual professionals.

My father is a reservist. This is totally insulting and I'll ask politely for an apology for insulting my family.

Did you expect the Envoy to say anything else?
The envoy did nothing wrong. If anything, it would be his driver's fault. He has no interest in misrepresenting the story.
The Military on the other hand obviously has.

So one has a motif for lying, the other doesn't. Taking out blind patriotism from this, it should be pretty clear who has the more believable story.

Oh, and did you have the pleasure of reading the responses to that thread about the incident where a policeman shot a US Army fellow for apparently not following orders? Delicious, I must say.

They swear an oath as a ritual for the cameras. Then they just follow orders.
The US Military does not encourage its soldiers to think for themselves, to make decisions for themselves, to use any sort of ethical judgement in their actions.
It is an old-school military in which you get told what to do, and you do it, no questions asked. IMHO, that is no longer appropriate in a time where traditional war no longer exists and in which the complexity of the situation is far beyond the "shoot the bad guy" scenario.

Not to forget that so many of the soldiers in Iraq right now are reservists...part-time soldiers. You'd be better off sending conscripts, or better still, actual professionals.

And you know all this... because you're actually in the military!

And you know, us in the NG aren't professionals. Nope. Not at all. We don't even know the bolt carrier group of an M16 from the lower receiver.

a car refuses to slow down when approaching a millitary convoy, when instructed to, and wonders why it gets shot. very simple.

Yes they follow LAWFUL ORDERS! And the Oath is not done infront of cameras my friend.
It's a ceremony. "Oaths" don't actually mean anything these days, you know that.
Those notorious "bad apples" all did the whole oath-thingy, didn't they?

Apparently you know jack about the US military.
This proves my point that you don't know jack about the US military.
Hmm...I wonder why there is this total lack of education about anything that doesn't have to do with fighting in the training. This reluctance to teach soldiers about politics, about the actual meaning of the ideals they are supposed to defend.
And then of course, the way training for some units actively aims to destroy individuality, to degrade until the only dignity left is that which the military gives you. I don't need to be yelled at, insulted or otherwise mistreated, unless what they want from me is complete submission.

My father is a reservist. This is totally insulting and I'll ask politely for an apology for insulting my family.
Yeah, feel free to take it personal if you want. A friend of mine joined the reservists up in Townsville a few months ago - he's not a soldier. I wouldn't be confident sending him anywhere.
Oh, and while we're at it...my father is a reservist too.

The envoy did nothing wrong. If anything, it would be his driver's fault. He has no interest in misrepresenting the story.
The Military on the other hand obviously has.

Did I say he did anything wrong? No I didn't say that. I said did you expect him to say anything different! learn to read.

So one has a motif for lying, the other doesn't. Taking out blind patriotism from this, it should be pretty clear who has the more believable story.

Nice of you to already blame the US Military. Neu, I used to respect you but right now, your respect is going down hill.

Oh, and did you have the pleasure of reading the responses to that thread about the incident where a policeman shot a US Army fellow for apparently not following orders? Delicious, I must say.

I saw the story. Frankly, I hope the get the bastard of a cop on Police Brutality charges.

And you know all this... because you're actually in the military!
I would suggest that I know all this precisely because I'm not.

And you know, us in the NG aren't professionals. Nope. Not at all. We don't even know the bolt carrier group of an M16 from the lower receiver.
Is that what you think professionalism is? Knowing your rifle? Knowing how to kill a person?

It's a ceremony. "Oaths" don't actually mean anything these days, you know that.
Those notorious "bad apples" all did the whole oath-thingy, didn't they?

In the US military, they are very serious. You break it, you pay the price.

Hmm...I wonder why there is this total lack of education about anything that doesn't have to do with fighting in the training. This reluctance to teach soldiers about politics, about the actual meaning of the ideals they are supposed to defend.

Again, you know jack about the US military. My advice to you is stick to the German miilitary and leave the US military to those of us who know it.

And then of course, the way training for some units actively aims to destroy individuality, to degrade until the only dignity left is that which the military gives you. I don't need to be yelled at, insulted or otherwise mistreated, unless what they want from me is complete submission.

*hears violins playing* Your ignorance of US military is boring.

Yeah, feel free to take it personal if you want. A friend of mine joined the reservists up in Townsville a few months ago - he's not a soldier. I wouldn't be confident sending him anywhere.
Oh, and while we're at it...my father is a reservist too.

Then you just insulted your own father. Guess what? reservists are soldiers too. Learn that right now. I'm still waiting for that apology.

This will turn into a He said he said arguement. Did you expect the Envoy to say anything else?To lazy to read the article??? :D

BTW, it looks like the US soldiers are WTFing these days.

I would suggest that I know all this precisely because I'm not.

Then you don't know jack because you are not. I've been around the military for 23 years. I've been to military bases where training takes place. I've seen training in action.

Is that what you think professionalism is? Knowing your rifle? Knowing how to kill a person?

I think you missed the sarcasm.

To lazy to read the article??? :D

BTW, it looks like the US soldiers are WTFing these days.

I read it. Both sides are investigating. How much you wanna bet they say the exact opposite?

Is that what you think professionalism is? Knowing your rifle? Knowing how to kill a person?

Professionalism is being able to listen to liberal jackasses complain about the military and not killing all of them. Oh, and sense liberals have no sense of sarcasm, that's what that was.

Nice of you to already blame the US Military.
They blamed themselves time and time again when they failed to do anything about the shooting of an Italian agent, the murder of Spanish Journalists in a clearly-marked hotel known to the troops, and the dozens of times where Iraqi people or their property were destroyed by mistake.
If I run someone over by accident, I don't expect to be let off because I didn't do it on purpose. And I especially don't start a rant on how people who don't drive can't understand or judge me.

Neu, I used to respect you but right now, your respect is going down hill.
If this is what matters to you, then feel free to not respect me all you want. Fact is that the Canadian doesn't have a reason to lie, nor does he have a history of lying.
The military on the other hand has much to lose in standing and reputation if what the envoy said is actually true. They do have a reason to keep such events under wraps. And their organisation does have a history of withholding, changing and representing information in a way that makes them look good. Abu Ghraib comes to mind - it took them ages to admit and actually do something about the problem. Only natural for an organisation this powerful.

Professionalism is being able to listen to liberal jackasses complain about the military and not killing all of them. Oh, and sense liberals have no sense of sarcasm, that's what that was.

I don't think he's thinking clearly. He normally is better than this. I'm worried.

The envoy did nothing wrong.
What? He failed to obey a millitary command, thtas a problem. What should teh soldiers do, wave at him some more, and then figure out hes a bomber and get blown up?

In the US military, they are very serious. You break it, you pay the price.ok.


My advice to you is stick to the German miilitary and leave the US military to those of us who know it.My advice to you is: So?

*hears violins playing* Your ignorance of US military is boring.Wow, what a good debater you are. Anyone give him a round of applause!

*silence*

Hmmm, ok.

Again, you know jack about the US military. My advice to you is stick to the German miilitary and leave the US military to those of us who know it.
Oh please.
Want to see an example? How about an US ex-serviceman (perhaps he's still in the army, who knows) who wants to see entire Iraqi cities bombed, nuked perhaps, and just about everyone in there killed.

Then you just insulted your own father. Guess what? reservists are soldiers too. Learn that right now. I'm still waiting for that apology.
You'll be waiting for some time. And my father will be the first person to admit that he is everything but a soldier.

They blamed themselves time and time again when they failed to do anything about the shooting of an Italian agent, the murder of Spanish Journalists in a clearly-marked hotel known to the troops, and the dozens of times where Iraqi people or their property were destroyed by mistake.

Go ahead and twist facts if it makes you happy.

If I run someone over by accident, I don't expect to be let off because I didn't do it on purpose. And I especially don't start a rant on how people who don't drive can't understand or judge me.

Hence why we have a thing called Investgation.

If this is what matters to you, then feel free to not respect me all you want. Fact is that the Canadian doesn't have a reason to lie, nor does he have a history of lying.

Don't have a reason to lie? You trust Canada that much? I could tell you a story that happened to me my senior year in H.S. about believing someone before all the facts are in. You want to hear it? I'm more than willing to tell it since it made the Principal look like a god damn fool.

The military on the other hand has much to lose in standing and reputation if what the envoy said is actually true. They do have a reason to keep such events under wraps. And their organisation does have a history of withholding, changing and representing information in a way that makes them look good. Abu Ghraib comes to mind - it took them ages to admit and actually do something about the problem. Only natural for an organisation this powerful.

Actually, more was being done before it was ever brought to light. Not everything is released as you very well know. And the thing is....the people are being punished for Abu Ghraib. Why? Violations of international law as well as the UCMJ. Oops. I guess we do uphold our own constitution after all.

What? He failed to obey a millitary command, thtas a problem. What should teh soldiers do, wave at him some more, and then figure out hes a bomber and get blown up?
Unless he was driving himself, my point stands.

What? He failed to obey a millitary command, thtas a problem. What should teh soldiers do, wave at him some more, and then figure out hes a bomber and get blown up?read the article I posted earlier:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10344783&postcount=149

Unless he was driving himself, my point stands.
Ok, the enovy did nothing wrong. Neither did the soldiers.

Oh please.
Want to see an example? How about an US ex-serviceman (perhaps he's still in the army, who knows) who wants to see entire Iraqi cities bombed, nuked perhaps, and just about everyone in there killed.

Sounds like General Curtis Lemay who wanted to bomb the shit out of Cuba in 1962. You're always going to have those people in the service. However, the ones I know don't want to see that happen. The ones I know are in the Majority while those like this guy are in the minority.

You'll be waiting for some time. And my father will be the first person to admit that he is everything but a soldier.

Fine. You don't want to apologize? that's your issue.

BTW: Why are you acting like this? Your normally not this vehement.

I don't think he's thinking clearly. He normally is better than this. I'm worried.
I am genuinely worried about the way the US has been going about business in recent years, you should know that.
I don't think the US Military in particular has handled its responsibility well at all during that time. They have disappointed pretty much everyone but Zarqawi - not that that is so much the fault of the grunt on the ground as it is the fault of the administration of the army, the guys supposed to train, arm and coordinate you.

Nonetheless, there is this aura of divinity around it that makes any criticism impossible. It's ridiculous. Obviously you aren't interested in conceding that not everyone in the military is doing a good job (including the guys on the ground) and that that is largely the fault of the upper echelons, who are supposed to be responsible.

Fine. You don't want to apologize? that's your issue.
*Plays the violin*
BTW: Why are you acting like this?Exactly, why are you Corneliu?

Nonetheless, there is this aura of divinity around it that makes any criticism impossible. It's ridiculous. Obviously you aren't interested in conceding that not everyone in the military is doing a good job (including the guys on the ground) and that that is largely the fault of the upper echelons, who are supposed to be responsible.

Of course I"m going to conced that some aren't doing a good job. It happens.

You're always going to have those people in the service. However, the ones I know don't want to see that happen. The ones I know are in the Majority while those like this guy are in the minority.
I present thee with the product of the US Military Machine:
http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=deep_kimchi

The point is not whether or not his opinions are common or not, the point is that they even exist. If the US Military was run as I would like to have it run, not a single soldier would honestly say that he would want cities to be carpet bombed.

I present thee with the product of the US Military Machine:
http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=deep_kimchi

haha. My point stands.

The point is not whether or not his opinions are common or not, the point is that they even exist. If the US Military was run as I would like to have it run, not a single soldier would honestly say that he would want cities to be carpet bombed.

As i said, soldiers are allowed to think for themselves.

Look at all the pretty butterflies, I wonder what would happen if I touched one.

So thought the Canadian driver.

The point is not whether or not his opinions are common or not, the point is that they even exist. If the US Military was run as I would like to have it run, not a single soldier would honestly say that he would want cities to be carpet bombed.

Ah...thought police. How German of you.

See? There we have the controversy I was talking about the whole time.no we have multiple witnesses all who interprete what they saw and experienced from different points of view. no controversy.
No, but the behaviour of US citizens (particularly government-employed killing citizens) should be. And notice how it doesn't mention "citizen" but just person.unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
Face it - you are.
Maybe you shouldn't be (I think that all depends on your outlook on things), but the fact of the matter is that your troops are stationed all around the world and that they should be adhering to high standards regardless where they are and what they are doing. They are supposed to represent you, to kill in your name, remember? they are expected to adhere to high standards. too bad the media only reports when they step outta line, if they reported all those that upheld the honor and standards of the US military, then you'd realize that the little dips are indeed few and far between. Unfortunatly, Good News does not make good ratings.

Before you say "Canadians are stupid because they didn't listen to US soldier's signal". You should read THIS article:I never said anyone was stupid, but will leave remark for those that do/did.

U.S. fired on Canadian diplomats without warning, envoy says
Last Updated Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:58:32 EST
CBC News

Canadian officials dispute the U.S. version of an event in Iraq and insist that American soldiers fired without warning on a consular vehicle carrying four Canadian diplomats, CBC News has learned.

The U.S. military issued a statement saying that American troops in a convoy shot a vehicle carrying the Canadian chargé d'affaires to Iraq and three other diplomats in Baghdad on Tuesday.

The U.S. military said that, as the Canadian vehicle approached the convoy on the road, American troops used hand and arm signals ordering it to stop. The statement said the vehicle did not slow down so U.S. troops fired what they called warning shots, fearing a suicide bombing attack.

"The rear guard on a U.S. convoy signalled the vehicle to stay back," the statement said. "After it failed to do so and continued moving toward the convoy from behind, warning shots were aimed at the front of the vehicle, away from the passenger area."

But a Canadian diplomat who was in the vehicle told a very different version of the incident to CBC News reporter Eric Sorensen.

'Kaboom! They don't know what's happened'
The diplomat, who was not named, said no one in the Canadian vehicles remembered seeing anyone signaling to them. The first sign they had of a problem was when they heard a booming sound.
not that they didn’t see anyone not signaling to them, but they don’t REMEMBER seeing anyone signaling to them. So a soldier could have been signaling to them but they just didn’t see it.

"They just remember kaboom! It happened," said Sorenson, who spoke to the diplomat by telephone from Ottawa.

[snip]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/01/diplomats060201.html I notice a lot of “this kind of thing has happened all the time” statements in that account, that usually indicates an assumption on the speakers part. But since this is a second/third hand account, take it with a grain of salt.

It could very well be possible that the Driver didn’t see the signal (most likely) or assumed that the Soldier saw the Canadian flag marking the car (also Likely). Remember, they (Canadians) never said they saw anyone shoot. (which could indicate a lack of attention… after all, they were in a country where attacks happen… even in the Green Zone.)

So if we take both accounts to be true, the US did signal, but the people in the car following didn’t see the signal and assuming they were safe, continued on and thus the warning shots fired.

Now… since already we have people jumping to conclusions on both sides, I say, let the investigation be completed first.

Ah...thought police. How German of you.
That gets a big, fat :rolleyes: from me.

But yes, I want the thoughts of soldiers to be roughly overlapping with the ideals they are supposed to represent. If that means teaching them that even Arabs are people, that running over a car with a tank just for fun isn't cool, and that carpet bombing does not solve problems of ideology, then I'm all for it.

That gets a big, fat :rolleyes: from me.

But yes, I want the thoughts of soldiers to be roughly overlapping with the ideals they are supposed to represent. If that means teaching them that even Arabs are people, that running over a car with a tank just for fun isn't cool, and that carpet bombing does not solve problems of ideology, then I'm all for it.
so, yep... you favor Thought Police.

not only that, but you want the soldiers to be of a hive mind. something much worse.

That gets a big, fat :rolleyes: from me.

But yes, I want the thoughts of soldiers to be roughly overlapping with the ideals they are supposed to represent. If that means teaching them that even Arabs are people, that running over a car with a tank just for fun isn't cool, and that carpet bombing does not solve problems of ideology, then I'm all for it.

*shakes his head at the idiocy*

so, yep... you favor Thought Police.

not only that, but you want the soldiers to be of a hive mind. something much worse.
Feel free to come up with strawmen all you want, but fact of the matter is that soldiers have been doing the wrong thing in the past, and I attribute that to the failure of their superiors to train them properly.

Feel free to come up with strawmen all you want, but fact of the matter is that soldiers have been doing the wrong thing in the past, and I attribute that to the failure of their superiors to train them properly.

Welcome to the real world where humans are not perfect.

Welcome to the real world where humans are not perfect.
Of course not. But some of those things are preventable.

To use an example of something we can all agree upon to be a bad thing done by US servicemen/women, Lynndie England comes from a trailer park or something in a poor hillbilly town called Fort Ashby.
The local bar owner there, someone called Colleen Kesner, has said about that place "A lot of people here think they ought to just blow up the whole of Iraq. To the country boys here, if you're a different nationality, a different race, you're sub-human. That's the way that girls like Lynndie are raised... Tormenting Iraqis, in her mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey. Every season here you're hunting something. Over there, they're hunting Iraqis."

Whether true or not, something was wrong with the way those soldiers thought. At some point, it would have been the job of someone in the hierarchy to notice these tendencies, and to either take care of them, or get those people away from civilians.
That hasn't happened, and if I say that it should, you accuse me of wanting some sort of thought police?

Whether true or not, something was wrong with the way those soldiers thought. At some point, it would have been the job of someone in the hierarchy to notice these tendencies, and to either take care of them, or get those people away from civilians.
That hasn't happened, and if I say that it should, you accuse me of wanting some sort of thought police?

You didn't say that you wanted to keep "them" away from civilians, but:

But yes, I want the thoughts of soldiers to be roughly overlapping with the ideals they are supposed to represent.

Controlling the thoughts of others = thought police.

You didn't say that you wanted to keep "them" away from civilians, but:

But yes, I want the thoughts of soldiers to be roughly overlapping with the ideals they are supposed to represent.

Controlling the thoughts of others = thought police.
Well, I stand by that statement.
We are supposed to be about democracy, freedom, mutual respect, a general respect for the value of human life and such things. And soldiers are in a way the ultimate representatives of us. They have an enormously difficult and important job - we need to be absolutely certain that they will stick to those ideals in any situation.
But remember that I am talking about the right selection of recruits, and the proper training (including stress management, political theory, languages and cultures and so on) - not about giving people drugs so they all do exactly as I tell them.

Well, I stand by that statement.
We are supposed to be about democracy, freedom, mutual respect, a general respect for the value of human life and such things. And soldiers are in a way the ultimate representatives of us. They have an enormously difficult and important job - we need to be absolutely certain that they will stick to those ideals in any situation.
But remember that I am talking about the right selection of recruits, and the proper training (including stress management, political theory, languages and cultures and so on) - not about giving people drugs so they all do exactly as I tell them.

Well if you stand by it, then you are against freedom of speech, mutual respect.

Well if you stand by it, then you are against freedom of speech, mutual respect.
Freedom of Speech is a multi-faceted issue of course. You could for example also start an argument about how yelling secrets for the enemy to hear is really just exercising your freedom of speech.

Mutual Respect...well, I can respect someone's opinion and still think they are not the right person for a job. People who hate other people, who are prejudiced as outlined in the quote from before, people who like action and shooting up stuff may not be the people I would trust on a battlefield, just like I wouldn't trust a violent, abusive chauvinist to be a Kindergarten teacher.

The only thing that bothers me is the soldiers fired warning shots. Personally I'd rather see them shoot to kill. If a couple of canadians die so be it, maybe they will follow intructions the next time. 15 dead canadians is better than 1 dead American.

The only thing that bothers me is the soldiers fired warning shots. Personally I'd rather see them shoot to kill. If a couple of canadians die so be it, maybe they will follow intructions the next time. 15 dead canadians is better than 1 dead American.

Posts like this are not only idiotic, but they detract from the actual debate.

Posts like this are not only idiotic, but they detract from the actual debate.
See, now who guarantees me that he won't join the military and think exactly the same way? And we'll give him a gun and send him into a place where life-and-death decisions have to be made time and time again with no time to think about at all?
Don't you think that there should be some sort of education required if you want to join that will serve to sort such beliefs out?

See, now who guarantees me that he won't join the military and think exactly the same way? And we'll give him a gun and send him into a place where life-and-death decisions have to be made time and time again with no time to think about at all?
Don't you think that there should be some sort of education required if you want to join that will serve to sort such beliefs out?

Wow your correct. I have already served in the USA Army for 4 years and unbelievably I am 6 hours from completeing my bachelors degree. Sorry but nationalism is not a belief that would preclude one from serving their country. I love how its ok to believe that its perfectly ok for US soldiers to die, but if somone would rather see foriegners die instead of US troops then thats just wrong.

See, now who guarantees me that he won't join the military and think exactly the same way? And we'll give him a gun and send him into a place where life-and-death decisions have to be made time and time again with no time to think about at all?
Don't you think that there should be some sort of education required if you want to join that will serve to sort such beliefs out?the simple fact that such racism should be detected early..... and if not found it would most certainly be stamped out during boot camp... and if not then then a dishonerable discharge plus time in the stockade should he ACT on that belief.

but the fact remains, he can think that, and that is ok, it's when he acts upon that belief that the MP's will land on him like a ton of bricks.

The only thing that bothers me is the soldiers fired warning shots. Personally I'd rather see them shoot to kill. If a couple of canadians die so be it, maybe they will follow intructions the next time. 15 dead canadians is better than 1 dead American.
You, sir, are a xenophobic, nationalistic little fucker. Go hide under a bridge, you little troll. When you have more respect for the human race, I might talk to you. In the meantime, shut your yap.

The soldiers followed procedures. Procedures states that they should fire a warning shot. They did. It worked. Human lives were saved. I say "huzzah and hurrah! We dodged a diplomatic problem that can be construed as a an act of war." If you can fail to grasp those simple concepts, I say fuck off.

I'm with Junii on this one, let's see what the inquiry reveals and look at all the facts. And for me and Junii to agree, you know it must be a good advice because we never do.

a car refuses to slow down when approaching a millitary convoy, when instructed to, and wonders why it gets shot. very simple.
You might want to read the Canadian's version of the events before jumping to conclusions.

I'm not going to take time and read what everyone's said, because I really don't care.

The US troops had every right to fire on that envoy's vehicle. They did exactly what they were trained to do, and I'm sure their CO told them "Good job," when they returned to the FOB after being relieved. When a vehicle doesn't slow down when coming upon a checkpoint, you use every means necessary to not allow penetration of the checkpoint. As I was instructed:

I don't give a f*ck if it's Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, or George Motherf*cking Bush in that vehicle; if they don't slow down for you, you shoot the motherf*ckers.

Now, why Senior Drill Sergeant Waklatsi put George Bush in there with Christ and the Virgin Mary, I don't know. But he got his point across. When you're on CheckPoint Ops, you own it. It's your baby. And if somebody, anybody, does anything other than what you tell them to do, you are weapons free.

If I was in their position, and the envoy's vehicle kept coming when we signaled to stop, I'd do the exact same thing. Because nobody knows what's really going on. For all you know, there's a terrorist in the vehicle with them. You have no idea. So yeah, I'll shoot up an envoy that won't stop over risking the lives of my men on a checkpoint anyday.
You should have read at the very least the article and the first post. You might have known that this was not on a checkpoint. I suggest getting to know a situation before posting.

Freedom of Speech is a multi-faceted issue of course. You could for example also start an argument about how yelling secrets for the enemy to hear is really just exercising your freedom of speech.

And a violation of the United States National Security Laws.

Mutual Respect...well, I can respect someone's opinion and still think they are not the right person for a job. People who hate other people, who are prejudiced as outlined in the quote from before, people who like action and shooting up stuff may not be the people I would trust on a battlefield, just like I wouldn't trust a violent, abusive chauvinist to be a Kindergarten teacher.

This is your opinion. However, no one should tell others how to think.

the simple fact that such racism should be detected early..... and if not found it would most certainly be stamped out during boot camp... and if not then then a dishonerable discharge plus time in the stockade should he ACT on that belief.

but the fact remains, he can think that, and that is ok, it's when he acts upon that belief that the MP's will land on him like a ton of bricks.

Here here.

This is something that I guess that neo hasn't gotten yet.

You might want to read the Canadian's version of the events before jumping to conclusions.

You also should note that the statement wasn't unexpected. I wonder what took them so long to issue it.

You also should note that the statement wasn't unexpected. I wonder what took them so long to issue it.


What? You're suggesting that the Canadian diplomat is a regular liar? And that only good old American's in uniform could possibly be telling the truth?

Because, after all, the military has so much more a history of frank openness with the public than politicians?



Interesting....


Hey - here's a thought! Why not..... wait for the investigation!

You, sir, are a xenophobic, nationalistic little fucker. Go hide under a bridge, you little troll. When you have more respect for the human race, I might talk to you. In the meantime, shut your yap.

The soldiers followed procedures. Procedures states that they should fire a warning shot. They did. It worked. Human lives were saved. I say "huzzah and hurrah! We dodged a diplomatic problem that can be construed as a an act of war." If you can fail to grasp those simple concepts, I say fuck off.

I'm with Junii on this one, let's see what the inquiry reveals and look at all the facts. And for me and Junii to agree, you know it must be a good advice because we never do.:eek:
I agree with East Canuck, and he agrees with me...
:faints:



I like finding points where former posting adversaries[?]... opponents[?]... People who usually disagree with me[ :) ] can agree. :D

:eek:
I agree with East Canuck, and he agrees with me...
:faints:



I like finding points where former posting adversaries[?]... opponents[?]... People who usually disagree with me[ :) ] can agree. :D

You'll find that I agree as well. They were following procedures.

If the inquiry finds that they were indeed following procedures, this whole issue is about nothing. If they weren't following procedure, someone will be smoked for it.

IMHO, it's very, very likely they were following procedures.

You also should note that the statement wasn't unexpected. I wonder what took them so long to issue it.

It takes time to make sure all the witnesses have thier story straight.

You'll find that I agree as well. They were following procedures.

If the inquiry finds that they were indeed following procedures, this whole issue is about nothing. If they weren't following procedure, someone will be smoked for it.

IMHO, it's very, very likely they were following procedures.
it's a comment on the fact that most threads that East Canuck and I participate in, this is the only one (I can recall) where we agree. :D

What? You're suggesting that the Canadian diplomat is a regular liar? And that only good old American's in uniform could possibly be telling the truth?

I love it when people put words into my mouth. Did I call him a liar? No. All I said was that the comment was expected. God people learn to comprehend reading.

Because, after all, the military has so much more a history of frank openness with the public than politicians?

:rolleyes:

Hey - here's a thought! Why not..... wait for the investigation!

Here's something--- I AM!!!!

It takes time to make sure all the witnesses have thier story straight.
:rolleyes:

So the US military is never wrong and the Canadian Envoy MUST be the ones lying. The soldiers who (might) shot without reason has absolutely no reason to cover his ass by bearing false witness.

I wonder who has more chance to distort the truth. The guy who can get court-martialled or the politician who just got shot at and has no chances to get so much as a slap in the wrist.

I mean, Canadian must be pretty pissed at the US to invent situations to blame the US military.

it's a comment on the fact that most threads that East Canuck and I participate in, this is the only one (I can recall) where we agree. :D
Just another sign of the impending apocalypse. :)

:rolleyes:

So the US military is never wrong and the Canadian Envoy MUST be the ones lying. The soldiers who (might) shot without reason has absolutely no reason to cover his ass by bearing false witness.

I wonder who has more chance to distort the truth. The guy who can get court-martialled or the politician who just got shot at and has no chances to get so much as a slap in the wrist.

I mean, Canadian must be pretty pissed at the US to invent situations to blame the US military.


I think that the US troops did fire at them. The Canadian Envoy is not lying. But I bet that firing on the Canadians under those circumstances is probably within the rules of engagement, so it's not something that you can blame on poor judgment. Bad orders, maybe. But soldiers get court martialed if they don't follow rules of engagement - you can get in just as much trouble for disobeying them and not firing as you can for shooting when you're not supposed to.

:rolleyes:

So the US military is never wrong and the Canadian Envoy MUST be the ones lying. The soldiers who (might) shot without reason has absolutely no reason to cover his ass by bearing false witness.

I wonder who has more chance to distort the truth. The guy who can get court-martialled or the politician who just got shot at and has no chances to get so much as a slap in the wrist.

I mean, Canadian must be pretty pissed at the US to invent situations to blame the US military.

My previous statement was poorly phrased, and open for misinterpertation. However, please don't put words in my mouth.

Let me try again:

It takes time to interview witnesses. It takes time to evaluate statements. It takes time to develop the statements into an account of the events. It takes time to make sure that the witnesses testimony is what they actually saw, what actually happened.

My previous statement was poorly phrased, and open for misinterpertation. However, please don't put words in my mouth.

Let me try again:

It takes time to interview witnesses. It takes time to evaluate statements. It takes time to develop the statements into an account of the events. It takes time to make sure that the witnesses testimony is what they actually saw, what actually happened.
Then I apologize for jumping the gun.

I agree that it takes time to do these things.

As a sign of friendship and to dissipate any remaining misgivings, I give you a fluffle :fluffle: