[Article] US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death

How much better would the life of all europeans have been if Germans of the day hadnt unthinkly given their allegiance to their corrupt state as you think they should.

You're not getting what i'm saying. It was their responsibility to stop Hitler and his cronies before it ever got that far. They could have stopped him completely before he wrote Mein Kampf. It was up to them, and they and the world payed for their mistake.

Youll get the government you richly deserve then. I wouldnt fight for a evil regime

I hope i do. And you would fight, because your family would be threatened, or you might face a firing squad for not doing so. See, because you would not prevent the tyrant from taking power, you let yourself fall into the "Bully trap". When they're in the process of taking power, they're very vulnerable, but you won't fight them off, just as you won't fight an invader of your country...

What makes you Irish? Only because you were born here, or because you would sacrifice your life to preserve it? Personally i view being Irish as being the latter.

Éomer of Rohan

I know , I know - thats not what you meant. But the idea thatll you side with the state in all conflicts with other states is depressing. How much better would the life of all europeans have been if Germans of the day hadnt unthinkly given their allegiance to their corrupt state as you think they should.

We are talking about a state under attack, not an agressor nation. At least get the context right.

You're not getting what i'm saying. It was their responsibility to stop Hitler and his cronies before it ever got that far. They could have stopped him completely before he wrote Mein Kampf. It was up to them, and they and the world payed for their mistake

I agree. The Trade Unions could have smasked Hitler even when he got into power. The Stalinists failed so the Socialist movement should have succeeded but was repressed by capitalist ideology gone wild and ideological incompetence on the part of the Social Democrats and the pro-Moscow Communist Party.

I agree. The Trade Unions could have smasked Hitler even when he got into power. The Stalinists failed so the Socialist movement should have succeeded but was repressed by capitalist ideology gone wild and ideological incompetence on the part of the Social Democrats and the pro-Moscow Communist Party.

actually i was talking about the first time he got arrested, and served 5 months of a 6 years sentence. Or when he emerged, he was meeted with popular support. Or he could have been stopped, when the Reichstag was hit by a terrorist attack, or just before the army swore allegience directly to Hitler.

Originally posted by klaz
Yup. If you have a tyrant its your own fault. Who are you going to blame? Some other nation, for not stopping you from electing him? hmmm.. sounds a bit stupid that. Face the responsibility of living in a country. If you let a tryant seize power, its your own fault. Just as its your fault if he stays in power.

Except in most cases, Klas, it's not your fault, that you have a tyrant, he's usually there because, he has a brutal regime, that rules without mercy.
A tyrant, is an opportunist usually supported by an aparatus,including an army and police, that might have you shot or tortured.
And why assume a tyrant has to be elected.
mm

Originally posted by klaz
You're not getting what i'm saying. It was their responsibility to stop Hitler and his cronies before it ever got that far. They could have stopped him completely before he wrote Mein Kampf. It was up to them, and they and the world payed for their mistake.

This is the difficulty, with trying to compare, stuff from 60 years ago with today.
There was no mass media,no CNN, no Channel four news exposé's of the man.
What you got was a gradual build up of a mass brainwashing movement, without the critical forensic analysis that such a movement would be exposed to today.
So I dispute, whether, Hitlers movement could have been stopped in it's infancy.
Further down the line, it's structure was already getting too strong and tyrannical for clever dissent to overcome.
mm

Again i disagree.

A tyrant, is an opportunist usually supported by an aparatus,including an army and police, that might have you shot or tortured

A tyrant rules with the support of the military, and by the compliance of the people. True.

However, the military is made up from the people. And without the compliance of the people, there would be no military, no food entering the capital, no work being done, no money being made etc. No nation can operate without the nations people complying.

The fact that people are afraid, does not excuse them from being responsible. I knbow that sounds harsh, however, it is their country that they're letting some tyrant take over. They have the ability, to raise support against him/her, or to act directly.

There will always be dangers, to acting against someone else. Here, the dangers equate will the seriousness of the situation.

So I dispute, whether, Hitlers movement could have been stopped in it's infancy.

In the case of Hitler, the comparison has to be made since he's considered the worlds largest tyrant, maybe with the exception of Stalin. In this modern age of telecommunications i accept that people should have more warning, of his rise, however on the other hand, said telecommunications, can also allow him, to convnce more people to his side.

But, again, Hitler could have been stopped in his infancy. He made no attempt to hide his hatred of the Jews, or his disgust at the allies for the V. Treaty. The fact that he had concentration camps created in the early 30's should have given some notification of what was coming, or that he was changing the national industry towards a war footing. Hell, look at how he changed the educational system, to a more military outlook. At any of these stages, his, powerbase was not solid, and he could have been removed.

Except in most cases, Klas, it's not your fault, that you have a tyrant, he's usually there because, he has a brutal regime, that rules without mercy.

Again, i say it is my fault if i'm ruled by a tyrant. The way i look at this is, I'm Irish, and i wish to live in Ireland. If i don't want to live under a tyrant, either i'd move country or try to remove him/her by any means necessary. It is my responsibility as an adult to make my decisions, act on them, and then live by the consequences. By letting a tyrant come to power, i am acknowledging that tyrants right to rule in my country. Stopping him, is my responsibility also.

In regards to the brutal regime. Two points. Most of what i say abov is prior to his establishing such a regime. However, it would still be my responsibility to remove the tyrant, should i determine that he is a threat to my nation, or if i view him to be of aid to the nation, to support him.

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
However, the military is made up from the people. And without the compliance of the people, there would be no military, no food entering the capital, no work being done, no money being made etc. No nation can operate without the nations people complying.

Yeah, Saddam would be gone in 10 minutes if the Iraqi people just used "people power"</sarcasm>. Return to the real world, please. If people don't cooperate with Saddam's regime, he kills them. He has the loyalty of the Republican Guard and that's enough to kill hundreds of thousands of people, even if the entire rest of the country turned against him. Remember what happened in the revolts in 1991, when the West abandoned the Kurds and Shias? Saddam isn't going to go unless he is removed by an invasion.

If i don't want to live under a tyrant, either i'd move country or try to remove him/her by any means necessary.

And presumably you're redefining "any means necessary" to exclude working with an invading force, even if their aim is to remove your hated dictator. And all those Germans who opposed Hitler and cooperated with the allies were traitors who should have been hung.

But, again, Hitler could have been stopped in his infancy. He made no attempt to hide his hatred of the Jews, or his disgust at the allies for the V. Treaty.

Yes, Hitler could have been stopped in his infancy, but he wasn't. Wishful thinking isn't a substitute for logic.

I still can't believe people are saying on one hand they would have defended Hitler's Germany against the Allies, and on the other hand complaining that the Iraqi war is unjust. The sheer hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of that position astounds me.

Yeah, Saddam would be gone in 10 minutes if the Iraqi people just used "people power"</sarcasm>. Return to the real world, please. If people don't cooperate with Saddam's regime, he kills them. He has the loyalty of the Republican Guard and that's enough to kill hundreds of thousands of people, even if the entire rest of the country turned against him. Remember what happened in the revolts in 1991, when the West abandoned the Kurds and Shias? Saddam isn't going to go unless he is removed by an invasion

Are you so cynical that you can't see that the population of the nation rules that nation? Theres no point in ruling a country if everyone is dead, or has left. Since the people co-operates with hism, he has the power to control them. If they rise against him, he looses that power. Regardless, even if you don't talk abt the whole population, that still does not prevent individuals to fight against him personally.

And presumably you're redefining "any means necessary" to exclude working with an invading force, even if their aim is to remove your hated dictator.

Redefining? Hardly.

And all those Germans who opposed Hitler and cooperated with the allies were traitors who should have been hung.

Depends on your outlook. I wasn't alive then, nor was i in germany. I'm irish, i have no experience being German. I do on the other hand count anybody that sided with the British, against Irish Independence as being a traitor. But then, thats my choice.

Yes, Hitler could have been stopped in his infancy, but he wasn't. Wishful thinking isn't a substitute for logic

We are discussing the subject. We're not trying to change history.

I still can't believe people are saying on one hand they would have defended Hitler's Germany against the Allies, and on the other hand complaining that the Iraqi war is unjust. The sheer hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of that position astounds me.

Nobody said that they would defend Hitler.

What i said was that it was my responsibility as a citizen of a country to prevent a tyrant from coming to power, or to take action against such a tyrant, should he be in power. Also i said that i would defend my nation against aggressors. Nothing was said of defending Hitler.

Stop reading into something, and seeing something else completely.

What i'm talking about is the responsibility of being a citizen of a country, or do you think that as an Irish Citizen, you have no responsibility for what government is in power, or what the country chooses to do?

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
Are you so cynical that you can't see that the population of the nation rules that nation?

Not in Iraq. Saddam and his Republican Guard rule there.

Theres no point in ruling a country if everyone is dead, or has left. Since the people co-operates with his, he has the power to control them. If they rise against him, he looses that power.

Wrong. There have been several uprisings against Saddam since he came to power, and he's still in power after brutally suppressing them all.

Depends on your outlook. I wasn't alive then, nor was i in germany. I'm irish, i have no experience being German.

Nice way to avoid my point.

Regardless, even if you don't talk about the whole population, that still does not prevent individuals to fight against him personally.

And getting themselves and their families massacred by the Republican Guard.

Saddam will not be overthrown by "people power", as long as the Republican Guard remain loyal to him. And they will remain loyal to him as long as he continues to give them special privileges. If you oppose the war on the grounds that the Iraqis can get rid of Saddam themselves, you are living in a fantasy world*. Even if such an uprising succeeded, it would inevitably result in much more death and destruction than the current invasion (up to 60,000 Kurds died in 1991 -- I couldn't find a reference for Shia casualties.)

Nice way to avoid my point

actually i wasn't trying to.

And getting themselves and their families massacred by the Republican Guard

I know. Still, that option remains open. I didn't say that taking action was without risk, or consequences, just that, that option is there.

Saddam will not be overthrown by "people power", as long as the Republican Guard remain loyal to him. And they will remain loyal to him as long as he continues to give them special privileges. If you oppose the war on the grounds that the Iraqis can get rid of Saddam themselves, you are living in a fantasy world*.

Meh, i never said i was against this war, because i thought the Iraqi's could overthrow Saddam. I'm against this war for multiple reasons, but thats definetly not one of them.

I do on the other hand, think, that they could overthrow him.

Even if such an uprising succeeded, it would inevitably result in much more death and destruction than the current invasion (up to 60,000 Kurds died in 1991 -- I couldn't find a reference for Shia casualties.)

I never said that it would be more effective than an invasion from the US or such. I said that they could do it. In fact what i said was that it was the responsibility of a citizen to fight for his/her country whether against domestic or foreign enemies. The overthrowing of Saddam, just grew from sideline discussions.

Von

Originally posted by Sand
I wouldnt fight for a evil regime,

No? Leaving aside the ludicrous fantasy that you'd fight anybody, would you mind explaining what the heck is an "evil" regime? I suppose you're unshakeably certain that you're on the side of "good" then. I thought you said that you weren't religious so how can you use religious concepts like "good" and "evil"?

Christ on a camel. Any dictator past or present would be delighted with the mindless obedience and gullibility of the pro-war slobs. Again, if Saddam is "worse than Hitler" as Bush I put it, if he's the single greatest threat to world peace, then why don't youse join the army and help get rid of him before we all wake up speaking wog language? There are some vacancies.

think of all the soldiers who fought for Germany who suffered and died - all the while thinking as you do that they were defending their homeland from their enemies and all the while all they were doing was buying more time for the Nazis to push the last few jews into the gas chambers.

That is a ridiculous interpretation of history. Way OT.

Éomer of Rohan

Think about this carefully. If there was mass opposition to Saddam Hussein, he could be toppled from within - and I am not talking forty or fifty percent of people, I am talking 80 or 90 percent. What it takes is organisation - have you all forgotten how this country was liberated from the British? How long are soldiers in the Iraqi army going to shoot civilians at their general's orders even though they may agree with the demonstrators or rebels? History has shown that in such adversity, no dictator would triumph in a conflict. What many of you have ignored is that the soldiers who execute a man, who fire into a crowd of peaceable people, who brutally smash a rebellion are men too - and this has an effect, like it would on anyone. The soldiers would ultimately side with their own people given that sort of support for revolution!
You each seem to have forgotten your native history - men died, sacrificed themselves to be free of a wealth based ascendancy that amounted to a tyranny for many rural and working class people. After Easter Sunday 1916, the British made martyrs out of the then incarnation of the rebels and turned a not-very-popular cause into a nationwide revolt, with sympathy across the country for Michael Collins and his boys - who proceeded via terrorist campaign to bring the Brits to the position where they wanted out. The same could happen in Iraq - the army could come to the point where they no longer want to shoot men, women and children and decide that enough is enough - that is when real change can happen; and free of imperial greed, the intrigues of a foreign nation and a new tyranny under a different and American backed name.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Youll get the government you richly deserve then.

I thought thats what they say about democracy?

jc

Originally posted by Von
No? Leaving aside the ludicrous fantasy that you'd fight anybody, would you mind explaining what the heck is an "evil" regime? I suppose you're unshakeably certain that you're on the side of "good" then. I thought you said that you weren't religious so how can you use religious concepts like "good" and "evil"?

Christ on a camel. Any dictator past or present would be delighted with the mindless obedience and gullibility of the pro-war slobs. Again, if Saddam is "worse than Hitler" as Bush I put it, if he's the single greatest threat to world peace, then why don't youse join the army and help get rid of him before we all wake up speaking wog language? There are some vacancies.


That is a ridiculous interpretation of history. Way OT.

You are a funny man Von.
Just a few observations of mine at this point.
Are you saying, if you aint a christian, you can have no concept of good or evil?? because, if you are, then think again.
There are a few, Irish people fighting with the Brits actually, quite a few.
And as for the Irish Americans, theres a grandson of Jackie Healy- Rae on duty with the U.S marines in Iraq.
So your invitation isn't going un heard.

And now as regards, whether Sadam is as bad as Hitler, thats open to debate also, considering all the people he has been responsible for killing, never mind gassing.
Swinging back on topic. There are no embedded reporters with the Republican Guards and fed a yin's, so theres no instant verifiable information on what they are up to as regards killing civilians...,but considering that they are willing to hide behind women and children as they take pot shots, at the coalition, they don't have much regard for civilians.

Oh, whoops......, the Iraqi information minister hasn't reported any fatalities or injuries caused by his forces, ( whether through coercion or accident ) so, there musn't be any so........thats right, xero, none......., 100% record..., just like Sadams presidential vote... Republican guard-congratulations:rolleyes:
mm

Are you saying, if you aint a christian, you can have no concept of good or evil?? because, if you are, then think again.

I think he was referring to your using that terminology. Good & evil are associated with religious organisations/beliefs.

And now as regards, whether Sadam is as bad as Hitler, thats open to debate also, considering all the people he has been responsible for killing, never mind gassing.

Ok. But would you classify any american president with Hitler, because on their orders, wars were started, and villages/cities were bombed. Surely trhe deaths of those wars fall at their feet, by that reasoning?

There are no embedded reporters with the Republican Guards and fed a yin's, so theres no instant verifiable information on what they are up to as regards killing civilians...,but considering that they are willing to hide behind women and children as they take pot shots, at the coalition, they don't have much regard for civilians.

Its possible they do. Its just another military tactic. Guerilla warfare requires a unit to make use of all available resources, civilians included. Otherwise their failure rate rises. Collins used the public in much the same way. Admittedly he didn't use them as shields, but this is just an evolution of the concept. Also consider that many of these civilians, have volunteered to act this way. I don't know if all of them are voluntary.

Oh, whoops......, the Iraqi information minister hasn't reported any fatalities or injuries caused by his forces, ( whether through coercion or accident ) so, there musn't be any so........thats right, xero, none......., 100% record..., just like Sadams presidential vote... Republican guard-congratulations

well neither side, can be accused as providing accurate information all the time. The US are just alot more practised at wars, and the info released.

Éomer of Rohan

I don't think that good and evil are relevent to any political discussion - as has been pointed out, assigning a certain person or group the nominative 'evil' precludes discussion on the subject - for example in the case of September 11th - and this is bad, not to mention can preclude negotiations which are much preferable to war - ah could it be we have hit another reason for this American war?

I think its because Good & Evil are absolutes. You can't use them to describe humans since we're all so changeable.

Moriarty

Originally posted by klaz
Its possible they do. Its just another military tactic. Guerilla warfare requires a unit to make use of all available resources, civilians included. Otherwise their failure rate rises.

Hiding behind civilians is not a military tactic, it is a terrorist tactic. Guerrilla warfare does not include civilians as a resource to be used and thrown away.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
\Guer*ril"la\,
n. (Sp., lit., a little war, skirmish, dim. of guerra war, fr. OHG. werra discord, strife. See War.)

1. An irregular mode of carrying on war, by the constant attacks of independent bands, adopted in the north of Spain during the Peninsular war.

2. One who carries on, or assists in carrying on, irregular warfare; especially, a member of an independent band engaged in predatory excursions in war time.

Note: The term guerrilla is the diminutive of the Spanish word guerra, war, and means petty war, that is, war carried on by detached parties; generally in the mountains. . . . A guerrilla party means, an irregular band of armed men, carrying on an irregular war, not being able, according to their character as a guerrilla party, to carry on what the law terms a regular war.

Regular military forces do not hide behind civilian populations for the sole reason of making the enemy kill those same civilians instead of, or along with, your own force. It is therefore fair to say that irregular military forces follow the same code. Irregular forces taking refuge in a civilian population is vastly different from regular forces purpously drawing enemy fire into civilian areas as the iraqis are currently doing.

Originally posted by klaz
Also consider that many of these civilians, have volunteered to act this way. I don't know if all of them are voluntary.

If any civilian willingly volunteers to act alongside a military or paramilitary force, they are no longer civilians but part of that force. As such, they are entirely legitimate targets. If somone is coerced into fighting for such a force and is killed, the burden of responsibility for that death lies with those who made them fight, not those who killed them.

Hiding behind civilians is not a military tactic, it is a terrorist tactic. Guerrilla warfare does not include civilians as a resource to be used and thrown away.

I disagree. Warfare is constantly evolving, and tactics are changing to adapt. The use of civilians has always been at the roots of guerrilla warfare. They use the concept of using the population to fade in, make the attack, and fade out. That has always been part of this type of warfare.

Hiding behinmd civilians is not a conventional warfare doctrine, however, who said that conventional warfare is applicable here for Iraq? Its not a terrorist tactic.

Regular military forces do not hide behind civilian populations for the sole reason of making the enemy kill those same civilians instead of, or along with, your own force. It is therefore fair to say that irregular military forces follow the same code. Irregular forces taking refuge in a civilian population is vastly different from regular forces purpously drawing enemy fire into civilian areas as the iraqis are currently doing.

Yes. Regular Military Forces . But Iraq is not fighting a conventional war. To do so, would be an instant defeat for them.

Be realistic, in this. What they are doing is very little different to the US using bombing runs, or shelling from afar. The concept is the same, limit the damage to heir own troops.

And in regard to the objective being to have the civilians killed, well, thats pure speculation. We don't know that this is the plan. Besides, the Iraqi Regime, has had no qualms killing themselves, so why bother the allies with it.

Also consider that the fighting is occuring in built up areas. Peoples homes are the current battlefield. Many Iraqi people consider it fair to act as shields for their troops.

If any civilian willingly volunteers to act alongside a military or paramilitary force, they are no longer civilians but part of that force. As such, they are entirely legitimate targets. If somone is coerced into fighting for such a force and is killed, the burden of responsibility for that death lies with those who made them fight, not those who killed them.

bull. So you're saying that anybody that helps the army is guilty by default? That if a civilian supplies the army with food, they're associated with the army, and loose their civilian status?

Civilians are those who do not carry arms, and are willing to use those arms. If someone is not carrying weapons, or explosives, then they are civilians.

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
If somone is coerced into fighting for such a force and is killed, the burden of responsibility for that death lies with those who made them fight, not those who killed them.

So you'd also be saying that any nation which has used conscription during a war is responsible for all deaths of their conscripts....as opposed to the people who actually killed them?

jc

Cork

Hiding behind civilians is not a military tactic, it is a terrorist tactic. Guerrilla warfare does not include civilians as a resource to be used and thrown away.

I agree. That is why, people are fleeing Bagdad. They do not wish to be used as a human shield for the forces of Saddam.

Hiding behinmd civilians is not a conventional warfare doctrine, however, who said that conventional warfare is applicable here for Iraq? Its not a terrorist tactic.

I am not getting into an arguement whether it is terrorisim - but it is a tactic that will put civialians live at risk.

This makes it completely reckless.

I agree. That is why, people are fleeing Bagdad. They do not wish to be used as a human shield for the forces of Saddam.

And i suppose the constant allied bombardment has nothing to do with this. Or i'm sure they've heard of the allies shooting civilians, and fear what will happen when the allies enter the city & loose more troops.

Cork, stop being so selective. The reasons for the people leaving baghdad lie on both sides.

seamus

Originally posted by Meh
And presumably you're redefining "any means necessary" to exclude working with an invading force, even if their aim is to remove your hated dictator. And all those Germans who opposed Hitler and cooperated with the allies were traitors who should have been hung.

That's still slightly different. Germany were the aggressor force. When a country is invading other countries, IMO it's perfectly fine for a countryman to oppose that invasion, and to help fight against it. It's also no problem for me if someone flees their country to avoid an invading force.

However, aiding the aggressor force as it attacks your country is a bit different. You're essentially helping them to destroy your country, and possibly killing your own countrymen, who are just trying to defend themselves.

I'd agree with klaz on this. If someone came in and started bombing Dublin and shooting family cars with tanks (:mad: ), my immediate concern would be for the safety of my family/friends, and I would do everything in my power to stop the aggressor force, even if they were promising a better Ireland. After all, promises are only promises. With half of my city crumbling around me, I'd be very sceptical as to the validity of those promises.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
I am not getting into an arguement whether it is terrorisim - but it is a tactic that will put civialians live at risk.

This makes it completely reckless.

Sure, and none of the ordinance that the US and UK use puts civilians at risk I suppose? All 100% accurate and 100% reliable, yes?

The point is that too many proponents and opponents of this war seem to think that "the other side" are using brutal tactics, whilst their own side is not to blame for anything it does as it has been forced into taking these steps by the enemy.

Its complete toss. Both sides are "completely reckless", and will remain so.

For the US and UK, civilian deaths are preferable to deaths of invading soldiers. Thus, when it comes to a choice between who's life to risk, we typically find some dead civilians. The only time this is not true is when there is a major PR battle also underway (which hasnt happened yet), or when the ratio of civilian to military casualties would be unacceptably large.

Ask yourself this...why did those women and children die in that car. The US explanation is that they didnt stop, and a warning shot wasnt fired quickly enough.

Well, has anyone considered what they would do if escaping from a brutal regime and your so-called rescuers started first indicating for you to stop before you get to them (i.e. before you get to safety) and when you continue on they start firing????

I sure as hell wouldnt be stopping for them. nor checking that these were just warning shots. Nope...I would be thinking that these guys are out to kill me too and I've just made a damned big mistake in believing their lies about "freeing" me.....and after they put a bullet in my engine block, my foot would be on the accelerator as hard as possible to try getting out of the way from another brutal bunch of killers disguising themselves as saviours....just like what happened.

I'm not saying that this was the thought process, but the simple fact is that the US - in reaction to a guerilla tactic - have decided that it is preferable to risk killing civilians than risk soldier's lives.

Why didnt those soldiers have a "nail rail" to blow out the tires of oncoming vehicles? Why didnt they have a solid barrier which was not simple to crash through as a first line of defence?

Building a sloppy checkpoint appears to be the ultimate justification here - a properly secure one wasnt built / wont be built but a checkpoint is needed none-the-less, and therefore, when push comes to shove, shoot first and dont worry about whether or not there really was a risk, because your ass will be covered all the way to the top.

These are the actions of the "good guys". And before anyone tries making this out as an exceptional case, it should be noted that the US confirmed that they had changed their Rules of Engagement to allow for exactly the action which the soldier's took - shoot first, think later.

So dont give me "reckless" as a criticism of one side only.

jc

Originally posted by seamus
I'd agree with klaz on this. If someone came in and started bombing Dublin and shooting family cars with tanks (:mad: ), my immediate concern would be for the safety of my family/friends, and I would do everything in my power to stop the aggressor force, even if they were promising a better Ireland. After all, promises are only promises. With half of my city crumbling around me, I'd be very sceptical as to the validity of those promises.

so if OBL flew a plane into, selafield, you would be very angry with it's impact on Ireland and rightly so.

The parallel is difficult to draw though, between an invasion of Ireland Vs Iraq .
The invaders would not be invaders as such, they would be terrorists,pretending to teach a warped verion of Islam.
They would have no Army, just methods, near enough impossible to defend against.

A few decades ago, there might have been a Soviet invasion, and decades before, a Nazi invasion, but in todays world, considering, the size of the countries in the ME and the logistics of getting Armies together,terrorism and in particular bio terrorism is the threat to the West.
mm

The invaders would not be invaders as such, they would be terrorists,pretending to teach a warped verion of Islam.

You're assuming it wouldn't be a western country that would invade Ireland. Since its unlikely, everyone seems to throw the idea of western nations acting aggressively against other european countries out the window. The idea of the US invading a european country is not so far removed, as that of Iraq invading Kuwait, or even the British invading the South.

A few decades ago, there might have been a Soviet invasion, and decades before, a Nazi invasion, but in todays world, considering, the size of the countries in the ME and the logistics of getting Armies together,terrorism and in particular bio terrorism is the threat to the West.

Not entirely true. Since most countries believe this, their national armies are quite small. Whats the Irish Army? 15,000? and there are always calls to reduce that number even more. All it would take is a small well equipped & well trained army to take Ireland.

Terrorism, WMDs, and surgical strikes, are more likely to happen, however do not discount the idea, simply because its a bit far out there.

Victor

Regarding soldiers / combattants operating among civilians / civilian areas, the Geneva Conventions holds them responsible for injury done to civilians, regardless of who pulls the trigger. I don't know the situation regarding "off duty" combattants. Both sides are operating in civilian areas.

Originally posted by bonkey
Why didnt those soldiers have a "nail rail" to blow out the tires of oncoming vehicles? Why didnt they have a solid barrier which was not simple to crash through as a first line of defence? Building a sloppy checkpoint appears to be the ultimate justification here - a properly secure one wasnt built / wont be built but a checkpoint is needed none-the-less, and therefore, when push comes to shove, shoot first and dont worry about whether or not there really was a risk, because your ass will be covered all the way to the top.

I heard they didn't build a proper road block because they wanted to be able to be a roving check point (to catch the unsuspecting and to prevent themselves being targeted). Nonetheless they should have had some sort of basic barriers and warnings / instructions in place.

I don't know the situation regarding "off duty" combattants.

Is there really off-duty combattants when their own homes are the battlefield?

Victor

Survivors describe horror of US checkpoint shooting
02/04/2003 - 11:49:37 am

Surviving members of an Iraqi family whose van was riddled with bullets by US troops said they were heading for Allied lines because they thought an air-dropped leaflet had advised them to flee their home.

Bakhat Hassan said US troops had waved the family car through one checkpoint as they left their village on Monday, The Miami Herald reported today.

But at the next checkpoint, the American soldiers opened fire.

“We were thinking these Americans want us to be safe,” the 35-year-old Iraqi said from his hospital bed through a translator.

He said 11 members of his family were killed – his daughters aged two and five, his son aged three, his parents, two older brothers, their wives and two nieces aged 12 and 15.

His wife Lamea, who is nine months pregnant, said she saw her children die.

“I saw the heads of my two little girls come off,” 36-year-old Lamea said. “My girls, I watched their heads come off their bodies. My son is dead.”

US officials had originally said seven people were killed in the shooting, and a Washington Post reporter at the scene put the death toll at 10.

<snip>

Full story http://breaking.tcm.ie/2003/04/02/story93992.html