watch the video, the full version, it's available in english for free at rai news website...

if that doesn't twist your stommack - you're cold hearded dude...

To be fair, you'd probably be better actually watching the documentary before commenting on his opinion of it. Just not to be hypocritical and so on.

If you have, I apologise for that though (I've not, and I'm yet to read a very good account concretely backing or countering the assertions it makes, so it's pretty difficult for me to actually comment here).

That documentary is a pants load. Yeah, 10 year old combatants are getting shot. I was deadly with a rifle at 8, so if I was a combatant?..... Who sent the kid out with a rifle?. It wasn't us.

Next thing we'll have the eurotrash documentary of how we were too rough getting rid of Hitler.

Iraq:

15,000 people want to die fighting and meet Allah.
24 million want pizza, a pepsi and to drive a Ford. 13 million of those are women, who don't want to wear a bag over their head.

Simple math.

Just don't stand next to one of the 15,000.

Have some Kentucky Fried Chicken or BE some.....

Ertmann does say "without being under direct threat", which doesn't cover "10 year-old combatants" in any context where they would be "being shot", let alone being attacked with incendiary weaponry.

As for the "rough getting rid of Hitler", there were reports of atrocities being whitewashed by the victors (I believe that it was the British who began the concept of concentration camps, for example), but myeh. I don't know if you've actually watched the documentary yet, but if you haven't asserting that it's a "pants load" seems like jumping the gun slightly.

In the boer wars, but they didn't invent the concept either.

It is acceptable to have 20% losses to our personnel and to inflict 20% casualty rates on civilians in the area during a military operation.

This would be standard tactics. It seems if anything the military has been quite restrained... perhaps too much so....

Well, the claims can be backed up or not, but the video fotage in there, which is what i find most appaling, pretty much speaks for himself...

theres a scene where american soldiers, walk into a mosque, with everyone in the room, obviously being too wounded to move around, they must be as they are just lying there while an american soldier walks up to a wounded man a shoots him in the head, just like that.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new.../pics/5716.jpg
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=5716

makes me so angry

That's a violation of the Geneva Convention, is it not?

Wasn't that in the news at one time, I saw a video where the troops were being fired upon from a mosque and they returned fire and then went in and killed a guy who had been wounded (probably from their return fire). Anyway, shooting from a mosque is a violation of geneva convention. Not that the iraqi insurgents adhere to geneva in anyway whatsoever.

One thing that makes it very difficult for US troops is they don't wear a uniform (A geneva requirement). The purpose of a uniform is to distinguish fighters from civilians. Fighters are to be shot at, civilians are not. Basically a uniform is a big target that says "Kill Me! and not the children standing next to me." When one side of a fight dresses just like the civilians of that country it makes the incidence of civilian casualties much higher. how is a soldier supposed to differentiate between hostile forces and civilians? just becuase that guy or that kid or even that woman isn't shooting at you now, how do you know they won't when you turn your back on them?

So? What's relevant about that? "They fight dirty so we'll fight dirty" is a terrible justification.

I now have watched the documentary, and I still come to the same question as before, and the same conclusion as Mattress.
here is the video All you have to do is listen to the tone of the guys voice and you know that it's bullshit.

Anytime there is war, there are three kinds of onlookers.

those who support the war.
Those who oppose the war from logical grounds,
and those who hate war.

This video was made by people in the third camp.

lets take this guy in the mosque for instance.
You're getting shot at from a mosque. You return fire at the mosque.
You go in to clear it. There's a guy laying under a blanket which could have God-knows-what underneath it. You know that many people just like this guy have no problems blowing themselves up. What do you do?

I spray the guy.
I'd never get myself into that situation to begin with, since I love my enemy as myself and wouldn't go to war (maybe as a medic I would), but when I put myself in those circumstances, I pop the guy.

Let's face it: Geneva is a little archaic considering how warfare has changed. And everybody has done everything they can to get around those laws since they were established. Do two wrongs make a right? no. But do I pop that guy to save my life and my fellow soldiers? Yes.

The Japanese were just as nasty of an enemy as these radicals. They Japanese would fight to the death for their emperor. Did any Marines pop a wounded Japanese soilder at Iwo Jima? I'm guessing yes.

The Commander-In-Chief - George W. Bush. You can't blame the soldiers because they are doing what they are commanded to do. You can only blame those who started the war and continue to fight the war even though we started the entire war on bullshit information as even the President today acknowledged.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

If you're responsible you should be fired. It was also those in your administration responsible for exposing CIA agents who's job was to track terrorists. They should be fired too. Period. Of course this won't happen since Washington is controlled entirely by the GOP.

Doesn't appear to be the case here, though, which is the point.

For what it's worth, I've not seen the video, so I'm trying not to directly comment on its veracity. I also consider myself one of your second group, and I've gotten very annoyed with those in the third (although I think it's poorly named) in the past.

Don't forget the intelligence of France, Germany, Russia, China, the UN, and the Clinton Administration all believed there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Saddam's possession...

Even I knew there wasn't anything and I'm sure they all knew it too. We blasted that country into the stone age in the first gulf war. They didn't have enough money for a weapons program and I'm sure that if they had any stockpile of bioweapons that they were sold to buy Sadam a palace. Despite the very crooked UN, Sadam was pretty poor...relatively....

Even Kudafi gave up his programs. He hadn't been blown up and didn't have much of anything.

When you blame GB for making up some WMD BS to justify the war with Iraq, remember anyone with a brain knew the intelligence was BS... that includes Kerry...

-- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

-- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

-- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

-- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Note how subtle he manages to not say that Saddam has weapons in the second and third quotes (particularly the second). Politicians are awesome.

or assholes.

Take your pick I guess.

Sarcasm does not go over HTTP, it seems.

you need to use <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.

or a :rolleyes:

The term "workaround" springs to mind :D

<sarcasm>Well, considering how right you are about everything</sarcasm>
So does the term "reacharound" :D

Screw you man, I am right about everything! It's my special gift!

special as in special ed.
:D

Actually, you are right most of the time, as evidenced by the fact that we agree so much.