Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I heard about this. I was shocked and upset at first. Now I've seen the video. Now I'm disgusted and furious.

I don't care why the fuck we went into Iraq. I don't care if it was for WMD, to oust Saddam, free Iraqis, for oil, whatever I don't care. But the fact is, a majority of Iraqis think that their lives are better and will be better, and that's the important thing, because in the long term, they will have to live with the results of this war.

But for that 17% of those people in Iraq that support these attacks on American troops and civilians, they can go to hell.

These contractors were delivering food. Nourishment. Food to Iraqi civilians, which is a whole lot more than that shithead Saddam did for them, which is a whole lot more than those shitheads at the UN did for them with that phony oil for food sanction. These contractors were not fighting against any Iraqis, they were helping them. I don't care if they were Americans. These contractors didn't shoot anybody. They didn't kill anybody. We don't even know if they were even for the war. But they try to help someone, but they are massacred and their corpses tormented.

The people that did this are evil, and do not deserve to live. No amount of torture, no way of death can ever avenge what these sons of bitches did. Clearly, if they had the chance to do so, you know these bastards would do the same damn thing to us. And why anybody sane would be against killing these murderers you could rationally persuade someone irrational enough to do a heinous act like this that they shouldn't terrorise people.

There are people like this that want to kill Americans. We should kill them. We might be wrong, they might be wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. But it will certainly keep our asses from being killed.

At 4/3/04 05:05 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unintentional

Dictionary.com is not the be all and end all for everything. There are other meanings for words than the literal ones.

At 4/3/04 03:49 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/2/04 07:19 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: I can justify it, none of those deaths were intentional. This is evident because we used preciscion weapons to target military facilities instead of just randomly bombing, we didn't have to, but we did.

Because a death is unintentional, it is justified? Interesting. How do we define unintentional?

No, because death is unintentional, it doesn't need to be justified, it was an accident. However, to some degree they knew deaths would happen, so they did take a risk and are partially responsible for thier deaths, and that risk has been justified time and time again in other threads, it just depends on your point of view.

At 4/1/04 06:55 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote:

.

Look at them. Look at them and understand that this war cannot always be edited by shrewd CNN executives, or hidden away in stacks of paper by the Bush administration. This is war as it truly is, this is what President George W. Bush has involved us in, and it will not stop, it will not cease, until we have handed over power to the Iraqis and pulled the final troop from that nation.

The acts on those four corpses presses the limits of what we deem acceptable, because deep down we know war is not acceptable. This violence now gives us a taste of how this war is from the viewpoint of those fighting. They do not get the privilege of editing out these images from their minds. If more people saw these images, and more people took them in, perhaps we would have fewer supporters of this war.

Then think about history. We pulled out of Somalia after similar pictures surfaced. The result was an emboldenment of UBL and a feeling that the US will cut and run when the war gets too horrible.

But this is war, one that was not started by the US. Our enemy will not come to the negotiating table to discuss peace. Instead they see ppl such as you as the weakness of the West. They see this type of warfare as honorable and glorious. War is ugly, in this case the enemy is savage. The US, more so than any country in history, tries to minimize colateral damage. The enemy (radical fundamentalism, and not just the Islamic variety), does not know the meaning of colateral damage. To them everyone is a target.

There has never been a war that has not been terrible or bloody. Maybe someday the world can live without war, I look forward to that day. However, the sad truth is that I will only be ancient bones when that day comes.

At 4/3/04 12:46 PM, TheMason wrote: But this is war, one that was not started by the US.

I could of sworn it was...

At 4/3/04 12:31 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: No, because death is unintentional, it doesn't need to be justified, it was an accident. However, to some degree they knew deaths would happen, so they did take a risk and are partially responsible for thier deaths, and that risk has been justified time and time again in other threads, it just depends on your point of view.

So, all 10,000 deaths were justified? Possibly. If the missiles were not 100% accurate though... were their deaths due not to accidents, but to failibility of weapons?

What about all those kids who picked up bits of cluster bomb and then got blown to smithereenes? Is that intentional? Cluster bombs are, in fact, DESIGNED to do this.

At 4/2/04 09:38 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote:

We must remain calm and think logically, or we become no different than any of the murderers in Fallujah.

Good point.

At 4/2/04 05:14 PM, CrassClock wrote:

My mistake, they actually have 750 billion.

found one.

At 4/3/04 11:22 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/3/04 05:05 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unintentional

Dictionary.com is not the be all and end all for everything. There are other meanings for words than the literal ones.

yes it is. well, there are other dictionaries. the fact remains, however, that the dictionary definition of a word is the only definition.
the only way a word can have a different meaning is if one uses a metaphor or uses the word incorrectly.
dictionaries exist to set a standard definition for each word, for the purpose of ensuring that everyone "is on the same page" so to speak.

At 4/3/04 04:04 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/3/04 12:31 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: No, because death is unintentional, it doesn't need to be justified, it was an accident. However, to some degree they knew deaths would happen, so they did take a risk and are partially responsible for thier deaths, and that risk has been justified time and time again in other threads, it just depends on your point of view.

So, all 10,000 deaths were justified? Possibly. If the missiles were not 100% accurate though... were their deaths due not to accidents, but to failibility of weapons?

Your post doesn't make much sense. The fact that we used those missiles, proves that we attempted to reduce civilian life, and that the deaths that did happen were unintentional. I don't see what that has to do with your post.

What about all those kids who picked up bits of cluster bomb and then got blown to smithereenes? Is that intentional? Cluster bombs are, in fact, DESIGNED to do this.

That was Afghanistan.

At 4/3/04 05:54 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

:the fact remains, however, that the dictionary definition of a word is the only definition.
You're really thick, aren't you?

At 4/3/04 12:46 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/1/04 06:55 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote:

But this is war, one that was not started by the US.

The Nation of Iraq did not attack the United States.

At 4/3/04 05:58 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

What about all those kids who picked up bits of cluster bomb and then got blown to smithereenes? Is that intentional? Cluster bombs are, in fact, DESIGNED to do this.

That was Afghanistan.

Big difference. The fact that the cluster bombs were USED SHOWS that they mst have wanted things like this to happen, otherwise they wouldn't have used it. So therefore, those childrens deaths were intentional, even though the military KNEW they were civilians.

At 4/4/04 03:51 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/3/04 05:58 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

What about all those kids who picked up bits of cluster bomb and then got blown to smithereenes? Is that intentional? Cluster bombs are, in fact, DESIGNED to do this.

That was Afghanistan.

Big difference. The fact that the cluster bombs were USED SHOWS that they mst have wanted things like this to happen, otherwise they wouldn't have used it. So therefore, those childrens deaths were intentional, even though the military KNEW they were civilians.

No, those were two different wars. You are comparing apples in Bananas. In the Iraq war we used preciscion weaponry because we were targeting heavily populated areas and wanted to reduce civlian deaths, there is no other explianation for it. In the Afghani war we used cluster bombs because we were attacking the desert.

"The fact that they used Cluster bombs in Afghanistan means that they wanted Iraqi children to die!"

At 4/3/04 05:59 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 05:54 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: the fact remains, however, that the dictionary definition of a word is the only definition.

You're really thick, aren't you?

so i forgot about encyclopedias and thesaurusesesesesees, so sue me.

At 4/4/04 05:13 AM, ineffable_fetus wrote: "The fact that they used Cluster bombs in Afghanistan means that they wanted Iraqi children to die!"

Afghanistani children, you mean.

At 4/4/04 07:36 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/4/04 05:13 AM, ineffable_fetus wrote: "The fact that they used Cluster bombs in Afghanistan means that they wanted Iraqi children to die!"

Afghanistani children, you mean.

No, Iraqi children, we're talking about IRAQ.

At 4/3/04 05:58 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

At 4/3/04 04:04 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: What about all those kids who picked up bits of cluster bomb and then got blown to smithereenes? Is that intentional? Cluster bombs are, in fact, DESIGNED to do this.

That was Afghanistan.

No, we dropped cluster bombs in Iraq - in the first gulf war, in '98-99 when we were bombing, and in 2003:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/world/gcluster/flash.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-09.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,968181,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-cluster-bomb-cover_x.htm

At 4/4/04 03:38 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 05:58 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

At 4/3/04 04:04 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: What about all those kids who picked up bits of cluster bomb and then got blown to smithereenes? Is that intentional? Cluster bombs are, in fact, DESIGNED to do this.

That was Afghanistan.

No, we dropped cluster bombs in Iraq - in the first gulf war, in '98-99 when we were bombing, and in 2003:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/world/gcluster/flash.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-09.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,968181,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-cluster-bomb-cover_x.htm

Funny that you couldn't find one article that wasn't an editorial, much less one that was written by someone who hadn't made thier position on the war openly clear. What you should have been able to see (that is, if you weren't just looking to justify your views on the war) is that these cluster bombs, are not the same cluster bombs that have been so imfamous for killing people, these are actually much safer. Cluster bomb is a general classification, there are many many types, jsut because it's a cluster bomb does not neccesarily mean it is bad. I'll use some simple math to demonstrate;

372 civilians were estimated killed by cluster bombs by anti-war groups (obviously a very liberal estimate).

13,000 cluster bombs were used.

So the ratio of civilian deaths per bomb is less than 1:3, which actually makes it one of the least civilian-lethal bombs out there, even the high preciscion cruise missiles had a 1:3.5 ratio.

Thus re-enforcing my claim that the US went to great lengths to reduce civilian deaths.

Oh wait, my mistake, the ratio is actually more like 1:30.

And unless there is something I'm forgetting, that would make it the safest weapon in history.

At 4/4/04 04:07 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Funny that you couldn't find one article that wasn't an editorial, much less one that was written by someone who hadn't made thier position on the war openly clear.

I don't really think someone's position on the war has any bearing when speaking about facts.
Fact: We dropped cluster bombs in Iraq in this latest war.
Fact: You denied earlier that we did. Face it - You were simply talking out of your ass.

these are actually much safer. Cluster bomb is a general classification, there are many many types, jsut because it's a cluster bomb does not neccesarily mean it is bad.

Whoops! You didn't read this part:
"The U.S. Air Force used new, improved cluster bombs in Iraq that pose fewer dangers to civilians. But U.S. ground forces used old cluster munitions with a history of leaving unexploded bomblets (duds) that can detonate any time after they are deployed, causing civilian casualties."

372 civilians were estimated killed by cluster bombs by anti-war groups (obviously a very liberal estimate).

Next sentence: "The numbers are impossible to verify: Iraqi hospital records are incomplete, and many Iraqi families buried their dead without reporting their deaths"

Whoops! Funny you should leave that out!

So the ratio of civilian deaths per bomb is less than 1:3, which actually makes it one of the least civilian-lethal bombs out there, even the high preciscion cruise missiles had a 1:3.5 ratio.

Whoops! You left out this little tidbit:
"The attacks also left behind thousands of unexploded bomblets, known as duds, that continued to kill and injure Iraqi civilians weeks after the fighting stopped. U.S. officials say they sought to limit civilian casualties by trying to avoid using cluster munitions. But often alternative weapons were not available or would not have been as effective during the invasion.

• The U.S. Air Force, criticized for using cluster bombs that killed civilians during the wars in Vietnam, Kosovo and Afghanistan, has improved its cluster bombs. But U.S. ground forces relied on cluster munitions known to cause a high number of civilian casualties."

Thus re-enforcing my claim that the US went to great lengths to reduce civilian deaths.

New York-based Human Rights Watch predicted on March 18, a day before the war began with an airstrike in Baghdad: "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will result in grave dangers to civilians and friendly combatants." Cluster weapons are especially dangerous to civilians because they spray wide areas with hundreds of bomblets. Most are unguided "dumb" weapons, so they can miss their target, and many of the bomblets don't explode immediately.

Yeeeaaaaah......

At 4/4/04 03:05 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

At 4/4/04 07:36 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Afghanistani children, you mean.

No, Iraqi children, we're talking about IRAQ.

Were you? I'd diverged. Does it really make a difference that an Afghanistani Child picked up a bit of bomb and gurgled in a happy manner before it detonated and killed him?

Somehow I think not, and either way, Skunk rpoved we used them in iraq to... so tha makes it TWICE as bad...

At 4/4/04 08:14 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/4/04 04:07 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Funny that you couldn't find one article that wasn't an editorial, much less one that was written by someone who hadn't made thier position on the war openly clear.

I don't really think someone's position on the war has any bearing when speaking about facts.
Fact: We dropped cluster bombs in Iraq in this latest war.

Which are not the same as the cluster bombs

Fact: You denied earlier that we did. Face it - You were simply talking out of your ass.

I admit I was wrong, but that doesn't change my argument. Just because it is a cluster bomb does not mean it is a bad weapon, you're just blinded by the effect of previous weapons which also happened to be cluster bombs. Throwing out random insults isn't going to make you right.

these are actually much safer. Cluster bomb is a general classification, there are many many types, jsut because it's a cluster bomb does not neccesarily mean it is bad.

Whoops! You didn't read this part:
"The U.S. Air Force used new, improved cluster bombs in Iraq that pose fewer dangers to civilians. But U.S. ground forces used old cluster munitions with a history of leaving unexploded bomblets (duds) that can detonate any time after they are deployed, causing civilian casualties."

Do they say how many of them they used? Do they say how old they are? Do they say what this history really was? No. For all we know they could have been cluster bombs developed just a few years before those new cluster bombs, and they too could have been safe for civilians. You have no proof to the contrary, and the statistics side with me, so unless you can give evidence to your argument then the evidence favors my argument.

372 civilians were estimated killed by cluster bombs by anti-war groups (obviously a very liberal estimate).

Next sentence: "The numbers are impossible to verify: Iraqi hospital records are incomplete, and many Iraqi families buried their dead without reporting their deaths"

Whoops! Funny you should leave that out!

It makes no difference, unless the amount was 10x that, it is still a very safe weapon. If I did give you an article that gave a figure, you would claim it was an estimate, and therefore completely unuseable.

So the ratio of civilian deaths per bomb is less than 1:3, which actually makes it one of the least civilian-lethal bombs out there, even the high preciscion cruise missiles had a 1:3.5 ratio.

Whoops! You left out this little tidbit:
"The attacks also left behind thousands of unexploded bomblets, known as duds, that continued to kill and injure Iraqi civilians weeks after the fighting stopped. U.S. officials say they sought to limit civilian casualties by trying to avoid using cluster munitions. But often alternative weapons were not available or would not have been as effective during the invasion.

And again, you don't have a figure for how many Iraqi's died. And any figure I give you will simply be an estimate but it will still side with my argument. There would have to be upwards of 10,000 Iraqi's dead in order for you to really call this weapon unsafe. But there isn't, so you have no grounds for an argument.

• Unexploded U.S. cluster bomblets remain a threat to U.S. forces in Iraq. They have killed or injured at least eight U.S. troops.

OMG 8!!! Stray bullets are a bigger threat that cluster bombs. Nearly everything is.

• The U.S. Air Force, criticized for using cluster bombs that killed civilians during the wars in Vietnam, Kosovo and Afghanistan, has improved its cluster bombs. But U.S. ground forces relied on cluster munitions known to cause a high number of civilian casualties."

Too many subjective words to be used as evidence. An anti-war person would call nearly any amount of civilians high. I'm sure many people consider 372 civilians high.

Thus re-enforcing my claim that the US went to great lengths to reduce civilian deaths.

New York-based Human Rights Watch predicted on March 18, a day before the war began with an airstrike in Baghdad: "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will result in grave dangers to civilians and friendly combatants." Cluster weapons are especially dangerous to civilians because they spray wide areas with hundreds of bomblets. Most are unguided "dumb" weapons, so they can miss their target, and many of the bomblets don't explode immediately.

Yeeeaaaaah......

What's this supposed to prove? Every weapon can be made to look bad by simply saying it's possible downsides; A gun hurls a piece of metal with no guidance system whatsoever, it has a long history of killing innocent people, and many guns are able to shoot a constant stream of projectiles, and usually after the third shot, the gun is not pointed anywhere near it's original target.

At 4/5/04 04:31 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/4/04 03:05 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote:

At 4/4/04 07:36 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Afghanistani children, you mean.

No, Iraqi children, we're talking about IRAQ.

Were you? I'd diverged. Does it really make a difference that an Afghanistani Child picked up a bit of bomb and gurgled in a happy manner before it detonated and killed him?

Gurgled? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? And yes it makes a difference, it's two different wars, and different circumstances, and most importantly, the subject at hand was whether or not America tries toreduce civilian casualties.

Somehow I think not, and either way, Skunk rpoved we used them in iraq to... so tha makes it TWICE as bad...

No it doesn't. You're a moron. I've already proven that the ones we used in Iraq were much safer than the ones used in previous wars that caused so many deaths. Unless you can prove otherwise, you shouldn't make claims like that, because they are incorrect.

There's a cluster bomb testing range near the southern border of Arizona. It's a fake city, used to realistically test the effects of cluster bombs.

Unfortunately, sometimes, when Mexican immigrants attempt to cross the border illegally, they take a desert route, and see this 'city' on the horizon... The Air Force claims that they've aborted tests before anyone's gotten hurt, but I somehow doubt that.

Heh, well I can't say I don't find that funny.

LMAO, that's HILARIOUS.

At 4/5/04 03:47 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Gurgled? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? And yes it makes a difference, it's two different wars, and different circumstances, and most importantly, the subject at hand was whether or not America tries toreduce civilian casualties.

Gurgling is when kids make that little "Goo" noise that makes them seem really sweet. America evedently DIDNT try to reduce civilian casualties, proved because they dropped cluster bombs, which are notorious for not all exploding properly, and for killing inquisitive people, but mainly children, who play with the bits that have dropped and not exploded yet.

No it doesn't. You're a moron. I've already proven that the ones we used in Iraq were much safer than the ones used in previous wars that caused so many deaths. Unless you can prove otherwise, you shouldn't make claims like that, because they are incorrect.

a quick google search for 'cluster bombs iraq' revelas some interesting information.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0226-06.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-09.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,968181,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-cluster-bomb-cover_x.htm

Widely used in Afghanistan, cluster bombs are vehemently denounced by human rights organizations: they compare their deadly effects to anti-personnel mines, which are outlawed by the Ottawa Convention (not signed, incidentally, by either the US or Iraq). Cluster bombs are far from being smart. Most of its bomblets hit the ground without exploding. The small yellow cylinders remain deadly weapons threatening civilians - especially children. Human Rights Watch, in vain, has tried to persuade the Pentagon not to use cluster bombs, stressing that "Iraqi civilians will pay the price with their lives". This is not the first incident of mass civilian deaths. The Independent newspaper of London claims that it has conclusively proved that an American missile was responsible for the devastation at the Shu'ale market in Baghdad last Friday, with at least 62 civilians confirmed dead. The missile - either a high speed anti-radiation missile (Harm) or a Paveway laser-guided bomb - is manufactured by Raytheon in Texas. Raytheon is the world's largest manufacturer of so-called "smart" weapons - including Patriots and Tomahawks.

At 4/5/04 04:52 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Raytheon is the world's largest manufacturer of so-called "smart" weapons - including Patriots and Tomahawks.

All the Raytheon stuff I've had to work with has worked awesome... I guess their new stuff doesn't have all the bugs worked out yet.

At 4/5/04 03:43 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Which are not the same as the cluster bombs

I've already gone over this. The army is still using the old cluster bombs. There's nothing to argue about here.

you're just blinded by the effect of previous weapons which also happened to be cluster bombs.

The bulk of cluster bombs used in this latest war in Iraq were the old kind.

Throwing out random insults isn't going to make you right.

What? It doesn't work for you?

Do they say how many of them they used? Do they say how old they are? Do they say what this history really was? No.

Yes. They do.

"...President Bush declared major combat operations over, that the United States had used 1,500 cluster weapons and caused one civilian casualty. It turns out he was referring only to cluster weapons dropped from the air, not those fired by U.S. ground forces.

In fact, the United States used 10,782 cluster weapons, according to the declassified executive summary of a report compiled by U.S. Central Command, which oversaw military operations in Iraq."

Thus, the US fired more than 9000 of the type of clusterbomb that the US army uses.

And remember what kind they use? The old kind.

It makes no difference, unless the amount was 10x that, it is still a very safe weapon.

You're just being silly saying that clusterbombs are safe.

Stop being silly sween.

And again, you don't have a figure for how many Iraqi's died. And any figure I give you will simply be an estimate but it will still side with my argument.

Of course any figure given is an estimate, and I suspect, any figure you give a total fabrication, but regardless.. It's pretty obvious we're dealing with estimates here.

But there isn't, so you have no grounds for an argument.

You're the one with no grounds for an argument. You're the one calling clusterbombs safe.

• Unexploded U.S. cluster bomblets remain a threat to U.S. forces in Iraq. They have killed or injured at least eight U.S. troops.

OMG 8!!! Stray bullets are a bigger threat that cluster bombs. Nearly everything is.

No, you must of misread. See - the bomblets remain a threat, because many are duds upon the first impact. But see, now here's the important part - they can blow up later.

See, if you leave a bullet on the ground, the worst that could happen, is a child could throw it at another child, and hit their eye with it.

But the bomblets blow up if a kid picks one up. See? See?