There were massive amounts of weapons found there as well. On top of that several of the structures had hundreds of beds making it, most likely, a hotbed for travelling fighters, mostly foreign. I don't doubt some innocents died, but I do strongly believe that even more innocents would have died and more damage would have been done to the American forces.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Do you or do you not?
 

Actually, my heart did go out to them prior to the war. How does this justify what those u.s. soldiers did? was it better for them to be starved to death or made to eat pork and drink wine? hmmmm...I dont know Russ.

JustaMom,
It was a wedding. Both the bride and groom died.

Rudey,
We're not in grade school ok. Stop with the name-calling. N about the honor killing thing you are going off about, please stop with the slander. I never stated that honor killings and rape were "ok", so I dont know where you are getting all this from. But I can see from your latest statement that its "OK" for americans to bomb the hell out of a wedding because there was just NO possible way to get to the weapons without killing innocent people who are celebrating!

Re: Re: Re: Do you or do you not?
 

Oh ok.

-Rudey

So just what has been proven?:(

One side says one thing, another side says something else.:confused:

Each has film at 10:00 CST , but who says that that film is correct?:rolleyes:

All you who want to get on the dead horse, well spare the horse, it is tired.

I know one thing, people arte getting killed! Did some consider this?:confused:

_OPI_-I honestly heard it wasn't a wedding. Won't discount any spin on it though. They (media radio and TV) said that they were shooting guns (supposedly NOT that area's wedding custom) and there wasn't any food or drink, or even gifts around.
It is a known area for hiding terrorists and sympathizers.

You know what REALLY stinks? All of this is so confusing I honestly don't know WHAT to believe.




Moe.run HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLP!!!!

Ask her to prove it was a wedding.

-Rudey

OK Rudey!

OPI, RA, what is your source that is WAS a wedding?

I'm just rolling along with this discussion, no animosity here.:)

No no don't phrase it like that. Ask it like this:

If it was a wedding why were there large stockpiles of weapons and structures with hundreds of beds, something travelling fighters would use often upon entering the country. Ask her for pictures and a story about the bride and groom.

-Rudey

Well the fact that a number of international news agencies have reported that there was most likely a wedding....
BBC Link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3741223.stm

Besides remember what the response was when the Gen. was confronted with "evidence" of a wedding? (It's in the article):
"Bad people have parties too..."

The perception problem regarding the incident (ie. which side is closer to the truth) stems from the fact that both sides have lost (if they had it) faith/trust in each other. The coalition needs to get it act together with media presentation and public relations... they are losing the PR war in Iraq.

However whether there was a wedding or not does really change the fact that innocent people died. Sure some "bad guys" were killed, but was the PR cost worth it? Don't really know (although the Iraqis are proving very savy in the PR war) Could there have been a better way of taking action? Again don't know but I suspect that there could have been.

You are amazing. You can quote Fox news word for word (not remember the anchor) and say you have a good memory, you can do psychological analyses on how Iraqis hate Americans, you have an honorary degree in beheadings and forensics, and now you received a PhD in Were American lives worth bad PR?

-Rudey

Justamom,

Iraqis bury victims of US strike

Hope the link works.


Rudey,

I'm sorry, but in Canada, there is no such thing as stoning :p

Here's another http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3741223.stm

Gee didn't realize that I was doing my disertation for you :)

Look I'm expressing my views and opinions (you guys still have free speech right? - ;) ). Also as amazing as it is to fathom, I'm not alone in my views...

The prediliction for US forces to resort to firepower over manpower (in order to avoid the risk of casualities) is what essentially I disagree with concerning the current situation in Iraq. I had hoped that the US forces could have learned from the UK forces in Iraq, or the NATO forces in Afghanistan, were methods taken are "softer". Now before you go off on one of your cute little rants... check out the following link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3739955.stm

Hmmm... guess what, others are having misgivings about US tactics....

I don't care if you talk. I talk back. I also don't care how you or other non-Americans feel about our PR. My interests lay solely with my country.

As for why there were weapons and so many beds and the people who were killed (almost all males)...well I guess you don't care about that.

-Rudey

While it's true that US officers are taught to use overwhelming firepower and tactical air and other high tech wepons, if it saves American lives, I can't find a lot of fault there. If there are civilian casualties on the other side, that is a real shame, but an unfortunate part of war. (Purposely killing or maiming of non-combatants is another story entirely.) War is not a nice thing.

On the other hand, RA's right to express his opinion is one of our ideals, and rightly so.