Iraqi POW shot by Marine

JongWK · Post by **JongWK** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:06 pm

Another scandal. Though it seems to be an isolated incident, it ain't improving America's PR efforts.

CNN story. They also have a video link there.

BBC Story

BBC Video (graphic content)

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:21 pm

This sure seems to be getting more press than the fact the Iraqi fighters are putting explosives on dead bodies. The BBC article does make mention of that fact however.

JongWK · Post by **JongWK** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:26 pm

Daki wrote:This sure seems to be getting more press than the fact the Iraqi fighters are putting explosives on dead bodies. The BBC article does make mention of that fact however.

I expect terrorists to use every dirty trick on the book, but I also expect the Leader of the Free World (tm) to behave as such.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:56 pm

Heh. "POW" That's pretty funny.

BlackJack · Post by **BlackJack** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:12 pm

The general rule is that after a firefight, if you've lost DON'T MOVE! After the shooting has stopped everyone is still amped up and if you move you are likely to catch another round because nobody is going to want to get shot just because they weren't paying attention.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:15 pm

JongWK wrote:I expect terrorists to use every dirty trick on the book, but I also expect the Leader of the Free World (tm) to behave as such.

That Marine is not the leader of the free world, and is being held for questioning and possible disciplinary action. While that specific solider has acted inappropriately - as far as we can judge on limited facts - the military to which he answers has not. This is as opposed to an entire insurgent force whose tactics are explicitly outside the laws of warfare, but who are nevertheless being treated as lawful combatants in nearly every way.

It should also be noted that these Iraqis in Fallujah are not terrorist, but rather insurgents. Grouping them in with people who commit solely terror attacks is the sort of thing we generally try to avoid, since it leads to right-wing nutcases trying to justify exactly this sort of behavior.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:34 pm

I'd be the first to jump down the US's throat over the Iraq war, but what this guy did is, in the most likely circumstances, understandable. The dude moved, the marine shot. Fuck, you'd be jumpy as hell too.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:03 am

While the shooting of an unarmed Iraqi is a terrible thing, it's excellent to see that the US military is following the correct procedure. That said, they'd be mad if the Marine was punished harshly.

The CNN article wrote:U.S. rules of engagement prohibit American troops from killing any prisoner who does not pose a threat.

Problem with that is that often you don't know who does and who doesn't pose a threat until after the incident. I may have done the same thing as this guy in the same position, so I'm hardly going to condemn him. Accidents happen in wars. Abu Ghraib this ain't.

BlackJack · Post by **BlackJack** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:29 am

The guy had also taken a .22 round the day before from an "insurgent" who was faking injured. I was pleased to see that the command structure did its job and made sure that procedure was followed, but as soon as that Iraqi picked up a weapon he stopped being an innocent victim and become a valid target.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:25 am

This is one of these perhaps perhaps perhaps situations. If he was reaching for a gun (or a bomb or whatever) he had it coming. If he was just on the ground seriously wounded as the articles seem to apply and was executed then that is fucked up and he ought to be punished for his actions. I don't care how jumpy the marine was or if he had been shot by a .22 the day before. You are not supposed to execute wounded that have surrendered no matter who they are.

Am I surprised things like this happened? Not really. I am surprised that he was so stupid to do it right infront of the TV crew (or whom ever shot the video)? Can't really say I am that either.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:09 pm

lorg wrote:I don't care how jumpy the marine was or if he had been shot by a .22 the day before. You are not supposed to execute wounded that have surrendered no matter who they are.

I don't think you properly appreciate a live combat situation when you say that you don't care that the guy had been shot with a .22 the day before. He's lucky to be alive, and I'd be jumpy as all fuck if I were to walk away from something like that. And so would you. And your persistence in calling it an "execution," which from all acounts it wasn't, is further proof of either your misunderstand or your bias.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:51 pm

Does someone have a link to the full video? I've done some brief looking around but have only found cut-up versions.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:45 pm

DV8 wrote:I don't think you properly appreciate a live combat situation when you say that you don't care that the guy had been shot with a .22 the day before. He's lucky to be alive, and I'd be jumpy as all fuck if I were to walk away from something like that. And so would you. And your persistence in calling it an "execution," which from all acounts it wasn't, is further proof of either your misunderstand or your bias.

Ofcause I don't properly understand the situation since I have not personally been in the same situation so I have to base it on the news as we currently know them. Can you personally identify with him? Have you been at war? Have you been shot? I think not, so you can just give that tired old line a break.

I don't care about the .22 as an excuse, personally I think that if he had been shot the day before he should not have been sent out the next day. Perhaps that wasn't the best thing to do. So yes naturally he would be jumpy as fuck as you put it. Very little doubt about that. But does that excuse his actions? All actions? If it had been even worse then this?

Well lets see here, if you have someone that is wounded, lying down on the ground and you stand above them and put another round in them what are you supposed to call it if not an execution? "Life ending assistance"? Stop making excuses for them, they have to be held responsible for their actions, no matter age or how jumpy they might be.

@adam; Don't think any news site have the full video for public viewing. They tend not to show snuff movies. People that are already dead are fine but not the actual death scene.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:52 pm

that last two lines made no sense.

How come we watch gory, violent movies without any problem, and yet wince at actual death?

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:58 pm

FlameBlade wrote:that last two lines made no sense.

How come we watch gory, violent movies without any problem, and yet wince at actual death?

Yes itsn't it odd. Probably cause we know the fake movie violence is just that, fake. What bugs me even more is that it is ok to watch death and mayhem but full frontal nudity or sex and they gasp in horror and starts chanting that old 'ohh think of the children' crap.

Jarthal · Post by **Jarthal** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:13 pm

How come we watch gory, violent movies without any problem, and yet wince at actual death?

Because one involves, you know, people actually dying and stuff. Just like watching an alien invasion in a movie theater is different from watching one on the news.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:52 pm

lorg wrote:Ofcause I don't properly understand the situation since I have not personally been in the same situation so I have to base it on the news as we currently know them. Can you personally identify with him? Have you been at war? Have you been shot? I think not, so you can just give that tired old line a break.

You don't understand the situation, yet you are saying to give that "tired old line" a break... even though you have no idea if that "line" is completely valid. Neither you, nor Deev, have been in combat situations but you are both entitled to your opinions of his actions and what the soldier in question did.

lorg wrote:So yes naturally he would be jumpy as fuck as you put it. Very little doubt about that. But does that excuse his actions? All actions? If it had been even worse then this?

In my opinion? It doesn't excuse, but gives a reasoning and possible justification for his actions. There are several cases of insurgents who are feining injury and then attacking soliders. Also, they have been priming bodies with explosives to serve as booby traps. This is all happening within a hot bed of a city where they are fighting insurgents placed throughout the city. That is going to make any soldier extra cautious. Making a mistake on the side of caution will potentially save the soldier's life.

lorg wrote:Well lets see here, if you have someone that is wounded, lying down on the ground and you stand above them and put another round in them what are you supposed to call it if not an execution?

You need to add "in a combat zone" to that example. Also add in what I mentioned above. I do not consider every death that happens in combat to be an execution, therefore I have not labeled this an execution.

Right now the Military is following procedure and investigating the issue. If they find that the soldier acted out of turn or incorrectly, he'll be court marshalled.

lorg wrote:Stop making excuses for them, they have to be held responsible for their actions, no matter age or how jumpy they might be.

And I could easily say to you, "stop trying to see the world in black and white."

And he is being held responsible for his actions.

Twisted Sister · Post by **Twisted Sister** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 5:28 pm

Adam wrote:Does someone have a link to the full video? I've done some brief looking around but have only found cut-up versions.

Why in god's name would you want to watch that?

How come we watch gory, violent movies without any problem, and yet wince at actual death?

Twofold...Because in one version they come back for the sequel, in another they're gone forever and their last moment was fear. And secondly, fantasizing about going postal, is a little different from actually gunning down your co-workers, you know?

BlackJack · Post by **BlackJack** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:16 pm

The marine being shot the day before is not an excuse. He was in an almost exact same situation the day before and didn't fire and was shot himself, the next time he fired first. The phrase "Once bitten, twice shy" come to mind. No, he shouldn't have been out the next day after taking a round, but there aren't enough boots on the ground to allow the guy to have a day off.

It's real easy to sit back a few thousand miles and second guess this guy's actions.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:46 pm

Twisted Sister wrote:
Adam wrote:Does someone have a link to the full video? I've done some brief looking around but have only found cut-up versions.
Why in god's name would you want to watch that?

So he can make a more fair and balanced judgement on what happened?

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:01 pm

QUESTION!!!!

Why are there so many cameras following soliders into battle? Is it military CMA?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:17 pm

Gunny, a lot of the Soldiers themselves are carrying the cameras. You probably meant the reporters cameras, but I have a friend who was stationed in Bagdhad up until three weeks ago (he said his unit is moving north and he wouldn't be able to contact me for some time) and he told me that nearly every unit has a couple or more Soldiers with private cameras sent from home or brought with them.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:09 pm

And the news teams are there because this is a major story, the storming of the insurgents main base of operations. That and massive explosions and running gun battles make for great visuals.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:27 pm

Because if we didn't allow the cameras to follow us we'd be denying the freedom of press that theoretically doesn't really exsist in Iraq yet-I'll wait til the country is actually a real country before I say they can enforce their bill of rights, whatever it may be-and because we're a nation of news media junkies.

My own opinions on this mirror part of what 3278 said: he was one Marine, not the leader of the free world, and certainly not in the best of circumstances. Taht he was shot will certainly contribute to his defense, even though in teh Marine Corps any wound you receive that does not prevent from fighting-actually physically incapacitate you from picking up a weapon and firing it-will not remove you from battle. In fact the peer pressure network would assure that almost any would try and go back out no matter how serious the wound-just to save face amongst your peers.

This kids already going to be punished for what he did, right or wrong.This is obviously not official policy, nor is it obviously somethign they encourage.

I'd much rather talk about somethign that's really bad-like people who hide in Mosques while fighting, or who shoot people waiting in line for jobs or food.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:42 pm

lorg wrote:I don't care about the .22 as an excuse, personally I think that if he had been shot the day before he should not have been sent out the next day.

He'd been shot with a low-calibre round, and you have no idea how badly he was injured. If he was released by doctors for duty, it is highly unlikely that his wounds were anything other than incredibly minor; however, that is speculative, as well. What is, however, not speculation in any way is this: you don't know enough about his injuries or the situation to judge whether or not he should have been certified fit for duty.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:44 pm

By the way, the M16A2 service rifle uses a .223 round, not really all that much bigger than a .22-just to keep this in perspective. Obviously they're not the same, but they're also not so different that we're talking apples and rocks here.

BloodHound · Post by **BloodHound** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:51 pm

you would think that, but the powder charge behind it makes a lot of difference. A .22 will kill small animals and hurt people, yes lethal if put in the right place, but that 5.56 NATO round is a lot nastier.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:43 am

Absolutely.

However keep in mind that the steps between a .223 and most .22's aren't many. Ballistic's for the various rifles at the end of the spectrum aren't too different all things considered.

But you're right, a 5.556 NATO round is definitely designed with damaging people, versus most commercial rounds which are more specifically intended to injure or kill animals.

DV8 · Post by **DV8** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:41 am

BloodHound wrote:you would think that, but the powder charge behind it makes a lot of difference. A .22 will kill small animals and hurt people, yes lethal if put in the right place, but that 5.56 NATO round is a lot nastier.

I thought .22s could do a tremendous amount of damage because the tip is graphite and will bend upon impact with, say, bone, therefore tumble instead of spin, and leave really nasty wounds behind. It's far more likely for the bullet to stay lodged in the body than with a more powerful, full-metal round.

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:17 am

Serious Paul wrote:By the way, the M16A2 service rifle uses a .223 round, not really all that much bigger than a .22-just to keep this in perspective. Obviously they're not the same, but they're also not so different that we're talking apples and rocks here.

And not everyone in the journalism field is Raygun. Or above selective applications of semantics. It could very well have been 5.56 that was stopped by the Marine's vest without killing or incapacitating him

BlackJack · Post by **BlackJack** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:03 pm

It was a .22 round that hit his face. The marine was treated and released from the field hospital. He was physically Ok for duty, I was more worried about the mental aspect. If they had the resources I feel it would have been better to let the guy have a day off to make sure he's ready to go back out. The last thing you want is to have someone out on a patrol with his mind not 100% on the task at hand.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:17 pm

A luxury we're not always given in those situations.

BlackJack · Post by **BlackJack** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:52 pm

Exactly, its a luxury. There is no way it was possible given the situatuon.

Ghotty · Post by **Ghotty** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:04 am

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 ... 1332-5578r
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/13/inter ... lluja.html

and there's been booby-traps on bodies?

This war has been marked by dishonest and unconventional warfare against american soldiers, yet we're going to discipline a jumpy marine who has been wounded? OR rather, have a witchhunt by nutters cliaming that he was inhumane, or a monster. Fuel that the US is a vile war-mongering beast, that will kill the helpless.

I don't see that his actions were rephensible. I do see alot more sick things, likelocal rent-acops in the US being all nutty and agressive.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:02 am

Ghotty wrote:This war has been marked by dishonest and unconventional warfare against american soldiers, yet we're going to discipline a jumpy marine who has been wounded?

We are going to /investigate/ the actions of a Marine who shot an unarmed combatant who had surrendered. If it is determined that his actions were inappropriate, then he will be disciplined.

Ghotty wrote:OR rather, have a witchhunt by nutters cliaming that he was inhumane, or a monster.

No, we're going to have an investigation by the Marine Corps itself.

Ghotty wrote:Fuel that the US is a vile war-mongering beast, that will kill the helpless.

I'm uncertain why the actions of a single Marine are automatically reflected onto the entire country, but if and when it is, I and other level-headed persons will point out that a single Marine shot an unarmed combatant who had surrendered, and his conduct will be investigated, and he will be disciplined if it is deemed necessary. If he is inappropriately disciplined, that will be the time for objection in regards to the Marine Corps.

Ghotty wrote:I don't see that his actions were rephensible. I do see alot more sick things, likelocal rent-acops in the US being all nutty and agressive.

There's simply no comparison between the two. Nutty and aggressive security guards may bother you - although I always find it difficult to understand people who take pride in their criminality and then complain when people whose job it is to prevent criminality are disrespectful toward them - but they do not shoot and kill you after you have turned yourself over to them.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:48 am

3278 wrote:He'd been shot with a low-calibre round, and you have no idea how badly he was injured. If he was released by doctors for duty, it is highly unlikely that his wounds were anything other than incredibly minor; however, that is speculative, as well. What is, however, not speculation in any way is this: you don't know enough about his injuries or the situation to judge whether or not he should have been certified fit for duty.

I would say we have no idea how badly injured he was. But since he was sent out the very next day we can assume it was not major physical trauma that occured. On the other hand it ought to be apparent that he did suffer some form of mental trauma since he did react the way he did to the situation. But you are correct in that naturally we don't know enough about his situation to make the fit for duty judgement but then on the backside of that you can't use the things that happened the previous day as an excuse or explanation for the incident either.

Interestingly on the tape he apparently says (or screams out) something like 'he is faking it' right before he shots him. They gave that in conjuction with what had happened the day before as the explanation. Which is odd and wrong, just like if I would scream 'he's got a gun' right before I shot someone in the face and that would make it ok.

Does the action of one marine tarnish the reputation of all marines? Well yes it probably does to an extent. If one marine does something really bad that does reflect poorly on other marines just by the fact of them being marines. Not that it actually had anything to do with them, they where not there or there was nothing they could have done to prevent the incident. It is clearly wrong to blame all for the action of one but it does occur non the less.

I should then point out that I do not blame others for his actions. But if he just shot a person that was wounded and had surrendered that is clearly wrong, it should be investigated and if it turns out it was the case he should be punished accordingly for it.

Another interesting aspect of this is: I wonder if this perhaps does happen alot more often when the cameras are not there. Iin which case they get off, unless a fellow marine (or whatever they are) turn that person in. Cause I can't belive they do proper medical forensic examinations on all insurgents they kill. Considering they might have killed something between 1000-2000 of them just in this one town.

Ghotty wrote:and there's been booby-traps on bodies?

This war has been marked by dishonest and unconventional warfare against american soldiers, yet we're going to discipline a jumpy marine who has been wounded? OR rather, have a witchhunt by nutters cliaming that he was inhumane, or a monster. Fuel that the US is a vile war-mongering beast, that will kill the helpless.

The way the war is faught or suppresion of insurgency if you will is another matter. Related but still a completely different matter. Is it wrong of them to fight the way they do? According to the laws of war yes it most likely is as far as I know. But on the other hand they use the or similar tactics that have always been used by insurgents that are outgunned and outmanned by a superior force. That doesn't mean the other side can start fighting the war anyway they please. I am sure the insurgents hope that they will cause that means the superior one will loose even more since that will be reported on. If the US forces would start behaving like the insurgents the popular home support would drop like a stone thru water, I don't think Joe Public wants Vietnam style reporting about tiny villages massacred and cleansed from the face of the earth.

Is this what you want Ghotty? US forces start behaving like them, or Saddam for that matter. If you thought the insurgency was bad now then you just wait.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:51 pm

lorg wrote:On the other hand it ought to be apparent that he did suffer some form of mental trauma since he did react the way he did to the situation.

We don't know enough to make that judgement, either; it is entirely possible that this particular person would have reacted in exactly this way even if he hadn't been injured the day before.

Ghotty · Post by **Ghotty** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:43 pm

This whole incident looks like it's going to be blown out of proportion. And I'm loving it. Already it seems like people are making out that the united states is a vile war-machine. What the marine did, in my opinion, is not a bad thing. It's not like he kidnapped some-one and hacked off their head.

Anyone pretending to be dead deserves to be dead.

It's like the Abu Ghraib thing. at first, I though Abu Ghraib was a shitty thing. Then I saw interviews of iraqi's who weren't really concerned with it. And now I see that it's just been a political club used to attack the american military insitution, as well as it's commander in chief.

Basically, I think the Marine is faultless.

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:56 am

The Iraqi in question hadn't surrendered, wasn't a POW, and the insurgents had been playing dead, booby-trapping corpses, and pretending to surrender then firing. The marine was acting to protect himself and his buddies. When adrenaline is rushing through you, and you are in "kill or be killed" mode, you can't just turn it off. I agree with this article that the marine did nothing wrong. Of course, Al Jareeza is playing it up for all they're worth (but they won't play the beheading videos, of course). If this marine is punished, I will despise the people running this war even more, for putting someone in that posistion, then punishing him for actions that are not only rational and understandable, but unavoidable. What a lesson to give the rest of the troops - if you do anything that embarasses us, we'll make an example out of you.

As far as Abu Graib, I'm pissed that they only punished the grunts, and whitewashed the officers and officials who allowed/condoned/authorized it. Hell, the asshole involved with the torture memo, who thinks the Geneva Convention is "quaint", is the new fucking attorney general now.

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:57 am

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:22 pm

Ghotty wrote:Anyone pretending to be dead deserves to be dead.

or he was infact really wounded and couldn't move much.

Basically, I think the Marine is faultless.

I think that remains to be seen.

Anyway on a different Iraqi note:

Iraqi PM hails debt reduction deal

They just cut Iraqs debt by 80%, nice and all but if it gets done for Iraq why not for other poor countries that have been run into the ground by whackos that pumped up the countries debt to astronomical levels? What makes Iraq so special here? Is it the "lets bomb the crap out of you" discount in action?

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:40 pm

Serious Paul wrote:Absolutely.

However keep in mind that the steps between a .223 and most .22's aren't many. Ballistic's for the various rifles at the end of the spectrum aren't too different all things considered.

But you're right, a 5.556 NATO round is definitely designed with damaging people, versus most commercial rounds which are more specifically intended to injure or kill animals.

Still, dude. Getting plinked with a .22LR is so so not as bad as getting plinked with .223.

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:41 pm

lorg wrote:
Ghotty wrote:Anyone pretending to be dead deserves to be dead.
or he was infact really wounded and couldn't move much.

Basically, I think the Marine is faultless.
I think that remains to be seen.

Anyway on a different Iraqi note:

Iraqi PM hails debt reduction deal

They just cut Iraqs debt by 80%, nice and all but if it gets done for Iraq why not for other poor countries that have been run into the ground by whackos that pumped up the countries debt to astronomical levels? What makes Iraq so special here? Is it the "lets bomb the crap out of you" discount in action?

Developing countries often get debt forgiven by the World Bank or developed countries. It's not just Iraq. And it's been happening for decades.

Don't talk about what you don't have any clue about.

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:44 pm

DV8 wrote:
BloodHound wrote:you would think that, but the powder charge behind it makes a lot of difference. A .22 will kill small animals and hurt people, yes lethal if put in the right place, but that 5.56 NATO round is a lot nastier.
I thought .22s could do a tremendous amount of damage because the tip is graphite and will bend upon impact with, say, bone, therefore tumble instead of spin, and leave really nasty wounds behind. It's far more likely for the bullet to stay lodged in the body than with a more powerful, full-metal round.

Which is why .22LR has been the sidearm caliber of choice for nearly a century.

No wait, that was .45 ACP.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:50 pm

Wounded Ronin wrote:Developing countries often get debt forgiven by the World Bank or developed countries. It's not just Iraq. And it's been happening for decades.

Don't talk about what you don't have any clue about.

But not on as large a scale as that. But just remember, this isn't the whole of the Iraqi national debt, just what the Paris Club is owed. They still owe shedloads to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and their private creditors.

And Ronin, no need to get so pissy. Fine, if you don't agree with someone's point then you can always disagree and be civil at the same time.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:48 am

While I have never actually been shot, I have been shot at that. That sucked enough. I don't care what you got shot with, it'd suck.

I have been stabbed several times, and that sucks enough. I couldn't imagine what being shot is like.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:21 pm

Wounded Ronin wrote:Developing countries often get debt forgiven by the World Bank or developed countries. It's not just Iraq. And it's been happening for decades.

Yes they do forgive "small" debt from time to time to most nations but I can't recall it ever having been done on this kind of massive scale before, 80% of what was owned to the 8 richest countries in the world. That is alot of money. You can't possible say that there are not other countries that are not as bad of or even worse that would not benefit from the same kind of gift.

Don't talk about what you don't have any clue about.

Gee, look whos talking.

Serious Paul wrote:While I have never actually been shot, I have been shot at that. That sucked enough. I don't care what you got shot with, it'd suck.

I have been stabbed several times, and that sucks enough. I couldn't imagine what being shot is like.

Care to somehow describe if possible how it actually feels that someone out there wants to kill you?