Collateral Murder (merged)

[CaptainHaplo]

An excellent find Torvald!

Nicolas - your misinformed on a few things. First off - the majority of the UN nations in the area had no qualms with the invasion of Iraq - as demonstrated by the number of supporting countries involved.

As for WHY - there were specific indications that multiple types of WMD's were present or being developed - and the refusal by Iraq to conform to international demand regarding Nuclear Inspections were the tipping point. Only later did we learn that Saddam refused the inspections to make it APPEAR that he had a program that was further advanced than the reality. This was done to display strength regionally - and was a massive miscalculation on his part. Documents found after the fall of the regime show that a nuclear program was in process - but it was VERY rudimentary and presented no immediate danger. But without inspections - how could anyone know that - especially when the ruler was giving every indication that they were farther along?

As for the question of WMD's - while you won't hear about it in standard media - the reality is there is satellite photos of chemical tankers with escort going into syria right before the war - and syria denies that such convoys existed. Recall that the ruling party in Syria is also that Bath party - same as what controlled Iraq - though there were some differences - it is branches of the same tree. Now - in addition, chemical warheads HAVE been found that - had they been used - easily could have killed 100k plus - equaling the UN definition of WMD. Then you have the "duel use" laboratories that were found buried - after having been sanitized. They could be used for legitimate purposes - or used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. The fact that they were sanitized before burial is a clear indication that htey were not being used for legitimate purposes..... Had they been, why even bury them?

Lastly - the invasion was legal due to the fact that the Hussein government had repeatedly violated the cease fire. It consistently fired on allied aircraft on patrol - negating the cease fire in doing so. Thus, their decision to shoot at allied assets constituted them reopening the conflict. After literally years of this occuring - action was taken.

When all these factors are combined - and recall it was MULTIPLE countries intelligence agencies that all agreed there was an immediate danger -an ultimatum was issued: unrestricted IAEA access. That ultimatum was ignored. Thus the invasion.

Hope this helps.

[Fader_Berg]

Originally Posted by tater

A suggestion for further reading on the final days of the Imperial Japanese Empire would be Richard Frank's excellent book, Downfall.

I'll do that...

[VonHesse]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Anyone read this, yet?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...gon-ctd-3.html

Sorry if someone else has already mentioned it; I'm not going to go back through the thread to see if someone has (if so, someone delete this post).

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that yet. Couldn't have put it better myself. As a former member of the US Army who luckily never had to go to war, I was only bothered by one portion of the incident - the firing on the van.

As far as I can see, the sodiers were in compliance with the rules of engagement up until that point. As I was trained, soldiers are allowed to respond with deadly force when they are attacked, or they have reasonable cause to believe that they (or others) are in a percieved danger of being attacked. I've seen the grainy video, and imagining myself in that situation, I refuse to second guess their response. If it looks like people carrying weapons and pointing them at you - shoot it. Heck shoot it twice.

The flip side of that is (again, as I was trained) soldiers are prohibited from firing on any enemy who has ceased to present an active threat, whether by actively surrendering, or by being incapacitated due to injuries sustained. Period. Also, by every convention that I was trained by, firing on any person (soldier or not) who is rendering aid to wounded persons is most highly prohibited and is (as taught to me by my Drill Sargeant) to be considered a war crime, (yes those are the words my D.S. used). That rule is supposed to be followed even if it means that a bad guy gets away to rest up and heal only for us to have to fight him again in the future.

Treating the wounded and persons giving aid with respect is what is supposed to seperate us from the bad guys.

Again, I'm not second guessing the initial firing. I watched the video fully expecting it to be some overblown media hype and for the most part it was. Watching the van that was providing aid get fired on turned my stomach though. We're supposed to be better than that.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Anyone read this, yet?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...gon-ctd-3.html

Sorry if someone else has already mentioned it; I'm not going to go back through the thread to see if someone has (if so, someone delete this post).

Good article. I think it puts things into perspective.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Castout - US land forces are stretched thin, but the reality is that few countries are in a position to do much to the US. Could they use our current state to pursue regional goals? Possibly - but it would be a dangerous decision. Could a country invade the US? Only if its Canada or Mexico - and Mexico has been doing that for decades already. Anyone else has to deal with our navy, and no country on earth has the ability to take on our navy in the open ocean and win right now.

Umm yea you got a point but a front should not be opened or a war should not be entertained for extended period of time. In conventional war the ideal is to attack with overwhelming force, crush the enemy and END the war under the victor's terms.

But anyone cannot be ignorant as not to say that Afghanistan and Iraq couldn't pose as a destabilizing stage for a third or fourth conflict elsewhere and after that God knows who would take advantage of what and who would not.

Somehow the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been dragging its feet too long.


PS I deleted my original comment to which you were replying. Sorry about that.

As for WHY - there were specific indications that multiple types of WMD's were present or being developed

Thats strange, when the "evidence" of these specific indications was put to the security council Colin Powell looked very stupid when it was rejected by several countries as nonsense. didn't he describe that as the worst point of his career, being asked to present such a pile of crap as "evidence".

As for the question of WMD's - while you won't hear about it in standard media - the reality is there is satellite photos of chemical tankers with escort going into syria right before the war

Chemical tankers? all those claims about Syria were given much publicity throughout the media and at all levels of the governments and NGOs involved. They have consistantly been demonstrated as bollox.

It consistently fired on allied aircraft on patrol - negating the cease fire in doing so.

Wierd, what part of the ceasefire agreement allowed for the setting up of those patrols?

When all these factors are combined - and recall it was MULTIPLE countries intelligence agencies that all agreed there was an immediate danger

Why does CAPS LOCK remind me of the manifesto of industrial society and its future?
But anyway, multiple couintries intelligence agencies rejected the claims about the "immediate threat" and several of the key countries who did agree with the "evidence" knew they had fabricated the evidence.

Sorry for addressing those slightly off topic points but I find it amazing that all these years after the invasion and after all the testimony and inquiries some people can still attempt to peddle that nonsense.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

OK this is facepalm material here.....

Think about what you said Krashkart...

.......
.......

Well, the footage was upsetting enough to me to evoke the response I wrote. I just don't have the same angle on the subject, Cap'n. What I saw in that video was of something that I'm not accustomed to seeing on a regular basis.

So what do you do in a conflict zone there Krashkart, walk up to the guys with guns and ask "Uhm, excuse me - but are you here for bad $hit or are you just here to escort that guy with a camera that looks like an RPG?"...

Okay, I can laugh. I'm not quite that naive, but I see your point.

you have the luxury of hindsight

Very true. I wish there wasn't a need for that kind of hindsight - but it is what it is.

God I hope you never run a war.

Rest easy, sir. I am nowhere near being in a position to do such a thing. Breathe man, breathe!

Using your logic - there are "too few" to justify the kill - is the same as saying a shot to old Adolph's head in 42 when he decided to go take a leak on a tree out back of wolf's lair shouldn't have been taken - because one guy isn't enough of a target for a kill.....

Yes, I stated that there was no justification for what happened. It made sense to me at the time, but it was based on the one side of the story provided by a video clip instead of a larger chunk of the big picture. It tugged at my heartstrings, I tell ya.

Thanks for jostling my brain, CaptainHaplo. *fistbump*

***

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I should point out that militants have been known to film their attacks, so a person with a camera hanging out with some guys with guns and an RPG doesn't mean he is a reporter with some body guards.

Good point. I had forgotten about those.

[CaptainHaplo]

Krashkart - thank you for having the wisdom and maturity to take my response so well. I know we may not agree 100% here, but I appreciate you taking this constructively. *Fist bumps back at ya!

[Zachstar]

Thank god for wikileaks. I can only guess how many people on free republic are screaming treason at whoever decided to reveal the truth to the world.

You know what? It was bad enough. But now its 10x as bad for our credibility because it was hidden. The pilot and gunner need to face justice. The same kind of justice murderers face in a court of law in the civilian world. That is what a court martial is supposed to do. Justice

But this BULL**** about keeping the truth hidden because it can "stir up anti-american feelings" is causing TONS of damage to our credibility. It's got to end in my opinion and the pentagon ought to get out these videos and deal with the crap now and serve justice to the scum involved and be done with it.

BTW I have to just laugh at whoever calls the pilot and gunner their "countrymen" Would you call a rapist your "countrymen" ? What about the mall shooter? Is he your "countrymen" as well?

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

BTW I have to just laugh at whoever calls the pilot and gunner their "countrymen" Would you call a rapist your "countrymen" ? What about the mall shooter? Is he your "countrymen" as well?

Well they are. They are your countrymen as well whether you like it or not.

[Zachstar]

No man they are YOUR countrymen in your opinion it seems apparently. Do they deserve the rights under the constitution? Yes. But I refuse to call such scum countrymen.

Countrymen are people you respect and are proud to share society with the firemen the police officers the nurses the mothers the farmers the miners etc...

These 2 are not my countrymen. They are Americans but not Countrymen. I hope the military gives them the justice they and civilized society deserve. They don't have my respect.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

No man they are YOUR countrymen in your opinion it seems apparently. Do they deserve the rights under the constitution? Yes. But I refuse to call such scum countrymen.

What you refuse to do is irrelevant. The fact is as Americans they are your countrymen. Either learn to live with that or hit the road for some place better, if they'll have you that is.

[Oberon]

Just a little thing to add here to those who may think of all those in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'Generation Kill', here's a clip from an A-10 during a tragic blue on blue back in 2003 when an A-10 strafed a British convoy, killing one and injuring five. Bad intel meant that they were only made aware of friendly armour in the area after they had already attacked. The video starts as the A-10s receive word of friendly armour in their grid space and realise what has happened:



They know they have screwed up, they know that people might have died, and the tone of their voice displays the raw anger and disappointment they feel.

As wartime reporters they would have known the risk they were taking, furthermore, as TLAM strike has stated, they should have been wearing the PRESS flakjacket and helmet which would have made them stand out and probably saved their lives. They don't give you outfits to protect you from the enemy, it's to protect you from your own side.
But again, I am not aware of the full thoughts of the two men, therefore I will refrain from second-guessing them. It's a tragedy that they were killed but they are not the first, nor will they be the last civilian deaths in war, civilians have been the front line targets in most wars since war began, in my town there is a plaque in our Post Office to the three people who were killed when the town was bombed by a Dornier I think it was, during the war. Dresden and Tokyo were both fire stormed by the allies whilst London and other British cities received heavy bombing from the Luftwaffe.

Ok, the technology has changed since then and you can now post missiles down chimneys instead of blanketing the area, but you are still going to get civilians who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, particularly in a war where the difference between civilian and combatant is not even marked with a uniform.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by August

What you refuse to do is irrelevant. The fact is as Americans they are your countrymen. Either learn to live with that or hit the road for some place better, if they'll have you that is.

The old and fully expected "Don't like it leave" Tea party line. Thankfully most of the rest of the country does not think like you. I aint leaving Oh and I refuse to call them countrymen and that is that.

It's 2010 the old conservative lines don't work anymore. We don't let murderers off the hook because Iraq sucks. You can't wave the flag everytime a family gets massacred or hellfires or mavericks fly into crowded areas. The only truly sad thing is that it took a damn leak site to get the ball rolling on this justice.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Krashkart - thank you for having the wisdom and maturity to take my response so well. I know we may not agree 100% here, but I appreciate you taking this constructively. *Fist bumps back at ya!

I really had to take the time to think it through as I was writing that time. I spend most of my time here in the lol threads, and maybe this was my first official step into the serious discussions. I want to get it right the first time, but I also recognize that there will be occasions when my thinking is inaccurate, lopsided, whatever the case may be. If a reply stings a little, maybe I need to rethink my approach.

Sure we may not agree 100% on this. It's nothing major. I'd rather make a new friend and maybe even learn a thing or two than spoil a chance at earning someone's respect.