Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beyelzu · 07-08-2003, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cicero
That's right. Bush is a grate hero who is not a deserter which nobody can prove, so stop saying that. He is a master of strategery, and these durned libruls have no solutions of their own, and if they did they would be commie socialist ones, so there.

Bush is a grate president because he liberated Iraq from the Iraqis, and now he is going to liberate Liberia for the Librarians, and that is what I call accountantability and integerity.

These libruls should just move to France which is now called Freedom, and leave America to the real Americuns.

Apologies to Bob Boudelang, for stealing his style.

I didnt argue that he was a great man or a great leader, I just dont find his remarks offensive like others here do.

but thank you for your inane argument it was kind of amusing in an annoying kind of way

beyelzu · 07-08-2003, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jacey
B-

As soon as I read his cowboy comment in a nonspun way (AP report or something) I said "what the fuck?"

It's easy for him to not be dissuaded when he's far in the rear and not in the heat and dirt getting shot at. Nothing pisses off a grunt more than that shit from a general, and certainly the "when are you coming home?" letters the Marines and other servicemembers are getting.

I just think that we have to be clear that we arent going to pull out of Iraq, that we are going to rebuild it. I think that we owe it to the Iraqi people.

I realize that we havent got democracy going yet obviously, but I do hope that we do, and I think that we must maitain military force there to do so.

Cicero · 07-09-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
but thank you for your inane argument it was kind of amusing in an annoying kind of way

I am glad you took it in the spirit in which it was intended.

Optional · 07-09-2003, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Flying low enough to visually verify it means not only flying into the AAA/infantry SAM envelope but it means fiddling around down there--you're going to have to come back to drop your bomb.

For any one mission with no known defenses, yes, the risk is small. However, there were *MANY* missions--the risk adds up.

I think the point here is that this is an instance of where the US didn't do absolutely *everything* to reduce civilian casualties... Just the stuff that wouldn't put any of our soldiers at risk.

This particular example is kind of extreme, IMO... It would GREATLY increase the danger to the pilots while only moderately decreasing chances of a civilian getting hit... But the general criticism that the avoidance of civilian deaths ranked WELL below the safety of our soldiers is a valid one. It's the truth.

Personally, I think it's also a perfectly reasonable attitude for a military to have... But it's not really valid to have that attitude and ALSO claim that you did EVERYTHING you could to reduce civilian casualties.

-me

Danya · 07-09-2003, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nog
Show me proof of cluster bombs used in civilian areas and of bridges being destroyed. I remember one incident were a tank was hidden under a bridge. We got the tank, the bridge was left standing.... The military was very cautious, more so then any other military has ever been before. Sure mistakes happen, but stop trying to act like we intentionally 'massacred tens of thousands" of innocent's.

Do you have any proof that the military was very cautious? I remember Rumsfeld saying before the war that this war would have less casualties than the last Gulf War thanks to the use of smart bombs. This too was not true. The US shows no interest in counting the number of dead civilians. That alone is telling. Luckily others have started the job of counting and in doing so have proven the US was actually worse this time than in any other war since Viet Nam at preventing civilian casualties. But since they decided to unleash shock and awe over a crowded city how can they even claim it was their intention to limit the numbers in this war?

Quote:

BAGHDAD � Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country. None of the local and foreign researchers were willing to speak for the record, however, until their tallies are complete.

Such a range would make the Iraq war the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that US forces have fought since Vietnam.

*SNIP*

Dr. Brigety and his colleagues in Baghdad say they are especially concerned by the wide use of cluster bombs during the war in Iraq.

They say they have found evidence of "massive use of cluster bombs in densely populated areas," according to Human Rights Watch researcher Marc Galasco, contradicting coalition claims that such munitions were used only in deserted areas.
Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq

Coalition Cluster Bombs

'Dumb' bombs used to topple Saddam

U.S. Using Cluster Munitions In Iraq

Allied use of cluster bombs illegal, minister admits (this link now archived)

Quote:

Cluster bombs are usually used against troop concentrations. British aircraft dropped 66 cluster bombs, each containing 147 bomblets, and fired 2,000 artillery shells which each contained 49 bomblets. US forces dropped around 1,200 cluster bombs.
Britain tries to weaken UN deal on cluster bombs

RLV · 07-09-2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
[B]Flying low enough to visually verify it means not only flying into the AAA/infantry SAM envelope

...which didn't exist...

Quote:

but it means fiddling around down there--you're going to have to come back to drop your bomb.

... in an area with no AA defence and against a country with no air forces.

Quote:

For any one mission with no known defenses, yes, the risk is small. However, there were *MANY* missions--the risk adds up.

...and the innocent civilian victims also add up.

Your explanation fits perfectly with the US military mindset: do not take any chances with the lives of the US soldiers, even if it means killing innocent civilians.

But then the PR goes around claiming that they try to minimize the number of civilian losses. Which is clearly false.

RLV

Zar · 07-09-2003, 06:18 PM

But the minute you show that civilian casualties are not always minimized, the next apologetic is: "Well, war is dirty." But then, that's the point again, isn't it?

Loren Pechtel · 07-09-2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by RLV
...which didn't exist...

... in an area with no AA defence and against a country with no air forces.

Iraq had no high-altitude AA capability. That does not mean you're safe flying down into the area where infantry can hit you. You can't suppress SA-7's!

Danya · 07-09-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zar
But the minute you show that civilian casualties are not always minimized, the next apologetic is: "Well, war is dirty." But then, that's the point again, isn't it?

Except that was one of Rumsfeld's 'selling points' for the war. He went on and on about how precise these bombs were and how they could go in and take out just one floor of an entire building to make sure they hit only the target. Of course, now that we know how bad the intelligence was all along they probably never knew what it was for sure what they were targeting anyway.

RLV · 07-10-2003, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
[B]Originally posted by RLV
...which didn't exist...
... in an area with no AA defence and against a country with no air forces.
Iraq had no high-altitude AA capability. That does not mean you're safe flying down into the area where infantry can hit you. You can't suppress SA-7's!

There was no need to suppress them, because none were there!

It was an isolated area on a road from Iraq to Syria. There was no city, no military base, no soldiers, no defence at all. Just a bridge and a bus full of Syrian workers heading back home to avoid the war. They didn't arrive there because the pilot of an US plane decided to avoid the minimal, nearly null, risk that he would have incurred if he had checked the presence of civilian traffic before bombing the bridge.

IOW, the pilot didn't care about any civilian loss that he might cause, as far as he was as safe as possible.

All that talk about a clean war and about minimal civilian losses has been just another of the pre-attack lies propagated in order to make the invasion easier to sell to the US people. The was hasn't been clean at all, civilian losses have been big and they are still mounting, and the US military didn't do much to prevent them, if this meant incurring in the slightest risk to their safety or to the objective of the mission.

RLV

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2003, 06:18 PM	#87
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	But the minute you show that civilian casualties are not always minimized, the next apologetic is: "Well, war is dirty." But then, that's the point again, isn't it?

07-09-2003, 08:10 PM	#88
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by RLV ...which didn't exist... ... in an area with no AA defence and against a country with no air forces. Iraq had no high-altitude AA capability. That does not mean you're safe flying down into the area where infantry can hit you. You can't suppress SA-7's!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.