2 Journalists Gunned Down in Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
These guys SHOULD be in deep shit. Some dipshits with AKs aren’t much of a real threat when you’ve got this level of air support to levy against them. When we outclass our enemy to this great a degree, EXTREME caution should be employed. We had well armed, well trained troops with air support and Bradleys. They had AKs and RPGs. No contest.[/quote]

Gonna have to disagree here. AKs and RPGs can do damage to civilians also. I very much doubt these soldiers were looking to kill, but prevent a much larger fire fight from occurring. Like I said before, war is not pretty. Accidents can and WILL happen, especially when reporters think they are “safe” for not being soldiers.

It is extremely unfortunate that these people died, but Iraq is a warzone and has been for some time.

62

[quote]devildog_jim wrote:

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I just finished watching the long video and have a few thoughts to fit in between classes:

I can understand the initial engagement, but I don’t understand the second one. Does it really matter that it wasn’t a red cross vehicle? What it looked like to me was a good Samaritan helping out an injured guy. Had those Bradleys rolled up there before the van, THEY’D have given him medical treatment. Even if they were Bad Guys™, they were still performing as noncombatants.

The problem we run into here is an issue of perspective. The one pilot says,“Well, he shouldn’t have brought his kid to a firefight.” Well, to an American, Iraq is a warzone. To an Iraqi, Iraq is home. This guy didn’t bring his kid to a firefight; he brought his kid downtown to rescue a fellow man. Besides, it’d been several minutes since the firing had ceased and the helos were a long ways off. These guys didn’t know they were in a bad place being watched. Hell, had I been in my truck and saw a guy injured like that I’d have gone to help him, regardless of which side he was on.

These guys SHOULD be in deep shit. Some dipshits with AKs aren’t much of a real threat when you’ve got this level of air support to levy against them. When we outclass our enemy to this great a degree, EXTREME caution should be employed. We had well armed, well trained troops with air support and Bradleys. They had AKs and RPGs. No contest.

Oh, and to those that got pissed at the language…deal. To quote the stereotypical 'nam vet, “You weren’t there man!” In truth, war is a high of such magnitude as to tone down the rest of your days on earth. I got only the tiniest taste of it and it has effed up a good portion of everything I’ve done since. And I fucking miss it. You’d just as soon ask a guy to watch his mouth after a Superbowl winning touchdown.

To those that say we went there for WMDs: “we” is quite a big word. I was a part of we and I volunteered after finding out there were no WMDs. I as a part of we, went to remove a vicious dictator who violated human rights to a much greater degree than these fuckass Europeans on this board will ever contemplate. For if they do, their own cowardice may well be too much to bear.

The bottom line in all this is a theme I’ve echoed here often before. We’re the Good Guys™. Being the good guys puts a heavy burden upon us. Extreme caution to avoid deaths of civilians and noncombatants must be employed, even if that means we risk being put into a disadvantageous position later. We volunteered for this shit, civilians don’t. That second van should never have been touched.

mike[/quote]

What about the incident in Somolia as portrayed in Black Hawk Down? All they had were AKs and RPGs and still brought down those helos. I am not trying to be an ass, but trying to see your thoughts on this. No hidden agenda either.[/quote]

That situation was different from this one. Those birds weren’t there performing Close Air Support. Also, I’m not saying that a man with an AK and RPG isn’t dangerous, only that we have them vastly outgunned. It’s kind of like if you’re Anderson Silva and fighting some 120 lb kid. No matter how big a douche the kid may be, it’d be wrong for Silva to go 100% on him.

mike
[/quote]

To use your analogy, Anderson Silva should wait until the kid pulls a knife? Is it any different if the kid says he has a gun, and is holding his hand under his shirt? Because that’s what these guys are dealing with. Most Iraqis aren’t really a threat to a helo, but 1 in 1,000 are, and there are several million of them. If they make motions that indicate they may be that 1 in 1,000, should the pilot have to endanger his crew, his aircraft, and his life to be 100% sure, or is kneeling in a firing position in an insurgent stronghold (New Baghdad, home of the Mahdi army) enough?[/quote]

Alot of people on other forums are calling them murderers; the frustrating thing is knowing how quickly those people’s tone would change if they were in that helicopter.

63

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

This will shed some light.

64

^^ sweet.

A combat psychologist’s take on the chatter heard in the video.

65

…

66

This is all that need be said.

67

Agrees with the 3 above.

The “Use reporters as civilian shields” tactic didn’t work THIS time. If you don’t want to get shot at, don’t run around with AKs and RPGs, and don’t mingle with people who do.

68

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
…[/quote]

…that’s obviously a pogo stick.

69

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
…[/quote]

…that’s obviously a pogo stick. [/quote]

…obviously an umbrella.

71

[quote]Makavali wrote:

This is all that need be said.[/quote]

Mak this may be the first thread we are on the same side. Good quotes in this thread.

74

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[
The basic reason we went to war in Iraq BOTH TIMES dates back to 1991 when Saddam mercilessly invaded Kuwait. There was a lot more in play than WMDs.
[/quote]

Yes. Oil.

75

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is scary. Borrek and Mak and the Norwegian Wonder Boy and others ARE dead-on when it comes to this topic.

I feel like Alice in Wonderland. What is happening here? Is it like Sadie Hawkins Day or something?[/quote]

I lol’d. Maybe the stars have aligned and or Jesus has returned.

76

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I just finished watching the long video and have a few thoughts to fit in between classes:

I can understand the initial engagement, but I don’t understand the second one. Does it really matter that it wasn’t a red cross vehicle? What it looked like to me was a good Samaritan helping out an injured guy. Had those Bradleys rolled up there before the van, THEY’D have given him medical treatment. Even if they were Bad Guys™, they were still performing as noncombatants.

The problem we run into here is an issue of perspective. The one pilot says,“Well, he shouldn’t have brought his kid to a firefight.” Well, to an American, Iraq is a warzone. To an Iraqi, Iraq is home. This guy didn’t bring his kid to a firefight; he brought his kid downtown to rescue a fellow man. Besides, it’d been several minutes since the firing had ceased and the helos were a long ways off. These guys didn’t know they were in a bad place being watched. Hell, had I been in my truck and saw a guy injured like that I’d have gone to help him, regardless of which side he was on.

These guys SHOULD be in deep shit. Some dipshits with AKs aren’t much of a real threat when you’ve got this level of air support to levy against them. When we outclass our enemy to this great a degree, EXTREME caution should be employed. We had well armed, well trained troops with air support and Bradleys. They had AKs and RPGs. No contest.

Oh, and to those that got pissed at the language…deal. To quote the stereotypical 'nam vet, “You weren’t there man!” In truth, war is a high of such magnitude as to tone down the rest of your days on earth. I got only the tiniest taste of it and it has effed up a good portion of everything I’ve done since. And I fucking miss it. You’d just as soon ask a guy to watch his mouth after a Superbowl winning touchdown.

To those that say we went there for WMDs: “we” is quite a big word. I was a part of we and I volunteered after finding out there were no WMDs. I as a part of we, went to remove a vicious dictator who violated human rights to a much greater degree than these fuckass Europeans on this board will ever contemplate. For if they do, their own cowardice may well be too much to bear.

The bottom line in all this is a theme I’ve echoed here often before. We’re the Good Guys™. Being the good guys puts a heavy burden upon us. Extreme caution to avoid deaths of civilians and noncombatants must be employed, even if that means we risk being put into a disadvantageous position later. We volunteered for this shit, civilians don’t. That second van should never have been touched.

mike[/quote]

Funny, I agree with most of your post, despite being a fuckass European pussy, oh you all great all american man.

A word of advice: read The Book of Snobs by William Makepeace Thackeray (the same guy who wrote Vanity Fair). It’s a short book from the middle of the nineteen century, when British Empire was peaking, and has nice bits about English nationalism and the arrogance of their military.

If your civilians were on the streets and some young German, Russian, or Chinese punks did this to them, the public cry of outrage would pierce the ears of us European fuckasses.
This way they are just poor stressed out boys, helpless in their little helicopter, shooting those bad, bad photographers, kids and civilians who are trying to help the wounded from a mile away.

EDIT: Not implying that the last part is Mikeyali’s standpoint, more a kind of a general vibe from the topic.

79

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MaliMedved wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[
The basic reason we went to war in Iraq BOTH TIMES dates back to 1991 when Saddam mercilessly invaded Kuwait. There was a lot more in play than WMDs.
[/quote]

Yes. Oil.[/quote]

Precisely.

Oil is the lifeblood of the 20th and 21st century. Without it nations including the US dry up and die. Without it you don’t have the wherewithal to type words of wisdom on the internet. Without it life as we know it changes drastically.

So when a bloodthirsty madman who had used chemical weapons in a needless war with Iran invades the heart of world’s crude oil supply and threatens wholesale imperialism and destruction THEN has his ass handed to him THEN repeatedly violates the treaty he signed THEN WITH HIS TRACK RECORD threatens more belligerency against neighboring oil producing nations and Israel THEN is found in complicity with a plot to assassinate a former US president THEN is found in several 69 position with terrorist groups/leaders THEN hints at renewed use of chemical/biological weapons THEN denies access to chem/bio producing facilities as per the treaty he signed…THEN some prudent men may indeed deduce that it’s time for him and his ilk to go.

BTW, we always have and still do BUY our oil from the Middle East. We’ve never stolen it.

[/quote]

Yeah, yeah. I’m sure the invasion was an act of sheer mercy… Look, I don’t have the motivation to argue with you. I never argue with impolite people. What bothers me is that a lot of guys here talk about invasions, wars, dictatorships, socialism, communism etc, without ever being there, seeing it, or even educating themselves about it. I happen to lived through most of those things, and it kinda annoys me. That’s why I said what I said - it’s a bit different when it happens to you. The war in Iraq has over a million (1 000 000) civilian casualties. Somebody ought to rethink the price of oil.
As for your shiny display of humor, I feel deeply humiliated and will probably cry myself to bed.

Edit: Have some problems with editing here… Other sources state fewer casualties, estimating about 100 000 civilians died. The source I used above is ORB (Opinion Research Business) from London

80

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Soldiers kill civilians.
This creates insurgents.
Insurgents kill soldiers.
This creates soldiers.
More $$$ needed to train and outfit this soldier to kill insurgents.
Soldiers kill insurgents (who used to be civilians).
Soldiers also kill civilians ( noooo!).

… process repeats till we are broke. [/quote]

Untrue. Eventually you kill enough Bad Guys™ that wars end. Otherwise we’d still be fighting .

mike[/quote]

Good point, Mike. I get so tired of that pathetic mantra uttered by the like of boys like Clamp that at times are dumber than the rocks alongside the road.[/quote]

You are a wise man, Push!