Brits Bombed By US Plane

[quote]Chushin wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lixy, you’re an asshole. You know how fucking long it takes to train a fighter pilot? Or that they need a full four year degree? They don’t trust mutimillion dollar machines to idiots.

Not too mention, it’s a damn war. Friendly fire happens- it’s happened since the earliest days of war when guys shot arrows at the wrong side. Christ. What a stupid fucking thread.

Hey Lixy,

Let me quote some know-it-all prick you might be familiar with: “your arguments are just dumb (sorry, there’s no other way to put it).” Sound familiar? Dickhead.
[/quote]

And you are quoting FightinIrish because…?

What in my arguments don’t you like? Is it because I don’t cut any slack to people who kill without making sure it is the last resort?

My argument is this: When you’re up in the air in an ultra-sophisticated warplane and the enemy is on the ground with a few rifles, you don’t have any excuse for not taking the time to make sure that you’re not killing innocents. Please explain why that sounds dumb to you. Is it too much to ask that you look at the target before firing?

What a post. The classic divide and conquer strategy.

Anyways, what’s with questioning America’s reliance on air power in this instance? I got that implication from this article (none too subtly, I might add). Yet, it would appear from reading the same article, the Brits called in for tAir Support.

Now, I’m not sure what went wrong, and on whose end, but in this case weren’t Brits requesting and relying on air-power? Not that it matters who actually relied on what, mind you. I just don’t like the implication being made that the American Pilot showed up on his own accord. He probably made a mistake, but it doesn’t appear as if he was there unrequested.

In the end, a tragic event that reminds us of the bravery and sacrifice made by allies. And a post that demonstrates, yet again, Lixy’s willingness to snatch up any crumb, to eagerly offer up as an indictment as the US of A. Even (in this case, and others) when the majority recognizes the shameless attempt to turn a tragedy into one of his daily propaganda bulletins.

[quote]lixy wrote:
My argument is this: When you’re up in the air in an ultra-sophisticated warplane and the enemy is on the ground with a few rifles, you don’t have any excuse for not taking the time to make sure that you’re not killing innocents. Please explain why that sounds dumb to you. Is it too much to ask that you look at the target before firing?[/quote]

Dixy,

When you are called in for air support, the people that called you in are often in a life threatening situation, and your air support is supposed to help out. You are motivated to take action quickly and save the lives of your buddies on the ground.

Also, at times, the distance between the enemies and the friendlies is very small. The called in coordinates could be a mistake or the positions might have changed since the call in.

No matter how much high tech equipment you have, you don’t often have an easy ability when flying at such speeds to visibly look at people and figure out whether individuals are friendly or not. People are hiding behind shit so they won’t get shot. People are running for cover because they notice you streaking around the sky over them. Smoke and dust may very well be obscuring the area.

Wake the fuck up man. It’s a live fire situation and everyone is in the process of killing someone, people do the best they can in the circumstances and you’d be an ass to think otherwise. It’s not like the pilots can turn on CNN and get a preview of the results of their action or inaction.

[quote]lixy wrote:

My argument is this: When you’re up in the air in an ultra-sophisticated warplane and the enemy is on the ground with a few rifles, you don’t have any excuse for not taking the time to make sure that you’re not killing innocents. Please explain why that sounds dumb to you. Is it too much to ask that you look at the target before firing?[/quote]

I love how this is said with authority. As if Lixy is intimately knowledgeable about just how simple delivering close air support is. Stop making yourself look like a fool and walk away from this thread.

[quote]vroom wrote:
lixy wrote:
My argument is this: When you’re up in the air in an ultra-sophisticated warplane and the enemy is on the ground with a few rifles, you don’t have any excuse for not taking the time to make sure that you’re not killing innocents. Please explain why that sounds dumb to you. Is it too much to ask that you look at the target before firing?

Dixy,

When you are called in for air support, the people that called you in are often in a life threatening situation, and your air support is supposed to help out. You are motivated to take action quickly and save the lives of your buddies on the ground.

Also, at times, the distance between the enemies and the friendlies is very small. The called in coordinates could be a mistake or the positions might have changed since the call in.

No matter how much high tech equipment you have, you don’t often have an easy ability when flying at such speeds to visibly look at people and figure out whether individuals are friendly or not. People are hiding behind shit so they won’t get shot. People are running for cover because they notice you streaking around the sky over them. Smoke and dust may very well be obscuring the area.

Wake the fuck up man. It’s a live fire situation and everyone is in the process of killing someone, people do the best they can in the circumstances and you’d be an ass to think otherwise. It’s not like the pilots can turn on CNN and get a preview of the results of their action or inaction.[/quote]

Thank you Vroom. Thank you. The notion that such strikes are as easy as when Lixy pulls them off on his X-box, is maddening.

[quote]vroom wrote:

[/quote]

Broom,

I never claimed that the situation the pilots were in was an easy one. I just don’t understand how you can drop a 500-pounds bomb without being absolutely positive on the identity of who is below.

This kind of “incidents” happened before. Women and children died because of this behavior, and one of the reasons it is now making front-page is because the victims are British.

Seriously. Are we supposed to believe that dropping half a ton of explosive material from God-knows-what altitude is the best a modern army can do when trying to limit civilian deaths?

[quote]lixy wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

The point I’m trying to argue here is that the way the US army is recruiting lately is pretty much making sure that such excesses happen. Let’s face it, most folks who currently sign up do so solely for the money (yes, there are a few exceptions). So, their goal isn’t really to have a military career or anything of the sort, but to do their share and get out alive. If it means shooting first and asking questions later, so be it. They seem to be getting away with that strategy so far.

I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that, on average, the US troops are the least experienced and the most likely to shoot at an unarmed person by mistake - just 'cause they didn’t wanna take a chance.

What do you guys say? Speed or no speed, are Brits or Canadians more professional than Americans? After all, the British or Canadian army isn’t waiving enormous checks in front of high school kids to get them enlisted.[/quote]

You are a fucking idiot. Nobody is waiving enormous checks in front of anyone to join the military.

You know nothing about the military if you think they put kids in F-15’s who just want to get out alive. US fighter pilots are the best in the world due to training and technology.

You are an ignorant fuck. You sound especially dumb when you talk about military matters. Since you nothing about war why do you think any statement you make has any validity.

Go lift some weights.

[quote]lixy wrote:
vroom wrote:

Broom,

I never claimed that the situation the pilots were in was an easy one. I just don’t understand how you can drop a 500-pounds bomb without being absolutely positive on the identity of who is below.

This kind of “incidents” happened before. Women and children died because of this behavior, and one of the reasons it is now making front-page is because the victims are British.

Seriously. Are we supposed to believe that dropping half a ton of explosive material from God-knows-what altitude is the best a modern army can do when trying to limit civilian deaths?[/quote]

Actually with our military it’s an accident if women and children get killed. Contrast that with your brothers who target them, so they can bang virgins.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Actually with our military it’s an accident if women and children get killed. Contrast that with your brothers who target them, so they can bang virgins. [/quote]

No argument here.

Well, besides the fact that anyone not interested in peace cannot qualify to be a “brother” of mine.

[quote]lixy wrote:

And I often “here or read about sodiers” (sic) who rape 14 years old girls after slaughtering their families. Abu Ghraib comes to mind as well…
[/quote]

I guess people read the news that they want.

[quote]lixy wrote:
My argument is this: When you’re up in the air in an ultra-sophisticated warplane and the enemy is on the ground with a few rifles, you don’t have any excuse for not taking the time to make sure that you’re not killing innocents. Please explain why that sounds dumb to you. Is it too much to ask that you look at the target before firing?[/quote]

Maybe you’ve been in Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge, but let me ask you, have you ever flown a fighter, dropped a bomb? How do you even know what you’re talking about?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thank you Vroom. Thank you. The notion that such strikes are as easy as when Lixy pulls them off on his X-box, is maddening.[/quote]

X-box? In Afghanistan in 1997? Maybe he trained under Bin Laden.

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Actually with our military it’s an accident if women and children get killed. Contrast that with your brothers who target them, so they can bang virgins.

No argument here.

Well, besides the fact that anyone not interested in peace cannot qualify to be a “brother” of mine.
[/quote]

Doubtful I’m sure you have embraced many homocide bombers. I’m sure you have matched many martyr videos with envy. You just don’t have the courage to do it yourself. Your interests are not exactly well hidden.

So tell us more about your experience calling in Close Air Support and what went wrong. Really interested in your analysis. Save the political bullshit and touchy feel crap. Stcuk to the technical aspect. Close air support for you guys is the fucking homicide bomber jumping off a balcony before he detonates into a crowd of kids isn’t it?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lixy, you’re an asshole. You know how fucking long it takes to train a fighter pilot? Or that they need a full four year degree? They don’t trust mutimillion dollar machines to idiots.

Not too mention, it’s a damn war. Friendly fire happens- it’s happened since the earliest days of war when guys shot arrows at the wrong side. Christ. What a stupid fucking thread.

Hey Lixy,

Let me quote some know-it-all prick you might be familiar with: “your arguments are just dumb (sorry, there’s no other way to put it).” Sound familiar? Dickhead.
[/quote]

You insulting me, asshole?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lixy, you’re an asshole. You know how fucking long it takes to train a fighter pilot? Or that they need a full four year degree? They don’t trust mutimillion dollar machines to idiots.

Not too mention, it’s a damn war. Friendly fire happens- it’s happened since the earliest days of war when guys shot arrows at the wrong side. Christ. What a stupid fucking thread.

Hey Lixy,

Let me quote some know-it-all prick you might be familiar with: “your arguments are just dumb (sorry, there’s no other way to put it).” Sound familiar? Dickhead.

And you are quoting FightinIrish because…?

"The point I’m trying to argue here is that the way the US army is recruiting lately is pretty much making sure that such excesses happen. Let’s face it, most folks who currently sign up do so solely for the money (yes, there are a few exceptions).

So, their goal isn’t really to have a military career or anything of the sort, but to do their share and get out alive. If it means shooting first and asking questions later, so be it."

THIS, in a thread on mistakes by fighter pilots!

Let me quote some know-it-all prick you might be familiar with: “your arguments are just dumb (sorry, there’s no other way to put it).” Sound familiar? Dickhead.

My argument is this: When you’re up in the air in an ultra-sophisticated warplane and the enemy is on the ground with a few rifles, you don’t have any excuse for not taking the time to make sure that you’re not killing innocents.

Gee, looks like your argument changed when people called you on it, huh?

[/quote]

Alright, apparently you’re not insulting me. My apologies, I wasn’t paying enough attention.

[quote]lixy wrote:
vroom wrote:

Broom,

I never claimed that the situation the pilots were in was an easy one. I just don’t understand how you can drop a 500-pounds bomb without being absolutely positive on the identity of who is below.

This kind of “incidents” happened before. Women and children died because of this behavior, and one of the reasons it is now making front-page is because the victims are British.

Seriously. Are we supposed to believe that dropping half a ton of explosive material from God-knows-what altitude is the best a modern army can do when trying to limit civilian deaths?[/quote]

Man, I"m going to be as nice as I can. But do you really realize how hard it is to wage war? All the logistics, the information, the intelligence, the changing battlefields, etc, especially when dealing with a guerilla insurgency in an urban setting?

War is not a decisive thing. Plans never work out, troops are never where they are supposed to be, and generals fuck things up. If you are a student of history, you’ll realize this. Friendly fire is absolutely gauranteed to happen. There is no way around it… the fact that it happens so little is a testament to how good our guys are.

Not too mention, you’re not picking on just anybody- not a regular infantrymen with 15 weeks of basic… being a pilot is as hard as becoming a damn engineer. They know their shit, and if they fucked it up, anyone else in the world would have.

War is a human endeavor, and no human endeavor is ever devoid of mistakes. You should know that.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Man, I"m going to be as nice as I can. But do you really realize how hard it is to wage war? All the logistics, the information, the intelligence, the changing battlefields, etc, especially when dealing with a guerilla insurgency in an urban setting. [/quote]

Ok, I’ll be nice as well.

First of all, there was no urban setting. A pilot who drops a 500 lbs on a city should be tried for war crimes. But let’s not digress…

At the end of the day, there only one question that needs to be asked: How sure does one have to be before pulling the trigger?

You probably heard of the trial in abstentia of Mario Lozano in Italy, or the hundreds of civilians that get killed “by accident”. I say that it’s no accidents. It’s the extremely high stress levels where survival instinct takes over the brain. You can rattle all you want about how good the US trains its army, but it’s still not gonna cut it. Why should any American soldier risk his life?

I mean, if you have the tiniest bit of a doubt, wouldn’t it make sense to follow Bush’s example and “strike pre-emptively”?