U.S. helicopter fires at Baghdad crowd

drfeelgood said:

They did try to minimize casualties. They didn't mow them all down, did they? They just eliminated the immediate threat. Well then?

Click to expand...

No, that's at best PASSIVELY trying to minimize casualties, as in not taking deliberate steps to cause civilian casualties. Sure the goal of the operation wasn't to kill civilians, but that doesn't mean it's minimizing casualties at all. It's more on the order of ignoring civilians really. ACTIVELY trying to minimize casualties means taking steps to reduce them deliberately during military operations. It wasn't done here.

It's not a strawman. It was a joke. An exaggeration to make a point. lol I think you missed the subtleties of my humor.

Click to expand...

But the point was that you misrepresented my position to make it look like I want to send our troops out armed with nothing but loudspeakers, when in fact I simply suggested that we take steps to minimize casualties especially when none of our troops are in danger. I mean I could say that your position was that we kill everyone stupid enough to be within 50 miles of an American military vehical, and claim it was a joke, couldn't I? And wouldn't that joke make you look like a bloodthirsty lunatic?

It's not our fault the journalist was reporting in the midst of a mob. We send our own journalists into the thick of battle. They die. It's part of the job and we need to accept that and stop pointing fingers.

Click to expand...

And it shows that we made NO attempt to warn anyone to get back. NONE! We just completely ignored the civilians and fired. It's complete disregard for life, something our president PROMISED we would not do in Iraq.

Of course, we know how you would have handled it, so why don't you run for President?

Click to expand...

I happily would if I was old enough and thought I had a chance of winning. As it is I would CERTAINLY equip loudspeakers on helicoptors (ooh, a couple hundred per helicoptor, on a 500 million dollar piece of equipment. Guess lives aren't worth a couple hundred... or we'd give our troops body armor).

ThePhoenix said:

But the point was that you misrepresented my position to make it look like I want to send our troops out armed with nothing but loudspeakers, when in fact I simply suggested that we take steps to minimize casualties especially when none of our troops are in danger. I mean I could say that your position was that we kill everyone stupid enough to be within 50 miles of an American military vehical, and claim it was a joke, couldn't I? And wouldn't that joke make you look like a bloodthirsty lunatic?

Click to expand...

Well I guess you're going to have to sue me. I guess I don't have teh funneh after all. lol Take my first born. She's costing me money.

And it shows that we made NO attempt to warn anyone to get back. NONE! We just completely ignored the civilians and fired. It's complete disregard for life, something our president PROMISED we would not do in Iraq.

Click to expand...

You're completely ignoring the fact that these were not innocent civilians. They were militants (at least a number of them were. It's hard to say about the whole crowd, buy you're extremely hard pressed to prove to the contrary, especially when they're attempting to injure US troops and waving militant banners) That's the way battles are fought my friend. You don't go up to the enemy and say "Excuse me, but is it ok if I kick your butt now? Yes? Thanks."

I happily would if I was old enough and thought I had a chance of winning. As it is I would CERTAINLY equip loudspeakers on helicoptors (ooh, a couple hundred per helicoptor, on a 500 million dollar piece of equipment. Guess lives aren't worth a couple hundred... or we'd give our troops body armor).

Click to expand...

Well, may I humbly suggest that until you are the President, know all the facts and find yourself in the same position he's finding himself in that you don't sit there like you hold the secrets of the universe and condemn a man for doing the best he can? I wouldn't be questioning the man until you've walked a mile in his shoes (because a mile would be too far for him to run after you and give you beats) lolol

The blame for this action doesn not rest solely on the helecopter gunship. A megaphone to warn civilians woudl have been nice, however the Iraqi civilian authorities should be warning people that it is not safe to be near an American vehicle of any kind especially if it's in flames. American forces will come back around to either recover or make sure nothing is left of the vehicle, plus there is the danger of secondary explosions and depleted uranium poisening.

rahma said:

These people have families who are now without a father, a brother, a husband or a son. These are real people, and they deserve more then an oh well, too bad for them.

Click to expand...

Wow, what an absolutely disgusting thread. I think I now understand why so many people support the war in Iraq. Total disregard for the lives of Iraqis.

Ain't it odd. The main argument for invading Iraq (WMD's, remember?) was quickly abandoned when that reason proved to be false. It was replaced with, "But Saddam was an evil madman. He was klling poor innocent people. We had to go in there and save them! Oh, those poor cilvilians."

Except when you really ask them about that, the truth comes out. They don't really care about the civilians. They also don't care about the consequences of actions like this one. "Sucks to be them." Yes. Yes it does suck to be them.

Consider this, you say that we had to keep those people from using the weapons in that vehicle against us. It was for our protection. Well, I'm pretty confident that our actions will result in additional deathsm and it wouldn't surprise me if those deaths were more numerous beacuse of this.

Firscherscherling said:

Well, I'm pretty confident that our actions will result in additional deathsm and it wouldn't surprise me if those deaths were more numerous beacuse of this.

Click to expand...

Well that doesn't take a scientific analysis to figure that out though. That is the reality of war. No militant is going to like you taking out one of their own. They're going to fight back in kind.

That's no excuse though. They were doing it from the very beginning. That's the reality of war.. The aggressee always resists the aggressor. It happens, and should come as no surprise.

What you are doing is attempting to rationalize murder.

Click to expand...

Yep. That's what I was trying to change with my "Chicago Loop" example, but I guess those U.S. citizens would deserve to be shot down if they got near an overturned military vehicle. How dare they! Besides, they were all probably bad guys, even the kids, if they were there.

The main argument for invading Iraq (WMD's, remember?) was quickly abandoned when that reason proved to be false. It was replaced with, "But Saddam was an evil madman. He was klling poor innocent people. We had to go in there and save them! Oh, those poor cilvilians."

Except when you really ask them about that, the truth comes out. They don't really care about the civilians. They also don't care about the consequences of actions like this one.

Click to expand...

I thought Abu Ghraib proved this definitively, didn't it?

This got posted on another forum. The people there called them terrorists and said that they were glad the scumbags were dead. :o

Was the Vietnam War like this too? Vietnamese people walking up
to US equipment and throwing things (rocks,grenades, bottles of gas...)
into them? Or pulling out a gun out of a sack of food or clothes and shooting
at military at random? Young children using arms against the US? We
napalmed villages..... Here a gunship mowed down an uprising...

Perhaps Kerry should tell us how to handle this kind of war. Afterall, he is
a military genius right?

MarkAnthony said:

Was the Vietnam War like this too? Vietnamese people walking up
to US equipment and throwing things (rocks,grenades, bottles of gas...)
into them? Or pulling out a gun out of a sack of food or clothes and shooting
at military at random? Young children using arms against the US? We
napalmed villages..... Here a gunship mowed down an uprising...

Perhaps Kerry should tell us how to handle this kind of war. Afterall, he is
a military genius right?

Click to expand...

It doesn't take a military genius to recognize military morons....

In any case, it certainly couldn't hurt to have someone whose actually fought this kind of war before...

"In Vietnam we became Ho Chi Minh's biggest recruiter. A gunship would fly by a villiage and an enemy would shoot off a few rounds; the bird would swing a 180 and retaliate by hosing down the villiage and killing innocent civilians. We just helped the guerrrillas move that villiage's allegiance from Saigon to Hanoi. That was their goal, and we fell for it time and time again." -- Col. David Hackworth, US Army, Ret.

Deja vu, anyone?

Voter said:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040912/325/f2f8d.html

Click to expand...

These people might think just a bit more before joining in the next 'victory' jig.

drfeelgood said:

Well I guess you're going to have to sue me. I guess I don't have teh funneh after all. lol Take my first born. She's costing me money.

Click to expand...

There is offensive humor, and non-offensive humor. Would you show your first-born South Park and dismiss anything offensive in it as humor? I understand that you didn't think your joke was offensive, and I'm informing you that it was understood as offensive by other parties.

You're completely ignoring the fact that these were not innocent civilians. They were militants (at least a number of them were. It's hard to say about the whole crowd, buy you're extremely hard pressed to prove to the contrary, especially when they're attempting to injure US troops and waving militant banners) That's the way battles are fought my friend. You don't go up to the enemy and say "Excuse me, but is it ok if I kick your butt now? Yes? Thanks."

Click to expand...

There were no US troops in the vehical (at least I hope not, it was shot with two US missiles). So they couldn't have been trying to injure US troops. They might be waving banners. That might be a threat if you're 10 feet from them. Sitting in a gunship the threat is neither immediate nor dangerous.

Well, may I humbly suggest that until you are the President, know all the facts and find yourself in the same position he's finding himself in that you don't sit there like you hold the secrets of the universe and condemn a man for doing the best he can? I wouldn't be questioning the man until you've walked a mile in his shoes (because a mile would be too far for him to run after you and give you beats) lolol

Click to expand...

That leaves two people in a position to question him: The first Pres. George Bush, and Bill Clinton. New results in for election '04: It's a tie!

I suggest that we can question our democratically elected leader without first having been elected ourselves. Do we have to kill someone to decide murder is wrong?

Voter said:

Please tell me you mean a completely different message board, and not just another forum on this site. Please?

Click to expand...

Yep, entirely different message board. Here compared to there is like a puppy compared to an attack dog. I'll give you a hint: Hannity.

Well, ThePhoenix, I guess the best thing we can do now is agree to disagree. We've both had ample time and opportunity to voice our opinions. We aren't any closer to reaching a consensus, so I guess it's just time to let it go and respect each others opinions for what they are

I leave you with that.

Teh Wiccan said:

Yep, entirely different message board. Here compared to there is like a puppy compared to an attack dog. I'll give you a hint: Hannity.

Click to expand...

I'd like to think the discussion is a little more refined here. It may be less dangerous, but it is at a higher level.

drfeelgood said:

Well that doesn't take a scientific analysis to figure that out though. That is the reality of war. No militant is going to like you taking out one of their own. They're going to fight back in kind.

Click to expand...

Militants also don't care much for taking out innocent civilians. They're going to fight back in kind.

And this sort of thing is going to end the war on terror?

That's no excuse though. They were doing it from the very beginning. That's the reality of war.. The aggressee always resists the aggressor. It happens, and should come as no surprise.

Click to expand...

At least your placing the US in theaccurate role of "aggressor."

UberLutheran said:

I support our troops just fine, thank you very much.

However, I DON'T support an administration which willingly lies and invades a country on deceptive pretenses.

Could we ALL be honest enough to admit that we use God, and the word of God, only when it's especially convenient for us to do so?

Click to expand...

So are you blaming the administration on this or are you NOT supporting the military on this action?

Voter said:

Oooooooh, a banner! Who would lock someone up for waving a bann...

Oh yeah.

Bloomberg and the RNC's in charge of Iraq now, too?

Click to expand...

Banner or Flag...I think that it has been a representation of the side in every war that we have ever fought.
If you need to history lessons on the purpose of a flag bearer then let me know.