#149522 - 26/03/2003 08:11
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Don't forget there are stories coming out of Basra (which may or may not be true) of people being shot because they tried to leave the city. You've got some valid points. But again, because it's the Iraqi's that are putting their civilians in the line of fire, it's *they* who are ultimately responsible for collateral damage caused by civilians being too close to the fighting. If the Republican Guard isn't letting them leave so they can use them as human shields, then it's the Republican Guard that's increasing their risk of being killed. Ultimately, the best strategy is to try to avoid any civilian areas, but when we go into them, we can't let the Iraqis take any combat options away from us.
Look I'm not saying that I want to see more innocents dead. But I do think that the Iraqi army is trying to use our sensitivities against us by putting these human shields in our way, pretending to surrender, etc. In times of war, we need to suspend those sensitivities until the job is done, lest the Iraqi army have an advantage, draw the war out longer, and, yes, lead to more deaths on both sides.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149523 - 26/03/2003 08:53
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
it's *they* who are ultimately responsible for collateral damage caused by civilians being too close to the fighting. You say that you're opposed to this war, but you don't seem to take that into account here. If we weren't there fighting a war that most of the world is opposed to, then US soldiers wouldn't be killing any Iraqi civilians.
It's pointless to lay blame. Noncombatants have been being killed ever since wars stopped being personal fights amongst aristocracy. It sucks, but there's nothing you can do about it.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149524 - 26/03/2003 09:10
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1529
Loc: Arizona
|
But again, because it's the Iraqi's that are putting their civilians in the line of fire, it's *they* who are ultimately responsible for collateral damage caused by civilians being too close to the fighting.
The Apaches that took all the small arms fire, came under fire from houses. They didn't want to return fire for fear of causing civilian casualties. They waited until they saw fire coming for a particular house, then hit that one. They are risking a lot trying to not hit civilians, and the Iraqis are purposely putting civilians at risk.
The same goes for Basra. The attacks from there were staged from a hospital. Obviously those are not exactly at the top of a target list. Any civilians in that hospital were put at risk because of the Iraqis purposely using them as a shield.
The US has a reputation of trying to minimize civilian casualties. In Mogadeshu(sp?) the fighters had unarmed civilians surrounding them, and in some cases laying on top of them to act as shields.
The civilians aren't just too close to the fighting, they are in the fighting, by design (and not the coalition's either).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149525 - 26/03/2003 09:38
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
You say that you're opposed to this war No. I said I was opposed to going in when we did and under the circumstances we did. I am not opposed to the goal of this war, which is to get rid of the Iraqi regime. I just think we needed more support, and could have done more on the diplomatic front. I don't think I ever made a blanket statement that I'm opposed to the war.
but you don't seem to take that into account here. If we weren't there fighting a war that most of the world is opposed to, then US soldiers wouldn't be killing any Iraqi civilians. And if the Iraqi regime had followed the ultimatum, then we also wouldn't be killing any Iraqi civilians. They had a choice, they chose not to leave. Given that the regime kills its own civilians (any who don't support the regime, interestingly enough) I think the net effect is positive. At each step of this, Saddam and his party have had the option to do things in a way that would ensure no casualties, military or otherwise.
It's pointless to lay blame. Noncombatants have been being killed ever since wars stopped being personal fights amongst aristocracy. It sucks, but there's nothing you can do about it. Sure there is, we *could* be a lot more careful, and, in so doing, be that much less effective at killing the real enemies. My point with the "sliding scale" thing is that, right now, we need to focus on getting the bad guys, instead of focusing so much on the collateral damage aspect.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149526 - 26/03/2003 09:40
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: Tim]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
The same goes for Basra. The attacks from there were staged from a hospital. Obviously those are not exactly at the top of a target list. Any civilians in that hospital were put at risk because of the Iraqis purposely using them as a shield. Exactly. And, in my book, that hospital has now become a legitimate target. The ideal situation is to avoid the hospital and try to get outside the range of any attacks that come from it. If that's not possible, then the hospital has to go, and it's the combatants who went into the hospital who should assume the blame for the civilian casualties.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149527 - 26/03/2003 10:08
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
And if we hadn't put Saddam in power in the first place, and if many Iraqis didn't have Communist leanings, and if we hadn't had absurd notions about opposing all communists, and if Stalin hadn't been so evil, and if Lenin hadn't started the revolution, and if the Russian empire had been more receptive to their commoners, and ...
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149528 - 26/03/2003 10:11
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
So you're saying what, exactly?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149529 - 26/03/2003 10:13
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'm saying that you can trace these problems pretty far back. I suppose that there's no point at which it makes a lot of sense to either pass the buck or stop it.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149530 - 26/03/2003 10:39
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
I'm saying that you can trace these problems pretty far back. I suppose that there's no point at which it makes a lot of sense to either pass the buck or stop it. Yeah, and one can argue that we're putting and end to the buck-passing. Instead of saying "well, the situation in Iraq is what it is, we can't do anything about it, and it's someone else's fault," the coalition is going in and doing something to try to solve it. A lot of chips are on the table. Even if you blame the US for "putting Saddam in power" (an overstatement, we supported his party, but that's about it) it's encouraging that we're not afraid to correct our mistakes, and take whatever criticism might come with that. Back then, it was a good idea. Now, it's not. Times change. I would love for all of our decisions to be good now and good in 15 years, but that's just not feasible.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149531 - 26/03/2003 11:53
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Yeah. The CIA in no way helped the Baath takeover in the late 60s or their Communist executions and assassinations before and after that. Sure.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149532 - 26/03/2003 12:58
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Yeah. The CIA in no way helped the Baath takeover in the late 60s or their Communist executions and assassinations before and after that. Sure. <crickets>
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149533 - 26/03/2003 13:19
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
<owl hooting in the distance>
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149534 - 26/03/2003 13:49
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Well, for good or for ill, it looks like the U.S. administration is starting to publicly agree with my feelings on this issue...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32299-2003Mar26.html
"The Pentagon acknowledged striking targets in a residential Baghdad neighborhood that may have caused civilian damage or deaths Wednesday and blamed Iraqi forces for placing military equipment there."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149535 - 26/03/2003 13:59
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'm not saying that it's not their fault, really. Obviously, they've had a long-standing tactic towards using civilians as shields, and it's wrong (unless those civilians volunteered, which seems unlikely).
I just think that we need to make sure that we do everything that we can to avoid hurting anyone who is not trying to hurt us. And I think that we have largely done that. I just don't think that it's wrong to also point out that it is in fact the US military that is ultimately killing these people and we need to make sure to keep that in mind. Eyes on the prize and all.
I also have strong problems in saying that an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life, especially when that Iraqi isn't a combatant.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149536 - 26/03/2003 14:10
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
In reply to:
I also have strong problems in saying that an American life is worth more than an Iraqui life, especially when that Iraqui life isn't a combatant.
Gosh I hate my own thread!  It has gotten a bit heated in here so I've skipped past most of the posts (sorry), but I did want to say that I agree with Bitt on this one and I think that most military personel would agree too. "Part of the job" of being in the military is assuming a certain risk.
The only exception being a situation like in "Blackhawk Down" when the human sheilds were all smiles about knowing the US soldiers wouldn't shoot them (I've never seen the film, but from personel I know that were close to this event, I'm glad to say they treated those people as combatants since they clearly were volunteering to get involved.)
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149537 - 26/03/2003 14:14
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
I also have strong problems in saying that an American life is worth more than an Iraqui life, especially when that Iraqui life isn't a combatant. First off, it's Iraqi... I've seen a couple others use Iraqui, but when the Grammar Cop is doing it, I need to speak up.
Second, though I did say I'd trade Iraqi civilian lives for one American soldier's life, I'm not saying that American lives are more valuable. What I'm saying is that if the American forces accomplish their objective, many more Iraqis are likely to have a good life, and not die of malnutrition, or die because a Republican Guard soldier decided they didn't like the way someone saluted Saddam's picture.
So if Americans can just focus on the mission a little more, and not be so frightened of a civilian casualty, the chances of getting this done sooner are greater, and the chances of Iraqi's needlessly dying later on are much less.
Take the situation in Basra, for instance. Right now the U.N. is saying there's a humanitarian crisis brewing there. Why? Because we can't get aid to them. Why? Because Iraqi soldiers are hiding in the city. Until we get rid of that cancer, it's difficult or impossible to save lives with much needed food, water, and medicine. Can we take out these soldiers/militia-men without civilian death? Not if they're hiding in hospitals and killing anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Plus, if we can get to Baghdad and take out the senior leadership, maybe thousands of these Iraqi militia "cannon fodder" types won't need to die.
In essence, by altering our strategy such that we're slightly less worried about civilians, I think the numbers work out better overall for less deaths, American or Iraqi, combatant or civlian. This is pure conjecture, but it seems logical to me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149538 - 26/03/2003 14:24
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I've seen a couple others use Iraqui, but when the Grammar Cop is doing it, I need to speak up. Typo(s). I already fixed it. (You know how your fingers want to type certain sequences? Maybe it's just me.) if the American forces accomplish their objective, many more Iraqis are likely to have a good life You're probably right, but that's certainly not the way you presented it before. I'm not saying that you're changing your story, but it didn't read that way.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149539 - 26/03/2003 14:35
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
I freely admit that my story is slowly evolving. Throughout this thread I've been gradually backing off of my earlier comment that "American military lives are more precious than lives of civilians" because that's probably not the case. A life is a life. But if it's me with the M-16 in my hand in the middle of Basra and it's my life that's on the line, you better believe my life is more precious than someone else's... And if I'm told I have to wait until I see a weapon POINTED AT ME before I'm allowed to classify someone as a combatant (that's the orders that were given initially) I have to say I'm calling bullshit. This isn't Hogan's Alley. It's real life and death.
However, my recent trend towards pointing out that moving the "sliding scale" a little bit will probably equal less death long-term, even if it might cause a few more civilian deaths in the short term, is not part of my efforts to back away from my original point. It's just a conclusion that I've come to whilst debating the issue. It's hard to argue against, especially when the Iraqis are killing civilians themselves, on purpose.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149540 - 26/03/2003 14:40
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 20/11/2001
Posts: 455
Loc: Texas
|
First off, it's Iraqi... I've seen a couple others use Iraqui
Since you are the grammar police, I know it is spelled Iraq, but why? I was watching some spanish channel the other night and it is spelled Irak in spanish.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149541 - 26/03/2003 14:49
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Most people would say Iraqi civilian lives and American lives are equal, but if you had to choose one Iraqi civilian or one American soldier to die, who would you pick? If you had to choose between your own mother dying or someone else's mother dying, who would you choose? You would probably base your decision on which life is more 'precious' to you.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149542 - 26/03/2003 14:51
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: blitz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't know the specific rules in regards to Arabic, but someone sometime defined specific rules about how foreign languages, especially, with non-latinate alphabets are to be transliterated to English. These rules were set up so that when I write Iraq, you know what I'm talking about, and not everyone is transliterating it in their own way (which would otherwise be perfectly legitimate, since the sounds used in Arabic simply don't exist in English).
Why exactly whoever it was chose the `q', I don't precisely know. I am pretty sure that the sound used at the end of that word does not precisely match any sound we use in English. It lies somewhere between `k' and `g', which, if you think about it, is kinda where `q' would be if we ever pronounced it without the following `w' sound indicated by the `u'. Then again, not so much.
To make a long story short (too late), arbitrary rules.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149543 - 27/03/2003 12:55
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Most people would say Iraqi civilian lives and American lives are equal, but if you had to choose one Iraqi civilian or one American soldier to die, who would you pick? If you had to choose between your own mother dying or someone else's mother dying, who would you choose? You would probably base your decision on which life is more 'precious' to you.
Generally, the soldier. Harshly speaking, it is their job to die. But, of course, individual decisions are based on who or what is more 'precious', and one cannot expect anybody to value a stranger's life more than their own. Still, firefighters, police officers, paramedics often do; perhaps soldiers should, too.
Incidentaly, I read some time ago (time for reread) an excellent short story collection, 'Artificial Things' by Karen Joy Fowler. One of the stories (I think the one that gives the title to the book) is about a woman whose man died in Vietnam; even her memories of him were haunted by a child he killed: the child was approaching him holding something behind its back, which might or might not be a bomb; I don't remember whether he found out, but that doesn't matter. Highly recommended.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149544 - 30/03/2003 23:54
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
1. Doug: "And how is this so different from what "Uncle Adolf" did to Poland in 1939?"
2. Uncle Adolf = Adolf Hitler
3. The statement in #1 is a comparison between what the U.S. is doing ("shock and awe") and what Hitler did (Blitzkrieg.)
I probably expressed myself poorly here, and for that I apolgize.
I did not mean to suggest that the U.S.'s motives were Hitlerian in intent, but rather that the procedures used (rapid advance through overwhelming military superiority) had been done before, most recently by the Nazis.
I certainly do not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with this tactic. I think that in the past it has proven to be quite effective.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149545 - 31/03/2003 07:47
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: Tim]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
The reason we have so much stockpiled is because of minimum production rates. Any production facility needs to keep the lines moving. If you stop the lines, the price per unit skyrockets. To keep that from happening with really important stuff (like ammo), the government has a minimum that they have the ATKs produce per month. This builds up, because even if they have surplus, the government charges the services to fire those weapons. During the late 90s we didn't exactly go through a lot of tank rounds, or other ground vehicles (like MLRS or Bradleys).
That means it is a surplus. Know what is funny (since it is your tax dollars at work)? It is cheaper to have this surplus than to stop the lines and start them again.
News just in....
The Navy has said that it has fired more than 1/3 of it's stocks of Tomahawk Cruise missiles, and is repositioning launch platforms in order to fire more. It is also going to ask for money from the supplemental budget in order to increase production.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#149546 - 31/03/2003 23:23
Re: Shock & Awe
[Re: genixia]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1529
Loc: Arizona
|
News just in....
News thats been available since 2001 (much earlier if you were in the right circles)...
The military has been insanely low on conventional tipped cruise missile since before Kosovo (the Air Force ran out of CALCMs during Kosovo). The Tomahawk production line wasn't running (and still isn't as far as I'm aware).
Yes, they do need more Tomahawks, they've needed more for quite a while. They've been waiting for Tactical Tomahawk, because restarting the line (by one estimate) would take two and a half years to produce the first usable missile at over $40M cost.
Edit: Made Block V, Tactical Tomahawk - Block V is just a proposal.
Edited by Tim (31/03/2003 23:28)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index