The problem with active military

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

The problem with active military

Post by JohnSmith »

They're bloodthirsty.
http://collateralmurder.com/

The problem isn't specific to the US military, but since there is now proof in this case, it's a great example of the problem. They want to shoot, make up evidence so they get authorization to shoot, and go 'oops, oh well' if they screw up. And the evidence is suppressed, because that might cut into support from home.

And I do love wikileaks.

*Edit - To clarify, I don't care about the banter, I care about the lie ("I see AK-47's"), I care about the fact that they opened fire on a crowd, at least some of whom were not known to be armed, and I care that there was a coverup after the fact.
Last edited by JohnSmith on Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

vs suicide bombers in marketplaces.

War sucks. I suggest the insurgents give up so that helicopters on patrol are not a feature of the environment.
Last edited by MSimon on Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

Ok, you're a fast watcher! 17 minute video in under 3 minutes, it's a new record! Shut up and watch before you make any comments, simon.

* Edit again! - And what on earth does suicide bombers have to do with this video, anyway?!

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

JohnSmith wrote:Ok, you're a fast watcher! 17 minute video in under 3 minutes, it's a new record! Shut up and watch before you make any comments, simon.

* Edit again! - And what on earth does suicide bombers have to do with this video, anyway?!
Why were the Apaches patrolling?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

Don't know. Sure wasn't suicide bombers, cause y'know, there's no way for a gunship to identify them. Also, 30mm cannon vs IED vest - err, yeah, not a good idea.

Did you even watch the vid?

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

JohnSmith wrote:Don't know. Sure wasn't suicide bombers, cause y'know, there's no way for a gunship to identify them. Also, 30mm cannon vs IED vest - err, yeah, not a good idea.

Did you even watch the vid?
As much as I cared to.

Let me simplify it for you: Apaches fly locked and loaded in War Zones. When the war is over the rules change.

If the rules are: no open carry in a war zone then to behave otherwise is to become a bullet magnet. And the reporters? Stupid for hanging out with bullet magnets. Evidently their stupidity got permanently cured.

Most Unfortunate.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

They're reporters. It's what they do. It's risky, and they accept that risk. I'm not pissed because a war reporter got killed by friendly fire, I'm pissed because a bunch of civs got killed by friendly fire, and then the US government lied about it. Since several Canadian military troops have been killed by US fire, it hits rather close to home. What else is being covered up because the truth is embarrassing?

I guess that's a pretty concise summary of your view. The rules change in a war.
I disagree. Gunner's don't get to lie to their superiors so they can fire on a target. The military doesn't get to lie to the general population to keep their support.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

JohnSmith wrote:They're reporters. It's what they do. It's risky, and they accept that risk. I'm not pissed because a war reporter got killed by friendly fire, I'm pissed because a bunch of civs got killed by friendly fire, and then the US government lied about it. Since several Canadian military troops have been killed by US fire, it hits rather close to home. What else is being covered up because the truth is embarrassing?

I guess that's a pretty concise summary of your view. The rules change in a war.
I disagree. Gunner's don't get to lie to their superiors so they can fire on a target. The military doesn't get to lie to the general population to keep their support.
We do a lot better at it than we used to. In WW2 it took a ton of bombs to kill one person. Now we do it with less than 100 lbs.

The collateral damage is smaller because that is what we invested in.

As to killings and cover-ups? It is part of war. Especially war where soldiers on one side don't wear uniforms as they are supposed to in order to spare civilians.

I blame the out of uniform "soldiers".
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

I don't care about WWII. Collateral damage is smaller. Great. Not small enough. I'm one of those liberal parasites that is against carpet bombing, remember?

Killings and cover ups as part of war? No. The military is not supposed to be in charge. Democracy and all that. If the military can overrule - or deceive - the people, it's not democracy.

The "out of uniform soldiers" have little to do with the killings and coverups. One can hope that the killings would be rarer if everybody was color coded, but it wouldn't make coverups tolerable.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The "out of uniform soldiers" have little to do with the killings
It has everything to do with it. Guys with guns in civilian clothes look like "soldiers". And since the whole group seemed on good terms with the gunners that places them all in danger from Apaches.

But that is always the intent of insurgents. Getting civilians killed for newspaper headlines. In this case it worked rather well. The insurgents didn't even have to be on the scene.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

evaitl
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:26 am

Post by evaitl »

Didn't sound like bloodthirsty to me.

At about 3:26 he sees the camera strap and given the context thinks it is a weapon. A couple guys next to the camera man were swinging AK-47s (Look at the right hands of the guys on the left of the group of 4 at the top of the screen at 3:38). At 4:10 somebody says he sees somebody with an RPG. At 4:24 somebody says one of the targets was shooting.

The ground guys had nobody in the area, so the pilot was freed to engage.

As for the van that came afterwards, whose mistake was that?

Sh*t happens. It's ugly. It's a war zone.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

Good eyes, evaitl! I missed that. I had to blow up the video, but I see the AKs now. I guess that kills my first point.
They did talk about an RPG and enemy fire, but none of the video shows an RPG or fire towards the gunship.

I'd say the van was the fault of the gunship. It was incredibly stupid to drive it into an area that had just been worked over, especially with kids on board, but it seems like a perfectly natural 'my friends just got shot' response. And what good did it do to take it out?

Anyway, you're right. Shit happens, it's ugly, it's a war zone, mistakes are made - but the government shouldn't cover them up. The reporter worked for Reuters - the government wouldn't release this video to them. Public statements were made that contradict the video. I hate that crap.

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »


MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Nice Movie. But they left out the music.

And you know despite things like that happening from time to time - the 'Cong used to like to chop heads in villages that were less than friendly.

Well despite all that the Vietnamese want to open trade with America. Really Really bad. Let bygones be bygones. How about we trade some stuff?

BTW last survey I saw re:Iraq - a majority are glad we rid them of Saddam the Butcher.

This is interesting from 2007:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/view ... asp?id=290
http://www.aworldoftroubles.com/2009/03 ... shows.html

--"64 percent of Iraqis now call democracy their preferred form of government," perhaps showing the influence of nation-wide participation in the regional elections.

--It appears Iraqi attitudes about the invasion have not changed much. "56 percent say it was wrong for the U.S. to invade six years ago last week."

--"Just 30 percent say U.S. and coalition forces have done a good job carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq. 18 percent have a positive opinion of the United States overall."
So evidently America gave them what they wanted and Americans were wrong to do it. OK.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

Assuming those statistics are correct, it could also be that they like democracy, but hate - oh I don't know, randomly being gunned down? Having soldiers run over their car with a tank? Scaring or killing flocks of sheep? Insulting their children? Generally being asses to everyone?


Why do you always come back to how 'they' behave? Why do you hate the idea that we can act better than our enemies?


And simon, I forgot to mention this in my last post.
But that is always the intent of insurgents. Getting civilians killed for newspaper headlines. In this case it worked rather well. The insurgents didn't even have to be on the scene.
You're right! You're doing the enemy's job for him. Great.

Post Reply