From: "Guinnog65" lid
Date: 9/21/2004 4:36 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"B2431" wrote in message
...

snip

As for civilians dancing on recently attacked military vehicles just
how
is the
guy in the Apache to know they aren't the ones that attacked or aren't
still
attacking the vehicles?

Er... common sense?

I can tell you have never been in combat. I have and can tell you if I
found
anyone on or near a recently shot up U.S. military vehicle, whether they
were
openly armed or not, it's a good assumption they had something to do
with
the
attack and are then valid targets.

Including the journalists? I wouldn't agree with that.

If the jouralists were that close to a military action then they were too
close
or not under cover. Accidents happen. Please don't try to suggest they
were
targeted as a result of U.S. policy because it isn't true. All that
happens
when journalists are deliberately targeted is bad press.

Hear hear. Killing journalists is bad. If it was deliberate policy, it was
bad policy. If it was accidental it shows poor discipline and/or lax ROE.

Or, as I said, he was in the wrong place. All the discipline in the world won't
prevent innocent people from getting killed in war. Your anti American bias is
showing.


Was your combat
experience by any chance in the US's little adventure in SE Asia that so
dominates US politics to this day? If it was, maybe you should ask
yourself
if applying the same strategies as you did there is really such a good
idea?

What strategy do you refer to? It was a tactical action. My combat
experience
is at the tactical level. Please don't confuse the terms.

I try not to. It was you who brought up your combat experience as
(presumably) giving you a more informed opinion on these matters.

I brought it up because unlike you, I know what can happen when things get hot.
Bad things happen to good people. These things happen. It doesn't mean the good
people were targeted.

I think a major problem in Iraq has been the apparent total *lack* of any
overall postwar strategy. In this absence, mistaken tactical decisions like
the one we are talking about become perceived as a strategy.

How was it a mistake? You don't know what all the facts are other than an
airstrike was called, the situation was still in flux and shots were fired.
Your anti military bias is showing.

If they were there a day later common sense
would say they weren't. Bear in mind the bad guys in Iraq are not
wearing
uniforms. If you don't understand the ramifications of the read the
Geneva
Conventions.

I am familiar with the Geneva Conventions. Where does it say you are
allowed
to kill unarmed civilians if you *think* they are sympathetic to the
opposition?

I didn't say that it did. I said the enemy isn't wearing uniforms. The
Geneva
Convention allows killing civilians bearing arms against you. If unarmed
civilians enter a valid target, in this case the vehicle and its immediate
vicinity, they put themselves at risk. I seriously doubt the Appache crew
was
aware the people on the vehicle were unarmed.

So do you honestly believe the Apache crew who fired on the crowd believed
themselves to be under threat? It is very hard to see that from my reading
of the events...

Again, you have no idea about how the system works. I never said the Apache was
under threat. It doesn't matter that he felt under fire, he was responding to a
call for assistance from a ground force that WAS attacked. Your anti military
bias is showing.


Surely common sense would tell you that by doing this you merely
guarantee the opposition a fresh supply of recruits? This seems obvious to
me.

You keep using the term "common sense" so you really should apply it to
yourself as well. The U.S. military has gone out of its way to reduce
civilian
casualties and colateral damage.

Well, I'd like to see that but to be honest I cannot see the evidence for
this from the events of the last year.

When the bad guys fire from mosques they can
be legitimately targeted. You haven't seen that done by U.S. forces.

There is not now, never been or is there going to be a U.S. policy of
targeting
innocent civilians. To do so is counter productive as you say.

Yes. But the massive and uncounted civilian casualties in the war have,
whether intended or not, helped lead us to the present chaotic and unhappy
situation.

The war would be over if the bad guys stopped shooting. Stop blaming the U.S.
for everything gone wrong.



There are risks to being stupid in a war zone.

As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a
lot
of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.

All of which could end today if the insurgents laid down their weapons
as
ordered by the occupation forces and Interim government.

True. My money is that they won't though. Why would they do that when they
are doing so well? I don't think the puppet, sorry "interim" government
has
too much credibility in anybody's eyes outside the US!

If you really cared about the loss of life you would spend as much
effort
telling the other side to stop shooting as you do blaming the U.S.
forces.

I suspect they may not read Usenet!

You missed the point. You have criticised the U.S. forces, but not the bad
guys
who slowly saw hostage's heads off or blow up innocent children with car
bombs.

I absolutely and without reservation condemn these tactics too. The
difficulty is, they are only answerable to their own. *We* on the other hand
are supposed to be fighting to give them something better. We are supposed
to set a higher example. We are supposed to be trying to win 'hearts and
minds'. At the moment that is not being seen to happen.


I am not saying neither you nor the Iraqis should be happy with the
invasion
and occupation, but take a look at what is actually happening there, not
just
the negative news.

Fair point. If at any time the US invasion force does something I approve
of, I'll let you know.

I take it you don't approve of getting rid of hussein, improving the
infrastructure in most of Iraq, allowing a relatively free press, cell
phones,
internet access, access to international news etc?

Getting rid of Hussein was a good thing. The other freedoms you refer to
will not count for much until or unless there is law and order and an end to
killing.

If everything settles down in 6 months and Iraq is at peace will you come back
and tell us the U.S. did a good thing?

It is a reflection on how things have gone since the invasion that
so many Iraqis will support the terrorists. It is a worse one that many
Iraqis actually regret the passing of Hussein. If that isn't a vote of no
confidence, what is it?

OK, let's revisit another war for a moment. The vast majority of the Soviet
populace hated Stalin. Many initially welcomed Hitler's invasion. Almost to a
person the Soviets banded together to expel and invader. This happens in almost
every invaded country situation. Look at the coalition that expelled Sadam from
Kuwait and how nations that didn't get along with each other did so for the
cause.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired