The Iraq Thread

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">E6 hotel - so because the Iraqis leaders and extremists are bad guys (and no one is disputing they are), does that mean all tactical blunders and friendly fire etc etc committed by coalition forces are their fault? I don't think so.<span id='postcolor'>

No, and I've never claimed otherwise.  What I am saying is that a tactical blunder is not the same thing as following ROE's.  Especially when the opposition is trying to take advantage of your ROE's by intentionally placing the civilians they're supposed to protect at risk.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The cold hard fact is that if US followed international law, those 7 people would be alive today.<span id='postcolor'>

If Saddam gave a damn about laws 1,500,000 Iraqis (give or take) might be alive today.  If the U.N. gave a damn about enforcing its resolutions 500,000 Iraqis might still be alive today.  The difference is that after we take him down (if he's not already a worm feast) there's a chance to put an end to this garbage.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I guess all that makes it OK to murder Iraqi civilians, as long as ROEs we're followed of course.

Heck, I guess those people and their families should be thankful they were killed, at least it means they don't have to live under Saddam any more.

[OxPecker 0]

Question - if all rules and regulations were followed in this instance, why is America giving a payout to the victims families? Are they really that generous and warm hearted, or is it hush money?

[PitViper 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2907701.stm

British Cemetary in France defaced.

[PitViper 0]

Norwegians sheltering Saddam Hussein!!

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=519645

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Question - if all rules and regulations were followed in this instance, why is America giving a payout to the victims families? Are they really that generous and warm hearted, or is it hush money?<span id='postcolor'>

You know, this is why people don't take responsibility for stuff any more, as it opens you up to this kind of bullshit 'damned if you do, fucked if you don't' mentality. If we didn't attempt to compensate the families, what would you say? You'd say we were heartless motherfuckers, who invaded 3rd world countries for 5th column agendas, and who don't even have the common decency to apologize to civilians who got caught in the crossfire. Besides, it's standard policy for the American government- we screw up in a military operation and innocents die, we do our best to kiss and make up: the Forrestal incident, Chinese Embassy, that Japanese trawler that got cut in half, you name it, and we payed for it. Since when is an apology an admission of malicious intent?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 02 2003,04:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2907701.stm

British Cemetary in France defaced.<span id='postcolor'>

Just goes to prove their is no international boundary to being an idiot and an asshole.

Hope they catch the dimbulbs who did this, fine them thousands of dollars, and make them all apologise personally to each surviving member of the families of the veterans in the graves.

But then again if they are stupid enough to do this in the first place, the probably wouldn't have enough sense of guilt or decency to be ashamed.

I take it all back - 30 lashes in the public square.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 02 2003,04:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Question - if all rules and regulations were followed in this instance, why is America giving a payout to the victims families? Are they really that generous and warm hearted, or is it hush money?<span id='postcolor'>

You know, this is why people don't take responsibility for stuff any more, as it opens you up to this kind of bullshit 'damned if you do, fucked if you don't' mentality. If we didn't attempt to compensate the families, what would you say? You'd say we were heartless motherfuckers, who invaded 3rd world countries for 5th column agendas, and who don't even have the common decency to apologize to civilians who got caught in the crossfire. Besides, it's standard policy for the American government- we screw up in a military operation and innocents die, we do our best to kiss and make up: the Forrestal incident, Chinese Embassy, that Japanese trawler that got cut in half, you name it, and we payed for it. Since when is an apology an admission of malicious intent?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not saying it was malicious intent.

I'm saying it was imcompetence.

And when incomptence ends up with people dying, someone needs to be held accountable.

Anyway, I will wait to hear the outcome of this one, I don't think we have enough facts at hand to confirm or deny negligence.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 02 2003,04:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2907701.stm

British Cemetary in France defaced.<span id='postcolor'>

Classy. I especially like the unfinished swastika- maybe they heard German voices and surrendered before they could finish it up. Besides, the Nazi swastika rotates in the opposite direction.

[Wires 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 02 2003,14:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2907701.stm

British Cemetary in France defaced.<span id='postcolor'>

That's disgusting what ignorant fools so many are

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are they really that generous and warm hearted, or is it hush money?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, we really are that generous and warm-hearted.

Hey, you asked.

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not saying it was malicious intent.

I'm saying it was imcompetence.

And when incomptence ends up with people dying, someone needs to be held accountable.

Anyway, I will wait to hear the outcome of this one, I don't think we have enough facts at hand to confirm or deny negligence.<span id='postcolor'>

Explain to me how it was incompetence.  Soldiers reacted reasonably to a perceived and credible threat.

Better yet, explain what you would have done differently.  Please don't give some variant along the lines of "I'd have waited with my fingers crossed and hoped that the van wasn't packed to the gills with C4."  Surely you can do better than that.

Semper Fi

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,04:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you had been in charge of the soldiers at the checkpoint, what would you have done?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know enough about the nature of the checkpoint. Were there clear signs? Barricades? Trenches? Was the road closed? Was the vehicle going to be approached (putting soldiers at risk anyway) if it had stopped properly?

Confused and feckless drivers may be rare, but still they must vastly outnumber suicide bombers. In other words, the probability that this soldier was killing innocent civilians was much higher than the odds he was killing a bomber.

[Wires 0]

They should put spike strips 100m or so out from the road blocks that'll stop them but at least shoot the driver first then see if they keep coming if they do then it's serious.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know enough about the nature of the checkpoint.  Were there clear signs?  Barricades?  Trenches?  Was the road closed?  Was the vehicle going to be approached (putting soldiers at risk anyway) if it had stopped properly?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know either.  I must admit it's refreshing that you at least acknowledge the uncertainty of the situation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Confused and feckless drivers may be rare, but still they must vastly outnumber suicide bombers.<span id='postcolor'>  

Not according to Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In other words, the probability that this soldier was killing innocent civilians was much higher than the odds he was killing a bomber.<span id='postcolor'>

That's an opinion, and a pretty big gamble to be taking with your men's lives.

 

One last thing I'd like to point out:  It took you about 57 minutes to post a reply to my question.  How much time do you think the soldiers at the checkpoint had?

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wires @ April 02 2003,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They should put spike strips 100m or so out from the road blocks that'll stop them   but at least shoot the driver first then see if they keep coming if they do then it's serious.<span id='postcolor'>

The ideal situation for a high-speed avenue of approach is to have a "slalom" of staggered jersey bouncers, forcing approaching vehicles to slow down to navigate through them.  Unfortunately, 5,000lb concrete barriers are in rather short supply in the infantry.

Semper Fi

[Warin 0]

Iraq is a difficult situation. I dont think we should heap scorn on the young men over there that were put into this situation. One day it's a van full of kids, the next it's full of TNT. They dont know what to expect, and that breeds fear and fear breeds incidents like this one.

If you have to heap scorn and blame on anyone, heap it on the war mongers that decided to invade Iraq.

[Akira 0]

Well Thats Just F*cking Lovely

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,05:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not saying it was malicious intent.

I'm saying it was imcompetence.

And when incomptence ends up with people dying, someone needs to be held accountable.

Anyway, I will wait to hear the outcome of this one, I don't think we have enough facts at hand to confirm or deny negligence.<span id='postcolor'>

Explain to me how it was incompetence.  Soldiers reacted reasonably to a perceived and credible threat.

Better yet, explain what you would have done differently.  Please don't give some variant along the lines of "I'd have waited with my fingers crossed and hoped that the van wasn't packed to the gills with C4."  Surely you can do better than that.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Personally? You want my real opinion? OK, but you won't like it.......

I would confirm that the van was a threat before I fired. I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians. Admittedly, thats from a standpoint of not actually being in that situation myslef, but that's what my gut and morals would tell me to do. Maybe I wouldn't make good US soldier material.

Anyway, as you'll notice by the section of my post that I've bolded, we need more facts before we can tell either way.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians. Admittedly, thats from a standpoint of not actually being in that situation myslef, but that's what my gut and morals would tell me to do.<span id='postcolor'>

My! My! Talk is cheap.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,06:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians. Admittedly, thats from a standpoint of not actually being in that situation myslef, but that's what my gut and morals would tell me to do.<span id='postcolor'>

My! My! Talk is cheap.<span id='postcolor'>

He asked what I would do differently. I answered honestly.

Deal with it.

Or better yet, don't. Go have a cry about it.

Either way, I don't really care.

You don't know me, so please keep your sarcastic digs to yourself, it makes you look foolish.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,07:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Deal with it.

Or better yet, don't. Go have a cry about it.

Either way, I don't really care.<span id='postcolor'>

That's a big response for someone who really doesn't care.

But........................ who cares?!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,06:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,07:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Deal with it.

Or better yet, don't. Go have a cry about it.

Either way, I don't really care.<span id='postcolor'>

That's a big response for someone who really doesn't care.

But........................ who cares?!<span id='postcolor'>

BTW...good job on the FAQ...

Had me really freaked out there for awhile

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,06:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,07:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Deal with it.

Or better yet, don't. Go have a cry about it.

Either way, I don't really care.<span id='postcolor'>

That's a big response for someone who really doesn't care.

But........................ who cares?!<span id='postcolor'>

No, I care that you make a saracastic jibe at me on the forums and question my integrity.

What I don't care about is how you deal with my views and opinions.

Anyway, this is a pointless squabble. I withdraw temporarily.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would confirm that the van was a threat before I fired. I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that would be easier said than done, and even a bit unrealistic.

And the fact you are willing to get your squadmates killed (yourself is one thing), would undoubtedly be frowned upon by your COs ,and more importantly, your squad mates.

How would you confirm whether they are "innocent civilians" or not? You are in a war zone, and soldiers dressed as civilians, and even civilians themselves potentially, have been attacking allied forces. Now you are on checkpoint duty and there is a van that refuses to stop heading right for you. You don't know what its carrying. It could be loaded with TNT or baby formula or a pregnant woman.

Lets look at it from two different perspectives:

1- You As The Officer-

Your job, as officer is to not only fulfill your mission (in this case security for allied forces) but also to keep your men alive. Now a van, unidentified, is screaming toward you refusing to stop. That van could speed past and blow up another column of troops, or it could blow you and your squad up. We'll say for the sake of argument that you decide to "better identify" the civilians and/or occupants. Presumably from the story, the van would have just kept on going, and word would undoubtedly have leaked out about it. Do you report that you LET a van just fly past, possibly jeopardizing the security and well being of other allied forces? If you do, say goodbye to your rank. If not, say hello to Levanworth. And what if the van HAD exploded next to a column of soldiers? How would that make you feel knowing you could have prevented it?

2- You As The Grunt-

Little less harder to think about. Your officer orders you to open fire to eliminate this security risk. You refuse citing your desire to make sure it doesn't have civilians. Goodbye career and possibly freedom.

This scenerios don't even include the obvious anxiety from having others try to kill you, nor your own uncertainty and unease about not knowing whether or not that van will explode right next to you or not.

Now I'm not trying browbeat you or flame your or whatever. I'm just trying to point out the fact that, while your answer is noble, I think in that situation, any of us would open fire.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally? You want my real opinion? OK, but you won't like it.......<span id='postcolor'>

Whether I like your opinion of not doesn't matter.  For what it's worth, I am capable of respecting an opinion different than my own.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would confirm that the van was a threat before I fired. I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians. Admittedly, thats from a standpoint of not actually being in that situation myslef, but that's what my gut and morals would tell me to do. Maybe I wouldn't make good US soldier material.  <span id='postcolor'>

This is not intended as an insult, so don't take it as one:  I agree that you might not make a good soldier.  That's okay, I'd personally prefer that people not have to take actions that they don't like (it's why I'm against any sort of mandatory service).  Unfortunately, coalition forces in Iraq don't have that luxury.  Sometimes people have no choice but to go with the lesser of two evils.  There is no way that given the situation faced by soldiers and Marines in Iraq that they should not be allowed to defend themselves against credible threats.  From a military standpoint, a van with an unknown driver and unknown cargo, that has not stopped after verbal warnings and warning shots, represents such a threat.

It's a crappy situation.

Semper Fi