Video US helicopter guns down farmers
POSTED BY: GinoBiffaroni
UPDATED: Sunday, July 24, 2005 05:16
VIEWED: 9855
PAGE 8 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
I would argue that those examples were, by and large, of a slightly different nature in agenda [but]...Indeed, the words our leader utilized at the time undoubtably had a great deal of sway on the shock and anger the general masses were feeling... But do I really think we'd 'stoop' to nuclear weapons as a response to a terrorist nuclear attack? I personally don't think so.
The moral thing to do for both a global and domestic image and support, would be to refuse the use of nuclear response as a means to say 'Hey! Look! We're not evil, if we were they'd be atoms already!'. No, I think we'll just stick with tomahawks, bombs, etc. It wouldn't do anyone any good to vaporise entire cities of innocents just to get a few 'bad guys'. I don't even think this office would stoop that low... But, the more interesting question is the one that asks: Who /will/ we fight in any instance post-nuclear attack? Will it be the country where the terrorists originate or operate from or will it be Iran, N. Korea, or any of the former Soviet states who's nuclear arms have slipped through their fingers like so much vodka?
I think calculations are made at several levels. There is the "general populace" calculation, where the average person looks at perceived costs and balances it against the perceived benefits. "Right" and "wrong" don't enter into it for most people. So in the case of Grenada the costs and benefits were both almost nil. In the case of Panama the perceived costs were higher (Panama had a regular army) but continued control of the canal was a big draw. But in the case of Iraq, the perceived costs were VERY high, and so the populace had to be stampeded into supporting the invasion by visions of Armageddon.
What would happen if Armageddon really happened, and either a/ several "dirty bomb(s)" or a "real" nuclear bomb(s) were to be set off in USA borders? Absolute and total panic. The populace would be primed for anything- panic buying, hoarding, profiteering, donating blood, burying themselves in basements, letting fly a nuclear response.
This is where (hopefully) the policy-makers are not as panicked as everyone else, and other calculations take place. And they have an entire population at their disposal, looking to them for direction and reassurance. They could either defuse the situation (as previously described by Rue) and turn the panic towards rebuilding, OR they could focus on the next available target in queue (IRAN) and respond with either tactical nuclear devices- already alluded to by Bush as an option he would like to keep open- or bunker-buster-bomb an active nuclear facility. At that point, neither China nor Russia would be happy campers. This is as far as my thinking takes me.
I would say that WW2 in the pacific proves your point.
Post Pearl Harbor, the American public was whipped up into such a frenzy, only total victory would be enough to satisfy them. Later campaigns, particulary Iwo Jima, proved the costs of pushing for unconditional surrender. At this point of the war, I have read the Japanese were willing to negotiate, but not outright surrender. Coronet, the invasion of the Japanese main islands would have been a blood bath. I would argue, that FDR was not pushed into using nuclear weapons to scare the Soviets as has been claimed elsewhere, but by the success of the American propaganda campaign of the same period.
The cost today.... You see China and Russia as being unhappy.
I could see big troubles in Japan ( very anti nuclear ) Europe, Canada, well most of the world.
How would the US react if Venezuela refused to continue to sell them oil. Canada for that matter. The backlashes to the basklashes are far reaching and rather scary.
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You Betcha
I am the United States of America.....
Mine is an evil laugh!!!!!!!!
Make no mistake, All that is bad in the world is of my doing.
Tremble in fear Peons
Oh, and by the way, I'll be sending out the International aid checks at the end of the Month.
Have a good weekend folks.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
To be honest, I think the US Army has had a reputation for being overly trigger happy for decades (indeed my grandfather stated that the time his platoon felt most nervous was when the US soldiers were behind them, not when the Germans were in front of them.)
Maybe it's a cultural thing. Certainly we've witnessed too many bombings gone astray (villagers, Red Cross headquarters, the Chinese embassy).
However, I'm a stickler for topics in hand and this topic is about that bit of footage. When you see the whole, unedited video, it is absolutely clear (imo) that the troops acted correctly. What I'm trying to ascertain is whether the original poster agrees with me and whether he was aware of the full length video before his original post.
Well, I have gotten the link to play
I cannot positively identify the object in question as a weapon. I can say it does not appear to be either a RPG-7 or an RPG-16, it could be an RPG-18/22 but can''t be sure.
I froze the video it your link and compared it to a Soviet Equipment Recognition Guide I was issued back in 1992. The object seems too short to be a SA-7, SA-14, or a SA-16. Also it does not appear bulky enough to be an AT-3, AT-4, or AT-7.
While I have the advantage of freezing the image in question and reviewing books, the aircrew did not, they recieved clearance to shoot from higher authority. While I believe the aircrew acted withing the ROE, I still question the order to open fire in this case. Even though, the object cannot be positively identified ( even with the manuals and time to stare at it ) I still feel the correct course of action would have been the approach of dismounted infantry supported by the aircraft in question.
The individuals on the ground were acting it a strange manner ( I can't explain what they were up to ) My personal feelings is that alone was not reason enough to open fire. Investigate, definately. Fire, not enough info.
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml]
Well Stated Gino,
Now it comes down to what the "Man in the hot seat" has seen and knows prior to this video, what the men at the checkpoint saw and know ect, versus what we think we would do without the benefit of all that extra information.
All we see is a farmer running around trying to plow his fields with an RPG.
So, you got sucked in by someone elses misleading propoganda. My apologies for my previous remark.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
Actually no, can you state for a fact that it was a RPG ? I have stared at the pictures here for a bit longer now, it may have been a piece of a broken down machinegun... or it could have been nothing at all.
By agree that the aircrew acted with their rules of engagement I think raise only questions with that ROE. These people, while acting suspiciously, they were not an immediate threat. The guy on the tractor drove up after the fact, as well. What was his involvement ?
My training tells me that in this situation, you advance to contact, secure the area. Then determine the facts. Mind you the US has a completely different doctrine on the use of supporting arms than the British/Canadian one, I think this A) Is wrong from a moral perspective, B) Can and has led you into some pretty difficult issues. While, I continue to be against the US war in Iraq for a variety of reasons... I try to see tactical problems like this from the perspective of the men on the ground ( both sides )
and of course C) If it was a weapon. if an advancing section could have grabbed these individuals ( likely I would say ) local intel could have been obtained as to weapons caches, enemy intentions, etc
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyric
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
You Betcha
I am the United States of America.....
Mine is an evil laugh!!!!!!!!
Make no mistake, All that is bad in the world is of my doing.
Tremble in fear Peons
Oh, and by the way, I'll be sending out the International aid checks at the end of the Month.
Have a good weekend folks.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
Quit trolling.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What?????
Grab the guys, said guys armed with at least RPG's, advancing over an open field, with no apparent cover except the cars and truck that the "suspected Fedayeen Saddam" came with????????
What the F*ck Army taught you that kind of tactic? Did they not like you?
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
You Betcha
I am the United States of America.....
Mine is an evil laugh!!!!!!!!
Make no mistake, All that is bad in the world is of my doing.
Tremble in fear Peons
Oh, and by the way, I'll be sending out the International aid checks at the end of the Month.
Have a good weekend folks.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
Quit trolling.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Quit Trolling????
Heck, I thought it was funny. Did'nt you think it was funny?
I thought it was funny,
Hee Hee, Snort, Snort
You Sir/Madam have no sense of Humor
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
What?????
Grab the guys, said guys armed with at least RPG's, advancing over an open field, with no apparent cover except the cars and truck that the "suspected Fedayeen Saddam" came with????????
What the F*ck Army taught you that kind of tactic? Did they not like you?
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
We practiced advance to contact in worse situations, as for cover how about the helicopter who seemed to have little difficult tracking the movements of and dispatching these people ?
If they had for grabbed for their weapons, fine then there would have been no questions right ?
as for RPGs ? can you tell me the type ?
I have been estimating the height of the guys in the field at 5'6 to provide scale to estimate the length. Still not convinced, besides advance to contact is what the infantry does... or do you think that they should only move after rockets and artillery blast any possible danger ?
This seems fairly straight forward to me...,
Is there anybody with any background out there who could provide any additional comment ??
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gino,
In what ever Army you trained with, if your superiors sent you out under those conditions against a group of people who are Undoubtably armed (in my opinion) with at least RPGs, while other assets are available such as an armed helicopter that itself is not likely to be harmed by return fire. And your duty station was to man a checkpoint or crossroads or whatever (ie maybe a squad, not a company of men).
That situation says to me (yes, I do have a military background) that the chances of at least one of your men being either wounded or killed is very high.
That also says to me that your superior who sent you out there when he did not have to should find himself in a courts martial.
And that leads me to ask again,
Don't they like you?????
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Aside from personal sniping, was there any reason to include and repeat this question?
And that leads me to ask again, Don't they like you?????
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Heck, I thought it was funny. Did'nt you think it was funny?
Yeah, it got a smile outta me.
Hey, I never got magically turned into Military Guy for any Halloween or anything, but the way I see it, battle is a highly fluid situation, and what should and shouldn't be done can change in a second.
So back to Gino's point: War is war, and true war has no rules. Terrorism is a label we put on people who conduct war in a way that targets innocents on purpose as well as the 'enemy'.
So there's the thing, we have to not live down to the level of the crazy, cowardly and oh-so-ready-to-see-God maniacs out there, right? I believe that's what the people running the war try to do, but let's face it, genius guys work at Nasa, if you get my drift.
Fly me to the Moon Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME