Trying To Help - By Dennis Miller
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 04:07
VIEWED: 4083
PAGE 3 of 3
I have to confess, Simon, my initial reaction to your post was, well, pretty negative. I served in Iraq honorably, I committed no atrocity, and I know of no one who did. Your post seemed to imply that there are war crimes being perpetrated by US forces on a scale much, much larger than the isolated incidents that we have been seeing. And that infuriates me, because if that's the case, you're impugning the honor of the men who are stuck fighting this god-awful war.
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
You talk about Haditha as though it was one isolated incident... Do you know how big an impact that story had on the news in Iraq? ... As a journalist friend of mine has been following this precise matter, I can tell you - none at all. ...she pointed out "What's the death of one family when so many tens of thousands have died already at American hands?"
OK, what exactly are we talking about here? Are we talking died-at-the-hands-of-war-crimes-committing-troops? Are we talking killed-when-a-neighboring-building was bombed? Are we talking died-since-the-war-started-and-being-blamed-on-Americans? Did she mean died-as-a-result-of-subsequent-Iraqi-civil-war? If American forces have killed "tens of thousands" of non-combatants illegally, why isn't that the lead story on every newspaper in the country? Because they haven't. Have tens of thousands died? Yep. That's a terrible, terrible thing. But that does not mean they were slaughtered at the hands of marauding American forces. If anything, Haditha and Abu Ghraib shows just how seriously those sorts of things are taken by the folks back here in the US. And the fact that they didn't get as much attention in Iraq is not evidence of a greater number of atrocities (and I'm talking out-and-out war crimes) that were committed on a larger scale. You've seen how easily those bastards in Abu Ghraib were caught. You really think we could cover up war crimes on a massive scale? Give me a break. Oh, but right, your reporter friend. First hand evidence and all that. Well, I was there, too, and a number of other people I know. And I can tell you: neither I nor any of my acquaintances witnessed or committed war crimes. You haven't been there, so you don't know first hand. All we're left with is her word against ours. And if you'll pardon me, I think ours is the more plausible explanation for the lack of ruckus over war crimes.
Quote:
Today's newspapers in the UK are all about a US bomber pilot who attacked a UK convoy because he (and his assistant) couldn't be bothered to follow basic protocols. This is not the day for you to tell me how great a job US troops are doing.
I'm curious which "basic protocols" were violated exactly? Give me reference to specific ROE or combat procedural manuals or some such, not just "They must have, otherwise they'd never have opened fire!" I've read the transcript of the engagement ( http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/06/video.transcript/index.html). Before the pilots opened fire, they contacted ground control (GC) and inquired as to whether there were friendlies in the area. GC said no (1337.21). Before they opened fire they made a tentatve ID on the targets (misidentifying them as ZIL-157s) and GC confirmed that there were, indeed, such vehicles believed to be in the area (1337.36). When other aircraft said they thought they saw orange panels (which is what coalition used to prevent such incidents), the pilot reiterated that GC had confirmed no friendlies in the area. The other aircraft repeated his observation of orange on the trucks. The pilot reports that the orange spot on the roof of the vehicle appeared to be rocket launchers. His wingman concurs with his identification (1341.41). So the pilot has conflicting data. On the one hand he's got GC telling him there are no friendlies in the area, on the other, another set of eyeballs reporting that he's seeing orange. The pilot thinks they look like hostiles, and thinks that the orange spots are
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Casual,
I think Simonwho is venting his anger at the US over a friendly fire incident where US forces killed some British forces. I think he is allowing his anger over this incident to bring him to make unreasoning statements against all US military forces.
He may forget that Friendly fire knows no nationality.
British Friendly Fire Incidents
---------------------------------
A quick search pulled up this evidence that British soldiers are equally capable of succumbing to the Fog of War.
Friendly fire isn't a possibility in war. It's a certainty.
It's a tragic certainty. Individual incidents are certainly avoidable, and are usually due to confusion and carelessness.
But confusion and carelessness are human inevitabilities.
I could understand greater ire if the friendly fire was an intentional and deliberate attempt to murder friendly units, but it isn't. No one is ever glad to have committed an act of friendly fire. No one finds out they killed friendlies and then goes out to the pub for some beers to celebrate. More likely they are drinking harder stuff and are wishing like hell that they could turn back the clock.
--Anthony
*******************************************
*******************************************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2950285.stm
Also brought back to British soil were the bodies of Corporal Stephen Allbutt, 35, and Trooper David Clarke, 19.
The two soldiers from the Queen's Royal Lancers were killed in a 'friendly fire' incident on 25 March near Basra, when another British tank mistakenly fired on their Challenger 2.
****************************************
****************************************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/6165590.stm
'Friendly fire' troops were tired
Marine Maddison was on river patrol on the Al Faw peninsular
Soldiers were "tired and tense" while operating in an area of Iraq where a Plymouth-based Royal Marine was killed by "friendly fire", an inquest heard.
Christopher Maddison, originally from Scarborough, died in a river patrol boat on the Al Faw peninsula in 2003.
Lt Col Anthony, the commanding officer of Marine Maddison's 539 Assault Squadron, told Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner Andrew Walker that the landing craft had been hit by a Milan missile fired by British forces.
Marine Maddison died of shrapnel wounds.
Lt Col Anthony said a "communications breakdown" led to soldiers operating the Milan attack missile being told that two enemy vessels were speeding towards them on the Khawr Az Zubayr river in March 2003, when they were in fact British Royal Marines.
Failing communications
He said: "We had been working eight to 10 days, all on fighting operations. We were tired and we were tense, there's no doubt about that.
********************************************************
********************************************************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/6172887.stm
Last Updated: Wednesday, 13 December 2006, 16:44 GMT
Soldier gave fatal shooting order
Sgt Roberts was the first British soldier killed in action in Iraq
A soldier who gave the order to fire shots which killed a fellow tank leader in Iraq broke down at an inquest as he told of trying to protect his friend.
Tank commander Sgt Scott Manley said he had been trying to stop a rock-wielding Iraqi from attacking Sgt Steven Roberts but his actions tragically backfired.
Sgt Roberts, 33, of Shipley, West Yorkshire, and originally of Cornwall, died from "friendly fire" in 2003.
He had been ordered to give up his body armour earlier due to shortages.
Sgt Manley said he initially gave the order to fire on the Iraqi with a lighter weapon, but this jammed.
He said he did not know the machine gun he then switched to was known to be inaccurate at short range - Sgt Roberts was around 15 metres from his tank when it opened fire.
The inquest in Oxford had heard earlier from Trooper Gary Thornton, w
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friendly fire... ain't.
This kinda thing happens in a warzone, ain't no preventin it - only way to have it not happen is to not have a warzone, which is something I can live with, how bout you ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Causal,
That was one of the best criticisms of anti-war arguments I'd heard in a long, long time.
I am, unwaveringly, against the war in Iraq. But I am, unwaveringly, supportive of the military. I used to work extensively with Vietnam vets, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who risk their lives, and the happiness of their families, to protect the Constitution. It is not the fault of the soldiers that they sometimes get sent to the wrong wars, for the wrong reasons.
I believe the best way we can support our troops is to stop risking their lives for premature judgments, political power games, corruption, and vendettas. Risk their lives only when we really need to, as a last resort, to defend the lives of their families and countrymen. Bring them home when we realize we've made a mistake. Most situations do not require a military solution. When we resort to military force willy nilly, we are taking the lives of our soldiers for granted.
BTW, thank you for serving.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky 
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME