The journalist incident in Iraq

[juanesky 0]

I think they did feel threatened. I will definitely shoot first and figure things later, but yes it is still a disgrace the loss of life.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Andie787 0]

Just for a moment try to imagine yourself a US soldier in Iraq. Every day, a soldier dies. The attacks are sneaky and sometimes primitive, but apparently somewhat oragnized. It is your job to patrol. Everyone is a stranger in a strange land. Any face could be that of your killer...

I never supported any of this action but I FEEL for the troops in Iraq right now. They are certainly tense, but they are not trigger-happy as a whole.

Andie

[billvon 2,426]

>Right now the high temps are running from 112f to 120f.

Rumsfeld said we'll be there for ten years; that's ten winters. And they do get freezing temps there in the winters.

[billvon 2,426]

>Well Bill, If I was in Israel in a bus, and a young arab looking person
> tries to run inside a bus, when he or she looks like she have a bulk
> under the shirt . . .

you would blow them away? Because that's what happened here - someone had a camera and a soldier blew them away. They didn't hassle them, they didn't detain them and question them, they didn't pause to see if it was an RPG or a camera. They killed them. While I understand that tensions are high over there, it is no more OK for a US soldier to kill a journalist with a camera than it is for an Iraqi to shoot a US soldier because he points a gun at the Iraqi.

From what I heard, this sounds like a mistake. The right solution is to fix the mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again. The wrong solution is to tell the Iraqi people they will be shot on sight if they have anything resembling a gun, ever. That's a one-way ticket to a civilian uprising that will kill far more than one soldier a day.

[Guest]

It's often said that the "Arab Street" will "rise up", and, well, rise up, but even passive resistance can do a lot to wear an occupier down. Active sabotage also undermines, even without killing any of the occupying force. In fact, it's more effective.

And make no mistake, we are no longer a liberating force, but an occupying one, and every day we stay there adds fuel to the fire.

I don't think there will be any spectacular 9/11-style atrocities (the car-bombing of the UN compound notwitstanding - it was chosen because it's a relatively soft target), but there will be plenty of RIFW's dying for Allah.

I have a copy of the guide to resisting occupation, written by the Swiss. I doubt it's being referred to, but the basic tenets are obvious.

Therefore, I think we need to stay there long enough to get Saddam and his stooges, then just pack up, and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Remster 24]

Quote

Therefore, I think we need to stay there long enough to get Saddam and his stooges, then just pack up, and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.

yeah.... come in there on false/innacurate pretenses, wage war on the contry, and then pack up..... excellent!

Remster

[nigel99 144]

it was described as a "turkey shoot" by a politician here, because according to him a war is between 2 armed countries

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[billvon 2,426]

>Therefore, I think we need to stay there long enough to get Saddam and his stooges . . . .

How long have we been trying to find Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

>then just pack up, and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.

If that results in Taliban II coming to power in Iraq we will have made the whole situation much worse. And that's what people seem to want - they are sick of Hussein's anti-Islamic secular government. There is no easy way out for us any more.

[quade 3]

Quote

Rumsfeld said we'll be there for ten years; that's ten winters.

After 2004 I don't think he'll have any say in the matter.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Guest]

Quote

>Therefore, I think we need to stay there long enough to get Saddam and his stooges . . . .

How long have we been trying to find Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

>then just pack up, and let the Iraqis fend for themselves.

If that results in Taliban II coming to power in Iraq we will have made the whole situation much worse. And that's what people seem to want - they are sick of Hussein's anti-Islamic secular government. There is no easy way out for us any more.

I don't think there ever was, but as we agreed before the starting line, if the Iraqis want to establish another theocracy along the lines of Iran, we'd better let them do it. Please recall my prediction of the "Islamic Republic of Iraq" within three years.

Our occupation will only go on as long as we're willing to tolerate the deaths. It looks pretty open-ended from here.

Don't forget, however, in your remarks about Bin Laden, that it took us years to get Yamamoto, and we never got Hitler.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Rumsfeld said we'll be there for ten years; that's ten winters.

After 2004 I don't think he'll have any say in the matter.

Much as I prefer to stay out of top-level political debate on this forum, you've got a good chance of being right.

Unfortunately, Bush's sucessor will inherit this mess, much as Nixon got LBJ's leavings, and had to make of it what he could.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Unfortunately, Bush's sucessor will inherit this mess

How could it be a mess Mark? I thought it was the right thing to do? I thought the majority of people in the US wanted this war? That the majority of the US population backed the war and thought it was justified? I thought Bush had it all right and the US coalition of the willing won the war and were going to "design" a new government for the liberated people of Iraq?

[Guest]

I seem to recall objecting the war on several grounds, but that once the decision was made to engage, it must be seen through.

As far as the endgame - the initial objective has been achieved - the regime has been ousted. However, now that situation must have time to stabilize.

Also, I seem to recall remarking that many of us who were in favor of military action said (myself among them) that the administration had better be telling the truth and had better be right.

Don't go off on me about liberal media spin, either. Everybody sees what they want to see to an extent.

"The major problem so far has been the breakdown in law and order, a situation very similar to what happened in defeated dictatorships (Japan and Germany after World War II and East Europe after the Cold War.) Moreover, most of the Baath Party security forces (secret police, security troops) are still out there, although the US raids have been picking up the more active (in attacking Americans) of them. While the Islamic radicals involved (a minority so far) are in it for the anti-infidel hatred, the Baath Party is largely about money. Over the last few decades, Iraq turned into a money machine for the Baath Party and many senior Baath Party members still have lots of cash. They know that as law and order returns to Iraq, they are subject to prosecution for past crimes, and confiscation of their ill gotten gains. You don't hear much about the Baath Party hot shots who choose to go into exile, but the ones who are fighting to regain power are hard to miss."

One can only imagine what CCN would have made of postwar Germany.

"Local media are returning to Iraq. Satellite dishes are legal and selling well and more newspapers are publishing. Radio stations provide regular service and U.S. psychological warfare efforts continue in the form of dispassionate news. This is rarely seen in the Middle East, but is having an impact, if only because of its novelty. Iraqis can't help but notice that more Iraqis are running things in Iraq, and without the heavy-handedness and corruption so typical of the previous Iraqi government. Calls to reinstate Saddam's government resonate with few Iraqis, even some of those who grew rich off Saddam's favors. Reporters from European and Arab media are having to work harder to find bad news, which is leading to more implausible stories."

"August 11, 2003: In a typical counter-terrorism operation, 2,000 US troops surrounded and searched two villages north of Baghdad. Based on information developed from informants, captured Baath Party members and electronic surveillance, the troops go after some specific houses, while searching many others. The Iraqis protest the searches, not least because illegal weapons and looted goods are found and confiscated. Basically, the coalition is still at war with segments of the Sunni Arab population. Such unrest does not occur in the Kurdish north or the Shia south. While there are a lot of Sunni Arabs in the north, they are somewhat cowed by the presence of many armed and short-tempered Kurds. There are some Sunni Arab tribes in the south as well, and they keep their heads down because Saddam allowed the southern Sunni Arab tribes to take advantage of the Shia majority for many decades. In the south, the Sunni Arabs complain a lot, mainly about not getting enough protection (from the Shia majority) by the coalition troops. Overall, the Sunni Arabs comprise about twenty percent of the population, and Saddam found that less than half the Sunni Arab tribes could be depended on to support him. It is these tribes, plus al Qaeda and other Islamic radical groups from outside the country, who are supporting the resistance. The guerillas are fighting for their right to dominate and oppress the majority of Iraqis. Not very heroic, but there it is."

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

So a well trained soldier SHOULD have the ability to recognise the events leading to a fire fight. Ok so I was not there and maybe all the indicators of a fire fight were there, I doubt it though.

well trained does not mean perfect. I'm sure if my butt was on the line I might have made the same mistake. So you think they knew they were shooting a camera man?

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Soldiers wear uniforms. Terrorists (and spies) don't.

Hmmm - I saw lots of pictures on the news of US Army special forces in Afghanistan who were not wearing uniforms.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

You make the same decision every day. Which is why the "philosophy" of moral relativism is flawed to the core.

If we asked questions first then shot, a lot more US soldiers would be dead. Sorry if this offends you, but I think that's the greater of two evils.

i completely agree with you, but the picky part of me must point out the misapplication of moral relativities as this (and many many example like it everyday) are prime examples of moral relativism, the value of everything is relative to the individual, the environment, and the instant, and these decisions are made everyday, by everyone in such simple actions as deciding who you spend your time with. Yes the lives of US. Soldiers are more valuable to me than Iraqi citizens, but the opposite is equally true if you happen to be an Iraqi citizen..(or foreign reporter)

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,426]

>I don't think there ever was, but as we agreed before the starting
>line, if the Iraqis want to establish another theocracy along the lines
> of Iran, we'd better let them do it.

"A free Iraq is ... an integral part of the war on terror."
George Bush, Aug 11

Something tells me he won't let the Iraqis choose their own form of government. He's going to make Iraq a western democracy even if he has to install the government and pay a standing army to keep it there.

>Our occupation will only go on as long as we're willing to tolerate the
>deaths.

We've tolerated tens of thousands before in wars we couldn't win.

>Don't forget, however, in your remarks about Bin Laden, that it took
>us years to get Yamamoto, and we never got Hitler.

Yep. I hope we don't forget about Bin Laden in the years ahead as we fight two occupation campaigns.

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Quote

I agree, but where does it stop. A pineapple in a kids hand looks like a grenade so blow him away to? The Iraqi resistance isn't wearing uniform so shoot all men between 15 and 65? I will grant you this it must be bloody difficult.

Sorry I was sleeping, but nigel99, this is grasping for straws here. I pineapple does not fit in the hand of a child. The are much much larger.

Any man woman or child holding a device that could be a weapon is probably OK. However, if they hold a device that looks like a weapon, AND make actions that suggest they may use the device as a weapon, then, YES, Shoot them.

That's where you draw the line. Plain and simple.

[freeflir29 0]

Wow...it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of people that don't know WTF they are talking about.....talk about it.

[skycop 0]

Amen Free.....
I've stayed out of this..............just kinda watching and laughing.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Quote

Amen Free.....
I've stayed out of this..............just kinda watching and laughing.

Thats what you said about the Louisiana Cop one too. You are such a party pooper.

[kmcguffee 0]

Skycop, were you in the US Army ordnance corps (based on your picture)?

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[skycop 0]

No. USAF AMMO, still a reservist. We get our (unofficial) logo from the old ordinance corps.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I agree that the whole "they're intentionally killing journalists" thing is silly. However, if we have troops over there that can't tell cameras from RPG's we have big problems.

I wholly disagree with this assessment. What the human brain registers under duress is completely different from a relaxed point of view. If that were not the case, then policemen would've been able to dicern the "toy" guns that "kid" was holding just before they pulled the trigger as a bullet was whizzing by.

I can't believe that in a war zone, we are not giving deference to our men and women in uniform. By any safety standard, civilian journalists have no business being in war-zone.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,426]

>If that were not the case, then policemen would've been able to dicern
>the "toy" guns that "kid" was holding just before they pulled the trigger
>as a bullet was whizzing by.

No argument there. But no policeman would be excused for not being able to tell a camera from a rifle at a protest and killing the journalist.

>I can't believe that in a war zone, we are not giving deference to our
> men and women in uniform. By any safety standard, civilian journalists
> have no business being in war-zone.

What part of Iraq that has US troops in it is not classified as a war zone? Will it remain a war zone as long as there are US troops there? A convenient way to get reporters out of a sensitive area, but not one that will fly in a society that believes in a free media.

There are two issues here. One is that we should go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties in a country that freed from a tyrant - a tyrant we used to criticize for killing civilians. The second is that, if we continue to accidentally kill civilians, the result will be a lot more dead US soldiers as more and more Iraqis believe the radical clerics who claim the US is there to kill Arabs.