| Saying that we shouldn't have gone to war is not the same as bashing the US army, the army are deployed by the US government, the government controls the army, who here is saying that it was the army's decision to go to war? |
US military blows wrong stuff up • Page 3
-
-
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago@jrolla: Which is EXACTLY why I wrote "similar campaigns". During the 3rd Gulf War (you are talking about the 2nd BTW - a LOT has happened in 12 years), the Coalition fought in conditions that would have previously thought impossible: night, sandstorms, heavy cloud cover, fog, burning oli wells - you name it. The benefits of this was that the Iraqis were pretty much defeated before they knew what hit them - the downside was that sometimes it was hard to identify friend from foe - hence the FF incidents.
Again - if you have a lot of forces on the ground, doing a lot of fighting, you WILL have more casualties due to FF, than if you have only a few soldiers.
@cubby: I also think it is a horrible waste of life - but this does not blind me to the fact that this shit HAPPENS in war, and that the only thing we can do is to try and prevent it. And that is something the U.S army iS VERY good at. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
Morriss. The discussion did NOT "move on". There were NO-ONE who contested that the U.S were the aggressors, and indirectly to blame for the Coalition casualties. We all agree on this - it is a fact.
There were, however, people who were using this to support the argument that the U.S killed more people in the 3rd Gulf war than the Iraqis did. A ridiculous notion, and a cheap cop-out from a discussion that was ONLY about the skill and ability of the U.S armed foeces.
This is what I meant by "pseudo-intellectual": that a debate that could´ve been ended by a few people saying "ah - I guess you´re right - even though I hate to see our boys killed by the Americans, I acceptthat this is the stuff that happens in war, and that the U.S forces are the best in the world at avoiding it". This didn´t happen.
Instead people tried to save face by saying "yeah well - if we hadnt BEEN there in the first place, no-one would have been killed - so I´m still right".
If you can´t see how this is twisting the discussion in order to (unfairly) bash the U.S military, and avoiding admitting that they were wrong, they you ARE blinded by your political opinions.
It did move on, because I moved it on, along with a few others. Your 'friendly-fire' argument is a valid one, which I am beginning to grow tired of repeating continously.
Now however, after establishing that you are right, we are now talking about the U.S. military and war in general. Is that alright with you? -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agocubbymoore wrote:
Saying that we shouldn't have gone to war is not the same as bashing the US army, the army are deployed by the US government, the government controls the army, who here is saying that it was the army's decision to go to war?
So saying that the U.S army "has an extreme tendency towards fratricide", that the "U.S army shoots at everything that moves", that "U.S army is more dangerous to our own troops than the Iraqi" or that the U.S army is poorly trained is NOT "bashing the U.S army"???
Excuse me then...
War is hell, and while you can agree or disagree with the invasion of Iraq, the fact remains that the U.S armed forces did a VERY good job at protecting all involved Coalition forces.
'nuff said. -
Treze 332 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 20 years agophAge wrote:
(...)
And for the people who reckon they´re being clever with the "oh - so 24% is OK?" type of rhethorics: go read some books about war. Do a little historical research on similar campaigns, and the amount of friendly-fire incidents that took place during them. Please.
Or it might look as if you have no idea what you´re talking about, and are merely enjoying the view from the bandwagon.
Sorry, but how can you feel a number like 24% of casualties to friendly fire acceptable?
Friendly fire is inevitable but that does not make it acceptable in any amount.
24% seems absurdly high to me. Even considering the small number of death, around 100, and the difference of fire power between the armies. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agomorriss wrote:
phAge wrote:
Morriss. The discussion did NOT "move on". There were NO-ONE who contested that the U.S were the aggressors, and indirectly to blame for the Coalition casualties. We all agree on this - it is a fact.
There were, however, people who were using this to support the argument that the U.S killed more people in the 3rd Gulf war than the Iraqis did. A ridiculous notion, and a cheap cop-out from a discussion that was ONLY about the skill and ability of the U.S armed foeces.
This is what I meant by "pseudo-intellectual": that a debate that could´ve been ended by a few people saying "ah - I guess you´re right - even though I hate to see our boys killed by the Americans, I acceptthat this is the stuff that happens in war, and that the U.S forces are the best in the world at avoiding it". This didn´t happen.
Instead people tried to save face by saying "yeah well - if we hadnt BEEN there in the first place, no-one would have been killed - so I´m still right".
If you can´t see how this is twisting the discussion in order to (unfairly) bash the U.S military, and avoiding admitting that they were wrong, they you ARE blinded by your political opinions.
It did move on, because I moved it on, along with a few others. Your 'friendly-fire' argument is a valid one, which I am beginning to grow tired of repeating continously.
Now however, after establishing that you are right, we are now talking about the U.S. military and war in general. Is that alright with you?
By all means. I fail to see who you are going to continue the debate with, since no-one disagrees with you, but please - go ahead. -
phAge wrote:
Yeah I didn't say that, and it is a seperate argument from the one that I'm making. That argument is going back to your original point that the US army are doing a good job of keeping friendly-fire incidents down, mine wasn't anything to do with friendly fire incidents at all.
So saying that the U.S army "has an extreme tendency towards fratricide", that the "U.S army shoots at everything that moves", that "U.S army is more dangerous to our own troops than the Iraqi" or that the U.S army is poorly trained is NOT "bashing the U.S army"???
Excuse me then...
Well Jrolla may not agree but I do, there we go.
War is hell, and while you can agree or disagree with the invasion of Iraq, the fact remains that the U.S armed forces did a VERY good job at protecting all involved Coalition forces.
'nuff said. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoTreze wrote:
phAge wrote:
(...)
And for the people who reckon they´re being clever with the "oh - so 24% is OK?" type of rhethorics: go read some books about war. Do a little historical research on similar campaigns, and the amount of friendly-fire incidents that took place during them. Please.
Or it might look as if you have no idea what you´re talking about, and are merely enjoying the view from the bandwagon.
Sorry, but how can you feel a number like 24% of casualties to friendly fire acceptable?
Friendly fire is inevitable but that does not make it acceptable in any amount.
24% seems absurdly high to me. Even considering the small number of death, around 100, and the difference of fire power between the armies.
Because this is WAR, and a campaign like the 3rd Gulf War was fought under conditions that NO-ONE would have thought possible. The alternative would have been to move MUCH more slowly and cautiously, thus giving the Iraqis loads of time to prepare defensive positions, call down artillery-fire, lay minefields and what have you. This would have resulted in WAY higher Coalition casualties.
FF is horrible, as are all casualties of war, but saying that they are "unacceptable" shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the concepts of war. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
morriss wrote:
phAge wrote:
Morriss. The discussion did NOT "move on". There were NO-ONE who contested that the U.S were the aggressors, and indirectly to blame for the Coalition casualties. We all agree on this - it is a fact.
There were, however, people who were using this to support the argument that the U.S killed more people in the 3rd Gulf war than the Iraqis did. A ridiculous notion, and a cheap cop-out from a discussion that was ONLY about the skill and ability of the U.S armed foeces.
This is what I meant by "pseudo-intellectual": that a debate that could´ve been ended by a few people saying "ah - I guess you´re right - even though I hate to see our boys killed by the Americans, I acceptthat this is the stuff that happens in war, and that the U.S forces are the best in the world at avoiding it". This didn´t happen.
Instead people tried to save face by saying "yeah well - if we hadnt BEEN there in the first place, no-one would have been killed - so I´m still right".
If you can´t see how this is twisting the discussion in order to (unfairly) bash the U.S military, and avoiding admitting that they were wrong, they you ARE blinded by your political opinions.
It did move on, because I moved it on, along with a few others. Your 'friendly-fire' argument is a valid one, which I am beginning to grow tired of repeating continously.
Now however, after establishing that you are right, we are now talking about the U.S. military and war in general. Is that alright with you?
By all means. I fail to see who you are going to continue the debate with, since no-one disagrees with you, but please - go ahead.
I give up. If 'winning' an agrument is about leaving about leaving people dumbstruck with innane comments, then you've 'won'. Well done. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agocubbymoore wrote:
Yeah I didn't say that, and it is a seperate argument from the one that I'm making. That argument is going back to your original point that the US army are doing a good job of keeping friendly-fire incidents down, mine wasn't anything to do with friendly fire incidents at all.
That is the problem with these debates - sometimes people get caught up in the clutter. My bad if I attributed opinions to you that you didn´t hold. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
cubbymoore wrote:
Yeah I didn't say that, and it is a seperate argument from the one that I'm making. That argument is going back to your original point that the US army are doing a good job of keeping friendly-fire incidents down, mine wasn't anything to do with friendly fire incidents at all.
That is the problem with these debates - sometimes people get caught up in the clutter.
They do if people don't read what is being said.
Edited by morriss at 14:27:05 10-01-2005 -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agomorriss wrote:
I give up. If 'winning' an agrument is about leaving about leaving people dumbstruck with innane comments, then you've 'won'. Well done.
What is inane about my comment? I merely pointed out that there was no "debate" about the validity of the invasion of Iraq - it was you and a couple of others who created it to get out of admitting that your notions of the U.S army as being a bunch of poorly trained cowboys was wrong.
So - please - continue this discussion that I keep interfering with.
EDIT: Morriss - I won´t even comment on that last post. You REALLY hate when someone challenges you on your U.S bashing, dont you?
Edited by phAge at 14:28:22 10-01-2005 -
morriss wrote:
Well that's just wafting flames with very big fans doused in petrol that is.
phAge wrote:
cubbymoore wrote:
Yeah I didn't say that, and it is a seperate argument from the one that I'm making. That argument is going back to your original point that the US army are doing a good job of keeping friendly-fire incidents down, mine wasn't anything to do with friendly fire incidents at all.
That is the problem with these debates - sometimes people get caught up in the clutter.
They do if people don't read what is being said.
Edited by morriss at 14:27:05 10-01-2005 -
Whizzo 44,810 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 20 years agoPoorly trained cowboys? Perhaps overstating it but they do themselves no favours when they act like this when there are reporters around. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
morriss wrote:
I give up. If 'winning' an agrument is about leaving about leaving people dumbstruck with innane comments, then you've 'won'. Well done.
What is inane about my comment? I merely pointed out that there was no "debate" about the validity of the invasion of Iraq - it was you and a couple of others who created it to get out of admitting that your notions of the U.S army as being a bunch of poorly trained cowboys was wrong.
So - please - continue this discussion that I keep interfering with.
1. I don't remember ever stipulating that I thought the U.S. army were poorly trained cowboys. Read the g'damn thread will ya!
2. Cubby's point that all friendly fire was unacceptable was a valid one. Which is a topic for debate in itself.
3. The very fact that 24% in military terms, is something we just have to live with if we understand war as well as you do is something I will never accept.
4. Americans have a tradition of being 'gung-ho' and overly aggressive and that's after talking to 'soldiers' not watching Michael Moore.
5. Friendly fire can be avoided if you don't engage in meaningless wars in the first place. Which opens up a chasm for further debate - if anyone wants to. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agophAge wrote:
morriss wrote:
I give up. If 'winning' an agrument is about leaving about leaving people dumbstruck with innane comments, then you've 'won'. Well done.
What is inane about my comment? I merely pointed out that there was no "debate" about the validity of the invasion of Iraq - it was you and a couple of others who created it to get out of admitting that your notions of the U.S army as being a bunch of poorly trained cowboys was wrong.
So - please - continue this discussion that I keep interfering with.
EDIT: Morriss - I won´t even comment on that last post. You REALLY hate when someone challenges you on your U.S bashing, dont you?
Copy and paste a sentence from this thread where I have bashed the U.S. You can't because I haven't. So I now have no idea what you are talking about. You're trying to push a few buttons because you know me on a somewhat personal level, and you assume that it is this viewpoint that I am arguing from based on your very limited knowledge of me.
Edited by morriss at 14:37:44 10-01-2005 -
smoothpete 37,743 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoWhizzo wrote:
That hits the nail on the head for me. Plus a lot of friendly fire is from the airforce by pilots who are given amphetamines to stay alert but which I have no doubt impairs their judgement. Says on the packets of pills they give them "do not operate heavy machinery while using this medication" or words to that effect
Poorly trained cowboys? Perhaps overstating it but they do themselves no favours when they act like this when there are reporters around. -
Let me just say this, if we had found WMDs in Iraq would the discussion of friendly fire be an issue? After all war is war.
Add: Oh and Morriss I never said that all friendly fire was unnacceptable, I was talking more along the lines of your number 5 there. -
fireclown 123 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years ago5. Friendly fire can be avoided if you don't engage in meaningless wars in the first place. Which opens up a chasm for further debate - if anyone wants to.
And indeed what I was about to say.
The thing that gets me is that I've heard some of the same commentators say, when the case was being made for war:
'Yes we're going to drop bombs on Iraq. But the US Army is very very good at only hitting terrorists., so the innocents will just be grateful, Saddam, bad man.'
and once the war began:
'Well *of course* we bomb the occasional child/old man/old woman/al-Jazeera reporter/Western reporter/wedding party/entire city full of civilians/house containing 'possibly innocent' terrorists...
...but that's war. These things happen in war. So you just gotta look stern and knowing and shrug.'
The thing is, war is the worst thing one set of folks can do to another set of folks. That's what the word means. Further, once you've let it out of the box then unexpected things happen all the time. The argument for war should have taken account of these things being likely to happen. The argument against war in Iran and elsewhere needs us to notice and remember that this is what happens.
To put it another way, if I pour petrol over someone, say 'don't worry, it's safe, you need delousing' and then set fire to them, when they're carted off dead then there's not much use in defending me by saying 'well these things *happen* when you set fire to someone. Get real.'
And I think CD's point about the use of the word 'possibly innocent' is well made. If someone had told me about it I'd have assumed the article was satire. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoMorriss (and I need to get this paper done, so I´ll wrap it up here): No - you havent said that the U.S soldiers are porely trained - but a lot of other people have, and it was them I was responding to.
You, however, defended the exact same argment (that the U.S was to blame for the Coalition FF casualties), so I really had no way of knowing that you agreed with me on the fact that the U.S have the best trained army in the world, and that they are very good at avoiding friendly fire.
Again - sorry if I got the wrong impression, but when you ally with people who talk crap, it doesn´t hurt to distinguish your own opinions from theirs.
About friendly fire being acceptable, I´ll guess we have to agree on disagreeing. Can´t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and all that. It is horrible, and we should do everything we can to prevent it, but when you are in war it happens.
About U.S soldiers being "gung-ho", I strongly doubt that they are any more cowboy-like than most other countries armed forces. That is not to say its OK when some fuckwit thinks he´s John Wayne, but justto put things into perspective.
Your final point is true - and it´d be nice if people would discuss it. It just has nothing to do with the U.S armed forces - and that is all I´ve been talking about in this thread.
And I am NOT pushing any buttons, merely saying what I think - because you DO come across as extremely anti-american, whether you want to or not. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoFunily enough phAge, I'm also writing an exam paperr, that has to be handed in tomorrow when I then have my history exam. Guess what it's about? 'Bush/Blair/Iran'!
/thought it might bring a smile to your face. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoWell it now seems like the house was bombed because the US was fed false intelligence, probably by someone using them to sort out a tribal issue. So saying they were possibly innocent, while appearing heartless to us civies thousands of miles away, may not be all that out of line.
And as far as the amount of armicide that goes on increasing, maybe this has more to do with utterly destroying the enemy and thereby not giving them much opportunity to do you harm rather then a cavalier attitude to their own safety. The US armed forces are probably the most safety-obsessed in the world. That’s why they use so much heavy ordnance, so as not to put their own troops into unnecessary harms way.
Friendly fire is undesirable, but not totally unacceptable. When you start shooting and blowing things up accidents will happen. To say that FF is totally unacceptable is to try and make military operations immune to error, something no single human endeavour or individual has ever managed to escape. -
Nexus_6 6,169 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoI thought the British Army was considered by many to be the best TRAINED in the world.....? -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoKhanivor wrote:
Well it now seems like the house was bombed because the US was fed false intelligence,
Now where have I heard that before? -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoProbably on the news I'd wager.
Suicide-by-cop has been long recognised. Since 2002 we've had revenge-by-USAF. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoKhanivor wrote:
Probably on the news I'd wager.
Suicide-by-cop has been long recognised. Since 2002 we've had revenge-by-USAF.
Just reminds me of the paper I'm writing... -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoSeeing as it's about Iran, a country which we know is developing nukes and could actualy be a danger to the world in the near future (unlike Iraq), then false inteligence shouldn't feature to heavily. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoKhanivor wrote:
Seeing as it's about Iran, a country which we know is developing nukes and could actualy be a danger to the world in the near future (unlike Iraq), then false inteligence shouldn't feature to heavily.
No it's just that I'm also writing about thue events leading up to the current war. Here's the introduction:
In the wake of George W. Bush winning the U.S. elections on November 02, 2004, questions are now beginning to arise about the U.S. and England’s ‘special relationship’. Tony Blair finds himself in an awkward situation. The British public show little support for Bush and his foreign policies, most markedly in Iraq. Tony Blair has often underlined the importance of an alliance with George W. Bush, but how does this actually help him politically? Mr. Blair states in his book, ‘New Britain: My Vision of a Young Country’, “…our transatlantic relationship is multiplied in strength if we’re also at the centre of Europe’. This is a key statement that this article will assess in depth.
So I covering the Hutton inquiry, the Butler report and all the press surrounding the build up. -
tengu 10,294 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
