US air strike kills Iraqi family

[oranged]

Quote by: figure8 I know that "collateral damage" (as heartless a term as it is) is inevitable in any prolonged conflict.

I don't think it is. If the military wanted to, they have the technology to do a lot better at avoiding civilian casualties.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Zeebadee We're not breaking eggs here, we're killing women and kids. Would you characterize any of al qaeda's attacks against us as "regrettable"??

Come on, that's not even close to an acceptable analogy. Al Qaeda intentionally targets civilians. What's our soldiers' success rate? Could be 99%. It's just that the successes don't get broadcast on headline news. This is akin to a friendly fire incident, which also happens. Does it happen because pilots hate their own fellow troops? No, it happens out of carelessness.

That said, I agree that the best thing would be to use Iraqi soldiers for the questionable cases. If they're successfull, it's another positive report on the development of the Iraqi indigenous forces. It they fail, who cares? It's not going to add to the U.S. body count and headline news wouldn't touch it.

[figure8]

Quote by: oranged I don't think it is. If the military wanted to, they have the technology to do a lot better at avoiding civilian casualties.

My point is that if you've got bombs and bullets flying around then inevitably innocents will be caught in the crossfire, regrettable as that is. I totally agree with you that more could be done and indeed should be done to minimise this. Unfortunately, US policy on this seems to remain "shoot first, gather intelligence later".

[RickSp]

Quote by: fushigi Come on, that's not even close to an acceptable analogy. Al Qaeda intentionally targets civilians. What's our soldiers' success rate? Could be 99%. It's just that the successes don't get broadcast on headline news. This is akin to a friendly fire incident, which also happens. Does it happen because pilots hate their own fellow troops? No, it happens out of carelessness.

Does the intent really matter that much? AlQaeda killed roughly three thousand civilians on 9/11. The US killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the invasion and occupation. Does intent matter to the dead or the families of the dead?

And you are fooling yourself if you don't think the US doesn't target civilians as a matter of policy. The doctrine is called "force protection" which ends up translating to taking out civlians when in doubt. This case is a good example of that. It is far less dangerous to take out a house from the air than to send troops in. Where did you dream up your 99% figure? Sounds like fantasy to me.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: oranged I don't think it is. If the military wanted to, they have the technology to do a lot better at avoiding civilian casualties.

When it suits the government's aims, they DO have advanced technology. They don't mention that when it could embarrass them.

An example is the story we all hear about the government having satellites so powerful they can read a license plate from space. But when it comes time for Colin Powell to bring his magic lantern show to the UN to demonstrate "proof" of WMD, the best he can show are some fuzzy, out of focus pictures of trucks and dirt mounds.

[fushigi]

Quote by: RickSp Does the intent really matter that much? AlQaeda killed roughly three thousand civilians on 9/11. The US killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the invasion and occupation. Does intent matter to the dead or the families of the dead?

No, but it matters to the Iraqis who didn't know that family and the rest of the world. Someone said something about omelets and eggs, although it's a bit crass I agree. Our troops weren't trained to fight against this insurgency - things like this are going to keep happening until there's either no more popular support for resistance or no more occupation.

Quote by: RickSp And you are fooling yourself if you don't think the US doesn't target civilians as a matter of policy. The doctrine is called "force protection" which ends up translating to taking out civlians when in doubt. This case is a good example of that. It is far less dangerous to take out a house from the air than to send troops in. Where did you dream up your 99% figure? Sounds like fantasy to me.

I only said it could be 99% for all we know, do you have an accurate figure to contest my intentionally unrealistic one?

And of course U.S. policy says targets civilians. Target the ones you think are trying to blow your ass off, they're called insurgents. How would you run the occupation, General?

[RickSp]

Quote by: fushigi No, but it matters to the Iraqis who didn't know that family and the rest of the world. Someone said something about omelets and eggs, although it's a bit crass I agree. Our troops weren't trained to fight against this insurgency - things like this are going to keep happening until there's either no more popular support for resistance or no more occupation.

That is wishful thinking at best. Iraq is a tribal country. Killing tens of thousands of civilians has already created several hundred thousand of enemies, at least, who were related or knew the victims. No wonder almost half of all Iraqis say that attacking Americans is justified.

Quote by: fushigi And of course U.S. policy says targets civilians. Target the ones you think are trying to blow your ass off, they're called insurgents. How would you run the occupation, General?

By your standards, I suppose that all the thousands of women and kids killed were all insurgents. If they are dead, they must be insurgents. Sure.

How would I run the occupation? I would never invade a country that never attacked us.

[tinybear]

Quote by: RickSp Mr V doesn't want to hear and Tiny somehow thinks that either insurgents were flying US aircraft or that the insurgents can be blamed for everything. I guess it was the inusrgents who lied us into this needless war.

If there weren't any insurgents, there wouldn't be any need for the US Air Force to fly any of these missions, right? So if it ain't the insurgent's fault, whose fault is it?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: fushigi No, but it matters to the Iraqis who didn't know that family and the rest of the world. Someone said something about omelets and eggs, although it's a bit crass I agree. Our troops weren't trained to fight against this insurgency - things like this are going to keep happening until there's either no more popular support for resistance or no more occupation. I only said it could be 99% for all we know, do you have an accurate figure to contest my intentionally unrealistic one? And of course U.S. policy says targets civilians. Target the ones you think are trying to blow your ass off, they're called insurgents. How would you run the occupation, General?

So, by your reasoning, any al qaeda attack that targets GI's is a legitimate military operation? If they blew up a hotel that had a few GI's in it, the civilian casualties would then be "regrettable"?? How would that be different than blowing up a private residence because 3 suspects ran into it? The reality of this kind of event (which the Iraqi's also clearly see) is that in order to keep U.S. casualties low, Iraqi civilian casualties can be ignored.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: tinybear If there weren't any insurgents, there wouldn't be any need for the US Air Force to fly any of these missions, right? So if it ain't the insurgent's fault, whose fault is it?

Right! If the Iraqi's would just give up and let us run their country the way we think it should be run, there would be no insurgency. It must be their fault.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tinybear If there weren't any insurgents, there wouldn't be any need for the US Air Force to fly any of these missions, right? So if it ain't the insurgent's fault, whose fault is it?

Give me a break. If the United States hadn't invaded their country, there wouldn't be insurgents fighting the invaders. Duh.

Next you'll be blaming the dead kids for bringing the air strike on themselves.

[tinybear]

Quote by: RickSp Give me a break. If the United States hadn't invaded their country, there wouldn't be insurgents fighting the invaders. Duh. Next you'll be blaming the dead kids for bringing the air strike on themselves.

Look, we're trying our best to rebuild their country and hand it back to them with a democratic government replacing the former dictatorial regime. They are hindering our efforts by using the most despicable means and deliberately killing innocent people in the process. Who is to blame?

[Clarence]

Quote by: tinybear Look, we're trying our best to rebuild their country

In what ways?

They are hindering our efforts by using the most despicable means and deliberately killing innocent people in the process. Who is to blame?

who is 'they'?

[RickSp]

Quote by: tinybear Look, we're trying our best to rebuild their country and hand it back to them with a democratic government replacing the former dictatorial regime. They are hindering our efforts by using the most despicable means and deliberately killing innocent people in the process. Who is to blame?

Yah right. If you believe that I've got a bridge over the Euphraites that I'd like to sell you.

We invaded their country, trashed it and killed tens of thousands of civilians in the process. Over 80% of the Iraqi people want us out. In the case in question a family was killed by US ordinance. But you blame the insurgents. When they fly the planes and drop the bombs they will be to blame.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Clarence who is 'they'?

'They' as in the insurgents.

[Matt W]

Look, we're trying our best to rebuild their country and hand it back to them with a democratic government replacing the former dictatorial regime. They are hindering our efforts by using the most despicable means and deliberately killing innocent people in the process. Who is to blame?

What, by pulling the plug on the money to rebuild it? And electricity & water supply isn't even back up to pre-war levels? Doesn't sound like you're trying too hard, tb.

[Clarence]

Quote by: tinydancer 'They' as in the insurgents.

Oh, I see. Are the civilians insurgents? Would there be as many insurgents if they had electricity and drinkable water? Where have we tried to rebuild Iraq? I know we saved an owl but, I just don't understand. It seems after abandoning the WMD and links to Bin Laden, now you even abandon attempts to build a healthy democratic nation. Very sweet and innocent line of thinking you have, Bear.