NationStates Jolt Archive

whoops (The multinational force in Iraq deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives.)

The thing that really struck me was: During a US army search for a suspected insurgent leader, an F-16 jet dropped a 500-pound laser guided bomb on a home south of the main northern city of Mosul, the military said in statement.

"The house was not the intended target for the air strike. The intended target was another location nearby," it said.

"The multinational force in Iraq deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives."

Why should this be a surprise? This happens with practically every precision strike and bombing we do in Iraq; hell, we even strafed a school in New Jersey last year.

At least they admitted the people might be innocents. But they weren't. We never kill civillains. We're the US military.

"Sir, I have missed the target, repeat, negative impact."

"Don't worry, the others are bound to hit it."

:eek:

I like "possibly innocent" too. It makes it sound like the people in the house might've been insurgents as well.

Phhh...stupid Iraqis, always getting in the way of our bombs.

It happens. Nothing is perfect. Sad though.

As for that strafing a New Jersey school, back when the range was open back in the 1940s, that area was all empty field..they keep building stuff closer and closer to the range. Accidents are bound to happen.

And unless someone can provide me an example of a war without one civilian loss can we try and hold back the rhetoric and just take this for what it is? A tragic mistake in a war that shouldnt have happened.

It happens. Nothing is perfect. Sad though.

As for that strafing a New Jersey school, back when the range was open back in the 1940s, that area was all empty field..they keep building stuff closer and closer to the range. Accidents are bound to happen.

And unless someone can provide me an example of a war without one civilian loss can we try and hold back the rhetoric and just take this for what it is? A tragic mistake in a war that shouldnt have happened.
True, but that's not the point I'm making. It's one thing to have civilian casualities; that's a given. It's another thing to essentially not try to prevent them; that's what we've been doing in Iraq.

Wrong Target? Probably.
Innocents? Doubtful.
Terrorists waiting to suicide bomb somewhere? Probably.

Just look around. You show me a non-american who says he doesn't hate america, and they're either naive or lying. If we weren't bombing them, they'd be bombing us. This is why I eat meat, and kick kittens.

Wrong Target? Probably.
Innocents? Doubtful.
Terrorists waiting to suicide bomb somewhere? Probably.

Just look around. You show me a non-american who says he doesn't hate america, and they're either naive or lying. If we weren't bombing them, they'd be bombing us. This is why I eat meat, and kick kittens.
So, basically, everyone who doesn't live in the United States hates us? So almost 6 billion people hate us? I think not.

whoops (The multinational force in Iraq deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives.)

The thing that really struck me was: During a US army search for a suspected insurgent leader, an F-16 jet dropped a 500-pound laser guided bomb on a home south of the main northern city of Mosul, the military said in statement.

"The house was not the intended target for the air strike. The intended target was another location nearby," it said.

"The multinational force in Iraq deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives."

Phf... Americans. The most advanced military technology in the world, and no idea how to use it. Figures.

True, but that's not the point I'm making. It's one thing to have civilian casualities; that's a given. It's another thing to essentially not try to prevent them; that's what we've been doing in Iraq.

Are you kididng me? If we werent trying to prevent them then Falluja would have been a lot worse. We would have surrounded the city with no warning, and decimated it with B-52s ala Vietnam style. The U.S. has been pretty hellbent not ticking off the rest of the population with civilian losses.

Are you kididng me? If we werent trying to prevent them then Falluja would have been a lot worse. We would have surrounded the city with no warning, and decimated it with B-52s ala Vietnam style. The U.S. has been pretty hellbent not ticking off the rest of the population with civilian losses.
Alright, I'll admit that. Still, there have been a rather overlarge number of civilian casualities; perhaps it's idiotic to make a connection, but you still have to wonder...
In any case, it's academic; we won't be able to influance anything.

Phf... Americans. The most advanced military technology in the world, and no idea how to use it. Figures.

Show me something that works and goes off 100% of the time, and I'll show you, your mouth :-P

True, but that's not the point I'm making. It's one thing to have civilian casualities; that's a given. It's another thing to essentially not try to prevent them; that's what we've been doing in Iraq.
Dude, if we were NOT trying to prevent civilian casualties we'd just carpet bomb cities with B 52s.

A mistake was made, and we do try to prevent civilian casualties.

Well rest assured, some low-level official will be fired. And the men responsible will have no problems anymore.

Callous Disregard - Bombing the whole damn city
Unacceptable Practise - Missing and going "Oh well."
Acceptable Practise - Missing and actually feeling bad about it.

On another note, I have stole a nuclear warhead from Kraplakistan, and demand one hundred beeeleeeooon dollars or I attack the US.

I await the warplanes from the crazy zealots.

That is all.

Alright, I'll admit that. Still, there have been a rather overlarge number of civilian casualities; perhaps it's idiotic to make a connection, but you still have to wonder...
In any case, it's academic; we won't be able to influance anything.

Of course its academic, but still, over the course of a year and a half civilian losses havent been nearly as bad or pandemic as what was expected BEFORE the war. Remember the massive humanitarian crisis that was predicted before the war? It hasnt happened.

I suppose the US military could just level entire cities and say "screw you" to the people that complain. Might as well live up to the image certain fools on this board seem to have.

You know what..I wont even get into a protracted debate on this issue. Forget it. This was hook and bait flame the US military at its worst. I want to know where is the comment about the insurgent suicide bombers who target civilians? Or the attacks on police stations? This is just another case of acceptable bashing.

You know what..I wont even get into a protracted debate on this issue. Forget it. This was hook and bait flame the US military at its worst. I want to know where is the comment about the insurgent suicide bombers who target civilians? Or the attacks on police stations? This is just another case of acceptable bashing.

Well DUH...

I mean it isn't even serious bashing, hell the guy put "Ooooops" as the hyperlink's tag :p

Show me something that works and goes off 100% of the time, and I'll show you, your mouth :-P

Hey, the rest of the world has come to accept that the american military makes mistakes, numerous ones. :p
Give me something that barely works and goes off 50% of the time, and I'll show you. ;)

True, but that's not the point I'm making. It's one thing to have civilian casualities; that's a given. It's another thing to essentially not try to prevent them; that's what we've been doing in Iraq.
*jaw drops to the ground* What the HELL have you been smoking? This is quite easily one of the most careful and cautious wars in the history of mankind regarding innocent civvie casualties. At least, on the part of the US.

I think his point is that they appear to be justifying the mistake by naming the dead as "possible" innocents.

Innocent until proven guilty, civilian until proven criminal.

Heck. Why don't we just call them collateral damage and be done with it.

:p

And the fact that the bomb was a smart bomb is evidence enough that we're trying to prevent casualties, as the smart bomb is designed for maximum effect on targets and minimum effect on surrounding civilians.

Well, as tragic it is, these accidents do still happen, especially when you consider that the whole environment is an urban environment and such strike is perhaps necessary to get the mission along (which would may as well mean less casulties), and no technology nor bombing technique is perfect. You will still have sadly friendly fire and civilian casulties in any conflict, but that sad fact will stay with each military operation there is. However, many things are being done to prevent this: sixty years ago the city would probably be bombed inside and out by B-17s with horrific civilian casulties, but now precision strike is also and still saving a lot of lives.

One thing though, I smell a possible court martial. That may definately be a consequence.

I suppose the US military could just level entire cities and say "screw you" to the people that complain. Might as well live up to the image certain fools on this board seem to have.

And save money, precision munitions are expensive and if no one wants us to try because every time we mess up its like we commit genocide we may as well save our money and drop some napalm.

I suppose the US military could just level entire cities and say "screw you" to the people that complain. Might as well live up to the image certain fools on this board seem to have.
With moral values and strategic considerations aside, you are also looking at military problems. Read about the Battle of Stalingrad? German Stukas and He-111s bombed it to the ground, and the rubble, collapsed walls/bombed out buildings, and the blocked passage ways (e.g. roads) created an absolute paradise for the Russian defenders. Similarly if the highway and other roads were blocked by mountains of rubble and huge craters, the American tanks would never be able to help to bring the capture of Baghdad in reality.

Carpet-bombing an entire city isn't a smart idea in the military sense either.

And what about us dropping that huke off the coast of Spain during the cold war...oops.

Well, at least it wasn't Mosque full of worshippers or else things will go downhill.

I just want to say something, and I don't intend to stay, because I think that I actually hate the general forum (I hear that there are people here who think that Fox News is something other than scary or funny, so what more need be said?), but I think that something really ought to be recognised. That is to say, as much as some people may say that the US is trying not to kill innocent people (as if they have the right to judge in the first place, another utterly absurd concept), and as much as some people may be inclined to believe that this is a humane war, in the context of war in the modern era, it simply isn't true, is it? I mean, you say that it is some sort of humanitarian benchmark in bloody fighting, but against what do you judge it? US carpet bombings in South East Asia? The Korean War? The French desperately trying to kill everyone who didn't like them, in their failing empire? It's not hard to find examples of war fought from a different perspective. I mean, I don't think that The Times is an alternative news outlet, anyway, and just recently I read there in about the troubles in Kenya towards the end of British rule. It [the article] was all about the similarities between Kenya then and Iraq now, pointing out that the US is making all the mistakes that the British did before leaving Kenya for good, only they're doing it in a louder, bloodier fashion. Nairobi was cut-off and surrounded for a long time before the troops went in, and the Blackwatch stood to, tasked with cutting off insurgents trying to get in or out (familiar, eh?), only the British didn't resort to blitzing the entire city, and casualties were much lighter.

That's not to say that the British effort there was perfectly humane, but it does indicate the vast gulf between the supposedly reasonable approach of the US today and the often infamously regarded British empire decades ago. And not in the US's favour.

Long story short, patriotism and religion are obsolete along with the notion of Empire that they support, and whatever the US does in Iraq, hey, it's wrong. That pretty much settles the debate, for me. Right target, wrong target, still the badguys. Suck it up and accept it.

Long story short, patriotism and religion are obsolete along with the notion of Empire that they support, and whatever the US does in Iraq, hey, it's wrong. That pretty much settles the debate, for me. Right target, wrong target, still the badguys. Suck it up and accept it.
This statement requires the stock comment.

Many of the truths we cling to depend upon our points of view.