Sad News on CNN Breaking News [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Buzzbee

03-31-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Ksyrup
This is exactly what Iraq wanted.

Which is, in my opinion, EXACTLY why it happened.

For those to lazy to click the link, here is an excerpt.

In the checkpoint shooting, Central Command said initial reports indicated the soldiers followed the rules of engagement to protect themselves. "In light of recent terrorist attacks by the Iraqi regime, the solders exercised considerable restraint to avoid the unnecessary loss of life," the statement said.

The soldiers involved were from the 3rd Infantry Division, the same unit that lost four soldiers at a checkpoint near Najaf Saturday when an Iraqi soldier dressed as a civilian detonated a car bomb.

The seven dead and two wounded on Monday were among 13 women and children in a van that approached the checkpoint but did not stop, according to the Central Command statement.

It said soldiers motioned for the driver to stop but were ignored. The soldiers then fired warning shots, which also were ignored. They then shot into the vehicle's engine, but the van continued moving toward the checkpoint, according to the statement.

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 05:07 PM

A shame but I'd rather the dead not be coalition forces.

Fritz

03-31-2003, 05:08 PM

13 people? Dont they read the saftey restriction? That van should have only had 8 or 9 in it!

John Galt

03-31-2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Fritz
13 people? Dont they read the saftey restriction? That van should have only had 8 or 9 in it!

And just when I thought you couldn't be any more tasteless.

Fritz

03-31-2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by John Galt
And just when I thought you couldn't be any more tasteless. guilty as charged on that one

markprior22

03-31-2003, 05:16 PM

it is too bad this has to happen...but Iraq is not following ANY sort of "rules of engagement"

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 05:28 PM

For the "it's too bad but what the fuck" crowd, no one here has suggested that coalition forces were in the wrong. The disclaimer is not neccessary. This is a tragedy as are all civilian casulties of war. No need to minimize it by defending coalition forces who are not being attacked.

JeeberD

03-31-2003, 05:32 PM

So are troops supposed to wait for vehicles to blow up before they try and stop them?

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by JeeberD
So are troops supposed to wait for vehicles to blow up before they try and stop them?

No. No one here even mentioned that coalition forces were in the wrong. No one.

JeeberD

03-31-2003, 05:36 PM

OK, misread your first post. Gotcha...

CAsterling

03-31-2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Fritz
guilty as charged on that one

Maybe, but still funny :D

DeToxRox

03-31-2003, 05:39 PM

lol, Fritz.

FBPro

03-31-2003, 05:43 PM

Hate to see civilians die, but in light of recent events I can't say that I blame them.

**edited for accuracy**

rexalllsc

03-31-2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by FBPro
True they were "to some degree" wrong, but in light of recent events I can't say that I blame them.

Warning shots...no stop...more warning shots...no stop.

The only thing you CAN assume is that they don't have good intentions. Can't fault them at all.

Fritz

03-31-2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by astralhaze
For the "it's too bad but what the fuck" crowd, no one here has suggested that coalition forces were in the wrong. The disclaimer is not neccessary. This is a tragedy as are all civilian casulties of war.

You are absolutely correct (save that one, you may not get it again from these parts.)

My initial reaction to John's post was colored by his previous disdain (my take, not John's words) for our soldiers.

Tarkus

03-31-2003, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Warning shots...no stop...more warning shots...no stop.

The only thing you CAN assume is that they don't have good intentions. Can't fault them at all.
Actually it was:

Signal to stop ... no stop ... warning shots ... no stop ... fire at the vehicles engine ... no stop.

Just wanted to add a little more detail to your point.

Tarkus

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 06:24 PM

All I gotta say is ... it's about damned time!!!

I have no sympathy for these civilian casualties ... they didn't stop and failed to respond to multiple warning shots.

Everyone is playing up that it was women and children. Last I remember some of the Palestinian suicide bombers have been both women and children (17 year old girl for one).

In Vietnam both women and children had guns. Our naive American troops ignored them, got shot and my dad had to treat the foolishly wounded.

Just because they are women and children ... doesn't make them innocent. It makes them the perfect ones to perform the suicide missions.

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 06:30 PM

I don't think there are enough details yet to condemn either side.

How fast/far away was the car. Did it slow down after any of the shots? Did the people in the van know it was a coalition checkpoint, or were they fearful it was Iraqi troops who would kill deserters? And once they've shot your car, why stop, b/c you think they are trying to kill you.

And I am truly sickened by those who say at least it wasn't coalition forces who died. Personally, I don't want them to die either, but they made a conscious choice to put themselves in harms way. I pray they don't die, but it is their choice and I support them in any action they do if they feel it is right. Personally, I would have acted the same if in their situation, with a car not stopping. But the Iraqi civilians didn't ask to be born there. Do you think it matters if the dead are liberated?

Skippy you sicken me. This war is supposedly about preserving humanity. How can we preserve something that doesn't exist, especially after seeing comments like yours.

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by mrskippy
All I gotta say is ... it's about damned time!!!

You are a very very sick person skippy. I don't see how anyone with any semblence of intelligence, morals, or humanity could actually be happy about something like this.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 06:41 PM

Easy Mac, astralhaze ... sorry, but in war you can't take chances. You have to assume that the people in the van were the enemy.

That is a rule of war! Especially, in this war!

Sure, I don't like to see innocent people die just like anybody else and it's sad that these people had to die. But they were asked to stop and given multiple warnings. At that point, they are at fault.

To put it another way ... if a cop tries to pull you over, you start going 100 mph, flip your car and die ... you're at fault.

These checkpoints are designed to protect the soldiers beyond that checkpoint. Are you saying, we should have let them pass?

That'd be a big gamble. That van, with women and children, could've been the big cover for a vehicle full of chemcial or biological agents or a dirty bomb.

And if they were just innocents ... would you be driving straight through a war zone???

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 06:45 PM

Again, NO ONE said coalition forces were in the wrong. If you are really sad to see civilians die, please explain this quote....

"All I gotta say is ... it's about damned time!!!"

Sounds like you were glad to see this happen. In my opinion, that is, frankly, unfuckingbelievable.

ice4277

03-31-2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by mrskippy
All I gotta say is ... it's about damned time!!!

I would defend the coalition forces for what they did but this is taking it too far.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 07:05 PM

What I meant by my quote is ... unlike in past instances

We didn't take any chances and didn't let our guard down. I was getting tired of hearing how are troops died, because we were too passive with civilians.

That's what I was trying to say. We took action against them, before they took action against us!!! That's what I'm trying to say.

Now do you understand???

In these situations were basically damned if we do damned if we don't. That's basically the sentiment I have for the whole war.

If we are aggressive and kill civilians, the Arabs will hate us.
If we are passive and civilians kill soldiers, Americans will cry foul because we didn't do anything to prevent it.

What would you rather do?

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 07:06 PM

I don't often turn to insults in the place of argument, but you really are a moron.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 07:18 PM

So you justify letting vans pass through checkpoints unchecked? What would your attitude have been if that van went on through, unchecked, than blew up unleashing chemcial, biologcial, radiological material on troops or even just blew up maming hundreds?

Are you willing to risk lives like that? Because if so, that's really scary.

Can I ask where you work? Or what line of business your in? If it's a business that requires security, I want to inform your boss of your attitude toward a secure environment.

Do a Google search on Ayat Al-Akhras. Innocent civilian or terrorist? She looks like a beautiful young Arab woman, until you read the story.

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 07:27 PM

Skippy skippy skippy. Find where anyone in this thread questioned the actions of the soldiers. Show it to me.

No one is questioning that. My question to you is why you are excited and happy to see these people killed.

GrantDawg

03-31-2003, 07:32 PM

Kirby Puckett

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 07:33 PM

Let me rephrase...

After the fact, based on what I know up to now, I'm not happy to see these people killed.

However, I'm happy though that the U.S. didn't take a chance and finally took action against a "potential" threat. They didn't do this over the weekend and four American soldiers were killed.

I was getting the impression though that people think we shouldn't have fired shots.

Of course, had these women had guns or a bomb in the van, I don't think anyone would be saddened by the deaths.

The fact that the driver was a woman and the van was full of women was suspicious and that's one reason they wanted to stop the van to check it out.

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Kirby Puckett

Hey, don't sully the good name of this thread

Craptacular

03-31-2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by astralhaze
No need to minimize it by defending coalition forces who are not being attacked.

Astralhaze, as JeeberD can attest, I think that last statement hinted that you thought they were wrong, regardless of your disclaimer. At least that's the way I read it. Multiply that by the fact that John Galt started this thread, and you can see how some "pro-war", "anti-Saddam", whatever we're supposed to call them (and I'm part of that crowd) would assume people are blaming the military. Carry on.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Craptacular
Astralhaze, as JeeberD can attest, I think that last statement hinted that you thought they were wrong, regardless of your disclaimer. At least that's the way I read it. Multiply that by the fact that John Galt started this thread, and you can see how some "pro-war", "anti-Saddam", whatever we're supposed to call them (and I'm part of that crowd) would assume people are blaming the military. Carry on.

What he said!!!

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac

And I am truly sickened by those who say at least it wasn't coalition forces who died. Personally, I don't want them to die either, but they made a conscious choice to put themselves in harms way.

So I guess they're supposed to get run over, blown up or killed. There job is to keep the area secure, they did everything within their power to do so, and finally had to fire on the vehicle.

They were ordered to go to Iraq, their job is to protect us. Like I said, better the Iraqis than the coalition forces UNLESS the coalition forces are committing war atrocities.

You can go puke now.

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Qwikshot
So I guess they're supposed to get run over, blown up or killed. There job is to keep the area secure, they did everything within their power to do so, and finally had to fire on the vehicle.

They were ordered to go to Iraq, their job is to protect us. Like I said, better the Iraqis than the coalition forces UNLESS the coalition forces are committing war atrocities.

You can go puke now.

Isn't killing civilians considered a war atrocity?

AgPete

03-31-2003, 08:15 PM

The civilian deaths are tragic but I'd just like to offer a prayer for our troops that have to deal with this. It's funny because this news reminds me of my mother. My step-father was a Navy Seal in Vietnam and to this day, is still dealing with a lot of issues from his wartime experiences. When I asked my mother about her opinion on the Iraqi war, being involved with her husband's issues and vet wives groups, her first comment was how worried she was for all the soldiers this war was going to screw up. You don't have to lose an arm or leg to have your life ruined by war. I think the memories of searching a van full of dead women and children just shot by you who may have just been too scared to stop will stick with someone for a long time. It's sad that this had to happen but there are going to be a lot more incidents like it by the time this war is over if Hussein is determined to fight with guerilla tactics and suicide bombers. It's sad how nobody really wins in a war, especially against a sicko like Hussein. :( If the rumors are true that our military didn't fully anticipate the guerilla warfare campaign by Hussein, having the Brits and their experience with Northern Ireland will probably be a great benefit.

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 08:17 PM

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Isn't killing civilians considered a war atrocity?

Not when they are refusing to comply with an order e.g. slowing down a vehicle at a checkpoint, ignoring warning shots...

GoldenEagle

03-31-2003, 08:17 PM

Dean Houston.

Tarkus

03-31-2003, 08:18 PM

Not to pour fuel on the fire but an embedded Washington post reporter claims more civilians were killed and that the troops never fired warning shots. They were ordered but the order got there too late. That ought to make this discussion more interesting.

Tarkus

ice4277

03-31-2003, 08:21 PM

I think one thing that everybody has to realize is that, in a war, mistakes are going to happen. So, even if they didn't fire any warning shots, and its unfortunate that the civilians were killed, I wouldn't read any strong malice on the part of the U.S. troops into it. Negligence, perhaps, but not any undue malice.

Subby

03-31-2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by mrskippy
All I gotta say is ... it's about damned time!!!

I have no sympathy for these civilian casualties ... they didn't stop and failed to respond to multiple warning shots.

Everyone is playing up that it was women and children. Last I remember some of the Palestinian suicide bombers have been both women and children (17 year old girl for one).

In Vietnam both women and children had guns. Our naive American troops ignored them, got shot and my dad had to treat the foolishly wounded.

Just because they are women and children ... doesn't make them innocent. It makes them the perfect ones to perform the suicide missions. I was looking for bits and pieces of this to quote, but the whole thing is such a stunning monument to dumbfuckery that I decided to keep it whole for posterity.

For someone who never misses an opportunity to espouse their commitment to the Christian faith, your quote is probably one of the more soulless pieces of crapola I have seen in a long time.

And all that backpeddling after the initial quote? Weak, weak, weak.

P.S. God told me that if there actually WAS a Hell you would be second in the Express line behind Jerry Falwell...

NoMyths

03-31-2003, 09:51 PM

Mr. Skippy, if you're going to church this weekend, please take along a copy of your post. Show it to the priest/minister/pastor/rabbi/whatever and ask him what you need to do to repent for the thoughts that engendered it and for the guidance to remove that kind of darkness from your soul.

You're talking like the kind of person America is trying to save the world from, not for. I'm the kind of person who believes there should be good in anyone. Please, man -- you're not thinking right here.

Fritz

03-31-2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Subby
P.S. God told me that if there actually WAS a Hell you would be second in the Express line behind Jerry Falwell...

God also told you to stuff an Almond Joy in your ear, smother your chest in vapor rub and cloves, and walk around in a grass skirt and bunny slippers.

Medication my friend, you must take your pills.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 10:23 PM

I'll repeat myself:

I am saddened that these people, who turned out to be innocent civilians had to die.

But, we had no idea they were innocent civilians. Their actions were suspicious. One commander said not only was their not stopping a bad thing, but it also was odd that a woman would be driving a van like this in the middle of Iraq.

My "about time" remark had to deal with the fact that until now we've been fairly lenient with civilian vehicles and phony surrenders. Most of our combat deaths have been the result of heinous acts by Iraq.

There are stories moving on the wires now that basically say the US is making a policy shift and taking a more aggressive stance. And that is the action I support.

Again I support a more firm, aggressive action against possible threats, rather than a more passive, just wait and see what happens approach. I don't see any wrong in that whatsoever.

Innocent civilians will die. That's just a tragic consequence of war.

Remember now, if the cards were turned, do you think Iraq would treat "innocent" people in your town with dignity. Probably not.

We're doing pretty well, given the circumstances.

Let me try and put a more domestic perspective on it:

Your a cop. You and your squad have just been called to a bank robbery. When you arrive the suspect is fleaing the scene with what appears to be a gun.

You tell the suspect to drop the weapon. He refuses repeatedly, before finally making an turn towards you ...

Do you?

A- Wait to see what he does, hoping that he is merely surrendering.

B- Shoot the suspect, hoping to remove the treat.

The book says B. Most police department policies say B. And most officers would say B.

You find the gun was a toy or perhaps wasn't even loaded. But you can't take that risk. It's called justifable homicide. Yes, you will be sued for wrongful death. That's how all these cases work.

This is quite the similar situation. The American troops were removing a perceived threat ahead of time.

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by mrskippy
I'll repeat myself:

I am saddened that these people, who turned out to be innocent civilians had to die.

But, we had no idea they were innocent civilians. Their actions were suspicious. One commander said not only was their not stopping a bad thing, but it also was odd that a woman would be driving a van like this in the middle of Iraq.

My "about time" remark had to deal with the fact that until now we've been fairly lenient with civilian vehicles and phony surrenders. Most of our combat deaths have been the result of heinous acts by Iraq.

There are stories moving on the wires now that basically say the US is making a policy shift and taking a more aggressive stance. And that is the action I support.

Again I support a more firm, aggressive action against possible threats, rather than a more passive, just wait and see what happens approach. I don't see any wrong in that whatsoever.

Innocent civilians will die. That's just a tragic consequence of war.

Remember now, if the cards were turned, do you think Iraq would treat "innocent" people in your town with dignity. Probably not.

We're doing pretty well, given the circumstances.

I also don't think Iraq is going to invade the US and bomb the hell out our surroundings. We don't know what we'd do if foreign soldiers came into America and started fighting.

Let me try and put a more domestic perspective on it:

Your a cop. You and your squad have just been called to a bank robbery. When you arrive the suspect is fleaing the scene with what appears to be a gun.

You tell the suspect to drop the weapon. He refuses repeatedly, before finally making an turn towards you ...

Do you?

A- Wait to see what he does, hoping that he is merely surrendering.

B- Shoot the suspect, hoping to remove the treat.

The book says B. Most police department policies say B. And most officers would say B.

You find the gun was a toy or perhaps wasn't even loaded. But you can't take that risk. It's called justifable homicide. Yes, you will be sued for wrongful death. That's how all these cases work.

This is quite the similar situation. The American troops were removing a perceived threat ahead of time.

You're assuming the person in question had a weapon to use. There is no sign of a weapon on the civilians in the van. You shoot an innocent person w/o seeing or finding a weapon, you'll be in a shitload of trouble. Poor analogy, and assumes things that were not part of the van shooting (i.e. a weapon)

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 10:45 PM

I wonder what you guys would have said had that van went through, blown up and killed a few hundred soliders. There was no way to know what was in that van. And if you read the Commanders comments, there was some suspicion about it.

It should be noted the Coalition already has warned the Iraqi civilians that they could be subject to search and that they must cooperate with the Coalition.

The US merely wanted this van to stop, its contents searched, and the people allowed to move on if all is well. The driver failed to cooperate and SADLY paid the price.

It also should be noted that these civilians should assume the risk of driving through a war zone. I'm pretty sure the US urged innocent civilians to stay home, stay indoors, unless there was an immediate threat to their own home.

Some say because it was women and children, they should have let the van through. Well, ask any Vietnam Veteran. Most will tell you about children who were snipers in that war and how many fell victim to their tactics. And just ask the Israelis, who've now fallen victim to female terrorists.

Skippy

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I also don't think Iraq is going to invade the US and bomb the hell out our surroundings. We don't know what we'd do if foreign soldiers came into America and started fighting.

You're assuming the person in question had a weapon to use. There is no sign of a weapon on the civilians in the van. You shoot an innocent person w/o seeing or finding a weapon, you'll be in a shitload of trouble. Poor analogy, and assumes things that were not part of the van shooting (i.e. a weapon)

I'm going to play devil's advocate because I in no way endorse Skip's postings.

You don't think that Iraq is going to invade us, but what about fund those that will, who will conduct terrorist attacks on us. You can moan all you want about U.S. involvement, but really it is Baghdad or bust now...if we pull out now it is seen as a sign of weakness and in no way will stop the hatred towards us, Hussein will gather support and will harbor terrorists and the U.S. will have a hard time motivating or conducting another attack. Even when we left Kuwait after Gulf War One, did it stop Bin Laden from planning his attacks...and that war was generally accepted by most Islamics.

We are in a quagmire when it comes to Islamic views regardless of our actions, as long as we support Israel. And until the Israeli/Palestinian issue is resolved, U.S. will always look bad regardless of who is in the White House.

Secondly, the analogy was bad. I'm not going to use an analogy, point blank, the soldiers did what they had to do. Working in a hostile area, words of suicide bombers attacking coalition soldiers, a car bombing killing four of your comrades, a van comes at you and refuses to stop, I'm unloading the clip.

JeeberD

03-31-2003, 10:52 PM

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 11:00 PM

BTW ... You can substitute ANY country for Iraq in terms of invading the US. No country will be as nice to innocent civilians. And I'm sure many of those innocent civilians won't be as friendly. I know for sure if enemy forces were in my neighborhood, I'd be ready to put up a good fight. :D

I think Qwikshot and JeeberD had it right, the soldiers did what they had to do. These checkpoints are designed to protect a greater number of soldiers beyond, to protect supply lines, and innocent people in the given cities.

We must realize that Saddam isn't fighting a normal war. And what's to say Saddam wouldn't send a van load of woman in a van filled with explosives or unconventional weapons?

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Qwikshot
I'm going to play devil's advocate because I in no way endorse Skip's postings.

You don't think that Iraq is going to invade us, but what about fund those that will, who will conduct terrorist attacks on us. You can moan all you want about U.S. involvement, but really it is Baghdad or bust now...if we pull out now it is seen as a sign of weakness and in no way will stop the hatred towards us, Hussein will gather support and will harbor terrorists and the U.S. will have a hard time motivating or conducting another attack. Even when we left Kuwait after Gulf War One, did it stop Bin Laden from planning his attacks...and that war was generally accepted by most Islamics.

I'm more worried about Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine... Those countries have been proven to support as much if not more terrorism than Iraq, but we didn't attack them. And there are more tangible links link some of them to 9/11 than there is to link Iraq to it.

Secondly, the analogy was bad. I'm not going to use an analogy, point blank, the soldiers did what they had to do. Working in a hostile area, words of suicide bombers attacking coalition soldiers, a car bombing killing four of your comrades, a van comes at you and refuses to stop, I'm unloading the clip.

I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy of Skippy's analogy. I said prior in another post that if I was in their shoes I probably would have reacted similar. And there doesnt seem to be any real tangible reporting about this incident for anyone to make any conclusion about how the events transpired (all I've seen are crappy wire reports saying it happened, and 3rd or 4th hand info about it). The only people who know the exact sequence of events are the soldiers and the dead. Any specualtion on the events is useless (as someone said earlier, a reporter there said no warning shots were fired)

Radii

03-31-2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac
You're assuming the person in question had a weapon to use. There is no sign of a weapon on the civilians in the van. You shoot an innocent person w/o seeing or finding a weapon, you'll be in a shitload of trouble. Poor analogy, and assumes things that were not part of the van shooting (i.e. a weapon) [/B]

The van is the weapon. I know what you mean, but really other than a poor choice of words given the situation I don't have a problem with what mrskippy said, and I'm one of the more fervant(though perhaps less vocal) anti-war people in the crowd.

I don't mean to single out easy mac by any stretch here that was just the first place to pull the quote.

The media barrage on this war is just killing us. We hear half reports daily, we hear about chemical weapons plants that may or may not exist even still after we've found them. Stories just disappear. Do we know if this van was indeed a suicide bombing thing or just some sort of horrible misunderstanding?

We read the story and think "women and children died, that is sad :(" Even so it doesn't make what the soldiers did wrong, just unfortunate. And if it turns out that it was a suicide bombing mission, many people will say it's not even unfortunate anymore.

So I'm not sure I understand the rabid way we're jumping on someone for making a comment that maybe could have been worded better.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 11:05 PM

Here is a story from the MSNBC Web site that basically said the US troops are being told to use tougher tactics:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/893662.asp?0cv=CA01

Most AP reports are sourcing Centcom and field commanders. Only the Washington Post has a different report from its embed.

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by mrskippy
We must realize that Saddam isn't fighting a normal war. And what's to say Saddam wouldn't send a van load of woman in a van filled with explosives or unconventional weapons?

And who's to say American soldiers wouldn't fire indiscriminantly on civilians and children. We've never done that in any war.:confused:

Craptacular

03-31-2003, 11:06 PM

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 11:10 PM

And who's to say American soldiers wouldn't fire indiscriminantly on civilians and children. We've never done that in any war.

And we've paid the price for it. In previous wars troops have been sniped by women and children. In fact, I think there was a scene of a woman with a gun like this in "Black Hawk Down" and that was said to be accurate. In Vietnam there were children with guns who shot Americans.

Read the MSNBC (actually it's a Washington Post story) and you'll learn that many of the new tactics were from lessons learned in previous wars.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 11:12 PM

A speeding van is a weapon. Police have justifiably shot people who have driven their vehicles at them with an apparent intent to harm.

And when someone purposely runs over a cop or innocent civilian with that vehicle and that person still survives ... it's charged as "assault with a deadly weapon." I actually covered a case like this before.

A vehicle can legally be considered a weapon.

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac
And who's to say American soldiers wouldn't fire indiscriminantly on civilians and children. We've never done that in any war.:confused:

Tell me of any event that happened in Gulf War One or Kosovo, that invovled a group of soldiers committing atrocities that were part of the coalition?

It's okay if you don't like the war, but have a little faith in the troops man.

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Craptacular
A speeding van is a weapon. Police have justifiably shot people who have driven their vehicles at them with an apparent intent to harm.

Here is an update to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82742,00.html

No where does it say a speeding vehicle. For all we know it could have been going 10 miles an hour. All I'm saying is, people seem very quick to fault the Iraqi civilians who died, while giving everyone else a free pass. As I said, its not the military's fault, but people here are blaming the Iraqi's b/c it looks like they were trying to get the fuck out of dodge, and freaked when they saw some kind of checkpoint (my specualtion)

I'll admit I know very little about military weaponry, but couldn't they have tried to take out the front tires? I mean they already went for the radiator and hit it in a shot, surely they could have unloaded just as many rounds at the tires instead of at the people.

Daimyo

03-31-2003, 11:15 PM

We're gonna liberate those damn Iraqi's even if we have to kill every last one of them to do it!

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 11:16 PM

For Qwikshot

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey has admitted that a Navy
SEAL combat mission that he led during the Vietnam War and for which he
was awarded the Bronze Star was responsible for the shooting deaths of
more than 20 unarmed civilians, mostly women and children. The incident,
in a hamlet in the Mekong Delta, came to light on Wednesday as a result of
a joint investigation by The New York Times Magazine and CBS News' ``60
Minutes II'' and was confirmed by Kerrey himself in a speech and in
newspaper and television interviews. ``I went out on a mission, and after
it was over, I was so ashamed I wanted to die,'' Kerrey, who is seen as a
potential Democratic candidate for president in 2004 and who ran
unsuccessfully for the office in 1992, told The Wall Street Journal on
Tuesday. ``This is killing me. I'm tired of people describing me as a
hero and holding this inside,'' he said. In an interview on ``60 Minutes
II'' set to air next Tuesday, Kerrey, 52, said that ``to describe it as an
atrocity, I would say, is pretty close to being right, because that's how
it felt, and that's why I feel guilt and shame for it.'' Former Senator,
Governor The former Nebraska governor and two-term senator told CBS that
the men in the squadron did not know they were killing unarmed civilians.
But a surviving Vietnamese witness and a former squad member both
contradicted that statement, with the ex-soldier telling CBS ``we herded
them all together in a group'' and ``lined them up and opened fire'' from
very close range. To CBS, Kerrey seemed reluctant to dispute the
allegations of Gerhard Klann, one of the seven SEALs in his unit in Thang
Phong, where the killings took place in February 1969. Kerrey told ``60
Minutes II'': ``Gerhard I will not contradict. ... If that's his view, I
don't contradict it. It's not my memory of it.'' But the Journal quoted
Kerrey as saying: ``It did not happen that way. ... There are seven guys
with seven different versions.'' And he told NBC News on Wednesday that
Klann's recollection that the unit fired on civilians at close range was
``not true.'' ''We were fired upon, and we returned fire. ... I would
remember if we pulled these people ... into a group and killed them at
point-blank range, and that did not happen.'' Reminded on CNN's ``Wolf
Blitzer Reports'' that Klann said ''you and the rest of the squad knew
that you were killing civilians,'' Kerrey replied, ``That isn't true.''
Occurred In Free-Fire Zone ``I organized the mission,'' he went on. ``...
It was a free-fire zone. ... There were enemy operating in the area. And
even though there were civilian casualties, I have every reason to believe
they were at the very least sympathetic to the Viet Cong and at the very
worst participating in lethal force against the Americans.'' According to
a speech Kerrey gave to ROTC students in Lexington, Virginia, last week,
his squad entered Viet Cong territory on a moonless night and was fired
on. After returning fire, ``we found that we had killed only women,
children and older men.'' Klann said, however, that the SEALs
intentionally killed the civilians because they did not think they could
get away from the village safely and did so on Kerrey's orders. The
witness interviewed by CBS, Pham Tri Lanh, said that two elderly women who
were kneeling were shot and ``fell forward and they rolled over, and then
they ordered everybody out from the bunker, and they lined them up and
they shot all of them from behind.'' Of her account, Kerrey told CBS:
``The eyewitness is, at the very least, sympathetic to the Viet Cong. At
the absolute very least.'' Extended Account In his CNN interview, Kerrey
recalled: ``We had reason to believe that there was going to be a
district-level meeting of Viet Cong in this particular village. I had done
a flyover the area in a fixed-wing aircraft to make sure there weren't
civilians in the area. The district chief we were working with told us
that anybody in there, as a result of being a free-fire zone, was the
enemy. ``We expected it to be a very difficult mission, and we met some
people that we believed were the outpost, and we killed them and went on
and took fire where we expected this meeting to occur, and we returned
very lethal fire, and when the firing was over, all we had was women and
children that were dead. We didn't have any physical evidence of the enemy
having been there.'' After the killings, the squad's commander reported
that the unit had killed 21 Viet Cong, and Kerrey was awarded the Bronze
Star. Kerrey, now teaching at New York's New School for Social Research,
said he was prepared for any consequences of his admission. ``To describe
it as a war crime, I think, is wrong,'' he told CBS. ``I understand that
there are all kinds of potential consequences, up to and including
somebody saying, 'This is a war crime, and let's investigate and charge
him and put him in prison,''' he said

The story is corroborated by other men in his group, and they actually say the women and children were rounded up and killed so they wouldn't run away.

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Here is an update to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82742,00.html

No where does it say a speeding vehicle. For all we know it could have been going 10 miles an hour. All I'm saying is, people seem very quick to fault the Iraqi civilians who died, while giving everyone else a free pass. As I said, its not the military's fault, but people here are blaming the Iraqi's b/c it looks like they were trying to get the fuck out of dodge, and freaked when they saw some kind of checkpoint (my specualtion)

I'll admit I know very little about military weaponry, but couldn't they have tried to take out the front tires? I mean they already went for the radiator and hit it in a shot, surely they could have unloaded just as many rounds at the tires instead of at the people.

Let's say they shoot out the tires, and when it rolls over and spits the kids out killing them, will it be any more justified?
Let's say they shoot the tires and it still comes at them, then what?
Let's say they shoot the tires but bullets hit the gas tank causing it to explode.

Lots of hypotheticals, and I wouldn't give the Iraqis a free ride after the first suicide bombing, when irregulars are using children and women as shields, when women are armed and ready to fight, when you cannot trust anyone even the secured cities, I'll take no chances.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 11:19 PM

I'll admit I know very little about military weaponry, but couldn't they have tried to take out the front tires? I mean they already went for the radiator and hit it in a shot, surely they could have unloaded just as many rounds at the tires instead of at the people.

They shoot at the engine to disable the vehicle. Shooting at tires would certainly disable the vehicle, but also cause it to go out of control. And an out of control vehicle, especially if it was a 4WD as described, ususally isn't a pretty site.

Craptacular

03-31-2003, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac

No where does it say a speeding vehicle. For all we know it could have been going 10 miles an hour.

Fair enough, I could have just said "a vehicle can be used as a weapon". My point was that just because there were no apparent signs of guns or "traditional" weapons doesn't mean the vehicle was not a weapon. Your criticism of his analogy said that there was no weapon. As shown by countless police cases, a vehicle driven with apparent intent to harm justifies a similar use of force as if the suspect drew a gun.

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac
For Qwikshot

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey has admitted that a Navy
SEAL combat mission that he led during the Vietnam War and for which he
was awarded the Bronze Star was responsible for the shooting deaths of
more than 20 unarmed civilians, mostly women and children. The incident,
in a hamlet in the Mekong Delta, came to light on Wednesday as a result of
a joint investigation by The New York Times Magazine and CBS News' ``60
Minutes II'' and was confirmed by Kerrey himself in a speech and in
newspaper and television interviews. ``I went out on a mission, and after
it was over, I was so ashamed I wanted to die,'' Kerrey, who is seen as a
potential Democratic candidate for president in 2004 and who ran
unsuccessfully for the office in 1992, told The Wall Street Journal on
Tuesday. ``This is killing me. I'm tired of people describing me as a
hero and holding this inside,'' he said. In an interview on ``60 Minutes
II'' set to air next Tuesday, Kerrey, 52, said that ``to describe it as an
atrocity, I would say, is pretty close to being right, because that's how
it felt, and that's why I feel guilt and shame for it.'' Former Senator,
Governor The former Nebraska governor and two-term senator told CBS that
the men in the squadron did not know they were killing unarmed civilians.
But a surviving Vietnamese witness and a former squad member both
contradicted that statement, with the ex-soldier telling CBS ``we herded
them all together in a group'' and ``lined them up and opened fire'' from
very close range. To CBS, Kerrey seemed reluctant to dispute the
allegations of Gerhard Klann, one of the seven SEALs in his unit in Thang
Phong, where the killings took place in February 1969. Kerrey told ``60
Minutes II'': ``Gerhard I will not contradict. ... If that's his view, I
don't contradict it. It's not my memory of it.'' But the Journal quoted
Kerrey as saying: ``It did not happen that way. ... There are seven guys
with seven different versions.'' And he told NBC News on Wednesday that
Klann's recollection that the unit fired on civilians at close range was
``not true.'' ''We were fired upon, and we returned fire. ... I would
remember if we pulled these people ... into a group and killed them at
point-blank range, and that did not happen.'' Reminded on CNN's ``Wolf
Blitzer Reports'' that Klann said ''you and the rest of the squad knew
that you were killing civilians,'' Kerrey replied, ``That isn't true.''
Occurred In Free-Fire Zone ``I organized the mission,'' he went on. ``...
It was a free-fire zone. ... There were enemy operating in the area. And
even though there were civilian casualties, I have every reason to believe
they were at the very least sympathetic to the Viet Cong and at the very
worst participating in lethal force against the Americans.'' According to
a speech Kerrey gave to ROTC students in Lexington, Virginia, last week,
his squad entered Viet Cong territory on a moonless night and was fired
on. After returning fire, ``we found that we had killed only women,
children and older men.'' Klann said, however, that the SEALs
intentionally killed the civilians because they did not think they could
get away from the village safely and did so on Kerrey's orders. The
witness interviewed by CBS, Pham Tri Lanh, said that two elderly women who
were kneeling were shot and ``fell forward and they rolled over, and then
they ordered everybody out from the bunker, and they lined them up and
they shot all of them from behind.'' Of her account, Kerrey told CBS:
``The eyewitness is, at the very least, sympathetic to the Viet Cong. At
the absolute very least.'' Extended Account In his CNN interview, Kerrey
recalled: ``We had reason to believe that there was going to be a
district-level meeting of Viet Cong in this particular village. I had done
a flyover the area in a fixed-wing aircraft to make sure there weren't
civilians in the area. The district chief we were working with told us
that anybody in there, as a result of being a free-fire zone, was the
enemy. ``We expected it to be a very difficult mission, and we met some
people that we believed were the outpost, and we killed them and went on
and took fire where we expected this meeting to occur, and we returned
very lethal fire, and when the firing was over, all we had was women and
children that were dead. We didn't have any physical evidence of the enemy
having been there.'' After the killings, the squad's commander reported
that the unit had killed 21 Viet Cong, and Kerrey was awarded the Bronze
Star. Kerrey, now teaching at New York's New School for Social Research,
said he was prepared for any consequences of his admission. ``To describe
it as a war crime, I think, is wrong,'' he told CBS. ``I understand that
there are all kinds of potential consequences, up to and including
somebody saying, 'This is a war crime, and let's investigate and charge
him and put him in prison,''' he said

The story is corroborated by other men in his group, and they actually say the women and children were rounded up and killed so they wouldn't run away.

And as I stated in my question did any atrocities occur in Gulf War One or Kosovo with a group of coalition forces. We know about the Kerry incident, the My Lai massacre, even the one in Korea...it was a whole different type of warfare then, but no excuse for the actions...recall the Battaan Death March, even the movement of Asians to camps in the U.S.

But the recent wars I have yet to hear of atrocities from groups of coalition forces...they're handling everything with kid gloves.

AgPete

03-31-2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by JeeberD
I'm probably going to get a lot of shit for siding with skippy here, but soldiers were killed earlier in the week in a similair situation. The people in the van were given warnings to stop, they didn't, and the soldiers had to follow orders and protect themselves by firing on the van. It's an unfortunate situation, but the soldiers had to do it for their own protection...

And that's all that really needs to be said. :) It's a shame innocent women and children were killed. It's a shame our soldier have to scar themselves by doing this. It's war. It's going to happen, especially against Iraq which has decided to pursue a guerilla warfare campaign. :(

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 11:28 PM

Incidents like the one Easy Mac posted above were quite frequent during the Vietnam war. There actually is a sort of twisted logic to that. The "enemy" we were "defending" South Vietnam from was the vast majority of the South Vietnamese population, contrary to the common propaganda about North Vietnamese or Chinese communist insurgency. Following that, I guess it made sense to kill them to defend them from themselves.

This situation is quite different, obviously. I don't know why we couldn't have just said that is awful and moved on instead of turning this in to a non-debate debate. What are we arguing here? No one is advocating killing civilians intentionaly, except mrskippy (not necesarily in this thread, but many many times previously), and no one is arguing that the soldiers killed them for no reason.

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 11:29 PM

To Qwikshot (I need to type faster)

I said any war, you tried to limit my statement in order to win an argument. Just because it happened 30 years ago doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Oh, and no animosity towards you man, if you're feeling any.

Craptacular

03-31-2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by astralhaze
I don't know why we couldn't have just said that is awful and moved on ...

Just look at who started the thread and some of the early posters ... like it or not, this thread was ripe for debate!

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by astralhaze
No one is advocating killing civilians intentionaly, except mrskippy (not necesarily in this thread, but many many times previously), and no one is arguing that the soldiers killed them for no reason.

Uh, I'm not advocating killing civilians purposely. Only if the civilians pose a possible threat. Remember now, given the situation, civilians may very well be paramilitary.

Also, my advocating of bombing civilian areas in Baghdad has to do with the fact that there are anti-aircraft, missile, radar, tanks, Republican Guard, and Saddam's bunkers potentially in those areas.

I even heard the report of a bunker under Al Rashid, but the US won't hit that because of potential civilian deaths. They won't take out the Information Ministry completely, because of a hospital (and it may not be a hospital, given that a few hospitals have already been used for other purposes).

Rather than take out the IM at once, they just strike it and take out Iraqi TV for a few hours.

I still believe Saddam is hunkered down in a civilian area. Again ...

I only advocate bombing those areas IF (AND ONLY IF) there are potential military targets there.

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac
To Qwikshot (I need to type faster)

I said any war, you tried to limit my statement in order to win an argument. Just because it happened 30 years ago doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Oh, and no animosity towards you man, if you're feeling any.

No animosity whatsoever, I keep it limited because yes I would win because training is different and the reason for the war is different. The atrocities done in Vietnam (on both sides) were hardly acceptable practices but they are of the past. I've read about soldiers involved in gang rape (Okinawa), but nothing during wartime.

I believe that the coalition soldier has been briefed to use their training to the utmost extent. This is not the same type of war Kerry fought, because the U.S. did not know how to deal with the tactics...

As side note, I recall on the history channel about a commando team entering into hostile territory in Kuwait, and they were noticed by some women and children, but the commander decided to eliminate them would be wrong. Proof positive that training has differed and that civilians are considered as human beings rather than threats. They completed their objective.

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 11:38 PM

I'm sorry skippy, but giving the population of Baghdad 24 hours to leave or we bomb them to hell is intentionaly killing civilians.

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 11:40 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.van.shooting/index.html

This link is from CNN. It states they did fire warning shots.

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 11:42 PM

I agree our soldiers are superbly trained, and I don't think they'd ever intentionally harm civilians. I agree they probably did everything they could not to kill anyone in the van.

That being said, lets see what happens if the war drags for a few months, with city fighting starting, and guys having little sleep. Under those conditions, I can see people snapping, and barely being able to tell up from down. I can barely tell whats going on at school each day, and these guys are my age and will get less sleep, and have to deal with a war that I wouldn't even wish on my worst enemy. Not saying people snapping will happen, but war is probably going to make a lot of crazy shit happen (see the guy throwing grenades on his own troops, from what I've read, it seems he snapped).

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by astralhaze
I'm sorry skippy, but giving the population of Baghdad 24 hours to leave or we bomb them to hell is intentionaly killing civilians.

OK OK ... but at least you're warning these people!!! You're at least letting them know of your intentions and that they are not the target. Right?

And what about my above? Isn't taking out Iraqi TV worth it, even if it means damaging a "supposed" hospital (again I use supposed, since at least two hospitals have been used for military purposes)?

Isn't taking Al Rashid out worth it? If Saddam may be hiding in that bunker under there.

What do you do if Saddam's bunker is under an Baghdad residential neighborhood?

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 11:45 PM

Well, since I am opposed to the war I am the wrong person to ask.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 11:46 PM

(see the guy throwing grenades on his own troops, from what I've read, it seems he snapped).

It's also reported he yelled out pro-Arab/pro-Muslim sentiments and said they were invading his people's land. I don't think he snapped in the purpose you think he did.

This war already has entered the streets of Nasariyah, Najaf, Basrah, and Umm Qasr.

This war eventually will enter the streets of Baghdad and that's where the scary shit is bound to begin.

Easy Mac

03-31-2003, 11:47 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61229-2003Mar31.html

This seems pretty detailed, and says they did fire warning shots, it was just too late. Probably wouldn't have made a difference either way, just something to look at.

mrskippy

03-31-2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by astralhaze
Well, since I am opposed to the war I am the wrong person to ask.

You're opposed to the war? OK. But are you opposed to Saddam Hussein? Or do you think he should live? And if you think he's a nuisance, what should we do about him?

If you don't think Saddam is a threat, you're a foolish, foolish person.

JeeberD

03-31-2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by AgPete
And that's all that really needs to be said. :) It's a shame innocent women and children were killed. It's a shame our soldier have to scar themselves by doing this. It's war. It's going to happen, especially against Iraq which has decided to pursue a guerilla warfare campaign. :(

Wow, somebody finally sees my infinite wisdom... ;)

astralhaze

03-31-2003, 11:57 PM

LOL

Am I opposed to Saddam Hussein? No, I want to invite him over for tea and a few games of backgamon. Of course I'm opposed to him.

Do I think he should live? I don't think that is for me to decide. I wouldn't shed any tears if he were to die, that's for sure.

What should we do about him? That's not the question to ask. The question is why do we have the right to determine what should be done with Saddam Hussein. Remember, this is the same guy Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush, etc al were allied with and arming back in the 80's, right up until the minute Iraq invaded Kuwait (there is some evidence, I don't know if I believe it or not, that he thought he had the go ahead from the U.S. to invade Kuwait). Now he is a great satan we need to kill? I think we should stay the fuck out of these situations to start with.

I guess I am a foolish, foolish person because I don't think he is a threat to America. Is he a threat to his neighbors? Possibly, although I doubt if we left him in charge he would have tried any other Kuwait type expiditions since his military is on it's last legs, his people are starving, and he knows he would be blown to hell if he did. I will concede that potentialy he could be a threat, but so could North Korea, Iran, Libya, China, and, really, any country in the world....potentialy. Does that mean we should move on to those countries imediately after this war?

Qwikshot

03-31-2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I agree our soldiers are superbly trained, and I don't think they'd ever intentionally harm civilians. I agree they probably did everything they could not to kill anyone in the van.

That being said, lets see what happens if the war drags for a few months, with city fighting starting, and guys having little sleep. Under those conditions, I can see people snapping, and barely being able to tell up from down. I can barely tell whats going on at school each day, and these guys are my age and will get less sleep, and have to deal with a war that I wouldn't even wish on my worst enemy. Not saying people snapping will happen, but war is probably going to make a lot of crazy shit happen (see the guy throwing grenades on his own troops, from what I've read, it seems he snapped).

That guy was an Islamic fundamentalist, I read in slate he was part of the hardcore Islamic religion. He murdered two soliders (one of whom my brother went to college with). He didn't snap, he willfully murdered for religion.

As for sleep deprivation yeah...but reinforcements are coming in. But so far I think the troops have been tip-top. Even in this instance.

Qwikshot

04-01-2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by astralhaze
LOL

Am I opposed to Saddam Hussein? No, I want to invite him over for tea and a few games of backgamon. Of course I'm opposed to him.

Do I think he should live? I don't think that is for me to decide. I wouldn't shed any tears if he were to die, that's for sure.

What should we do about him? That's not the question to ask. The question is why do we have the right to determine what should be done with Saddam Hussein. Remember, this is the same guy Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush, etc al were allied with and arming back in the 80's, right up until the minute Iraq invaded Kuwait (there is some evidence, I don't know if I believe it or not, that he thought he had the go ahead from the U.S. to invade Kuwait). Now he is a great satan we need to kill? I think we should stay the fuck out of these situations to start with.

I guess I am a foolish, foolish person because I don't think he is a threat to America. Is he a threat to his neighbors? Possibly, although I doubt if we left him in charge he would have tried any other Kuwait type expiditions since his military is on it's last legs, his people are starving, and he knows he would be blown to hell if he did. I will concede that potentialy he could be a threat, but so could North Korea, Iran, Libya, China, and, really, any country in the world....potentialy. Does that mean we should move on to those countries imediately after this war?

Isolationalism doesn't work Astral, the U.S. did it in WWI and WW2. It just does not work...

Siding with Iraq was due to Iran which was being funding by Russian, which was of course, because of the Cold War. Let's look at the big picture, the U.S. got its hands dirty because the Soviets were willing to get their hands dirty...Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Cold War in Europe was always about Democracy vs Communism. Once Communism up and died, there was no longer a reason to be nice or like the Americans, this is what is happening...

So I ask you, if someone is fighting you, do you not fight back? Pretty much what the U.S. did...of course you could've ignored it, but you would've seen a larger soviet bloc. Who knows what would've happened to the Middle East without the U.S. being involved.

That is why the U.S. is involved in things that were less than honorable, to always keep up with the Soviets.

[Qwikshot meant in first sentence that isolationism doesn't work]

astralhaze

04-01-2003, 12:11 AM

Who is advocating isolationism?

Your facts are incorect regarding the Iran-Iraq war btw. The Soviets AND the U.S. were funding Iraq. The Soviets, and later the United States as well, were funding Iran. Both of us were playing both sides, for different reasons.

I don't think any of those wars actually had anything to do with the Soviet Union, besides the obvious exception of Afghanistan, but that is an entirely different debate.

Edit: Korea obviously did have a lot to do with the Soviet Union, although I don't think it was that black and white.

Killebrew

04-01-2003, 12:19 AM

Someone probably put up this link already, but a reporter from the Washington Post was at the scene, that might mean this article has more accuracy than many of these links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61229-2003Mar31.html

The first few paragraphs:
NEAR KARBALA, Iraq, March 31 -- As an unidentified four-wheel drive vehicle came barreling toward an intersection held by troops of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, Capt. Ronny Johnson grew increasingly alarmed. From his position at the intersection, he was heard radioing to one of his forward platoons of M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles to alert it to what he described as a potential threat.

"Fire a warning shot," he ordered as the vehicle kept coming. Then, with increasing urgency, he told the platoon to shoot a 7.62mm machine-gun round into its radiator. "Stop [messing] around!" Johnson yelled into the company radio network when he still saw no action being taken. Finally, he shouted at the top of his voice, "Stop him, Red 1, stop him!"

That order was immediately followed by the loud reports of 25mm cannon fire from one or more of the platoon's Bradleys. About half a dozen shots were heard in all.

"Cease fire!" Johnson yelled over the radio. Then, as he peered into his binoculars from the intersection on Highway 9, he roared at the platoon leader, "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"

The article also includes this paragragh about the Pentagons statement (the brackets are part of the story) :
[In Washington, the Pentagon issued a statement saying the vehicle was fired on after the driver ignored shouted orders and warning shots. The shooting, it said, is under investigation. According to the Pentagon account, the vehicle was a van carrying 13 women and children. Seven were killed, two were injured and four were unharmed, it said, without mentioning any men.]

mrskippy

04-01-2003, 01:24 AM

Apparently one Iraqi man and another was injured in another part of Iraq in a similar incident. Embedded reporters are saying these incidents are fairly common. Some end amicably, while others have ended with shots fired.

So this certainly isn't an isolated incident and the policy is in place for dealing with them.

Siding with Iraq against Iran was the old our enemy is your enemy ideal. Discovery Times Channel (it's a new one on DirecTV 285) had a piece. Basically we made it possible for Iraq to be "westernized." We considered Iraq a friend because it was a secular, rather than Islamic state ... where woman had jobs, drove cars, wore Western fashions, etc. It essentially was similar to Iran under the Shah.

I believe we ended up supplying Iran later in the war. The war ended by a UN-imposed cease fire.

We had diplomatic relations with Iraq. But I don't think they were the closest of ties. I think it was a matter of the lesser of evils in the Arab world.

I think the other thing to remember is that Hussein likely betrayed the Americans. In fact I've heard it worded that way. Even when Israel betrayed America after it used US warplanes to attack the Iraqi nuke plant, it was reprimanded, but for obvious reasons relations remained strong.

When Hussein betrayed America though, that was it.

KWhit

04-01-2003, 08:37 AM

Qwikshot

04-01-2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by astralhaze
Who is advocating isolationism?

Your facts are incorect regarding the Iran-Iraq war btw. The Soviets AND the U.S. were funding Iraq. The Soviets, and later the United States as well, were funding Iran. Both of us were playing both sides, for different reasons.

I don't think any of those wars actually had anything to do with the Soviet Union, besides the obvious exception of Afghanistan, but that is an entirely different debate.

Edit: Korea obviously did have a lot to do with the Soviet Union, although I don't think it was that black and white.

If the Soviets were funding peoples in Iraq, then you know that the U.S. would. As for why in the middle east, that's obvious, to control the oil...if the Communists were there, the U.S. was there...same reason why the U.S. got their hands dirty in South America, where some communist parties began to take ground event though they were far less dangerous than Russia itself (in fact I think the CIA assassinated a Chilean president, and I believe the U.S. helped Pinochet).

Don't be so blind as to not see the reason for all the mistakes of the past, it was always the Cold War and one upping the Russians.

Korea was all about the Cold War...I don't recall what happened, not being there, but I believe it had something to do with U.S. policy, and the Communist felt that taking Korea was a safe thing to do.

ColtCrazy

04-01-2003, 09:08 AM

The driver might have done this on purpose, knowing we would open fire. He might have been setting those women and children up without them knowing it, hoping to make them martyrs for Saddam.

WSUCougar

04-01-2003, 09:16 AM

DEAD HORSE <--- beat this

Qwikshot

04-01-2003, 09:20 AM