What am I ignoring? What statistic shows that Iraqi citizens want us there?
I don't know if this will help since you apparently have difficulty reading, but ok, I'll quote it again:
When asked if Coalition forces should leave, about 35% of the population wanted immediate withdrawl, while about 66% of the population thought Coalitions should remain until various objectives were met, such as security restored, stronger government, independently operating Iraqi security forces, etc.
Who cares whose mess it is. If your next door neighbor dumps radioactive waste in his back yard, are you going to ignore it just because it's his mess? Or are you going to get it taken care of, before it has a chance to harm your family?
The stats you quoted, numbnuts. You talk about falsifiable hypothesis as if you give a damn, but your actions belie your pretenses. Let's look at your track record:
In your first comment you launched a strawman attack by arguing that the Geneva Conventions forbid shooting civilians, when the original argument was about what types of weapons may be used. In the same comment you also launched a (pathetic) ad-hominem attack by claiming that US foreign policy was wrong because of the character traits of a handful of soldiers.
In your second comment you made a ridiculous argument about "intel", which is based on your own little fantasies rather than on how information is actually gathered in combat. You again made an ad-hominem attack by suggesting that the US government is attempting to hide civilian casualty figures. You then followed that up with a second strawman argument by pulling some random views out of your ass and accusing me of holding them. To top it off, you misinterpreted your own statistics, which don't talk about refugees at all, plus, in the same sentence you again misrepresented your own source by claiming that the casualties were in the "hundreds of thousands" when only 1 out of the 6 cited sources actually supports that conclusion (and is clearly out to lunch). Moreover you completely ignored the fact that these surveys list estimated cases of "civilian deaths from violent causes", which encompasses civilians executed by militants, civilians blown up by suicide bombers and VBIED's, and civilians killed in sectarian fighting.
In your third comment, you lied about the events of the video, by claiming that the gunners didn't wait to see if "the armed men got out of the van" (which is irrelevant anyway, since the van wasn't a magical sanctuary). You lied when you stated that "they just opened fire" when, in fact, they waited and took the time to get permission from higher. And you tried to derail the discussion by bringing up completely irrelevant claims about the legality of the invasion.
And you dare to pretend that you care about "falsifiable hypothesis"? You have the same ideas about skepticism as the global-warming deniers and the 9/11 truthers. You wouldn't know real scientific skepticism if it bit you on the ass.
Watch the part where they're hovering over the wounded guy, and listen to the dialog. The gunner keeps saying things along the line of "pick up that weapon". He obviously knows that there's no justification for continuing to shoot. On the other hand, the moment that the "casualty" picks up a weapon, he again becomes a threat. Then go forward and listen to what they're saying while watching the van.
If they had reason to suspect that the people in the van were combatants coming to grab the weapons and the bodies, they had every right to open fire on them. Watching the video from the comfort of my home, I find it difficult to justify that conclusion. Knowing what it's like to be in a combat-mode, though, I can certainly understand their thought process. What I find completely baffling is how a bunch of civvies in a combat zone could have come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to evacuate people who were just lit-up by a gunship. I can understand the desire to help, but if they'd had a lick of common sense they would have tried to find the ground forces in the area instead. It's really sad.
We also don't need to be giving aid to Africa, or helping Haiti after an earthquake. It's got nothing to do with "need".
The problem with "vacating now" is that you're simply creating larger problems for your children to deal with, much as the previous generation did by abandoning Afghanistan in the 80's. I can see why that approach might be popular with Americans - considering your massive debt, it appears that you're rather fond of leaving a mess for future generations to deal with.
Try wikipedia, for one. The article is rather biased, but it does show the following:
"A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis found that 78% of the population opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, that 69% believed the presence of U.S. forces is making things worse, and that 51% of the population considered attacks on coalition forces acceptable, up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006. When asked if Coalition forces should leave, about 35% of the population wanted immediate withdrawl, while about 66% of the population thought Coalitions should remain until various objectives were met, such as security restored, stronger government, independently operating Iraqi security forces, etc."
The linked polls also show that 47% of Iraqis think that the Invasion was "somewhat right" or "absolutely right", which in itself is quite interesting. I'm not sure how Iraqis can oppose the presence of US forces while still wanting them to stay and also thinking that the invasion was justified, but there ya have it. Might have lost something in the translation.
Because the 30mm cannon on an Apache is classified as an indirect fire weapon.
No, that's wrong. Whether a weapon is direct fire or indirect fire doesn't hinge on the payload or the accuracy or any of that junk. Direct-fire weapons are ones which are line-of-sight, indirect-fire weapons are ones which are used to engage targets that don't need a direct line of sight. If the 30mm was capable of indirect fire, they wouldn't have had to wait to go around the building.
The line gets blurred sometimes because direct-fire weapons like machineguns are also capable of indirect fire, however, the weapon is generally classified by it's primary role. So a machinegun is a direct-fire weapon that can be used in the indirect role, while an artillery piece is an indirect-fire weapon that can be used in a direct role. And weapons like an Apache 30 mm cannon are just direct-fire, period.
I think maybe the term you were looking for is "area effect weapon", which a 30mm cannon certainly is.
Was more or less adding to your comments for those who don't already know.
They should have confirmed with intel before they opened fire.
What intel? You think they should have phoned up James Bond and gotten him to drop by for a chat with the guys? Or maybe they could have tapped out a command on their wrist watches to bring in a CIA satellite to read the brand name stamped on the sunglasses of the third guy from the left?
You've been watching too many Hollywood movies, buds. The guys in the chopper ARE the intel. Moreover, from what I understand, they were there in the first place because ground forces ASKED THEM to check out the situation. Intel isn't some magical thing that just happens when you need it - it's people looking at the situation and trying to make some educated guesses. A lot of the time they get it right, most of the time they get it partly right, and sometimes they get it disastrously wrong. Pretty much like any other human endeavor.
How you can possibly defend driving out 2.5 million people from their own country and killing hundreds of thousands more for oil resources is beyond me.
No, I TOTALLY agree with you. You know what's even worse? In the 7 years since the invasion of Iraq, more than 17 MILLION American civilians have died in their own nation! It's crazy I tell ya. Those US soldiers are completely out of control!
Listen, I know you mean well, but you're clearly a bumper-sticker thinker who hasn't bothered to put any real thought into the subject. That's fine - not everyone can be an expert - but please don't pretend to have a valid point to make when you're motivated by a blinkered ideology and clearly can't even understand the stats you're quoting.
Those were high explosive rounds. Think of them as 30mm hand grenades.
Yeah, as my username might suggest, I have more than a passing familiarity with military hardware. I'm not sure what your response has to do with what I said.
I like videos like these, because they drive home the point about how messy war exactly is. They start the discussion of "Is our goal worth this cost?" Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But when you get into a war, be ready for these situations. Because they cannot be avoided.
is just flat out wrong. It's akin to saying that every person should be shown a video of a patient dying during an open-heart surgery before debating the merits of modern medicine, or that everyone should have to watch the aftermath of an 80-car pileup before being allowed to get a drivers license.
Most people simply don't have the required context to make an informed decision, so the only reason to provide them with such graphic imagery would be in order to scare the fuck out of them and get them to make an emotional decision. Maybe in a country where you have mandatory universal service, your suggestion might make some sense because people would at least have a passing familiarity with the subject. In a nation where the vast majority of the population has never served, and where most people have never even held a weapon, it simply makes no sense. If your goal is propaganda, then sure, it works great. Otherwise it's completely pointless.
That's not what the polls show, and it's not what their politicians are saying.
Of course, if by "they" you mean the barbaric bastards who intentionally target civilians in order to try and overthrow the elected government and institute their own dictatorship, then yeah, you're right, they don't want you over there. Personally I don't see why anyone should give a fuck what THEY want.
And we wonder why people "over there" hate us. I wish they could differentiate us from our government. This will never end while we are over there making mistakes like this.
It's not your government that's squeezing the trigger. If you're going to say that what these individuals did was wrong, you don't get to blame it on the government.
Thank you. Yours is BY FAR the best summery of this situation that I've seen. The fact that you got modded "troll" (by more than one individual) is a sad commentary on the intellectual integrity of the average slashdot reader.
I wouldn't expect you to understand since you've clearly never worn a uniform. Talk to a WW2 vet, and see if things were any different in their time. I guarantee you they weren't. If you WANT people who are engaged in combat to be somber and depressed, you're out of your mind. Morale is of major importance to the well-being of any military force. If they were acting the way you apparently expect them to act, I'd be very worried.
Murder: Intentionally killing someone who is neither attacking nor threatening you or someone you are obligated to defend and who you did not have good reason to believe was either attacking nor threatening either you or someone you were obligated to defend.
Under that definition they didn't commit murder, since they clearly believed that their targets were a threat to the forces on the ground.
Trust me, a 30mm shell does NOT "expand or flatten easily in the human body". The human body may expand and flatten easily when exposed to a 30mm round, but not the other way around.
This video encapsulates the entire problem of American foreign policy: a bunch of idiots who are too scared to put themselves in harm's way to confront and confirm what they think is an enemy, so they make rash decisions that end up killing innocent people and creating more problems for themselves.
Yep, you're right. Clearly they should have landed those helicopters, walked over, and said "Hi! We're with the US Military, and we'd really appreciate it if you could tell us: are you the bad guys?".
Don't be a tool. Aerial bombardment/attack has been used since the advent of manned flight. The difference is that now:
1. We can be more discriminate about it. 2. We keep recorded evidence of it.
The result is a huge decrease in civilian casualties, but results in MORE bitching by uninformed simpletons.
You don't fund something using R&D results, you fund it using money. And "NAND flash" has nothing to do with OS X. A drunk chimp could have strung together a more coherent response.
Slashdot Mirror
What am I ignoring? What statistic shows that Iraqi citizens want us there?
I don't know if this will help since you apparently have difficulty reading, but ok, I'll quote it again:
When asked if Coalition forces should leave, about 35% of the population wanted immediate withdrawl, while about 66% of the population thought Coalitions should remain until various objectives were met, such as security restored, stronger government, independently operating Iraqi security forces, etc.
78% oppose our presence. I'm gonna take that mean "they don't want us there"
Sure - as long as you're willing to ignore statistics you don't like, you can reach any conclusion you want.
That article is just silly political posturing, not a factual argument. If you've got an actual reason behind your disagreement, I'd love to hear it.
whoosh!
Who cares whose mess it is. If your next door neighbor dumps radioactive waste in his back yard, are you going to ignore it just because it's his mess? Or are you going to get it taken care of, before it has a chance to harm your family?
The stats you quoted, numbnuts. You talk about falsifiable hypothesis as if you give a damn, but your actions belie your pretenses. Let's look at your track record:
In your first comment you launched a strawman attack by arguing that the Geneva Conventions forbid shooting civilians, when the original argument was about what types of weapons may be used. In the same comment you also launched a (pathetic) ad-hominem attack by claiming that US foreign policy was wrong because of the character traits of a handful of soldiers.
In your second comment you made a ridiculous argument about "intel", which is based on your own little fantasies rather than on how information is actually gathered in combat. You again made an ad-hominem attack by suggesting that the US government is attempting to hide civilian casualty figures. You then followed that up with a second strawman argument by pulling some random views out of your ass and accusing me of holding them. To top it off, you misinterpreted your own statistics, which don't talk about refugees at all, plus, in the same sentence you again misrepresented your own source by claiming that the casualties were in the "hundreds of thousands" when only 1 out of the 6 cited sources actually supports that conclusion (and is clearly out to lunch). Moreover you completely ignored the fact that these surveys list estimated cases of "civilian deaths from violent causes", which encompasses civilians executed by militants, civilians blown up by suicide bombers and VBIED's, and civilians killed in sectarian fighting.
In your third comment, you lied about the events of the video, by claiming that the gunners didn't wait to see if "the armed men got out of the van" (which is irrelevant anyway, since the van wasn't a magical sanctuary). You lied when you stated that "they just opened fire" when, in fact, they waited and took the time to get permission from higher. And you tried to derail the discussion by bringing up completely irrelevant claims about the legality of the invasion.
And you dare to pretend that you care about "falsifiable hypothesis"? You have the same ideas about skepticism as the global-warming deniers and the 9/11 truthers. You wouldn't know real scientific skepticism if it bit you on the ass.
That's a fine line.
Watch the part where they're hovering over the wounded guy, and listen to the dialog. The gunner keeps saying things along the line of "pick up that weapon". He obviously knows that there's no justification for continuing to shoot. On the other hand, the moment that the "casualty" picks up a weapon, he again becomes a threat. Then go forward and listen to what they're saying while watching the van.
If they had reason to suspect that the people in the van were combatants coming to grab the weapons and the bodies, they had every right to open fire on them. Watching the video from the comfort of my home, I find it difficult to justify that conclusion. Knowing what it's like to be in a combat-mode, though, I can certainly understand their thought process. What I find completely baffling is how a bunch of civvies in a combat zone could have come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to evacuate people who were just lit-up by a gunship. I can understand the desire to help, but if they'd had a lick of common sense they would have tried to find the ground forces in the area instead. It's really sad.
We also don't need to be giving aid to Africa, or helping Haiti after an earthquake. It's got nothing to do with "need".
The problem with "vacating now" is that you're simply creating larger problems for your children to deal with, much as the previous generation did by abandoning Afghanistan in the 80's. I can see why that approach might be popular with Americans - considering your massive debt, it appears that you're rather fond of leaving a mess for future generations to deal with.
Try wikipedia, for one. The article is rather biased, but it does show the following:
"A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis found that 78% of the population opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, that 69% believed the presence of U.S. forces is making things worse, and that 51% of the population considered attacks on coalition forces acceptable, up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006. When asked if Coalition forces should leave, about 35% of the population wanted immediate withdrawl, while about 66% of the population thought Coalitions should remain until various objectives were met, such as security restored, stronger government, independently operating Iraqi security forces, etc."
The linked polls also show that 47% of Iraqis think that the Invasion was "somewhat right" or "absolutely right", which in itself is quite interesting. I'm not sure how Iraqis can oppose the presence of US forces while still wanting them to stay and also thinking that the invasion was justified, but there ya have it. Might have lost something in the translation.
You may not be an American, but you sure know how to shill like one.
No, I just know how to think - an art which is sadly lacking amongst the general populace.
Do yourself a favor and review the stats. A little skepticism goes a long way.
Me too.
Because the 30mm cannon on an Apache is classified as an indirect fire weapon.
No, that's wrong. Whether a weapon is direct fire or indirect fire doesn't hinge on the payload or the accuracy or any of that junk. Direct-fire weapons are ones which are line-of-sight, indirect-fire weapons are ones which are used to engage targets that don't need a direct line of sight. If the 30mm was capable of indirect fire, they wouldn't have had to wait to go around the building.
The line gets blurred sometimes because direct-fire weapons like machineguns are also capable of indirect fire, however, the weapon is generally classified by it's primary role. So a machinegun is a direct-fire weapon that can be used in the indirect role, while an artillery piece is an indirect-fire weapon that can be used in a direct role. And weapons like an Apache 30 mm cannon are just direct-fire, period.
I think maybe the term you were looking for is "area effect weapon", which a 30mm cannon certainly is.
Was more or less adding to your comments for those who don't already know.
Oh, ok.
They should have confirmed with intel before they opened fire.
What intel? You think they should have phoned up James Bond and gotten him to drop by for a chat with the guys? Or maybe they could have tapped out a command on their wrist watches to bring in a CIA satellite to read the brand name stamped on the sunglasses of the third guy from the left?
You've been watching too many Hollywood movies, buds. The guys in the chopper ARE the intel. Moreover, from what I understand, they were there in the first place because ground forces ASKED THEM to check out the situation. Intel isn't some magical thing that just happens when you need it - it's people looking at the situation and trying to make some educated guesses. A lot of the time they get it right, most of the time they get it partly right, and sometimes they get it disastrously wrong. Pretty much like any other human endeavor.
How you can possibly defend driving out 2.5 million people from their own country and killing hundreds of thousands more for oil resources is beyond me.
No, I TOTALLY agree with you. You know what's even worse? In the 7 years since the invasion of Iraq, more than 17 MILLION American civilians have died in their own nation! It's crazy I tell ya. Those US soldiers are completely out of control!
Listen, I know you mean well, but you're clearly a bumper-sticker thinker who hasn't bothered to put any real thought into the subject. That's fine - not everyone can be an expert - but please don't pretend to have a valid point to make when you're motivated by a blinkered ideology and clearly can't even understand the stats you're quoting.
Those were high explosive rounds. Think of them as 30mm hand grenades.
Yeah, as my username might suggest, I have more than a passing familiarity with military hardware. I'm not sure what your response has to do with what I said.
No, I'm pretty sure it's a side-effect of yours. You won't catch me chanting mantra the way you just did.
I agree with you for the most part, but this:
I like videos like these, because they drive home the point about how messy war exactly is. They start the discussion of "Is our goal worth this cost?" Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But when you get into a war, be ready for these situations. Because they cannot be avoided.
is just flat out wrong. It's akin to saying that every person should be shown a video of a patient dying during an open-heart surgery before debating the merits of modern medicine, or that everyone should have to watch the aftermath of an 80-car pileup before being allowed to get a drivers license.
Most people simply don't have the required context to make an informed decision, so the only reason to provide them with such graphic imagery would be in order to scare the fuck out of them and get them to make an emotional decision. Maybe in a country where you have mandatory universal service, your suggestion might make some sense because people would at least have a passing familiarity with the subject. In a nation where the vast majority of the population has never served, and where most people have never even held a weapon, it simply makes no sense. If your goal is propaganda, then sure, it works great. Otherwise it's completely pointless.
They don't want us there.
That's not what the polls show, and it's not what their politicians are saying.
Of course, if by "they" you mean the barbaric bastards who intentionally target civilians in order to try and overthrow the elected government and institute their own dictatorship, then yeah, you're right, they don't want you over there. Personally I don't see why anyone should give a fuck what THEY want.
And we wonder why people "over there" hate us. I wish they could differentiate us from our government. This will never end while we are over there making mistakes like this.
It's not your government that's squeezing the trigger. If you're going to say that what these individuals did was wrong, you don't get to blame it on the government.
Thank you. Yours is BY FAR the best summery of this situation that I've seen. The fact that you got modded "troll" (by more than one individual) is a sad commentary on the intellectual integrity of the average slashdot reader.
I'm sorry, all I heard was "Blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore".
I wouldn't expect you to understand since you've clearly never worn a uniform. Talk to a WW2 vet, and see if things were any different in their time. I guarantee you they weren't. If you WANT people who are engaged in combat to be somber and depressed, you're out of your mind. Morale is of major importance to the well-being of any military force. If they were acting the way you apparently expect them to act, I'd be very worried.
Murder: Intentionally killing someone who is neither attacking nor threatening you or someone you are obligated to defend and who you did not have good reason to believe was either attacking nor threatening either you or someone you were obligated to defend .
Under that definition they didn't commit murder, since they clearly believed that their targets were a threat to the forces on the ground.
Trust me, a 30mm shell does NOT "expand or flatten easily in the human body". The human body may expand and flatten easily when exposed to a 30mm round, but not the other way around.
This video encapsulates the entire problem of American foreign policy: a bunch of idiots who are too scared to put themselves in harm's way to confront and confirm what they think is an enemy, so they make rash decisions that end up killing innocent people and creating more problems for themselves.
Yep, you're right. Clearly they should have landed those helicopters, walked over, and said "Hi! We're with the US Military, and we'd really appreciate it if you could tell us: are you the bad guys?".
Don't be a tool. Aerial bombardment/attack has been used since the advent of manned flight. The difference is that now:
1. We can be more discriminate about it.
2. We keep recorded evidence of it.
The result is a huge decrease in civilian casualties, but results in MORE bitching by uninformed simpletons.
Huh?
You don't fund something using R&D results, you fund it using money. And "NAND flash" has nothing to do with OS X. A drunk chimp could have strung together a more coherent response.