Was this a war crime? - Page 4

911pcars · 10-08-2004, 12:34 PM

"..What we truly have to wonder, though, is if there was a bride at this wedding. "

.....or if Zarqawi, being on the invitation list, didn't show up due to a previous engagement.

Sorry, "intelligence" from this administration lacks enough credibility to question what really happened.

Doesn't the military have to confirm a target (Zarqawi) before launching an attack that will probably kill civilians? Or do they just have to show reasonable cause to kill civilians?

Sherwood

tabs · 10-08-2004, 01:14 PM

Quiet frankly Sherwood you were born 250 years too late....ever since WW2 the rules of etiquiette to follow during war have been thrown out... Let's see now on page 52, it says that during a wedding oposing forces must........

911pcars · 01:34 PM

Tabs,
If we're still officially at war with Iraqi, I suppose we can bomb the hell out of anyplace we want under the articles of war.

If the war is over (didn't someone say "mission accomplished"?) and we're conducting a police action, then I suppose we can bomb the hell out of anyplace we want under the articles of crowd control, or whatever.

I guess the military thought this was the best way to single out one person in a country that we occupy. Although quite effective in nuking a single person, I think a 500-1000 lb. bomb or cruise missile is a little overkill considering the collateral damage. We are trying to win hearts and minds aren't we? or are we?

Please advise.

Sherwood

tabs · 10-08-2004, 02:27 PM

Thats why we need to spend the money on Star Wars defense so that we will be able to surgecially death ray the indivdual instead of wiping out the whole block..yah see we may know he is in the building but we still don't know exactly where in the building...and a smaller weapon well that might get the wrong room..we need to do the whole building to make sure...

Geezus Sherwood put this in perspective....through out mans history during conflicts whole populations have been wiped out on purpose...look at the Japanese Rape of Nanking in 1937...Americans are saints by comparison...Nobody wants to hit the wrong person...but waht are you going to do...stop the whole war....unfoirtunately the USA doesn't have that luxury...you and yur familys future are at stake here...U quiet frankly Sherwood can't conceive of your basic lifestyle ending..it's about as real as a Asteroid hitting the earth is to U....but 911 proved one thing it can happen....911 was a close run thing...mores so than anybody will admit...

red ufo · 10-08-2004, 02:43 PM

Tabs, it won't work in our lifetime.

Hell we know what town Sadr is in and we can't get or kill him. That means we have zero chance of getting UBL.

Star Wars was to shoot down alien UFOs that are taking hostile action against us and breaking the treaty. It was designed as over kill for a russian ICBM.

Typical double speak on militarism is was.

911pcars · 10-08-2004, 03:00 PM

I'm okay with bombing a building if THE man is inside and his death can be justified. I'm against trading one normal bad guy for 10 civilians as so many here can accept. Mere speculation doesn't do it for me. BTW, what if Zarqawi walked into a hospital? Would you zero your bomb sights at 10,000 feet?

Let's not hold up the rape of Nanking, My Lai or Dresden as reference points. I've seen reference points, I've known reference points and sir, these are not reference points. They are merely events that happened.

If this is a war, send in the troops and take over the cities one by one and disarm everyone. That's how a war is fought isn't it? This half-ass military strategy by our administration is designed to give us a feeling democracy is in place. Don't book any vacation plans there yet.

GW, Rumsfield, Cheney and Rice had their chance a year ago (even before the war started) to follow advice from others in the administration and our military leaders. Didn't listen and they blew it. Now it's another ball game; no longer a war but a never-ending series of counterinsurgency battles that makes losers of all involved ...... except for the jihadists.

Sherwood

tabs · 10-08-2004, 03:20 PM

All Administrations are afraid of their own shadows...they are afraid that the media will jump on them...to sell their advertising space...so all Administration tend to do things half a$$...thye seem to wind up doing the very thing they are afraid of doing...no admin. wants the media to plaster them all over the screen as baby killers..

The other issue for Bush not following the advice of the military commanders is where was Bush gong to get the troops...the military was downsized so much in the 1990's...Secondly to raise the troops and deploy them costs money...the budget is allready stretched...Bush couldn't ask for more and keep his own fiscal conservatives happy.

Now Sherwood let's look through the looking glass and see what what we can see........

!1. Bush is a fiscal conservative....Why in the world would a cheapo like Bush go so far out on the limb of the tree fiscally.

Answer HE HAD TO....Why ...Because 911 was so devastating a hit to the economy...U want to gauge how really bad it was...The USA HAD THE WORST BEAR STOCK MARKET SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION...3 years worth....911 was nearly a KO Punch.

Open your eyes.....things ain't rosy out there hoss....

tabs · 10-08-2004, 03:29 PM

Question Sherwood do you have a years worth of living expenses saved for emergencies...?

How many of your friends have any money saved for emergencies or being unemployed....

How much of your income is used to service your debt? How bout yur frinds?

U don't need to tell me just think about it....and then talk to me...

For one thing it is not all your fault or your friends...at least since 1960 the Income tax Laws promote spending over saving...

Thats why the Income Tax break on Dividends is so important...it makes it advantageous to yourself to save a few bucks to collect those penny dividends...cause those dividends add up over a lifetime....and that money can be used when your old and grey...and SS is but a mere memory for the dead.

CarreraS2 · 10-08-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
All Administrations are afraid of their own shadows...they are afraid that the media will jump on them...to sell their advertising space...so all Administration tend to do things half a$$...thye seem to wind up doing the very thing they are afraid of doing...no admin. wants the media to plaster them all over the screen as baby killers..

That does seem true. If it wasn't true, Bin Laden would have been dead in the late '90s. The course of history would have likely been changed dramatically.

Seahawk · 10-08-2004, 04:59 PM

Tabs, after the last few posts, you are Tolstoy...War and Posting.
What virtually all of the folks who have posted on this thread do not understand are the machinations that go into dropping a weapon from an aircraft...or launching a cruise missile from a ship or submarine. The vetting of targets, deconfliction of bad guys and our guys (those could have been our folks if you think about it...the video doesn't classify individuals in a meaningful way, does it), and the absolute desire to limit the death of innocents (notice I didn't use the term, "collateral damage") is as complete as humans can make it.
It is called the "kill chain". Not a PC term, but there it is. The aircraft that dropped that weapon was not alone nor allowed to engage the target without at least three rules of engagement coming into play. These are not ad hoc events, berift of planning. The senors that come into play, from HUMINT to U-2s to UAVs to JSTARS to specops on the ground observing the individuals targeted, must meet specific criteria before the weapon is employed.
Give our folks some credit...we are neither cowboys or criminals. Nobody endeavors to do it better. If you guy only knew how much goes into it.
Flame away, folks.

tabs · 10-08-2004, 05:14 PM

You said it in a way I could not....you put a human touch to the face of war.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Seahawk

Give our folks some credit...we are neither cowboys or criminals. Nobody endeavors to do it better. If you guy only knew how much goes into it.
Flame away, folks.

Nuh uh. I don't blame the guys doing the work of war.

I blame the guys sending them off to die for a cause that's just not of immediate national interest.

Seahawk · 10-08-2004, 05:48 PM

Tech,

Different debate...the thread was specific concerning war crimes. That issue was the one I responded to.
I don't agree with your follow-on suppossion, but your taste in music limits my vitriol.

911pcars · 10-08-2004, 05:59 PM

Seahawk,
I assume that explanation means Zarqawi is dead. If not, he's either very lucky, like Sadam seems to have been, or we're really not sure when we drop the GE specials despite the high-tech equipment.

If we can't identify and verify a potential target (person) from outer space, 10 miles or 10,000 feet, why launch armament from those distances? If forward observers (specops) are closer and can verify, allow them to do it from their location. "Insurgents" are pretty effective at singling out a target area using a garage door opener or cell phone, wire, detonator and an artillery round.

Re: the video. Did specops have time to verify those people running through the streets as valid targets or was that a 10,000 foot call (or whatever altitude they fly or decide)?

tabs wrote:
"The other issue for Bush not following the advice of the military commanders is where was Bush gong to get the troops...the military was downsized so much in the 1990's..."

The small troop strategy was concocted and approved by the top guys (GW, Rumsfield, Cheney) against Tommy Frank's and other field commander's better judgement. Rumsfield pulled troops from Afghanistan where they were looking for what's his name. Rumsfield didn't want a large buildup of military around the gulf area to tip their hat in the months leading up to the attack. Rumsfield micro-managed the invasion despite not having any military experience (Bush, Cheney either. National Guard doesn't count in this case). They could have accepted suggestions from Sec. of State Powell who has an office in the same building, and btw, was in the Army awhile (understatement), yet they chose not to because they knew what his position was in their scheme. It was, "Why?" (it was actually more candid than that).

I'm not a savant and have no way of verifying if this is true other than what other credible people report as we all must do. At this point, I believe what Woodward writes over anything Cheney swears is the truth.

Tabs, do you think Cheney is interested in protecting your ass in Vegas and mine in So. Cal? Okay. You do.

Sherwood

Seahawk · 10-08-2004, 06:36 PM

Sherwood,

To properly answer your excellent queries I'd get carpal tunnel syndrome...
Think synergy. I mentioned three levels concerning rules of engagement, each with a "value". The shooter ( the last leg in the "kill chain" I talked about before) in the video simply dropped the weapon, exactly were he was directed to. The tape shows the sensor information used to get the weapon where it was intended, exactly, not to decide whether the target met the criteria for rules of engagement. It was a precision munition, guided by either GPS or other means.
You or I don't know the other intel that went into the shot...the other links in the rules of engagement.
To guess the who, the what and where that went into the shot is not productive since the permutations are endless...but I can tell you the fidelity of our capabilities would astound. From space, from 10,000ft, from next door, we can and do reach out and touch.
Again, flame at will.