Coalition Cluster bombs Iraqi village

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-04-03 11:50pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:gasp* US piolots follow orders? Heaven forbid! :roll:

Yeah, heaven forbid that they bomb that building that shows no sign of military activity whatsoever, but would seem to have lots of civilians around, just because they were ordered to.

Would a US pilot strangle a baby if ordered to?

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-04-03 11:54pm

weemadando wrote:Yeah, heaven forbid that they bomb that building that shows no sign of military activity whatsoever, but would seem to have lots of civilians around, just because they were ordered to.

And how do you know that the pilot knew that it was a purely civilian target, that showed no signs of military activity whatsoever? In fact, how do you know there wasn't any military activity?

Would a US pilot strangle a baby if ordered to?

I'm sure if the baby was cleary not an enemy unit the pilot wouldn't kill it. But, this most likely wasn't the case in this bombing.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-04-03 11:55pm

weemadando wrote: You forget that both the Australians and British have had pilots refuse to engage targets because of the risk of civilian deaths. This is just another example of the UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE that seems to be prevalent in the US military planning.

Which is why we're 6 miles from Baghdad after ripping through
several towns on the way to Baghdad and after mangling two
Republican Guard divisions, while you guys are still dicking
around with a few hundred Iraqis at best in Basra.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-04-03 11:57pm

weemadando wrote:
Darth Garden Gnome wrote:gasp* US piolots follow orders? Heaven forbid!
Yeah, heaven forbid that they bomb that building that shows no sign of military activity whatsoever, but would seem to have lots of civilians around, just because they were ordered to.

Yup, no sign, except a bunch of guys shooting... And civilian which look suspiciously like militia members. (note: how well can you make out people from the top of a skyscraper?)

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-04-04 12:00am

Beowulf wrote:
weemadando wrote:
Darth Garden Gnome wrote:gasp* US piolots follow orders? Heaven forbid! :roll:
Yeah, heaven forbid that they bomb that building that shows no sign of military activity whatsoever, but would seem to have lots of civilians around, just because they were ordered to.
Yup, no sign, except a bunch of guys shooting... And civilian which look suspiciously like militia members. (note: how well can you make out people from the top of a skyscraper?)

That was a hypothetical. Why not go for a TV or laser guided missile hit? What was it about THIS situation that warranted the use of a cluster bomb?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-04-04 12:01am

weemadando wrote:That was a hypothetical. Why not go for a TV or laser guided missile hit? What was it about THIS situation that warranted the use of a cluster bomb?

Yeah right, and 2,000 pound Paveway IIs are precise

People die, no matter what

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-04-04 12:02am

How the hell am I (or anyone else on this board) supposed to know that? Somebody over there thought it was necessary, so it was used.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-04-04 12:03am

weemadando wrote:This is just another example of the UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE that seems to be prevalent in the US military planning.

Oh please, spare me your mindless bullshit. If we wanted to, we could wipe every major Iraqi city off the map within a matter of minutes. The war would be over before 99.999999% of the world knew it had begun, and the loss of U.S. lives would be zero.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-04-04 12:04am

Beowulf wrote:How the hell am I (or anyone else on this board) supposed to know that? Somebody over there thought it was necessary, so it was used.

Oh yeah, if US troops are under fire, you can't go fly all the way back
to the Carrier to exchange your cluster bombs for regular Paveway II LGBs.

You have to SUPPRESS the enemy with what you have hanging off your
wings at this moment, not what you could have in 2 hours...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-04 12:08am

Axis Kast wrote:What do you want us to say?

We acknowledge that it is (A) horrible, (B) heart-wrenching, and (C) from time to time inexcusable (given the information that comes out subsequent to the tragedy). This still doesn?t make the situation go away.

I don't care what you say, personally, because it's obvious that you don't give a flying fuck about civilians who die because of military incompetence. Everyone just said, "Ah well, shit happens." I think I've seen disciplining those responsible mentioned ... oh, once or so in this thread, for example.

I guess I'm just on one of my anti-war days; I tend to go back and forth on the subject. Let's just say that I don't like the fact that we're over there, but I think it might be necessary.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-04-04 07:03pm

What I was trying to point out to Sea Skimmer was that its not as clear cut as he likes to think it is and that cluster bombs are messy fucking things that do kill PEOPLE, not just soldiers. For fucks sake, they were dropping area effect weapons on a built up area... That shows a blatant disregard for the civilians of Iraq who, to quote Shrub "will be treated with the utmost respect."

Let’s analyze the facts:

1. The United States has promised to treat civilians as best as possible given the wartime conditions.
2. The United States has within the past week lost up to five killed during a suicide assault on a roadblock.
3. The United States military, on the ground in Iraq, called for an air-strike on a “built-up area.”

What does this tell you? That perhaps the fire was sufficiently withering to justify heavy support? I think you misunderstand what kind of concentration of enemy was present. And yes, in war, we seek to defend our own troops before the enemy or local civilians. It’s fact, and every military does it.

You forget that both the Australians and British have had pilots refuse to engage targets because of the risk of civilian deaths. This is just another example of the UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE that seems to be prevalent in the US military planning.

But the U.S. has far more planes in-theater. It runs far more missions.

Unfortunately any blame for this attack lies with the pilot as it is his perogative to question the orders given to him by his superiors as laid down by the Nuremberg trials. Perhaps it would do them some good to question authority every now and then.

In the middle of a war, when troops are telling you that they are taking fire, it seems the correct thing to deliver the requested support. Even at the possible expense of those on the ground, in certain situations.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-04 07:09pm

weemadando wrote:That was a hypothetical. Why not go for a TV or laser guided missile hit? What was it about THIS situation that warranted the use of a cluster bomb?

We don't know, as I pointed out a page or two ago. You cannot effectively hit some targets, especially when you're dealing with light infantry, with unitary warheads. At least not unless you want to drop a dozen or two of them.

If the target was entrenched infantry for example, a LGB wouldn't have been very effective while still killing plenty of civilians and collapsing buildings. Hell planners may just have misjudged the strength of buildings, and assumed they'd stop they'd bomblets. CBU fragments have quite low penetration.

I still see no confirmation this ever happened in any case.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-04-04 07:09pm

Axis Kast wrote:In the middle of a war, when troops are telling you that they are taking fire, it seems the correct thing to deliver the requested support. Even at the possible expense of those on the ground, in certain situations.

Cluster bombing a village is illegal under the Geneva Convention.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-04-04 07:12pm

Ted wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:In the middle of a war, when troops are telling you that they are taking fire, it seems the correct thing to deliver the requested support. Even at the possible expense of those on the ground, in certain situations.
Cluster bombing a village is illegal under the Geneva Convention.

I don't suppose you'd care to point out the section and quote, eh?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-04 07:13pm

weemadando wrote:
Darth Garden Gnome wrote:gasp* US piolots follow orders? Heaven forbid!
Yeah, heaven forbid that they bomb that building that shows no sign of military activity whatsoever, but would seem to have lots of civilians around, just because they were ordered to.

Would a US pilot strangle a baby if ordered to?

No, because they could easily tell that it was just a child. If you wish to believe that a pilot flying 500 knots can tell if a person on the ground is holding a gun, you can continue to live in that little bubble.

You may be able to blame the FAC, you cannot blame the pilot.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-04 07:15pm

weemadando wrote: What I was trying to point out to Sea Skimmer was that its not as clear cut as he likes to think it is and that cluster bombs are messy fucking things that do kill PEOPLE, not just soldiers. For fucks sake, they were dropping area effect weapons on a built up area... That shows a blatant disregard for the civilians of Iraq who, to quote Shrub "will be treated with the utmost respect."

I suppose the fact that a unitary bomb would have sent half-pound fragments tearing through the same buildings from hundreds of meters with even greater ease while adding a nice blast wave to collapse them hasn't occurred to you?

If this is a real event, someone did fuck up badly. However this blame the pilot and weapon crap is just that.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-04 07:16pm

Beowulf wrote:
Ted wrote:
Cluster bombing a village is illegal under the Geneva Convention.
I don't suppose you'd care to point out the section and quote, eh?

That would be quite a trick, since cluster bombs where not invented until the 1960's and the most recent convention was in the 40's.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-04-04 07:30pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
Ted wrote:
Cluster bombing a village is illegal under the Geneva Convention.
I don't suppose you'd care to point out the section and quote, eh?
That would be quite a trick, since cluster bombs where not invented until the 1960's and the most recent convention was in the 40's.

I know.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-04-04 07:43pm

ouch!!That will leave a mark

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-04-04 07:54pm

Beowulf wrote:I don't suppose you'd care to point out the section and quote, eh?

Not cluster bombing, but just general BOMBING, with any kind of bomb, is illegal.

I was reading through the 4th Convention the other day and I thought I saw that, however, I have found a League of Nations document that bans civilian bombing.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence

Then from the Hague
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#C the US supported it, but it was never formally adopted.
ARTICLE XXIV

(1) Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.

(2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.

(3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.

(4) In the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces, the bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is legitimate provided that there exists a reasonable presumption that the military concentration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having regard to the danger thus posed to the civilian population.

(5) A belligerent state is liable to pay compensation for injuries to person or to property caused by violation by any of its officers or forces of the provisions of this article

Give me more time and I can get more documents.[/list]

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-04-04 07:57pm

The League of Nations is defunct.

The Hague Convention was never ratified.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-04 07:58pm

Both of those are nice but the first is part of the rules of a long defunct organization and the second the US never ratified. Not to mention the second doesn't prohbit anything but indiscriminate bombing of civilians which you have yet to prove this is.

Captain Jack · Post by **Captain Jack** » 2003-04-04 08:20pm

[evil mode]Soldiers is recruited from the civilian population thus civilians is a military target. [/evil mode]

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-04 08:20pm

Axis Kast wrote:The League of Nations is defunct.

The Hague Convention was never ratified.

I dont belive the US even signed it, and it never joined the League of Nations.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-04 10:29pm

No nation goes to more pains in order to avoid civilian casualties, even to the point of placing our own troops at risk. Yet too many readily believe that the US deliberately targets civilians. Perhaps we should purposefully target civilians. It would make my job and that of my comrades far easier. Carpet bomb the entire nation. Then send in a rolling artillery barrage, followed by troops that mow down anything that isn't US troops. No population left to worry about. Well, we don't do that, regardless of what the extreme leftists and apologists for Saddam and Islamists say.