Coalition Cluster bombs Iraqi village

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-04 10:33pm

jegs2 wrote: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.

Something that's so often forgotten. If the US was out to kill civilians or just didn't care we'd have amassed more then 500 bodies by now, add two zeros at least.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-04 10:34pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Something that's so often forgotten. If the US was out to kill civilians or just didn't care we'd have amassed more then 500 bodies by now, add two zeros at least.

Not to mention that this war would have ended as fast as so many seem to think it should have...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-04-04 11:15pm

jegs2 wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Something that's so often forgotten. If the US was out to kill civilians or just didn't care we'd have amassed more then 500 bodies by now, add two zeros at least.
Not to mention that this war would have ended as fast as so many seem to think it should have...

Airbursts wouldn't damage the actual oil reserves - If what the Left claims our actual intent is would be combined with that, we could end this war real fast. Minimal number of nukes, too, as taking out the dams on the Tigris and the Euphrates would help in extirpating the population.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-04-04 11:34pm

Just know jumping into the thread and I haven't read every post word for word, so be kind if it has already been discussed.

First off it is terrible what happened, but the writer of this article is obviously trying to make a play on people's emotions, and is leaving out things that would keep people from reading this story in an entirely objective way. He practically says that the US bombers attacked the village with the premeditated purpose of killing civilians, and constantly reminding the reader of the geneva convention, which would only apply if whoever called in the attack ( which the author doesn't know ) knew there were civilians in the area and intended to kill those civilians. He obviously isn't to picky about his sources of information or the acurracy of that info either.

So who dropped these terrible weapons? The deputy administrator of the Hilla hospital and one of his doctors told a confused tale of military action around the city in recent days, of Apache helicopters that would disgorge special forces troops on the road to Karbala.

I'd love to see an Apache attack helicopter carry a special forces team into combat, but I doubt they could hang onto the landing gear long enough to make it to their goal.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-04-04 11:37pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Something that's so often forgotten. If the US was out to kill civilians or just didn't care we'd have amassed more then 500 bodies by now, add two zeros at least.

You'd have to add more than just two zeros, Baghdad alone has 5 million, and dropping a realatively small nuke on it wouldn't be to hard.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-04-04 11:50pm

David wrote: I'd love to see an Apache attack helicopter carry a special forces team into combat, but I doubt they could hang onto the landing gear long enough to make it to their goal.

No! According to EA Games, an Apache can carry 5 special forces troops
and also carry a near-infinite supply of cannon rounds!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-05 12:07am

David wrote:I'd love to see an Apache attack helicopter carry a special forces team into combat, but I doubt they could hang onto the landing gear long enough to make it to their goal.

This is the media, anything afloat with a turret becomes a battleship, anything with treads a tank and any fast plane a fighter. It hardly disproves that special forces were in the area.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-04-05 12:12am

Stormbringer wrote:
David wrote:I'd love to see an Apache attack helicopter carry a special forces team into combat, but I doubt they could hang onto the landing gear long enough to make it to their goal.
This is the media, anything afloat with a turret becomes a battleship, anything with treads a tank and any fast plane a fighter. It hardly disproves that special forces were in the area.

Didn't say that they weren't, just that this shows that the media is in some cases less interested in doing their homework and more interested in expounding upon the sensational. You can also see this in the case of PFC. Lynch, who was reported having multiple gunshot wounds, but in actuality did not.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-04-05 12:14am

MKSheppard wrote:
David wrote: I'd love to see an Apache attack helicopter carry a special forces team into combat, but I doubt they could hang onto the landing gear long enough to make it to their goal.
No! According to EA Games, an Apache can carry 5 special forces troops
and also carry a near-infinite supply of cannon rounds!

Only when you have the cheat mode enabled, I thik the CIA is still working on that.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-05 12:26am

Sea Skimmer wrote:I still see no confirmation this ever happened in any case.

Are Amnesty International, ABC News Australia, and the Washington Post enough confirmation for you?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140652003

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s823003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0226-06.htm (reprint of Washington Post article, since WP expects sign-up for viewing of articles).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm growing a little tired of the reflexive-denial approach. So far, we have NOT seen a pattern of lies, so why act as though we have? Somebody screwed up; it happens. I agree that it does not prove the American forces are out to cause maximum civilian casualties, but at the same time, it's pointless to deny everything that's uncomfortable.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-04-05 12:28am

MKSheppard wrote:No! According to EA Games, an Apache can carry 5 special forces troops and also carry a near-infinite supply of cannon rounds!

So that's why the Osprey in Half-Life disgorges infinite amounts of Marines...

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-04-05 12:44am

jegs2 wrote:Not to mention that this war would have ended as fast as so many seem to think it should have...

As I said before, if we wanted to we could effectively wipe Iraq off the map within a matter of minutes. There would be nothing left to constitute a country. 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.