Supposed Iraqi massacre by US choppers

[circuit_bent]

A guy I work with on occaison recently made the claim that at the outset of the Iraq war hundreds of US combat helicopters deliberately set about performing a massacre of Iraqi civilians in a concerted city-wide campaign in Baghdad.
Now, I told him that this was ridiculous and at the start aerial bombardment and artillery strikes were performed against military installations.
I haven't heard one scrap of information about that alleged incident, and if it did happen, do you imagine that we'd ever hear the end of it? I tried to ram home this idea.
I (of course) agreed that there were civilian casualties, and that these deaths are tragic but he couldn't seem to accept my proposition that these deaths were unavoidable and every effort was made to minimize the deaths of innocents. For one, basic human decency and secondly the public outcry if it did occur.
I tried to make a case around the fact that that outcry would still loudly be heard today from all quarters. But yet I haven't heard anything remotely resembling this as a somewhat avid follower of current events. The gist of his rebuttal was that no, he had seen lots of suffering on TV of Iraqi civilians. End of story. I wish I knew how to define this mode of reply. Specious and evasive doesn't seem to handle it.

The idea I got from talking to him was that he had a pathological hatred of George Bush personally and the idea of the 'unjust war' as he saw it was unshakeable. He would often revert to this idea while I was quizzing him about how he could possibly entertain the notion of the deliberate massacre he outlines.
Is there some way to explain this? That there's a basic prejudice within a person, firmly entrenched, and every idea that comes along to give it some further credence (along even indirect and obscene lines) is embraced and can't be overturned.
I really can't fathom how a person would allow themselves to indulge these beliefs without evidence. I just don't understand how that's possible. Something tells me that I might be in good company here.

I pressed him for proof because he said this was shown on CNN and in the newspapers, but he baulked and starting pressing me to prove that it DIDN'T happen!? This was highly frustrating and I did my best to try and explain that it's extremely difficult or impossible to prove a negative in general. Made harder by the fact that he wouldn't even give me an approximate date of this alleged massacre. I would have to infer it indirectly by establishing for example the locations of US choppers and their activities throughout the course of the conflict. I of course am not in a position to do this.

I tried to convince him that to go some way to prove it (at least prove he has grounds to believe it) he would only need to show me these articles he claims he has read. But he thought his claim to ask me for evidence that it didn't happen was equivalent in validity as me asking him for proof of his claim. It settled the matter for him. That was that. Everything I said just evoked a shaking of the head form this guy as he challenged me to prove that it didn't happen. Again, I'm kind of lost for words here. It doesn't seem possible that people could actually think this way. On the exterior he seems like a fairly intelligent person.

I offered him $1000 if he would show me any evidence at all, but if none appeared within a reasonable time, he would have to pay me the same sum. Shaking of the head ensued as well as reverting to criticism of Bush and the root cause in his mind.

This whole prolonged incident was deeply disturbing for me. I went on Yahoo answers looking for advice on how to address this guys views, and I got 35 responses. Somewhat reassuringly (but not really productively) people that seem to have a basic grasp of common sense replied that he's a nutcase, idiot etc..that his appeal to me to provide evidence that it didn't happen was a sign of weakness and that there indeed is no evidence to support his allegations.

This doesn't help me address this guys beliefs next time I see him. He was very rude though and his arrogant obstinance made me feel terrible. The distinct impression I got was that he thought he had won the debate. That shaking his head and asking me to prove the negative was a victory since I could not prove the negative. I entertained notions of printing out the responses on Yahoo answers and giving it to him, but the rational side of me says that this is more likely to do more harm that good. It might just make him feel bad as well as actually increasing his commitment because he might feel like he's one of the priveledged few who knows the truth.

How does one argue with this guy?

You guys are always on the money whenever I drop by. Can you ease my vexation? I'm begging you.

[BenBurch]

Ignore him. He's morally right to loathe Bush, clearly, but he's let that moral disgust cloud his reason.

[gumboot]

The obvious response would be that putting a large number of attack helicopters over Baghdad at the start of the Iraq war would be an excellent way to get a large number of attack helicopters shot down.

-Gumboot

[BenBurch]

The obvious response would be that putting a large number of attack helicopters over Baghdad at the start of the Iraq war would be an excellent way to get a large number of attack helicopters shot down.

-Gumboot

Absolutely right.

[Good Lt]

People who allege things like this usually don't know very much about military strategy, logistics, operations, law, etc.

It's just recycled "our troops go in there half cocked and just shoot the first thing that moves, especially if it's an Iraqi baby yaddayaddayadda..."

Best to just point and laugh at him, or (if he's your bud and you don't want to offend) just nod and smile.

[gumboot]

I was just thinking he might be referring to the March 24, 2003 attack near Karbala by 33 Apaches on an armoured brigade of the Medina Division of the Iraqi Republican Guard.

The attack was largely unsuccessful due to Iraqi flak defences, however although 30 of the 33 Apaches suffered serious damage, only two failed to return to base (one of which was captured by the Iraqis and destroyed the following day with an airstrike).

CNN ran an article on the attack, which is here (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/24/sprj.irq.apache.attack/index.html).

-Gumboot

[pomeroo]

Ignore him. He's morally right to loathe Bush, clearly, but he's let that moral disgust cloud his reason.


He isn't "morally" right to "loathe" a politician with whose policies he disagrees. He is missing the most important point: He may be wrong and Bush may be right. Staggering, isn't it?

I disagree with Democrats who want felons to retain the right to vote. I regard them as cynical, unprincipled hacks who reckon they will benefit from the change they propose. But, you know what? I may be judging them unfairly. Conceivably, at least some of them feel that allowing felons to vote is consistent with democratic (small "d") principles.

People who fabricate atrocities committed by American troops have an agenda. It reminds me of the late '60s and early '70s, when leftist radicals would scream about U.S. violations of the Geneva Accords in Vietnam. Without debating the merits of each specific claim, let us note that the side they were rooting for ignored the Geneva Accords completely and committed atrocities routinely and purposely.

[AZCat]

People who fabricate atrocities committed by American troops have an agenda. It reminds me of the late '60s and early '70s, when leftist radicals would scream about U.S. violations of the Geneva Accords in Vietnam. Without debating the merits of each specific claim, let us note that the side they were rooting for ignored the Geneva Accords completely and committed atrocities routinely and purposely.

Please be careful when painting with such a broad brush. You may tar people who do not necessarily meet all of your criteria. For example, "leftist radicals" who were screaming about violations by the U.S. were not necessarily "rooting for" the Vietamese.

[Slayhamlet]

[snip]

How does one argue with this guy?

Short answer: one doesn't.

Long answer: There's really just no point in trying to argue with the guy unless he has a captive audience. If you do see him trying to convince someone else at your workplace or wherever, then challenge his evidence, specifically his lack thereof. Some people who don't pay much attention to the news and world events will automatically give undue credence to anyone making fantastical claims or accusations, but by simply being there to challenge the claims you'll do wonders as far as the casual audience is concerned. Most people are reasonable enough to notice when a guy can't back up his claims, but when they don't know enough to challenge the claims themselves they're easily won over without someone else there calling the accuser on his BS. So that's really the only time you should even attempt it, IMO.

[BenBurch]

He isn't "morally" right to "loathe" a politician with whose policies he disagrees. He is missing the most important point: He may be wrong and Bush may be right. Staggering, isn't it?

We'll just have to disagree on the Liar In Chief. My opinion is that it is beyond any doubt at this time that he lied to Congress and the American People in his State of The Union address in 2003 so as to get us into this war in Iraq, and that effort is just going oh-so-well, isn't it? Loathe him I do as I would loathe any person who caused such bloodshed for no reason other than his own ambitions.

[lordofwaffles]

"When one thinks of the cruelty, squalor, and futility of war, and in this particular case of the intrigues and persecutions,, the lies and the misunderstandings, there is always the temptation to say "One side is bad as the other, I am neutral." In practice however, one cannot be neutral, and there is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference in who wins. Nearly one side stands more or less for progress, the other more or less for reaction."

George Orwell said that looking back on the Spanish Civil War. I'm inclined to toss it at some leftists that claim to not take sides in the current conflict. But then again, that isn't directly relevant to the topic (although in reference to a previous poster, while those leftists did criticize American violations, real or imagined of the Geneva convention, I have never found a strong criticism of the North Vietnamese conduct of the war that came from the left. It does indicate a bias in a claimed neutral stance).

Carrying on however. I can't think of a stupider way to kill people. Attack helicopters are generally good at supporting ground forces (where the ground forces can suppress and kill potential anti-air threats) and sometimes conducting long range raids (generally against easily identified targets such as tanks).

Urban environments are bad places to take helicopters, because there's lots of places for someone to take shots at you from that you either cannot spot them in (windows, alleyways, etc) or cannot engage them in (American Rules of Engagement can be very strict).

Further, killing mass numbers of unarmed people with an attack helicopter is silly. The auto-cannon would only be effective if you had them lined up or in a tight mass, much the same if you were using unguided rockets. Hellfire, or TOW missiles would be like killing ants with an icepick. You'd kill a couple really, really dead but not the mass numbers.

Honestly if we were going to slaughter innocents we'd have just flown in B52 bombers wingtip to wingtip dropping sticks of bombs World War Two style. That'd kill a whole lot of people with less risk, and trickiness.

Besides, I knew people who flew in the first few days of the Iraq war. They weren't out playing whack a mole with the locals.

I am getting sick of this impression that the American soldier is a mindless killbot of some kind. My homicidal rages are limited to a strong desire to harpoon Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. Most babies, women, children, and civilians can sleep pretty safe. Assuming they're not trying to kill me. Then it's a bit different though.

[AZCat]

But then again, that isn't directly relevant to the topic (although in reference to a previous poster, while those leftists did criticize American violations, real or imagined of the Geneva convention, I have never found a strong criticism of the North Vietnamese conduct of the war that came from the left. It does indicate a bias in a claimed neutral stance).

The particular person I was thinking of has/had a bias, but I think it was probably brought about by proximity to American atrocities rather than any whitewashing of the behavior of the North Vietnamese. One tends to think in terms of what one experiences, and heads on spikes have a powerful effect (not always on the intended target).

[Slayhamlet]

Why should one not hold his own country to a higher moral standard than those it fights? I understand some radicals on the left either don't admit or downplay the atrocities of some of the regimes America has fought against, but they are not in the mainstream of liberal thought.

[Quad4_72]

I am in the Army. My buddy is an aviator who went to Iraq when the war first started. There were no choppers massacring people in Iraq. End of story.

[pomeroo]

Please be careful when painting with such a broad brush. You may tar people who do not necessarily meet all of your criteria. For example, "leftist radicals" who were screaming about violations by the U.S. were not necessarily "rooting for" the Vietamese.


AZCat, you are undoubtedly one of the more thoughtful posters on this forum and you tend to be meticulous in observing nice distinctions. You are correct in cautioning against sweeping generalizations. I was in college during the latter part of the Vietnam War and often jousted with the SDS as well as other campus Marxist and neo-Marxist groups. Anecdotally, I can report that everyone who carped about supposed U.S. violations was rooting hard for North Vietnam to succeed in conquering the South. But your point survives. I certainly can't claim to have encountered every leftist radical!

Something needs to be examined here. If a person criticizes the U.S. for violating the Geneva Accords, the simplest assumption we can make is that the Geneva Accords are important to that person, i.e., they define proper behavior in wartime and represent a standard worth upholding. Simple assumptions frequently fail to cover everything, however. If our critic's concerns are focused on the accords themselves, we would expect him or her to condemn vigorously all violations of them. I can't think of a single voice on the radical left that ever once called attention to the Vietcong's systematic terror campaigns in rural areas. Selectivity of outrage gives away the game.

Another anecdote: I was picking up pamphlets and propaganda flyers at an outdoor table manned by Maoists in the spring of 1968. The debate was over American "imperialism" in Southeast Asia. Yes, this was the Prague Spring. I commented that even as we spoke, Russian tanks were rolling through Prague. This, I said, is how a real empire behaves. The zombie behind the table replied that Czechoslovakia was theirs (the Russians), and they could do whatever they wanted with it. I wish I could tell you that he was an unusually obtuse fool, but he was a typical fool.

Other conservatives on campuses throughout the nation at that time can relate stories that mirror mine.

I will agree, then, that the person complaining about alleged American violations of the Geneva Accords is not logically committed to support the North Vietnamese cause. We are entitled to ask why that person does not complain about the other side'sviolations of the accords. I can further ask for evidence that leftist radicals critical of the U.S. who did not root for a communist victory actually existed.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"When one thinks of the cruelty, squalor, and futility of war, and in this particular case of the intrigues and persecutions,, the lies and the misunderstandings, there is always the temptation to say "One side is bad as the other, I am neutral." In practice however, one cannot be neutral, and there is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference in who wins. Nearly one side stands more or less for progress, the other more or less for reaction."

George Orwell said that looking back on the Spanish Civil War. I'm inclined to toss it at some leftists that claim to not take sides in the current conflict. But then again, that isn't directly relevant to the topic (although in reference to a previous poster, while those leftists did criticize American violations, real or imagined of the Geneva convention, I have never found a strong criticism of the North Vietnamese conduct of the war that came from the left. It does indicate a bias in a claimed neutral stance).

Carrying on however. I can't think of a stupider way to kill people. Attack helicopters are generally good at supporting ground forces (where the ground forces can suppress and kill potential anti-air threats) and sometimes conducting long range raids (generally against easily identified targets such as tanks).

Urban environments are bad places to take helicopters, because there's lots of places for someone to take shots at you from that you either cannot spot them in (windows, alleyways, etc) or cannot engage them in (American Rules of Engagement can be very strict).

Further, killing mass numbers of unarmed people with an attack helicopter is silly. The auto-cannon would only be effective if you had them lined up or in a tight mass, much the same if you were using unguided rockets. Hellfire, or TOW missiles would be like killing ants with an icepick. You'd kill a couple really, really dead but not the mass numbers.

Honestly if we were going to slaughter innocents we'd have just flown in B52 bombers wingtip to wingtip dropping sticks of bombs World War Two style. That'd kill a whole lot of people with less risk, and trickiness.

Besides, I knew people who flew in the first few days of the Iraq war. They weren't out playing whack a mole with the locals.

I am getting sick of this impression that the American soldier is a mindless killbot of some kind. My homicidal rages are limited to a strong desire to harpoon Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. Most babies, women, children, and civilians can sleep pretty safe. Assuming they're not trying to kill me. Then it's a bit different though.

Excellent post, Waffles.

[BenBurch]

pomeroo,

Of course I think we need to speak of atrocities wherever they occur! That goes without saying. But MY nation is BETTER than all these others, and I Freaking Demand that we always play by those rules.

-Ben

[AZCat]

AZCat, you are undoubtedly one of the more thoughtful posters on this forum and you tend to be meticulous in observing nice distinctions. You are correct in cautioning against sweeping generalizations. I was in college during the latter part of the Vietnam War and often jousted with the SDS as well as other campus Marxist and neo-Marxist groups. Anecdotally, I can report that everyone who carped about supposed U.S. violations was rooting hard for North Vietnam to succeed in conquering the South. But your point survives. I certainly can't claim to have encountered every leftist radical!

Something needs to be examined here. If a person criticizes the U.S. for violating the Geneva Accords, the simplest assumption we can make is that the Geneva Accords are important to that person, i.e., they define proper behavior in wartime and represent a standard worth upholding. Simple assumptions frequently fail to cover everything, however. If our critic's concerns are focused on the accords themselves, we would expect him or her to condemn vigorously all violations of them. I can't think of a single voice on the radical left that ever once called attention to the Vietcong's systematic terror campaigns in rural areas. Selectivity of outrage gives away the game.

Another anecdote: I was picking up pamphlets and propaganda flyers at an outdoor table manned by Maoists in the spring of 1968. The debate was over American "imperialism" in Southeast Asia. Yes, this was the Prague Spring. I commented that even as we spoke, Russian tanks were rolling through Prague. This, I said, is how a real empire behaves. The zombie behind the table replied that Czechoslovakia was theirs (the Russians), and they could do whatever they wanted with it. I wish I could tell you that he was an unusually obtuse fool, but he was a typical fool.

Other conservatives on campuses throughout the nation at that time can relate stories that mirror mine.

I will agree, then, that the person complaining about alleged American violations of the Geneva Accords is not logically committed to support the North Vietnamese cause. We are entitled to ask why that person does not complain about the other side'sviolations of the accords. I can further ask for evidence that leftist radicals critical of the U.S. who did not root for a communist victory actually existed.

Pomeroo:

Fortunately neither you nor I are responsible for what stupid people say or do, and the radical left certainly has had its share of those.

If you are looking for evidence of leftist radicals critical of the U.S. who did not root for a communist victory, you need look no farther than my father. A committed leftist, he was drafted out of college and sent to Vietnam, where he witnessed atrocities (mostly American, but that hearkens back to my previous point about proximity). Some say that war is hell, and while his experience was by no means the ultimate expression of this, it was enough to reinforce his convictions. I can assure you that while he was critical of the U.S. he was most emphatically not rooting for a communist victory (for more reasons than just the ideological ones - such a loss might have meant his own skin). He was not interested in prolonging the war, but I don't think this is an unusual opinion for those involved in such conflicts.

A slight caveat - while he isn't much for talking about his experiences (although he's opened up since I became an adult) he has commented before about the ruthless (and Geneva-violating) tactics of the North Vietnamese.

[pomeroo]

We'll just have to disagree on the Liar In Chief. My opinion is that it is beyond any doubt at this time that he lied to Congress and the American People in his State of The Union address in 2003 so as to get us into this war in Iraq, and that effort is just going oh-so-well, isn't it? Loathe him I do as I would loathe any person who caused such bloodshed for no reason other than his own ambitions.


But, that is precisely my point. You call him a liar but you can't point to any lies he's told. Nobody seriously believes that Bush and Cheney promised to find WMD that they knew weren't there. This is the left's Big Lie. The premise is absurd--that a pol sitting atop personal approval ratings in the high 70s would craft a falsehood that is guaranteed to get exposed and damage him greatly. Two bi-partisan Senate investigating committees found no evidence that intelligence was manipulated (again, what would be the purpose of manipulating intelligence if the outcome promises to be disastrous for the side doing the manipulating?) and every country monitoring Iraq agreed that Saddam had not accounted for his prohibited weapons. Bush understood that American and British forces would not find WMD, but he promised to find them anyway, and then neglected to plant any?!?! Seriously? The stockpiles weren't turning up and Bush and Cheney were twirling their mustaches and cackling that "the plan is working--we're blowing the election"?!

When you've created a devil-figure, I guess it's hard to stand back and observe dispassionately how silly it looks.

Bill Clinton bombed Iraq intensively for four days in 1998, targeting Revolutionary Guard barracks and WMD facilities. During the summer of 2003, as the search for the elusive weapons grew more and more frustrating, Carville, Begala, and Lanny Davis were appearing on talk shows suggesting "Maybe, we got it all." Did anyone hint in '98 that possibly there were no WMD to get? I never heard anyone on the left utter a peep about that possibility. I realize that people on the right were skeptical of the timing of the air campaign, broadly implying that it was intended to knock Monica off the front pages, but did anyone call Clinton a war-criminal? Odd, he bombs barracks and slaughters sleeping troops who have no idea that they're at war, and the moralizers are silent. How do you account for that? (I do recognize that there were undoubtedly denizens of the far-left fever swamps who regard Clinton as just another capitalist running dog and expressed their reflexive hatred of America, but such protests were muted by the mainstream media.) What do you suppose the reaction would have been if Bush had launched a surprise, four-day bombing campaign without consulting the U.N. or, for that matter, anybody else?

[Good Lt]

My opinion is that it is beyond any doubt at this time that he lied to Congress and the American People in his State of The Union address in 2003 so as to get us into this war in Iraq, and that effort is just going oh-so-well, isn't it?

With all due respect, fellow debunker, you might want to peek at this video, and then re-examine your definition of "lie."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

Fortunately neither you nor I are responsible for what stupid people say or do, and the radical left certainly has had its share of those.

If you are looking for evidence of leftist radicals critical of the U.S. who did not root for a communist victory, you need look no farther than my father. A committed leftist, he was drafted out of college and sent to Vietnam, where he witnessed atrocities (mostly American, but that hearkens back to my previous point about proximity). Some say that war is hell, and while his experience was by no means the ultimate expression of this, it was enough to reinforce his convictions. I can assure you that while he was critical of the U.S. he was most emphatically not rooting for a communist victory (for more reasons than just the ideological ones - such a loss might have meant his own skin). He was not interested in prolonging the war, but I don't think this is an unusual opinion for those involved in such conflicts.

A slight caveat - while he isn't much for talking about his experiences (although he's opened up since I became an adult) he has commented before about the ruthless (and Geneva-violating) tactics of the North Vietnamese.


You know I regard you as a person of high integrity, so I don't dispute any aspect of your story. Most liberal Democrats came to oppose the war, but I'd never suggest that they desired a communist victory. They rejected Southeast Asia as an appropriate venue for the application of policies of containment formulated in the Truman-era. Moving leftward along the spectrum, the emphasis changes sharply. During the period I refer to, there were leftists who simply wanted America to reduce its foreign entanglements and concentrate on domestic problems. But--and here is the point I want to stress--such liberals and moderate leftists were gradually excluded from the anti-war movement. David Horowitz confessed that when he edited "Ramparts," his circle regarded liberals as the main enemy. Far-left, Marxist, pro-North Vietnamese radicals were the driving force behind the protests and the campus insurrections. I saw what was happening. These people were not in favor of "peace," and they were not "idealists."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We'll just have to disagree on the Liar In Chief. My opinion is that it is beyond any doubt at this time that he lied to Congress and the American People in his State of The Union address in 2003 so as to get us into this war in Iraq, and that effort is just going oh-so-well, isn't it? Loathe him I do as I would loathe any person who caused such bloodshed for no reason other than his own ambitions.

If you're referring to the oft-discussed "sixteen words", then you should be aware that Saddam did try to acquire uranium from Nigeria. Both Joe Wilson and British intelligence have confirmed this.

[AZCat]

You know I regard you as a person of high integrity, so I don't dispute any aspect of your story. Most liberal Democrats came to oppose the war, but I'd never suggest that they desired a communist victory. They rejected Southeast Asia as an appropriate venue for the application of policies of containment formulated in the Truman-era. Moving leftward along the spectrum, the emphasis changes sharply. During the period I refer to, there were leftists who simply wanted America to reduce its foreign entanglements and concentrate on domestic problems. But--and here is the point I want to stress--such liberals and moderate leftists were gradually excluded from the anti-war movement. David Horowitz confessed that when he edited "Ramparts," his circle regarded liberals as the main enemy. Far-left, Marxist, pro-North Vietnamese radicals were the driving force behind the protests and the campus insurrections. I saw what was happening. These people were not in favor of "peace," and they were not "idealists."

Pomeroo:

I don't mean for my father's experiences to invalidate yours in any way. Clearly from your anecdotes (and from those of others) there was a schism such as you describe, where the fringe elements split off from the main group and took the "anti-war" identity with them. The people getting inches of newsprint and camera time were going to be the more "flavorful" variety - nobody wants to see or read coverage of reasonable people with reasonable concerns, for heaven's sake - and this probably played a large part in the shift of identity of the anti-war movement.

There are parallels today with the current anti-war movement. Leftists like myself who have argued against the Iraq war and occupation for many different reasons including expense (in monetary and casualty terms), legal grounds and the general immorality of killing lots of people - arguments you may disagree with but are generally (IMO) reasonable - have been to some degree marginalized by those who argue against the war because they believe the Bush Administration is waging a campaign of terror in an attempt to re-create a 1984-style fascist state (sound familiar? This is the conspiracy sub-forum). Why not? The fringe makes much better copy.




Sidebar: If you want to check up on any part of my father's experiences in Vietnam, he's not really eager to share that sort of stuff, especially with strangers, but I'd be willing to ask him to answer any questions you have. The "heads on spikes" thing I didn't find out from him - my mother told me about that one.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

The obvious response would be that putting a large number of attack helicopters over Baghdad at the start of the Iraq war would be an excellent way to get a large number of attack helicopters shot down.

-Gumboot

This is what I would have said. Helicopters come in *after* at least air superiority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority) is established, preferably with air supremecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy), not before.

Apaches, while one of the best attack chopper in existence, can still be brought down with enough small arms fire.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

"When one thinks of the cruelty, squalor, and futility of war, and in this particular case of the intrigues and persecutions,, the lies and the misunderstandings, there is always the temptation to say "One side is bad as the other, I am neutral." In practice however, one cannot be neutral, and there is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference in who wins. Nearly one side stands more or less for progress, the other more or less for reaction."

George Orwell said that looking back on the Spanish Civil War. I'm inclined to toss it at some leftists that claim to not take sides in the current conflict. But then again, that isn't directly relevant to the topic (although in reference to a previous poster, while those leftists did criticize American violations, real or imagined of the Geneva convention, I have never found a strong criticism of the North Vietnamese conduct of the war that came from the left. It does indicate a bias in a claimed neutral stance).

Carrying on however. I can't think of a stupider way to kill people. Attack helicopters are generally good at supporting ground forces (where the ground forces can suppress and kill potential anti-air threats) and sometimes conducting long range raids (generally against easily identified targets such as tanks).

Urban environments are bad places to take helicopters, because there's lots of places for someone to take shots at you from that you either cannot spot them in (windows, alleyways, etc) or cannot engage them in (American Rules of Engagement can be very strict).

Further, killing mass numbers of unarmed people with an attack helicopter is silly. The auto-cannon would only be effective if you had them lined up or in a tight mass, much the same if you were using unguided rockets. Hellfire, or TOW missiles would be like killing ants with an icepick. You'd kill a couple really, really dead but not the mass numbers.

Honestly if we were going to slaughter innocents we'd have just flown in B52 bombers wingtip to wingtip dropping sticks of bombs World War Two style. That'd kill a whole lot of people with less risk, and trickiness.

Besides, I knew people who flew in the first few days of the Iraq war. They weren't out playing whack a mole with the locals.

I am getting sick of this impression that the American soldier is a mindless killbot of some kind. My homicidal rages are limited to a strong desire to harpoon Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. Most babies, women, children, and civilians can sleep pretty safe. Assuming they're not trying to kill me. Then it's a bit different though.

http://k53.pbase.com/o4/29/149929/1/62154704.j2iVsPem.applause.gif

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

People who fabricate atrocities committed by American troops have an agenda. It reminds me of the late '60s and early '70s, when leftist radicals would scream about U.S. violations of the Geneva Accords in Vietnam. Without debating the merits of each specific claim, let us note that the side they were rooting for ignored the Geneva Accords completely and committed atrocities routinely and purposely.

Sounds like EXACTLY what is happening today.

[geni]

The problem is there is no militry doctrain under which that style of attack makes sense. Sure for wipeing out the odd village or small town attack helecoptors makes sense under some doctrains but you won't make a dent in Baghdad's popuation and there are far safer ways to get things done if you are trying to terrify civilians rather than kill them.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

The problem is there is no militry doctrain under which that style of attack makes sense. Sure for wipeing out the odd village or small town attack helecoptors makes sense under some doctrains but you won't make a dent in Baghdad's popuation and there are far safer ways to get things done if you are trying to terrify civilians rather than kill them.

Rumors are always a great way to terrify civilians. (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121383.html)

[geni]

Rumors are always a great way to terrify civilians. (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121383.html)

Terrifying civilians isn't always that useful.

[Oliver]

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon9.gif Supposed Iraqi massacre by US choppers


It isn't the first time...
GoogleVideo (http://video.google.de), Search-term "Iraq The Hidden Story"

Related Reports about US-Massacres:
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22us%20massacre%22%20helicopter%20iraq

[Undesired Walrus]

I am getting sick of this impression that the American soldier is a mindless killbot of some kind.

Ah come on... It's simply a stereotype of a reckless, heedless homicidal American fighting for freedom all over the world. Abu Ghraib was the spark that set it off. However isolated it is, history prays on it.

Just laugh about it, and realise it is, and always will be a part of satirical history.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Terrifying civilians isn't always that useful.

It is to terrorists.

[Pardalis]

It isn't the first time...
GoogleVideo (http://video.google.de), Search-term "Iraq The Hidden Story"

Related Reports about US-Massacres:
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22us%20massacre%22%20helicopter%20iraq

Appeal to Google fallacy.

[Hyperviolet]

Appeal to Google fallacy.

:D

[mailman]

We'll just have to disagree on the Liar In Chief. My opinion is that it is beyond any doubt at this time that he lied to Congress and the American People in his State of The Union address in 2003 so as to get us into this war in Iraq, and that effort is just going oh-so-well, isn't it? Loathe him I do as I would loathe any person who caused such bloodshed for no reason other than his own ambitions.

You know people who reckon GW purposely lied to congress, manipulated congress to get what he wanted, fooled the rest of the world to follow him...and then call him a dim witted moron really get on my tits.

I mean this thing about lieing...its right up there with those who say the invasion of Iraq is against international law...name and shame what exactly his lie was (just as those who claim the law thing never actually say what law they are talking about).

The major problem I see in America today is that the Dems hate GW so much they are willing to lose the war on terror if it means defeating the reps and taking power!

Mailman

[fuelair]

I was just thinking he might be referring to the March 24, 2003 attack near Karbala by 33 Apaches on an armoured brigade of the Medina Division of the Iraqi Republican Guard.

The attack was largely unsuccessful due to Iraqi flak defences, however although 30 of the 33 Apaches suffered serious damage, only two failed to return to base (one of which was captured by the Iraqis and destroyed the following day with an airstrike).

CNN ran an article on the attack, which is here (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/24/sprj.irq.apache.attack/index.html).

-Gumboot

Since I do not remember that, I hope they retaliated with planes some higher and left nothing of that unit.

[fuelair]

He isn't "morally" right to "loathe" a politician with whose policies he disagrees. He is missing the most important point: He may be wrong and Bush may be right. Staggering, isn't it?

I disagree with Democrats who want felons to retain the right to vote. I regard them as cynical, unprincipled hacks who reckon they will benefit from the change they propose. But, you know what? I may be judging them unfairly. Conceivably, at least some of them feel that allowing felons to vote is consistent with democratic (small "d") principles.

People who fabricate atrocities committed by American troops have an agenda. It reminds me of the late '60s and early '70s, when leftist radicals would scream about U.S. violations of the Geneva Accords in Vietnam. Without debating the merits of each specific claim, let us note that the side they were rooting for ignored the Geneva Accords completely and committed atrocities routinely and purposely.Interestingly. I disagree with you on the loathing Bush thing (if he was drowning I'd be clapping - as I did when J.Edgar Hoover went out of our misery. But I do agree on the felon thing - especially on felons who are violent, had any political or financial position, etc.

[Bell]

Since I do not remember that, I hope they retaliated with planes some higher and left nothing of that unit.

Why? For shooting down a helicopter and taking the airmen prisoner?

[geni]

It is to terrorists.

Not always. Do it against the wrong goverment and they will use it as an excuse to get all genocidal on whichever ethnic group you belong to.

[fuelair]

Why? For shooting down a helicopter and taking the airmen prisoner?
Yes. One of the first rules of successful warfare is to A) kill or defeat enemy and B)make sure that is clear to the enemy. If you take them on and they succeed, it gives them more will to fight. The entirity of success in warfare is to always do your best to use the materials and tactics that will minimise your losses and maximise theirs - and make sure they know that. The US should not ever be numerically or technologically overwhelmed in combat - if we choose the proper response for the enemy and do not have an idiot determining military policy.(That is , never let politicians do more than tell the military who to strike and then leave them alone to do it.).

[geni]

The US should not ever be numerically or technologically overwhelmed in combat - if we choose the proper response for the enemy and do not have an idiot determining military policy.

Unless you have a goverment mandated 4 kids per family program that is not long term sustainable.


(That is , never let politicians do more than tell the military who to strike and then leave them alone to do it.).

Except the militry would respond by detonateing nuclear weapons of the aproprait size over the target area. War is political and it is a mistake to pretend otherwise.

[fuelair]

Unless you have a goverment mandated 4 kids per family program that is not long term sustainable.



Except the militry would respond by detonateing nuclear weapons of the aproprait size over the target area. War is political and it is a mistake to pretend otherwise.
Which is why we keep losing citizens for no point and losing the wars.