Dafdaf, of course, British and American opponents of war did not want their respective armies to lose the war: this would mean numerous casualties among their compatriots. But I have seen on TV (I do not remember when exactly) a public anti-war demonstration somewhere in Europe, I think, in France; some of the posters contained wishes to the U.S./UK soldiers to return home in the plastic bags. NB: the people that held the posters did not look like Arabs...
I didn't see that, steissd, but heard of it.
However, I have seen (heard and spoken with) some British protesters, who said the same, discussed it with a Minister to the Foreign Office.
I suppose, you will always find some people with an even worse and more extreme opinion than you can think of!
Well maybe this is a patriotism thing. Personally I can't see the difference between a UK soldier coming home in a plastic bag, and an Iraqi suffering the same fate. I wanted the war to be swift and painless for the sake of human lives, and for the coalition to be 'victorious' so that some good could come of it.
As the media reports the best and worse of the combat fighting, it does the same to the demonstrator's plight. A few short-minded protestors who held those banners do Not speak for the rest of us. During the huge and peaceful protests in Bristol, I saw a small number of kids marching with us. Later a few policemen stood directly in the way of the crowd marching. The news reports that day reported how the marches were largely children, and then followed it with an apparent riotous fight between police and protestors.
If you want to argue that this war was best for the world, then do so. But arguing that we wanted death and the continued rule of Saddam is just plain ignorant.
au1929 wrote:dlowan
To you I can only ask
Vas You Dare charlie?
No.
Were you?
I am always suspicious of stories that keep changing.
Have you read the post from Fbaezer with which I am agreeing?
I can well understand the possibilities for things like this happening in a war. I am not, in fact, criticizing the people on the ground. I am criticizing the fudging and ducking being engaged in by the brass and government.
au1929 wrote:dlowan
To you I can only ask
Vas You Dare charlie?
This is a complex question (common fallacy). This question is without merit because it operates on the extremely simple and extremely false assumption that physical proximity is the only way to make an intellectually sound judgement call.
She has as much right to her opinion as you do. Asking her is she was there is an insipid ploy.
steissd wrote:
I do not think that the French media may be considered trustworthy in anything pertaining to the U.S. operation in Iraq.
When dismissing dissent causes no remores for the lack of intellectual curiosity that it represents discussion is pointless. You might as well just call all your detractors untrustworthy and declare yourself the sole owner of truth.
au, it's not a sin to be nervous in those circumstances.
In fact, I was trying to explain and (partially) justyfing what they did!
If you don't want to believe Reuters agency, it's your privilege. They quote the commander, wwho is acknowledging a mistake.
If you and steissd want to take every single word of the people against this war as an attack to the US, it's strictly your privilege.
ezer
Quote:Quote:
I think it is an error who tells a lot about the American GIs' nerviousness, a "kill first, find out later" attitude.
Nervousness! Who wouldn't be as you say nervous when they are in the midst of battle and people are shooting at them. It is amazing how we safely sitting at our computers can make judgments on how to act when in harms way. I don't know what runs through peoples minds in those situations. However, placed in that situation there is no doubt that I would be inclined to shoot first.
I was not commenting on the report from Reuters. Just on your comment that I originally quoted.
The unamerican activities police generally restrict their activities to American citizens.
dlowan
When I said "vas you dare charlie" I was again only refering to the bit about American soldiers nervousness.Should have been more specific.
my intent when posting this topic was that an incident occured for whatever reasons. my concern was not so much the issue itself but offical statements that 1. it never occured 2. it may have been Iraqi fire, not us. 3. the tank in question could not have fired at that elevation. 4. the tank fired becuase it was drawing fire. The truth seems to be that the tank fired intentionally because someone was seen with binoculars. If the "offical" statement had been honest in the first place the "event" would probably been accepted as an unfortunate incident in a war zone. as it came down it bacame just another one of the Rumsfled/Bush cya denials.
Reports from the field of battle are often sketchy, and reflect views that may not later be justified. I don't think the Commanding General lied about anything, though he and other members of the NCA may have spoken too soon. When you have reporters commenting "real time" from the field, all reports should be regarded with great suspicion.
More times than I can count, media reports failed to capture the events that I either personally witnessed, or could piece together from field reports made by folks trained to properly observe what was going on. Under the best of circumstances, unraveling the "Truth" of any event is problematical.
The problem with the "fog of war" explanation is that it can be used as a foolproof cover for murder & intimidation.
Plus it completely discounts the intentional muddying of the waters that the military PR department does routinely.
In recent American situations of collateral damage it has been standard procedure to:
Say "we are investigating"
Suggest that the enemy did it "it could have been an anti-aircraft munition returning to earth".
And ultimately when the furor dies down accept responsibility.
In many clases the probability of it being our fault is obvious and great and in those situations it would be better to deffer certainty to the conclusion of the investigation but not pull the ole "the enemy might have done it" red herring.
In this war how many times was it suggested to have been an enemy action when it ended up being an honest mistake and collateral damage?
Violet,
You are certainly correct. When the facts are difficult, or impossible to ascertain, there is always a danger that someone will cook up a story that meets their needs. This is one of the reasons that character in the leadership is so important. I trust General Franks to be honest, and to tell the truth as he sees it. He is an honorable man with a long history of honorable behavior. I trust Mr. Rumsfeld somewhat less, but I don't know of any lies that he's told in the current situation. He certainly has mis-stated things a few times, but there is no reason to believe those to be consciously intended to mislead. Actually, if you review the remarks of the Secretary of Defense, I think you will find that he rarely makes any statement that isn't qualified.
On the other hand, would you trust the Iraqi Minister of Information if he came into the room soaking wet and told you that it was raining outside, or would you take a quick look outside the window?
There are a number of techniques for separating the chaff from the wheat, but they all have their own drawbacks. As a consequence, we use multiple tests for accuracy and even then our biases will betray us as often as not. Most folks won't even admit to their biases ... an analyst's nightmare. It's so much easier to deal with footnotal events more than a hundred years in the past. Wait long enough and the "truth" (whatever that is) will out ... or so we hope.
Asherman wrote:
On the other hand, would you trust the Iraqi Minister of Information if he came into the room soaking wet and told you that it was raining outside, or would you take a quick look outside the window?
LOL best anecdote of the day!
But not lying doesn't translate into honour. Not lying recognizes the strategic advantage of misstating over obvious lies. It's just as disingenuous to purposefully mistate as it is to simply lie. Mistatements are simply more effective.
Craven & Asherman, you both make good points. We're in no position to make judgements, but we are in a position (some would argue that it's our responsibility as civilized people) to question & investigate events like these.
war is the most callous and cynical of enterprises
"UK: "We're sorry."
and thats what needed to be said but is not in either Rumsfeld or Bush's vocabulary
There is no way for anybody to make assumptions on this tragedy. Whether it was intentional or an accident is the major question, but impossible to determine only from news media information. c.i.
