USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
@ LC's comments:
I know everyone's moved beyond this, but anyway... on two points.
Your whole point is a red herring. About Sweden and Nazi Germany. Sweden was trading with its North Sea neighbours and G.B. The wars limited their trading partners. The wealth of Sweden during its heyday was generated by its entrepreneurs. Google if you wish to find out the spread of established business from 1870 to today. You'll notice the sharp drop after the Golden Age and virtual non-existance since 1970.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On railroads... This is laughable. President Grant had no real contribution to the building of the railroads. He did not provide the funds, the tax payers did. He didn't engineer. He didn't manufacture steel. He didn't lay down the tracks. In fact, out of all the people mentioned in the anals of history, the presidents had the least to do with the railroads. If you want to know how such large projects can be run privately, check out James Jerome Hill, the real railroad builder.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On healthcare bill....
I find it ironic that as USA is willing to increase governmental dependence on health care instead of actually solving the problem, one of the "best" examples of health care (France) is slowly and painfully heading in the other direction. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html.
I know everyone's moved beyond this, but anyway... on two points.
Your whole point is a red herring. About Sweden and Nazi Germany. Sweden was trading with its North Sea neighbours and G.B. The wars limited their trading partners. The wealth of Sweden during its heyday was generated by its entrepreneurs. Google if you wish to find out the spread of established business from 1870 to today. You'll notice the sharp drop after the Golden Age and virtual non-existance since 1970.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On railroads... This is laughable. President Grant had no real contribution to the building of the railroads. He did not provide the funds, the tax payers did. He didn't engineer. He didn't manufacture steel. He didn't lay down the tracks. In fact, out of all the people mentioned in the anals of history, the presidents had the least to do with the railroads. If you want to know how such large projects can be run privately, check out James Jerome Hill, the real railroad builder.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On healthcare bill....
I find it ironic that as USA is willing to increase governmental dependence on health care instead of actually solving the problem, one of the "best" examples of health care (France) is slowly and painfully heading in the other direction. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I wonder how Obama is going to deal with this shocking content, spreading rapidly over the internet. I'm sure he's gotta do something with it, e.g. contact Iraqi officials, or even speak out in public.
Brave was the hero who released this video.
Beware, the following article is horrible, but the video is really, really sick.
Video posted of Apache strike which killed Reuters employees
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — Whistleblower website WikiLeaks released video Monday of a US military Apache helicopter strike in Baghdad three years ago which killed two Reuters employees and a number of other people.
The gun camera footage includes audio conversations between Apache pilots and ground controllers in which they identify the men in a Baghdad street as armed insurgents and ask for permission to open fire.
Wikileaks said it had obtained and decrypted the video "from a number of military whistleblowers" but did not provide any further information about how it got ahold of the footage, which it posted at Wikileaks.org and on YouTube. ...
Brave was the hero who released this video.
Beware, the following article is horrible, but the video is really, really sick.
Video posted of Apache strike which killed Reuters employees
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — Whistleblower website WikiLeaks released video Monday of a US military Apache helicopter strike in Baghdad three years ago which killed two Reuters employees and a number of other people.
The gun camera footage includes audio conversations between Apache pilots and ground controllers in which they identify the men in a Baghdad street as armed insurgents and ask for permission to open fire.
Wikileaks said it had obtained and decrypted the video "from a number of military whistleblowers" but did not provide any further information about how it got ahold of the footage, which it posted at Wikileaks.org and on YouTube. ...
We'll have to see. It hasn't hit the big three stations in the States yet, but it is on the BBC.
Of course, Obama wasn't president at the time this happened - and let's make that clear - but the only appropriate response is to find these men and court-martial them, and apologize.
Of course, Obama wasn't president at the time this happened - and let's make that clear - but the only appropriate response is to find these men and court-martial them, and apologize.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Genghis Khan said:
LooseCannon said:
Um, the article contains the following: "At least two individuals in the video do appear to be carrying weapons." Hence, no court-martial. An apology would, however, be appropriate.
That depends, cfh. If you've watched the video (I watched the original on Wikileaks), you can see that they aren't carrying AKs. At least, it looked that way to me - but any death of a civilian should go to a court martial, and you're found innocent if you did nothing wrong, just like when a captain loses a ship.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
LooseCannon said:
I watched it, and frankly I can't tell what they're carrying. The article suggested that they had intelligence from the ground, and that some in the group did appear to have guns. Tragic that they confused someone shouldering a camera with someone aiming an RPG. Too bad Wasted isn't around to comment -- I'd be very interested in his thoughts -- but my inexperienced and speculative assumption is, if you've been shot at enough times, you have a pretty good idea what it looks like when it is about to happen, and you shouldn't be expected to wait until a grenade or bullet is actually headed your way to protect yourself, because then it is probably too late. If you're in a war, you need to be careful, but you probably can't be tentative, or else you're dead. While the gleeful comments about the kills were disturbing, what struck me when watching the video is that they did not fire until they got clearance from higher command, which suggests that protocols and rules of engagement were likely followed. The result does appear to be undeniably tragic -- though why did the van come up in the first place, and why were kids there? In any event, I don't think soldiers should be second-guessed too much when fighting a war. Presumably there will be some inquiry short of a court-martial, which is basically a trial. Based solely on what I saw in the video and read in the article, if the conclusion is that there is no basis to bring charges, then I wouldn't be outraged.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Everyone his own impressions. This is what I have seen:
A genuine video containing one of the clearest evidences of a serious war crime by a Western Democracy.
In decades.
Take that "scene" when they killed the guys who carried a wounded man into the van.
That was against the rules. Geneva rings a bell.
On top of it: I found those bloodthirsty comments quite outraging. Disgusting would be a better word.
Obviously, these military were only trying to get a high rating, just like in a computer game. The only freaky reason to shoot at those guys was the following: Fun.
They shot those guys for fun. F U N
Even if a couple of those guys were carrying weapons? There was no other reason -besides having fun- to immediately kill them all without warning. They didn't endanger anybody. There was no one around. No one in danger. No valid reason to shoot.
Even if someone in the vicinity might have been in danger?
Give a warning, accompanied by a warning shot -if you will-, a warning to drop down those weapons.
That's the way to do it.
The Germans killed Afghan soldiers a few days ago, but at least they sent out a warning before that happened.
Clearly an accident (a terrible accident, but still: they never wanted to kill in the first place: there was a warning) for which Angela Merkel apologized. The mistake was admitted and dealt with in a respectful way.
Of course I shouldn't forget that these actions are from 2007. Nowadays, I assume people are more careful in engagement.
A genuine video containing one of the clearest evidences of a serious war crime by a Western Democracy.
In decades.
Take that "scene" when they killed the guys who carried a wounded man into the van.
That was against the rules. Geneva rings a bell.
On top of it: I found those bloodthirsty comments quite outraging. Disgusting would be a better word.
Obviously, these military were only trying to get a high rating, just like in a computer game. The only freaky reason to shoot at those guys was the following: Fun.
They shot those guys for fun. F U N
Even if a couple of those guys were carrying weapons? There was no other reason -besides having fun- to immediately kill them all without warning. They didn't endanger anybody. There was no one around. No one in danger. No valid reason to shoot.
Even if someone in the vicinity might have been in danger?
Give a warning, accompanied by a warning shot -if you will-, a warning to drop down those weapons.
That's the way to do it.
The Germans killed Afghan soldiers a few days ago, but at least they sent out a warning before that happened.
Clearly an accident (a terrible accident, but still: they never wanted to kill in the first place: there was a warning) for which Angela Merkel apologized. The mistake was admitted and dealt with in a respectful way.
Of course I shouldn't forget that these actions are from 2007. Nowadays, I assume people are more careful in engagement.
Disclaimer: I know that my following post may seem inhumane or cynical to some. Rest assured that I am deeply disturbed by what I saw, and that I was lost for words when I saw it. It took me a while to craft this post, but I don't see how it helps anyone if I put emotions into this.
I don't know anything about rules of engagement or combat, so I'm not going to comment on that. I understand the points of view given here, but I have never been in a war, I have never been in combat, and I have no idea what kind of situation the Americans were in and under what pressure they were. Hence, I do not permit myself to come up with any theories or interpretations. I generally don't trust any reports that come from a war zone, first-hand or second hand, and whatever side they come from and whatever their intention is. I don't know to what extent that video was edited, but I think it would have been better if it had not been edited it at all. Sad as it is, the intro, ending and in-between cuts and replays are emotionalising propaganda. I'm also not comfortable with the fact that the source is not named, although I understand that there may be good reasons why. Still, I would have liked to read a word on the reason.
Having said that, it is undeniable that certain things can be seen in the video, and in those regards, that video is easily the most disturbing thing I've seen in quite a while. Disturbing, though not shocking. In fact, I am always quite surprised at how shocked people are when this sort of thing happens. Of course it shouldn't have happened, and of course the people who did it need to be held responsible and punished - for murder, in my opinion - but I'm almost amused by the naivety some people show when they are shocked by this sort of thing. I'm very disturbed by this, but given I expected news and footage like this - both the killing of civilians and the cynical comments from the soldiers - from the very day the first bomb fell on Iraq, I'm not shocked or surprised to the slightest.
Clearly, the military would be best off if they released the original footage with no edits, in order to either prove that the posted video was out of context or distorted, or as a gesture of goodwill saying "yes, somebody here fucked up and we are going to punish those responsible".
I don't know anything about rules of engagement or combat, so I'm not going to comment on that. I understand the points of view given here, but I have never been in a war, I have never been in combat, and I have no idea what kind of situation the Americans were in and under what pressure they were. Hence, I do not permit myself to come up with any theories or interpretations. I generally don't trust any reports that come from a war zone, first-hand or second hand, and whatever side they come from and whatever their intention is. I don't know to what extent that video was edited, but I think it would have been better if it had not been edited it at all. Sad as it is, the intro, ending and in-between cuts and replays are emotionalising propaganda. I'm also not comfortable with the fact that the source is not named, although I understand that there may be good reasons why. Still, I would have liked to read a word on the reason.
Having said that, it is undeniable that certain things can be seen in the video, and in those regards, that video is easily the most disturbing thing I've seen in quite a while. Disturbing, though not shocking. In fact, I am always quite surprised at how shocked people are when this sort of thing happens. Of course it shouldn't have happened, and of course the people who did it need to be held responsible and punished - for murder, in my opinion - but I'm almost amused by the naivety some people show when they are shocked by this sort of thing. I'm very disturbed by this, but given I expected news and footage like this - both the killing of civilians and the cynical comments from the soldiers - from the very day the first bomb fell on Iraq, I'm not shocked or surprised to the slightest.
Clearly, the military would be best off if they released the original footage with no edits, in order to either prove that the posted video was out of context or distorted, or as a gesture of goodwill saying "yes, somebody here fucked up and we are going to punish those responsible".
I think it's a little of column A and a little of column B. If I recall correctly, only uniformed soldiers and officers or officially licensed contractors (read: mercenaries) are allowed to carry weapons in certain areas of Iraq. The first part of it certainly seems to be more prudent than later. But Forostar is correct; collecting the wounded shouldn't be a target for attack.
With the helicopter, if you think the opposing side has an RPG you *must* shoot, because the RPG puts you in mortal danger (see Black Hawk Down). But for me it is what happened after that makes it far more questionable.
The comments are scary, but those aren't out of the ordinary, either. It's soldiers in a terrible situation trivializing death in order to remain sane long enough to get the job done. You hear the same lines in any number of memoirs about World War II, or I, or the Crusades, or the Saxon Wars, because it's sort of human psychology. That doesn't make it any more or less scary to hear; but it does make it somewhat expected. Now, some people certainly are sociopathical and treat it like a game, but I don't believe that applies to them all.
With the helicopter, if you think the opposing side has an RPG you *must* shoot, because the RPG puts you in mortal danger (see Black Hawk Down). But for me it is what happened after that makes it far more questionable.
The comments are scary, but those aren't out of the ordinary, either. It's soldiers in a terrible situation trivializing death in order to remain sane long enough to get the job done. You hear the same lines in any number of memoirs about World War II, or I, or the Crusades, or the Saxon Wars, because it's sort of human psychology. That doesn't make it any more or less scary to hear; but it does make it somewhat expected. Now, some people certainly are sociopathical and treat it like a game, but I don't believe that applies to them all.
LooseCannon said:
That was my thought as well. They did say they were being fired upon at first, so I am going to give them the benefit of doubt for the first attack. I don't know what an RPG looks like and if anything in the video could be mistaken for such. But I always thought firing on wounded or those who collect them is illegal.
Which is why I said I was disturbed, but not shocked. I know that soldiers trivialise the matter to be able to do their jobs. But when you actually hear it and see what is happening from a place a thousand miles away, outside the situation, it is obvious that it makes a certain impression to you, and that you have trouble understanding it. That is what I meant by I have never been in a war, I have never been in combat, and I have no idea what kind of situation the Americans were in and under what pressure they were. I have (thank God) never been in a situation like this in my life, so I don't feel like I can appropriately judge the situation. The situation must be assessed by people who know the situation and have been in it, and know what is lawful and what isn't. When I have seen such an assessment, then I might allow myself to judge.
I think, honestly, that we are all pretty understanding of what happened here. Is it tragic? Yes. However, when someone believes they are being fired upon, has ground troops saying they see/hear gunfire, and believe there is clear conformation, it seems like a logical approach. Later on, it appeared that the troops coming in to verify still believed (twice that I recall) that there was a live RPG round on the ground at the original shoot site. Actually, it seems that more people are bothered by the comments, rather than the actual actions-- is that true? The only thing I can say to that is this: it takes a certain personality to do war. We here, mostly, don't want to do that. However, I personally feel safer with people that want to do war out there. It isn't pretty or nice, but war isn't supposed to be. I think Per said it, that they had permission to engage, with the intel that they had available to them at the time. Like many have said, until we are in a situation like that, its hard to judge anything.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
So Obama and Russia's (Puppet) President signed an agreement to reduce both countries nuclear arsenal. Something that has been done for decades, but is yet another big step in de-escalating nuclear threat. The reduction is supposed to cut the arsenals 30%. I apologize for not having a link, but I saw it in the morning news.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Forostar said:
This shouldn't shock anyone that has read about and watched videos of warfare. They did seem to follow protocol, so my limited knowledge of military courts would lead me to believe that the soldiers will not be punished.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Did you read the rules of engagement then? You can find them on wikileaks as well.
Here's something the media have given less attention to. The soldiers blow up a building because they suspect there's a rocket in it. Alright, you think? No prob?
Problem is that this building is in a busy city block. Check this out:
source:
http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/p-missile.html (on this link there are many stills of various actions)
some examples + text
Another pedestrian walks in front of the same building, unaware of the impending danger.
The building was reported to be a possibly abandoned construction site, potentially occupied by insurgents
The pedestrian gets caught in the fireball as the Hellfire missile explodes on the building.
To the right inside the building a couple of people can be seen. Yet the bombardment continues.
People arrive at the scene - they will be shelled shortly thereafter.
So, without even reading these rules, I am pretty sure that it's against the rules to blow up a building without being sure if innocent people will be hit.
Here's something the media have given less attention to. The soldiers blow up a building because they suspect there's a rocket in it. Alright, you think? No prob?
Problem is that this building is in a busy city block. Check this out:
source:
http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/p-missile.html (on this link there are many stills of various actions)
some examples + text
Another pedestrian walks in front of the same building, unaware of the impending danger.
The building was reported to be a possibly abandoned construction site, potentially occupied by insurgents
The pedestrian gets caught in the fireball as the Hellfire missile explodes on the building.
To the right inside the building a couple of people can be seen. Yet the bombardment continues.
People arrive at the scene - they will be shelled shortly thereafter.
So, without even reading these rules, I am pretty sure that it's against the rules to blow up a building without being sure if innocent people will be hit.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
This shows again that communication without seeing and hearing the other can always go wrong.
I am perfectly calm.
I said that. I never said anyone else did. The first sentence was meant for Genghis, and is an innocent question. The rest is something else I wanted to tell, which also touches rules (was that confusing?). Without a single moment of losing my temper.
With "alright you think" I meant "yes, it's logical that they could have done that". So not -> you = anyone in particular. Generic you.
I even agree with the destroying of such a building, if done safely.
But after that I explained the circumstances (crowded city, no attention for people passing by).
This is a way to show how things can be seen as logical and correct in the first place, but when one looks closer and more critically, one can see what went wrong in basically all those situations.
Sorry for the confusion.
I am perfectly calm.
I said that. I never said anyone else did. The first sentence was meant for Genghis, and is an innocent question. The rest is something else I wanted to tell, which also touches rules (was that confusing?). Without a single moment of losing my temper.
With "alright you think" I meant "yes, it's logical that they could have done that". So not -> you = anyone in particular. Generic you.
I even agree with the destroying of such a building, if done safely.
But after that I explained the circumstances (crowded city, no attention for people passing by).
This is a way to show how things can be seen as logical and correct in the first place, but when one looks closer and more critically, one can see what went wrong in basically all those situations.
Sorry for the confusion.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
The Geneva Conventions are there to make war more humane, yet we all know this is often not how wars are fought. That's all I'm saying.
Invader
Ancient Mariner
Though the video was, quite frankly, rather sickening (I almost turned it off before the first shots were fired), the actions portrayed in it do not entirely surprise me (see Perun: disturbed, not shocked). Western democracies may have all these notions of humane war etc, yet these are not necessarily shared by its soldiers. I am in any case sceptical of what kind of people tend to start a career in the military (note: I said tend, not saying anything about individual people); probably this kind of uncaring attitude is more common among (voluntary) soldiers than the population as a whole. So, like I said, it is not surprising to see this kind of thing; we could be seeing a lot more (and probably there's much we don't see) of this. That does not make it any more acceptable, of course. Ultimately, the military high command can not 100% control its soldiers and their minds, even with extensive training; there will be these kind of people who enjoy (at least they seem to enjoy it in this video) killing, and they can not all be filtered out by psychological tests, training rules of engagement, etc.
That being said, I nonetheless would have wanted to see an unedited version instead to allow for an unbiased evaluation.
That being said, I nonetheless would have wanted to see an unedited version instead to allow for an unbiased evaluation.