Three Insugents Killed (300 More Created)

[MarineGrunt]

I don't "buy into" any rhetoric. I look at the cold hard facts and make up my own mind. I am sometimes pursuaded by clear cut logical uses of the facts. (I don't have preconcieved opinions which i'll stick to regardless of factual evidence to the contrary)

I do think our strategy can be better and more effective if we take into account the fact that collateral damage is a critical element in this war and has to be avoided at almost all costs. So there you have it, fire away.

I'd also say that killing the enemy is a critical element. What did you want those troops to do? Knock on the door and ask, "excuse me, we're gonna blow up this building and just wanted to make sure there were no innocent people inside? No? Okaaaay...." You cannot have war without collateral damage. Care to take a guess how many Americans have died over there because there MIGHT be a risk of killing innocents? I can think of three off hand.

I understand it can be unavoidable, and no other country on earth has gone to further lengths to invent and employ technologies that will limit it. But there has been so many incidents like this which seem to fuel more and more insurgents, which we respond back with more incidents like this.

How many insugents were created by this attack? 0, 1, 2, 300? PLease tell me how you know and I might be able to get you a job at the Pentagon.

My point is, this cycle we're in doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. But so many of us cling to our strategy like it's a religion.

Your thoughts doctor?

My thoughts? I still dont think you know what our strategy is. If so, why do you suppose we are clinging to it? I think it's called "winning."

 

[MarineGrunt]

They just wanted to shut me up using bad logic, which is kind of like torture.

Uh, we were using the same "logic" you were when you made the title of this post as an example as to why we think it's wrong.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'd also say that killing the enemy is a critical element. What did you want those troops to do? Knock on the door and ask, "excuse me, we're gonna blow up this building and just wanted to make sure there were no innocent people inside? No? Okaaaay...." You cannot have war without collateral damage. Care to take a guess how many Americans have died over there because there MIGHT be a risk of killing innocents? I can think of three off hand.

How many insugents were created by this attack? 0, 1, 2, 300? PLease tell me how you know and I might be able to get you a job at the Pentagon.
My thoughts? I still dont think you know what our strategy is. If so, why do you suppose we are clinging to it? I think it's called "winning."

Here we go again, no I don't think the troops should have to go up and knock on the door, and I'm pretty sure there are other alternatives to both what happened and what you suggest I think should happen.

I don't claim to know exactly how many insurgents were created from this incident. The point, as I've stated before, is that we're making more than we're killing. Which isn't helping us WIN at all. Killing insurgents is critical, yes RAMBO, but if we make two for every one we kill does that make sense?

 

[stonewall]

As far as exaggerating your opponents position to make their position clear, true I did do that in response. They didn't want to shut me up by throwing me into the torture chambers, but I wouldn't put it past them if they could. Haha. They just wanted to shut me up using bad logic, which is kind of like torture.

Calling me a flaming leftie? I don't even know how far right you must be to call me that based on what I've said.

Hi pot, I'm kettle. You've used any number of logical fallacies over the past two pages. Ad Hominem attacks, stacking the deck, poisoning the wells, arguments to the future, argument by question, scare tactics, and emotional appeals are a few. Hey, it's what we do on this board.

However, your key problem lies in your assumption:

There have been collateral damage incidents.
Not worrying about collateral damage must be our overall strategy.
Doesn't everyone think we must change our strategy?

Incidents such as this one are NOT our strategy (or accepted tactics) for victory in Iraq. You've worded your posts and questions in such a manner that in order to defend the "strategy" we have to defend the collateral damage strike. The two are mutually exclusive and unrelated. But you knew that, didn't you?

And, clearly, anyone who hasn't pulled a trigger doesn't have any credibility on our strategy. And I'm an F-16 pilot, so I KNOW what I'm talking about.
(ad hominem and appeal to authority anyone?)

 

[Paris]

Why did we attack Iraq originally?
Why are we in Iraq now?
Is the U.S. safer as a result?

In my opinion, the military is playing janitor to the current idiot in office. He sends other people's children to die in a quagmire, blames it all on CNN, and the military has to come in to make it all work out. Why is it some of you guys associate a dissenting opinion with being unpatriotic(i.e. helping Al Jazerra). "You're either with or or against us" is feeble-minded drool best kept in old westerns.

As an aside, I don't think there was anything wrong with blowing up those insurgents.

 

[MarineGrunt]

The point, as I've stated before, is that we're making more than we're killing. Which isn't helping us WIN at all. Killing insurgents is critical, yes RAMBO, but if we make two for every one we kill does that make sense?

And my question is how do you know this?

 

[AdlerDriver]

Give the Iraqis some credit

See, I thought that too, and yes I agree, the blame for those dead women and kids rests solely on those insurgents. But let's look at our enemy. They routinely employ suicide bombing tactics. They don't care about putting their lives or the lives of those they "love" in danger. We killed insurgents, but don't you agree, in the blood vengance culture, we created a lot more, and are ultimately hurting our own objective?

The big question is, do actions like this (seems to be our strategy) get us closer to a stable and democratic Iraq, which we can all agree is what we want?

Karma,
I think you’re selling the average Iraqi pretty short. I think in general, they’re able to figure out what’s going on here.

What makes you think they can’t see this for exactly what it is? Some bad guys put some innocents in harm’s way and some of them end up dead (along with the bad guys). Is this now going to create “300 insurgents”? Most people with common sense are going to direct their outrage at the group acting illegally and cowardly using non-combatants to muddy the waters.

Iraqis are going to be pissed their women and children died, that’s for sure. I think most will be pissed at the insurgents and not apt to pick up a weapon and join the @ssholes who they know caused those deaths.

This theory of “creating insurgents” is just a liberal wet-dream that gets perpetuated in the media in the faint hope that it will actually start happening.

Oh….yeah… and I also need to wave the BS flag on this:

………………Please tell me you aren't so naive to think I read this story, then started questioning our strategy for success in Iraq.

I'm more interested in hearing from fellow military aviators on the topic of overall iraqi strategy than questioning the validity of that particular decision. I used that as an example.

If you started this thread in an attempt to hear from “fellow military aviators on the topic of overall Iraqi strategy…blah…blah….blah..” then why does the first line of your post start with this:

“This is a prime example of why the situation in Iraq is where it's at.”

Sounds to me like someone who “read this story and then started questioning our strategy for success in Iraq”.

 

[MarineGrunt]

Why did we attack Iraq originally?
Why are we in Iraq now?
Is the U.S. safer as a result?

In my opinion, the military is playing janitor to the current idiot in office. He sends other people's children to die in a quagmire, blames it all on CNN, and the military has to come in to make it all work out. Why is it some of you guys associate a dissenting opinion with being unpatriotic(i.e. helping Al Jazerra). "You're either with or or against us" is feeble-minded drool best kept in old westerns.

As an aside, I don't think there was anything wrong with blowing up those insurgents.

I dont even know where to start with this one.....!

 

[MarineGrunt]

21 Iraqi People Killed (2100 Coalition Allies Created)

http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0505/227683.html

 

[stonewall]

Why did we attack Iraq originally?
Why are we in Iraq now?
Is the U.S. safer as a result?

In my opinion, the military is playing janitor to the current idiot in office. He sends other people's children to die in a quagmire, blames it all on CNN, and the military has to come in to make it all work out. Why is it some of you guys associate a dissenting opinion with being unpatriotic(i.e. helping Al Jazerra). "You're either with or or against us" is feeble-minded drool best kept in old westerns.

As an aside, I don't think there was anything wrong with blowing up those insurgents.

That was the worst post on this board. I'm going to address you once, and that's it.

No children have died in Iraq. They are MEN and WOMEN who chose to serve their country. They were not "sent" by some evil puppet master. To imply any of the above minimizes their service and belittles their intelligence.

Nobody called KP unpatriotic. And nobody cares about Al Jazeera. We care when Al Jazeera picks up wild statements by public figures (politicians) and soldiers who say "we're losing, the insurgents are winning." That clearly DOES give the terrorists motivation to carry on and keep fighting.

Ascribing the statement "you're either with us or against us" to anyone here is a logical fallacy of the worst sort, as is calling us feeble minded. Nobody said that you idiot.

Nobody blamed anything on CNN. The president is likely smarter than you. Iraq is not a quagmire. Conjuring up images by inflammatory, Vietnam era recycled hippy garbage (OUR CHILDREN ARE BEING SENT TO DIE IN A QUAGMIRE!!) might've worked in the 70s (when 58K died and there was a draft) but it won't work today.

You know why we attacked Iraq, you know why we're there now, and nobody will ever be able to measure if we're safer (to your standard anyway). You know the arguments, so stop pretending you've never heard them. If you don't agree with them or like them, vote in the midterm elections in 06 and vote for somebody else in 08.

Now go away.

 

[MarineGrunt]

Marines Kill 9 Insurgents (900 Insurgents Scared Sh!tless)

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/28/iraq.main/

 

[KarmaPolice]

Karma,
I think you’re selling the average Iraqi pretty short. I think in general, they’re able to figure out what’s going on here.

What makes you think they can’t see this for exactly what it is? Some bad guys put some innocents in harm’s way and some of them end up dead (along with the bad guys). Is this now going to create “300 insurgents”? Most people with common sense are going to direct their outrage at the group acting illegally and cowardly using non-combatants to muddy the waters.

Iraqis are going to be pissed their women and children died, that’s for sure. I think most will be pissed at the insurgents and not apt to pick up a weapon and join the @ssholes who they know caused those deaths.

This theory of “creating insurgents” is just a liberal wet-dream that gets perpetuated in the media in the faint hope that it will actually start happening.

Oh….yeah… and I also need to wave the BS flag on this:



If you started this thread in an attempt to hear from “fellow military aviators on the topic of overall Iraqi strategy…blah…blah….blah..” then why does the first line of your post start with this:

“This is a prime example of why the situation in Iraq is where it's at.”

Allright, I'm out, can't argue with people who aren't willing to give me the benefit of the doubt on my own basic motivations. I think what I said was a pretty good way to get some opinions and arguments going. I was expecting to get a little more defensive help. Point taken.

My point is that our strategy for attacking the insurgents seems to be locking us into a vicious cycle, and that cycle is not leading us towards victory in Iraq. I believe there is a way to fight the insurgency without taking chances like we did with this latest strike. But I guess you have to pull a trigger to be qualified on our Iraq strategy so my opinion is moot. (ala Magnum).

 

[stonewall]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7092159/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/04/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/04/ixworld.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28105-2004Oct12.html

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1134719982.shtml

http://iraqiexpat.blogspot.com/2005/03/terrorists-are-losing.html

This took 5 seconds.

 

[stonewall]

Karma,
I think you’re selling the average Iraqi pretty short. I think in general, they’re able to figure out what’s going on here.

What makes you think they can’t see this for exactly what it is? Some bad guys put some innocents in harm’s way and some of them end up dead (along with the bad guys). Is this now going to create “300 insurgents”? Most people with common sense are going to direct their outrage at the group acting illegally and cowardly using non-combatants to muddy the waters.

Iraqis are going to be pissed their women and children died, that’s for sure. I think most will be pissed at the insurgents and not apt to pick up a weapon and join the @ssholes who they know caused those deaths.

This theory of “creating insurgents” is just a liberal wet-dream that gets perpetuated in the media in the faint hope that it will actually start happening.

Oh….yeah… and I also need to wave the BS flag on this:



If you started this thread in an attempt to hear from “fellow military aviators on the topic of overall Iraqi strategy…blah…blah….blah..” then why does the first line of your post start with this:

“This is a prime example of why the situation in Iraq is where it's at.”

Allright, I'm out, can't argue with people who aren't willing to give me the benefit of the doubt on my own basic motivations. I think what I said was a pretty good way to get some opinions and arguments going. I was expecting to get a little more defensive help. Point taken.

My point is that our strategy for attacking the insurgents seems to be locking us into a vicious cycle, and that cycle is not leading us towards victory in Iraq. I believe there is a way to fight the insurgency without taking chances like we did with this latest strike. But I guess you have to pull a trigger to be qualified on our Iraq strategy so my opinion is moot. (ala Magnum).

That was said tongue in cheek. Did you not see me point out my own logical fallacies after I said it? I guess I gave you a little too much credit in the brains department. I'm glad you're breaking this vicious cycle of FI posts!

 

[MarineGrunt]

I believe there is a way to fight the insurgency without taking chances like we did with this latest strike.

Then what is it???

But I guess you have to pull a trigger to be qualified on our Iraq strategy so my opinion is moot. (ala Magnum).

Pretty much yes. But more importantly, you need to understand the difference between tactics and strategy and specifically how those tactics are employed. Its the same thing as a person criticizing a pilot's actions who knows absolutely nothing about aviation or the situation at hand.