Large caliber and explosive weapons: Should their use be limited?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Sorta OT, but...
I think it's very telling that everyone assumed it was Blackwater who fired indiscriminately during their recent engagement, and not the insurgents themselves. Very few members of the media have speculated on the possibility that the insurgents/terrorists setting the ambush may have been the ones who fired the shots that killed any civilians.

Even a large number of our own countrymen were quick to assume that US personnel were the ones in the wrong... It's very indicative of the PR War being waged by our enemies - and the fact that they are winning on that front.

And the fact that an Iraqi investigation suggested that the Blackwater folks fired first...?

In any case, I don't think it's "enemy PR" so much as it is automatic assumptions. No US people died and several innocent Iraqi civilians died, the conclusion most people would draw would be based on that, not any propaganda.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Sorta OT, but...
I think it's very telling that everyone assumed it was Blackwater who fired indiscriminately during their recent engagement, and not the insurgents themselves. Very few members of the media have speculated on the possibility that the insurgents/terrorists setting the ambush may have been the ones who fired the shots that killed any civilians.

Even a large number of our own countrymen were quick to assume that US personnel were the ones in the wrong... It's very indicative of the PR War being waged by our enemies - and the fact that they are winning on that front.

I agree, they have been winning the propaganda war for years now. We are the black hats to most of the world right now, so whenever things go badly, we are the prime suspect in the minds of many of the world's citizens, even here domestically. Someone mentioned winning their hearts and minds in a thread the other day, and as you stated, we are failing miserably in that area.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Rainsford


And the fact that an Iraqi investigation suggested that the Blackwater folks fired first...?

In any case, I don't think it's "enemy PR" so much as it is automatic assumptions. No US people died and several innocent Iraqi civilians died, the conclusion most people would draw would be based on that, not any propaganda.

I contend that propaganda is responsible for making the automatic assumption one where we are the usual suspect instead of thugs known to use holy sites and civilians as shields and propaganda tools.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ronstang
And people wonder why the US doesn't win wars anymore.

Wrong. The US kicks the crap out of conventional military opponents. Indiscriminate usage of large ordnance will not help against an insurgency. Only SpecOps, Political pressure form contemporaries in the region, Intelligence gathering, active detainment and even permanent incarceration/execution of proven troublemakers, etc, will 'win' what we're wrongly calling a 'war' in Iraq. The real war ended in '03, and our military kicked ass.

Oh yeah? Helped us a lot in WWII. By the time we ran the Germans through the ringer even the most die hard of Nazi's didnt want to fight anymore.

Different era, different culture, different people altogether. You win wars by breaking the enemy's weapons, and killing their soldiers. When we took Berlin, there were still hundreds of thousands of living German soldiers. Most all of those guys had lost family members or loved ones in the war. Yet how many acts of violence did they commit after the war? Do you think it would have been different if the infrastructure was more intact? Not a chance.

Not to mention, you have a poor understanding of German philosophy at the time. The Nazi party took power with a small portion of the vote, and most German civilians cared little for their politics. Were they innocent? Hell no, but I'd say only a tiny % of the country were ever die-hard Nazis. A great deal of the population supported them during the easy earlier triumphs, and fell for Goebbel's ceaseless propaganda, but you didn't have a population at large that really felt any desire for personal vengeance or additional bloodshed.

To compare Germany to Iraq is about the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Especially to say that Germany capitulated because of indiscriminate usage of carpet bombing/etc. The population was stable because they wanted a fresh start, and because they were a part of modern western civilization. The Iraqi sects are still living 500 years ago, thriving on ancient religious hatreds.

If we bombed all the major Iraqi cities for 5 years each, reducing everything to rubble, and then tried to occupy, nutjobs would crawl out of the ashes and try to kill us AND each other. It's just a different culture. IMHO, it's an inferior culture. That's not very PC, but you know the Christian/Western Civilization had it's growing pains as well, I just think most of the Muslim world is still in the dark ages culturally.

Agreed, WWII is the most mis-represented part of world history ever.

Besides, if you want to learn from WWII look at how a hard time did the Germans have fighting insurgents in Italy, France and Russia. Germany had the world's best infantry and armor troops and consistently sustained heavy casualties against groups of farmers and school teachers.

You don't win against guerrilla forces using traditional military strategies, and history proved it a couple thousands times.

 

[palehorse]

I think we should start allowing embedded reporters again so that the world can see first-hand the reality of the streets of Iraq - that is, if you can find any reporters brave enough to join our troops on those streets.

We'd find out once and for all who is telling the truth, and we may even be able to turn the tides in the PR war. Once the world sees the tactics being used by the insurgents and terrorists, they might even become disgusted enough to lend a hand... (doubtful, but still altogether possible).

The truth will set you free...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I think we should start allowing embedded reporters again so that the world can see first-hand the reality of the streets of Iraq - that is, if you can find any reporters brave enough to join our troops on those streets.

We'd find out once and for all who is telling the truth, and we may even be able to turn the tides in the PR war. Once the world sees the tactics being used by the insurgents and terrorists, they might even become disgusted enough to lend a hand... (doubtful, but still altogether possible).

The truth will set you free...

Which brings up the question, why ARE reporters limited to the green zone? It was a conscious decision on the part of the military to basically shut them out of the war. That might have been for safety, but I'm not so sure it would be the PR bonanza you seem to think. Seeing violent firefights, IEDs, etc, etc might make people dislike the insurgents...but conservative BS aside, I don't think you have many people rooting for them in the first place. But it WOULD make it a lot more difficult to spin the war as "going really well" with that kind of stuff going on.

I don't think it's accurate to say that we're getting our asses kicked or anything, but the Bush Administration's presentation of the war is hardly more accurate. The truth might set US free, but it's not going to help the partisan folks on either side very much. It's a toss-up between who wants honest, complete coverage LESS.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Rainsford


And the fact that an Iraqi investigation suggested that the Blackwater folks fired first...?

In any case, I don't think it's "enemy PR" so much as it is automatic assumptions. No US people died and several innocent Iraqi civilians died, the conclusion most people would draw would be based on that, not any propaganda.

I contend that propaganda is responsible for making the automatic assumption one where we are the usual suspect instead of thugs known to use holy sites and civilians as shields and propaganda tools.

We don't really know what happened, but I don't think that assumption is as crazy as you might think. All we know right now is that the contractors were shooting at something, it may have been insurgents (which is their claim), but as far as I've heard, these insurgents have yet to materialize at the scene, the only other folks that DID show up are a bunch of dead civilians. Given those circumstances, I don't think it's unreasonable to at least be suspicious that the contractors were responsible. And I realize they are probably a little biased, but the Iraqi government said the same thing after their investigation.

I think the propaganda really is going the other way. There aren't enough facts to say for sure yet (at least not that have been made public), but so far the circumstantial evidents at least points in the direction of the contractors. While at the same time there is very little evidence to support their claims. Based on that, it doesn't seem like a reasonable, unbiased person would be so sure in their defense. Are you sure the propaganda isn't working for the contractors here?

 

[fskimospy]

It all depends on what the reporters would film and actually send back for broadcast. The military works very hard to keep reporters seeing what the military wants them to see. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, you can't blame the military for wanting to promote its viewpoint, but to think that embedded reporters give an accurate sense of what is going on is stretching the truth a bit.

Also historically, the more the public sees of what actually goes on in a war the more they want nothing to do with it. There's a reason why you always see those sanitary movies of a bomb hitting a building, but you never see the footage of what actually happened to the people in it. The military knows that when people see death and mayhem they are revolted by it, and their support ebbs away. I don't think the administration can afford to lose what few war supporters there are left at this point, and so you won't see anything approaching "the troops on the streets".

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It all depends on what the reporters would film and actually send back for broadcast. The military works very hard to keep reporters seeing what the military wants them to see. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, you can't blame the military for wanting to promote its viewpoint, but to think that embedded reporters give an accurate sense of what is going on is stretching the truth a bit.

Also historically, the more the public sees of what actually goes on in a war the more they want nothing to do with it. There's a reason why you always see those sanitary movies of a bomb hitting a building, but you never see the footage of what actually happened to the people in it. The military knows that when people see death and mayhem they are revolted by it, and their support ebbs away. I don't think the administration can afford to lose what few war supporters there are left at this point, and so you won't see anything approaching "the troops on the streets".

That was kind of my point...the truth will indeed set you free, but it's notoriously hard to herd into supporting your particular agenda. Being pro-war is a lot easier when the only terrorist fighting you see is on 24.

 

[maluckey]

I think we should start allowing embedded reporters again so that the world can see first-hand the reality of the streets of Iraq - that is, if you can find any reporters brave enough to join our troops on those streets.

We still have embedded reporters. Michael Yon is still frequenting the various units in Iraq and spent some time up here recently. We currently have two reporters living with us. For the most part, volunteers are few, and they come here with some pretty messed up ideas about the war. Most leave with seriously changed opinions.

Which brings up the question, why ARE reporters limited to the green zone?

They aren't. Most of them don't WANT to leave the safety of Baghdad area. They want to hear war from miles away and pretend to know what's going on. It still gives them the "feel good" and "war" credentials to use for shameless self-promotion back in the States. Baghdad is just like living in the States except for the temperature and CHU's instead of apartments. VIP's stay in the hotel, so only the choice of restaurants and no nightclubs is different for them. You have about the same chance of dying inside the Baghdad bases as in Houston Tx.

 

[Sacrilege]

It's a well known fact among Iraqis that US soldiers and contractors have killed thousands of innocent civilians in mistaken engagements, checkpoints, etc. It doesn't matter how many more innocent civilians Iraqi insurgents kill, the fact that a foreign occupying force kills civilians adds insult to injury, and makes many Iraqis hate Americans more than their violent countrymen. As long as this perception continues, nothing we say can convince their hearts and minds that we are there "to help save them."

Its the same reason people froth with rage when terrorists kill a few thousands Americans, yet thousands upon thousands more Americans die every year from murders, or avoidable car accidents, or tobacco. Some of you seem clueless of the psychological underpinnings of our problems in Iraq, and it would seem that the US gov't isn't on the ball either.

 

[maluckey]

It's a well known fact among Iraqis that US soldiers and contractors have killed thousands of innocent civilians in mistaken engagements, checkpoints, etc.

War kills innocents. It's a fact. This war in particular has been the least collateral damage of any major war in the 19th, 20th or 21st century. Most Iraqis that I deal with are not concerned with accidental deaths so much as Iraqi government ineptitude and American politics not getting how Iraq works.

Its the same reason people froth with rage when terrorists kill a few thousands Americans, yet thousands upon thousands more Americans die every year from murders, or avoidable car accidents, or tobacco. Some of you seem clueless of the psychological underpinnings of our problems in Iraq, and it would seem that the US gov't isn't on the ball either.

I don't think that I understand you.

If you are saying that some in the Govt of the U.S. don't understand the ME then you are on to something. As far as Sept. 11....There is a large difference in accidentally killing non-comatants versus premeditated murder of non-combatants. Even in the U.S. you have different definitions of accidental death, manslaughter and negligent homicide versus pre-meditated murder. It's the same in Iraqi laws BTW.

 

[compnovice]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
And people wonder why the US doesn't win wars anymore.

So now its a war, not liberation?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ronstang
And people wonder why the US doesn't win wars anymore.

Wrong. The US kicks the crap out of conventional military opponents. Indiscriminate usage of large ordnance will not help against an insurgency. Only SpecOps, Political pressure form contemporaries in the region, Intelligence gathering, active detainment and even permanent incarceration/execution of proven troublemakers, etc, will 'win' what we're wrongly calling a 'war' in Iraq. The real war ended in '03, and our military kicked ass.

Oh yeah? Helped us a lot in WWII. By the time we ran the Germans through the ringer even the most die hard of Nazi's didnt want to fight anymore.

Different era, different culture, different people altogether. You win wars by breaking the enemy's weapons, and killing their soldiers. When we took Berlin, there were still hundreds of thousands of living German soldiers. Most all of those guys had lost family members or loved ones in the war. Yet how many acts of violence did they commit after the war? Do you think it would have been different if the infrastructure was more intact? Not a chance.

Not to mention, you have a poor understanding of German philosophy at the time. The Nazi party took power with a small portion of the vote, and most German civilians cared little for their politics. Were they innocent? Hell no, but I'd say only a tiny % of the country were ever die-hard Nazis. A great deal of the population supported them during the easy earlier triumphs, and fell for Goebbel's ceaseless propaganda, but you didn't have a population at large that really felt any desire for personal vengeance or additional bloodshed.

To compare Germany to Iraq is about the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Especially to say that Germany capitulated because of indiscriminate usage of carpet bombing/etc. The population was stable because they wanted a fresh start, and because they were a part of modern western civilization. The Iraqi sects are still living 500 years ago, thriving on ancient religious hatreds.

If we bombed all the major Iraqi cities for 5 years each, reducing everything to rubble, and then tried to occupy, nutjobs would crawl out of the ashes and try to kill us AND each other. It's just a different culture. IMHO, it's an inferior culture. That's not very PC, but you know the Christian/Western Civilization had it's growing pains as well, I just think most of the Muslim world is still in the dark ages culturally.

Please I understand the rise of Nazi power in Germany all too well.

Anyways if you will notice our change in policy from WWII has resulted in never ending wars. The pyschology behind it hasnt changed for centuries. The idea humans are any different from 60 years ago is laughable.

What % do you put as the die hard islamiscists in Iraq? I'd be willing to bet they dont represent much more of the population than the Nazi's did.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ronstang
And people wonder why the US doesn't win wars anymore.

Wrong. The US kicks the crap out of conventional military opponents. Indiscriminate usage of large ordnance will not help against an insurgency. Only SpecOps, Political pressure form contemporaries in the region, Intelligence gathering, active detainment and even permanent incarceration/execution of proven troublemakers, etc, will 'win' what we're wrongly calling a 'war' in Iraq. The real war ended in '03, and our military kicked ass.

Oh yeah? Helped us a lot in WWII. By the time we ran the Germans through the ringer even the most die hard of Nazi's didnt want to fight anymore.

Different era, different culture, different people altogether. You win wars by breaking the enemy's weapons, and killing their soldiers. When we took Berlin, there were still hundreds of thousands of living German soldiers. Most all of those guys had lost family members or loved ones in the war. Yet how many acts of violence did they commit after the war? Do you think it would have been different if the infrastructure was more intact? Not a chance.

Not to mention, you have a poor understanding of German philosophy at the time. The Nazi party took power with a small portion of the vote, and most German civilians cared little for their politics. Were they innocent? Hell no, but I'd say only a tiny % of the country were ever die-hard Nazis. A great deal of the population supported them during the easy earlier triumphs, and fell for Goebbel's ceaseless propaganda, but you didn't have a population at large that really felt any desire for personal vengeance or additional bloodshed.

To compare Germany to Iraq is about the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Especially to say that Germany capitulated because of indiscriminate usage of carpet bombing/etc. The population was stable because they wanted a fresh start, and because they were a part of modern western civilization. The Iraqi sects are still living 500 years ago, thriving on ancient religious hatreds.

If we bombed all the major Iraqi cities for 5 years each, reducing everything to rubble, and then tried to occupy, nutjobs would crawl out of the ashes and try to kill us AND each other. It's just a different culture. IMHO, it's an inferior culture. That's not very PC, but you know the Christian/Western Civilization had it's growing pains as well, I just think most of the Muslim world is still in the dark ages culturally.

Agreed, WWII is the most mis-represented part of world history ever.

Besides, if you want to learn from WWII look at how a hard time did the Germans have fighting insurgents in Italy, France and Russia. Germany had the world's best infantry and armor troops and consistently sustained heavy casualties against groups of farmers and school teachers.

You don't win against guerrilla forces using traditional military strategies, and history proved it a couple thousands times.

Anybody find it ironic he complains about WWII being the most misrepresented war in world history ever, then repeats the lie that the Germans were the best trained and armored troops in the war?

Goebels propaganda about the german war machines is still alive and well over 60 years after its defeat.

 

[piasabird]

Typically it is a tactic to place a rocket launcher on top of a civilian location, so that there will be civilian casualties. So I dont care. If a civilian location is used as a launchpad for a missle or a rocket and it gets bombed that is just too bad. The aggressor is to blame just as much as our military. If the enemy is a coward, then it is his fault that the civilians die. If civilians let these military or terrorists put a weapon on their roof they are just as guilty as the terrorist thugs who put it there. If they choose to put their lives and the lives of their children at risk, then that is too bad. They make that choice. Everything in life is a choice and a risk.

War is hell. In war people die. The more people that have to die the easier it will be to remember the hell that war is. It is a mistake on the tallest order to try to fight a nice war where you do not try to kill many people. In the long run it is better to kill as many of the people on the other side as possible. It makes them rember that starting a war is a bad idea. The problem is that there are some leaders who are more than willing to put people at risk and they dont care how many people die. So I say if we have to fight a war we should kill as many people as possible.

 

[jonks]

From the threat title I thought this was a 2nd amend question. Which is actually the one I find more interesting. If you believe in the right to bear arms as the Const says, where does it say arms is restricted to rifles? I think if you believe in the 2nd amend, you've gotta believe in your right to grenades and heavy ordinance.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
From the threat title I thought this was a 2nd amend question. Which is actually the one I find more interesting. If you believe in the right to bear arms as the Const says, where does it say arms is restricted to rifles? I think if you believe in the 2nd amend, you've gotta believe in your right to grenades and heavy ordinance.

The term "arms" meant rifles, pistols, etc... at the time.

Ordnance was not included.