The Meanings Of The 2007 Iraq Apache Camera Video Release

[Hissyspit]

Several people have requested that I put this reply comment up as a separate original post. I have modified the text of my original reply somewhat.

"We all make mistakes. We know we make mistakes. I don't know any military commander, who is honest, who would say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What "the fog of war" means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily."
- Robert McNamara in 'The Fog of War'

"It may affront the military-minded person to suggest a regime that does not maintain any military secrets."
- Albert Einstein

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
- Bertrand Russell

WikiLeaks, an essentially internatonal and for all intents and purposes, non-partisan "sunshine" organization, skillfully handled the release of the whistleblower video as much as possible for maximum exposure and control of the message. Later in the day Monday, the day of the video release, the materialization of what could be said they perceived as misdirection and deflection tactics was commented upon by them on Twitter:

Lots of people avoiding talking murderous attack on the van/wounded; strawmanning camera/rpg confusion as the issue"
8:35 PM Apr 5th via bit.ly

The focus on the Iraq massacre response should be the cover-up and the van/missile attack.
7:20 AM Apr 6th via bit.ly

The main issues, the meanings and significance, of this video and this video release - which I have previously described as unprecedented (not meaning that the incident is unprecedented: It is not, and THAT is part of the meaning: too 'we see this, what have we NOT seen?') - the main issues are multiple beyond 'RPG or no,' and 'that's what happens in war, it always has.' The meanings are about whether wounded civilians were attacked, whether rules of engagement were followed, why the Pentagon continued to misrepresent what occurred, why the Pentagon would not release the footage to Reuters for two years, why we as the open society we are supposed to be have had footage like this kept from us.

The video and the release and the response are about what the rules of engagement were; whether the rules of engagement were followed or not, about the rights and moralities that those rules of engagement are based on. (Digital/computer-assisted aerial warfare is relatively new to human conflict.)

It's about why the rules of engagement were what they were.

It's about shooting persons trying to evacuate wounded, whether standard operating procedure or not.

It's about the ethics of shooting at barely identifiable images on a screen.

It's about who shoots first - thus, it's about preemptive war.

It's about trying to hide the truth of what we were doing there and about trying to cover up and keep hidden from public view the truth about what we were doing there.

It's about, as Glenn Greenwald wrote yesterday, "the value ... in realizing that these events are anything but unusual."

It's about why we didn't have that debate on these issues and theses truths in our media BEFORE the war.

It's about why some STILL don't want to have that debate.

It's about why we seem to have to learn our lessons all over again.

It's about why some Americans want those lessons forgotten.

It's about the mythology of "bravery" and "heroes."

It's about the power of and belief in American exceptionalism.

And frankly, it's about how many attempted to warn about these things before the war started and how we searched in vain for truth in our leaders and our media and were told to shut up.

The video is out there - almost four and half million views at its original source alone: It's about what we do with it now. And what THAT means.

[Swamp Rat]

1. k&r

[wtmusic]

2. Bob "Napalm the Living Shit Out of Everything in Sight" McNamara

knows little about fog, a lot about decimation. I'm sure he'd have a colorful comment on the video.

[Hissyspit]

3. Just for clarification, my inclusion of his quote was intended as a condemnation of his point

of view, not as an endorsement. That's why it was shown first and then followed by the other two comments. McNamara's quote speaks directly to some of the arguments being made with regards to the video.

[wtmusic]

12. Understood.

My comment was an endorsement of yours, not a condemnation. ;)

[chill_wind]

4. An absolutely excellent summary. K & R.

Thank you for the effort and time putting it together so clearly.

[jimlup]

5. Thanks, you've summarized my feelings much more elegantly than I could have

[boppers]

6. Remote killing is not new.

Battlefield cameras mounted on damn near everything, and carried by almost everyone, is what's changed... so now people can see how warfare is.

[wtmusic]

13. Actually, remote killing is relatively new.

Technology has removed the attacker from the scene - no screams, no smell. The attacker little appreciates the havoc he is wreaking.

And after desensitivity training using carefully-engineered terminology - "engage" instead of "attack", "neutralize" instead of "kill", "target" instead of "enemy" - it's just a job.

[boppers]

15. Dresden. Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

Maybe WWII is "relatively new", maybe not (it's from my grandparent's generation), but removing soldiers from the point of combat started with long artillery and airplanes that could be miles away from, or above, their targets.

[wtmusic]

16. Agreed.

William Tecumseh "War is Hell" Sherman, who was personally responsible for many fewer deaths than Paul Tibbetts, knew hell. I don't think Tibbetts ever did.

Wars would still be fought, but there would be a lot fewer of them if they were limited to men standing in a field with knives.

[boppers]

18. Oddly enough, the inverse seems true to me?

War, now that's become more remote, and more lethal, in more technologically advanced societies, seems less frequent in those societies. The really bloody conflicts that go on, year after year, seem to be in places like Rwanda, where they're still fighting with small firearms and knives.

(Oh, and FWIW, the Hiroshima bombing killed 90,000-166,000, the US Civil war killed 260,000 confederates and 360,000 union, but I get your point about being intimate to war vs. being disconnected).

[cognoscere]

27. I'm not so sure about that. Think about all the wars fought

with swords, spears, and clubs. There is something about our species that seems to always be willing to rape,pillage,plunder,and kill, whether it exists naturally or has to be cultivated by the powers that be who manipulate the masses into doing it for them.

[hack89]

81. The bloodiest single conflict since WWII has been very low tech

The Great War of Africa, commonly known as the Second Congo war, has killed 5 million people since 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

[cognoscere]

26. And how about, "Light them up" instead of "Kill them"? n/t

[wtmusic]

39. Yep. "Drill them" is another popular substitute nt

[axollot]

60. And people should see it - maybe they'd think twice about inflicting war upon a populace. n/t

[walldude]

7. K&R as promised...

[HappyCynic]

8. K & R

[Rex]

9. The majority of people who post are disgusted and outraged at this

war crime. Makes me remember why I love DU so much.

[Swamp Rat]

11. Thank goodness!

... the goodness that is the majority on DU. :toast:

[matt819]

57. And yet we're little more than an echo chamber

This is horrific, and HS's comments are shared by many. But as a poster on HP asserted, no one is going to be tried for this or similar crimes. This war is not nation vs. nation but corporate interests vs. some nebulous non-state players. Who gets to try whom? The victors (US) trying our own war criminals in any meaningful way? Highly unlikely. The president has already said he has no plans to investigate his predecessor. So, no accountability, no responsibility. Vocal RW allusions to secession. Arrests for sedition, threats on democratically elected representatives. People voting against their own best interests (wanna bet just who the West Virginia miners voted for?). A lethal finding against an American citizen - no attempt to indict and apprehend. Remind me again about how Guantanamo was to have been closed by January 2010. The most powerful nation in the world, and we cower at the prospect of trying a terror suspect in a civilian court. Anyone hear anything about military tribunals lately. Have any been held? Anyone know the outcome? Beats me. Maybe it's been covered in the press and I missed it. Anyone else know? Structural unemployment for millions. Unpaid "internships" for college grads. This is the nation we're living in now.

Micro rant over. Going to take some medication now.

[fascisthunter]

72. Sorry, I Know Plenty of People WHo Don't Post Here

and the amount of disgust is greater than you state. You underestimate...

[matt819]

76. You're too kind

Now I have to double my dose :-)

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Exactly right. Strawmanning. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. It's about following Cheney'e orders to silence ALL reporters in Iraq....

remember how the Palestine Hotel was fired upon by our tanks and how scared every reporter was to leave the hotel...remember the embed orders....where is Peter Arnett anyway...wtf ever happened to him?

[hfojvt]

17. can it be about "which side are you on?"

What I see seems like a bit of a double standard. We have two things that happened in the early part of April.
1. Release of this video
2. suicide attacks that killed 50 and levelled 7 apartment buildings

So we have a couple of reporters killed and a couple children wounded in 2007 and that seemingly makes the USA evil. Or maybe it is the "cover up" that does that.

And yet, we are seemingly not concerned about the violence that other people are committing, and that our troops are presumably trying to stop.

_ April 6 — Bombs rip through apartment buildings and a market in Baghdad, killing at least 50 people.

_ April 4 — Suicide attackers detonate car bombs near embassies in Baghdad, killing 42.

_ April 2 — Gunmen kill 24 villagers execution-style in a Sunni area south of Baghdad.

_ March 26 — Twin bombings strike a restaurant in Khalis, north of Baghdad, killing 57.

_ March 7 — Series of bombings and rocket and mortar attacks kill 36 in Baghdad on Election Day.

_ March 3 — Suicide bombers strike in quick succession in Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad, killing 32.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jhnBOhkMAj1skuyZ4fD5ibuB7-UgD9ETOT000

A total of 241 dead in about a month, presumably all civilians and including how many children? 187 wounded from Tuesday alone, but no, it is the two wounded children in 2007 that American soldier are running to take them to a hospital that means the USA is evil. Or wait, it is the fact that we did not publcize this incident so it could be used to stir more Iraqis up against American troops that makes the USA evil.

War sucks, I understand that. I did what I could to prevent this invasion of Iraq, but I still don't see how we are even close to being as bad as our enemies in either purpose or tactics.

[Luminous Animal]

19. All your bullet points are examples of Iraqi's killing each other...

which, by the way, many in the anti-war movement predicted would happen. Meanwhile, deaths of U.S. troops have steeply declined and thus, today, the Iraqi's are not our enemy, but their own worst enemy.

As an U.S. citizen, I've little influence how one Iraqi will treat another but, presumably, U.S. citizens, collectively, have the power (and responsibility) to persuade a U.S. citizen military led by a citizen commander in chief not to obliterate innocents off the face of the earth.

[axollot]

63. Exactly. One of my comments about this video is the hope it outrages enough people. It may.

Something needs to wake people up from their apathy.

Cheers
Sandy

[Prometheus Bound]

70. I don't know that we have proof that these are examples of Iraqis killing each other.

I know they usually blame "al-Qaida insurgents", but that could be anyone.

[timtom]

22. Did you ever seriously ask yourself

"Why are we there?"

Once again, Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal and immoral invasions and occupations. There are still those who murmur "finish the job." Let's think about what the hell that means.

[hfojvt]

28. What do you think it means?

I think it means we are trying to create a stable and non-repressive government. If we left tomorrow, then we would be better off both in terms of lives lost and money spent, but are Afghanis better off if the Taliban takes over again? Would Iraqis be better off if their simmering civil war exploded until another tryant took over their country?

I don't see how what we are doing is either an occupation or immoral. If it was an occupation then we would be there for our own benefit, repressing the population so we could extract something from them. Instead, the only people we are trying to repress are the ones who want to blow up or shoot their fellow Iraqis.

Rather than being immoral, our purpose there seems more Kennedyesque.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

[timtom]

32. I don't believe that for one second.

That whole liberty screed is way too selective to bear any truth. I'm afraid your points are not what, in my OPINION, are progressive points. Like Vietnam. Domino theory and all that.

It is my belief that you've been had.

I'm certain that you are passionate and sincere, however.

[hfojvt]

33. actually there are more realpolitik reasons too

For Bush, we stayed because the war was useful for at least a couple of reasons. One it is enriching some military contractors and other MIC members. Second, it allowed Bush and friends to silence their critics at home with "don't attack the President during a time of war".

Obama presumably has different objectives. What I think is the practical truth is that if we just left the RWNM would have a field day. First, the story would be "Obama, Pelosi and Reid LOST the war". Second, there would be a non-stop barrage of bad news from Iraq or Afghanistan that would be blamed on Democrats. "Look at what OPR did".

But there's really no need for a domino theory. Look at Korea, for example. Are not the people of South Korea way better off than the people of North Korea? Apparently we still occupy South Korea and the South Koreans don't seem to mind much.

[timtom]

34. No. No.

What I meant was that the domino theory was a meme in the 60's to justify our troop commitment in Vietnam. It was an obvious sham.

I'm suggesting that "spreading democracy" is the same kind of meme/sham. I am certain of one thing: whatever reason(s) have been given for the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the real reasons have nothing to do with U.S. security, at home OR abroad. Similarly, the so-called "Patriot" act is NOT in the best interests of the people of America.

The sad thing is that, under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had stability. Iraq also had religious freedom. The Baathists were NOT religious fundamentalists. Regardless, though, it is none of our business what form of government controls a sovereign nation.

[hfojvt]

37. at this point, democracy is not as important as stability

I did not say it had anything to do with US security. My argument is about Afghans and Iraqis. Korea really had nothing to do with US security either, but it has made the people of South Korea better off.

When human rights are being violated, we often make it our business.

Which is not to argue for a bunch of invasions, but going back to my first reply. Would Iraq be better off if their simmering civil war exploded until some dictator took over? Would Afghanistan be better off if the Taliban takes over again?

[liberation]

55. So what happens when it is us violating other people's human rights?

Tap dance your way out of that one...

[hfojvt]

59. here ya go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B718RsboGEI

[Endwar]

106. Human rights...

What good is having this sense of being obliged to help aid those in need when we're gunning those same needy people down?

And also, if you believe we care so much about human rights why did we stay silent when the IDF slaughtered the people of Gaza last year? How are human rights doing in our buddy China?

I've already responded to your first reply.

[Endwar]

105. Your logic..

it's ridiculous. The Iraq war was unpopular from the get go. If it wasn't for the blatant use off terror tactics by Bush & co. we never would have gone in the first place. I hope you realize that terrorizing the populus with threats of "the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud", and awakening those old demons is terrorism in and of itself. (Remember Bush saying "the terrorists hate our freedoms"??? and then passing the patriot act 1 and 2.... and eviscerating those very freedoms... that act dealt a harder blow to our freedoms than seeing the deaths of civilian Americans ever could have). If they had found ONE WMD, regardless of it's yield, the "pre-emptive" strike may have been justified by necessity to protect ourselves, and the UN probably would have backed us. You know damn well that if they found anything they would have paraded it through Times Square.

The notion of killing people for economic gain is sick, and Un-American.

Being that this is such an unpopular war, and millions of people have watched this video and become disgusted by it, i think it's safe to assume that if Obama addressed this, and ended the war, he wouldn't be perceived my as many as such a lame duck, which he is. He would actually fulfill ONE of his campaign promises, which is one more than Bush did. The right wing would say what it would, but only the old fogeys who are dumb enough to buy their rhetoric would listen. and they're old fogeys anyway so they're dying off. I'm 24 years old, My generation is scared to shit of republicans at this point. We've been traumatized by them. That's why young people turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama, who promised change.. and delivered it. (but not the change we expected.... the change that we're left with in our pockets...) Perhaps the next lesson we'll learn is that neither major parties can be trusted.

As for the people of South Korea: maybe they are better off, maybe they aren't. we won't know unless we leave.

I also never understood the notion of killing innocent people over there, and justifying it with the deaths of innocent people over here. I'm not accusing you of supporting or saying that, but since this video came out I've been seeing a lot of chest beating about 9/11.. "hey those motherf**kers killed our people, remember 9/11". Even by the logic of an eye for an eye.. only 3,000 people died on 9/11... how many civilian casualties have there been for them?
How many Arabic lives = one American life?

[dotymed]

44. Do we have a government

"that is stable and non-repressive?" Are the needs of our people being met? Sure, corporations are being funded by our government, then they turn around, give gross bonuses to themselves and ship American production to countries whose populations are willing to work for anything. Sure, these people have to eat also, but in the meantime American citizens are discarded like trash. There are so many more things that show our government is un-just to its citizenry. All except the wealthiest 5% of our population. I think before we attempt to impose a "stable and non-repressive government" on another country, we should strive to impose that on American citizens. Not through war but through peaceful means. First, we need a leader (like FDR), who realizes that our people deserve stability and prosperity.

[Endwar]

107. I can't believe you said FDR..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

On December 6, 1941, President Roosevelt read an intercepted Japanese message and told his assistant Harry Hopkins, "This means war."
Warning was sent to US Army and Naval Commanders in Hawaii, but it was not received in time due to a "bureaucratic error".

Well, that just about sums up my position on FDR and his love for stability and prosperity.. or lack thereof.

[dotymed]

108. I understand your post and you are right.

FDR did lie us into a war. I think that WWII was alot different than Iraq or Afghanistan.I do understand that innocent people are still dying, and that is not acceptable. If Hitler had been allowed to win WWII, our world would be even more miserable than it already is. FDR did give us "The New Deal" and tried to pass a second "bill of rights" that included universal health care. He (IMO) did a helluva lot more good than bad, for America. I can list alot of bad things he did to our country, like Japanese internment camps, but I believe that without the New Deal, America would already (decades ago) be in the position she is now. Corporate owned and operated.

[axollot]

64. Are you talking about the IRAQ WAR? Don't justify it - we need to be out of there -

now.

Cheers
Sandy

[quakerboy]

84. Let me know the next time a foreign power

ever successfully forcefully imposes a stable nonrepressive government on another country. I can't really think of one at the moment.

[The Green Manalishi]

85. It doesn't matter

" If we left tomorrow, then we would be better off both in terms of lives lost and money spent, but are Afghanis better off if the Taliban takes over again? Would Iraqis be better off if their simmering civil war exploded until another tryant took over their country? "

It doesn't matter.
We need to get out of there, and everywhere. Tomorrow. The end result doesn't matter- when you're in a hole first *STOP DIGGING*, then figure out what else to do.
It's none of our business what any entities outside of our borders do, within their sovereign borders nor to each other. We have no right to interfere anywhere.

[go west young man]

89. I would say to you that you need to read Chomsky to understand

the tools of American imperialism and why America invades certain countries and not others. He explains how the democrats and republicans work towards the same goal using different means and terminology. The fact that we support so many dictators and monarchs undermines the Kennedy theory you incorporate into your logic. Saddam was a dictator. Saudi Arabia executes people for religious reasons. China represses its people and the people of Tibet yet it is our biggest trading partner. Cuba is also communist yet it gets no play from us for political reasons. African countries are only important to us if there is oil involved. Burma we stay out of. North Korea had WMD but we attacked Iraq who we knew had dismantled their program in 1991. Check the U.N.'s own website for that factual data.

The fact that 15 of the hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and we flew the Saudi Royals and the Bin laden out of the country so fast afterwards should of helped you realize it's never been about democracy and justice. That's a front. It's about the U.S. national interest. It's about "the Great Game" for the worlds resources. It's about oil.

To believe otherwise is to keep kidding yourself and to keep hurting America. This truth must be dealt with. Your in denial I believe. As are many Americans. We are not spreading democracy. The Project For A New American Century (PNAC)mentioned that America must use it's military to capture the resources in the Middle East while showing it's might and establish itself against the growing power of Russia and China. That is what we are doing there. Not spreading democracy.

[go west young man]

90. This editorial in the Guardian UK on Kyrgyzstan makes my point for me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/09/russia-us-complicity-kyrgyzstan

[Endwar]

104. Based on the video..

If we left, the streets of Iraq would be a safer place. You do realize that Iraq never attacked us, and the insurgency started when our military became the Iraqi police force. And don't tell me we aren't. The Iraqi army was defeated, Saddam was in hiding, thus Iraq War ended on May 2nd, 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/

What's going on now IS police work; Would we accept our police acting like this? NO!! If they did, there would be violence on the streets here.
Actions like the ones in the wikileaks vid cause normal people to hate our troops, and if Saaed was your son.. wouldn't YOU seek revenge? This is a deadly cycle. The "terrorists" don't hate our freedoms, they hate our tanks. they hate our bombs. they hate that we condone the slaughter and oppression of their brothers. of our brothers.

Our purpose in the middle east was, and is Oil. If they didn't have oil the western world wouldn't care less about them.

Besides all that, we Americans love us some war. We've made a whole industry out of it. It's actually our biggest export.

[liberation]

31. Wow, nazi propaganda used the same MO

when they concentrated Polish Jews into the Warsaw Ghetto, the number of people in such small area was such... that very basic levels of humanity started breaking down: little or no food, filthy water supply, etc. Which mean that Polish Jews were put under such constant dehumanization that survival implied at a very basic level a do-or-die insanity.

Although there were great stories of humanity persevering under those circumstances, guess what? None of those stories were used by the nazi propaganda. Instead the abject situation, which the Jews had been pushed into by the nazis themselves, was used as a justification by the German regime as yet another proof of how evil Jews were... after all if they could do such terrible things to themselves, it followed they were "unfit" to be part of the glorious and "civilized" arian daydream that the Germans were supposedly all about. In fact there were propaganda pictures, in which "valiant" German soldiers showed their pithy for those savage Jewish kids by giving them a bar of chocolate, of course there was no mention that those kids were so excited because those were probably the first carbs they were eating in weeks... and even less mention that those kids had perfectly normal lives elsewhere before those same "valiant" soldiers destroyed their country and put them in a Ghetto for them to rot.


Blaming the victim has always been a favorite MO in the fascist arsenal. I don't think you were doing it on purpose. But you are displaying a similar approach: you purposely ignored that it was US who forced Iraqis into that situation. In fact that whole area is a made up country, designed by the British and other Western powers to keep three very different factions which never cared much about each other... pitted against each other, the old "divide and conquer" trick, in order to have an easier access to their resources. And our invasion perpetuates that situation.

Every single Iraqi killed after the toppling of Saddam's regime is at a very basic level, a victim of our invasion. And we are guilty. Finding the situation we put them in as a proof of our moral "superiority" is just proof of the level of doublethink and complete lack of connection with the reality of things, that many people in this country display.

Congrats, I guess....

[hfojvt]

35. people do not blow each other up for "survival"

If you rob somebody and beat them to death during the process, there is a certain desperate logic to that. Nobody is forced to blow up apartment buildings or mosques.

Also, I am not really interested in proving our moral superiority. What I would like is for Iraqis to stop blowing each other up.

But neither am I all ready to jump on the bandwagon of believing in our total moral depravity. Unless you are just talking about the neo-cons.

I also do not think it is doublethink to point out the violence that other people are choosing to commit.

[liberation]

40. You are blaming people who we put into a desperate situation for not acting according to your logic

or expectations, while pretending we have the moral upper hand (which is what your original post was all about).

And you don't think that is doublethink?


Desperation, almost by definition, tends to negate logic in some of the reactions it forces on people. If you are wondering why they are blowing up mosques, then you have to realize the religious tensions between the Sunnis and Shias which we force to live side by side, when they have hated each other for centuries. It seems ridiculous for you to feel entitled to cast judgement over a people about whose reality you know very little about.


Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. People in the US feel that their own opinion entitles them to their own facts. And thus they can have it both ways. We're responsible for Iraq's current situation. Period. We're a nation of petulant children who think they can have EVERYTHING both ways.

[hfojvt]

43. sorry, I feel entitled to cast judgement upon hatred

Where did I make up my own facts? Actually, I brought facts into the picture. Facts that some on the left seem to be ignoring in their rush to cast judgement on the USA. Facts that the people we are fighting against have been killing many civilians ON PURPOSE.

Who is trying to dodge responsibility? If anybody's doing that, it seems to be the people who just want to leave now and assume that Iraqis will all suddenly start throwing flowers at each other and live happily ever after once the bad old USA goes home. I don't buy it. The people who have been creatimg much of the desperation since 2004 have been the people who run around blowing up mosques and markets and neighbors. Presumably we have been trying to stop that for the last six years even while our primary purpose has been to enrich KBR et al at the expense of the taxpayers.

[liberation]

50. Well, I take you are not interested in an intellectually honest discussion....

... and I don't care much for herring, even the red kind.

Either you are playing coy or your reading and comprehension is really that faulty. In any case, good luck...


It must be great living in such a detached world, where you can simply wonder "why" those people are killing each other. Gotta love the capacity for some Americans to have everything both ways. It would be funny if it did not involve so much destruction and suffering.

[hfojvt]

61. Does an intellectually honest discussion involve lots of insults?

Either you can explain what I have misinterpreted or you cannot.

But why bother talking with just another stupid American.

[conscious evolution]

51. You do realize that the bombings

were most likely started by our own side in order to create confusion and discord amongst the different factions there?

[hfojvt]

62. that seems like a fun little conspiracy theory

presented without a shred of evidence.

It should be easy to link somewhere you have laid out evidence for that assertion.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/123

After all, live and don't learn is not my motto.

[conscious evolution]

67. I figured you may have remembered

You definitely are living up to your motto.

[axollot]

66. You know why shit got boondoggled in 2004 in Iraq? Cuz we didnt LEAVE. n/t

[whathappened]

77. fact are facts ,

the iraq people had no voice well saddam was there leader , which was good , he had complete control over the crazys in that country , we took him out and now it is a blood bath , we new it when we did it this would happen , its what we wanted to happen , it would give bush and crew there reason to keep us involved , meal while we would slice and dice there black gold from them well they are fighting among themselfs ,

[JDPriestly]

99. You are probably right, hfojvt. Apres nous, le deluge. After us, the

deluge. There probably will be utter chaos if not a massacre and yet another Hussein-style dictatorship.

But thanks to the loss of tax revenues to our government caused by the gambling on Wall Street, the outsourcing of middle-class jobs and the hiding by the rich of their money offshore, we probably won't be able to afford our killing spree in Iraq and other parts much longer. So we need to find an alternative to military intervention somewhere. We have been in Iraq a long time now. By the next election, we need to be out or well on our way out. We simply cannot afford the Iraq War any more.

[axollot]

65. That is a fact!

[sabrina 1]

71. The Iraqis were not killing each other until we got there.

How sad is it that the Iraqi people were far better off under Saddam Hussein, than they are now. You are merely 'catapulting the propaganda' that attempts to justify the indefensible.

Over two million Iraqis, who previously lived in relatively good communities, are now living in filthy, refuugee camps outside of their own country. Another several million are displaced and living in dire poverty within Iraq.

Over one million have been slaughtered, untold numbers maimed, hundreds of thousands incarcerated and tortured and babies are being born completely deformed because of our WMDs.

Before our illegal invasion, Sunis and Shiites generally got along with each other, some even inter-marrying. The country had excellent education facilities and free healthcare (until the sanctions from this country destroyed their excellent medical care system).

They had their fundies, but they were contained. Women actually had what women here don't have, equal rights to equal pay.

Now, the fundies are far more powerful, the lives of women have become untenable. Under Saddam, they were free to work at any profession they were qualified for, and to wear any kind of clothes they wanted to. Now, they living in fear of the fundies.

The Christian community, formerly protected under Saddam Hussein, has now been persecuted and driven out of the country

Rape, prostition, child sexual exploitation, all serious crimes under Saddam, have become rampant in Iraq. And crime has become a major problem.

Saddam was no saint, but people could live a decent enough life, if they chose to do so. Now, no one is safe. Gas eg, were cheap for Iraqis before this invasion, now it is expensive. Iragis had jobs, now they don't.

Adding all these things together, and much, much more, there is not a single Iraqi family that has known sorrow and deprivation since our invasion.

Please stop trying to rationalize this massive crime against humanity. And as for your claim that we are not there to take anything, you must be kidding ~ They are sitting on OUR oil!! And that is the reason we are there.

This unlawful invasion allowed the most criminal and radical elements in the country to gain power and were used by the U.S. to suppress the Iraqi people.

Not to mention our 'death squads' sent in to slaughter anyone who might interfere with our theft of the country's resources.

The Iraqi people want us out! The Afghan people also want us out! Let them take care of their own interests, which btw, we would be happy to do if they did not have something we want. From Iraq, it is control of their oil resources, from Afghanistan, a strategic route to the oil reserves in the Caspian Sea.

Only in America are there people as deluded as you are. You need to start reading real news about Iraq and what our illegal and brutal presence there has done to those people.

[dpibel]

47. Because, after all, this is the only time this has happened

Excellent point! I'm pretty sure this is the only time during the Iraq invasion/occupation that U.S. forces have killed civilians, so you're making a perfectly valid comparison.

I mean, it's not like the U.S. leveled the city of Fallujah or anything.

Or tends to bomb wedding parties.

So clearly there's no comparison at all.

[JDPriestly]

54. Democracy Now has a video in which reporters visited the

neighborhood in which the Apache shot the innocent people. Seems there had been insurgent actions in the area prior to the shooting, but there was no shooting, no insurgent activity in that neighborhood immediately prior to the shooting. You need to see that video. It is available form this DU post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x453099

Please watch it.

My take is that by 2007 many members of our military had battle fatigue (post-traumatic stress syndrome). Bush wanted his war. He wanted to make his mark. He did not have enough men prepared for battle to fight it. So he fought the war with the military he had.

There are not, there were not enough soldiers on the ground. Instead of relying on soldiers, our side is relying on gadgets. Gadgets kill, but do not discern. And the men and women behind the gadgets cannot discern between real danger and no danger because they do not have enough information about what is really going on. This is evident if you watch the Wiki-Leaks video and the Democracy Now video.

Here we had an Apache helicopter in the sky many feet from the victims of the shooting. The people in the Apache heard no shots from their targets. They relied on their visuals. The people in the Apache would claim that they could not clearly see that two of the men were carrying cameras, not AK47s. (Didn't they have old-fashioned binoculars?)

That may be questioned, but there is no question that the men in the Apache could not hear what their victims on the ground were saying. (Too much noise from the Apache, too far away.) And even if the men in the Apache could have heard the speech of the people on the ground, the men in the Apache probably would not have understood enough of the language to figure out that there was no danger.

The individuals who were in the Apache may have acted out of stress. In that sense, you can blame what they did on the fog of war. But the problem is not the individuals in the Apache,it is our current military strategy, the mechanization and dehumanization of war, the excessive reliance on gadgets detached from adequate intelligence.

It will get worse before it gets better because we are not talking about the real problem. We are analyzing what happened based on rules of engagement that are relevant to human war, not to the War of the Gadget.

[boppers]

69. Binoculars? Seriously?

That's just another "gadget", is it not?

[JDPriestly]

78. The point is that you want to facilitate the use of human intelligence, understanding and judgment

in these situations. Binoculars are the traditional tool used by the military to increase their intelligence, understanding and judgment. If the soldiers in the Apache could not identify the weapon that their victims were carrying, I would suggest an old-fashioned pair of binoculars or the modern equivalent. Apparently, the video wasn't large enough or clear enough to permit them to identify what the reporter was carrying.

This was dehumanized warfare using gadgets. Binoculars increase human understanding in war. Bombers that drop bombs on targets in which civilians are located also dehumanize war. My husband was on the ground in a country that was bombed by the allies. The loss of innocent lives was horrible. And it, too was due to War by Gadgets.

Mistakes will be made either way. But we see in this video that that fighting wars with computer gadgets and also without adequate intelligence probably increases the likelihood of error.

[boppers]

82. The problem then, isn't the use of gadgets, its the abuse of gadgets.

Gadgets don't pull triggers.

[JDPriestly]

91. The problem is that gadgets make it easy to kill from the distance.

It makes it all so easy. The person doing the killing is detached from the reality of the situation in which the killing is taking place.

These soldiers completely misunderstood what was going on in the video they were watching -- because they were detached from the reality on the ground. The same principle applies when bombs are dropped from the sky. The person doing the killing never really sees the person being killed as a person in a social context.

There was no intelligence in the situation in the Wiki-Leaks video. The soldiers acted on assumptions that turned out to be false. And innocent people were killed. That is not the fog of war. That is inhumanity.

[TorchTheWitch]

94. that's not a gadget problem - it's a training problem

See my post #93. The camera they use in the Apache can zoom in very closely to positive ID. It's also clearer than what we watched because what we watched had to be digitized and the encription hacked which loses clarity.

They misunderstood what was going on because they WANTED to kill them. Watch the full length video that includes identifying of the real insurgents and bombing of the building they hid in that took place 20 minutes later - the guys in the Apache got it right THAT time, and most likely because they knew they fucked up before and were wary of an ass chewing.

I rather like it that gadgetry keeps our troops safer and less likely to lose their marbles, BUT killing from a distance while safer and less likely to make our troops crack up also dehumanizes. That's where proper training comes in AND accountability, which is woefully lacking in our military.

[JDPriestly]

97. Training and accountability about what?

Compassion? Accuracy? Conscience? If you have accuracy without compassion, you have exactly what you saw in that video.

And training soldiers to be compassionate is impossible, especially in our "professional" army. Compassionate people are more likely to become teachers or priests or pastors or social workers or even lawyers and farmers. They rarely choose to become soldiers. And those who are compassionate by nature but become soldiers are under a lot of peer pressure during their military careers to set aside their compassion and care for others.

My husband is exceptionally compassionate. He volunteered for the military when he was very, very young, but soon left. The military does not reward compassion. And without compassion, what is to stop a person from killing based on poor intelligence when killing is made so easy.

I should admit my source or inspiration. Jean Paul Sartre noted the dehumanization of war that occurred when bombs were dropped in WWII. That was harder than targeting people from an Apache, but far less risky than the techniques used in prior wars.

[TorchTheWitch]

93. Rules of engagement still apply - gadget or not

The guys in the Apache didn't need binoculars to closely observe the people - they can zoom in with the camera they were watching them with close enough to see if anyone had a spot on their pants. And they DID zoom in on the insurgents found 20 minutes later when they decided to blow up the building they hid in - the SAME building where the previous "engagement" occurred that was the reason the Apaches were sent out to look for insurgents in the area in the first place. And they made sure to positively ID the insurgents and verbally confirmed "PID" that they should have done 20 minutes previously when they shot up the group with the journalists. And THIS time there was no trash talking of the individuals even though THIS time they knew they had found the actual insurgents. They got it right THIS time, so they could have gotten it right 20 minutes previously had they WANTED to.

The guys in the Apaches weren't involved in that previous engagement that was the reason they were sent out to look for insurgents, so there was no immediate stress issue. And since they did what they were supposed to do when they found the actually insurgents, there was no long term stress issue either -- if they got it right the second time, they could have gotten right 20 minutes previously had they WANTED to.

Rules of engagement aren't limited to ground troops. They apply to everyone, and they were broken. There was no positive ID when they had plenty of time to do it and were able to do it at a safe distance. They didn't use minimal force for the situation and ignored the goal of capturing for interrigation - they used maximum force with the goal to kill. They killed an unarmed wounded and out of action person along with the unarmed people that tried to help him and wounded the kids in the van that they knew were there (although they may not have known they were kids) and LIED to get authorization to kill these people by claiming they were picking up weapons that were nowhere in evidence.

Rules of engagement are perpetually reassessed and include warfare with all the latest gadgets. And a lot of these gadgets are designed to make positive IDing easier, faster and more importantly, more positive, and to target engage to limit what we've called "collatoral damage". In WW II bombs couldn't be directed. You flew up in the air over a general target, dropped the suckers, hoped they landed where you wanted them to and a lot of the time they didn't wiping out entire neighborhoods full of civilians and missing the "target" entirely.

It isn't the rules of engagement that are a problem, it's following them with accountability. Gadgets aren't the problem, it's training to be sure they're used appropriately at all times and within the rules of engagement.

[change_notfinetuning]

20. It's about what the hell are we still doing in these wars, that only make us

more enemies and a world that's less safe? It's about letting Obama and the Democrats slide, when we would be demanding withdrawal if the Republicans were in power. I think by now, we could all finally agree that our military is not going to get showered with roses by those they "liberated". We're going to just bring the troops home someday, with nothing to show for all these years of war, death and human and property destruction, except a gazillion more people who hate us and another generation of abused veterans.

Continuing the Republican war policy is the mother of all abominations and, most sad, is that we remain engaged in these activities (like in the video) on a daily basis because the Democrats don't want to look wimpy on national defense. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait for the Republicans to regain power, because it seems to be ingrained in Americans that only the Republicans can pull out of a war without looking weak.

[unhappycamper]

21. The 2007 Iraq Apache Camera Video is just like My Lai.

Kill lotsa civilians because we can and nobody's looking.

And that 30mm M230 chain gun is just awesome with that depleted uranium ammo.

[Swamp Rat]

41. depleted uranium ammo

That's another good point that seems to have slipped by most people.

We are detonating millions of mini-dirty bombs all over the region, including many very big ones too.

[unapatriciated]

45. We knew about DU in the first gulf war, sadly we have ignored what it can do.

Not only to our returning vets but to the citizens of Iraq for generations to come.
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/95178_du12.shtml
http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_book.html

[boppers]

92. Ban uranium!

Dirt bad!

We should eliminate all states that have Uranium!

:sarcasm:

[Ignis]

98. Are you asserting that DU rounds pose no health risk whatsoever?

[boppers]

100. DU, on impact, poses an aerosolized risk.

Post-impact, just sitting around, it has a low decay rate similar to the radiation exposure threat of going outside on a sunny day.

Wait, we should ban sunny days, too! Because all ionizing radiation is bad, and the sun is pumping out too much of it! And we should forbid CAT scans and X-rays and flying on airplanes, too!

[Ignis]

101. Or maybe we should wear sunscreen and stop shooting DU ammo.

But don't let me get in the way of your reductio ad absurdum. :eyes:

[Echo In Light]

23. "Kill Em All & Let God Sort Em Out!" (but, ya know, it's not *really* like that)

Right?...right?

[malaise]

24. Excellent post

Rec

[lunatica]

25. I knew this was going to happen on 9/12/2001

I voiced my deep concern that the US government would react by going to war as it's first knee jerk reaction. It was the first time someone told me to leave the country if I was so unhappy with it. The same person stated she would gladly give up her rights in order to be safe.

Four years later she was wishing someone would assassinate Bush and put him out of our national misery claiming no one could have foreseen what he would do. I reminded her of our conversation, so she amended her statement to concede that I did see it coming, but no one else did. I guess in her mind I just lucked out in my wildly crazy guess of what would happen.

[The_Commonist]

36. I did too.

On 9/11, actually. I knew it within seconds of watching the first tower collapse with my own two eyes. I knew we were going to attack Iraq, and I knew it would be an endless, bloody quagmire for profit.

[liberation]

42. Thank you!

I was in a similar position.

The little dirty truth no one wants to talk about, esp in this site, is that over 90% of the people supported Bush's reaction.


It is funny to see the real progressives in this country, who are proven correct over and over again in our warnings and estimations... we're always told to shut up by the same people who are perennially wrong, yet they feel entitled to have the benefit of the doubt no matter what.

[axollot]

68. It was much harder to stand up against the war then too. I was here when those war drums

for Iraq started to get rather loud. I fought my own family about this shit. Don't like being right when it comes to 10's of thousand dead.
Cheers
Sandy

[defendandprotect]

87. There was and is a huge anit-war movement ... I don't think you are correct . . .

and it was international --

[EFerrari]

48. Me, too. And I lost a friend over it that day.

And that person was not a low information voter but a well educated, well traveled, compassionate man who had IQ points, experience and education on me. I still don't understand how that happened.

[Mari333]

53. ditto

[GrannyK]

29. Thank you for the excellent post. N/T

[GrannyK]

30. Another kick and To the person who gave me a star:

Thank you so much. Our budget is so tight right now. We've been giving a little to CPH and one other charity that we've supported a long time.

Democraticunderground is a wonderful, educational and supportive community that I'm very grateful for and I know that at some point I will be able to donate here. Just not now.

So again, thank you. k

[Ignis]

38. K&R, great to see this as an OP.

The "war is hell" excuse doesn't explain this incident away, no matter how much the "realists" believe it does so.

The core issue here goes back to Nuremberg: If they were, in fact, "just following orders," then we sorely need to question the legality (and morality) of those orders.

The US military reports to We The People, not the other way around. :patriot:

[unapatriciated]

46. K&R

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

[branders seine]

49. It means

post-reagan we raised up a good crop of young-uns, poorly educated, racist, with no hope of a life like their parents had, well-trained to put the crosshairs on a target and blast away, terminally pissed off, and untroubled by a surfeit of context. They were incited to a consuming hatred of "them," those "fucking pricks," and methodically pumped up with a barely controlled rage. Then we "surged" them all up before the "big game," and turned them loose on a country we have no legal right to occupy.

As Greenwald said, this is nothing unusual. We've murdered hundreds of thousands just like this since ronnie reagan's day.

I can't wait until the Patriot Act-enabled Obama or the next bush turns these sociopaths loose on us here at home.

[democrank]

52. K & R

[rhett o rick]

56. Excellent. K&R

[coti]

58. Very good.

You nailed it.

[Mojeoux]

73. This is what makes us human.

This is why tech is so amazing. More communication and more understanding will result from this Wikileak video.

I remember my Mom being so astonished at the images of the Chicago Police Bullies in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention.

Politics comes down to words. What my Mom saw was stated-sanctioned viciousness and that destroyed her "greatest generation," trust and faith in people in power.

Mimi (1916-2007) voted "anti-war," for the rest of her life.

[Hissyspit]

74. Sincerest condolences for you on your mother. She sounds like she was a great person.

[Mojeoux]

79. Pictures and words speak louder than words.

Thank-You Hissy, I hope lots of recalcitrant Moms, Dads and brothers, sisters and Cousin's and Old Dear Friends,

See this video and start to ask questions.

[Politicub]

75. The people who program the software used for computer-assisted warfare are evil

I don't know how they can live with themselves. What their lines of code have enabled is horrific. They have made a video game out of killing of human beings.

It appears the the images of the people are slightly blurred from the gunman's' perspective, further stripping the victims of their humanity.

[burrfoot]

95. Just a point of information-

Several people have mentioned how grainy/blurry/indistinct the images were in the wikileaks video. I caught an interview with the founder (or co-founder perhaps) of wikileaks NPR, who stated that the video they saw in the helicopter would have been much more clear, and that the quality has been degraded by their decrypting of the video and changing to digital format, etc.

I have no way to vouch for the truth of that statement, but that's what I heard.

(warning- tangent :) )
I do have a question about the motivations for our being there (this isn't aimed at you, politicub, just in general). The latest estimate I've heard is that we only get 11% of our oil from the middle east. Does it really seem like that's our big reason for being there??
I always cringe when I hear that our national security is dependent on oil from the middle east. Know where we get it from? Canada and Mexico are our two biggest suppliers. Saving the oil seems like a convenient excuse to me, which although still greedy may sound less evil than the government admitting that this war is purely for the profit of our corporations.

Sorry for the tangent.

[wroberts189]

80. EXCELLENT POST knr/nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

83. They deliberately shot/attacked the wounded and rescuers

Thank you for your post, Hissyspit.

[defendandprotect]

86. What it means is that violence can be taught by the right wing ....

and that we have raised one of the most brutal and cruel armies ever raised --

by making them robots, unfeeling, unemotional who see death of an Iraqi as "disengagement"--!!!

Shameful -- disgusting!

It is actually torture from a distance --

And one day these young men will pay a terrible price for what they have been coerced or

convinced to do here!!

[scentopine]

88. Its about democratic leadership denying accountability, justice and the rule of law

Democrats are looking forward past torture, war, wiretapping, wall street and focusing on the real problems - off-shore drilling, more war, union busting, cutting teacher pay, rewarding CEOs and sending more outsourcing to India.

The neo-cons have merged with neo-libs to form the neo-dem monster.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

96. Thank you for this! Highly recommended.

[AngryAmish]

102. It's about EIGHT YEARS OF CHIMPY McHITLER!!!!

[kenny blankenship]

103. Oh I get it. You're one of those people who think a 30mm cannon vs. a 35mm Canon isn't a fair fight

[Faryn Balyncd]

109. Sorry I'm too late to Recommend this thread (x1K)