FOX news sensationalist journalism - worrying trend?

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
I don't agree.

That is simply not born out by any facts I am aware of.

I have never encountered or learnt of any such policy by the US military. Have you any references for that ?

Have you any references to evidence that ? Because I do not believe it is true.

Yes, interviews given by US Army service men for the documentary "Invading Iraq - How Britain and America got it wrong" shown on Channel 4 at the end of January.

The interviewed Army men expressed regret at what had happened but said that it was necessary to protect the lives of US Army personnel in Baghdad. They believed that they were close to enemy forces and that at any moment they could be attacked. The narrator of the documentary explained that it is the US Army's policy to protect their forces above even civilians. As far as the army is concerned the men in Baghdad that day did the right thing.

Originally posted by chill
You are bieng disingenuous if you are suggested an alternative reality where some other army would be capable of fighting this war with less civilian casualties..

The British army in Iraq fought a much more cautious war, despite pressure from the Americans to speed things up, and because of that they were involved in a lot less civilian blood baths. In fact the interviewed British commander basically said he was quite pissed off at the pressure coming from American for the British to advance. So why did the Americans feel they need to rush in with poor intelligence and understanding which resulted in incidences like the one mentioned above? Oh yes, thats right the US Army knows best. They wanted the war over quickly, even at the cost of Iraqi lives. Not exactly taking care now is it.

Originally posted by chill
Not true. They have taken more care than any army in history and have risked their own soldiers in taking such care.[/b]

What exactly are you basing that on?? Because a Commander comes out on TV and says were are trying very hard not to blow up civilians with our "smart" bombs doesn't mean they are actually taking care not to target civilians. There is a (big) difference between not purposly targetting civilians and not checking to make sure they are not targetting civilians. The US Army does not have the intelligence or the technology to be able to say they are not targetting civilians, and if there is a chance that civilians will be killed the Army still goes a head.

Originally posted by chill I have never seen any evidence of that claim, ever. And I don't count newspaper column writers as evidence [/B]

lol .. ummm yes, everyone is lying but the US Army. That is a good one.

How do you explain the interviews given in the Channel 4 doc? Everyone is lying including the US Army? :rolleyes:

Redleslie

Originally posted by chill
The numbers. War won in a couple of weeks.

Nope, it's still going on after almost a year. You might have seen something about on the telly lately.

Hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers killed,

The Iraqis didn't release any casualty numbers, the Americans and British said they weren't keeping bodycounts, nobody actually knows how many Iraqi soldiers were killed, how many deserted or whether units were at full strength to begin with, so where are you getting your information from?

a few hundred civilian casualties with most being caused by the Iraqi army.

You're not going to bother providing any sources for that ridiculous claim are you. I dunno if even Fox would be that blatantly dishonest.

I have never seen any evidence of that claim, ever. And I don't count newspaper column writers as evidence

Even if newspaper column writers like William Branigin are eyewitnesses to massacres and you, obviously, are not? And here is a report of another example.

monument

Originally posted by Redleslie
Nope, it's still going on after almost a year. You might have seen something about on the telly lately.[/b][/B]

The war is still on? Better tune into Fox to see if that's true...

chill

Originally posted by Wicknight
The interviewed Army men expressed regret at what had happened but said that it was necessary to protect the lives of US Army personnel in Baghdad. They believed that they were close to enemy forces and that at any moment they could be attacked. The narrator of the documentary explained that it is the US Army's policy to protect their forces above even civilians. As far as the army is concerned the men in Baghdad that day did the right thing.

I believe that was in the thick of the invasion/battle. I missed the program but from what people say here, the tactics appear to be sound. I see no grounds for criticism.

The British army in Iraq fought a much more cautious war, despite pressure from the Americans to speed things up, and because of that they were involved in a lot less civilian blood baths. In fact the interviewed British commander basically said he was quite pissed off at the pressure coming from American for the British to advance. So why did the Americans feel they need to rush in with poor intelligence and understanding which resulted in incidences like the one mentioned above? Oh yes, thats right the US Army knows best. They wanted the war over quickly, even at the cost of Iraqi lives. Not exactly taking care now is it.

I don't buy any of that stuff.
Fact is that the Brits had a WAY easier job in their sector while the US army did the really tuff stuff. I agree the Brits are better at some things, but there were no blood baths and the US did rush forward with briliant speed and effectiveness. In doing so they saved countless thousands of Iraqi civilian lives at a risk to their own men. It was a military and humanitarian masterpiece.

What exactly are you basing that on??

The basic truth of the war when it came to civilian casualties. It has never happened before that such an enormously powerful army invaded against such a huge occupying army and yet inflicted less than a thousand civilian deaths.

chill

Originally posted by Redleslie
Even if newspaper column writers like William Branigin are eyewitnesses to massacres and you, obviously, are not?

That was an absolutely necessary action that was unfortunately not carried though fully. If it had been Saddaom would not have been in power to slaughter more of his innocent civilians. That was the day the Iraqi army got it's dues.

And here is a report of another example. [/B]

A sad tragedy of war. Mistakes happen in war. What about the countless incidents of slaugter of Iraqi people by the Iraqi army ? I don't see anyone caring enough to post them here ?

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
I believe that was in the thick of the invasion/battle.

It doesn't matter when it is.

The Geneva Convention specifically protects civilians in the thick of invasion/battle, as well as at any other time during the war.

Deciding that any particular time during the war that is "inconvenient" or "impractical" for the Geneva Convention to be upheld is not excusable.

Putting the soldiers first, at any stage is most categorically not in keeping with the Geneva Convention, nor is it excusable.

Inciedentally, I notice that you started by saying that they didn't do it at all. Now you're saying "well, alright, they did it then, but that doesn't count becauseof the situation".

What about the countless incidents of slaugter of Iraqi people by the Iraqi army

What about your post which put the casualties at about 1,000, most of which were caused by the Iraqi army?

Now its "countless"?????

And exactly what do the actions of the Iraqi army have to do with whether or not the US put their soldiers before civilians? Could it be that you're realising that you've picked an argument you can't poissibly win (because the US do put its soldiers first), and instead are seeking to divert us to other issues like "but they're worse than us....".

The US went there as the good guys. They have to be better than the Iraqis or they show themselves to be the biggest hypocrites on the planet. That was never the issue. The issue is whether or not they took all due care that the US army could. Not "more than someone else", not "more than they did in the past", but "as much as they could", and the answer is clearly no they did not.

jc

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
I believe that was in the thick of the invasion/battle. I missed the program but from what people say here, the tactics appear to be sound. I see no grounds for criticism.

What???

In the "thick of the battle" the US Army on the ground panicked when they thought they were about to be attacked (bad intelligence, they werent) and started firing at any unidentified target, killing hundreds of civilians returning from work, while a news reported filmed the whole thing. To make matters worse, that is exactly what they are supposed to do when they feel under threat, shot first ask questions later! It is offical policy.

Exactly what part of that is taking care not to harm civilians.

Originally posted by chill
I don't buy any of that stuff.

Well unfortunaitly chill I am going to have to go with the British Army officer with ten or more years in service, who was actually in Iraq, on this one. You can choose to disreguard any truths you like that doesn't fit with your world view though, feel free.

Originally posted by chill
In doing so they saved countless thousands of Iraqi civilian lives at a risk to their own men.

How exactly did they "save" these people chill? They stormed into Baghdad shooting everything that was in front of them, the vast majority of which were civilians. The British waited and performed scouting missions (despite presure from Washington for a "quick war") and as a result had better intelligence and had less civilian deaths.

Originally posted by chill
It has never happened before that such an enormously powerful army invaded against such a huge occupying army and yet inflicted less than a thousand civilian deaths.

This is getting a bit tiresome. Both the US and the UK have stated they do not have offical figures for civilian deaths. Everyone else is saying the figure is between 6,000 and 10,000 which would make this the worst war the US has fought since Vietnam. Where are you getting the "less than a thousand" civilian deaths from??

chill

After dragging this thread way too far off topic, I won't continue it any further... except to close my comments...

It all comes down to this.. You choose to believe the ocean of anti war, anti american propaganda that washes over the media and web - I don't believe a jot of it. Whenever the claims are looked at closer than swallowing the summaries and outrage, the details and credibility don't add up.
The truth is probably somewhere in between but with the lack of objectivity that prevails right now the truth is going to remain ilusive for a long long time.

Redleslie

Originally posted by chill
That was an absolutely necessary action that was unfortunately not carried though fully. If it had been Saddaom would not have been in power to slaughter more of his innocent civilians.

None of that makes any sense or is at all relevant to what you've quoted from my post.

That was the day the Iraqi army got it's dues.

The Iraqi army was composed mainly of conscripts, who were victims of Saddam's evil regime. Unless they managed to desert and avoid being shot for doing so, they were in effect, condemned to death. Why are you so pleased to see them "get their dues" ie, slaughtered?

A sad tragedy of war. Mistakes happen in war.

You said the war lasted 2 weeks. That incident occurred in August, exactly 100 days after Bush announced major hostilities were over. So now you're agreeing that the war has lasted rather longer than 2 weeks, just as many people on the anti-war side predicted it would?

I take it you're not going to furnish us with any sources to back up your idiotic claims about casualties then.

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
After dragging this thread way too far off topic, I won't continue it any further... except to close my comments...

It all comes down to this.. You choose to believe the ocean of anti war, anti american propaganda that washes over the media and web - I don't believe a jot of it. Whenever the claims are looked at closer than swallowing the summaries and outrage, the details and credibility don't add up.
The truth is probably somewhere in between but with the lack of objectivity that prevails right now the truth is going to remain ilusive for a long long time.

well there is not much point discussing this with you, because your entire point seems to be based on the idea that everyone is lying. Everyone! The newspapers, the television, the British Army officers on the groun, the US Army officers on the ground, the aid agencies, the Iraqi people ... everyone.

It is interesting that while most people here can back up what they post with references to newspaper or tv reports from people actually in Iraq, you can't seem to back any of what you say up, especially that claim that under a thousand civilians died.

All you ever seem to say is "everyone is lying, so the opposite must be true"

chill

Originally posted by Wicknight
All you ever seem to say is "everyone is lying, so the opposite must be true" [/B]

Please don't rely on smearing me with inaccurate quotations that I NEVER EVER posted.

And while you're at it, no I don't swallow the propanda that seems to form your staple diet of information. You chose to and that's your choice. Not for me.

Zombrex

Originally posted by chill
And while you're at it, no I don't swallow the propanda that seems to form your staple diet of information. You chose to and that's your choice. Not for me.

but chill you think everything is propaganda

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
It all comes down to this.. You choose to believe the ocean of anti war, anti american propaganda that washes over the media and web - I don't believe a jot of it.

Yes, but you base your arguments on "show me the proof", and then whenever anything is offered as proof - up to and including eye-witness testimony from a soldier in the field, you dismiss it with an "I don't accept that".

If you're not going to accept it, what are you wasting everyone's time asking for proof in teh first place for?

Whenever the claims are looked at closer than swallowing the summaries and outrage, the details and credibility don't add up.

That's a pretty accurate assessment of many of the US Administration's statements, IMHO. The stuff you are putting your faith in.....

Why, only last night I heard that they're still working furiously to establish whether or not there were Al Qaeda links with Iraq.

That didn't stop the US Administration stating it for a given fact all too often.

The truth is probably somewhere in between but with the lack of objectivity that prevails right now the truth is going to remain ilusive for a long long time.

I agree.

Lack of objectivity such as a straight-up "I don't accept that" response to non-journalist-sourced eye-witness evidence from an allied soldier in the field, and an admission that any evidence that doesn't suit your pre-formed opinion is simply not trustworthy because you expect it to be disproven at a later stage - this type of lack of objectivity will indeed make the truth elusive.

I'm not saying that there is no lack of objectivity on the other side, however. I believe there an equal lack among many "protestors" (for lack of a better term), and I'm probably guilty of it myself to some degree.....but lets make no mistake here that a lack of objectivity is the pervue solely of the protestors .

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Please don't rely on smearing me with inaccurate quotations that I NEVER EVER posted.

And while you're at it, no I don't swallow the propanda that seems to form your staple diet of information. You chose to and that's your choice. Not for me.

Yup - you have a diet of an entirely different type of propaganda. What makes you think its any better?

jc