I'm sick of it. And, I'm ready to fight over it.

[Mr.Cynical]

The U.S. Military is not in the business of bombing innocent civilians. This is fact.

I know this, because I have experience, see? The system I worked on was responsible for delivering laser-guided bombs to their target. Much of the work I personally did was responsible for the footage you might have seen during Deliberate Force. Black and white video, bomb going through the crosshairs. That was MY work, a result of countless hours making sure that lasers were properly boresighted to FLIR.

I’ve seen so much bullshit about bombing the civilians of Afghanistan, I’m absolutely sickened. This is NOT what we were about, nor should we ever be.

I’m at the point now, if you were to say to my face that the US military is going over there to kill civilians…I’d push your nose in.

I believe in the ability of the armed forces of the United States to do te job that so many people are labelling as horrendous and unsavory. I took an oath, as others did before me, to defend this country I live in.

Perhaps my way of standing up against what the world offers us is discongruous with that which you believe in. Perhaps not.

Just NEVER stand in the way of my love of country, and my sense of patriotism. NEVER.

[Beagle]

No, no, no all wars are Vietnam and carpet bombing of villages by B-52s on purpose. Didn’t you see that in the movies. Yeesh, what a moron. You are only IN the military, what do you know? Go to college and learn something.

[/sarcasm]

[apotheosis]

This message was brought to you by:
USN/USAF Precision Munitions Delivery Service
“If it’s not within two feet, your next one’s free.”

[Mr.Cynical]

Thank you for that link, apotheosis. I’ll be showing that site off to some old war buddies of mine.

[Otto]

They may be out there, but I don’t know anyone who is saying that the military will go into battle with the intention of killing civilians (although I con’t think that many terrorists are part of a recognized military so perhaps “non-combatants” is a better term). What distresses us is the fact that, despite everyone’s best possible intentions, any military sortie will result in the death of non-combatants. This also is fact.

[apotheosis]

*Originally posted by Otto *
They may be out there, but I don’t know anyone who is saying that the military will go into battle with the intention of killing civilians

Not in so many words, no; but it need not be voiced as a direct accusation of intentional malice. The mere suggestion that military personnel don’t give a shit whether NC’s are wounded or killed is both erroneous and insulting.

If I’m not mistaken, that’s what MC takes issue with. As do the vast majority of us who’ve served in the armed forces.

[SPOOFE]

What distresses us is the fact that, despite everyone’s best possible intentions, any military sortie will result in the death of non-combatants.

Yup. But, conversely, taking no military action will also result in the death of non-combatants. Ours.

That’s why it’s a shitty situation, dear Otto. Unfortunately, unpleasant or not, it’s something that has to be done.

[Mr.Cynical]

*Originally posted by Otto *
**What distresses us is the fact that, despite everyone’s best possible intentions, any military sortie will result in the death of non-combatants. This also is fact. **

I beg to differ. That statement, although properly-intended, not necessarily true. Perhaps you meant any operation, versus sortie? A sortie is an individual mission. If three jets take off, you have one mission comprised of three sorties.

Please, grammar people, DO tell me that I used “comprised” properly there

[apotheosis]

*Originally posted by Manservant Hecubus *
**

*Originally posted by Otto *
**What distresses us is the fact that, despite everyone’s best possible intentions, any military sortie will result in the death of non-combatants. This also is fact. **

I beg to differ. That statement, although properly-intended, not necessarily true. Perhaps you meant any operation, versus sortie? A sortie is an individual mission. If three jets take off, you have one mission comprised of three sorties.**

As long as we’re refining definitions, it’s worth noting that what Otto probably intended to say was operation, since the probability (much less certainty) of an individual mission resulting in NC casualties depends on the target.

Example: dropping a GBU on a control center in the middle of Kabul would probably result in ‘collateral damage,’ but dropping one on a bunker in the middle of an uninhabited area probably wouldn’t.

**Please, grammar people, DO tell me that I used “comprised” properly there **

Yup.

[pesch]

So the U.S. did not kill any civilians during the strikes in the Balkans, in the Sudan and in Libya? Our weapons are that accurate; even when (as I believe Saddam did) they mix their military targets with civilian.

So as a result of our policies with regard to Iraq, we’re not contributing to the deaths of civilians there?

Perhaps, when the protestors are opposing the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan, they’re only trying to prevent something which has happened before in other countries.

[Mr.Cynical]

Prime example above. :rolleyes:

The answer is, yes, we most certainly did. However, we didn’t want to, we didn’t celebrate it, we didn’t TARGET civilians, and you’ve completely missed the point.

[apotheosis]

*Originally posted by pesch *
So the U.S. did not kill any civilians during the strikes in the Balkans, in the Sudan and in Libya? Our weapons are that accurate; even when (as I believe Saddam did) they mix their military targets with civilian.

Sure we did, but that isn’t the issue. The question is whether it was done deliberately, and the answer is a resounding **NO[.b].

So as a result of our policies with regard to Iraq, we’re not contributing to the deaths of civilians there?

What in the name of Aphrodite’s asshole does foreign policy have to do with weapon accuracy?

Are you talking about the no-fly zone policy? If that’s the case, our aircraft only fire when fired upon or a hostile aircraft violates the zone. Neither case qualifies as non-combatant behavior, and neither generally takes place in population centers.

[pesch]

Deliberate or not, it matters to the people who are being bombed, and to those in other countries who see it happening.

And no, I’m not talking about the no-fly zone. I’m talking about the failure of Bush and Clinton to finish what was started with the Gulf War.

I can only hope that a similiar policy is not considered for Afghanistan. Don’t throw in a few missles. Don’t try to enforce a blockade or embargo. Go in, one way or another, and do it.

It may take several tries. It will mean casualties. But it has to be done.

And as we’re doing this, we also need a propaganda drive, to spread the word to the people we’re attacking and to those who are watching, why we are doing this. That we’re not at war with Islam. That we don’t want the damn country. We just want the Taliban out (or whoever is found responsible) and bin Ladin’s head on a stick. With maybe a toll-free number as to where to claim the reward, along with a one-way ticket out of Afghanistan.

[apotheosis]

*Originally posted by pesch *
Deliberate or not, it matters to the people who are being bombed, and to those in other countries who see it happening.

Agreed, but that still wasn’t the point of the OP.

And no, I’m not talking about the no-fly zone. I’m talking about the failure of Bush and Clinton to finish what was started with the Gulf War.

Putting aside for a moment that the only mandate of Desert Storm was the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, not eliminating Hussein: wouldn’t you agree that bum-rushing Bagdhad in an effort to get Saddam would have resulted in countless civilian casualties? Urban warfare isn’t known for its genteel regard of innocent bystanders.

**I can only hope that a similiar policy is not considered for Afghanistan. Don’t throw in a few missles. Don’t try to enforce a blockade or embargo. Go in, one way or another, and do it.

It may take several tries. It will mean casualties. But it has to be done.**

I agree 100%. I just hope there’s sustained support for it when pictures of the bodies (ours AND theirs) start showing up on CNN, as they inevitably will.

And as we’re doing this, we also need a propaganda drive, to spread the word to the people we’re attacking and to those who are watching, why we are doing this.

That’d be nice, if we could get the info to them. A little word of mouth here, a leaflet-bombing campaign there.

Side note: I’ve often wondered about the repeated use of the phrase ‘called a demonstration,’ implying that most of the people you see burning flags and shouting for American blood aren’t there by choice. Is there any concrete, non-rhetorical evidence one way or the other that they’re under duress? They sure LOOK like they mean it - it’d be nice to know they weren’t really all that committed to the cause.

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by apotheosis *
**

**Please, grammar people, DO tell me that I used “comprised” properly there **

Yup. **

Fraid not. “Comprised of” is always incorrect.

“You have one mission comprising three sorties” would be correct. “Composed of” would also be fine.

[apotheosis]

*Originally posted by ruadh *
**

*Originally posted by apotheosis *
**

**Please, grammar people, DO tell me that I used “comprised” properly there **

Yup. **

Fraid not. “Comprised of” is always incorrect.

“You have one mission comprising three sorties” would be correct. “Composed of” would also be fine. **

Hey…public school “outcome-based” education here, ok? If it SOUNDS right, it must BE right.

[coosa]

MH, and anyone else in the military that is here, I just want to say that I have complete faith in you. I don’t think the incredible technology and skill displayed in the Gulf War has sunk into very many thick skulls - and you’ve had years since then to make improvements.

I’ve also been itching to ask some of the people in the ‘discouraging’ threads if they think that the US military is just now sitting down at a table and trying to figure out what to do in Afghanistan. snort Like they don’t plan ahead for as many possible situations as they can dream up? Various strategies for operations in Afghanistan have probably been classroom assignments ever since the Russians invaded them way back when!

But hey, I’m a Tom Clancy fan, so maybe I’m prejudiced.

I expect to see the world amazed, yet again, and new fear born in the hearts of those who still see us as a ‘paper tiger’ that can be taunted and assaulted at whim. Maybe Vietnam left a larger scar on the public psyche than we have realized.

Dammit, diplomacy when possible, but if you have to kick ass, do it right and don’t fool around.

Y’all be careful out there.

[Lemur866]

*Originally posted by apotheosis *
**
Side note: I’ve often wondered about the repeated use of the phrase ‘called a demonstration,’ implying that most of the people you see burning flags and shouting for American blood aren’t there by choice. Is there any concrete, non-rhetorical evidence one way or the other that they’re under duress? They sure LOOK like they mean it - it’d be nice to know they weren’t really all that committed to the cause. **

Here’s an article in The New Republic by a reporter who claims that the vast majority of Afghans don’t support the Taliban:

http://www.tnr.com/100101/rubin100101.html

And I discovered something unexpected, something often overlooked in the strategizing of recent days: The Taliban are weak. They lack the military muscle, popular support, and internal cohesion to hold up under sustained attack.

[Bluesman]

I wish I could find the LANTIRN video of a Strike Eagle crew over Kosovo pulling their bomb off-target to impact some uninhabited woods, because they just weren’t absolutely sure about it AFTER weapons-release, but before impact. FTR, that’s THE MOST stressful time in the entire mission, and they are worried about not killing innocent people more than their own lives.

They were also aware that the target STILL had to be struck at some later date, either by themselves or their friends, and the next time they were over the target, the bad guys would be aware that they had been selected for destruction and would have made arrangements to “greet” them. If you want to know what you’re buying, Mr. Taxpayer, it’s the professionalism, courage and discipline that this crew demonstrated.

We may be the only country in the world that would order our military to put themselves at a higher risk of death and/or defeat in order to act as humanely as possible in war. I am obliged every single year to receive training in the Law of Armed Conflict, and I violate their principles at the peril of my liberty, or even my life.

The only legitimate reason to have a military is to defend those that cannot defend themselves, and as a proud non-commissioned officer in YOUR Air Force, that’s what I do. I am the guardian not just of American life, liberty and property, either. What I do, I do for anybody in that category, sometimes even my enemies. I would defend POWs and enemy wounded to the last extremity, even against my own countrymen, maybe even my comrades.

I’m not a killer, I’m a defender. If you have not served, you may not get that.

And Manservant Hecubus,if you bust some dumb-ass in his pin-head for provoking you with stupid shit like that, I’ll contribute to your legal defense fund, Hoss. I take it personally, too.

Hey, everybody that’s going to the Dope-a-ween party: can’t wait to see all y’all again (okay, MOST of y’all). But be on notice: I’m with MH on this one. Please don’t push this particular button of mine, because you’ll go to the hospital, and I’ll go to jail. I mean it. Freedom of speech, okay, but DO NOT provoke me. I am serious. I’m in the mood to party, not to hear you bad-mouth me and my colleagues and the job we do for everybody else.

Whew. Can ya feel the love?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

I have nothing substantive to add, just a “Me too” to what Bluesman said.

It’s good to know that there are people around who can help me to do the right thing when I finally get into the service.

I think I need to buy you a beer, pal.