I believe so, but note that I’m not limiting my response to Iraqis, but to anyone from any culture including Americans, which is why I was careful to say “possibly” and to put it in parentheses.
Diogenes, sometimes I am awed by the intelligence and care in your posts. And sometimes your posts are just bang-your-head-against-rocks dumb. I won’t pretend to understand what brings out the Jekyll, and what brings out the Hyde. But it seems like today, there’s more Hyde.
And you know that the people firing guns into the air were “victims” how exactly? All we’ve got are the word of two parties. Unless you’re willing to assume without any evidence that the military is lying, how can you decide who is a “victim”? Omniscience? Bad vibes? Ouija board?
Yes. Apache helicopters can be brought down by well-placed (or lucky) small arms fire.
This is just fucking idiotic. First of all, I hope we’ve established that the Apache may have been in danger from small arms fire. [See my cite above.]
Second, what evidence do you have that any American soldiers shot and killed people for fun or sport? Or are you just assuming that American soldiers are inherently evil? Because if that’s the case, fuck you, asshole.
Third, what evidence do you have that any Americans intentionally shot children?
Fourth, your implication that American soldiers are somehow cowards – having shot from the “safety of a helicopter” – is incredibly dense. Helicopters are anything but safe, especially in times of war. The soldiers didn’t run and jump in an impregnable fortress and then take pot shots at the valiant people on the ground. It’s a war, and if you expect us to not use our technology to make things more even for our enemies, then you’re a crabwalking asshat.
They did. The stories that have been linked indicated that the Apache called in for support and troops were sent in to investigate. And judging from the reports coming out of the military, they determined that there was a threat before acting.
Nobody has said that – if this was in fact a wedding that was shot up – it was fine. We’re just saying that maybe the Iraqis didn’t act in the best manner possible. Or is it impermissible for any blame to fall on anyone but the Americans?
Further, there have been plenty of instances in which Americans have been “accidentally” and intentionally slaughtered, and we haven’t gone ape shit. For example, UN peacekeeping troops from Jordan that were stationed in Kosovo ambushed UN peacekeeping troops from America. But, hey, I’m sure the Americans deserved it because we were in Kosovo illegally, right?
And woops! two Americans were killed in an ambush in Nigeria. But, hey, Chevron was probably robbing the people of their oil, right?
And yikes! Americans were killed by ambush in Gaza. But, hey, we support those bastard Isrealis, right?
Your hypothetical missionaries knew the risks going in, and decided that their actions were so important that they were worth the risk of getting killed. We might call that foolish, but at least it shows some measure of calculation. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the alleged wedding party measured the risks of shooting their guns in the air and then decided that it was so important that it was worth the risk of getting killed.
Furthermore, if a missionary took his or her kids into the hostile area, then I’d say that that is a terrible thing to do. Here, the Iraqis apparently didn’t think it was a bad idea to incur the risk of inviting return fire, despite the presence of children.
Are you actually suggesting that it’s open season on Americans? If Iraqis want to celebrate their weddings by shooting an American soldier, then that’s fine?
In fact, we’ve got every right to ensure that our soldiers are safe while in Iraq. You may argue that our occupation is illegal, but even if true (which it’s not), that doesn’t give anyone the right to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.
Who’s arguing otherwise? Nobody’s advocating shooting up a village, for God’s sake.
[quote]
Guess you decided it was apparent already, huh? That didn’t take long.
“Proportional response” is not a doctrine for use in war. When someone is trying to kill you with a pistol, there’s nothing wrong with trying to kill them with a bazooka.
In war, the response is perfectly equal with the initial force – both sides are trying to kill each other. And instead of diminishing your own force powers to be “fair” to the people trying to kill you, the idea is to use “overwhelming force” to make sure you aren’t killed.
And just to be clear, the Americans are saying that this wasn’t a case of being shot at and immediately returning fire. Rather, they took the time to figure out what they were firing at:
Bolding mine.
Why is it that we westerners are expected to have respect for other cultures, but you get to make sweeping contempt filled statements about ours like these? Show respect, get respect.
As it happens, the English language, its nuances and use are very important to me. I find it beautiful and subtle. This statement is very offensive to me.
I agree. It can be spectacularly, breathtakingly beautiful, and it may very well be the most complex form of written or spoken communication on earth. Mandarins might disagree, but hey, they’re Commies. 
So, Aldebaran, going to apologize for your blinkered, hypocritical cultural bigotry?
Unless the inebriated idiots are firing perpendicular to the ground, there’s no more chance of someone in the wedding party getting hit then someone in the hunting party getting hit. And given that both take place in the middle of nowhere, the chance of someone not in the wedding party getting hit are probably close to the odds of someone not in the hunting party getting hit.
Given that the wedding was in the open desert, I’d say the range of the weapons being fired is irrelevant, unless they were specially-modified ultra-long-range ballistic AK-47’s.
Let’s face it: Given that both situations involved weapons being shot away from the immediate vicinity of the people involved, and there’s not likely to be any people near where the projectiles are going to land, there’s no significant difference between the two scenarios other then that one happened in Iraq and one happened in the US. The only reason it’s a bad idea to discharge a firearm in Iraq (as opposed to the US) is because an aircraft you may or may not know about may think you’re firing on it and in turn light you up. This will piss of your friends and family, who soon may genuinely be aiming for the next aircraft they see. Moral of the story: unless you’re absolutely positively fucking sure that the people you’re about to obliterate are genuinely trying to kill you, don’t kill them. Yes, this puts the US servicemen in a risky situation. But it’s a situation they volunteered for–unlike the Iraqi’s.
A friend of mine was in the Danish army in Yugoslavia. I remember talking to him about the war recently, and he metioned that the locals somtimes shot at the NATO troops. My friend and his comrades had to radio in for permission to fire back and were always denied. They just did what they had to do and accepted the risk of being hurt but did not shoot at the locals, because they were not at war with them. Seems logical to me - you don’t shoot the people you’re helping.
I consider myself to be western and we blow up a *lot * of fireworks every new year’s eve. Some kids get seriously injured every year, sometimes kids even die. It’s a stupid tradition, but it’s a tradition.
The American troops really can’t seem to catch a break these days, this is a hell of a mess if they were indeed shooting at a wedding. Until I know for sure I’m giving them the benefit of doubt - at least they are definately not shooting up weddings just for the fun of it.
As I said in a thread in Great Debates, the Bush Administration thinks torture is good and marriage is bad … for gays. And now their forces in Iraq are expressing a low opinion of marriage … for Iraqis.
I think Laura Bush has some 'splaining to do.
That’s just ignorantly wrong and presumptuous on your part. First of all, it’s incredibly insulting that you keep dragging this back to Iraqis vs Americans – it’s NOT. It’s about people of ANY culture who stupidly fire guns into the air in the middle of parties where people are celebrating. That is in no way even remotely similar to a couple of guys going out into the woods and shooting at quail or deer or whatever. Hunters are using their guns as intended, and hopefully employing all the proper safety measures. Random partiers firing random shots UP INTO THE AIR are NOT being careful – PERIOD.
Clearly you know absolutely nothing (or don’t care, which is worse) about gun safety. You might want to peruse one of the many sites that list the “Ten Commandments of Firearm Safety”, which state:
I’d say that randomly firing a gun into the air during a party definitely violates Commandments 1, 2, 3 & 6 (& 10, when we’re talking about stupid Americans who do this on the 4th of July, etc.).
Do you know anything about guns? I do – I’ve fired them. They’re not toys. They aren’t intended to be fired willy-nilly into the air during parties. That behaviour is unsafe!
And unless you’re clairvoyant, you cannot possibly state with any reasonable certainty that the people shooting rounds into the air were doing so at safe projectories. As I pointed out in the Straight Dope column I linked to, stupid people all over the world point guns straight up into the air and injure or kill people doing so. That you keep pretending this doesn’t happen is so disingenuous that it renders every single thing you say completely and utterly worthless.
I’m a little confused–people were shooting their guns off into the air with their little children standing right next to them? And the little children were out at 2:30 am?
Things ain’t quite adding up.
Blame the victims. Blame the victims. Blame the victims.
Good strategy for winning hearts and minds.
Is 2:30 a.m. a typical time of day for Iraqui wedding celebrations? It seems like it would be a typical time for terrorist activities.
Are a couple mill in cash, foreign passports, a satcom radio and numerous weapons part of normal wedding decorations?
Jeez! Coulda’ been a safe house for bad guys, ya’ think?
I suspect the “wedding party” claim is crap.
How exactly are people shooting off guns in a warzone at 2:30 AM victims?
Of their own stupidity maybe, Darwin-award like, otherwise, I’m not buying it.
Aldebaran, can you provide a single reason why a “cultural habit” which is gravely dangerous at the best of times and outrageously dangerous at the current time should be respected? Just because it exists?
Seems impressive, until you do the conversion. 2 millian Iraq dinars is a little less than $1400US.
Yeah, but you gotta admit the numbers sound impressive as hell. 
[QUOTE=John Carter of Mars]
Is 2:30 a.m. a typical time of day for Iraqui wedding celebrations? It seems like it would be a typical time for terrorist activities.
[QUOTE]
I don’t know about Iraq but here in Ireland wedding celebrations can go on all night.
From another thread however
Wow, great coding :rolleyes:
Do the Iraquis consider that a negligible amount?