I see. And how exactly would you propose doing this, in the future? Every time US forces hear gunfire in Iraq we should call in the police to investigate first to make sure it isn’t that OTHER kind of gunfire…as opposed to the kind of gunfire trying to kill our soldiers? Should we have a peace officer go out with each patrol then and send him in whenever gunfire is encountered to save time? Or should we just sit back and wait until the police arrive, so that that one time in a hundered they can indeed find out that it was a wedding. Of course its going to be kind of hard on those copper the OTHER 99 times, but what the hell…thats why they make the big bucks, right?..
…Should we order our troops in a war zone not to respond to fire until they have throughly checked out the situation to make sure there isn’t a muslim wedding going on before they can respond?
[/quote]
As a matter of fact, I think that’s EXACTLY what we should do as long as troops are in no immediate danger- as they were NOT in this case. If we can’t assertain what’s going on and no police are handy, then we should just let it go and fly away.
Reality perhaps? The only way that your cite makes any sense to ‘prove’ your contention is if indeed the US knew it was a wedding and chose to fire on it anyway. See, if the US investigated it like you are contending, they they would have KNOWN it was a wedding. Get it?
So, we are back to this…is it NOW your contention that the US indeed knew it was a wedding and chose to fire on it anyway? I think its a fucked up position, but at least it would be something we could debate, as opposed to your repeating the same things over and over again.
Well, since many people on the boards arent american [and I will not venture to guess at the wedding habits in Europe…}
THere are several kinds of wedding party in the US. Many folks do separate ceremony and reception [party] and many folks combine the 2 into a single party kicked off by the wedding.
In general, if you have a ceremony followed by a reception/party, the wedding is in a church and the reception can be in one of several places. If you opt for a sit down reception, with dancing after, you go to a restaraunt or rental facility where you then have the party. You pay for these in time blocks, which can be as short as 3 hours, or for ‘the evening’ which means that there is a time limit on how long the facility will be open for the party [typically midnight is the ending time for most parties] You can rent a ‘hall’ associated with a fraternal organization [Lions, Fire Department, VFW] church hall, or a general ‘hall’ that is a cheaper version of the first restaraunt or banquet facility. These still have a closing time. If you opt for the treehugger version of things and hold it in a state park, there is generally a closing time of darkness falling [frequently about 9 pm, when the park is closed to the public.]
The other main option is to hold it in your private residence, where you can party til it hurts. Not many people can hold a wedding reception for more than 20 or so people here unless they live in a fairly large flat or home.
Neither place can one shoot off guns, though fireworks displays can be gotten permits for and arrangers hired to put theperformance on…
BUT in general, most americans, especially the generic white bread not particularly ethnic type have a church wedding, followed by a reception at a hired facility. Heck, the armenian wedding of my sister in law and her now ex husband only lasted until midnight, and it was held on their farm.
<helped a couple friends make wedding arrangements a few years ago…made me very glad we eloped!>
Are you seriously saying that because rural America is not in a state of anarchy, that it is impossible for any rural location to be in a state of anarchy?
OK, so now we have a case where there is obviously compelte anarchy (because it is a small town), and several (apparently really, really, really stupid) investigate the incident of weapons being fired into the air, don’t acknowledge that it is a wedding, and call in air support to level some houses?
Ok, thats fair enough. Who judges if they are or are not in danger though? Did the troops KNOW they weren’t in any danger from the shooting at the wedding, or are you making this claim on the basis of data aquired after the fact?
So, you are saying in effect that if our troops encounter unknown gunfire while out on patrol, they should just leave, and that this should be our R.O.E. while in Iraq? You might as well leave them in bases or bring them home in that case and let Iraq go into melt down. There will be a hell of a lot more deaths than at this wedding, but what the hell…we wouldn’t want to make a mistake and show we are human.
I actually respect your stance on this DtC…I know it comes from real conviction you have. I just disagree that this would be the best course.
I don’t know bro…its your construct, not mine. You tell me.
MY construct of the situation, based on what little scraps we now know, was that US forces in the area thought they were being fired on and called in an airstrike. Its that simple. US forces ‘investigating’ simply meant they closed in, figured out, ya, its certainly automatic fire, and called for backup.
As for anarchy or not anarchy, again, thats your contention. I just said that calling in ‘police’ wasn’t feasible from just about every angle I can think of. I also said that, whether or not police COULD be called in (something I doubt and haven’t seen anything to change my mind yet btw), that it would be stupid TOO call them in, when you suspect that there are terrorists and/or insurgents in the area firing automatic weapons. Or do you think police in Iraq are the best tool for confronting a military situation?
Not surprisingly, you are not the first person to imagine such a scenario. The Geneva Conventions account for this, and the potential harm to civilians must be weighed against the anticipated military advantage.
The typical hispanic wedding I’ve been to in the states is very similar. Of course, we don’t NORMALLY go out side and fire automatic weapons in the air, but if we did, I would certainly think I could curb the impulse if I thought my display might call down an airstrike on my house and all my guests. I think I could bring myself to just drink a bit more heavily (or whatever it is Muslims who don’t drink do at weddings) and long for better days in the future, and hope that someday I’ll be able to once again unleash my AK into the night sky in a country free of Americans.
According to Fox News, the attack didn’t start until five hours after the celebration.
So it sounds like the celebrants were popping off some harmless shots into the air, saw the US vehicles and decided to cool it off for the night. The men went into a tent, the women and children went into the house and then- five hours later- the slaughter began.
Where was the urgency to attack at that point. The ground troops were long gone. The Apache had to make a special trip for the turkey shoot.
BTW, I find the spin and denials by the miltary in the linked story to be transparently contrived and self-serving.
(your tax dollars at work, buying bullets by the bucket)
the footage showed a truck containing bloodied bodies, many wrapped in blankets and piled atop one other, after it arrived in Ramadi. Several were children. The body of a girl who appeared to be younger than 5 lay in a white sheet, her legs riddled with wounds and her dress soaked in blood.
if that girl’s father was unfortunate enough to survive, will you tell him that he must eschew terror?
Will you condemn him if he is lucky enough to get his hands on the controls of a 757, and he strikes out at any of the works of the iniquitous people who murdered his child?
At the risk of banality,
what would you do?
Upholders of “decency”, of “proportionality” of American exceptionalism
(“I know that what’s wrong with the world isn’t America…”.gagmewithaspoon)
suppose a just god delivered Nick Berg into your hands the day afer you buried your five year old daughter?
[QUOTE=chula]
Right of conquest? What century do you live in? I cannot imagine how such a concept is compatible with the UN Charter and modern international law. Conquest is no longer considered a legitimate way to gain power over territories.
[QUOTE]
By what right did the U.S. rule Japan after World War II? And if we had decided to permanently annex some territory in the Japanese home islands, we could have done that too. Legitimately.
For that matter, by what right does the U.S. rule all the territory that once belonged to the Indian nations?
??? I’ve studied political science and I’ve never heard the word “sovereignty” used in that way. Until 1947, the British Crown was the sovereign authority in India. At present, the Coalition is the sovereign authority in Iraq.
(sorry, messed up the quote boxes, let’s try that again)
By what right did the U.S. rule Japan after World War II? And if we had decided to permanently annex some territory in the Japanese home islands, we could have done that too. Legitimately.
For that matter, by what right does the U.S. rule all the territory that once belonged to the Indian nations?
??? I’ve studied political science and I’ve never heard the word “sovereignty” used in that way. Until 1947, the British Crown was the sovereign authority in India. At present, the Coalition is the sovereign authority in Iraq.
I’m curious about this issue (not being snarky, I mean it). By what right did the US free Kuwait from Iraq? What gives the United States “Right of Conquest,” but not Iraq, or for that matter, Germany or Japan?
It is most certainly being used in the sense of independence in Iraq today. When you hear Bush say “sovereign Iraq” he isn’t meaning “Iraq under US control.” At least, he isn’t meaning to say it.
Well, this sheds a whole different light on things. If true, I’d like to hear the explaination myself. Of course, Fox can’t be trusted…so I hear anyway. So I’ll take their story with a grain of salt until we hear a bit more.