Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#91

Post by david927 »

ErrantX wrote: post #87
Estragon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pulling out would be carnage What are you talking about? As this video shows, it's already carnage.

There is carnage in the video, agreed. And, yes, Iraq isn't the most hospitable of places. The problem is that as it stands I don't think the Iraqi army could cope with the insurgents alone - and it seems naive to assume that if the US leaves the insurgency will stop... So perhaps "a lot more carnage" is better.

That's what the US government says. The problem is, how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? The US can leave. In fact, for legal reasons, it has to. It was never authorized to invade; staying, under any premise, is unacceptable. If there's "more carnage", that's unfortunate.

But the US will never leave. Not because of carnage, but because of the fortune in oil under these poor people's feet:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_o...

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#92

Post by ErrantX »

david927 wrote: post #91
ErrantX wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is carnage in the video, agreed. And, yes, Iraq isn't the most hospitable of places. The problem is that as it stands I don't think the Iraqi army could cope with the insurgents alone - and it seems naive to assume that if the US leaves the insurgency will stop... So perhaps "a lot more carnage" is better.

That's what the US government says. The problem is, how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? The US can leave. In fact, for legal reasons, it has to. It was never authorized to invade; staying, under any premise, is unacceptable. If there's "more carnage", that's unfortunate. But the US will never leave. Not because of carnage, but because of the fortune…

> how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal?

I'm sorry but right there is the naivety. Yes there is fighting because the US is in control - but the current government is also seen, by the insurgents, as US stooges. They would fight to depose them even if the US left. Then there are many different factions - all of whom would want control.

I appreciate this is the line the US government are selling too; and it is good not to just lap it up hook line and sinker (clearly they are staying for other reasons too). But there is a truth to what they say.

Whatever reason the US went (I am sure the oil played a large part) getting out is going to be incredibly difficult. Whatever move they make will be frowned on by someone.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#93

Post by david927 »

ErrantX wrote: post #92
david927 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what the US government says. The problem is, how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? The US can leave. In fact, for legal reasons, it has to. It was never authorized to invade; staying, under any premise, is unacceptable. If there's "more carnage", that's unfortunate. But the US will never leave. Not because of carnage, but because of the fortune…

> how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? I'm sorry but right there is the naivety. Yes there is fighting because the US is in control - but the current government is also seen, by the insurgents, as US stooges. They would fight to depose them even if the US left. Then there are many different factions - all of whom would want control. I appreciate this…

(Really? The current government is seen as US stooges? Really? Those crazy insurgents. :-)

There's no naivety: I understand very well that there are Shiia, Sunni and Bathist factions. And I'm sure that the civil war would continue. But Jesus, the US has been there seven long years at exorbitant expense.

Remember, though, that this is the line that apartheid South Africa used to avoid letting the blacks vote: "if they do it, there will be chaos -- why just look at how much chaos and violence exists now -- just think about if that was set free! They frown now on apartheid but they would frown on that too."

No. The US leaving will be "frowned on" by no one. It will be applauded by all. It's been seven years. It needs to end.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#94

Post by ErrantX »

david927 wrote: post #93
ErrantX wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? I'm sorry but right there is the naivety. Yes there is fighting because the US is in control - but the current government is also seen, by the insurgents, as US stooges. They would fight to depose them even if the US left. Then there are many different factions - all of whom would want control. I appreciate this…

(Really? The current government is seen as US stooges? Really? Those crazy insurgents. :-) There's no naivety: I understand very well that there are Shiia, Sunni and Bathist factions. And I'm sure that the civil war would continue. But Jesus, the US has been there seven long years at exorbitant expense. Remember, though, that this is the line that apartheid South Africa used to avoid letting the blacks vote: "if they…

I'm amused that you think that it is a morally right choice to allow a full civil war to break out - would that not result in many more deaths on both sides?

Why is that the right choice to make?

How long before a UN peace keeping force is asked to intervene? (actually, that might be a good result... but lots of unnecessary death to get there).

The US shouldn't be there, really. They should leave. But I think it has to be done right.

It's easy to judge when sat miles away...

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#95

Post by lallysingh »

pg wrote: post #8
roboneal wrote: post #5

The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building. A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.

Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.

To stay afloat, the occasional stunt is necessary.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#96

Post by david927 »

ErrantX wrote: post #94
david927 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Really? The current government is seen as US stooges? Really? Those crazy insurgents. :-) There's no naivety: I understand very well that there are Shiia, Sunni and Bathist factions. And I'm sure that the civil war would continue. But Jesus, the US has been there seven long years at exorbitant expense. Remember, though, that this is the line that apartheid South Africa used to avoid letting the blacks vote: "if they…

I'm amused that you think that it is a morally right choice to allow a full civil war to break out - would that not result in many more deaths on both sides? Why is that the right choice to make? How long before a UN peace keeping force is asked to intervene? (actually, that might be a good result... but lots of unnecessary death to get there). The US shouldn't be there, really. They should leave. But I think it has…

I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war.

You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths. The US isn't there as peacekeeper. It's there as invader. Many of these "insurgents" are fighting directly against the US, and many are dying in that battle. We don't know what would happen on a US exit, but to say that there would more violence int he long term is simply disingenuous. You can't know that.

If the US was to say, "We'll leave and we need one year to do so," no one would be mad. But they don't. They instead increase troop levels and give every indication that they're not going anywhere.

Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit. They didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars because they so desperately care about the beautiful Iraqi people.

They care that the big oil fields like al Ghawar and Cantarell are making gurgling, slurping noises because they're finished. They care that, unlike other countries, they have virtually no public transportation or other means to handle a spike in oil prices. They care that the last big untapped oil reserves are under the Iraqis' feet. And they're willing to whatever it takes to make sure that they have control of it.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#97

Post by ErrantX »

david927 wrote: post #96
ErrantX wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amused that you think that it is a morally right choice to allow a full civil war to break out - would that not result in many more deaths on both sides? Why is that the right choice to make? How long before a UN peace keeping force is asked to intervene? (actually, that might be a good result... but lots of unnecessary death to get there). The US shouldn't be there, really. They should leave. But I think it has…

I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war. You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths. The US isn't there as peacekeeper. It's there as invader. Many of these "insurgents" are fighting directly against the US, and many are dying in that battle. We don't know what would happen on a US exit, but to say that there would more violence int he long term is simply di…

Final message... but here goes.#

> I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war.

It's currently an insurgent war - there is a big big difference.

> You can't know that.

Precedence - look at other historical examples.

> You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths.

It's a reasonable and logical assumption; the US has vastly superior weaponry and organisation to the insurgents. They abide by much stricter rules of war/engagement. It's an engagement weighted on the side of the US. If a more even balance was in effect the casualties would, logically, be much higher.

How can you reasonably assert that the US leaving would result in less deaths?

> Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit

Be serious; who suggested that (I certainly didn't)?

But your posting smacks of a massive anti-US bias so, I guess, it's pointless to continue arguing :)

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#98

Post by jacquesm »

confuzatron wrote: post #82
jacquesm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's somewhat contrary to the voice over from the guy flying the chopper.

I'm afraid you've got it the wrong way round. The detached non-emotional tone adopted in the recording doesn't contradict the assertion that fighters may adopt a detached attitude during conflict as a way of pushing down emotions.

He's not detached and non-emotional, to me he sounds eager to kill, definitely not without emotion.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#99

Post by jacquesm »

rdl wrote: post #61

I was in Iraq when this happened. It is a fairly representative incident -- the only remarkable thing is that Reuters people were involved. There have been plenty of within-rules shootings which led to the deaths of civilians, but there were also plenty of situations where the rules hindered successful operations or even self-defense. It's a balancing act, and it's war, so it's choosing among least-bad options, with…

The thing you have to wonder about though is if this would have gotten nearly as much airplay as it did if it weren't for those reuters people there.
Post reply on HN