It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hearts and Minds ~ America Bombs Eight Bridges Over Iraq´s Euphrates River

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
it does make sense, militarily. control the bridges and control who comes in or out (except, of course, for the really good swimmers). i dont see how it is a violation of the geneva convention, as it does definitely seem to be a tactical decision. furthermore, it does not keep people from traveling....just makes it a little less convenient.




posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   


it does make sense, militarily. control the bridges and control who comes in or out (except, of course, for the really good swimmers). i dont see how it is a violation of the geneva convention, as it does definitely seem to be a tactical decision. furthermore, it does not keep people from traveling....just makes it a little less convenient.


Exactly. Now the terrorists are going to have to experience the same long lines that they've caused us to experience at airport security!



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Destroying bridges is a War crime?

Well hell. I support that crime if it stops the mindless idiots killing innocent people.

But then again, the insurgents only attack the coalition, don't they?


actually, they have been targeting civilians, and even children...havent you been watching the news (and it doesnt matter which news source on this matter)?


Of course i have seen and read about it. My last line was a hint of sarcasm.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Actually this has been in the news, it was on NBC.
Now ArchAngel, since you’re not on the battle field and don't know the situation, you shouldn't rush to conclusions about what is necessary or not. Every time the US sweeps into a town or city the insurgents flee, when the US leaves they return again. If we partially destroy the means by which they infiltrate (bridges) we can hider their progress and movement.

P.S. I’m sure the US would have won more harts and minds if these murderers returned and started blowing up civilians again.


You are confusing a war with an occupation.

The STATE of Iraq was defeated, and no longer exists so there cannot be a war.

The BRIDGES themselves posed no threats so their destruction was a violation of Article 53 making it a warcrime.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
it does make sense, militarily. control the bridges and control who comes in or out (except, of course, for the really good swimmers). i dont see how it is a violation of the geneva convention, as it does definitely seem to be a tactical decision. furthermore, it does not keep people from traveling....just makes it a little less convenient.


It makes it inconvenient for All people in the area.

...And the bridges were within Iraq so blowing them up did not stop anyone from going in or out of Iraq.

The Bridges would not have been built if they were not needed by the people.

Society, and the economy of the people there depended on being able to move, and trade across the river.

I do not think you would find a single Iraqi in the area that thinks they are better off with the destruction of their bridges.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
"12 bridges between the Syrian border and Ramadi"

that was 12 bridges that were, supposedly, a means for insurgents to enter Iraq from Syria.

12 bridges for insurgents and terrorists to leave Iraq and enter Syria. If you believe the current terror threat in NYC and the reports out last night, one person allegedly went from Iraq, to Syria and then on to NYC.

those 12 bridges were a means of moving in and out of Iraq. they are down to 4, which makes monitoring them much easier. Is it wrong? No. They haven't completely cut off the flow of traffic, they've just closed a few lanes, as it were.

and those tens of thousands that cannot travel to see friends and family comment was a joke right? Oh, wait, I forgot, it's ramadan, which means lots of bar-b-ques and pool parties.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
"12 bridges between the Syrian border and Ramadi"

that was 12 bridges that were, supposedly, a means for insurgents to enter Iraq from Syria.

12 bridges for insurgents and terrorists to leave Iraq and enter Syria.....


You cannot get from Syria to Iraq by crossing the Euphrates.

Please look at a map....

[edit on 8-10-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
just quoting the article you linked to. Send your complaint to the webmaster and reporter. Not me. Next time, proofread your source before posting it I guess.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
just quoting the article you linked to. Send your complaint to the webmaster and reporter. Not me. Next time, proofread your source before posting it I guess.


The article was accurate.



The Euphrates goes through both Iraq, and Syria, but is not part of the border other than the width of it at the border.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
yes but the article referrs to the bridges as being between syria and a cityin Iraq which in my eyes implies that they are a means of transporting oneself from Syria to that city.

With that, it still helps control the flow of insurgents in and out of a region. as for the unknown number of cookouts that will be ruined by this, well, that remains to be seen.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
yes but the article referrs to the bridges as being between syria and a cityin Iraq which in my eyes implies that they are a means of transporting oneself from Syria to that city.

With that, it still helps control the flow of insurgents in and out of a region. as for the unknown number of cookouts that will be ruined by this, well, that remains to be seen.



"12 bridges between the Syrian border and Ramadi"

On the map above follow the Euphrates river from the Syrian Border to Ramadi.

Along that length of the river inside Iraq there used to be 12 bridges, and now there are only four.

Its hard to make light of the suffering that must have imposed.

In America there would have been dozens of bridges in that length of river.

Driving around will add dozens of miles for countless people, and its not like everyone has cars and trucks....



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Its hard to make light of the suffering that must have imposed.


Driving around will add dozens of miles for countless people, and its not like everyone has cars and trucks....


bridges feel no pain. If the bridge destruction results in one less insurgent getting to a target, where coalition members disguised as children getting candy from a truck or locals trying to cast a vote, then the brick and tar's suffering was not in vain.

as for the long drive and walk, well, that's small price to pay to be able to attend this weekend's ramadan dance without the fear of a suicide bomber ruining your chance with the hottie in the beige veil.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

as for the long drive and walk, well, that's small price to pay to be able to attend this weekend's ramadan dance without the fear of a suicide bomber ruining your chance with the hottie in the beige veil.


Are you supposing that destroying bridges will make that less likely?

Now that people cannot cross the Euphrates everyone will just go home, and submit to the occupation like a good little native should?

I fail to see the relationship.

I believe it will create more violence by further enraging everyone.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

The BRIDGES themselves posed no threats so their destruction was a violation of Article 53 making it a warcrime.

Yet again, how is it a violation?



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel


Now that people cannot cross the Euphrates everyone will just go home, and submit to the occupation like a good little native should?

I fail to see the relationship.

I believe it will create more violence by further enraging everyone.


in theory, fewer means of travel means the police can patrol the same number of travellers in fewer locations, thereby not spreading themselves to thin. Again, in theory. will that work? doubt it.


might see some more road rage but other than that, I would imagine the insurgents will continue to blow themselves and the locals up and there won't be more bombings as a result.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
ok, you guys are argueing semantics now. whether or not blowing those bridges is a violation of the GC depends on what exactly the situation is, and since none of us are on the ground and really know for sure, and the articles ive seen all seem to be slanted one way or the other, i dont think any of us can really say for sure whose right or wrong on this one. just MHO.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Blowing up a string over bridges over a big river is a seriously stupid thing to do.

It prevents commerce, upsets the locals and makes the US look heavy handed and inept all at once.

Far better to put solid garrisons at each bridge, if smuggling is suspected a few tanks and a couple of men can deal with it. They can check for smuggling and at the same time let people know that security is being provided.

Some US troops may be killed doing this, but tough, US authorities now have a responsibility to govern Iraq properly, and blasting bridges is not the way to do this.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I say if blowing up eight bridges helps to keep all the rats on one side of the river, then that's a good thing. It makes them easier targets.

I don't remember hearing the same outcry when oil pipelines and wells were being torched by the insurgents.

The impression I got from the article was that the bridges were hit with precision strikes, taking out only portions of the bridge. Thus making it easier to repair instead of having to rebuild. Which the coalition will be doing anyway; the insurgents sure as hell won't repair them.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I say if blowing up eight bridges helps to keep all the rats on one side of the river, then that's a good thing. It makes them easier targets.

I don't remember hearing the same outcry when oil pipelines and wells were being torched by the insurgents.

The impression I got from the article was that the bridges were hit with precision strikes, taking out only portions of the bridge. Thus making it easier to repair instead of having to rebuild. Which the coalition will be doing anyway; the insurgents sure as hell won't repair them.


so true but when you look at it that way you cannot whine about how killing a bridge is a war crime.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Blowing up a string over bridges over a big river is a seriously stupid thing to do.

It prevents commerce, upsets the locals and makes the US look heavy handed and inept all at once.

Far better to put solid garrisons at each bridge, if smuggling is suspected a few tanks and a couple of men can deal with it. They can check for smuggling and at the same time let people know that security is being provided.

Some US troops may be killed doing this, but tough, US authorities now have a responsibility to govern Iraq properly, and blasting bridges is not the way to do this.


I think that far less US troops would be killed if we had NOT blown up these bridges.

The way to win is to NOT destroy things, and to stop builing the 14+ long term bases in Iraq.

They ALL want us to get out in the not-to-distant future, but Bush has no plans for this.

America will not get out until revolution is at hand at home just like with Vietnam.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join