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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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....
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.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
The BRIDGES themselves posed no threats so their destruction was a violation of Article 53 making it a warcrime.
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.
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.
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.