Actually, if you were paying attention, you’d know that this sort of thing happens all of the time in peace time also. In fact given modern weapons and tactics, peacetime training is almost as dangerous as war time service.
The military is currently saying this is apparently an accident. However, if you have followed the other crashes like this, in a day or so that story may change.
The military is currently saying this is apparently an accident. However, if you have followed the other crashes like this, in a day or so that story may change.
Or that story may not change at all. I don’t know how many such accidents were later deemed not to be so (especially as a percentage), and I doubt anyone else does, either. Saying now that this story “may change” is pure conjecture and nothing more.
Gahrie- this would be front page news whether in peace time or Iraq. It is sad. It is unrealistic and callous to dismiss the death of soldiers in a war by saying that casualties happen in peacetime training, too. Them being in Iraq, among other things, was a butfor cause.
All “peacetime” aviation mishaps that happened in the past week. Yes, I understand that there’s a slight difference in numbers, but I can remember some large casualty “peacetime” aviation mishaps that weren’t front page news. The mishap at Fort Hood that killed a battalion commander a few years ago comes to mind.
As for it being sad and callous, it is disingenuous to treat accidents as hostile fire incidents. Using that logic, we should think about pulling out of any sort of humanitarian operation as soon as a helo goes down for mechanical reasons because we are “taking casualties.”
There have been several instances where the Pentagon has said a copter has gone down due to mechanical failure only to come out days later to say it was hostile fire. Let’s not forget that these are the same folks who told you Pat Tillman died while he was charging up a ridge to take out the Taliban. These guys put out disinformation for as long as they can…and for what?
There have been several instances where the Pentagon has said a copter has gone down due to mechanical failure only to come out days later to say it was hostile fire. Let’s not forget that these are the same folks who told you Pat Tillman died while he was charging up a ridge to take out the Taliban. These guys put out disinformation for as long as they can…and for what?
And there have been many more instances where what the Pentagon initially said about a copter going down due to mechanical failure proved to be accurate. Pat Tillman was a unique case. I agree that there is no reason for the Pentagon to put out such “disinformation” in this instance, which is why I’m skeptical of your skepticism.
“BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.”
I didn’t say there was “no reason.” I said “for what?” I don’t know what that reason is, but it doesn’t seem like a very good one.
You also don’t know if this is even a case of disinformation to begin with, so commenting on the merits of an as yet unidentified reason for such a hypothetical seems both silly and premature.
I’m an Air Force brat. My Dad was a crewman on a helocopter in Vietnam that went out and picked up airplanes that got shot down so the VC couldn’t scrounge from them. I know the sacrifices the military and their families make in peace and war.
The truth is the military is always a dangerous career.
I’m not one to jump to this administrations defense, but AA you are being ridiculous. Yes its POSSIBLE that this was more than an accident, but it isn’t unreasonable to assume that it WAS just an accident. Millitary air travel isn’t without its hazards and as gahrie points out the military is a dangerous career in general. IF it turns out this was more than a simple crash and that is hidden from us for long then i’ll buy into your arguments, but while they have lost credibility in some areas, this is one i think your being a little harsh.
So now the military isn’t 100% sure it was a mechanical failure…
“The military said initial indications were that the UH-60 helicopter had a mechanical problem and was not brought down by hostile fire, but the cause of the crash is under investigation.”
…The chopper was extracting soldiers from a combat zone at night. It went down while it was trying to gain elevation. Give it a few days…
Any American who accepts what the US government tells them at face value either hasn’t been paying attention this decade or is on their side.
Nobody cares about the soldiers and this thread is perfect evidence of that. One side uses their lives (deaths) as a reason we shouldn’t be at war and the other side dismisses their “sacrifice” (stupidity) by saying we lose the same amount of soldiers during peacetime.
AA, you really are looking like a nut job on this. Even if it DOES turn out to be related to hostile fire, that still doesn’t mean they were lying or misleading. They said it crashed, and that it appeared to be due to mechanical failure, but its standard procedure to investigate something like this for two reasons. One to figure out what caused the failure to prevent it in the future, two to make sure it was mechanical failure and not enemy fire. To cry conspiracy at something so unconspiratorial further removes any remaining shred of credibility you MIGHT have left.
Whether or not A&A is right, questioning the intent/competence of the Pentagon PR people isn’t an accusation of conspiracy. The Pentagon has demonstrated over and over again its inability to get the story right the first time (Jessica Lynch? Pat Tillman? How many times was Saddam killed before he was actually killed?)
I think the only “nut jobs” out there are those people who, after all this time, take Pentagon reports on face value. Where the fuck have you people been for four friggin’ years?
The Pentagon, with all its faults, still has a track record way better than yours, and one would have to be a nut job indeed to take your word over the Pentagon’s.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:10:53 am
This is sad. I remember when this kind of thing used to be Earth shattering. Now it is just another day in Iraq.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:45:30 am
A&A:
Actually, if you were paying attention, you’d know that this sort of thing happens all of the time in peace time also. In fact given modern weapons and tactics, peacetime training is almost as dangerous as war time service.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:08:44 am
gahrie-
The military is currently saying this is apparently an accident. However, if you have followed the other crashes like this, in a day or so that story may change.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:18:11 am
The military is currently saying this is apparently an accident. However, if you have followed the other crashes like this, in a day or so that story may change.
Or that story may not change at all. I don’t know how many such accidents were later deemed not to be so (especially as a percentage), and I doubt anyone else does, either. Saying now that this story “may change” is pure conjecture and nothing more.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:44:29 am
Gahrie- this would be front page news whether in peace time or Iraq. It is sad. It is unrealistic and callous to dismiss the death of soldiers in a war by saying that casualties happen in peacetime training, too. Them being in Iraq, among other things, was a butfor cause.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:07:55 pm
“Gahrie- this would be front page news whether in peace time or Iraq.”
I disagree. Were any of these front page news?
“Military Helicopter Crashes in Utah County”
Marine Helicopter Crash Over Arizona Kills 4 People on Board”
3 aviators declared dead in ocean crash”
All “peacetime” aviation mishaps that happened in the past week. Yes, I understand that there’s a slight difference in numbers, but I can remember some large casualty “peacetime” aviation mishaps that weren’t front page news. The mishap at Fort Hood that killed a battalion commander a few years ago comes to mind.
As for it being sad and callous, it is disingenuous to treat accidents as hostile fire incidents. Using that logic, we should think about pulling out of any sort of humanitarian operation as soon as a helo goes down for mechanical reasons because we are “taking casualties.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:34:10 pm
There have been several instances where the Pentagon has said a copter has gone down due to mechanical failure only to come out days later to say it was hostile fire. Let’s not forget that these are the same folks who told you Pat Tillman died while he was charging up a ridge to take out the Taliban. These guys put out disinformation for as long as they can…and for what?
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:30:41 pm
There have been several instances where the Pentagon has said a copter has gone down due to mechanical failure only to come out days later to say it was hostile fire. Let’s not forget that these are the same folks who told you Pat Tillman died while he was charging up a ridge to take out the Taliban. These guys put out disinformation for as long as they can…and for what?
And there have been many more instances where what the Pentagon initially said about a copter going down due to mechanical failure proved to be accurate. Pat Tillman was a unique case. I agree that there is no reason for the Pentagon to put out such “disinformation” in this instance, which is why I’m skeptical of your skepticism.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:34:20 pm
I didn’t say there was “no reason.” I said “for what?” I don’t know what that reason is, but it doesn’t seem like a very good one.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:46:13 pm
“BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.”
…You mean like the one we ousted?
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:57:16 pm
I didn’t say there was “no reason.” I said “for what?” I don’t know what that reason is, but it doesn’t seem like a very good one.
You also don’t know if this is even a case of disinformation to begin with, so commenting on the merits of an as yet unidentified reason for such a hypothetical seems both silly and premature.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:59:44 pm
You mean like the one we ousted?
No, like one that isn’t ruled by a crazed sociopath who brazenly violates int’l law.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:46:47 pm
I’m an Air Force brat. My Dad was a crewman on a helocopter in Vietnam that went out and picked up airplanes that got shot down so the VC couldn’t scrounge from them. I know the sacrifices the military and their families make in peace and war.
The truth is the military is always a dangerous career.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:17:12 pm
“No, like one that isn’t ruled by a crazed sociopath who brazenly violates int’l law.”
Joe Mama. I’m surprised to hear you talking about Bush that way.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:40:38 pm
I’m not one to jump to this administrations defense, but AA you are being ridiculous. Yes its POSSIBLE that this was more than an accident, but it isn’t unreasonable to assume that it WAS just an accident. Millitary air travel isn’t without its hazards and as gahrie points out the military is a dangerous career in general. IF it turns out this was more than a simple crash and that is hidden from us for long then i’ll buy into your arguments, but while they have lost credibility in some areas, this is one i think your being a little harsh.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:44:05 pm
I’m surprised to hear you talking about Bush that way.
Oh, like no one saw Rosie O’Donnell here coming a mile away. Nice hustle, Max.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:46:28 pm
Where’s Rosie? Is she there with you?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:07:37 pm
So now the military isn’t 100% sure it was a mechanical failure…
“The military said initial indications were that the UH-60 helicopter had a mechanical problem and was not brought down by hostile fire, but the cause of the crash is under investigation.”
…The chopper was extracting soldiers from a combat zone at night. It went down while it was trying to gain elevation. Give it a few days…
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:09:57 pm
A&A, hoping against hope . . .
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:03:55 pm
Any American who accepts what the US government tells them at face value either hasn’t been paying attention this decade or is on their side.
Nobody cares about the soldiers and this thread is perfect evidence of that. One side uses their lives (deaths) as a reason we shouldn’t be at war and the other side dismisses their “sacrifice” (stupidity) by saying we lose the same amount of soldiers during peacetime.
Lose-Lose.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:41:10 pm
Speak for yourself, pal.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:06:00 pm
AA, you really are looking like a nut job on this. Even if it DOES turn out to be related to hostile fire, that still doesn’t mean they were lying or misleading. They said it crashed, and that it appeared to be due to mechanical failure, but its standard procedure to investigate something like this for two reasons. One to figure out what caused the failure to prevent it in the future, two to make sure it was mechanical failure and not enemy fire. To cry conspiracy at something so unconspiratorial further removes any remaining shred of credibility you MIGHT have left.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:29:03 pm
Whether or not A&A is right, questioning the intent/competence of the Pentagon PR people isn’t an accusation of conspiracy. The Pentagon has demonstrated over and over again its inability to get the story right the first time (Jessica Lynch? Pat Tillman? How many times was Saddam killed before he was actually killed?)
I think the only “nut jobs” out there are those people who, after all this time, take Pentagon reports on face value. Where the fuck have you people been for four friggin’ years?
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:52:22 pm
Max,
The Pentagon, with all its faults, still has a track record way better than yours, and one would have to be a nut job indeed to take your word over the Pentagon’s.