31 Marines Just Perished in a Chopper Crash

[boomerjamhead]

Sorry, but this terrible accident and loss of 31 American lives is directly and irrefutably due to the war. The fact is, and only is, if that copter was not in Iraq doing what it was doing it would not have gone down and those men and women would be alive today. You're talking about OTHER copters and accidents in peacetime places like back home and bases around the world that are having accidents while they practice that are not being reported.

219997[/snapback]

 

Ummm no. These types of incidents that occur in non-combat operations do get reported. (I don't know why on earth you would think otherwise.) It's just that no one cares, and beyond that, no one plays politics with the issue either.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Ummm no.  These types of incidents that occur in non-combat operations do get reported.  (I don't know why on earth you would think otherwise.)  It's just that no one cares, and beyond that, no one plays politics with the issue either.

220008[/snapback]

 

 

Oh, people care.

 

Name me one place where nobody plays politics?... Get real, it will never happen! Everything can be manipulated... And this I guess is a real easy one. You'll never hear me acting pious in any of these incidents... No matter what side is to blame. It is just easy to blame one person with reagards to the Iraq matter... Nobody but one man, single-handley pushed for it other than GW and then his cronies. He does have a responsibility to take the good with the bad?

 

Why is it so bad to some what I am saying? I tried to add some not so funny, serious humor into the discussion that I thought bridged a conservative "sticking point" about "Bush blaming" from other threads. I am not disrespecting anyone, especially the deceased. I am just firmly laying blame where blame needs to be applied... Suck it up.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Oh, people care.

 

Name me one place where nobody plays politics?... Get real, it will never happen!  Everything can be manipulated... And this I guess is a real easy one.  You'll never hear me acting pious in any of these incidents... No matter what side is to blame.  It is just easy to blame one person with reagards to the Iraq matter... Nobody but one man, single-handley pushed for it other than GW and then his cronies.  He does have a responsibility to take the good with the bad?

 

Why is it so bad to some what I am saying?  I tried to add some not so funny, serious humor into the discussion that I thought bridged a conservative "sticking point" about "Bush blaming" from other threads.  I am not disrespecting anyone, especially the deceased.  I am just firmly laying blame where blame needs to be applied... Suck it up.

220018[/snapback]

 

I forgot... I really think 31 deceased Marines gets reported no matter what, even if it occured in downstate Illinois.

[Kelly the Dog]

Ummm no.  These types of incidents that occur in non-combat operations do get reported.  (I don't know why on earth you would think otherwise.)  It's just that no one cares, and beyond that, no one plays politics with the issue either.

220008[/snapback]

I was only responding to the post and inference that this accident had nothing to do with the war, and was referencing earlier posts, from months and years ago, where posters would rightly point out that we lose a lot of copters and military men all the time in peacetime and in accidents but that it isn't often reported. I was simply saying that this accident wasn't the case, even though it was an accident and not in battle. The accident happened ONLY because it was there, in Iraq, in the war, in that duststorm. It should be considered a war time accident not a peacetime accident, like RK was inferring. And that it isn't really accurate to portray these kinds of accidents and loss of life as not part of the war because, the reasoning goes, these kinds of accidents happen all the time in peacetime areas while practicing. While that is true, these accidents like today are in addition to those accidents, which are still happening because there is still training going on elsewhere just as without the war.

[Alaska Darin]

It should be considered a war time accident not a peacetime accident, like RK was inferring.

220025[/snapback]

Because that'll make some people sleep better at night in their desperate quest to be right about something.

[SactoBillFan]

That's not even funny.  :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

219266[/snapback]

Not funny, but true. Tis not a war of neccesity, but a war of choice.

[Kelly the Dog]

Because that'll make some people sleep better at night in their desperate quest to be right about something. 

220036[/snapback]

No, because it's true.

[RkFast]

I was only responding to the post and inference that this accident had nothing to do with the war, and was referencing earlier posts, from months and years ago, where posters would rightly point out that we lose a lot of copters and military men all the time in peacetime and in accidents but that it isn't often reported. I was simply saying that this accident wasn't the case, even though it was an accident and not in battle. The accident happened ONLY because it was there, in Iraq, in the war, in that duststorm. It should be considered a war time accident not a peacetime accident, like RK was inferring. And that it isn't really accurate to portray these kinds of accidents and loss of life as not part of the war because, the reasoning goes, these kinds of accidents happen all the time in peacetime areas while practicing. While that is true, these accidents like today are in addition to those accidents, which are still happening because there is still training going on elsewhere just as without the war.

220025[/snapback]

 

Well, yea...of course if the copter wasnt conducting a wartime operation the crash might not have happened. But its ridiculous to point to this and say "See....thanks to that war, these men are dead!" and use this accident in your arsenal to critiscise the war. You cannot use normal occurances that take place in any situation and are almost expected (i.e. the military is dangerous) to argue a specific point.

[VABills]

I forgot... I really think 31 deceased Marines gets reported no matter what, even if it occured in downstate Illinois.

220021[/snapback]

Really, you believe that? Tell you what do you remember a story in 1983 about a chopper slamming into the side of a mountain in Korea, during Team Spirit. A high school buddy was on the other chopper, their platoon split between the two. They lost, I believe 27 Marines on that chopper. My buddy was sitting in the door and watched it slam into the mountain during the training and almost watched his chopper clip the mountain as well.

 

I never heard about it until he called me 2 days later, still shook up and needed to talk to a friend. Never was that reported in the news that I am aware of, unless it was part of a buried blurb on Team Spirit exercies.

 

When he his stateside a few months later, the young new lieutenant to replace the one they lost called in an airstrike 500 pound training bomb too close. My friend suffered a concussion, along with most of the rebuilt platoon. Several had eardrums blown out, along with some broken bones, at least one guy had a collapsed lung, and various scrapes, bruises and cuts. Again 60 folks or so injuered. Nothing in the news.

 

The media is playing politics and loose with the facts.

[UConn James]

Really, you believe that?  Tell you what do you remember a story in 1983 about a chopper slamming into the side of a mountain in Korea, during Team Spirit.  A high school buddy was on the other chopper, their platoon split between the two.  They lost, I believe 27 Marines on that chopper.  My buddy was sitting in the door and watched it slam into the mountain during the training and almost watched his chopper clip the mountain as well. 

 

I never heard about it until he called me 2 days later, still shook up and needed to talk to a friend.  Never was that reported in the news that I am aware of, unless it was part of a buried blurb on Team Spirit exercies. 

 

When he his stateside a few months later, the young new lieutenant to replace the one they lost called in an airstrike 500 pound training bomb too close.  My friend suffered a concussion, along with most of the rebuilt platoon.  Several had eardrums blown out, along with some broken bones, at least one guy had a collapsed lung, and various scrapes, bruises and cuts.  Again 60 folks or so injuered.  Nothing in the news. 

 

The media is playing politics and loose with the facts.

220090[/snapback]

 

My brother's entire Ranger class went down with injuries (one of them was paralyzed) when some asshat decided to send them out in parachutes at less than the required jump altitude. That didn't get reported in the media either. I wonder why. Couldn't be the hush-hush mentality, I'm sure. The military isn't required to jump up and down and yell 'Hey, we !@#$ed up! Come check it out!' and oftentimes they don't.

 

You're complaining about lack of coverage yet when things like it are reported, you complain that even tho it's fact, they're wildly blowing it out of proportion. Pick a side.

Edited January 27, 2005 by UConn James

[VABills]

My brother's entire Ranger class went down with injuries (one of them was paralyzed) when some asshat decided to send them out in parachutes at less than the required jump altitude. That didn't get reported in the media either. I wonder why.

 

You're complaining about lack of coverage yet when things like it are reported, you complain that even tho it's fact, they're wildly blowing it out of proportion. Pick a side.

220104[/snapback]

I never complained about the lack of coverage. What I am saying, if you could comprehend is that the media is only reporting these incidents to further their agenda of tearing down the admin. Most folks in the military do not want attention. I know I never did. I know most of my friends never did. The ones who do, get you hurt or killed.

 

The media is only making a big deal of it becuase it makes a great headline "Deadliest day of all in Iraq". Well that may or may not be true. I remember a few months back the UN Headquarters got bombed and a lot of people died then.

 

The media seems to want to make the admin look bad in the eye of the public, rather than reporting facts, such as 1000+ die in the military every year due to training accidents anyways. In fact I believe last year less people died than had been the average for the military in over 20 years. Why isn't that "fact" reported and say that the military is doing a better job of keeping their guys safe? Because it doesn't fit the media's and who they support agendas.

[UConn James]

I never complained about the lack of coverage.  What I am saying, if you could comprehend is that the media is only reporting these incidents to further their agenda of tearing down the admin.  Most folks in the military do not want attention.  I know I never did.  I know most of my friends never did.  The ones who do, get you hurt or killed.

 

The media is only making a big deal of it becuase it makes a great headline "Deadliest day of all in Iraq".  Well that may or may not be true.  I remember a few months back the UN Headquarters got bombed and a lot of people died then. 

 

The media seems to want to make the admin look bad in the eye of the public, rather than reporting facts, such as 1000+ die in the military every year due to training accidents anyways.  In fact I believe last year less people died than had been the average for the military in over 20 years.  Why isn't that "fact" reported and say that the military is doing a better job of keeping their guys safe?  Because it doesn't fit the media's and who they support agendas.

220110[/snapback]

 

That's funny. There's a lot of people who charge that the media props this administration up by not asking tougher questions.

 

It would really surprise me if that, as you put it, "fact", wasn't out there somewhere, or printed/mentioned if they had space in the paper or time on the air. I can tell you that a headline like "Norm Johnson's house burns down" will always run over one that reads "Stan O'Toole's house not on fire." The squeaky wheel gets the grease. It's not like the media wants guys die to have a headline, or telekinetically caused the crash. They simply report after the fact that it happened and when, where, why.... If you have a problem with a collection of facts, I really don't know what to tell you other than that you may want to rethink your opinion/conclusions you draw.

[KRC]

I was reading a newspaper article this morning on the accident. The first several paragraphs were written in such a was as to imply that the crash was a result of enemy fire. It was not until about paragraph six or seven before they mentioned "the official cause of the accident is not known, but bad weather was reported to be in the area."

 

That little tidbit of information should be a little farther up in the article, IMO.

[VABills]

That's funny. There's a lot of people who charge that the media props this administration up by not asking tougher questions.

 

It would really surprise me if that, as you put it, "fact", wasn't out there somewhere, or printed/mentioned if they had space in the paper or time on the air. I can tell you that a headline like "Norm Johnson's house burns down" will always run over one that reads "Stan O'Toole's house not on fire." The squeaky wheel gets the grease. It's not like the media wants guys die to have a headline, or telekinetically caused the crash. They simply report after the fact that it happened and when, where, why.... If you have a problem with a collection of facts, I really don't know what to tell you other than that you may want to rethink your opinion/conclusions you draw.

220126[/snapback]

Your reply is funny. Maybe you need to get a better source of the facts. Let me suggest you start reading www.usmc.mil

 

You might start understanding the metality and understanding the reality of what is going on. Not everything is as bad as the mainstream media would have you believe.

 

Are we in the war for the "right" reason? Probably

 

Are we in the war for WMD? I don't know the real answer and if I did, I couldn't tell you

 

Was Saddam a direct threat to the rest of the world, especially his neighbors in the ME? Yes, without a doubt. We are much better off with him and his Ba'ath party out of power. The major oil supplier and world industry is much better off.

 

Are we more or less likely to be hit by a terroist attack because of the war? Maybe more likely. Small price to pay IMHO.

 

Are the Iraqi people better off? Yes, no doubt. What they do with it is up to them. Time and history will show whether they use their freedom or go back to being puppets to a future dictator.

[VABills]

Uconn James,

 

You would probably be one of those who felt the US getting involved in the War of Europe was a bad thing. You would be one of those that felt Hilter was not a direct threat to the US so why did we get involved. All those hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Seamen and Marines who died to get rid of a Europeon problem.

 

Guess what you would be wrong there also. Europe probably would not have won without our aid. This would not be a better world today if Hitler was permitted to stay in power.

 

How about the Chinese? Should we have not gone to war against Japan? I know we were attacked. But seriously Japan was doing things worse to the Chinese than what Hitler was doing to the Jews. A lot worse. And on a much bigger scale.

 

Again Japan and Germany are much better members of the world society now. They are much better off without the extremists running their countries. The world is also a much better place. Hell China is a much better place.

 

I think history will show that this stablizes the world and in particular the middle east in years to come. Which in the long run means millions of less dead. A few hundred or a few thousand men and woman who are not so selfish as yourself would agree with me on this one.

[boomerjamhead]

I think history will show that this stablizes the world and in particular the middle east in years to come.  Which in the long run means millions of less dead.  A few hundred or a few thousand men and woman who are not so selfish as yourself would agree with me on this one.

 

220173[/snapback]

 

I'm with you.

[RkFast]

Uconn James,

 

You would probably be one of those who felt the US getting involved in the War of Europe was a bad thing. You would be one of those that felt Hilter was not a direct threat to the US so why did we get involved.  All those hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Seamen and Marines who died to get rid of a Europeon problem. 

 

Guess what you would be wrong there also.  Europe probably would not have won without our aid.  This would not be a better world today if Hitler was permitted to stay in power. 

 

How about the Chinese?  Should we have not gone to war against Japan?  I know we were attacked.  But seriously Japan was doing things worse to the Chinese than what Hitler was doing to the Jews.  A lot worse.  And on a mucher bigger scale. 

 

Again Japan and Germany are much better members of the world society now.  They are much better off without the extremists running their countries.  The world is also a much better place.  Hell China is a much better place. 

 

I think history will show that this stablizes the world and in particular the middle east in years to come.  Which in the long run means millions of less dead.  A few hundred or a few thousand men and woman who are not so selfish as yourself would agree with me on this one.

220173[/snapback]

 

Wowza. Awesome, VA.

 

Unfortunatley, the idea of paying a cost now for greater benefit later is one which is completely LOST on the Left and has been for a long, long time. Its one of their fundamental flaws, really.

[UConn James]

Uconn James,

 

You would probably be one of those who felt the US getting involved in the War of Europe was a bad thing. You would be one of those that felt Hilter was not a direct threat to the US so why did we get involved.  All those hundreds of thousands of Soldiers, Seamen and Marines who died to get rid of a Europeon problem. 

 

Guess what you would be wrong there also.  Europe probably would not have won without our aid.  This would not be a better world today if Hitler was permitted to stay in power. 

 

How about the Chinese?  Should we have not gone to war against Japan?  I know we were attacked.  But seriously Japan was doing things worse to the Chinese than what Hitler was doing to the Jews.  A lot worse.  And on a mucher bigger scale. 

 

Again Japan and Germany are much better members of the world society now.  They are much better off without the extremists running their countries.  The world is also a much better place.  Hell China is a much better place. 

 

I think history will show that this stablizes the world and in particular the middle east in years to come.  Which in the long run means millions of less dead.  A few hundred or a few thousand men and woman who are not so selfish as yourself would agree with me on this one.

220173[/snapback]

 

It's a close corollary when you compare them with a thousand-yard stare, I admit, but when the details are focused, it's a lot different.

 

And we didn't attack Greenland b/c there was a rumor that a man named Adolf may or may not have vacationed there in the 1890s.

 

How's Vietnam doing? B/c it was the same rationale for getting involved there.

 

If I'm selfish b/c I don't want our soldiers to die and hundreds of billions spent for a country that should sweep its own doorstep then so be it. My dad, who's a hardcore Repub, says that the first person who suggests war as an answer to a problem ought to be executed. And the second... and the tenth. There would be less of an inclination for it, and for sure it would only happen when absolutely necessary for our own immediate security. Trying to base your present action for a scenario 20 steps ahead will backfire on you.

 

Trying to impose democracy in Iraq in the long run will be like shoveling sh-- against the tide. So, respectfully, the wishes of the admin are more or less in the right place, but you can wish in one hand.... The whole thing is like GFs and their pillows or teddybears on the bed. You can take them off and put them in the closet. The next day they're back, and you'll do this every day into eternity.

[VABills]

Trying to base your present action for a scenario 20 steps ahead will backfire on you.

 

220267[/snapback]

So you agree we should have never gotten involved in WWII?

 

Wow, you have no vision for the world you live in. And your father is obviously a Ross Perot Republican. Put a 500 foot fence around the US and allow noone in ever.

[Alaska Darin]

It's a close corollary when you compare them with a thousand-yard stare, I admit, but when the details are focused, it's a lot different.

 

And we didn't attack Greenland b/c there was a rumor that a man named Adolf may or may not have vacationed there in the 1890s.

 

How's Vietnam doing? B/c it was the same rationale for getting involved there.

 

If I'm selfish b/c I don't want our soldiers to die and hundreds of billions spent for a country that should sweep its own doorstep then so be it. My dad, who's a hardcore Repub, says that the first person who suggests war as an answer to a problem ought to be executed. And the second... and the tenth. There would be less of an inclination for it, and for sure it would only happen when absolutely necessary for our own immediate security. Trying to base your present action for a scenario 20 steps ahead will backfire on you.

 

Trying to impose democracy in Iraq in the long run will be like shoveling sh-- against the tide. So, respectfully, the wishes of the admin are more or less in the right place, but you can wish in one hand.... The whole thing is like GFs and their pillows or teddybears on the bed. You can take them off and put them in the closet. The next day they're back, and you'll do this every day into eternity.

220267[/snapback]

Nice big picture mentality there.