U.S. Army Says Kills 50 Iraqi Insurgents in Samarra

[IndianaGreen]

Our dispatches from Iraq are beginning to read like the ones we used to get from Vietnam...

U.S. Army Says Kills 50 Iraqi Insurgents in Samarra
Sat Aug 14, 2004 03:23 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. army killed about 50 insurgents in a series of operations near the Iraqi town of Samarra Saturday, the military said in a statement.

It said U.S. aircraft dropped a series of 500-pound bombs on "known enemy locations" as part of the operation, designed to deny insurgents access to the area around the town.

"Initial reports indicate that approximately 50 anti-Iraqi forces were killed during a series of operations near Samarra on August 14 which started at about 12:01 a.m.," the statement said.

It said insurgents attacked the U.S. soldiers with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades during the clashes.

REUTERS

On edit:

How about a map of Iraq while we are at it so we can spot all the hot spots?

[Bogus W Potus]

1. I hope no civilians were killed

If no civilians were killed, I can't disagree with this bombing. Even though I don't support the troops being there, if people are attacking them then I hope they kill them.

[IndianaGreen]

2. If you drop a 500 pound bomb on a town...

you are going to kill civilians, that's a fact of physics!

They are fighting for their country against a foreign occupier and its puppet regime that is no different from Saddam.

[Bogus W Potus]

3. So you support them killing our troops?

I think that's disgusting. You can oppose the war and support the troops, but apparently you don't want to.

The Iraqis were a foreign occupier in 1991. Were you just as mad then?

[IndianaGreen]

5. If I were a German in 1939, I would not have supported the Wehrmacht

as it marched into Poland.

I won't be a "good" German or its 21st century American equivalent!

I won't support the militarism and chauvinism that passes for patriotism nowadays.

[saskatoon]

87. Bunch of flag wavers like Bush himself

Good for you Indiana Green you told it like it is.

[saigon68]

8. That's NOT what she's saying.

You are making a very dangerous Straw Man argument to accuse her of that !!!!!

[Bogus W Potus]

11. Hardly

I am basing that on other posts I have read of hers in which she URGES Iraqis to fight back against the foreign occupiers.

The straw man fallacy would be me pulling that argument out of nowhere and then trying to cut it down. But this argument is based on solid evidence.

[Swamp Rat]

Nope. You are making a straw man argument, "evidence" or not.

[Darranar]

13. That's not what she said. n/t

[Bogus W Potus]

14. You have search capabilities

She has urged the Iraqis before to fight back against Americans. like it or not, the Iraqis have a legitimate government now, and they're in charge. It's no longer the evil Americans who are running the show. Sure, Americans are still there, but for security reasons. Any attacks conducted against the government are being conducted by Iraqis and a lot of non-Iraqis(Syrians and assorted other Arabs who managed to sneak into Iraq) who are killing their own people. How come I never hear any complaints when the militans kill the Iraqi civilians, and only when the U.S. does it? The militants kill the Iraqi civilians on purpose. They have no problem blowing up the U.N. building and killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians. The U.S. would NEVER, EVER do such a thing. They take precautions to make sure to they minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. You should be ashamed. While there are bad apples in the military, most American soldiers truly want the best for the Iraqis and are trying to give them a future, all while being shot at in extreme heat and under extreme duress. THEY DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE THERE, and unless you've been there, I suggest you CUT THEM SOME SLACK.

Jesus Christ.

[Darranar]

15. "legitimate government"?

How is it "legitimate"? It is US-appointed and unelected, little more than a puppet institution.

The Americans are still there so that they can ensure the survival of their puppets in Baghdad. That could well be seen as a "security" reason, but I see it more as an imperial reason.

For the most part, it is not the Iraqi nationalists that are killing civilians, it is the foreign fighters. There is much strain between the two groups for this reason.

For your information, I consider any attacks on Iraqi civilians - by resistance fighters or US forces - disgusting, despicable, and immoral, and I don't think that I have ever said differently.

The US takes "precautions to make sure to they minimize civilian casualties as much as possible"? Judging by their past and present actions in Iraq - dropping half-ton bombs on population centers, striking at residential centers, sniping at civilians, and using cluster munitions in operations - I must disagree.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aneerkoinos]

17. The US military of murdering thugs

The US Air Force bombed Kut overnight, killing some 84 persons and wounding about 176, according to the Al-Zahra Hospital. Kut is a Shiite city of 420,000 southeast of Baghdad and east of Najaf, which has seen fighting between Mahdi Army militiamen and police. The Kut hospital director, Khidr Fadl Arar, said that many of the dead and wounded were women and children.

According to Police colonel Salam Fakhri, the bombing began at 1:00 am Thursday and continued until 3:00 am. He said,

"The bombing was concentrated in Al Sharkia district as the US military felt there were a lot of Shi'ite militiamen in that area. It also has an office of (radical Shi'ite Muslim cleric and militia chief) Moqtada Al Sadr."

I hadn't heard anything about US warplanes bombing Kut on US television news on Thursday. It is useless, but I would like to point out that bombarding al-Sharqiyyah district because it has Mahdi Army fighters is inhumane and probably illegal. Civilians live there, and they will inevitably be hurt by the bombing. Unfortunately, there are no mechanisms for enforcing international law. Apparently, the American public will not even be told by their mass media that the US is behaving in this way.

http://www.juancole.com

[leftchick]

20. Perhaps you missed this part...

Newsflash...Those 500lb US Bombs don't discriminate between "evildoers" and civilians.. :eyes:


<snip>

"We have received 13 bodies including three women and two children and 84 injured," said doctor Abd Al-Hamid al-Samarrai of the city's general hospital - adding that many of the wounded were also women and children.



Police said more than 40 homes and several civilian vehicles were destroyed in the fighting as well as the municipal building and the offices of the political party of Iraqi Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib.

Mosques were heard urging people through loudspeakers to donate blood.

The US military confirmed it had conducted operations in the Sunni Muslim region, but refused to provide further details.

[el_chalupa]

23. I'm new here

and don't understand something. The other day I posted opinions similar to yours in a respectful, polite fashion and was having an intelligent discussion when every one of my posts was deleted. I didn't break any of the posting rules and never received a response from the admins. I'm wonder if your posts will be removed as well.

I do agree with much of what you say. I don't believe things just because some people of my same political bent want them to be true. I want democrats to be more level-headed than many things I read here. I want us to be rational and objective with our politics. I want us to be able to engage in intelligent discussion instead of drifting off into hateful rants. It's the only way we are going to progress as a party and provide a net benefit to our nation and the world. I expect us to be the better party. I want us to have higher standards in politics, rhetoric, and civility.

I don't believe we are intentionally targeting civilians. I believe that our men and women over there are going to great pains to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible. I also believe that historically speaking, when compared to other conflict of this scale, coalition-induced casualties are lower than any other comparable war in modern history. I look at things from a very practical standpoint. I compare the ideal vs the attainable. Ideally, we would never have had to go there. No innocent Iraqis would ever die, by our hands, Saddam's hands, or by extremists. Saddam would have decided to behave like a civilized person and treated his people with respect. Everyone in the middle east would suddenly "get it" and stop engaging in violence. None of these things are attainable though. You have to compare different options and situations and weigh the cost and benefits of different choices.

Anyway. Just wanted to post my musings.

[leftchick]

24. I repeat....

how does one drop a 500lb Bomb and not kill innocents?!?

:eyes:

[el_chalupa]

26. I don't know

I'm not in the military. I don't know the blast radius of a 500 lb bomb. I don't know the destructive effects of one, other than what I see on tv and pictures. I also don't know the circumstances of this battle. Civilians might have left the area. It might have taken place away from civilian structures. Maybe 20 guys were shooting at our troops from a house when it was flattened. Maybe civilians died, maybe they didn't. There is no way for me to know.

I do know, however, that these people are fighting from civilian centers. They mingle among civilians and use our distaste for civilians casualties against us. If they shared our same distaste for civilans casualties they would fight away from urban centers. They would not fight wearing t-shirts and jeans. They would not hide and launch attacks from homes and civilian buildings. Strategically, this seems pretty obvious even to a non-military guy that they are counting on civilians being caught in the crossfire so that we wind up looking bad. They then use those civilian casualties to recruit more fighters. It's not pretty any way you look at it.

[leftchick]

28. Here is a picture for you ....and Ooops...

Looks like the US got a few police officers too!



An Iraqi civilian looks at the debris left after U.S. warplanes bombed the largely Sunni city of Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, after a series of clashes, Saturday Aug. 14, 2004. The U.S. military said about 50 militants were killed in the operation, but police Maj. Saadoun al-Dulaimi said 12 people were killed, including three policeman, and 36 were injured. The fighting in Samarra started Friday night when insurgents attacked U.S. troops with a mortar barrage. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)


See my post above also... many women and children killed too. Unless the doctors are making that up also.

[el_chalupa]

31. If this account is true

then it's really sad and tragic. But it all goes back to my point about them being wrong for fighting from civilian areas. If they insist on fighting, do it out in the desert away from urban areas.

Hmmm... You know, the account doesn't say that 3 police were killed in the bombing. It's refering to the battle as a whole. Actually, it doesn't say anything about who was killed in the pictured bombing. Jeez.. what an easily misread statement.

So the US says they killed 50 militants during the entire action, with no mention of losses. The police major says that a total of 12 people were killed (no mention if they were militants or civilians), including 3 police. There is no indication of who the 36 wounded were. No statement is provided about what happened in the pictured bombing. Just two version of the aggregate casualty report.

As far as your previous post about the doctor's report, I think we can rely on his statement as being reasonably accurate. As I understand it, militants generally don't take their wounded to hospitals, depending on the group they are affilited with. Though I have seen pictures of some women and young children carrying weapons, we can assume that the vast majority of women and children wounded are non-combatants. This is sad. This is a tragedy. But it's also impossible to know who wounded them. It might have been american fire. It might have been militant fire. I do know that some of these guys we are fighting intentionally target civilians. I read an account yesterday (I think by an embedded journalist) where he saw some of the mahdi militia guys firing mortars into baghdad civilian areas just to try to kill and injure civilians. He was pretty clear they were not targeting coalition military. It sounded rather weird to me. I'll see if I can dig up the article.

[mike_c]

96. "...wrong for fighting from civilian areas"

"They" are civilians-- it's a resistance movement, not a government military. The "civilian areas" they're fighting from are their own homes, neighborhoods, mosques, etc. Where else do you think they're going to fight?

[el_chalupa]

106. And many of these "civilians"

are killing Iraqi police. They are killing people who are trying to rebuild the infrastructure. They are blowing up Chrisitan churches. They are bombing mosques and killing innocent muslim worshippers. They are executing people who have NOTHING to do with the occupation.

Some "resistance" movement, eh?

If they must fight, if they truly value civilian life, they wouldn't endanger it by fighting in civilian areas. They wouldn't fight from and use mosques as weapons caches. It's as simple as that. If they can't survive a fight away from civilian areas, then maybe they shouldn't be fighting at all.

[Darranar]

109. The Iraqi police have nothing to do with the occupation? n/t

[kitkatrose]

111. So where should they fight?

You have to go where your enemies are, and if they're in your neighborhood, that's where you fight them.

If they can't survive a fight away from civilian areas, then maybe they shouldn't be fighting at all.

There's way too many variables to make that statement. Remember, we do have much better weapons and training than they do.

So let me ask you a hypothetical, if the positions were switched, and the US was a smaller weaker nation being invaded by a much powerful one, what would you do? Would you not use all of your advantages? I'm not saying any of this is right, it's one big fuckup, but try to put yourself in their shoes. And truthfully, no matter what we do, we'll still be wrong in the end.

[tedzbear]

157. Right, why should they fight fair when we aren't?

If it was fair, the USA wouldn't be dropping 500 lb. bombs to do the dirty work that the soldiers with their guns should be doing (god forbid one of OUR soldiers gets killed!!!). Better to drop bombs from a safe distance and kill women and children "by mistake" than risk upsetting the American voters when our soldiers are killed fighting hand to hand urban warfare.

Talk about cowardly military officers! Why don't THEY grab a gun and join their men on the ground facing the enemy face to face (instead of ordering bombs). What a bunch of fuck heads!

:mad:

[el_chalupa]

32. found one article

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/13/najaf/index.html

You probably have to watch an ad to view the article.

Check out page 3, way down on the bottom.

"Back in our Baghdad hotel, I heard the sounds of mortars landing in the Karrada district. The Mahdi army was firing mortars in retaliation for the fighting in Najaf. This was a new tactic, sowing chaos in Baghdad to protest the American assault."

This was from a guy who seems to be pretty sympathetic to the insurgency, so I don't think he would lie about this particular action, though I was wrong about him actually seeing them do it. I've read other accounts of the same behavior on cnn or reuters or something. They are intentionally firing on civilian centers to cause civilian casualties. How many dead or wounded women and children wound up in hospitals or morgues because of these mortars? With luck, nobody was hurt but there is no way to know.

[bahrbearian]

44. Bombs Away,,Civilians might have left the area. WTF

[el_chalupa]

59. yes, they might have left

I read several articles on mainstream news sites that said that many civilians have left sadr city and najaf. Many have gone to stay with relatives in other cities. It's impossible to know how many. Certainly some stay, but unless cnn journalists are lying, many leave areas of heavy fighting.

[PassingFair]

82. Many things are pretty "obvious" about your post

"I do know, however, that these people are fighting from civilian centers. They mingle among civilians and use our distaste for civilians casualties against us. If they shared our same distaste for civilans casualties they would fight away from urban centers."

Maybe it's because they're CIVILIANS!

Bet you do a mean goosestep!

[el_chalupa]

88. Uhhh....

Once you pick up a gun and fire it at soldiers, you are no longer a civilian. Whatever people want to label you, militant, insurgent, whatever, you are NO LONGER A CIVILIAN!!! If you pick up a gun, you run the risk of getting shot.

And no I don't goosestep to anybody. If I did, I would be preaching to the choir like many posters here. I can think for myself thanks. I look at all sides of arguments and make up my own mind.

[Swamp Rat]

155. BS dude!

"Once you pick up a gun and fire it at soldiers, you are no longer a civilian." Total BS. If Red Chinese were dropping 500 lb. bombs on the churches in your neighborhood and were kicking in doors, would YOU be an armed insurgent/soldier? NO! You'd be an American citizen that decided to arm himself and defend his land. I'd do the same.

How do you know that these are trained, armed insurgents/soldiers? Just picking up a gun to defend their home or church DOES NOT MAKE THEM SO!!!

[Bogus W Potus]

39. i agree with everything you said

I broke no rules and my posts were removed. It's censorship no doubt about it.

[el_chalupa]

54. I see...

So I'm not the only one that has happened to. I wish just with I knew why they did it.

[bemildred]

61. Personal attacks would be my guess.

Use of the word "delusional" IIRC.

What do you think of this:

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/663

STAFF SERGEANT JIMMY MASSEY: Really, what led up to my
disgust with the war was the civilian casualties that we were
inflicting. We were given intelligence reports -- the civilian casualties
really started taking place after we left the town of Anu Mannia on the
drive north towards Baghdad. We were getting intelligence reports
from higher command saying that the Fedayeen and Republican
Guards were trading in their uniforms for civilian clothes, and they
were mounting terrorist attacks against U.S. soldiers and marines
using guerrilla-style tactics, suicide bombings. They were using
civilians as human shields. They were loading down stolen
ambulances and police cars with explosives. So, as we progressed on
towards Baghdad, our fears and anxieties were heightened, and also
due to the lack of sleep, some of us had less than 48 hours of sleep
getting into Baghdad. So, whenever we were placed into these
situations where civilian vehicles were coming up to our checkpoints,
and not heeding our warning shot, we were lighting them up. What I
mean by lighting them up, we were discharging our weapons, 50 cals
and M-16's into the civilian vehicles. When we would do this, we
were expecting secondary explosions, ammunition to be cooking off
or actually have the occupants in the vehicle fire back at us.
However, none of this ever happened. When we would go to search
the vehicles, we would find no weapons, and nothing to link these
individuals with -- these individuals with terrorists acts. And this
happened continuously through the fall of Baghdad. I would say my
platoon alone killed 30-plus innocent civilians.

[el_chalupa]

65. I think that's really tragic

if it's true. It all goes back to the militants dressing as civilians. They do not identify themselves with uniforms and military vehicles. They are counting on many civilian casualties to turn public opinion against us. Militants are using civilian vehicles as mobile bombs. Why would they do that unless they want civilian deaths? If we respect civilian vehicles and clothing, they kill our soldiers. If we hedge our bets and fire, we kill innocent civilians, giving them propaganda material.

Don't forget that the red cross bombing early in the war was conducted up by an ambulance loaded down with explosives.

[bemildred]

72. It's not tragic, it's criminal, and it's targeting civilians.

Hello?

[el_chalupa]

77. Show me evidence

Where our soldiers are routinely targeting civilians knowing beforehand that the civilians are unarmed, not associated with any fighting, and pose no threat to anyone. I know of only one instance where a soldier killed a civilian like that and he was prosecuted.

The "game" that the militants are playing is to make it impossible for our soldiers to tell civilian from militant. Do you think that is perpetuating the deaths of civilians? Do you think that is criminal?

[Darranar]

79. So they're okay to shoot until shown not to be? n/t

[el_chalupa]

93. No, it's not ok

It's a crappy situation no matter how you look at it. If a car doesn't stop at a checkpoint, It puts our soldiers in a lose/lose situation. They shoot, they might kill civilians. They don't shoot, they might get blown up. The militants know this and use it to their advantage.

They only way it might be ok is if there really are 200 pounds of explosives in the trunk and and detonation button in the hands of the driver. But there's no way to know that until after the shooting stops or the explosion goes off.

[Darranar]

94. They should wait until they are actually attacked...

US soldiers have superior training and firepower to any militant group, after all.

[el_chalupa]

103. I think they general do wait to be attacked

If they are being attacked with guns and stuff.

But what would you have them do if they think a carbomb is approaching???

There is no response time in that instance. One second it's an innocent looking car speeding towards the checkpoint. The next second everybody is dead. They have about 2 seconds to decide how to handle the situation. It's a snap decision. I don't know what I would do if I were in that situation.

[Darranar]

104. How many carbombs per number of cars?

The existence of car bombs is not justification for firing on every car that could possibly have one, any more than the existence of Muslim terorists is justification for firing on every Muslim that could possibly be one.

[el_chalupa]

110. They don't fire on every car

The only time they would fire on a car is if it ignores the warning signs at checkpoints. They would only fire if a car doesn't stop. I have read about civilians who didn't stop for whatever reason. I think that most Iraqis know the drill now though, so very few will speed through checkpoints on accident.

However, none of that changes the fact that it's a tragedy when people are killed like this. I still place blame on those who use civilian trappings when waging attacks.

[Darranar]

113. The same problem still arises...

I would guess that the majority of cars not halting at checkpoints are civilians who made an error, not resistance fighters trying to kill Americans. For this reason, it cannot simply be assumed that they are all "insurgents" deserving to be fired at.

[Xipe Totec]

121. They don't fire on every car? Oh, Really?

This has being going on for quite a while. The Iraqis are fed up and have lost patience with the heavy handed US military. Here is an example:


US troops said to kill two Iraqi policemen

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff, 8/13/2003


BAGHDAD -- American troops shot dead two members of the new Iraqi police force and beat up a third, Iraqi police officers said yesterday, in a development that has aggravated already stressed relations between US troops and the Iraqi people.

American military officials have said little about the Saturday shootings, saying that the matter is under investigation. But family members of one of the victims and police officers -- including a captain who was at the scene -- described a horrific shoot-out in which coalition soldiers shot uniformed Iraqi police even as the officers were waving their badges and yelling, "We're police! We're police!"

<snip>

The police were trying to apprehend alleged car thieves, who shot at the police car. Iraqi police returned fire, and American soldiers -- apparently hearing the shots -- arrived on the scene. But the troops shot at the Iraqi police car, hitting the officer in the back seat, Isamil said.

The lieutenant in the front seat stumbled out of the car with his hands up, wearing his black and white Iraqi Police arm band and shouting that he was a police officer. A soldier then shot the lieutenant between the eyes. The driver, who had been crouched down in the front seat and waving his badge, was kicked and beaten by US troops.

<snip>

http://robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b183.htm

[tedzbear]

158. It would have been OK if there had been nukes...

...and chemical warheads pointed at the USA. But as we well know there were none---there were NO WMD at all.

So why haven't we packed up and gone home? Oh, I get it. We're dropping bombs on the citizens of Iraq in order to bring them democracy.

Duh.

[bemildred]

84. There is no game.

The "militants" and "rebels" live there and they DO look like
everybody else because they are like everybody else. We are
the outsiders. There is nothing criminal about looking like
your neighbors, and there is nothing criminal about resisting
a foreign invasion, and there is nothing criminal about trying
not get get blown away by the vastly better armed foreign troops.
Negligent killing of innocent civilians is, however, criminal, and
you have the evidence, direct testimony, but you do not wish to
give it credence.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

100. I don't think it is the Iraqis that are mainly killing Iraqi civilians...

It is more likely the various foreign fighters there, on both sides of the war.

[bemildred]

101. Tsk, you'll get deleted.

I support bringing our troops home, then they will be safe.
You are the one that seems to want to keep them over there
being shot at and blown up.

FWIW I don't think you have the foggiest fucking idea who is
fighting our troops in Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

102. If we were the country that was occupied

Most of us would see nothing wrong with killing the occupation force and those traitorous Americans that collaborated with the enemy.

French Resistance

French resistance could claim its origin in Charles de Gaulle's Appeal of June 18 on the BBC where he proclaimed that the war was not over. Marshal Philippe Pétain had already signed the armistice treaty and the formation of Vichy France government had begun. De Gaulle also became a de facto leader of Free France. First acts of resistance were organized by secondary school students on 14 July and 11 November 1940. Also, sabotage actions started, as well as occupation strikes by workers - for instance, miners in Nord and Pas-de-Calais went on strike from May 27, 1941 to June 8, 1941. Students protested during meetings with followers of Pétain. In the opinion of some French historians, armed resistance begun on 21 August 1941 when members of youthful battalions Pierre Georges and Gilbert Brustlein killed aspirant of kriegsmarine Alfons Moser.

In addition, there were Belgian, Polish and Dutch resistance networks who cooperated to defeat the Germans. Various groups organized in both occupied France and unoccupied Vichy France. Many of them were former soldiers that had escaped from the Germans or joined the resistance when they were released from prison camps. They hid weapons in preparation to fight again.

Others were former socialists and communists who had fled the Gestapo. Many of them hid in the forested regions, especially in the unoccupied zone. They joined together to form maquis bands and began to plan attacks against the occupation forces. Some groups also had Spanish members who had fought in the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance

[saigon68]

170. Adios

[bemildred]

119. Here's another one for you, Bucko:

http://www.comw.org/pda/0305iraqcasualtydata.html

This is up to May, 2003.

The Wages of War: Iraqi Combatant and Noncombatant
Fatalities in the 2003 Conflict

...

Some highlights of the accounts collected here are:

A survey of Baghdad hospital records suggesting at least 1,101 civilian deaths
and another 1,255 possible civilian deaths; reports from Basra Teaching Hospital
of as many as 400 dead, "the majority civilians"; a report from a hospital in Hilla
indicating 250 dead, both military and civilian; reports from hospitals in Najaf
showing 378 dead, most of them civilians; and a report from a hospital in
Nasiriyah suggesting 250 civilian deaths;
A report from Najaf Cemetery -- the principal burial place for devout Shiites in Iraq
-- suggesting 2,000 excess burials during the course of the war;
Accounts of 37 individual incidents of war-time collateral civilian casualties
suggesting at least 650 civilian deaths;
Reports (mostly from northern Iraq) of more than another 200 killed during the
first month of liberation by unexploded ordnance, including land mines, and
Reports of 34 civilians killed by US troops during post-war protests and civil
disturbances.

[Wind Dancer]

29. There is a great documentary I suggest

you watch, The Control Room. It will give you a chance to actually see what happens to innocent people when bombs are being dropped on so-called "targeted areas". Our media does a wonderful job of filtering so it's easy to ignore the realities within the country. Rumsfeld wants you to see and hear only one side. You may also learn that many soldiers have become disillusioned by this war, which does not make them "bad" soldiers.

People are dying everyday in a war that should never have happened. Since we can't turn back the hands of time, it's crucial to remember up to 60,000 Iraqis have died since March, DOD claims half to be the enemy. Given the fact our government has not been truthful regarding other matters, I doubt these figures are accurate. (figures from Bob Woodward)

There have been hundreds of stories quoted form reputable sources and links describing the situation in Iraq. They include info re: a number of soldiers engaging in criminal activity. This does not mean others are not honest and simply trying to do a job that is clearly impossible. Many are paying the price after coming home by suffering PTSD, depression and suicide. This is ugly, pure and simple.

Innocent Iraqis are being killed everyday and injured daily, so are our military. Many of us just can't handle senseless killings, regardless of who they are.

[el_chalupa]

35. never heard of it

but I'll see if I can find a copy and check it out. But I know what military weaponry does to human flesh. I mean I know as well as a civilian who has never fired a gun before can know. I've seen graphic pictures of the dead, bodies blow apart, etc. Just last week I saw high-speed footage of a bullet impacting a side of beef, pretty much liquifying the flesh. I imagine the same thing happens to people.

And I don't care what Rumsfeld does or does not want me to see. He has zero impact or control on my personal life or what I choose to expose myself to.

[Wind Dancer]

52. Well, what Rumsfeld has done has affected my

personal life. He was part of a planning team that invaded a country that has killed thousands of people. He has not stepped down as a result of thousands of Iraqis being tortured, raped and murdered under his watch. This administration is guilty of causing more hatred throughout the world and created more fundamentalists than UBL could ever dream of recruiting. This affects me personally.

If you can justify this war, top military brass has continuously said this invasion did not have enough troops nor any means to keep peace. Innocent Iraqis have been the most effected by radicals invading their country - why did this happen? Did you know one of our military officers blamed the citizens for not fighting the insurgents and bringing law and order to their streets? This was immediately after we destroyed the cities. It's insane!

[IndianaGreen]

19. Wow, your post reads like a news release from Fox News!

Unfortunately the facts contradict this rosy scenario about our "noble" endeavor in Iraq.

Allawi is no different from Vidkun Quisling, the Nazi puppet in Norway, and our troops are no different from the German military in Nazi-occupied Europe, or the French Foreign Legion in Algeria and Vietnam. The mental problems and conflicts of conscience many of our troops are suffering from are a direct result of their "moral universe" collapsing under the weight of the truth. The ugly truth is that the only thing we ever intended to liberate in Iraq were her oil fields!

Ultimately the Iraqi people will win this war, as any oppressed nation should against a foreign invader. The only issue is who will get us out of Iraq, and how quickly, before more innocent people are killed as the result or our pride and racism.

[el_chalupa]

25. Help me understand this

I just can't wrap my head around these types of statements. They don't make sense to me. I cannot possibly compare our soldiers to the nazi army. When people say stuff like this to me, I never quite know how to start because it's such a ludicrous statement that I don't know where to begin. I feel no intellectual connection to statements like these. The more I hear them the less hopeful I am that our party will have a future in our political system and less connected I feel to the base, if this is how the base feels...

[IndianaGreen]

27. When the Wehrmacht marched in Poland, it was not to "invade" Poland

The soldiers and the public were told that is was to punish Poland for its military incursion into German soil, and its attack on a German radio station. The Wehrmacht was told that they were to protect the German minority living in Poland from assault from the Poles.

No less an authority than William L. Shirer, who witnessed the events, wrote in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich of how Hitler's public demands to Poland sounded reasonable and peace-seeking. We now know that all of that was PR to convince the sheep that Germany was in the right.

We are reliving a similar period except that now America is cast in the role of Nazi Germany.

[el_chalupa]

30. ok....

I wish I remembered more about the opening salvos of wwii to compare your statements to the opinions/accounts of different historians. I won't disagree with you because i don't remember enough.

However, if you compare the over-arching goals of Hitler and the nazi ideology (afaik) to what our goals are in the present conflict(s), they really are completely different. The PHILOSOPHIES behind the conflicts are absolutely dissimilar. Hitler believed in the inherent superiority of the aryan race. He believed (absolutely wrongly) that jews were the cause of Germany's problems and we all know what he did in response to that belief. He wanted to establish a 1000 yr period of german dominance. He wanted Europe (and more) under German control. If I'm wrong about any of this stuff, apologies, I haven't read complete accounts of WWII history in some time. I'm mainly going by conventional wisdom of WWII plotlines.

The American philosophies in the present conflict are completely different. I say these are American philosophies as opposed to Bush philosophies because there is no indication that Kerry would alter our philosophies beyond window dressing. 95% of the "war on terror" won't change under Kerry. In 10, 20, 30 years, we'll still be operating under these basic same ideas.

My interpretation of our largely unstated philosophies and goals (based on our actions and statements) are:

1. Ultimately democratize the middle east to the greatest extent possible. This is the #1 goal from which other goals are derived.
2. Remove dictators and establish basic freedoms.
3. Lessen the influence that religious figures have over public life.
4. Establish societies where the marketplace of ideas can flourish.
5. Reduce the threat to America and other nations by altering the societies that breed extremism.
6. Improve middle-eastern economies and give people something to live for besides religion.
7. Prevent non-democracies from pursuing and possessing wmd.

These are the ideals I think our government and military is operating under. Whether you support the ideas or not is a separate issue from actually identifying our intentions and philosophies. Identify them first, then debate them. I just wish that things our goals were clearly stated so we can just point a list that the government produces and argue them instead of coming up with our own ideas of what we are doing.

And please don't flame me and call me a freeper or fox news correspondant or whatever (addressed to all readers of my post). I just call em how i see em, even if 95% of the people here disagree with me. If you disagree with me, call me on it and tell me what you think. Tell me where I'm wrong, don't call me names. Show me your intelligence.

Sometimes I feel I have to pre-empt some of the responses I think I will get. :)

[Darranar]

73. "Ultimately democratize the Middle East to the greatest extent possible."

I'm sure that's why they support the highly democratic governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait....

Their principle goal in the Middle East is control. They would certainly prefer the illusion of "democracy" for domestic political reasons, but certainly not to any large extent, because that would involve the control of the Middle East by its actual inhabitants, and not by the US government.

[el_chalupa]

83. Those nations are not democracies

and It's extremely difficult to figure out how to moderate those societies. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are hotbeds of anti-americanism and extremism. I have no idea how our government will deal with them in the future. I understand that Egypt is the #1 recipient of US foreign aid in the middle east though. I hope it's being used well.

I remember seeing an interview with the royal family of Qatar on Dateline or 60 minutes or something a year or 2 ago. They are pursuing a gradual transfer away from the monarchy to a democratic state over time. They built government-funded universities and made agreements with US universities to send staff there to educate the population. They are investing billions into the national infrastructure. They are shifting their economy towards capitalism and away from a command economy. They are giving women more and more rights and slowly moderating their society to give more and more rights.

Now get this. They built a massive base for the US for protection and a launchpad. The vast majority of US operations in the middle east are conducted from bases in Qatar. Why would they do this? In this instance, did all of these changes come about because we are secretly controlling the royal family??? Are the changes they are instituting an illusion? Are the royal family not actual inhabitants? Are they really CIA operatives?

[Darranar]

85. Egypt is actually the #2 recipient of US aid in the Middle East...

behind Israel.

I question how much of what these monarchies claim is "reform" is actually reform and how much just PR propaganda. Few regimes would willingly give away their power, but perhaps some are making concessions to their people for political reasons.

[el_chalupa]

92. Good point

I forgot about Israel, though I haven't checked the numbers in forever.

I wonder how much is real change and how much is lip service as well. Maybe it was just good editing and propaganda, but the segment I saw looked pretty sincere. I haven't followed up on change in Qatar lately. It would be interesting to know how much things are really changing there.

[PassingFair]

91. Ding Ding Ding...

Someone get this man a PNAC signatory slip!

[el_chalupa]

95. I see that referred to a lot here

But I've never looked into it. I found the website the other day but haven't checked it out yet.

Anyone want to give me a quick rundown what the heck PNAC is?

[mike_c]

132. go here....

http://www.pnac.info/

PNAC.info - Exposing the Project for the New American Century

Explore and learn. This site has TONS of information.

[mitchtv]

41. how about the US army invading Mexico?

or Cuba, or the Phillipines,or Grenada, Does that make you feel better- see no Nazi comparison. In the war with Spain the Us military joined with the enemy(Spain) and turned on(our allies) the Filipino freedom fighters, a first in history and a new low in treachery. Or guatemala, Dominican Republic, Panama.

[el_chalupa]

74. Not Mexico

or phillipines and probably not Cuba. These nations pose no threat to the US or neighboring states. Any corruption or abuse within the nations would likely not justify a US military invasion. I don't know enough about the other conflicts you mention so I won't comment on them. Keep in mind I'm talking about invading them today, in 2004. I'm not talking about whether past conflicts were valid or justified.

[Darranar]

75. I think the poster was referring...

to the past invasions of those countries.

[IndianaGreen]

76. Iraq did not pose a threat to the US either!

But unlike those countries, Iraq has large reserves of OIL. I guess this war was meant to liberate Iraqi OIL so that our American companies can exploit it and reap the profits.

[neverborn]

99. I agree. Comparisons of the troops to SS and Nazis infuriate me.

[IndianaGreen]

105. Too damned bad!

I am more infuriated about the way we have destroyed Iraqi society and Iraqi cities, not to mention the civilian casualties that exceed 40,000 according to some counts.

You should be more angry about the way we were lied to get us into this unnecessary war!

As Bill Maher would say, there is a lot of "phony outrage" out there!

[Bogus W Potus]

117. Bill Maher suppports the troops

so probably not the best quote selection. Not that you care.

And there is no way that there are 40,000 Iraqi civilians killed by coalition forces. You cannot include the Iraqi civilians killed by insurgents and others not affiliated with our coalition, because that's dishonest!

[Darranar]

125. How do you know that?

The Pentagon isn't counting, not that I'd trust them if they were. There are a variety of estimates made by aid organizations, however, and several of them do have estimates in the 40,000 range.

[Bogus W Potus]

128. Most are closer to 20,000

Aid organizations tend to overstate things by at least 2x. Brings donations in faster.

[Darranar]

130. So who are you trusting? n/t

[Bogus W Potus]

131. I don't bother to look at civilian casualty reports

nt

[Darranar]

133. So where do you get your 20,000 statistic from? n/t

[Bogus W Potus]

138. from my newspaper that often mentions estimates

This site also proves your figures are far off:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min
11600

Max
13574


Oh gee.

[Darranar]

143. So one site "proves" me wrong?

Also note that I never claimed that I thought 40,000 Iraqi civilians had died in the invasion through US attacks, I simply disagreed with your statement that, conclusively, that was not so.

And the website is talking about reported deaths, while in a war like this one a large number are likely to go unreported. Furthermore, it is not clear how they are counting; do deaths from disease resulting from worse humanitarian conditions post-invasion count, or just direct results of military actions? Such differences in criteria can make huge differences in actual results without either source actually being wrong.

[Bogus W Potus]

146. It doesn't really matter.

Someone who thinks that U.S. troops are purposely targeting civilians is obviously nutty.

[Darranar]

150. Iraqi civilian casualties don't really matter? n/t

[mike_c]

135. well, you're in good company among the DOD war criminals...

...in that regard.

[Bogus W Potus]

137. Yep I guess so?

Except that I am not in power in Washington, so I hold no responsibility for this war.

[Wind Dancer]

167. Bogus, Bob Woodward's book,

"Plan of Attack" states that 30,000 innocent Iraqis had died as of March and estimated a total of 60,000 including enemy combatants.. These numbers were provided by Rumsfeld.

I would guess the number to be higher, given the fact that they do not include our troops who die outside of Iraq from injury.

This was March, how many more innocent Iraqis have died since then?

[mitchtv]

163. maybe a comparison to Napoleon would be less offensive

same deal; a little squirt, full of himself

[truth2power]

34. "It's no longer the evil Americans who are running the show"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

[mitchtv]

37. Vichy government is Legitimate?

hahahah you are in the wrong Forum, but we don't have a fantasy forum yet. I agree with IG on very little, but apparently I agree with you on less. Remember the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade? You are repeating every RW talking point. We are there , we are looting Iraq, we are turnig the whole world against us, By Jove.

[mike_c]

43. it IS the "evil Americans" who are dropping 500 lb bombs...

...on civilian populations. Not the "legitimate Iraqi government." Notwithstanding that the Iraqi government is a puppet regime installed by the occupiers, did that detail about who's dropping the ordinance escape your attention?

[saigon68]

169. UH OH

Username: Bogus W Potus

Avatar Image

[lynx rufus]

18. Jingoisim is a dangerous kind of stupidity

The fact that they are US soldiers does not
mean they are always in the right.
We are in the wrong here. I oppose the war and I oppose
what the troops are doing. Yes, they are killing women and children.
Of course they know this. Time for some of these US troops
to grow some balls and say 'No More'!

[tedzbear]

159. Yes, beware Jingoism.

It is evil. It was Hitler's favorite propaganda tool.

[truth2power]

33. I think that's the fallacy of the excluded middle,

or something like that. I'm not too good at formal logic, but just because someone opposes killing innocent civilians doesn't mean they SUPPORT killing our troops.

[mitchtv]

36. oh please No one said that

But if you are an invading occupier, yo gets what you came for -patriotic resistance.

[mike_c]

38. people who bomb civilian populations are war criminals...

...deserving prosecution, not "support." The occupied population not only has the right to fight back, it has an obligation, IMO, to drive out it's oppressors. If I were Iraqi I know damn well who I'd be shooting at.

[Bogus W Potus]

42. How about people who gas civilian populations?

I guarantee you at least 80% of Iraqis are happier with Saddam gone.




http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

Green indeed.

Nasreen gathered the food quickly, but she, too, noticed a series of odd smells carried into the house by the wind. "At first, it smelled bad, like garbage," she said. "And then it was a good smell, like sweet apples. Then like eggs." Before she went downstairs, she happened to check on a caged partridge that her father kept in the house. "The bird was dying," she said. "It was on its side." She looked out the window. "It was very quiet, but the animals were dying. The sheep and goats were dying." Nasreen ran to the cellar. "I told everybody there was something wrong. There was something wrong with the air."

[mitchtv]

46. it was war, Collateral damage

Isn't that the administration Meme for what they do? I guess it can work for Saddam also

[mike_c]

47. tell it to Union Carbide....

eom

[Bogus W Potus]

55. it was an accident

I guess you think the gassing of the Kurds was an accident too.

is that your style, Mike_c?

You just throw in a completely unrelated incident to draw attention away from the fact that you're losing this argument?

Pathetic. Bhopal happened a long time ago.

"As heavy clouds of gas smothered the city, people became sick and confused. Awat Omer was trapped in his cellar with his family; he said that his brother began laughing uncontrollably and then stripped off his clothes, and soon afterward he died. As night fell, the family's children grew sicker—too sick to move."

Do you love Saddam? He's not your run of the mill dictator. He was so loved by his people that he was the target of numerous assassination attempts and he couldn't stay in the same place for more than a couple nights. HOW DARE WE REMOVE THIS INCREDIBLY POPULAR RULER? Is that the gist of it? Hah.

[bahrbearian]

48. Is that the Gases and Equipment that Rummy gave Saddam

[Bogus W Potus]

50. Oh so I guess Smith and Wesson is responsible for Columbine?

What a fallacy.

Is that all you have?

[IndianaGreen]

53. Putin has used poison gas against the Chechen resistance

but apparently he is our pal, just as Saddam was when he was gassing the Iranians.

We are using chemical agents in Colombia as we speak, a new modern version of Agent Orange that is wreaking havoc with the health of people and cattle in the region. But I guess since this is part of Clinton's Plan Colombia, it is okay if a few brown skinned peasants keel over and die.

There is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air!

[mike_c]

57. "at least 80% of Iraqis are happier...."

Not the "deadenders and Ba'athest remnants" evidently. </sarcasm> Why are we bombing all those happy Iraqis?

[Lizzie Borden]

162. You've taken a poll??

.

[IndianaGreen]

45. Let's rent the film "Red Dawn"

It is a fictionalized account of what would happen if the US were occupied by a foreign military. I first saw the film when it was released in theaters back in the 1980s. The theater audiences cheered every attack that was carried out by the American resistance, and it also approved of the summary execution of Americans that had collaborated with the occupiers.

Red Dawn may have been fiction, what is not fiction is that it accurately portrayed how any nation would resist a foreign aggressor even when there is no indigenous government left, or there is a puppet one in place.

[Bogus W Potus]

49. Except the Iraqis support this government

Polls show that Iraqis are much happier with this "puppet government" compared to what they had before.

So what do you say to that?

[IndianaGreen]

58. Are you quoting the same polls that Tony Blankley loves to quote?

Those polls are as valid as the ones that show Bush ahead of Kerry.

[Bogus W Potus]

60. You're the one that said Kerry would go down to defeat...

Back when Kerry was leading and winning primaries in late January and February you were chicken little and screaming that Kerry would lose because he wasnt antiwar. Well, geeeze, it doesn't seem to be hurting Kerry now, does it?

You can't be on both sides of every issue IndianaGreen. Anyone can search your record and see that you've flip flopped on Kerry at least 60 times(no exaggeration). You're being deceitful and you know that you said Kerry would lose. And now that Kerry is leading in the polls you're on his side again.

Pathetic. :eyes: By the way, how's Evan Bayh doing? :)

Try and talk your way out of this one IG. I dare you.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Haven't you noticed the broad appeal of ABB?

Evan Bayh? Who is he?

[Bogus W Potus]

78. Only your much detested senator

You know, the anti-choice neocon DINO who doesn't represent the left quadrant of Indiana. You know, because that's who he's elected to represent. No matter that he got more Republican votes than any Hoosier Democrat in decades. Crossover appeal is STUPID! We want reddd meat!!!!

[Bogus W Potus]

80. Way to dodge the points btw

I fully expected it.

Go CPUSA

[IndianaGreen]

89. CPUSA is 100-percent ABB

Where am I?

In the Village

What do you want?

Information

Whose side are you on?

That would be telling . . . We want Information

You won't get it

By hook or by crook . . . We will

Who are you?

The new Number Two

Who is Number One?

You are Number Six

I am not a number . . . I'm a free man!

[SOS]

108. Even John McLaughlin dismissed

that poll as nonsense.

[Darranar]

67. Which polls?

Care to actually present them?

[el_chalupa]

51. Let's say you do that...

And drive the evil Americans out. What do you have then? You have Saddam loyalists trying to recoup power. You have Sadr trying to become head of an islamic theocracy with Iranian help. You have the kurds trying to protect the progress they have achieved. You have the new government trying to assert control of the various armed groups. You have Zarqawi killing everybody. Getting Americans out won't solve anything. It won't stop the killing and various factions fighting for power. If you were an Iraqi fighting to drive America out, you would be fighting to remove the largest force advocating power-sharing and a liberal democracy.

[Bogus W Potus]

56. No use arguing, friend

Moderators removed my post just as you said they would, and the post broke no rules.

[el_chalupa]

62. hmmm...

I wish they wouldn't stifle civil debate. I want us to be the party where divergent views are welcome and rational discussions the norm.

[mike_c]

64. then at least MY government would not be the ones killing...

...in MY name. And in an utterly pointless war of aggression.

[el_chalupa]

69. And then you wouldn't be upset by that brand of death?

So the fact that many people would continue to die wouldn't be quite as upsetting because the US would no longer be involved? Clarify please.

Personally, I'm upset at all the death over there. But I don't advocate people shooting at our troops. And I sure as hell don't want the other jokers who want power to be able to attain it. Why topple Saddam only to have Sadr or Zarqawi become new head dictator? That would be a tremendous waste of life and failure on every level.

[mike_c]

70. I won't rise to that rotten bait....

Stop killing them in our names, then we can talk about how I view their own civil strife.

[Darranar]

71. How is the US advocating "liberal democracy"?

"Liberal democracy" like rule by unelected despots who ban news agencies, restrict the press, impose curfews, and give themselves the right to crack down on protest?

As long as the US continues to try to impose its will on the people of Iraq, Iraq will not be stable. Now that the US has killed so many people and wrought so much destruction, the US presence in Iraq is a force for chaos and destruction, not order and stability. Every day the US remains, more destruction is wrought and more people die, and the more difficult it will end up being for a legitimate government in Iraq to arise.

The least problematic option - which is not to say that it isn't problematic - is to withdraw as soon as possible.

[thebigidea]

154. What kinda Wolfowitz crap is that? Power-sharing? Lib democracy?

Have you been paying attention?

Yeah, let the factions duke it out if that's what they want. Its their country - I don't see why OUR thirst for power in Iraq is inherently better than Iraqis vying for power in their own friggin' country.

If they want to take over Wisconsin, then by all means - we smack them down. But who the fuck wants to die for Fallujah? You?

[SOS]

98. Troops and Bush policy are two different things

The important difference here is between the troops and the Bush Iraq policy. Obviously, no-one wants to see 950 dead American soldiers! The soldier is not the policy.
85% of the Iraqi people want the US to leave now. Bush completed his stated mission - to disarm Hussein of WMD. So why is the US still there? Why are they bombing civilians in Kut, Samarra, Najaf and other cities? What's the point? Hussein is disarmed. A new "government" is in place. Time to leave.

Allawi spent the 1990s on the CIA payroll, involved in terror attacks, including the bombings of a school bus full of children and a crowded movie theatre. There is no status of forces agreement, so the US military is in complete control. Allawi is the Iraqi/CIA face of this occupation.
But since he's the installed leader, that should be good enough for the US to leave. Let him deal with it.
All Americans support the troops with our tax dollars and our desire to see them unharmed. Bush cuts taxes for the rich (Rumsfeld saved $180,000 last year) and sends the National Guard to hunt for WMD that were never there. And to get payback for 9/11 in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

--------

Iraq occupied Kuwait with the blessing of GHW Bush's Baghdad ambassador April Glaspie.
The US encouraged the occupation and then turned. A cynic might suggest that Poppy Bush needed a successful war to help his re-election bid. At least Poppy knew that invading Iraq would be catastrophic. Here's his reasoning from his 1998 autobiography:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."


Since the 1991 Kuwait occupation did not directly involve the US, until the US involved itself, why would an American be mad? Were you mad that Indonesia occupied East Timor in 1975? Were you upset that Vietnam occupied Cambodia in 1979?

[Lizzie Borden]

161. Frankly,

yes.

[saigon68]

10. Dropping bombs on a city guarantees children will be killed

We are doing incredible damage and should pull out ASAP

[Tom Kitten]

4. Operations are moving along well there...

We're doing a good job killing a lot of insurgents who probably weren't much into Sadaam in the first place...
I continue to be amazed by the lack of US news coverage...1984 has indeed arrived, albeit 20 years late... :(

[gottaB]

6. Samarra is also a holy city

from Juan Cole May, 2003:

Three Shiite young men were killed by US troops in Samarra' according to az-Zaman. The local Shiite clergy called for calm in their Friday Prayers' sermons. There are various narratives about what happened. Some say the youths were engaging in celebratory gunfire for a wedding and that US troops mistakenly returned fire; another narrative had them in a vehicle that refused to stop at a checkpoint. Samarra', 60 miles from Baghdad on the Tigris, is a sacred shrine city for Shiites. The last two visible Imams are buried there, and it was the place from which the hidden twelfth Imam was said to have disappeared. The US military should attempt at almost all costs to avoid having such incidents in a sacred shrine city. News of this will go all around the Shiite South. This time it will probably pass, but an accumulation of such incidents in such places could be deadly for the US presence in the country.

Informed Comment, May 2003

Emphasis Added.

In other reporting from Samarra today, women and children are reported to have been killed (13 Dead in Samarra fighting). It's grossly irresponsible for news organizations to repeat claims by the US military without investigating whether or not they are supported by facts on the ground.

[IndianaGreen]

7. BBC: US bombers raid Sunni Iraqi city

US bombers raid Sunni Iraqi city
Last Updated: Saturday, 14 August, 2004, 08:18 GMT 09:18 UK

Air strikes by US planes on the largely Sunni Iraqi city of Samarra have killed at least eight people and injured 40, hospital officials in the city said.

The US military said it had killed "about 50 insurgents" in strikes which began after midnight (2000 GMT Friday), following arms searches on the ground.

<snip>

But reports speak of at least 13 deaths overnight in another Shia city, Hilla.

Residents of Samarra, in the volatile "Sunni triangle" northwest of Baghdad, said US bombs struck two houses in separate districts, the AP news agency reported.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3564320.stm

[Aidoneus]

9. many/most of the casualties appear to be women & children

That is obviously a devious lie from the Terrorist Hospitals trying to make the brave liberators look less than angelic. Shame on them! :eyes:

With miles of empty air between the kid playing a video game and the people he's soon to murder, I guess they all look the same.

[Darranar]

12. Clearly...

those innocent civilians were "anti-Iraqi forces" restricting the precious "freedom of movement" of other Iraqi civilians.

[Strelnikov_]

22. If They Run, They're An Insurgent, . .

if they don't run, they're a well disciplined insurgent.

[Barrett808]

21. The body counts have inflated quite a bit in the last week

I take that to mean we're not doing well.

[mike_c]

40. all dead Iraqi civilians are invariably insurgents...

...as our valiant soldiers march toward a great victory! :puke:

[mike_c]

63. reminder for the pro-war posters what "insurgents" look like...

...in Iraq. In our names. Don't ever forget that.

[bemildred]

66. Yeah, lemme tack this on down here too:

http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/663





STAFF SERGEANT JIMMY MASSEY: Really, what led up to my
disgust with the war was the civilian casualties that we were
inflicting. We were given intelligence reports -- the civilian casualties
really started taking place after we left the town of Anu Mannia on the
drive north towards Baghdad. We were getting intelligence reports
from higher command saying that the Fedayeen and Republican
Guards were trading in their uniforms for civilian clothes, and they
were mounting terrorist attacks against U.S. soldiers and marines
using guerrilla-style tactics, suicide bombings. They were using
civilians as human shields. They were loading down stolen
ambulances and police cars with explosives. So, as we progressed on
towards Baghdad, our fears and anxieties were heightened, and also
due to the lack of sleep, some of us had less than 48 hours of sleep
getting into Baghdad. So, whenever we were placed into these
situations where civilian vehicles were coming up to our checkpoints,
and not heeding our warning shot, we were lighting them up. What I
mean by lighting them up, we were discharging our weapons, 50 cals
and M-16's into the civilian vehicles. When we would do this, we
were expecting secondary explosions, ammunition to be cooking off
or actually have the occupants in the vehicle fire back at us.
However, none of this ever happened. When we would go to search
the vehicles, we would find no weapons, and nothing to link these
individuals with -- these individuals with terrorists acts. And this
happened continuously through the fall of Baghdad. I would say my
platoon alone killed 30-plus innocent civilians.

[Bogus W Potus]

81. I'm not pro-war

I'm anti-war. But I'm pro-troop. And you aren't, unfortunately. Like it or not, we're over there. I didn't support the war but the troops are there and they did not choose to be there. So I hope they kick some insurgent ass.

[Darranar]

86. Please clarify what you mean by "pro-troop". n/t

[Bogus W Potus]

107. It means not supporting the insurgents in Iraq

If you support the insurgents in their quest to destabilize the Iraqi government then you are anti-troop, in my opinion.

[Darranar]

112. Iraq is already destabilized...

the puppet government should definitely be gotten rid of, though I don't necesarily agree with the means some use to get rid of it.

[Bogus W Potus]

115. Iraq is destablized because of the destabilizers,

namely the insurgents. Duh. So you say that because the insurgents have destabilized Iraq some? If you don't condemn the insurgents who are killing Iraqi civilians and coalition forces then you have no right to criticize the U.S. soldiers when they accidentally kill civilians AND when they kill the insurgents who are murdering Iraqi civilians and coalition troops.

[Darranar]

118. Iraq is destabilized because the US invasion...

destroyed the order there.

I do condemn the "insurgents" who are murdering Iraqi civilians, but the evidence seems to suggest that they are a different group from the Iraqi nationalists backing Sadr and the like. I condemn those US soldiers who murder civilians as well. I cannot condemn either the US soldiers or the resistance fighters for fighting each other; that is war.

[Bogus W Potus]

124. Murder requires mens rea(a guilty mind)

I'd like you to show me some proof that the U.S. troops are kiling lots of Iraqi civilians purposely. Otherwise, you can't call it murder. Well, you can... but that just sounds stupid because you're not even using the correct word.

[Darranar]

134. bemildred posted a great article on the subject higher in the thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=750008&mesg_id=750644&page=

[Bogus W Potus]

Don't care to read those.

HRW is a biased pro-Palestinian organization so I don't trust any of their stuff, even stuff unrelated to the I/P conflict.

[Darranar]

148. And what about the article bemildred posted?

Or do you have another excuse for ignoring that?

[IndianaGreen]

149. "HRW is a biased pro-Palestinian organization..."

May I also assume that you feel the same about Amnesty International? Well, well, that's quite a disclosure there BWP!

:eyes:

[bemildred]

151. I reckon Staff Sgt Jimmy is a "biased pro-Palestinian organization" too.

[minkyboodle]

166. see no evil....

you know the rest obviously.

[Darranar]

139. And a few additional articles that may be of interest...

From HRW, on deaths of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad during the Occupation:

Based on interviews with witnesses and family members, Human Rights Watch confirmed the deaths of twenty Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in legally questionable circumstances between May 1 and September 30. Eighteen of these deaths are documented in this report. In addition, Human Rights Watch collected data on civilian deaths by U.S. forces from the Iraqi police, human rights organizations, Western media and U.S military statements on the topic. In total, Human Rights Watch estimates the U.S. military killed ninety-four civilians in questionable circumstances. Human Rights Watch did not verify each of these individual cases but, taken as a whole, they reveal a pattern of alleged illegal deaths that merit investigation.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/1.htm#_Toc5418...

Human Rights Watch on the use of cluster munitions in Iraq:

The United States and United Kingdom are failing to provide adequate data on their cluster munition strikes in Iraq, and this lack of information is endangering Iraqi civilians, Human Rights Watch charged today.

The U.S. Department of Defense has acknowledged using nearly 1,500 air-dropped cluster bombs, but has not revealed any information about ground-launched cluster munitions, which may have been much more numerous. The U.K. Ministry of Defense has admitted to using more than 2,000 cluster munitions, but like the Pentagon, it has not provided detailed information that deminers need to clear “dud� submunitions, which pose hazards to civilians.

“The United States and United Kingdom need to come clean on what they’ve done with these weapons,� said Reuben Brigety, researcher with the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. “They are not doing all they can to protect civilians from the deadly after-effects of their cluster attacks.�

Submunitions from artillery projectiles and multiple launch rockets, as well as aircraft cluster bombs, may have produced tens of thousands of hazardous duds in numerous locations in Iraq, including urban areas, Brigety said. He urged the United States and United Kingdom to provide adequate warnings to civilians, including realistic images of dud submunitions, and assist in all ways possible with the clearance of cluster munition duds.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/us-uk042903.htm

According to a report in yesterday’s Newsday, a Central Command spokeswoman has anonymously confirmed that U.S. forces have hit urban areas of Baghdad with cluster munitions, stating that they were aimed at Iraqi artillery and missile systems located inside the city.
“U.S. commanders should never use cluster munitions in populated areas,� said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “These are wholly inappropriate weapons when civilians are around. The reported use of cluster munitions in Baghdad is a serious charge and the Pentagon must respond publicly to it.�

Newsday’s reporter provided Human Rights Watch with a photograph he had taken inside a building in what he described as a clearly residential neighborhood well inside Baghdad. Human Rights Watch identified an unexploded cluster submunition in the photograph from either a ground-based Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) or an artillery projectile. The damage to the surrounding walls and floor were also consistent with a cluster munition strike. Human Rights Watch has previously reported that, according to The Pentagon’s own data, these particular submunitions have an especially high failure rate.
********************************************
Human Rights Watch believes that the use of cluster munitions in populated areas may violate the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks contained in international humanitarian law. Despite the utility of cluster munitions in achieving certain military objectives, the wide dispersal pattern of their submunitions makes it very difficult to avoid civilians if they are in the area. Moreover, because of their high failure rate, cluster munitions leave large numbers of hazardous, explosive duds to terrorize civilians even after the attack is over.

The U.S. Army and Marine Corps may be taking less care to avoid civilian casualties with surface-delivered cluster munitions than the U.S. Air Force with air-delivered cluster munitions, Human Rights Watch said.
**********************************
It seemed that after Yugoslavia, U.S. commanders learned that cluster munitions cannot be safely used in populated areas,� said Roth. “The use of cluster munitions inside Baghdad represents a disturbing step backwards – with deadly consequences.�

It is not yet known if there were civilian casualties at the time of the strike, but Newsday reported on several deaths and injuries to children and others who encountered the explosive duds left by the cluster munitions which failed to detonate on initial impact as designed. The duds function as de facto antipersonnel landmines

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/iraqclusterbombs.htm

Amnesty International on civilian deaths:

Amnesty International is deeply concerned about the mounting toll of civilian casualties in Iraq and the reported use of cluster bombs by US forces in heavily populated areas. Despite repeated assurances from US and UK authorities that they would do everything possible to protect the Iraqi people, since 20 March hundreds of civilians have reportedly been killed. Some have been victims of cluster bombs; some have died in attacks in disputed circumstances. The attacks in the vicinity of civilian targets continue and are likely to escalate as fighting moves into Baghdad.
***********************
The attack at al-Hilla's hospital on 1 April was an example of indiscriminate killing of civilians and a grave violation of international humanitarian law," Amnesty International emphasized.
***********************
"The devastating consequences of using cluster bombs in civilian areas are utterly predictable. If, as accounts suggest, US forces dropped cluster bombs in residential areas of al-Hilla, even if they were directed at military targets, this would be a grave breach of international humanitarian law," Amnesty International said. "An independent and thorough investigation must be held and those found responsible for any violations of the laws of war should be brought to justice. The US and UK authorities should order an immediate halt to the further use of cluster bombs. "

Iraqi civilians have also been placed at greater risk of being killed or injured by US and UK forces as a result of tactics used by the Iraqi military that violate international humanitarian law, such as perfidious attacks. Amnesty International is also concerned about reports that Iraq has been locating military forces and weaponry in close proximity to civilians in order to shield them from attack.

[mike_c]

122. that's a statement worthy of the CinC....

"Iraq is destablized because of the destabilizers..."

...um, you know, because they're like a sovereign, well..., since June 30 they've been native amurikans, we gave them sovereignty-- but you know, we won't be fooled again....

[Bogus W Potus]

126. Non sequitur

Very Green of you.

Let me make one too.

Mullah oil must save trees sovereign greenpeace eat lots of fish(but not dolphins) poop.

There you go.

[mike_c]

147. clue: I'm a democrat, albeit only by the skin of my teeth...

...these days. The sig is a joke about something someone once said in another thread. It's about time for a change, I think....

[IndianaGreen]

114. What Iraqi government?

Surely you don't suggest that Allawi has any legitimacy. Who elected him?

[Bogus W Potus]

116. How do you suggest they hold elections in a war zone like this one?

If you can think of a good way to do that in Iraq today then let me know. The important thing is for the Iraqis to believe that the government is legitimate, and overwhelming numbers of them do, apparently.

[Darranar]

120. I asked you for those polls, haven't seen them yet... n/t

[Bogus W Potus]

123. Oh gee

Are you paying me or something?

I'll, um, get to it when I get to it. How's that? Well, no, I don't really care what you think of that proposition anyway.

:smoke:

[mike_c]

127. that's why Allawi travels with 100 personal body guards...

...to protect him from the "overwhelming" love of the Iraqi's-- especially the Shi'a.

[Bogus W Potus]

129. He travels with 100 personal body guards to protect him

from Sadr and his men.

[IndianaGreen]

136. Allawi is the ruler of the Green Zone in Baghdad

just as another US-puppet, Karzai, is the mayor of Kabul. What a pair!

[Bogus W Potus]

140. And they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Is that how you impress people?

You string two sentences together like that that make absolutely no sense and people oooh and ahh over them until someone realizes that it makes absolutely no sense.

Smooth.

[IndianaGreen]

142. Trained by the best at DINFOS!

What can I say?????

[Bogus W Potus]

144. You were never at DINFOS.

Should I add impersonating a VI officer to your repertoire.

CPUSA, Bayh, DINFOS operative/VIP DOD officer. Got a lot on your plate. Or at least you would, if you were telling the truth, which you aren't.

[IndianaGreen]

153. Next thing you will be saying I have never set foot in New York...

Some people believe in reading chicken entrails...

[bahrbearian]

160. Hey Indiana

I left for a few hours , and when I got back El_Chaupa and Bogus W POTUS , have their profiles now, Way to hang in there, man they could spin ! By the way what is DINFOS.

[mitchtv]

164. great thread, better profiles

I almost like IG after that.

[IndianaGreen]

168. DINFOS is the Defense Information School

Basically it where American and allied personnel are trained in the field of public affairs. Its graduates may end up working for the Armed Forces Network, or return to countries such as Israel and carry out public relation missions. DINFOS is not a propaganda school!

DINFOS is currently located at Fort Meade.

[saigon68]

171. Adios

[thebigidea]

152. no, he travels with 100 Blackwater mercs to protect him from Iraqis!

Which should tell you about how much "his people" love him.

[Xipe Totec]

141. Destabilizing the Iraqi Government is Bad?

Wasn't that the stated policy of the US across several administrations?

I support the troops, but I'm not sure about the target information they are receiving from 'Intelligence Sources'

First is was just a few Saddam loyalists

Then is was a few dead enders

Then some terrorist crossing the border into Iraq

Then it was just the Suni Triangle

Now its the Shia insurgents.

What's next, blowing up Muslims children because they don't love the baby Jesus?

[mike_c]

90. and I hope they face prosecution for war crimes where...

...appropriate. I'll save my support for soldiers acting in a noble cause, or at least a lawful one. See: Beyond Torture: U.S. Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq. It's clear that your unquestioning "support" is preventing you from informing yourself.

http://www.cesr.org/beyondtorture.pdf

[Swamp Rat]

145. "50 anti-Iraqi forces were killed" = propaganda-speak

How do they know they weren't just plain ol' Iraqis defending their country?

"U.S. aircraft dropped a series of 500-pound bombs..." Well, that's a brilliant move. Just kill everybody there and make up stories about it later.

[Disturbed]

156. Iraq is a US Colony.

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

*When the US tried to kill Saddam several times bombs and or missles were used in civilian neighborhoods. Civilians were killed. Did the US target civilians on purpose? No, but they damn well knew that civilians would be killed because of the nature of the firepower and the proximity of civilian houses.

[Hidebo]

165. wake up man

"Iraq is destablized because of the destabilizers....."

Bushies are the real destabilizers......

Almost entire world begged Bush cabal not to go to war