Child soldiers square up to US tanks

[seventhson]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/23/ixworld.html


Child soldiers square up to US tanks
(Filed: 23/08/2004)


Boys who would be martyrs talk to Toby Harnden at the Imam Ali Shrine, Najaf

Struggling to lift a Kalashnikov, a 12-year-old with the Mahdi army militia said he could do anything in battle except fly a helicopter.
"Last night I fired a rocket-propelled grenade against a tank," he said. "The Americans are weak. They fight for money and status and squeal like pigs when they die. But we will kill the unbelievers because faith is the most powerful weapon."

The boy called himself Moqtada, styled after the rebel cleric whose ranks he joined a month ago having travelled to Najaf from the Shia slum of Sadr City in Baghdad. He said that he hopes for a glorious death. There are many more child soldiers in the narrow alleyways of the old city that surrounds the 11th-century Imam Ali shrine, its golden dome marking the mausoleum of Shia Islam's martyred founder and son-in-law of the prophet Mohammed.

US armoured vehicles were seen yesterday within 400 yards of the shrine. The American military appears to be moving closer and closer so that a swift all-out assault can be launched.


MORE

[jdj]

1. Well I certainly hope Pat Robertson speaks out in support of

these child soldiers since he was such a fan of Charles Taylor, the Bapstist expatriate who was infamous for his SBUs (small boy units).

[Radius]

2. Shame

Terrible shame for all involved. Violates the geneva convention and human decency to put children in harms way. There is no lower action for any man than to hide behind a child.

It is terrible for the children, because they are brainwashed, desperate, and will die, and terrible for our soldiers who will be forced to kill them.

[Cocoa]

3. it might not be true

wait til you hear it in a newspaper that's not the Telegraph.

[Gyre]

7. You're a fool (but entitled to your opinions) of course

About our soldiers killing children who've armed themselves in Najaf you said that it's "terrible for our soldiers who will be forced to kill them".

NOTHING is forcing our troops to kill anybody in Iraq. They're doing it because they have foresaken their sense of justice and personal integrity in the cause of gathering more wealth for Amerikkka at the expense of the 3rd world. They're proles w/guns who're doing the bidding of their masters who worship at the alter of a deeply depraved, death-loving culture.

We're assaulting Najaf now because some Iraqi citizens believe their country shouldn't be occupied, so we call them terrorists and kill them. Nice! Go eff yourself.

Gyre

[IdaBriggs]

14. WRONG. Our soldiers HAVE to obey orders!

This is NOT the fault of our soldiers -- it is BAD LEADERSHIP!!! Our soldiers have made a vow to obey the orders of those who outrank them Upon Pain of Death in a combat zone; they are willing to sacrifice life and limb as part of this oath. It doesn't matter if they get told to do stupid or horrible things because they have to TRUST the people who elect our leaders. Study Roman history if you need to understand why we require this of them. NEVER blame the soldiers -- in America, IT IS BUSH'S FAULT!!! (And yes, what is happening in Najaf is horrible!!!)

[lottie244]

21. Soldiers are people too. They have a brain and it can be washed!

I am sick and tired of defending people just because they wear a military uniform when they do wrong. The same defense can be used for the Nazis. Wrong is wrong. Period. And just as the soldier who blew the whistle on Abu Gharib has been smeared and living in fear, if any of these soldiers returing from Iraq or refusing to kill anymore people in Iraq come back here and tell the truth about what is happening in our name they will be smeared in kind.

[Zhade]

33. Not illegal ones. They have a duty to DEFY such orders.

And since the whole fucking invasion and occupation was and remains illegal, they should refuse to fight, and we should bring them home NOW.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

53. If a soldier refuses to fight, the ranking noncomm or officer can shoot...

...him or her on the spot. I knew a guy that had to kill one of his own men because he refused to obey orders during an overrun situation in Vietnam.

This is a tactic that has been used for as long as there have been armies...the fear of instant death is a powerful persuader.

Does that mean I disagree with your thoughts about Iraq being an illegal and immoral war? Absolutely not. It just means that there are very good reasons why soldiers don't simply lay down their arms and walk away.

[JSJ]

55. if they lay down their arms in front of their commander, then...

...they are being stupid. The time to lay down your arms and walk away is when the officer isn't around. Bet you never thought of that. Perhaps blasting civilians, including children, is a better choice than walking. But, remember, all combatants in Nam, even the ones who deserted, were later pardoned by Jerry Ford.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

61. I'm not sure I understand the intent of your post. Where are you going...

...to go in hostile territory if you put down your weapon when an officer isn't looking? Do you think the Iraqis would just hug you and send you on your merry little way after what we've done to them and their country?

Bet you never thought of that.

[JSJ]

63. a reading of varied accounts...

...show that of the estimated 4,000 total desertions from the military in '03, between 600 to 1500 US troops have so far left their posts, not to return...in Iraq! My guess is that there is an underground railroad of sorts- probably facilitated by Iraqi neutrals- through which US troops can make their escape if they so choose.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/deserters/army-deserters.htm
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iraq_Coalition_Casualty_Statistics/AWOL/Desertion

[IdaBriggs]

78. Please see Post #77.

...where I explain about Congress, Bush the Evil, and Rome. The UN is not in charge of the US, our soldiers have to defend themselves, and we need to get Kerry in so we can get them OUT. Bush is misusing our troops terribly -- I understand your frustration, but asking our soldiers to be oath breakers is NOT the answer....:(

[murray hill farm]

107. should we spit on the soldiers when & if they return alive.

make them responsible for the mess they are in...dont blame the soldier...blame the govt that sent them...starting to sound like the protests of the 70s that were taken over in the end by violent jerks who had no clue as to what peaceful protest is about...get a grip here..this is not the fault of the soldier.

[freemarketer]

133. I agree 100% with this statement. I was in Vietnam. My take on soldiers

then was that about half were fighting because of orders; 25% because of a nebulous sense of responsibility to obey orders and the excitement of killing people; the other 25% were just there taking target practice. I heard many comments like: "I got the old lady in the boob.....I dropped that kid...Oops another dead grandma, ha ha ha..." These comments were issued with regularity.

[Vladimir]

72. They actually have to disobey

illegal orders, such as for example killing children. The law and precedent are quite clear on this point...

[IdaBriggs]

79. Yes, illegal orders -- but anybody shooting a gun at you...

is a fair target. Its horrible, but true. :(

[Vladimir]

80. You are right

and I need not have brought children into it anyhow, since the original poster was claiming that all orders must be obeyed. On could of course argue that even being ordered to fight in Iraq is an illegal order, but this is a different matter...

[atreides1]

97. We Were Following Orders, Excuse of War Criminals

Isn't this the same defense being used by the soldiers now being tried for the torture and abuse at Abu Gharaib prison.

First off soldiers swear allegiance to the US Constitution, they do not swear allegiance to the President. That sacrifice of life and limb is for the Constitution, and for all that it stands for.
No soldier swears to sacrifice their lives for some halfwit, money grubbing coward, who failed to meet his own military commitment.

It does matter, we are not Rome, we do not crucify prisoners, nor do we enslave those that we capture.Trust the people who elect our leaders, what kind crap is that. As a soldier I never trusted civilians, you want to know why, because they can jump on a band wagon thousands of miles away, while me and my fellow soldiers could be dying. And then they go along with bringing home our honored dead under the cover of night, as if trying to hide the results of a policy that has gone bad.

Soldiers at least in my time in the Army didn't trust civilians, for the very same reason to stated, they keep electing politicians who will do nothing while we continue to die, or end up missing body parts. And come the next election you the people that we're supposed to trust re-elect the same clown.

By the way, Bush isn't there pulling the triggers and dropping the bombs, those soldiers and marines are, Bush isn't behind the scope of a sniper rifle, Bush isn't loading a tank cannon, Bush isn't desecrating a cemetery. This is all being done by US military personnel, not George W. Bush.

And to let you know I don't like Bush and I never have, but I'm getting real tired of you and people like you who refuse to hold the troops on the ground responsible for their actions.

By the way all it takes is one soldier or one marine with true courage to say no, will he or she be called names, yes, just like the soldier who came forward with the evidence of the torture and abuse. That soldier is a hero, but there are some, evil, hateful people who have already threatened this brave man and his family with death. The supporters of the abusers, the families, who refuse to see the wrong and the evil that was committed in their names.

By the way in Rome if you were not a citizen you were nothing.

[PsychoDad]

116. The prosicuters at Nurenburg would have disagreed.

"we were only obeying orders", was the defence of many Nazi and S.S. criminals at the end of the war.

"We were only obeying orders" - Is the defence of the soldiers who tortured, raped, and killed prisoners at Abu Ghrab. It is also the claim of the SS Totenkoph troops who oversaw the gassing of 6 million Jews, Gypsys, Homosexuals, and others.

Our soldiers HAVE to obey orders... didn't work well at Nurenburg.

[Tommy_Douglas]

136. I can't fault the troops.

They're sworn to protect America and its peoples. Any army in any country is like that. It is the duty of responsible leaders to insure that we only ask our arm forces to put themselves in harms way when its absolutely necessary.

In this case it is not necessary, but the soldiers have been told it is necessary.

Vietnam was a similar war in which soldiers were asked to do similar things. We laud John Kerry for what he did in Vietnam. And I don't see a whole lot of difference here.

As for child soldiers what do we expect? Iraq has an extremely young population. Most of the adults have been killed by Saddam and America...

[Radius]

16. Thanks

Is there a rule around here about telling people to go fuck them selves?

The chineese and north koreans used child soldiers in Korea. Using children in war is wrong period. There is no way to morally justify arming a 12 year old. Now if you want press...

Sir, I am an American, and a Democrat. I do not like the fact we are in Iraq. But When someone shoots a weapon at you you shoot back. I will not agree with your point on our soldiers.

They are doing it because congress authorized and funded the war. Congress has made no attempt to reverse this. John Kerry has said he will continue the war if elected. That means they are following lawful orders. Attacking soldiers doing their job is wrong. If you don't like it vote. That is my plan.

[dawgman]

26. Bullshit, It is not lawful for us to be in Iraq against UN wishes.

That is in Violation of US law. WE are an AGRESSOR. WE have broken international law. OUR soldiers should be disobeying the ILLEGAL orders that are sending them to kill and be killed.

[IdaBriggs]

77. Yes, but our soldiers obey Congress...

...And Congress said it was okay to do what Bush said to do. Now, he lied to them about his intentions, but that doesn't change anything -- our soldiers HAVE to obey "lawful" orders and the UN does NOT rule the US. Please go read some Roman history before you start suggesting our soldiers take the guns we give them and start shooting at the politicians they don't like. There is a reason we require them to OBEY upon pain of death. We want to stay a Republic because we can still get Bush out of office instead of having him appointed Dictator for Life in a moment of temporary insanity. As miserable as everything is at the moment, its fixable on a global scale. On a personal scale, the tragedy of these days is going to last forever...:(

[Zhade]

34. So, Kerry and Edwards voted for war, then?

And not authorization to use force to make Hussein comply with inspections?

[IdaBriggs]

82. Your message is correct.

Technically (and I mean dancing around it like crazy), Bush is just "using force" against Iraq. Bush is a lying weasel, and he has put our troops in a no-win scenario. This could have been avoided if our C-Student "President" had bothered to read "Civil War for Dummies" but No, that would have meant doing his homework. ARGH! I need to walk away for a bit. God, I want that man prosecuted for TREASON!!!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. Guess what? The average age of a U. S. Civil War soldier was 17...

...there were many as young as 12 or 13, and drummer boys were even younger.

Here's a website written about Johnny Clem who joined the Union Army at the age of 10:

<http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/OfficersAndEnlistedMen/johnnyclem.html>

John Joseph Klem ran away from home to join the Union army in the spring of 1861, when he was not yet 10 years old. He was turned down because of his age by a couple of regiments passing through his Newark, Ohio, hometown before he tagged along with the 22nd Massachusetts, which eventually adopted him as their mascot and drummer boy. Officers of the unit reportedly chipped in on his $13 monthly salary, and fellow soldiers were said to have provided him with a shortened rifle and a uniform in his size. He officially enlisted in the 22nd Massachusetts in May 1863 and received his own pay thereafter.

On September 20, 1863, many members of the 22nd were captured in the Battle of Chickamauga, but Johnny made his escape after shooting a Rebel officer who was trying to capture him. Union Gen. George H. Thomas promoted Johnny to lance corporal. When the newspapers picked up his story, little Johnny became a celebrity in the North and was known as the "drummer boy of Chickamauga," and also "Johnny Shiloh," since he was alleged to have had his drum smashed by cannon fire in the Battle of Shiloh in 1862. At some time during this period he changed his name and its spelling to John Lincoln Clem.

Oh, by the way, invading another country without just cause is also just plain wrong. Invaders don't get to make the rules unless they totally subjugate the conquered people in that country. That doesn't look likely, does it?

[Vladimir]

73. So by your argument

They are doing it because congress authorized and funded the war. Congress has made no attempt to reverse this. John Kerry has said he will continue the war if elected. That means they are following lawful orders

All orders given by congress are automatically lawful? You may wish to investigate the Geneva and Hague accords...

[jimshoes]

12. If the US Army just turned around

and just left that festering shithole Najaf, how would you be able to tell if it made a damn bit of difference as opposed to killing every living thing there? I'll give you a hint, we have lost Iraq either way.

[Zhade]

36. "that festering shithole Najaf" - nice.

Way to reinforce the "Ugly American" stereotype.

You know, Iraqis just might be offended by you referring to one of their holiest cities with such colorful language. I know I am.

You make a good point, but this was distasteful.

[jimshoes]

57. I am simply angry that we are

turning it into that. I'd prefer we leave the city and Iraq all together. No good will come from us turning Najaf into a larger mess than it is now. Thank you for pointing that out though, I admit it was a bit insensitive on my part.

[Zhade]

64. Hope you understood that I wasn't trying to attack you.

I fully understand the frustration. I'm feeling it right now myself.

[jimshoes]

99. Not a problem Zhade,

Emotions are highly charged right now as they should be. I hope more people get charged up about what's happening politically in our country instead of who wins the next survivor. I think it's happening.

[Enraged_Ape]

18. Geneva Conventions?

Surely you jest. Since when did anyone on our side give a fuck about the Geneva Conventions?

[Radius]

25. Yep

We take prisoners. Under the geneva conventions nonuniformed combatants are given no quarter.

Under the convention any restricted site looses that status once it is millitarized. Blowing an olympic sized swimming pool where the mosque is would be "legal".

The conventions allow forces to return fire into a crowd of civillians when fire is recieved from it. We don't do these things. If we were just trying to kill people we would be doing things differently.

Do you know how many people were imprisoned or hanged in ww2 for crimes commited in uniform. Plenty. Human nature allows for the 10% who are just fuckups. The typical soldier follows the rules. Don't see abu-ghraib everywhere you look.

My point was that putting kids in combat is wrong, under all circumstances.

[0007]

40. Don't see abu-ghraib everywhere you look.

Don't see the media either. My friend you don't know what your talking about.

[JSJ]

48. they- the kids- are fighting for their lives

What would you have them do? Go willingly to a US-run prison? Let the troops simply kill them without a fight? These pro-troop anti-children sentiments on this thread are the worst examples of ignorant jingoeism I've read in a long time. And most of it seems to be coming from posters with less than 50 posts- making it seem that these people have come aboard with the sole intent of jingoing up the place.

[drdtroit]

65. You woefully misinformed my friend

An occupying power is responsible for respecting the fundamental human rights of the population under its authority. All persons shall be treated humanely and without discrimination. This includes respecting family, honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious and customary beliefs and practice. Women shall be especially protected against any attack. Everyone shall be treated with the same consideration by the occupying power without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. Private property may not be confiscated. However, an occupying power may take such measures of control and security as may be necessary as a result of the war.

An occupying power is specifically prohibited from carrying out reprisals and collective penalties against persons or their property and from taking hostages. The Fourth Geneva Convention permits the internment or assigned residence of protected persons for “imperative reasons of security.” This must be carried out in accordance with a regular procedure permissible under international law and allow for the right of appeal and for review by a competent body at least every six months. The Fourth Geneva Convention provides detailed regulations for the humane treatment of internees.

more

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/6.htm

You need to turn off that "clear channel" station that we know you've been listening to.

[Radius]

83. Geneva

Is a guideline for war. It does say that nonuniformed combatants are not covered under the accord. However it is wrong to mistreat people in custody. There is no justification for abuse.

Iraq should handle their own problems. The sooner we leave and they have a democratic process the better. The best we can hope for is a bastardized version of the turkish government.

I may be misinformed. I am a democrat and Kerry has said he will finish the job in Iraq. I am not putting forward RNC minutes, the position I take is that of the party. If that opinion is not welcome here I will be happy to leave.

[annabanana]

91. guess what

legally we're not "an occupying power"... we gave them back their sovereignty for that very reason....we didn't want to BE responsible.

these f*cktards have GOT to go.....

[UnderPaidMinion]

28. I'm on our side and I care about the Geneva Conventions

Are you in the same boat?

[drdtroit]

66. Welcome to DU UnderPaidMinion

:hi:

[Enraged_Ape]

68. This administration has violated the Geneva Conventions...

repeatedly and with impunity. With the enthusiastic assistance of the media, they use wiggle-word terms to put "enemy combatants" in a quantum state somewhere between prisoners of war and...not, thus evading any discussion of whether they are war criminals or...not.

It's ridiculous for anyone to invoke violation of the Geneva Conventions in this war on behalf of the Iraqis unless we're prepared to point the same finger squarely at ourselves, and you know it.

Welcome to DU.

[Tight_rope]

71. Welcome to DU UnderPaidMinion!

[Tight_rope]

70. Bush response: Geneva Convention who cares! READ THIS!

From Texas to Abu Ghraib: The Bush Legacy of Prisoner Abuse
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0510-01.htm

snip~
Despite Taguba's report detailing US "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" of Iraqi detainees, the President declared, "We acted, and there are no longer mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms in Iraq."

snip~
In George Bush's America, denial about inmate mistreatment runs similarly rampant. As Texas governor, Bush oversaw the executions of 152 prisoners and thus became the most-killing governor in the history of the United States. Ethnic minorities, many of whom did not have access to proper legal representation, comprised a large percentage of those Bush put to death, and in one particularly egregious example, Bush executed an immigrant who hadn't even seen a consular official from his own country (as is required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the US was a signatory). Bush's explanation: "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?"

[Vladimir]

74. I doubt Bush knows where Vienna is n/t

[lottie244]

20. Brainwashed and desperate like our children in the military?

For God's sake, we are in their land, killing their people, prabably killed this kid's parents. You don't have to be "brainwashed" to want to fight back. What we are doing in Iraq is quite enough to wash anyone's brain!

[0007]

23. Human decency?

Like Abu Ghraib and the atrocities that the U.S. put on the Iraqis? That was also against The Geneva Convention.

It was all based on a lie. junior's lie. So indirectly one can rightfully blame the selected prez, 'eh?

[Radius]

96. Correct

Abugraib is against the convention and human decency.

One does not justify the other. Kids do not belong in combat.

Blame is subjective. If it can be proven the pres or a cabinet official authorized that it is a prosecutable criminal act.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

50. What do you think would happen in this country if we were invaded?

[Vladimir]

75. Yes it must be terrible for the soliders

many more of them will yet die in Iraq for the profits of a rich little brat who dodged the draft. But when you invade another person's country, do not be surprised if they fight back...

Oh, incidentally, child soldiers are not at all uncommon. There is not one resistance movement in WWII who did not use them, either for reconnisance or actual combat. Once again, the line between hero and villain is drawn between white and black...

[The Stranger]

85. You might try a little perspective.

The children are in "harm's way" because their country has been shocked, awed, invaded, daisy-cutter-bombed, rocketed, tortured, raped, and looted by the most powerful armed force ever seen on the face of the planet. If they weren't in "harm's way" in the streets, they would be bombed and missled while in their homes with others in the streets.

If anyone is "hiding behind a child," it is someone who would condemn the victims in this massive war crime for trying to defend what little they have that can be called a country from those who have come to take the oil from beneath it.

Nor is anyone being forced to kill anybody -- there was a massive "pre-emptive" invasion launched solely on the basis of proven lies, and there are people (including civilians and children) being killed as a result of that.

So put the blame where it belongs.

[Radius]

92. I agree, sort of

Yes we caused the situation. However Japan and Germany did not use children until the end of the war when they had run out of men. It does not make you pro administration to condemn the use of children in war.

Using children in combat is wrong. They are cannon fodder. That is sad.

[The Stranger]

98. They are cannon fodder whether they have a rifle in their hands or not.

They have been shocked, awed, bombed, raped, tortured, mutilated, attacked by dogs, illegally imprisoned, . . . if they are in their homes, they will be illegally searched and seized, or their home will be bombed and they will be killed as cannon fodder there.

Here's the point: I don't really think child abuse or child exploitation really enters the minds of people who are being brutally murdered on such a massive scale and whose natural resources are being robbed by the most powerful force ever seen on the face of the planet. These aren't images being splashed on CNN or World TV -- these are acts taken by people that are beyond conventional notions of desperation.

But I'm glad you agree, sort of.

[Radius]

100. Targeting

There are 150,000 or so soldiers in Iraq. And millions of Iraqis. I'm sure it is safe to say that most Iraqis have not been imprisoned at abu graib and most soldiers do not shoot civilian non combatants. I would bet the insurgents have killed more civilians with their use of truck bombs. Truck bombs do not aim, they kill whoever is near by.

Search is not illegal. When you get pulled over for speeding and a cop points his flashlight in your backseat you are being searched. The airforce has cut its sorties a day way back. There is no widespread bombing anymore. We generally do not bomb homes. What is the point of dropping a 30,000 dollar bomb on someones house?

My point is that any use of children in combat is illegal, immoral, and ineffective. They have plenty of men. A 12 year old and a 17 year old are very different.

[The Stranger]

101. Whew.

I'm sure it is safe to say that most Iraqis have not been imprisoned at abu graib and most soldiers do not shoot civilian non combatants. . . .

We generally do not bomb homes.

Generally and mostly, I feel so much better knowing these things.

[Radius]

106. Law

of averages. People screw up in war and kill civillians, a few kill them on purpose. This has happened in every war we have ever fought.
There is no reason to spend ordinance blowing up peoples homes with expensive strikes. CENTOM isn't sitting around with a list of home addresses and drawing names, Tariq salim 431 bagdad way, looks like a good strike, go blow up his house, wife and kids.

Like I said the "insurgents" are killing most of the civillians with truck bombs and mortar fire. Here achmed, mohammed. This is an 80mm mortar, figure out how to hit a target with it.

[The Stranger]

118. Law?

You mean like international law? How about torture? How does that fit into the law of averages? Was it all an accident?

The law doesn't make excuses like "People screw up in war and kill civillians, a few kill them on purpose." You kill a civilian on purpose and you have broken the law. The "law of averages" is not a recognizable defense to murder.

[Radius]

119. Didn't say it was

However when you have armed people shooting heavy weapons at each other inncocent people die.

There is a difference in the death of a person killed by a stray bullet and a person put on their knees and shot. One is illeagal the other has been a consequence of was since its inception. There is no defense to torture or murder.

People were tried for rape and murder in ww2 and the civil war. The 10%rule exists everywhere.

I hold my position that "insurgents" have killed more non combatants with truck bombs and idiots with mortars. This is opinion, it can't be traced.

[PsychoDad]

115. Iraq is harms way

Where could this boy go where he won't be killed by american bombs? I'm also sure that should america be invaded by another country that many teens and pre-teens would join the fight to save their way of life and the right of themselves to determine their own future.

And because of our sanctions and our invasion and the subseqent slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, I doubt there are any "children" left in Iraq.

Most like this brave young man have to grow up quick.

And remember there's only about 6 years differnce between him and his would be murders. Our own young men and women, who at my age are also still kids, who should be home enjoying their youth - not dying to secure more riches for the plutocratic elite.

[nosmokes]

4. so why are we in najaf?

WTF is there that requires an american presence in the first place? are we really that determined to make al-sadr a martyr and ensure the jihad continues against us for decades?

i just don't get it. dammit.

[Wright Patman]

8. I think most of the Iraqi 'police'

in Najaf have gone AWOL, taking their cue from that famous ex-member of the Texas Air National Guard.

Plus, Bremer disbanded what was left of the Iraqi army a few weeks after he took over in the spring of 2003.

The U.S. military IS the Iraqi army until further notice.

[seventhson]

9. The Bushes and Cheneys and Satan's maggots WANT perpetual war

This is how they get off (and get rich)

They are anti-spiritual and, frankly, demonic necrophiles.

But God does NOT like ugly like that.

Their days are numbered I would suspect, if there is a God.

Keep the Faith.

To use an old 12 step expression:

Faith will move mountains - but bring a shovel.

See ya in NY!

[ilovenicepeople]

19. I think you do get it sobersteelhead

Take it from a drunkcutthroat, ensuring a jihad(crusade) is probably the bottom line,screwing things up so bad over and over ensures a pretty unsettled future for all.:grr:

[0007]

39. Most folks building those 14 military installation understand clearly

the game plan that is about to take place.

[sidpleasant]

117. We're fighting in Najaf now because ...

... some Marines who had recently arrived in Najaf to replace the Army troops there decided to solve the "Sadr problem" themselves without bothering to clear it with anyone up the chain of command. The Marines broke the cease - fire with Sadr by entering the city and driving past his house. Provoked by that, the Mahdi Army started shooting. The Marines quickly discovered that rather than the lightning strike wiping out the Mahdi Army they planned on, they were stuck in a ferocious battle in the vast cemetary and running out of supplies. The Marines asked Ambassador Death Squad for reinforcements and he sent in the Army. Or so the NY Times reported last week, Wednesday or Thursday I think. Personally I think the truth is that Rove ordered the Marines into Najaf, gambling on a quick victory so * could trumpet a big triumph over "terra" and arch - "terra - ist" Sadr at the GOP convention. The * cartel obviously didn't give a sh*t about the long term impact of killing Sadr, November 2nd is the only thing that matters.

[htuttle]

5. Considering that children are being taken into detention and tortured...

...I suppose it's only fair that they get to shoot back.

:shrug:

[seventhson]

10. I am beginning to feel the same way. nt

[seventhson]

6. And we have just NOW blown the shrine open. Now the shit will hit the fan

Four large explosions were heard near the shrine early on Monday as AC-130 gunships pounded Mahdi Army positions around the Imam Ali mosque and near the cemetery, witnesses said.

In the latest round of clashes, al-Sadr aide Ahmad al-Shaibani told Aljazeera that US military helicopters and heavy artillery on Sunday bombed the old sector of Najaf.

He claimed shells fell in the vicinity of the Imam Ali shrine and a tank round caused a big hole in the outer wall of the shrine.



Several people were also killed and injured inside the shrine, he added.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7FE82A39-3A66-4FE1-9C27-F1487D29EA35.htm

[Disturbed]

11. Iran

Perhaps the US Neo Fascists are goading the Iranians to enter into the fray so that they can have an excuse to attack Iran?

[Union Thug]

13. I've wondered this, myself...

They will try to draw their fabled 'axis of evil' foes into the fight hoping that such an attack on american forces will translate into polling numbers for lil' George and Biggus Dickus.

Now, I am admittedly behind the story on much of this. Where does Syria stand? Jordan? At what point might we expect a general islamic uprising against the arrogant empire?

[seventhson]

15. Any second now

"At what point might we expect a general Islamic uprising against the arrogant empire?"

I think this must be what Bush wants. It is a standard Nazi tactic.

Create hell then total chaos (and do whatever you want then to seize total power).

[Radius]

17. Jordan

Is a quiet ally.
Iran does not have the military ability to fight any kind of war with the US.

They are just able to keep their own population under control.

Syria has no means to fight any type of war with the US.

Nothing will "blowup", regretfully al-sadyr choose a really symbolic place to fight the US. To bad he didn't choose the desert, spare the civilians and the architecture. Lacks the symbolism though.

The mainstream shia are against him because he is messsing up their money. Before he moved in, thousands of people traveled to the mosque to pray and brought lots of money with them.

[markses]

22. Diagnosis: Daffy

The Shia are lining up against al-Sadr, contrary to all reports (from the liberal press, no doubt).

The Iranians are persecuting their own population with arms, and the Iranian people don't give two wits for the merely symbolic shrine at Najaf.

Syria, as we well know, has no capacity to fight a war with the United States, nor does Iran. And, of course, we also know that the United States has a capacity to fight a war with either or both of these countries without any fiscal or political repercussions whatsoever.

Al-Sadr, moreover, chose to edanger civilians and architecture by picking a fight with the easy-going US forces from his perch in the Imam Ali Shrine, all the while the US forces and their Iraqi counterparts were sitting quietly, perhaps whistling under a tree while rebuilding a school. Shamefully, Sadr didn't take his followers out into the desert to be slaughtered by US air power, but rather chose to fight in a location that would make it hard for US forces to kill him and his followers - a real monster, this Sadr.

(As a side note, whenever Sadr in his shrine is portrayed as cowardly, one is reminded of the parable of the animals trying to eliminate weapons - with each animal allowing only the weapon that will be to his advantage: the rhino thinks every weapon is illegitimate except the horn, which is purely "defensive," the tiger every weapon but tooth and claw, the bear every weapon but the hug - similarly, many extremely cowardly Americans sitting behind keyboards have the utter gall to call people facing down tanks in the streets and cemeteries of Najaf cowards - contrary to the statements of the US military on the scene, no less, because they don't face down the tanks in the desert, to be easily picked off by C-130 gunships, F-18s, Apache helicopter, long-range artillery and Abrams tanks at long range, all the hallmarks of a brave nation, to be sure...:eyes:)

Now, Radius, is this a correct mapping of your personal fantasy world? I just want to get your extreme delusion straight so that the folks in the white suits will know what dose to administer.

[Radius]

31. Jane's Defense

I state fact. Iran does not have the military hardware to fight an effective war against the US. It has soviet era trash and would loose its air defense to f-117 strikes in hours. To mount a land assault they would have to move troops across desert, a death sentence. The US has ready reserve in Europe and Japan. Pacific resources are basically idle. There are at least two carrier groups in strike distance to Iran. Iran violently suppressed large demonstrations by opposition students.

I don't think we should be there. The sooner we leave the better. The mosque has huge significance, thats why al sadyr is there not in the desert. It is great PR for him. Look the us is trying to destroy all the shias

However there is no doubt that two carrier groups supported by unused air force resources could gain complete air superiority over iran in 24 hours and smash their ability to fight in an open war. This will not happen because Iran does not want to fight a war it can not win. They fought Iraq for 10 years, we defeated iraq's MILITARY in 2 weeks.

Brave has nothing to do with range. If it did wars would be fought with knives.

You have no concept of my position and your sarcasm does not make a good argument.

[markses]

44. You pick the most obvious piece

to defend out of all your laughable statements, which is telling. There is no doubt that Iran's forces are not capable of defeating the US military in battle. Despite so-called standing reseves of US forces, however, the costs - both fiscally and politically - of an Iran-US war now would be extremely difficult for the US to sustain. Jane's Defense won't help you with that, since that site is mostly concerned with hardware. Hardware becomes quite another thing when it has to move around in a network.

As for your position, I may not have any idea about what it is, but since you've posted quite a bit on this thread, that would be your fault for not articulating yourself very well. As for bravery, you are the one making the accusations of cowardice in the first instance. Forgive me if I side with the words of US troops actually engaging these human beings in battle, rather than the uninformed babbling of a terminal desk jockey.

[Radius]

81. Wrong

I made no accusations of cowardice. I said it is morally wrong to put children into a war. It is a nasty tactic and is illigal under the geneva convention and UN guidelines. A 12 year is not mentally able to make decisions on that level. It is a sad thing and can not be glorified.

War is for adults. I did not mention cost, it would be massive, or attemt to justify a war. It is not justifiable. Please do not assume you know anything about my life current or past. I will give you the same respect.

Janes intelligence gives estimates of troop strength and speculation of cost.

[JSJ]

49. what markses said n/t

[bobthedrummer]

24. Boy, you've really bought into a lot of nonsense that has been destroyed

over the years here at DU. Btw, welcome-but your comments are naive at best.
It sounds like rehashed PNAC and smacks of militarism imo.

[Radius]

38. Uh

This is a Democratic forum right?

Being a democrat doesn't mean I think the US should be weak. We shouldn't be in Iraq, but we are not in danger of an Iranian attack. Disliking the administration does not mean disliking the millitary, its function, or capability. Once commited it is not effective to undercut men in the field. Vote to change the situation.

Israel defeated a 3 pronged arab assault with far less resources than we have. Daffy do you really think in an open war we can not take Iran?

My comments are an accurate reflection of US millitary capability.

I can post links if someone has a problem with a point of fact.

[bobthedrummer]

45. Militarism: noun, extreme emphasis on military power in state policy

What my USMC father, his US Army brother and a maternal USMC uncle fought against in WWII.

[JSJ]

51. you want to be sstrong against a mostly child-dwelling nation

In fact, nearly 50% of Iraq's population is comprised of children under 17. That should make you feel very strong and manly. Yes?

[REVOLT823]

54. Your reasoning is skewed beyond all comprehension.

FYI, we have pulled most of our armor out of Iraq, and Iran has plenty of armor, and a large military. We have a strung-out, exhausted combat force in Iraq, they will not be able to handle Iran if they roll over the border. Some simple math - Iran borders is, what, 4-5 hours from Baghdad. Military assets in Europe and Asia would take months to deliver into theater. By that time, everyone is dead. Another thing you have failed to factor into your assesment, are our forces in Iraq to turn their backs on the Iraqi population to face an oncoming enemy from Iran, effectively sandwiching themselves between two countries that want to destroy us? I can't stand it when people make these vague determinations that we will win every time, without factoring in all the things our guys are up against. If Iran moves, WE ARE SCREWED, and there will not be a damn thing we can do about it.

[Radius]

87. Integrated Systems

The Clinton Administration pushed for integrating the branches of the armed forces. So the DOD's satellites who are watching Iran in real time would report troop movement to the Air force and Navy. The air force has aircraft that spot movement on the ground feeding information back to central command. The Navy and Air force use this information to coordinate air strikes and fire guided missiles into targets that can not defend themselves. Both have the ability to TOTALLY destroy Iran's ability to defend massed troops or tanks with stealth aircraft. GW1 is a demonstration of what happens to exposed troops and equipment in the open with no air defense. We have at least two armored divisions in Iraq. Iran is running T-72's that can be engaged 1000yds before before the T can bring its gun online. In GW1 there was no instance of a t-72 round causing casualties in an Abrams tank. Even on direct hit an under 700yds (point blank).

We have B-52, B1b, and A-10's in theater that would totally destroy personnel and armor. We have at least 4 guided missile cruisers in the gulf area which can destroy air and ground targets. The subs are capable of launching tomahawk missiles as well. Iran has no naval force to speak of.

There is an interesting book Eyes of Orion written by a 24 year old tank commander in Gw1. gives you an idea of our capability.

Jane's defense, Naval proceedings and fas.org are good sources.

However, I am not justifying or promoting any step towards Iran. It is illogical. Iran will not attack and we will not attack them.

[bvar22]

27. Soundslike a Neo-Con press release.

Rah-Rah...We are winning the warren terra!
Democracy is messy!
The more they kill us, the better we are doing!


You have drunk deeply of the Kool-Aide my friend.

[Radius]

93. If you

are referring to what I said read carefully and then hit the DNC site. Stronger millitary, check, support Iraq war, even on flawed intelligence, check, support Afganistan operation, check.

These are the core of the democratic parties talking points. If this position is not acceptable here I will leave. Never said I liked us being there, never said it war right, only that it is poor policy to undercut troops. Our troops are following orders. If you don't like the situation vote.

[acmavm]

35. Strange, I remember the Iranians being able to sustain an 8-year war

with Iraq. I also think that it's a lot easier to find endless reinforcements in the general area of your country than from a country half a world away.

As far as Syria not being able to fight, says who? Anyone can fight. The Iraqi on the street is doing a pretty good job of dealing our troops a fit, and they've exposed the 'sovereign' Iraqi government for the frauds that they are. Both to the Iraqi people and the world. It's not Iraqi's manning planes and helicopters around the Shrine, it's Americans.

Do you seriously think that the people of the Middle East will side with the United States if we pull any more shennanigans in their little corner of the world? I don't. In fact, if you would pay attention to what's happening instead of listening to the propaganda coming from a bunch of cowards who never did their duty when their country called, you would know that the muslim clergy from all over the Middle East are warning us that there will be an horrific explosion of anti-American sentiment which will turn into violence if we damage that Shrine.

I am afraid of this administration, I detest the people that are running it, and I am so worried about the world that my son and daughters and grandchildren will inherit because of a bunch of bloodthirsty greedy thugs who were so anxious to go for the gusto (and the oil) they completely ignored the war they already had going in Afganistan, and handed al Quaeda and every other terrorist group all the reasons they need to justify killing Americans.

[0007]

42. Are you out of high school yet?

[Radius]

89. Care

To argue a logical point or just go ad-hominem?

Take a look and listen to what John Kerry is saying about the war and our millitary and get back to me on where I stand.

Like I posted earlier, If this is a Democratic forum you would recognize what I am saying is what our party is broadcasting and promoting. Strong millitary, finish war in Iraq, fight terrorisim. No mention of immediate pullout.

Come on guys, I have treated every poster with respect and expect a little in return..

[GreenArrow]

111. while I don't agree with many of your conclusions

you argue your points well, and you are absolutely right about what the Democratic party is saying. I happen to think it is wrong on all counts that you list, but what the hell, that is the platform. No point in denying it.

FWIW, a bigger, more spread out war is the goal. Will China, Pakistan, Russia just sit back if we invade/attack Iran? The longer we are in Iraq, the greater our chances of going into Iran, regardless of which party is in power.

[Radius]

113. Thanks

this topic upsets people. It should. But I try to make a point that is fair and factual without attacking people.

My entire point is that using children in combat is wrong. I do not See any way to justify it. No matter who does it, Jews, Palestinians, DRC. It is wrong.

I really think Iran will not invade and we will not attack them. It doesn't make sense for them or us to get into any type of conflict. They could (note could) make things tougher for us by arming insurgents with better weapons and money, an open war would expose them to attacks on things they do not want to loose.

I see no reason people can not disagree and still treat each other with respect.

[GreenArrow]

114. hey, you're welcome

the ad hominem crap around here sometimes gets real tiresome. A little respect goes a long way.

[drdtroit]

67. You really have to turn off Rush my man! n/t

[Vladimir]

76. Iran of course will not enter this

war unless attacked, not in the near future at least. They are in very comfortable position in the region right now, which is more than can be said for the illegaly occupied American Kolony of Iraq.

[UnderPaidMinion]

30. How would taking down sadr goad Iran into the war?

Does Iran have vested interests with sadr?

[UnderPaidMinion]

29. Why would damaging a building be worse than killing people?

I don't understand how a stack of mortar is worth moe than even one human life.

[Voice_of_Europe]

132. WTC was "just a building" too.... remember?

SYMBOLS!!

Damaging a thousand year old shrine!
And thats not just a siteseeing tourist shrine but an actually worshipped one!

WTC, Pentagon, White House... they're just buildings too...
But if they are attacked and damaged you can easily rally the whole US against you.

[lockdown]

32. Another account of Iraqi children taking up arms

Ali's Story: A Taste of Reality from Baghdad
http://www.counterpunch.org/williams08212004.html

We were talking about how children are being effected by the occupation and we mentioned the 11 year old Mujahdeen fighter we had met in Fallujah. Ali said "That's nothing, a few streets away from here is an 8 year old boy. During the last attack from the Americans, he got an RPG and fired it at a humvee and blew it up, then he was shot at and injured, but he is still alive". Then we left Ali's home and once again walked through the peaceful dusty streets full of children playing to get our taxi home.

Incidentally, I heard a report about the 11 year old Mujahdeen fighter in Fallujah from a man who actually witnessed the boy's bravery and skill. there were two American snipers placed one each end of the road on which the hospital/clinic we visited was situated. In the darkness, this child rolled his body across the road from one kerb to the other. He called out to a man on the side of the road, under the cover of a building, to throw something white out into the middle of the road. This was done and the American sniper shot at it revealing his position to the boy who then shot at him and in the same movement he rolled back across the street to the other side, just in case the sniper fired at him. No return fire came and our 11 year old then took night vision binoculars into the middle of the street and could see the American's snipers body slumped over a wall--dead.

Those accounts are doubtless embellished at the least, but I expect there would be children taking up arms in any occupied country, especially one where about half the population are children. Yet apologists will cite this as proof of Iraqi "savagery" which in turn justifies the continuing occupation. :puke:

[Radius]

43. Doubtful

Snipers work in teams. If he shot one the other would have killed him. Snipers are not deployed forward.

Snipers, and soldiers in general, do not shoot at movement. They have to identify what they are shooting at. The US does not put people out alone. If he shot one person he would have been shot by (or at) someone else in the squad.

All our people have night vision and use it.

Unless you are shot in the brain or spine you do not slump.

Still using children in combat to deter the enemy is wrong. It is illegal and immoral. Us not being there does not justify using kids in combat.

[JSJ]

52. you're the one who's doubtful, trooper n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. "Snipers are not deployed forward"?? What?? You're going to have....

...to explain that one to the Marines, who routinely send snipers into enemy territory for weeks at a time.

[Radius]

90. Snipers

Are not deployed forward on the street in an exposed positions. Snipers are supposed to blend in and not be detected. By deployed forward I mean on the ground on a street corner in an urban firefight. Roof, maybe.

They are probably talking about an infantry soldier, if this account is true, which it is most likely not.

[Sterling]

124. lol

Radius has a lot of half baked military analysis it seems.


I see that a lot on DU. People who claim to know everything about tactics strategy and weapons capabilities. I’m not sure why exactly.

[Radius]

127. Because

Everymember of my family, other than me, has served in some american war. All yellow dog democrats.
Because I work with a bunch of ex-millitary people at my job, and because my apartment roommate in college was an ex marine going to school on gi bill money. Interesting stories from gw1 and would always buy me beer. Still keep in touch.

Did you read the post and story it contained? redonkerous.

How about you sterling, on what basis do you think my post is half baked?

[Dancing_Dave]

62. Hey, thanks for that great link!

So much of the really important stuff that our propaganda-biased "news" leaves...no wonder most Americans still have no understanding of what's really going on in this colonial war.

I hope the Iraqi's get their independence back from the U.S. oil thieves occupation as soon as possible.

One more good reason to go to every anti-war protest you can find.

[Gregorian]

37. We destroyed their antiquities while guarding the Ministry of Oil

Remember? We were infuriated when extremely valuable cornerstones of history were obliterated. They are complete shitheads. We were exasperated then, but this is just outrageous. The Army versus children. Unfuckingbelievable. I am ashamed, utterly ashamed to be associated with America.

Edit- Just so I don't sound like babbling fool, I'd like to say that the responsibility for this falls directly on OUR shoulders. This is a war to sustain OUR lifestyles. Our vcr's, our cars, our energy usage. We cannot blame the media, nor the government. This did not start in 2000. We, the people, let this happen. We hear at DU aren't to blame. But the American people as a whole are, for believing Fox, and voting for Bush, and living a blind lifestyle, while our military paved the way for the big corporations to steal from other countries. It's almost a phenomenon, but we did have the responsibility to not believe the hype. I'm proud of the liberals, but it hasn't been good enough. Now we have to search ourselves to see what we can do, to make this never happen again. I think we all know what that is.

[Radius]

41. To be clear

We should not have gone to iraq, we should have had a plan if we did. We should have ignored al-sadyr. But it is to late for that..

Your points are valid about the stupidity of what we are doing. However.

Iran does not millitary capability to fight the US. Period. They can try, yes, but they can not win. They have no navy, no workable air defence and no way to move troops or armor without being subject to attack from the air. Iran can not win a conventional or god for bid nuclear war with the US.

I would link you to janes but you have to pay. Fas.org has some information on US and Iranian millitary capability. Draw your own conclusions.

We are fighting an occupation, this is bad. It is also very different than an open war. Hopefully this will have improved by morning. I'm on est, later.

Good forum, enjoyed everyones point of view.

[Dhalgren]

46. When Britain declared war on Germany in WWII,

it couldn't beat Germany either. But Britain declared war anyway - because they felt that they had to. If Iran declares war, it won't be because they think they can beat the US (even though a rag-tag group of brave patriots in Iraq is giving the US a very, very hard time). If Iran declares war, it will be because they feel that they have to. And if they do, we will once again be in the wrong.

[bvar22]

47. Iraq=25Million

Iran=65Million
Muslims worldwide=1 billion

Yeah, bring 'em on. The USA may be able to win some tactical battlefield victories, but WILL LOSE THIS WAR.

Remember Vietnam? We had tactical and strategic supremacy, but lost this war miserably. Never even close to ANYTHING that could be called victory.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. Britain declared war because they were required to do so by the....

...mutual support pact they had signed with Poland.

[Dhalgren]

88. And, of course, Britain could have aborgated that treaty.

The US has aborgated on numerous occasions - so has Britain. Britain declared war because its government understood that there was no alternative - fight or die. If Iran declares war on US it will be for the same reason. Some people actually fight for PRINCIPLE - not just money.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. Hmmmm. I recall the same thing being said about North Vietnam,...

...and it was about 228 years ago when our nation's forefathers defeated the most powerful nation in the world at that time.

[RedFury]

84. War as an Olympic sport

Seems to me that some Americans view their Armed Forces as the ultimate 'Dream Team' -- hard as any opponents might try, they amount to little more than annoying mosquitoes to be rid of with an almost effortless swat. Substitute Larry, MJ, Magic, et al. for F-18s, AC-30s Gunships, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, The Mother of All Bombs, and the rest of the latest lethal weapons that all the money in the world can build and/or buy, and voila! Bring them on! Dead or Alive! With Us or Against Us! Rah rah, USA! We simply can't be beat!

You want proof? Why, didn't you see us race across the Iraqi desert in a mere TWO WEEKS and annihilate anything that stood in the way? Iran? Bah! Pile of junk they call an army, we'd have them for breakfast with plenty of room left over for a huge lunch!

Fools. All of them.

For how quickly they forget that for all the Shock and Awe fireworks display of the those first couple of weeks -- likely the most expensive display ever, but who cares, right? -- the REAL WAR is the one that's STILL raging on. You know, the one that you are NOT winning and the one that you WON'T win. For Iraqis now, much like Vietnamese thirty-five years ago, and countless other nations before them, will not submit to foreign invaders until they shed their last drop of blood.

Not that hard to understand if you put down your "Guns and Ammo" mag for a sec and try a little thought experiment. Ask yourself what you'd be doing if it was YOUR country that was invaded, and further think of how YOU'D feel if one or more of those thousands upon thousands of dead countrymen and women was directly related to you. Whether it was your son, your wife, your husband, you uncle, that fell to your invaders 'Dream Team,' tell me, how motivated would you be to get your piece of flesh? Hell, I don;t need to give it much thought -- just point me to the nearest 'pile of junk', tell me that it fires something lethal, show me what to push/pull/squeeze, and I'll be out there in no time. And if I fall, no matter, for I'd have the certainty that there'd be twice as many to take my place.

THAT'S what your facing, and instead of puffing out your chest and bragging endlessly about the efficacy of your brand new WMDs (bitter irony right there) think about what it would take to win such a war. As it stands now, the latest polls show that roughly 80% of Iraqis (more if you exclude the Kurds, as by and large they are the 'happiest' with the US invasion, thinking they can finally realize their dreams of independence with their backing. But that's another mess for another thread) want you OUT of their country. Iraq has roughly 25 million citizens, so now you're facing roughly 20 million potential "terrorists." Sadr? Just the tip of the iceberg. he goes down, and twenty more like him will rise. Or have you already forgotten that much the same thing that is going on in Najaf happened in Fallajah not three months ago? Quick reminder. Lots of dead "terrorists." End result: Care to guess who controls Fallujah now? Hint: it ain't the Dream Team.

And yet, there you sit, guns ablazing from behind your computer monitor, shouting for all to hear: "60 million more "terrorist" with rusty planes and decrepit rifles? Bah! Bring then on too! There's no enemy big enough for The Dream Team! Two weeks for Iraq, can't be more than three to ride right into Teheran!"

Well, happy dream to you. But you might not want to look at what's happened to the original Dream Team. Yeah, sure, your biggest weapon, Shaq, is not in Athens, and had you unleashed him, it is quite possible you'd still squish the opposition like bug. But that's basketball. And even there, as the last ten years have shown, it is only a matter of time and numbers before the 95% of the rest of the world catches up.

Meanwhile, for all your weapons and your cool gear, the only way you're going to "win" the Iraq war is by doing exactly what you're doing: burning the village in order to save it. Problem is, when you're done with that one you'll still have to deal with about 6 billion other villagers. And the only "ShaqAttack" that is going to be able to stop them is the Nuclear Shaq. So tell me, is that's the case, who wins? Feel free to go right back to your Jane's Review to look for the answer. But I'm afraid that you're not going to find one there.

Then again, you might be one of the fortunate ones that Einstein was talking about when he said that "World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Me? I'd rather fight with all my might to stop the Third one from happening. If not so much for me, for my fourteen year old son. he's got a lot to see and do yet and in whatever way I can, I want to make sure he does.

Getting rid of the murderous thugs currently running your country seems like an excellent place to start.

Cheers.

[Dhalgren]

94. Welcome to DU, Red Fury!!!

Excellent post! Well thought and written! I agree 10,000%! The point continues to be missed by all of these cheerleaders, that the US is in a no-win situation in Iraq and that Iran would be a ridiculously hopeless debacle. If the only thing that the US has going for it is the barrel of a gun, we have already lost.

[annabanana]

95. We are doing our damndest to get rid of the "murderous thugs"

They are screwing us over as badly as they are everyone else. I think we may have them (if we can thwart the "black box voting" conspiracy).

Welcome to DU

[drdtroit]

102. Wonderfully thoughtful post RedFury

Welcome DU! :hi:

[Radius]

110. Flawed analogy...

You left out the biggest factor in the "game". Money from oil. The Iraqis will take control of the golden spigot and protect that with their own force. Money is the moving factor here. This has been about money for 10 years and didn't stop when we invaded. Money will motivate iraqis to kill iraqis that screw up the cash flow.

I assume you are sitting behind a computer montor in Iraq or Afganastan rebutting my point? If not you assuming anything about me is poor form and irrelevant. adhominem my friend.

Vietnam was backed with soviet money and equipment. Draft army. Democratic president. Different culture at home. Apples and oranges.

You do not understand the difference in ability and action. Falluja is still standing because we choose not to make it flat. We have the capability for immense destruction and choose not to use it. Think Dresden.

Read then post, I never suggested invading, attacking, or even farting in the direction of Iran. But in the event that Iran starts an open war of any type they will lose. Your numbers are flawed, you think every nation in the mid east is going to coordinate a surprise attack? Lots of americans want bush out, how many are picking up guns. Polls are worthless. 80 percent of americans want a new car, does not mean 80 percent are going to steal one.

I assume your are not american so here is a tip on our politics. Both parties support the war. If Kerry is elected there will still be a war. Kerry has stated he will double our SpecOp forces. Kerry said he supports the invasion, even after he knew the intellegence was wrong and would do it again.

Here it is in black and white, Iraq ends up with a democratic goverment, monarchy, or dictator friendly to the west and its neighbors we win, Iraq ends up Iran 2 we loose.

I find facts help in making a point. And I could give a fuck about basketball.

[RedFury]

121. Is it really facts you want....

...or merely opinions that concur with your own? Because if it's the former, you should try reading my post again -- for comprehension this time.

"You left out the biggest factor in the "game". Money from oil. The Iraqis will take control of the golden spigot and protect that with their own force. Money is the moving factor here. This has been about money for 10 years and didn't stop when we invaded. Money will motivate iraqis to kill iraqis that screw up the cash flow."

Can't make head or tails on the nonsense above, so I'm going to have to ask you to clarify a few concepts contained therein. Who, exactly, are you alluding to when you say 'The Iraqis'? I mean of course everything that is going on in Iraq right now is a huge power play, but the point I made before stands. Namely that your appointed toadies have very little to do with what Iraqis want. You'd need to blind -- and deaf and more than a bit dumb -- NOT to see that it is the INSURGENCY, in all of its manifestations across ethnic lines, that has the backing of the Iraqi people. Sure, there's no telling who'll ultimately end up holding the reigns of power once the occupation is over. It could turn out to be a fundamentalist Gov backed by the Shia majority, could be also that there are enough remnants of the Baath Party left to recoup power after you're long gone, hell, I'm not Mr. Cleo, but a civil war and an ensuing fracturing of the nation formerly known as Iraq could be in the cards too.

But in any of the above scenarios -- as well as in any others you might come up with -- the only two things that stay consistent are the following:

1-An end to American occupation.

2-The will of the Iraqi people to do as they please with THEIR nation.

Anything else -- such as the 'shining beacon of democracy in the MENA region' -- is just so much Bushit you, and many others like you, may have bought into, but has little to do with what is happening on the ground. Not like you weren't warned beforehand. In fact, none other than Bush pere, used those very reasons as an excuse not to dethrone Saddam in '91. Namely the ensuing chaos and the regional instability such an action was likely to produce.

Too bad saying "told you so," beyond providing some sense of intellectual satisfaction, does nothing to undo the mess you created.

"I assume you are sitting behind a computer montor in Iraq or Afganastan rebutting my point? If not you assuming anything about me is poor form and irrelevant. adhominem my friend."

And what "point" would that be? That America possesses the mightiest killing machine known to man? And that you could thump Iran on your worse day? Well, excuuuse me, but BO-fuckin'-HOO! Because all that proves is that it is YOU that is totally AND completely missing the point. Which is rather obvious: you are not going to solve anything militarily. I doubt anyone here disputes the might of your armies to win a a traditional war with any other nation on earth. But, again, as it appears evident from you posts and many of the other responses (including my own) what IS in dispute is your contention that "winning" any of those traditional confrontations, will get you any closer of resolving the LARGER conflict, i.e., winning the PEACE.

Not going very well, is it?

"Vietnam was backed with soviet money and equipment. Draft army. Democratic president. Different culture at home. Apples and oranges.

You do not understand the difference in ability and action. Falluja is still standing because we choose not to make it flat. We have the capability for immense destruction and choose not to use it. Think Dresden"

::::sigh::::

More military blather.

First off, who gives a damn about who is financing what in Iraq? The only point that matters is that they have weapons available -- no matter how rusty or antiquated. Taking a wild guess here, but I think even you would have to agree that that is not exactly a problem for the insurgency, is it?

Secondly, "flatten Fallujah"? I'm tempted to laugh this one off...but the inherent madness of writing such a statement to begin with, wipes the smile right off my face. In the meantime, try to think before you write. Yeah you could "flatten" just about any city in the world, but tell me, what will THAT get you? Hint (and you seem to need a clue book in order to keep up): it only took three planes to flatten your overblown ego to begin with. Tell you what, good thing even the current murderous cabal in charge of your country has a bit more sense than you. That's why they didn't "flatten Fallujah"!

"Think Dresden"? LOL! Sorry, on second thought, couldn't help but laugh. The analogy of WW-II to the invasion of Iraq is too absurd to elicit any other response. Hell, 'think Nagasaki' while you're at it.

"Read then post, I never suggested invading, attacking, or even farting in the direction of Iran. But in the event that Iran starts an open war of any type they will lose. Your numbers are flawed, you think every nation in the mid east is going to coordinate a surprise attack? Lots of americans want bush out, how many are picking up guns. Polls are worthless. 80 percent of americans want a new car, does not mean 80 percent are going to steal one."

Again with the same crap. Do you not tire of your own bravado? I am NOT accusing you of suggesting any invasion or even supporting this one. What I've been trying to make very clear, along with many others here, is that MILITARY victories mean squat in the explosive ME situation. If anything, they only help to exacerbate the problem. For it is not the Iraqi army you had to fear, nor the Iranian one, but the rage of a whole culture comprised of 1.6 billion souls.

As for my "numbers being flawed," think again. One need not be actively involved in the actual fighting to lend support to those that are. Why else do you think you've been incapable of putting down the ragtag bands of insurgents that are popping up all over Iraq? Could it be because there's a huge underground swell to help these guys in any way, shape, or form? See, patriotism does not begin and end on the American border. I know, I know, what a concept! But there it is. Chew on it for a while.

"I assume your are not american so here is a tip on our politics. Both parties support the war. If Kerry is elected there will still be a war. Kerry has stated he will double our SpecOp forces. Kerry said he supports the invasion, even after he knew the intellegence was wrong and would do it again.

Here it is in black and white, Iraq ends up with a democratic goverment, monarchy, or dictator friendly to the west and its neighbors we win, Iraq ends up Iran 2 we loose."

Not that I am keeping score, but you finally got one right! Indeed I am not an American, I'm a Spaniard, and a very proud one at that. However, I do your country well, both by virtue of having lived there for over a decade and for having married an American and produced an American offspring. The same fourteen year old I alluded to in my prior message, and the same one that fuels much of my rage for what BushCo is doing to the world.

As for Kerry's plan for Iraq, at first glance, I confess to not being sold on it. But having read up on it in finer detail, it certainly is an improvement over the current estate of affairs. A glimmer of hope in high seas.

And as it couldn't be any other way, your simplistic presentation of same, has little to do with what Kerry really wants to do. Par for the course.

And jeers this time.


PS-Thanks to the others for the welcome. Long time lurker -- since the selection fraud actually -- I'd been disciplined enough NOT to post till this particular time. Figured I already waste enough time on-line, what with reading and writing in a couple of other forums.

But hey! I admit it, I'm weak and I caved in. Fact is, this one terrific site, with real progressives and when I am feeling a bit down from fighting Repugs all day to no avail, this is where I come to get my hopes back up.

And for that, I thank you all. Well, almost all ;o)

[Radius]

122. Great job skirting and distorting.

I took the time to respond to you with out being insulting or rude. If you can not do the same I will not respond to you again.
Adhominem is a logical fallacy and makes a bad argument.


you stated:
But in any of the above scenarios -- as well as in any others you might come up with -- the only two things that stay consistent are the following:

1-An end to American occupation.

2-The will of the Iraqi people to do as they please with THEIR nation.

ME:
I agree. The sooner the better.

Money and oil have everything to do with the UN sanctions, under gb1 and Clinton. Oil for food and the movement of money is core here.

But in any of the above scenarios -- as well as in any others you might come up with -- the only two things that stay consistent are the following:

1-An end to American occupation.

2-The will of the Iraqi people to do as they please with THEIR nation.

ME
I assume you are sitting behind a computer monitor in Iraq or Afghanistan rebutting my point? If not you assuming anything about me is poor form and irrelevant. adhominem my friend."


Your post attacked me stating "And yet, there you sit, guns ablazing from behind your computer monitor" My point unless your are in a combat zone your situation is the same as mine. Sitting behind a monitor blazing something..

I never suggested bombing falluja flat, only noted the capability was there, not used. Red herring.

There is this stuff called logic and it really makes arguing fact easier and fair.

After reading your point about flattening our ego with three planes I have nothing else to say to you. Three planes killed 3000 civilians, that was preceded by attacks in Africa that killed plenty of African civilians. Those people are dead. Bush didn't kill those people, or the people in khobar.

Ego does not have anything to do with power. Look at Spain's reactions to an attack and then look at ours. You may not like military power but in 1942 Spain was red with a big swastika in the center. It wasn't Spain's power that kept you from speaking German or cooking in an oven, depending on your background.

Ego is emotion, you want to argue emotionally pick a fight with your wife. I find emotion clouds truth.

You want to puff yourself up by putting words in my mouth and playing games feel free. I'm sure your elegant, dramatic attack feels great to write but it is devoid of truth and logic. You should pursue a career in writing catalog descriptions. Here is a shoe, use 200 words to describe it.

Believe it, you can vote how you want but Kerry has stated his position and he can't back away from it. If you don't like Kerry's position on the war, vote nader..

chew on this:


Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.


Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.


Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.


Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Hope you get a nice warm fuzzy from your attack on me..

[Sterling]

125. This is good stuff.

Not like that stuff Radius is selling.

[Radius]

126. Got nothing to sell, take it or leave it

I just posted simple facts and this guy goes into a fury and writes a novella in response.

Simple facts:

1) The Democratic ticket supports the war, they plan on inviting the allies (western europe) to join in. Source cited.

2) Iran is not going to attack the US, the US is not going to attack Iran. (reasonable assumption under current political climate)

3) In the event of an Iranian attack they would not be able to sustain a war against the US. Ignoring that the British also would be involved if iran invaded. (source cited)

There is no law that says you can't be a democrat and support a strong millitary. disliking the administration does not mean I hate the millitary or think every thing it does is wrong. democrats have served as war time presidents. Terrorists killing americans is not acceptable and has been going on before the current administration took office. It is a national, not political problem. Who ever is elected this issue will continue to be important. If this position is not acceptable here LMK, I'll leave. Simple.

[lebkuchen]

69. Hell, six year olds are now fire-bombing US vehicles.

There's no more hope for hearts and minds. Under the Bush administration, many more Iraqis and Americans will die. It's a hopeless cause.

[PATRICK]

86. Might be noted

that even Palestinian children are rarely given such an emboldened opportunity or weaponry to hit at the other side.

We are training a whole generation of Arabs to take pride in actually killing a heretofore "invincible" foe. What can't the pentagon get straight on the long term damage this is doing to the image of American might? In every conceivable way the influence of the US is being ground down to nothing.

Those goons who say nuke them all? Yes, even they realize that is the last pretense of power they have do anything over there. For everyone else is is a slow relentless grind in stubborn denial of the facts. When people start saying that in frustration it is only a despicable admission of failure. Partly honest as the current policy is wholly false.

[coalition_unwilling]

103. If I were an Iraqi child

I would probably want to join the Resistance, if only out of a desperate sense of self-preservation. After all, U.N. sanctions on Iraq(maintained with U.S. pressure) were responsible for the deaths of roughly 500,000 Iraqi children from 1991-2001, according to various estimates from world bodies.

[seventhson]

104. In the Ghettoes of Europe Jewish children fought during the Holocaust

and for the Iraqis this is a Holocaust.

It is NOT an insurgency. It is self defense and self preservation.

Hannah Arendt said the odds of survival for Jews in Europe were BETTER if they resisted than if they "went along"

Survival rates for those who "cooperated" were about 10%. For those who resisted it was closer to 50%, according to Arendt.

It is not entirely analogous to the Nazi situation by any means -- but the desire to defend oneself and one's people and one's country is certainly very strong in a twelve year old under attack with nowhere to go (especially if his family, friends and teachers and spiritual leaders are being murdered).

Remember, we backed the Shias against Saddam in 1992-3 (or said we did). These were NOT our enemies until we invaded so ruthlessly.

[coalition_unwilling]

105. Wow, hadn't heard of that

Do you know where Arendt wrote that? Don't remember reading it in Origins of Totalitarianism or Eichmann in Jerusalem.

[seventhson]

129. I believe it is in "Eichmann in Jerusalem"

But I will need to check and my copy is in storage right now.

But that is the only book of hers I read all the way through.

So that is my guess.

She was saved, by the way, by Americans who helped smuggle her out of Europe in 1941-2. I know (knew) some of them. Very cool people who worked with the REAL underground.

[jackieforthedems]

108. That's So Sad!!!

Children who should be playing instead. It reminds me of all the teenagers Hitler had in his Army in WW II.

[babylon_system]

120. That's so sad, their country was invaded by imperialists

These kids remind me of the Zionist-pioneer youth who joined the resistance against technologically superior Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto
http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/about_yad/magazine/magazine_new/jewish_resistance.html

or of Palestinian youth battling the brutality of US-funded Israeli occupation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/20/wmid20.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/20/ixnewstop.html

[seventhson]

130. Similarities between such Jewish resistance, Palestinian resistance and

Iraqi resistance (not to mention the underground in WWII Europe in general) is very telling.

People everywhere fight for freedom. Children being slaughtered will fight back whether it is in Israel, Palestine, the Warsaw Ghetto, or Najaf.

Always the fascists forget that ultimately destroying everyone makes their power meaningless and empty.

But of course it is the same with rapists and serial killers.

The love of death by killers is NOT the same as the love of life which causes children to fight back.

[ElementaryPenguin]

109. I have a MEpublican friend that thinks we can WIN this thing!

WHAT FUCKING MORONS THE REPUKES TRULY ARE!

:puke:

[coalition_unwilling]

112. Ask him what it means "to win"

I'd really like to know how the Repugs define 'victory'

[saigon68]

123. IT IS DEFINED BY ELIMINATING EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES YOU!

IN OTHER WORDS----KILL THEM ALL

[coalition_unwilling]

139. Hope you're being sarcastic???

Those are the same words Kurtz uses in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which should be required reading for all who dream of empire.

[SoCalDem]

128. We will be fighting the sons and grandsons of the ones we kill today

[seventhson]

131. Brilliant collage!

I like it

[Mark Mywrds]

134. The Good Die Young

n/t

[Algomas]

135. I'm so proud to be an American. Can you just imagine how it would feel...

to kill a child as part of your duty to country. This is pure evil that we are unleashing over there. What a disgrace to our flag. We have been led into war by traitors for the basest of motives.

[Radius]

137. Sucks for all involved

Can you imagine being shot by a child because you were doing your job. Fighting in a war that congress and both parties support and plan to continue.

Would you shoot a child who was firing a rifle you with intent to kill you? Think about how you would feel if you were being shot at or your friend just had his head opened by a rifle round.

We shot children when the North Koreans and Chineese used them, we shot german infantry when hitler ran out of men and used boys. To my knowledge the US has never put child soldiers on the fromt lines in a modern war. If you really want to know I'm sure there veterans of those wars who can tell you exactly what it feels like to be shot at by and kill children.

Somehow my point, no child should be involved in combat, has been twisted.

Using kids (<16) because you want press, are out of men, or any reason can not be justafied by any sane person. It is fucking wrong to arm children.

[seventhson]

140. I'd bet that if Iraqis were in your church shooting YOUR children You'd ..

give them guns and bullets to protect themselves.

Your position is untenable in a situation where our troops and military are targeting and killing children.

What is fucking WRONG is to arm troops and send them into to KILL children.

You have it ass backwards.

[Algomas]

141. Of course, if I were under attack I would shoot anybody...

child or not that I considered a threat. I would never forgive myself or the monsters who put me in that position however.

[gatlingforme]

142. Soo, from what you are saying, I gather , is that it's a shame

soldiers must do there duty because you will never forgive them for doing there duty for this country??? I do not get it.

[Algomas]

143. Let me be clear...

Putting our soldiers in the position of killing children is morally inexcusable and shows what cowards our leaders are. I speak only for MYSELF when I talk of forgiveness. I am not a judge of other poor bastards faced with the horror of war against civilians. I cry for the loss all the combatants in this unholy heist.
Does that make sense to you?

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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