There is something we might be forgetting about the Haditha……

[Minnesota Libra]

….massacre. Let me say at the outset – just so that no one gets the wrong idea – that I am not making excuses for any of our troops who may have been involved in the Haditha incident or any others like it.

With that having been said, we need to keep in mind that IED’s cause some of the most horrific injuries. I’ve seen a couple of reports on the aftermath of our returning soldiers who suffered head injuries. Even after some of the surgeries and rehabilitation the lifelong challenges these soldiers will be living with will put a lump in the throat of the most hardened among us.

Why are there so many head injuries? Because that WH effing Idiot and his Handlers had to give the richest of the rich tax breaks and to pay for it he refused to supply our soldiers with the extra helmet padding they needed to protect themselves. So as we are rightfully blaming some soldiers for snapping we also need to scream from the rooftops that Bush should also be held responsible for causing this in the first place. The death penalty would be too good a treatment for Idiot Boy and his handlers in this case.

Second, we all have our breaking point in life. We can take and take and take those traumatic experiences that life throws our way but eventually we reach our limit. That limit, which is different for each of us, is called “the breaking point”. Think of how we would react to seeing buddies who have saved your ass time after time suddenly lying in front of you blown apart by some homemade explosive device. Now multiply that experience by the number of killed and injured soldiers each day in Iraq. Suddenly you realize our young people are seeing things every day of their life that no human being should ever have to witness. All the while you’ve got the “enemy” (the population making the explosive devices) around you wherever you go, you can’t get away from them. You can’t necessarily tell an “enemy” face from a “friendly” face. Most of all you have no place to go to “cool off” you and your buddies are surrounded by this “enemy” and this horror every day and every night of you’re there.

I know all about the fact that we shouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place and I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. On the other that issue belongs in a totally different thread because this thread is about the soldiers themselves who have been pushed beyond their breaking point through no choice of their own. They went to do a job that they were falsely told needed to be done and they were pushed far beyond what should have been asked for.

So I just hope that as this story and possibly others like it unfold we keep our focus on two specific things. First, we need to focus on the lies that got our troops to Iraq in the first place and who told those lies. What level of responsibility do those liars hold in all this? Second, that no human being can be expected to witness the continued horrors that are a daily part of life for our military in Iraq without cracking. When a military member cracks that is a form of “momentary insanity”. Now I’m not saying that actions carried out in “momentary insanity” shouldn’t have consequences at all. Rather, what I’m saying is shouldn’t insanity, even momentary insanity, be held to a different standard than someone who was “in their right mind”??

As for the training in “Ethics and Values” now being proposed, I view all that as merely a way to take the focus off those liars truly responsible for all this. Like I said earlier, our focus needs to be on the liars themselves and how much of this is their responsibility. What should their punishment be, if any, be for everything that happens after the lies?

Comments???

[wtmusic]

1. I have a problem

with those who feel we can't have idiots at the top and bottom at the same time.

The "cracking" idea is nonsense. Shooting children execution-style because they were under stress? Let's give Saddam a free ride because we don't know what stresses he was under either. It's tough to be the leader of a big country! :eyes:

Come on.

[Minnesota Libra]

3. I knew some would disagree and at no point did I say or even..............

....indicate that those doing the actual acts shouldn't be punished. Rather, I'm posing the question of who bears the greatest responsibility the ones who did the deeds or the one/s that lied to get them there in the first place??????

[wtmusic]

8. I didn't mean to imply you

but your question has two scopes and so is apples/oranges. On a smaller scale, can't assume that lying to get us into an unjust war would cause soldiers to shoot civilians in the head.

[Scoody Boo]

20. But some DU members assume...

it justifies insurgent killing civilians.

I don't think murdering civilians is okay by anyone, no matter the justification.

[wtmusic]

21. I have never seen a post (except from you)

which links the two in any way, shape or form. You seem to feel as though every time we condemn Marines for execution-style murders, we need to reproach Iraqis for same.

We're going to be very busy if we need to give equal time to every senseless slaughter in the world.

[Scoody Boo]

24. Senseless slaughter is senseless slaughter...

regardless of who does it. Or am I wrong?

[Catrina]

60. This thread is about the Haditha tragedy. You are equating US troops

with what you call 'insurgents killing civilians'. Others killing civilians in Iraq is not related to this issue. We don't generally judge our troops by the criminal acts perpetrated by others. It is insulting, actually.

If you wanted to explore the issue of 'insurgents' killing Iraqis, and how DUers feel about it, you might want to start a thread on that issue and we'll do some research and attempt to find out who is defending their country, who are terrorists allowed into Iraq by this administration, who are criminals, taking advantage of the breakdown in law and order and why this administration has been unable or unwilling to gain control of the situation in Iraq, in accordance with International law.

It is the duty of the occupying army to protect the civilian population. Why has this war not ended by now? We were told it would take 'months, weeks'. Why are rightwingers not up in arms over the lies that have placed the troops they claim to support, in this untenable situation? Imo, because they do not care about the troops.

This does need to be researched, imo. Even top military personel have stated they do not know who is killing civilians. I would very much appreciate a thread exploring this subject rather than derailing every thread that deals with this separate issue. This way, we can focus on one subject at a time and you will not feel the need to drop the 'insurgents do it and DUers support that' in every thread.

Just a suggestion ~ it certainly is a subject this administration has shown little interest in. Maybe DUers can, as they often do, find some answers. You seem especially interested in the subject so I'm surprised you haven't already started a thread on the subject, to be honest.

[Scoody Boo]

63. Such a long drawn out response...

to simply say that insurgents are justified in what they do. I really do not have to go so deeply into that.

Killing civilians is wrong, not matter who does it. I have never said anything different.

[Catrina]

67. How dare you accuse me of something I did not say! Your actions

as recounted to us here, belie your claim that you object to the killing of civilians.

You supported this war. You voluntarily went to Iraq. We did not, except for the soldiers who had no choice. You may cease your attempts to put words in the mouths of those who oppose this war. It isn't working. And I expect an apology from you ~ unless you can prove the lie you just posted about what I said or believe. I will take a non-apology as an admission that you deliberately attempted to mischaracterize what I said ~

[Scoody Boo]

70. What was it you said?

You went into several reasons about why it is happening and why the US has not stopped it. All I say is regardless of the why, it is wrong. Am I wrong in saying that? That no matter who it is, targeting civilians is wrong.

[Catrina]

92. 'That no matter who it is, targeting civilians is wrong.' ~ Yet you

supported Shock and Awe!



One of the lucky survivors of the illegal invasion of a country that was never a threat to the US.

I take your non-apology as an admission that you lied about what I said. And your unwillingness to start a thread on the subject you appear to be most obsessed with, to mean you, for some reason, are not interested in the truth about what Americans are paying for in Iraq.

According to you, ordinary Iraqi people are blowing up their neighbors' children. Since I have never seen this claim made anywhere else (except by the lunatic rightwing fringe) I am questioning what or who you mean by 'insurgents'.

If there are Iraqi civilians targeting and killing their neighbors' children, they are murderers. Bush claims that Iraq has a government. Why are they not being arrested and tried for murder, as they should be?

And why would you compare common murderers such as those, to US troops and expect anyone else to even consider such a comparison? This is a discussion board, and black and white answers such as 'it's wrong don't question' won't do here.

[H2O Man]

103. Perhaps more important

is that anyone -- and indeed, everyone -- who reads this little exchange can see exactly what you did say, and what you didn't. It is an immature and ineffective debating tactic to try to put words in another person's mouth .... the old "if you disagree with me on 'A', you must be saying 'B'." It represents a shortcut to rational thinking and discussion.

Your points are very well made, Catrina.

[Catrina]

119. Thank you H2OMan ~ I agree and since it rarely works, I think it's best

to abandon it as a tactic and engage in a more honest discussion as to what the word 'insurgents', a word used all the time by this administration, actually means. I have invited Scoody Boo to have such a discussion, but he appears not to be interested ~ :-)

[kiraboo]

69. A long drawn-out response

that covers all bases. I agree with what you write.

[Scoody Boo]

71. No matter who does it...

targeting civilians and children is wrong. I pretty much covered all of my bases in less than a dozen words.

[Minnesota Libra]

89. Scoody Boo, I agree that targeting civilians is wrong but as with........

....anything else in life there is wrong by the guy/gal at the bottom and wrong by the guy at the top. My op tried to explore - not condone anything, but just simply explore the different circumstances that may have caused the "breaking" of the Marines. I'm still wondering who should be more responsible the guy/gal at the bottom or the guys/gals at the top who left traumatized Marines unsupervised long enough to carry these auto cities out. Someone in one of the replies under this thread put it better than I could by saying something to the affect of, "The military is only as good as the people above." Apparently that comment originally came from Randi Rhodes and explains so much.

[kiraboo]

104. I'm with you. But sometimes people think

in shades of grey and need to be dealt with differently.

[malaise]

26. Insurgent killing civilians?

They are all Iraqi civilians. Branding them with a name other than members of a resistance is nothing but politics. Get the fugg out of the people's country.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/01/the_man_from_haditha.php

Edit headline

[Scoody Boo]

27. So the Resistance can kill civilians?

And be justified in doing so? I find civilians being murdered by US Troops, Insurgents and even Iraqi "Resistance" equally appalling and disgusting.

Or am I wrong for feeling that way?

[malaise]

30. It is the US government who used the term

collateral damage for dead citizens of a country it invaded illegally. If it was my homeland, I'd gladly die to get rid of the enemy.

Sp.

[Scoody Boo]

33. So if it was your homeland...

you would be blowing up your neighbors, the churches and malls full of civilians?

[wtmusic]

34. We have yet to determine that it's the resistance who is wantonly

killing civilians. But I've made this point with you many times, and you seem to have great difficulty understanding it.

[Scoody Boo]

35. Well...

I spent a year there. I know who is setting off the IEDs. It wasn't Americans I was shooting at when they were being planted. Saw it with my own eyes and everything. Didn't have to surf around the internet until I found something to back me up. I was there, I saw it.

[wtmusic]

36. So all them brown-skinned fellas is fighting for the same reason, then? nt

[Scoody Boo]

37. Whatever the reason a person...

brown skinned or not, is fighting for, I find it disgusting when any person targets civilians.

I am Mexican and just as brown skinned as the Iraqis. Which is pretty dark by Mexican standards.

[malaise]

51. My nephew was there too

and could not wait to return to his homeland. He will never recover from the atrocities meted out to Iraqis in their homeland by the invaders.

[endarkenment]

57. Did you happen to see the two brit SAS fellas dressed up as

iraqis running around in an iraqi civilian vehicle full of odd stuff before they got caught by the police in basra and before the brits had to blow down the local civilian jail to get them out of there before they got around to explaining exactly why they were driving around basra with a car full of weaponry all dressed up? Huh? Didja?

I'm sure they were just a pair of bad apples all out on their own initiative.

[Scoody Boo]

59. Not saying it does not happen...

it would be silly to say it doesn't. Just as silly as believing that insurgents do not exist at all.

[endarkenment]

66. Actually that is pretty much what you did say.

"I spent a year there. I know who is setting off the IEDs. It wasn't Americans I was shooting at when they were being planted." Implication being that there are no false flag operations going on from our blackops types. I guess that would be because we farm those operations out to the Brits.

[Scoody Boo]

72. I never said that...

I am sure it happens, hell the Brits got caught at it. But to say that there are no insurgents is almost like saying that Rove was actually indicted on May 12th. Silly.

[Catrina]

64. I thought you said you were contractor in Iraq? Why would the Iraqi

people be shooting at contractors, if George Bush tells us the Iraqi people are happy we are there, it's just a few 'terrorists' who are causing all the trouble? Who to believe? George Bush or a 'contractor'?

Many of us don't have to 'surf the internet' either to find out what is going on there. Many have friends and family who were there, who are there and who are telling a different story to yours.

What is a contractor btw? The MSM calls everyone, including mercenaries (Donald Rumsfelds private army, 'contractors' so as not to bring attention to the fact that this administration has sent an army of mercenaries to Iraq.

[Scoody Boo]

76. I will tell you...

I am no mercenary. The people ambushing us or setting IEDs in the path of our convoys were not nessecarily Iraqis. Of course we never stopped to check, we did not take prisoners or willing engage in running gunfights (though several times the guys shooting at us did give chase).

Some places in Iraq were really not too bad. Some places made us curse when were we told we were going to escort a convoy there. I will admit, those were pretty bad.

We were not hired to fight or kill anyone, but to escort convoys. There was a likely chance that we would get shot at or attempts to blow us up would take place so we were armed to defend ourselves.

[Minnesota Libra]

82. Now you're calling our military "mercenaries"?? OMFG..................

...now I've heard it all. :banghead: :wtf: :grr:

[Scoody Boo]

83. Where did you get that?

I am not even calling the contractors mercenaries.

[Minnesota Libra]

94. I didn't mean to direct that comment to you, it was from another.........

.....reply that just surprised the crap out of me. OMG, my entire family would take turns killing me SLOWLY - and then bring me back to life only to slowly kill me again - if I ever even thought of referring to anyone in our military as a mercenary. That was definitely NOT directed at you, in fact my comment wasn't directed at the person but rather their use of the words "military" and "mercenary" all in the same sentence. I will definitely go back and correct that - thank you for pointing this out to me.

[Minnesota Libra]

97. Catrina, I think the use of the word "mercenary in the same sentence......

....with reference to our military is totally wrong, disrespectful, and down right purposely hateful. Coming from a military family where each generation has had at least one member and usually multiple members serving in the military at the same time, I take offense to my military family members being refereed to as potential "mercenaries".

[Catrina]

100. And I take offense that you have completely mischaracterized what I

said, no doubt to the delight of the individual to whom my post was directed. You are not the only person here with friends and family in the military, btw. We are about to bury a true hero, a veteran, a marine, who died as a result of serving his country honorably. He is the second in two years, the other a proud Liberal and a veteran of the Korean War. My step-father-in-law, also passed away, a veteran of WW11 who never received the medals he earned until he was near death. My nephew is a proud member of the USAF. So, please, let's not claim some kind of special status because we have military relatives, or are veterans or active duty soldiers. The truth won't change, no matter what. That's all I am asking for. And if you had read further down, you would have seen that I agreed with your OP, btw.

My post, that you so wrongfully misinterpreted was directed to Scoody Doo, who has consistently, although subtly, attacked DUers here since his arrival about a week ago.

He has admitted to being a 'contractor' in Iraq, not a soldier, meaning he went voluntarily, yet claims to oppose this war. My question to him was to ask if he was a 'mercenary' since we know that Rumsfeld has sent mercenaries to Iraq, causing many problems for the troops there.

How on earth did that question equate our troops with mercenaries? Please explain that to me.

[Minnesota Libra]

109. I simply called into question the issue of using.............

....the word mercenary and reference to our military in the same sentence. I made no mention of you actually calling our military mercenaries, but instead the use of the two terms in the same sentence leaves the impression of one being the same as the other. That was my point.

As for "Scoody Doo" I am not aware of his posts but I will try to check them out because if indeed he went to Iraq as a "contractor" instead of active military then I'd say he asked for whatever he got. If as you say, he went as a "contractor" if he had a rifle in his hand at any time my question would be why?? This is definitely going to take some further reading.

[Catrina]

114. But you called into question, something that was not said.

Either you were addressing someone else, or you did not fully read my post. Here it is:

I thought you said you were contractor in Iraq?

Why would the Iraqi people be shooting at contractors, if George Bush tells us the Iraqi people are happy we are there, it's just a few 'terrorists' who are causing all the trouble? Who to believe? George Bush or a 'contractor'?

Many of us don't have to 'surf the internet' either to find out what is going on there. Many have friends and family who were there, who are there and who are telling a different story to yours.

What is a contractor btw? The MSM calls everyone, including mercenaries (Donald Rumsfelds private army,) 'contractors' so as not to bring attention to the fact that this administration has sent an army of mercenaries to Iraq.

Where is the US military mentioned in that post? The word 'army' refers to the mercenaries hired by this administration. The poster in question stated that he was a 'contractor' in Iraq. I asked him to clarify what a 'contractor' is.

Surely you are aware of the thousands of mercenaries hired by this administration currently in Iraq? And that the MSM and WH officials refer to them as 'contractors' in an attempt to hide their 'private army' from the American people. American citizens did not approve of the billions of dollars being spent, to go to a private army of, sometimes very questionable war profiteers. That money was supposed to be spent on the troops.

The US military itself has complained about this practice, and have stated that these mercenaries are 'running around Iraq shooting up the Iraqi people' creating huge problems for the military.

I hope that clarifies the situation. That the US military was never mentioned in connection with the word 'mercenaries'.

As far as I know, hiring mercenaries is against the law here. If so, it's just one more law violated by the Decider and his cabal.

[Scoody Boo]

115. I take offense at being called a "mercenary"...

by the way. It is not an uncommon practice of our government to hire security people and they have been doing it for decades.

In Korea most US Military bases have armed private security people guarding the gates. All employees of private security companies.

This nothing different than what I did, only that our mission was mobile since it was guarding convoys.

[Catrina]

122. Well, I did not say you were a mercenary, I asked you what you meant by

'contractor'. I asked because we have been so deceived by this administration. This was just one more deception. The use of the word 'contractor' led people to believe (as Minnesota Libra just said above) that they were talking about building contractors. I too thought that for a long time. Why, if there's nothing wrong with hiring 'security people' was there an effort to hide it?

Another deception was the lie that the billions of dollars they requested from Congress was 'for the troops'. Before the election, when Kerry asked for some accountability for this money, they accused him of 'not supporting the troops'. Yet, over and over we heard that the troops were not getting the protective gear they needed or even proper food. Now we are finding out why and soldiers have been seriously injured, some have died because of not having the right armor.

People are tired of this administration's insulting lies. The American people are not stupid. If there are good reasons to hire private security people, or mercenaries, then let them explain that and let the people decide whether they agree or not. All I know is it is obscene how wealthy people have become from this war, except for the troops who are risking their lives and whose benefits are being cut every chance these greedy, war profiteers get.

[Minnesota Libra]

116. In light of what you presented here this is going to sound very..........

....nieve and probably even border on the unbelievable. But I was truly under the impression that the word "contractor" referred to building contract labor not fighting contract labor. Example; building the "American Embassy in Iraq, not picking up a gun and shooting someone. I thank you for taking the time to point all this out because I've obviously missed something.

Who knows, maybe I truly misunderstood what I was reading in the past but I honestly did not realize "contractor" refereed to a "private army" with gun in hand fighting contractors. All I can say at the moment - until I do much more reading - is this is very disturbing. I understand a little more as to what you were referring to though and why it seemed to me you were using "army" (that I took to mean military) and contractor all in the same sentence.

As for "Scoody Boo", I'll have to check and see if he in fact did any more explaining as to what capacity he worked as a "contractor" in Iraq. I do remember him saying he was there for a year. I guess the question is who was signing his checks for that year and what was his job.

:wow:

PS: If you've got some links I would sure appreciate a place to start reading or rereading up on all this. And thank you again for the time you've taken in explaining all this.

[Catrina]

117. No, not naive at all. I thought the same thing until someone explained to

me that they are not building contractors, but private security people. Here are two links and you'll notice that the Washington Post refers to them as 'contractors'. The MSM all refer to them that way, which is why most people assumed what you did. I also thought that all the billions of dollars Bush claimed was 'for the troops' is not. Defense Contractors give out contracts to Security Firms, like Blackwater, and they pay their so-called 'Contractors' approx. $300.00 a day, maybe more. I began to understand why the troops don't have the equipment and food they need.

Security Contractors Under Scrutiny After Shootings

Private security companies pervade Iraq's dusty highways, their distinctive sport-utility vehicles packed with men waving rifles to clear traffic in their path. Theirs are among the most dangerous jobs in the country: escorting convoys, guarding dignitaries and protecting infrastructure from insurgent attacks. But their activities have drawn scrutiny both here and in Washington after allegations of indiscriminate shootings and other recklessness have given rise to charges of inadequate oversight.

"These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force," said Brig. Gen. Karl R. Horst, deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is responsible for security in and around Baghdad. "They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902136.html

In this link, they are referred to as Mercenaries. We are not supposed to know about this, apparently, which is why our media uses the word 'contractors' and we thought they meant 'building contractors'. I know I was shocked when I first learned that this was not the case.

Iraq's mercenaries: Riches for risks

'Cowboy operators'

The field of private security is unregulated, and alongside the more reputable companies, gun-slinging, cowboy contractors - whether foreign or Iraqi - are reported to be setting up shop Iraq.

Established companies dislike competition from smaller entrepreneurs, but also worry that their reputations may be damaged by the gung-ho approach of some of the newer firms.

The lack of regulation means mercenaries can often act with impunity.

Stories abound of heavy handed and trigger-happy behaviour. There are reports that some private security companies claim powers to detain people, erect checkpoints without authorisation and confiscate identity cards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3590887.stm

No wonder there are so many problems in Iraq. It's been turned into a no-man's land with the Iraqi people in the middle of all these foreign mercenaries (I read that some companies have hired people from the worst armies in the world, like from Pinochet's death squads, eg and from the African Apartheid army). I feel so sad for those poor people in Iraq.

I'm sorry also, I assumed you probably knew about this aspect of Bush's war! I understand now why you misunderstood my post! :-)

[Minnesota Libra]

124. WOW, there are no words for what I'm thinking and feeling right...........

....now. Ok, let me see if I can explain what I got from reading the articles from the two links you provided me.

It's definitely needed to have security for a building project like water plants, you know infrastructure stuff. That type of security would be where the building project is going on and would maintain a safe "perimeter" right there.

It's quite another matter though to have "security" that roams the country side shooting people and in the back of the head no less. Now, and only now, do I understand your use of the words "army" (not in caps to refer to our military) and the word mercenary all in the same sentence. :hug:So I apologize for jumping all over you for that.:hug:

No wonder our Army (our military) are being attacked in ever more vicious ways. I mean come the crap on already - how would you and I react if an Army was roaming our countryside but at the same time another "security forces"army were roaming our countryside shooting people in the back of the head?? Oh yes, you better believe, limited walking abilities or not from a bad back, I'd be out there attacking those security army forces and chances are I'd get an Army personnel or two. Now that sounds horrible I know but try for a second to imagine how we would be if we were experiencing what Iraq is going through right now. Yeah, we'd get them and we probably wouldn't always notice the difference in the vehicles they were using either. (The article mentioned that the type of vehicles were sometimes the only defining difference.)

I'm beginning to understand just how truly evil this administration is. Don't get me wrong, I knew they were evil back in 2000. You don't out and out steal an election and not have an evil streak in the person/s. But this is different. This was totally planned from the very beginning, hiring mercenaries in order to keep the number of our Military forces down to a minimum.) So this is a totally different issue. Now I see why so many people at DU are calling for the WH Idiot and buckshot Cheney to be put on trial for war crimes. GUESS WHAT??? I agree wholeheartedly now!!!!

I know, I know, I'm rattling on here about the same old same old but try to understand that I'm in the process of absorbing something I didn't know anyone in my country was capable of.

When we mention Hitler, Pol Pot, Ginus Con, Stalin, etc Bush and Cheney belong on that list as well.

[Catrina]

125. It is a shock when you first find out. I didn't believe it for a while

either, because I thought the media would have reported it. That was about two years ago, though ~ before I gave up on the media altogether. No need to apologize ~ I understand it was easy to think the word 'army' meant the US military when you had no knowledge of Rummy's private army. :-)

hiring mercenaries in order to keep the number of our Military forces down to a minimum

I have wondered about that also. All the generals wanted more troops to keep the peace after the invasion, but Rummy wouldn't hear of it. I think this was all decided long before the war was even mentioned. There is lots of information online about this, but still nothing in the MSM.

This administration likes the idea of a private military because they are answerable to no one. One of these security companies was implicated in Abu Ghraib, Caci, I think. But there were no consequences for them. Later, when everything died down, Caci got a big contract.

If only we had a press that reported the truth, none of this could have happened. The American people would never have tolerated it.

I know how you feel ~ it's hard to fathom the evil we are witnessing ~ I do have hope though, that there are good people behind the scenes working to stop all of this. Like the generals who spoke out recently. It must break their hearts to see what is happening to the military.

[flyarm]

79. as a mercenary?? and you had the right to be there shooting at anyone

for what reason??

i would call you an insurgent..you were in Iraq as an outsider a mercenary...what makes you different shooting at anyone?? you were what i would call an insurgent!

the iraqi's didn't want you there ..they didn't ask you to come...and you were shooting at their people ..in their country..the audacity!!

fly

[Scoody Boo]

84. I have said before, I never shot anybody.

At least I don't think I did. When I did fire my weapon, it was in defense after someon shot at us first or if people planting an IED refused to move away from it.

I am sorry if I did not just let them kill me like I was supposed to. I'm sure your would have mourned me to no end.

[Catrina]

95. You were not a soldier ~ what right did you have to be there? Did you

support this war because of profit? I have talked to other 'contractors'. They describe this illegal war as a 'pot of gold'. We can all fire weapons, it takes no special skill to do so.

If this country is ever invaded and 'contractors' pour in to profit from the suffering and destruction you can bet there will be lots of IEDs aimed at the profiteers. I suspect every member of this board would be involved. You really aren't making a very good case for your claim to oppose the killing of innocent civilians.

[Scoody Boo]

98. I was a soldier, a Ranger once...

it is something I am most proud of. I do not know the contractors you may have talked to. The company I worked for had very strict rules of engagement. We were not engage at anytime and to speed through ambushes if possible unless we were hit with IEDs. If that happened the unaffected part of the convoy in front of the vehicle hit by IEDs were supposed to speed away.

If possible, the unaffected vehicles were to be guided around the hit vehicles so they could continue along with a bare minimum of security people.

The rest of the escort personel would set up a defensive perimeter and await the evacuation of the wounded.

I will admit, there was very good money paid for this duty as it was probably the most hazardous contract duty in Iraq. I started the company I own now with it.

[flyarm]

106. YEAH YEAH..CUSTER BATTLE DID THE SAME AND YA KNOW WHAT..AS FAR AS THE

IRAQI'S ARE PROBABLY CONCERNED ..YOU ARE THE INSURGENTS!!

[Scoody Boo]

110. Well...

I am of little concern to them now as I have been back for a while.

[malaise]

38. Anyone who supported the invasion

Yep and I consider myself a pacifist.

[Scoody Boo]

40. So children and civilians...

who did not openly support the insurgency or fight the occupying force would be fair game?

Let me get this straight. Civilians who supported the other side or stayed nuetral would be legitimate targets of murder by car bomb and beheadings for you.

But soldiers killing civilians by that same standard would be atrocities?

[malaise]

46. Soldiers

you mean invaders right. And I don't support the slaughter of innocents. Study your own history though and tell me what happened to those who supported the Brits.

[Catrina]

65. You seem to be working hard to try to get someone here to condone the

killing of innocent civilians. This thread has gone way off topic again, because of your repeated 'I don't support the killing of civilians, why do you'? posts. That talking point, which has been pointed out to you many times now, is a RW talking point. You have been here for more than a week now. Yet, you don't seem to be getting that it is the Rightwing who support the killing of Muslims, regardless of whether we do it or anyone else.

I would think that someone who claims to be so concerned about the killing of innocents would not be on a board known for its opposition to the killing of anyone who has not threatened or harmed them repeatedly using that RW talking point, but rather on a board that actually does support the killing of innocents.

This war guaranteed the killing of innocents. You supported it you say. We did not. Now you say you do not 'support the killing of innocents no matter who is doing it'. Yet, you did, did you not? Your protestations are a little late. You have also told us you voluntarily went to Iraq. Unlike the troops, it was a matter of choice for you. That seems like a bad choice for someone who is against the killing of civilians. I am having difficulty understanding your position on the 'killing of innocents'. Most people here would fight to the death to protect their country, but would never participate voluntarily in any way in an adventure where the possibility of killing an innocent person even exists.

[Scoody Boo]

74. I do not see the deaths of anyone...

as a talking point. Oh how horrible and less than liberal of me to show equal outrage for all murdered civilians, not just the ones murdered by Americans.

I did not think I had to pass a "core beliefs check" to post here.

[Catrina]

78. Who has made those claims here? You seem to be making things

up out of nowhere. Btw, you supported Shock and Awe, didn't you? Did you think that innocent civilians would not die under the heavy bombing rained down on them for days? How can you say on the one hand 'I am outraged at the killing of civilians no matter who does it' ~ yet admit that they supported that brutal attack on a city filled with innocent civilians who had done nothing to us? How long after the horror was revealed in pictures and documentaries does it take to realize that by supporting that attack, you were supporting the killing of civilians?




The only thing I can feel even remotely good about is that I and millions of people around the world did NOT support this crime. DUers did not and never have supported the killing of civilians ~ and anyone who did, is hardly in a position to attack those who from the beginning, opposed their own government's decision to do so.

[Scoody Boo]

85. I have admitted to being wrong...

in my early support of the war on here. I think I admitted it to you. I still feel no less outrage for murdered civilians.

[Catrina]

113. Good for you. All decent people feel outrage at the murder of civililians

The problem many here have with you is your baseless claims that DUers 'support the murder of civilians'. You've been asked to prove it, but have refused to do so. Any decent person would retract the statement and apologize at this point. I'm sure you're a decent person and will do so ....

[flyarm]

81. yes i9t is an atrocity when our soldiers commit murder!! ..murder!! n/t

[Scoody Boo]

101. That is what I have said all along. n/t

[RagingInMiami]

90. Is this another diversion tactic?

There was a time when the U.S. was supposed to set an example for the rest of the world. There was a time when the U.S. was setting the moral standard for the rest of the world. There was a time when the rest of the world looked up to us.

Maybe it was all bullshit.

[endarkenment]

31. Sometimes yes.

It is all hideous, but you cannot equate the position of the occupation forces (the aggressors) with the legitimate resistance to that aggression. One side is acting in self defense, the other is in a morally compromised position of aggression. That is the general situation. Individual acts have to be evaluated on the own merits within that general context. Our troops are not, for example, committing war crimes by defending themselves against attack, our leaders are committing war crimes for putting them in that situation. Those same troops certainly are committing war crimes when they go around executing civilians.

[Batgirl]

39. The soldiers' actions are done in our name

Of course the murder of civilians is deplorable regardless of who does it.

I'm extra outraged however when the perpetrators are representing my country and their actions are funded by my tax dollars.

[coalition_unwilling]

50. You fail to understand the "strategy" of the Resistance.

One of their strategic aims is to prove to the masses that the Iraqi Government is illegitimate and puppets of the U.S. by demonstrating that the Iraqi Government (with or without the U.S.) is unable to provide security.

You might want to read up on your history of the Vietnam War, particularly the years from 1956-65. U.S. officials actually referred to members of the National Liberation Front (or, in vulgar parlance, the "Vietcong") as "terrorists" when they would detonate explosives in public spaces that killed or wounded civilians. The Nazi occupiers of France from 1941-45 referred to members of the French resistance as "terrorists" also.

[Catrina]

99. You are the only here saying the resistence can kill civilians. Why don't

Post a link to a post that says 'the resistance can kill civilians'! I won't hold my breath.

[coalition_unwilling]

48. Thank you. By calling them "insurgents" we're accepting the

BFEE's erroneous premise that somehow at one point they were happy and then, when they became unhappy, they "surged" becoming insurgents. (The reason this is such a dangerous premise is that it allows space for the "winning hearts and minds" bullshit.) Better, more accurate, nomenclature is to call the movement the "Iraqi Resistance."

[Catrina]

52. And some freepers think that because murderers kill women and

children it somehow mitigates US troops doing it. The constant attempt to equate murderers with US troops is, frankly, insulting to the US military. That's the cry of the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs. 'Oh look, terrorists do it, so why are you angry when we do it?' The Ann Coulter philosophy!

I have way more respect for our soldiers than to make such a comparison.

Show me a DUer who has said it is okay for anyone to murder civilians? You have repeated this 'some DUers' support the killing of civilians by terrorists over and over, and I have searched to find out just which DUer said such a thing. So far, I have found no such thing. Maybe you can supply a link to a post that causes you to make this statement so often. That would be appreciated.

[Scoody Boo]

54. This is not what I am doing...

I am equally outraged at both our troops when they target civilians as when insurgents do it. I am not outraged less at US Troops because someone else is doing it.

[Catrina]

68. This thread is not about insurgents. Start a thread if that's what you

want to discuss. The OP wanted to make the point that the troops are under intense stress and that people need to take that into account when they read about Haditha. I agree with the OP. They are being abused by this administration.

I am not as outraged at our troops as you say you are. I am outraged at those who started this criminal war and those who supported it, putting these troops in the situation they are now in. I agree with the OP.

[flyarm]

77. well there wouldn't be insurgents if we didn't start a war of lies..

and there wouldn't be iraqi's being insurgents protecting their homeland from us ..the "occupiers" if their wasn't an unjust lie of a war!!
and i guarentee if someone was occupying the street you live on ..in your country..you would be making IED's to get them the hell off your street and out of your nation!

fly

[atreides1]

12. The greater responsibility belongs to the killers

The greatest resposibility belongs to those who pulled the trigger and committed cold blooded murder.

And by making your IED argument you were providing an excuse.

The "blame BushCo" excuse is starting to wear a little thin, I would like to see nothing less then Bush and his minions brought down, but everyone wants to give the military a free pass, I say enough!
The military must be held accountable for their part in this.

Here's an example:

If a police informant gives bad information and it results in the death of an innocent person, it's the police who are punished not the informant.

[ender]

7. combat fatigue/"cracking" is absolutely true.

how about letting me shoot at you for a year. you may be a bit jumpy, and do things that you wouldnt normally...

you can not expect humans to react sanely in an insane environment.

unfortunately, we are damaging these young men, and turning them loose back in america. we will feel the crime wave forever.

[wtmusic]

9. Being jumpy is one thing

Murder, over the period of several hours, is another. I don't believe that you don't see a difference.

[KoKo]

10. Yes...execution style killing involves calculation. One could understand

stressed out Marines going in firing radomly in a burst of anger after their buddy had been killed. It would be wrong...but the execution style killing of children.... It goes beyong imagining as being a burst of anger by stressed out soldiers.

[cantstandbush]

41. Saddam was under real stress, the US was after him and there had

been an attempt on his life. If you give these soldiers a pass you have to give Saddam, all the German Nazis soldiers who committed atrocities. I simply ain't buying it. I know enough Marines to know that some are good soldiers and others are rotten to the core and would not be good civilian citizens either.

[Virginia Dare]

2. The reason for this incident...

in my opinion is a failure of leadership from top to bottom, and when I say top, I mean the Commander-in-Chief, who has failed us and our military on such a profound level, it's mind-boggling.

As for the "ethics and values" training, it's total bullshit. Do we have to explain to people that cold-blooded murder is wrong? Do we have to explain that you don't kill innocent children out of revenge?

It is so obvious that this situation is completely out of hand. There is no "winning" this thing. It's only going to get worse. My gut feeling is that there are probably dozens or more of incidents that have occurred similar to this one, but have yet to be uncovered.

There is no question that stress and psychological trauma are contributing factors to the chaos that is unfolding.

What a sad chapter of history we are living in.

[Toots]

6. "ethics and values" Like abandoning your post for the last year of service

What are Bush*'s ethics and values when he can just walk away from his commitments. He signed a paper saying he would continue to fly his fighter jet after training. Why did he not live up to that signed deal he made?

[Virginia Dare]

15. Ethics and Values are antithetical to Bushworld...n/t

[bdamomma]

22. very sad,

Our troops need to come home, they are suffering with PTSD, being pumped up with anti-depressants and sleeping pills to cope, this is what this incompetent and negligent regime has done to them.

Just think: Timothy McVeigh who was in Desert Storm, and John Mohammand both ex-war veterans who came back to the US who had deep psychological problems, how many more are we creating?

[msongs]

4. its a matter of personal responsibility

"I was only following orders" has been negated as a defense post ww2.

trying to blame others to excuse personal behavior is immoral. including others as PART of the blame is appropriate in an
investigation of this sort.

indivduals who engage in illegal behavior should be accountable for their behavior.

99.9% of the people in Iraq, both US military and Iraqis, "witness the continued horrors that are a part of daily life..."
without cracking.

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
mugs and shirts

[Minnesota Libra]

5. What level of responsibility do the liars who got us there bear in it? nt

[endarkenment]

75. They get a free trip to the Hague

for trial on war crimes charges for starting an unprovoked war of aggression and for ordering the murder and torture of the civilian population of Iraq and the individuals who carried out those orders get to go with them.

[Truthy Nessy]

11. All I can think of though is the children who were point blank killed

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-marines27may27,0,7543928.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines
"THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
Photos Indicate Civilians Slain Execution-Style

An official involved in an investigation of Camp Pendleton Marines' actions in an Iraqi town cites `a total breakdown in morality

More from Washington Post

The girls killed inside Khafif's house alone were aged 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1"

In the house with Ali and his 66-year-old wife, Khamisa Tuma Ali, were three of the middle-aged men of their family, at least one daughter-in-law and four children--4-year-old Abdullah, 8-year-old Iman, 5-year-old Abdul Rahman and 2-month-old Asia

[Dhalgren]

13. You, me, and everyone else I have heard or read on this topic

are making assumptions that we have no basis for. The assumption we are all making is that Haditha and atrocities like it, happening all over Iraq everyday, are not "policy". We have no basis for that assumption, period. The terrorizing of selected parts of the civilian population, may very well be US policy. These Marines and other soldiers in country may be following an "unspoken" order to "light 'em up!" We first have to discover what our actual, on the ground, working policy is vis a vis selected parts of the Iraqi public before we can determine who all is to blame...

[Virginia Dare]

16. Good point...

also may be the reason for all the extreme PTSD in the soldiers coming back.

[Dhalgren]

29. Right. Just following orders does not take away the experience

of witnessing or committing unforgivable crimes...

[MindPilot]

53. Remember "Shock & Awe"?

Terrorizing Iraq and by extension the entire ME into submission to US petro-imperialism has been the policy from the start. To the Iraqi population there isn't a whole lot of difference between the terror that rains from the skies and that which issues from the barrel of a rifle.

To us the difference is the former makes good TV, the latter not so much.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Don't you even want to know what the other 30,000 Iraqis died of?

That is what you are forgetting here. Bush admitting to killing around 30,000 Iraqis. Not 24. I think we need a full accounting of how they all died.

If some of them were my family members I would expect their deaths to at least be investigated.

Wouldn't you?

Don

[bdamomma]

23. bush is killing more civilians than saddam did.

[malaise]

56. 30,000?

Are you serious? That number is Bush spin - well over 100,000 Iraqi citizens are dead. Freedom from life is on the march.

[NNN0LHI]

61. Yes 30,000. That is what the psychopath Bush admitted to on television

If there are more, and I agree with you there are more, we should investigate those deaths too.

Don

[flyarm]

87. he also said iraq was an imminent threat and had wmd...nothing that fucker

says is truth..so to repeat his bullshit it to agree with it..that fucker wouldn't know truth if it slapped him in the face..the first december after the war began idiot son closed down the office iraqi's had tracking the deaths of its civilians!!

yes he deliberately shut down the office that was keeping vital records!\

wouldn't want americans to know we killed more iraqi's than saddam would we??

fly

[flyarm]

86. 2 xmas's ago the number was at 100,000..2 years ago...

i have seen upward to 250,000 estimated by several groups tracking the numbers as best they can!

fly

[malaise]

105. That's my understand

30,00 is rubbish.

[flyarm]

107. WORSE THAN RUBBISH.ITS PURE UNAULTERATED BULLSHIT!

just more propaganda from the puppet masters and murderers!

fly

[malaise]

112. Indeed

They can't fool me.

[MindPilot]

17. I agree. If it went on for hours, where was command?

And the number of people on DU--I dare say many who have had no intimate contact with military life let alone combat--who think they can sit in judgment of the men on the front lines really surprises me. Nobody can predict how they would react in the same situation. To use these Marines as a focus for your moral outrage is counterproductive.

Yes these guys screwed up; they went way over top and they should be held accountable. In the military "cracking" is not a excuse. You either did you job according to the rules or you did not.

As Randi said yesterday, "anyone in the military is only as good as the person above them." The standard of the levels of brutality had already been set; Haditha is not an isolated incident; it just happens to have everything the brass needs to simultaneously say to the public "we've eliminated the few bad apples" and a nod and a wink to the Marines.

The real problem is that the brass will lay this on a few hapless enlisted men and walk away clean.

[Virginia Dare]

25. Great point...

What I don't want to see here is an Abu Ghraib style justice scenario, where you hang a couple of the low-level participants who happened to be caught on camera.

This time, it needs to go much higher.

There have been a couple of posts here on DU speculating that perhaps there were general orders condoning the terrorizing of Iraqi citizens. While I don't excuse their actions, as there can be no excuse for them, perhaps it wasn't clear to these people that they were operating outside their orders, and things got way out of control?

This is a serious matter, and there needs to be some deep inquiries. I don't hold out much hope.

[endarkenment]

32. It won't.

That is the pattern. No responsibility. Ever.

[Minnesota Libra]

44. MindPilot, you make a VERY good point by saying....................

....."anyone in the military is only as good as the person above them."

and I fear you've summed it up extremely well by saying, "The real problem is that the brass will lay this on a few hapless enlisted men and walk away clean."

[MindPilot]

49. Thanks, but Randi Roads deserves the credit for that quote

she was talking about this at some length yesterday and essentially saying the same thing: The real responsibility lies not so much with the people who pulled the trigger(s) but the chain of command that let it happen or failed to prevent it. That's how the military works--or at least that's how it's supposed to work.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Good points. I think this is where the allegations of "cover up"

more fully implicate the officers -- as John Murtha pointed out, the chain of command knew within days of the incident that the reports had been fabricated (first that civilians were killed by an IED, then that civilians were killed in a fire-fight with "insurgents").

That six months went by with no real investigation implicates the chain of command, imho, at the very least.

[flyarm]

93. excuse me..we know about mai lai..we know about murder on the

battle field..and we do know murdering children at point blank range..children as young as 1 years old are not setting ied's!

and we know of people who exposed and attmepted to stop such atrocities as mai lai and abu ghraib..

we know what murder is..i do not need to have the unfiorm on or be in iraq to know what murder is..
and none of us need to be in iraq to know what right and wrong is..and i defy anyone to tell me the soldiers that committed these murders did not know right from wrong when they pulled the triggers on children...

and that a cover up was attempted so the american people and iraqi people would not know our military has murderers among them!

it does not take bravery to kill children in cold blooded murder...that is cowardice!

we it seems have become the enemy...we are what was despised in other unjust nations in the past..we have become the evil do'ers...

when we excuse this cold blooded murder..


http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040518

Ignored heroes at Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib who stopped atrocities

[silvertip]

118. Accountable

   Each and every person in the military has both the right
and the obligation to refuse to obey an illegal order, but you
had better be right when you refuse to obey on order in a
combat zone.

[endarkenment]

18. Lidice

The German occupation forces were under a lot of pressure too. After Reinhard Heydrich was killed by a czech insurgent IED attack this is what happened:

"As a further reprisal for the killing of Heydrich, Hitler ordered the small Czech mining village of Lidice to be liquidated on the fake charge that it had aided the assassins.

In one of the most infamous single acts of World War Two, all 172 men and boys over age 16 in the village were shot on June 10, 1942, while the women were deported to Ravensbrück concentration camp where most died. Ninety young children were sent to the concentration camp at Gneisenau, with some taken later to Nazi orphanages if they were German looking.

The village of Lidice was then destroyed building by building with explosives, then completely leveled until not a trace remained, with grain being planted over the flattened soil. The name was then removed from all German maps. Photos of Lidice"

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm

[Ms. Clio]

47. Lidice

Gosh, those Nazis were just under so much stress, poor boys!

[The Stranger]

19. Please stop trying to justify mass murder. And please be truthful.

You tell us you are "not making excuses for any of our troops who may have been involved in the Haditha incident or any others like it," then you spend the next six paragraphs DOING EXACTLY THAT.

[MindPilot]

42. mass murder is mass murder regardless of the method.

While so many rush to judgment to accuse these Marines of cold-blooded murder (like there is any other kind) if the scenario had been a little different there wouldn't be near the outrage.

Hypothetically, what if--instead of going into that house and executing the occupants at point blank range--they would have called in an air strike? The result would've been the same, the same people would still be dead, but the words "execution" or "murder" would never even enter the discussion.

The US has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians with bombs, rockets, mortars, DU rounds and who knows what other kinds of reduce-humans-to-a red-mist-from-a-safe-distance ordnance and that's OK. But do the same thing with a rifle and you become a murderer.

[The Stranger]

58. That air strikes also result in mass murder does not excuse this one.

And there may be a difference in fundamental culpability and humanity between someone who pushes a button causing unknown people to be murdered hundreds of miles away, and someone who walks up, looks terrorized, screaming women and children in the eye, and then proceeds to execute them in cold blood.

[MindPilot]

62. I didn't say it excused it; I said there's no difference.

But if I'm reading your comment correctly, the difference between murder and collateral damage is merely proximity.

[The Stranger]

73. No, both would be murder.

One simply may be more heinous, egregious, more cold-blooded than the other. To look an innocent person in the face before murdering them may very well be different on some level, although the law regards both situations as murder.

[flyarm]

96. ahh no..i consider this entire war a lie and those who have died murdered!

icall * the murderer!!
i call cheney the murderer

i call rumsfeld the murderer..

i call the complicit congress murderers

and i call this war a war of lies


and i want to see each and every one in this administration brought up on war crimes charges and trials!

fly

[RobinA]

111. I've Always Found

the distinction you are referring to curious as well. It's OK to bomb the baby (I don't think we indict bomber pilots) but not OK to shoot the kid point blank in his home? I don't think the baby would cut it this finely, being dead and all.

In fact, you COULD argue that the stressed soldier on the ground is LESS morally reprehensible than the uninvolved pilot in the sky. After all, by civilian standards, the bomber pilot is quilty of 1st degree murder, while the soldier is guilty of 3rd degree at best.

[Minnesota Libra]

80. I knew some would disagree with me but I was also hoping some.............

....might just stop and realize our troops are NOT the only ones to blame in all this. So much for fairness!!

[flyarm]

108. where was the fairness to a 3 yr old child shot point blank range??

each human being knows right from wrong in some degree..but we all know pointing a gun at a childs head and pulling a trigger is wrong..it is murder..

we have become what we despised for a couple centuries..a rogue nation with no morals or moral fiber...we have become a killing machine...be it 1 killed by our moral failure or 1000, or 250,000..it was done in our name..and for that i am profoundly angry and will forever be angry at our leaders, at my fellow americans that it got this far, and at the very soldier who pulled trigger!

fly

[rman]

28. "we are rightfully blaming some soldiers for snapping" -

I don't think many people here blame the soldiers for snapping, but rather blame the people who put the soldiers there in the first place.

[Minnesota Libra]

45. Oh, but read some of the replies and you will see that.................

.....excuses are being made for the "higher ups" while putting all the blame squarely on the Marines who pulled the triggers. I'm not saying they don't deserve blame and punishment, rather I'm saying as one reply put it "a person in the military is only as good as the person above them".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. They are murderers. Just because they went postal doesn't excuse them.

I can understand their stress. I can also understand the stress someone us under from a bullying boss, a nagging spouse, screaming kids, bad drivers, or lousy neighbors. Or the stress that politicians feel that causes them to do things like vote for a war in order to prop up their poll numbers.

Despite understanding it, and taking it into account, it doesn't let them off the hook when they do obviously wrong things. Like shooting infants.

[BooScout]

88. Your whole post is an excuse.....

Why bother to start out the post apologizing and stating you aren't making excuses when that's exactly what you did?

[Minnesota Libra]

91. Excuses are one thing, exploring the gray areas are another nt

[Kazak]

102. I've snapped before...who hasn't?

But, it didn't cause me to go take the lives of defenseless women and children. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for this...I don't care what the circumstances.

[seabeyond]

120. can tell you are a libra. lol. got into thread too late. of course

there are reasons these men did what they did. they are in a horrible situation. there was a reporter that spent a lot of time with them a couple months before this happened and he wrote up an article that these men were in bad shape. this is war. all the ugly of war. they will be punished for what they did. but ..... until in the situation one cant determine their behavior. i have talked to good people that have come back from iraq. they are not feeling liek they are there to help people have a better life anymore. they do not like iraqi's anymore. this war has soured. there is going ot be more of this all over the place. it is not a win siuation anywhere

[prolesunited]

121. By the same logic

we should excuse the actions of wife beaters and child abusers who just couldn't take anymore and snapped.

Sorry. I'm not buying it.

[AJ9000]

123. "...we need to keep in mind

that IED’s cause some of the most horrific injuries."

So do 500 lb bombs dropped from F-16's and destruction caused by cruise missles.

"Second, we all have our breaking point in life. We can take and take and take those traumatic experiences that life throws our way but eventually we reach our limit."

That applies to Iraqi's as well.

They are in hell over there and have lost far more lives than the US has.

And for what?