Photos from Iraq

[Chrisky 0]

Quote

The Nazis would wipe out an entire village, just because a single resistance fighter was captured there.

Preannounced repressions against civilians in case of terrorist attacks (after the announcement of repressions) were covered by the hague convetion at that time. (This doesn't justify what was done, of course)(this was before the 1949 geneva convention).
The idea was to keep the fighting between recognized combattants and give terrorists a good reason not to terrorize. Didn't work, at the loss of civilian life.

The argument for the US carelessness of civilian casualities is the fact the terrorists are hiding behind them. Now, am i the only one to see an analogy in the argumentation and situation?
Point out the differences for me please.

The argument of justification for the occupation is not acceptable, as obviously the terrorists don't share that view.

Note that i am comparing arguments, not actions. You will have to decide on the actions for yourself by the body count.

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[mikkey 0]

The key question is "do you want to be right or do you want to win?"

The trigger for action in Fallujah was the killing and mutilation of 4 US civilian contractors. The actions in other cities was triggered by the occupation of public buildings by al-Sadr supporters.

While the actions taken by the US are understandable and justified it might be the wrong choice. By getting into urban warfare, which is killing civilians and further destabilising the country, the US might be choosing the wrong course of action if it wants to achieve the major objective of being able to leave (soon) and to leave a democratic pro-US Iraq behind.

· Taking a hard-nosed approach is stirring anti-US feelings amongst both Sunnis and Shi'ites and helping radicals like Sadr.

· The escalation has resulted in many foreigners (mostly contractors) taken hostage, which will bring the rebuilding efforts to a halt, which again stops conditions being improved, which again helps the radicals.

· Even members of the US appointed governing council are upset and threatening to resign.

· Part of the new hard line is to go after Sadr. In doing so the US is helping Sadr gaining more influence (there is a power struggle amongst Shi'ite clerics for leadership in a situation where for the first time they have a chance for real political power in Iraq). This makes it difficult for the more moderate senior cleric Ali H.Sistani. If the coalition loses support from the majority Shi'ites then there is real trouble.

· Members of the new Iraqi security apparatus have refused to help in many cases, as they are deterred by the more heavy-handed approach. This is undermining the efforts of building a security framework that can sustain security without US military.

· Key issue is that “Baghdad is not Dallas” – the culture and mentality is so very different and local issues are old and complex. Whilst a majority of Iraqis were happy to see SH and the Baath party removed by the US, they can turn very quickly against them. And in a country that is flooded with arms and explosives you can have a quagmire in no time.

So whilst it is understandable and justified to shoot back and going after the perpetrators when attacked, it might not always be the best reaction if you actually want to be able to leave the place soon with stable institutions in place. A heavy handed approach might be very counter productive in both Iraq and the middle East as a whole. Pictures of dead Iraqi children are a great tool for the recruiters of Al Qaeda in the Middle East. And it really does not matter if they were able to carry an AK47 or not.
I can recommend the latest edition of Time Magazine, which contains a number of articles with some pretty good analysis in regard to Iraq.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[juanesky 0]

Apparently you are the only one seeing "Carelessness", and is due to blindness or misunderstanding basic knowledge of armed conflicts.

Many people have tried to explain it yet you don't seem to be impartial to understand their point of view. Your insistent point is that US forces are mass murderers and kid killers.

Since you don't understand that simply some terrorists fight and hide in Mosques, then just trying to explain it to you is just waste of time.

Why don't you do us all a favor and post also about the civilian targeting by suicide bombers? and see how innocent have been deliberately targeted in these actions?


And in regards to your note, in war there is usually no luxury time to be argumentative.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Chrisky 0]

Quote

Your insistent point is that US forces are mass murderers and kid killers.

Where did i state that? Quotations please.

I just don't see it as a viable practice to shell and bomb living quarters to get 40 people armed with AKs, RPGs and molotovs out of a mosque...

Quote

Why don't you do us all a favor and post also about the civilian targeting by suicide bombers?

Just to annoy the hell out of you.

Where there any in Iraq, btw?

Quote

And in regards to your note, in war there is usually no luxury time to be argumentative

So the situation has been resolved, it's not just a ceasefire???
Ahhm, wait....

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[JohnRich 4]

Do you believe that if war is contemplated, and that it cannot be guaranteed that no innocent children will be accidentally killed, that such a war would be unjustified?

[Chrisky 0]

No. But in a situation where one is in the position to choose the battlefield (as one is if he has Air and Land supremacy and his opponent is unable to threaten that), then all means should be taken to protect the civil population.
To narrow it down, there is NO strategical or tactical need to engage in intensive streetfighting (in which the defender is always in advantage) for a week, putting own troops and civilian population at risk.

Fallujah has basically been a lesson on how not to do it.

The factual results so far:

Mission not yet accomplished.
More resistance fighters than before.
40 US soldiers dead.
600 dead iraqis, among them a unknown number of civilians. (To clarify: i don't state that the majority of them are civilians)
Thousands wounded.

At the end of the day, this played more into the hands of the resistance than helping the US seize terrorists.

I still think the US arguments to justify this war were made up in large parts. Don't get me wrong, i'm happy that SH is gone, but what makes me tick is that after a year, no WMDs have been found, but iraqs oil infrastructure has been restored to prewar level (prewar '91...). Considering the roles of many of the current goverment members in the top offices of the rebuilding companies doesn't help convince me either. I hate the thought that coalition) soldiers and innocent iraqis die for some old mens stock revenue...
Just glad there are none of my buddies down there.

And justification for war in general, well, that is waaay offtopic and would take too much time away from my work to discuss...

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

No. But in a situation where one is in the position to choose the battlefield (as one is if he has Air and Land supremacy and his opponent is unable to threaten that), then all means should be taken to protect the civil population.
To narrow it down, there is NO strategical or tactical need to engage in intensive streetfighting (in which the defender is always in advantage) for a week, putting own troops and civilian population at risk.

Well then, if you were in charge, you would have to surrendur in Iraq. The enemy chooses to hide in the cities, and use the innocents as human shields to protect them.

If you make that off-limits, then there's nothing left to do, except pull out, and let the country dissolve back into religious, tribal and civl war once again.

And with the restoration of tyranny, the execution squads can commence once again, murdering their own countrymen at a pace far exceeding anything being done by the war to free them.

Great strategy.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Well then, if you were in charge, you would have to surrendur in Iraq. The enemy chooses to hide in the cities, and use the innocents as human shields to protect them.

If you make that off-limits, then there's nothing left to do, except pull out, and let the country dissolve back into religious, tribal and civl war once again.

Not true. There are better ways achieving the overall objective then getting into urban warfare and turning the majority of Iraqis against you.

Notice the smart tactics used by the US during the “proper” war last year. They bypassed Sunni “hot beds” and isolated them instead of getting dragged into urban warfare.

In many ways that is exactly what they should have done instead of the current action. The alternative IMO would be:

· Isolate places like Fallujah until the Iraqi security forces are strong enough. (I think it would be more acceptable for Iraqis if it is their own troops taking the militias on).

· Try to keep the country as calm as possible while you are rebuilding infrastructure and create jobs. The best recruiting grounds for militias and insurgents are unemployed disillusioned young men.

· Use clandestine and targeted actions against the radicals instead of sending a whole division of Marines in. I believe it would work better.

· The worst result of the current escalation is the hostage taking. Foreign contractors are fleeing the country, which is putting rebuilding efforts on hold. This again stops job creation and improvement of basic services. Ideal situation for the radicals to recruit in.

· I would try to get more clerics (both Sunni and Shiite) on my side. The influence of clerics and what they say during prayer cannot be under estimated.

· Listen to what many allies and pro-US Iraqis are saying. From what I have seen they do agree with the above. The heavy handed approach does not work and might lead to a Lebanon type of situation. If the US goes into street fighting in the holy city of Najaf in order to get Sadr, they will turn the whole Shiite population against them.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Guest]

Quote

>In war there is no Colateral damage . . .

We meant to kill everyone at that wedding? And the 40 people who were praying in the temple? I'd avoid pushing that angle if I were you.

We make mistakes; our bombs do not always target only evil terrorists. Sometimes they kill kids who did nothing more than be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is the cost of war.

I saw today that Al Jazeera refused to show footage of the Italian hostage being murdered by the ragheads because it was deemed "too offensive". It's pretty obvious that they are very selective about what "offensive" is.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[shunkka 0]

i hate the WAR
Mr Bush pls stop it

-------------------------
"jump, have fun, pull"

[billvon 2,446]

>i hate the WAR
>Mr Bush pls stop it

Lots of people want that, but the time to stop this war passed over a year ago. We're there now and we have an obligation to the people of Iraq (especially to the families of the people we killed) to leave them with a stable government. It may take ten years and ten thousand lives, but we can't shirk this responsibility any more than you can father a child and then not want to raise him. The time to decide you didn't want kids is before you have unprotected sex, not a year after the kid is born.

[shunkka 0]

Quote

>The time to decide you didn't want kids is before you have unprotected sex, not a year after the kid is born.

very very well said

-------------------------
"jump, have fun, pull"

[sweetpig 0]

I agree with some of the other people her by telling you to shut up....seeing pictures of dead Americans and people cheering incites a burning hatred in me for the people cheering that no form of reason can overcome.

Even though my rational mind knows war is wrong and there is no good reason for all the deaths, those pictures make me want to rally around any government leader who is willing to lay waste to the people who laugh and cheer at my countrymens death.

I've seen the point of greed brought up a few times here. And this is just a rambeling suggestion.

How much does this war cost, and all of our military occupation in the middle east? Iraq, Asscrackistan, military aid and forign internal defense aid to all those countries. 50 billion a year, 100 billion a year, minimum?

Why not spend that money on developing an alternate source of fuel?

If we took away all their income by developing an alternate sorce of power to oil it would completely make that area of the world reflect ecconomically what it is visually, a barron wasteland filled with toothless ugly women.

I mean come on, there isn't actually a world wide demand for Persian rugs and hooka pipes. Those jokers would be even more broke than they are, and Osama with his multimillion dollar inheritence, how did he get that, his father is a big contractor, but who would he build for if the governments had noting viable to sell. It would be like central Africa, and we don't seem to care much when those bastards kill them selves by the millions.

"Oh no, all the Sunnis killed all the Shiites, damn, could you super size that for me?" We wouldn't give a fuck.

We'd see if there was anything in the Koran about irrigation farming, because there certainly wouldn't be enough money for them to buy weapons and export terrorists when they couldn't feed their children.

I mean blowing them up costs the civilized nations of the world big bucks, but letting them starve in their own sqular. The sweet price of free.

The only real people who would suffer would be the Jews in Israel. Because, of their prosperity they'd be hated and attacked. And hell those Jews are good people, we could give them Alabama, I mean why not have Alabama as the new holy land.

"Here you go Palestine here is your preatious holy land, we don't need your oil anymore, and by the way, I don't know if we told you this but it's just a big desert too, guess what you got your way and you got your holy land back but your life still sucks and you still have to shit on the floor, we are taking our toilets and blowing up the water treatment plant"

We should pull out all of our land troops, continue indiscriminantly bombing middle eastern cities each time they attack us as a deterrent to terrorism, and take the savings and develope an alternant source of universal power.

We could offer the American auto industry (the people greasing the legislative palms not to change the fuel situation) the economic trade rights to all the Persian Rugs and hooka pipes, maybe half the Opium, that should tide them over. And move on.

Just another view point posted in anonymity. one hippy dirtbag to another.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

How much does this war cost, and all of our military occupation in the middle east?

You know, that attitude is what downsized our nation's intelligence gathering ability and was a primary reason why we didn't have good direct data on 9/11 until the towers fell. Sure, we knew something was going to happen, somewhere at some point...a lot of good that does.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Unstable 8]

Today on the O'Riley Factor Bill O'Riley brought up a VERY interesting point That I want to share with everybody here....
His angle was this - A dictator can only rule by fear to a certain point - after that, the people of a Nation have a breaking point in which they will rise up and revolt against their leader. He used the Former Soviet Union as an Example. Point being, there are some socioeconomic reasons that a people Allow a dictator to stay in power.... Take North Korea for example, the people must have some reason to tolerate it for as long as they did - they march around praising their godlike leader and many of the people are starving in the streets while the upperclass dine on 9 course meals...... What about Sadam allowed him to stay in power so long? He was Obviously a Monster to his people, what made them put up with him like they did?

I am sorry, I know that I have not used proper procedures to cite my sources, could somebody add to my comments?

=========Shaun ==========

[Unstable 8]

It's disturbing to think about what some of those captions read....

=========Shaun ==========

[billvon 2,446]

>What about Sadam allowed him to stay in power so long?

Money. He has oil; he sold it directly to unscrupulous companies (including US companies.) He intercepted aid shipments that came in under the oil-for-food program and used the food to help control the people. As long as we are willing to pay nearly any price for oil, the governments of the Middle East will have a ready source of cash - and that goes for both the good and the bad ones.

[quade 3]

He wasn't as big a monster to ALL of the people of Iraq as we've been lead to believe by some of our leaders. Sure he gassed "his own people", but in reality those weren't "his people" at all. Technically they lived within the borders of Iraq, but they were ethnically, ideologically and religously different than the people that he really cared about and supported him. -Some- people did very well under Hussein's rule.

Part of the reason we have problems in Iraq is that the people that were prospering under Hussein are now OUT of power, want some of that back and are affraid that the new people in power will treat them the way they had been treated under Hussein's rule.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Unstable 8]

Quote

As long as we are willing to pay nearly any price for oil, the governments of the Middle East will have a ready source of cash

This seems to be the root of the problem, but that is another thread all by itself...

=========Shaun ==========

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Technically they lived within the borders of Iraq, but they were ethnically, ideologically and religously different than the people that he really cared about and supported him. -Some- people did very well under Hussein's rule.

Funny, but that sounds strangely familar, I think I might of read of that happening once before...or maybe it was something I saw one night on the History channel...

I can't tell you who it was, since it would break one of the universal "rules" of internet debating and would spell the end of this thread.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 3]

Well, there IS a valid parallel to be made with The Brown Shirts, so, in this particular case I don't think invoking the name of he who must not be named is that big of a deal.

Oh . . . and the Death Eaters in the Harry Potter books is also a good parallel.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

He wasn't as big a monster to ALL of the people of Iraq as we've been lead to believe by some of our leaders...... -Some- people did very well under Hussein's rule.

Sure, no one could rule an entire country without his loyal fan base and a bunch of thugs who hate everyone else.

Quote

Part of the reason we have problems in Iraq is that the people that were prospering under Hussein are now OUT of power, want some of that back and are affraid that the new people in power will treat them the way they had been treated under Hussein's rule.

Of course; criminals all think everyone else is as depraved as they are. Anyone else wit a guilty conscience suffers from a milder form of this truth.


[neener 3 year old mode]
quade mentioned Hitler, quade mentioned Hitler.....
[/neener]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Oh . . . and the Death Eaters in the Harry Potter books is also a good parallel.

Even though I'm a big Harry Potter fan, read the 5 3 times now, I didn't think of that. That's a funny but strangely true parrallel.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."