NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/fall-a03.shtml

The real lessons of Fallujah

The images beamed around the world Wednesday of enraged Iraqis in Fallujah celebrating over the mutilated corpses of American paramilitary operatives were horrific. But it must not for a moment be forgotten that they are the product of an horrific, illegal colonial war. History is replete with examples of occupied peoples, in the face of the systematic brutality and overwhelming military superiority of foreign invaders, giving vent to their indignation and outrage in such acts of retribution.

No one has less of a right to adopt a posture of moral superiority than those in the American political establishment, military brass and media who are responsible for the brutalization of an entire society, carried out for the most crass and sordid economic and political ends. The US takeover of Iraq is, in every sense, a criminal enterprise. Everything connected to it is foul and degrading. It marks one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the United States.

Only eight months ago, it should be recalled, the US government published photos and video clips of the dead, bullet-riddled bodies of Saddam Hussein’s sons, Uday and Qusay, two days after American soldiers had gunned them down. In that case, there was nothing spontaneous about the gruesome spectacle. It was a calculated and premeditated attempt to intimidate and demoralize Iraqi opponents of the US occupation.

Political leaders, Democratic and Republican alike, and all branches of the media, “liberal” no less than conservative, declare that the mountain of lies that accompanied the war must not be allowed to detract from the solemn task of completing the pacification of Iraq. In the wake of the events in Fallujah, they demand, with varying degrees of bloodthirstiness, an intensification of the killing, incarceration and terrorizing of the Iraqi people.

This necessarily entails a continuous stream of new lies to compensate for the exposure of the old ones. One of the lies that was peddled in the run-up to the war was the claim that the vast majority of Iraqis would welcome a US invasion. Throngs of Iraqis would line the roads to shower the GIs with bouquets, the American public was told. It didn’t take long for this myth to be exploded, as helplessly outgunned Iraqi fighters put up an unexpectedly fierce resistance in the opening days of the war, and mass protests against the US erupted within days of the American takeover of Baghdad.

Since then, new myths have been concocted, including the claim that the anti-US resistance represents the sentiments of a small minority of terrorists, “Saddamists,” criminals and incorrigible foes of democracy. The enemies of civilization, the story goes, are concentrated in the so-called Sunni Triangle west of Baghdad, and the worst of the lot are in Fallujah.

The myriad of facts that contradict the official line are systematically suppressed by the unspeakably corrupt and venal American press. How many Americans, for example, are aware that on the same day as the killing and lynching of the four Americans in Fallujah, some 10,000 Shiite Muslims marched in Baghdad to protest the American closure of an anti-American newspaper and demand an end to the US occupation?

The purpose of this grotesque distortion of the real situation in Iraq is not difficult to fathom. Those who are fighting in their own country to drive out the foreign invader are, by dint of their resistance, criminals who deserve to be, in current parlance, “killed or captured,” and the very fact of their resistance justifies more repression and killing by US forces.

This in a country where thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, have already been killed in the course of the present war—a measure of the US government’s contempt for Iraqi life is the fact that it does not even bother to give out a count of the war dead—and countless thousands more have lost their jobs, their homes and any semblance of a decent existence. Many of the dead and injured are the victims of horrific anti-personnel bombs and missiles, dropped by the US for the express purpose of mutilating human flesh. As for the toll of Americans, the official count of US soldiers killed has now reached 600.

The language and tone adopted by US officials and the media in response to the events in Fallujah leave no doubt that massive and bloody reprisals are in the offing. The US proconsul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, called those who killed the four Americans and gloated over their mutilated bodies, “ghouls and cowards.” Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt in Baghdad said the people of Fallujah “just don’t get it,” labeled them as “bestial,” and declared the US military response would be “precise” and “overwhelming”.

Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post ran an editorial that branded the crowds in Fallujah as “thugs,” “savages,” and “cold-blooded, ruthless barbarians”. It accused the Associated Press, which distributed the video and photos of the attacks on the American corpses, of being in league with the insurgents.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized that all those caught on film in Wednesday’s events should be rounded up and “visibly” punished, with irregular combatants brought before military tribunals and publicly executed. The newspaper demanded as well that the US occupation authority crack down on radical anti-American Shiite clerics and their followers.

The Journal’s online edition carried a commentary by regular columnist Peggy Noonan, calling the teenagers who cheered under the bridge where the charred remains of two of the Americans were hung “human expressions of nihilism,” and demanding that the US marines go into Fallujah, “arrest or kill” the youth, and blow up the bridge.

The Washington Post’s language was more restrained, but its message was essentially the same. It called for US commanders to “step up the counteroffensive against the Sunni insurgency” and disband the Shiite militia of the anti-American cleric, Moqtada Sadr. It praised Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for solidarizing himself with the Bush administration on the war and declaring, “[W]e are united in our resolve that these enemies will not prevail.”

The line of the Post, that more US troops are needed in Iraq, is increasingly the line of the Democratic Party, which has adopted a posture of unqualified support for the occupation and focused its criticisms of the Bush administration’s war policy on complaints that the White House is being too timid in the application of military force.

In line with the preparations for an intensification of US military violence, the White House issued a public warning to the media to further censor its coverage of the Iraqi conflict. At his press briefing on Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan enjoined news organizations to “act responsibly in their coverage”.

Among the few objective accounts in the press was a piece published Friday in the British Guardian newspaper by Jonathan Steele. Writing from Fallujah, Steele provided an account of the brutal actions taken by the marines in the days that preceded Wednesday’s eruption of popular hatred. “But as residents ushered reporters into their homes a few days ago,” he wrote, “shortly before this week’s attack on four American security guards (though mercenaries might be a better term), it was clear that deep communal anger was lurking here, and had reached the boiling point. They wanted to show the results of several US incursions over four days and nights last week.

“Rockets from helicopter gunships had punctured bedroom walls. Patio floors and front gates were pockmarked by shrapnel. Car doors looked like sieves. In the mayhem 18 Iraqis lay dead. On the American side two marines were killed. It was the worst period of violence Fallujah has seen during a year of occupation.

“So this week’s retaliation comes as no surprise. The cycle of violence that US troops unleashed looks and feels increasingly like Palestinian rage in the face of excessive force by an occupying power.”

Calling the American response to Iraqi resistance “heavy-handed and indiscriminate,” Steele went on to describe “the chaos the marines left after sleeping in [a Fallujah resident’s] house. Cupboards were ransacked, a computer had gone, and empty brown bags which once contained army rations littered every room. He was particularly upset at finding them in his teenage sister’s bedroom.”

Steele concluded: “Not many of Fallujah’s people are former Baathist loyalists, as the Americans say, nor have the Americans produced evidence of large numbers of foreign ‘jihadists.’ They are ordinary families, driven by nationalist pride, and increasingly by a desire to retaliate when their homes and neighbourhoods are violated and their relatives and friends killed.”

In point of fact, the people of Fallujah have borne the brunt of the US-led vendetta against Iraq for more than a decade. In the first Gulf War of 1991, a British jet dropped a bomb on the town, killing 200 civilians. In the current war, Fallujah was the site of the first major massacre committed by US forces after the fall of Baghdad. On April 28, 2003, US troops fired into a crowd of unarmed protesters, killing 13. Two days later troops fired on a second demonstration, killing another 3 Fallujah residents.

In between these atrocities, the people of Fallujah suffered under the brutal 12-year regime of sanctions imposed at the behest of Washington. The denial of food, medical supplies and other necessities took an incalculable toll on Iraqi society, killing, according to United Nations estimates, more than a million people, including hundreds of thousands of children.

As for the four Americans killed in downtown Fallujah on Wednesday, the media designation “civilian contractors” is highly, and deliberately, misleading. They were mercenaries, among the 15,000 soldiers of fortune who have poured into Iraq under contracts granted by the US occupation authority to private paramilitary security firms. These four were employees of Blackwater Security Consulting, a subsidiary of Blackwater USA. The vast majority of these privatized soldiers are veterans of various special operations outfits in the US military. They are invariably armed when carrying out their duties in Iraq.

Blackwater, founded by two Navy SEAL veterans, owns a 6,000-acre compound in northeastern North Carolina, where both private mercenaries and US military personnel receive specialized training in counter-insurgency techniques. Blackwater signed a $35.7 million contract to train US Navy personnel in 2002. It is currently training Chilean commandos who served under the fascist dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet for service in Iraq.

Of the four Blackwater men killed in Fallujah, one has been identified as an Army veteran, and another as a former Navy SEAL. According to the company, they were employed to escort food convoys to US troops in the Fallujah area. Why they were driving two SUVs on their own in the town center on Wednesday has not been explained.

The Guardian article quoted above carries the subtitle: “The US is creating its own Iraqi Gaza.” The comparison between the methods of the US in Iraq and those of Israel in the Gaza Strip and West Bank is apt. In the coming days and weeks the methods of mass reprisal, assassination and exemplary punishment will become all the more commonplace as the US seeks to crush the deep-going and broad opposition of the Iraqi people to a savage colonial occupation.

As is being said with increasing frequency and openness in the press, the prospect is for years, if not decades, of such bloodletting. The implications for the people of the Middle East and well beyond—not least, the American people—are incalculable and ultimately catastrophic. The events of this week in Fallujah underscore the necessity for an independent movement of the American and international working class against war and the imperialist system that breeds it.

Good article.

To me, one of the most disterbing things about this is that only now are we learning how much of a mercenary presence is in Iraq... it is really quite remarkable that the military is becoming "privatized," I don't think people realize how real these black-ops groups are... I mean, the government is technically accountable for any actions they carry out! What's worse is, the Blackwater group is training national law enforcement along-side Navy SEALs! Do we really want our police to operate like mercenaries?

Who's suppose to police the police?
The coast guard?

"Lessons?" 4 civilians were ambushed in a warzone. It's a shame, but not an earthshattering development. You have 390 or so soldiers killed in a year by the enemy, as opposed to around 650 that die in a typical year throughout the military by way of accidents, training-related or otherwise. This isn't Viet-Nam, no matter how hard some people want to make it seem that way. My ole Grandpa lost far more than 390 of his friends and fellow soldiers on the first day on Kwajalein, and it cost the Japs a few thousand of theirs. When you're dead, you're dead. The arabs can go and drag bodies around all they want, but it means nothing. They've been beaten badly, plain and simple. Their day is over. :wink:

tl; dr

tl; dr

Wuh? :?:

too long; didn't read

too long; didn't read

Nice. You didn't miss much. :wink:

"Lessons?" 4 civilians were ambushed in a warzone. They were ambushed, but they were not civilians. These were men on a Recon mission for the black-ops mercenary group, Blackwater. They are not only made of the best Navy SEALs and Army Rangers, they train the Navy SEALs and Army Rangers...

It's a shame, but not an earthshattering development.

It is of profound importance. It was no accident that the black-ops wing of the military (that actaully operates outside of the military) were in Fallujah. You may know that Fallujah is the heart of the Sunni Triangle and is a hotbed for Baathist loyalist and anti-Americanism. Many of the remaining Iraqi Royal Guard and Iraqi Secret Service reside there. There is a four way Civil War in Iraq (Kurds for Kurdistan, Sunnis for domination, Shiites for clerical rule, US for "democracy") and as a result there is a lot of guerrilla fighting. The Navy SEALs and Army Rangers fought the Viet Cong (the Communist/Terrorist group that operated inside of South Veitnam) in one war... now, Blackwater is fighting the Baathist in Iraq. To see members of the this elite team mutilated on TV in front of a cheering crowd says many important things: it says that our most powerful fighting force is fighting an up-hill battle (no matter how "well" the conventional war went) but one of the most frightening implications is that the huge crowd of Sunnis knew who they were killing... Think about it... we have an average of one soldier dying a day in Iraq and little Iraqi fanfare... here we have four of our black-ops guys mutilated in front of a cheering audience. This is not a war against amatures, they Sunnis know who they are fighting and it is time we realize the same.

"Lessons?" 4 civilians were ambushed in a warzone. They were ambushed, but they were not civilians. These were men on a Recon mission for the black-ops mercenary group, Blackwater. They are not only made of the best Navy SEALs and Army Rangers, they train the Navy SEALs and Army Rangers...

It's a shame, but not an earthshattering development.

It is of profound importance. It was no accident that the black-ops wing of the military (that actaully operates outside of the military) were in Fallujah. You may know that Fallujah is the heart of the Sunni Triangle and is a hotbed for Baathist loyalist and anti-Americanism. Many of the remaining Iraqi Royal Guard and Iraqi Secret Service reside there. There is a four way Civil War in Iraq (Kurds for Kurdistan, Sunnis for domination, Shiites for clerical rule, US for "democracy") and as a result there is a lot of guerrilla fighting. The Navy SEALs and Army Rangers fought the Viet Cong (the Communist/Terrorist group that operated inside of South Veitnam) in one war... now, Blackwater is fighting the Baathist in Iraq. To see members of the this elite team mutilated on TV in front of a cheering crowd says many important things: it says that our most powerful fighting force is fighting an up-hill battle (no matter how "well" the conventional war went) but one of the most frightening implications is that the huge crowd of Sunnis knew who they were killing... Think about it... we have an average of one soldier dying a day in Iraq and little Iraqi fanfare... here we have four of our black-ops guys mutilated in front of a cheering audience. This is not a war against amatures, they Sunnis know who they are fighting and it is time we realize the same.

Okay, that's your theory. I'm adressing the conventional version of what happened. If firing an RPG into a sedan driving through a crowded area is professional, then fine, the Sunnis are professionals. In other words, they aren't. They are few, and fewer each day, and they've already lost. Our losses are simply laughable on a relative scale, but if it's an atrocity to you, then it's an atrocity to you. To me, it was a slow news-day. :wink:

Okay, that's your theory. I'm adressing the conventional version of what happened. If firing an RPG into a sedan driving through a crowded area is professional, then fine, the Sunnis are professionals. In other words, they aren't.

What, short of identifying a black-ops team and sucessfully taking them out, would you consider "professional"?

They are few, and fewer each day, and they've already lost. Our losses are simply laughable on a relative scale, but if it's an atrocity to you, then it's an atrocity to you. To me, it was a slow news-day. :wink: This is the kind of blind-eyed/wishful-thinking that kept us in Vietnam for over a decade...

I'm adressing the conventional version of what happened. Oh, the one about the Food Delivery guys who were killed for no apparent reason... I'm sorry, I don't have time for fiction...

Okay, that's your theory. I'm adressing the conventional version of what happened. If firing an RPG into a sedan driving through a crowded area is professional, then fine, the Sunnis are professionals. In other words, they aren't.

What, short of identifying a black-ops team and sucessfully taking them out, would you consider "professional"?

They are few, and fewer each day, and they've already lost. Our losses are simply laughable on a relative scale, but if it's an atrocity to you, then it's an atrocity to you. To me, it was a slow news-day. :wink: This is the kind of blind-eyed/wishful-thinking that kept us in Vietnam for over a decade...

I think you're giving far too much credit to these people. It's almost an impossibility that the Iraqi faction that shot at the car had any idea who they were or what they were doing. But believe what you like. The fact that we've lost 390 or so soldiers, (less than we lose in an average peacetime year), is not "wishful thinking," it's the fact. If we weren't accomplishing anything, I might agree with some sour analogy, but this isn't the case either.

I think you're giving far too much credit to these people. It's almost an impossibility that the Iraqi faction that shot at the car had any idea who they were or what they were doing.
Why, because they're a "backward people?" This sort of thing happened all of the time in Vietnam with the VC... the Iraqi Sunnis are not from a third-world lineage... they've fought three major wars in fewer decades... they almost assassinated our 41st President and they had spys in Washington... I don't think it is a leap of anything to suggest that they knew what they had done and saw the significance of it -- even if you can't

But believe what you like. The fact that we've lost 390 or so soldiers, (less than we lose in an average peacetime year). Explain this one to me...

dp

I think you're giving far too much credit to these people. It's almost an impossibility that the Iraqi faction that shot at the car had any idea who they were or what they were doing.
Why, because they're a "backward people?" This sort of thing happened all of the time in Vietnam with the VC... the Iraqi Sunnis are not from a third-world lineage... they've fought three major wars in fewer decades... they almost assassinated our 41st President and they had spys in Washington... I don't think it is a leap of anything to suggest that they knew what they had done and saw the significance of it -- even if you can't

But believe what you like. The fact that we've lost 390 or so soldiers, (less than we lose in an average peacetime year). Explain this one to me...

They failed at assassinating Pres. Bush I in Kuwait and fought the Iranians, under Saddam, with Saddam's backing. Saddam's gone. The attack took no more skill than the attacks by German kids given Panzerfausts to shoot at Allied tanks. Almost all of our casualties have come from mines, which have killed far more Iraqi civilians than anything else. If the veterans of Saddam's wars are running the "resistance," then they're doing a poor job. And 390 killed is far fewer than the number that die in the average peacetime year. My dad's unit lost more soldiers during a 72 than during the first few years of the Viet-Nam conflict, and he was a helicopter crew-chief, not exactly the safest MOS during the war. It's a shame when we lose a soldier in Iraq either way, but it's still innacurate to give so much credit to a few guys with an RPG, shooting at civilians.. I never said they were a "backward people," but they aren't professionals either.

An interesting article, if a tad too much frothing at the mouth for my tastes.

Long story short; the article is saying that a PR blitz is being made to stir up rabid bloodthirsty patriotism within america to justify and gloss over whatever response the military takes for the loss of some allied mercenaries.

...Yeah, so? Blackwell is well known, and the Neoconservitive elements of the US have longstanding ties with such private security firms. The fact that the reprisal attack didn't come immediately shows admirable restraint within the US military; other colonial powers often did not. A measured and productive response to the killings will help more than sitting on our thumbs until the US pulls out after all.

The misrepresentation of the identities of those killed and the calls for bloodshed are a little out of line, I agree, but it would be politically difficult to explain the existence of mercinaries to the voting public at the best of times. I personally found the calls for blood disgusting, but then warmongering and delighting in death are best left for videogames I find; less people get their feelings hurt that way.

the real lesson, as far as I can tell, is that the bodies of americans are more significant than the lives themselves. Many people have died in this war, but until atrocities were comitted upon the bodies themselves, it wasn't THAT big a deal. I don't know what to think about this at all.

the real lesson, as far as I can tell, is that the bodies of americans are more significant than the lives themselves. Many people have died in this war, but until atrocities were comitted upon the bodies themselves, it wasn't THAT big a deal. I don't know what to think about this at all.

What it means to me is: the iraqi Sunnis needed a morale boost, and a photo-op, but instead they're going to pay in blood, while accomplishing very little. Defacing the dead is pretty low, I'd agree, but maybe it'll energize the kids more than their Jihad comic-books could. I hope it does. Kill 'em young, while they're acting on impulse instead of training, I always say. :wink:

the real lesson, as far as I can tell, is that the bodies of americans are more significant than the lives themselves. Many people have died in this war, but until atrocities were comitted upon the bodies themselves, it wasn't THAT big a deal. I don't know what to think about this at all.

What it means to me is: the iraqi Sunnis needed a morale boost, and a photo-op, but instead they're going to pay in blood, while accomplishing very little.
So you are advocating pay back? This has been proposed as per an MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/

Kimmitt said U.S. forces didn’t respond for fear of ambushes and the possibility that insurgents would use civilians as human shields. “A pre-emptive attack into the city could have taken a bad situation and made it even worse,” he said.

“We are not going to do a pell-mell rush into the city. It will be deliberate, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming. ... We will plan our way through this and we will re-establish control of that city. ... It will be at the time and place of our choosing,” he said.

Defacing the dead is pretty low, I'd agree, but maybe it'll energize the kids more than their Jihad comic-books could. I hope it does. Kill 'em young, while they're acting on impulse instead of training, I always say. :wink:
"Defacing the dead is pretty low", but "kill'em young" is okay? What kind of twisted logic is this?

Does anyone recall the Gulf War when American troops were unleashing their massive firepower at retreating Iraquis? This was after a ceasefire was ordered:

The rag-tag column of trucks, cars and armored vehicles was trapped in a killing zone, with Iraqis abandoning their vehicles and fleeing in panic into the ditches along the roadside. Apache helicopters pounded them with missiles, while US tanks poured cannon fire on the defeated and unresisting column.

"We went up the road blowing the shit out of everything," one soldier with a tank platoon told Hersh. "It was like going down an American highway—people all mixed up in cars and trucks. People got out of their cars and ran away. We shot them. My orders were to shoot if they were armed or running. The Iraqis were getting massacred."......

At least one of the vehicles destroyed by a US Hellfire missile was a bus carrying Iraqi children. The same tank soldier said that a sergeant came and told him and other members of his unit to prepare for a grim task. "He said, 'We've blown away a busload of kids,' and warned us that we were going to get called for a burial mission." However, the US soldiers were never sent to bury the children's bodies. In all likelihood the corpses were plowed under the sand together with the rest of the Iraqi dead.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/iraq-j01.shtml

Perhaps some have forgotten this? I know I haven't. Why is America back in Iraq?

the real lesson, as far as I can tell, is that the bodies of americans are more significant than the lives themselves. Many people have died in this war, but until atrocities were comitted upon the bodies themselves, it wasn't THAT big a deal. I don't know what to think about this at all.

What it means to me is: the iraqi Sunnis needed a morale boost, and a photo-op, but instead they're going to pay in blood, while accomplishing very little.
So you are advocating pay back? This has been proposed as per an MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/

Kimmitt said U.S. forces didn’t respond for fear of ambushes and the possibility that insurgents would use civilians as human shields. “A pre-emptive attack into the city could have taken a bad situation and made it even worse,” he said.

“We are not going to do a pell-mell rush into the city. It will be deliberate, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming. ... We will plan our way through this and we will re-establish control of that city. ... It will be at the time and place of our choosing,” he said.

Defacing the dead is pretty low, I'd agree, but maybe it'll energize the kids more than their Jihad comic-books could. I hope it does. Kill 'em young, while they're acting on impulse instead of training, I always say. :wink:
"Defacing the dead is pretty low", but "kill'em young" is okay? What kind of twisted logic is this?

Does anyone recall the Gulf War when American troops were unleashing their massive firepower at retreating Iraquis? This was after a ceasefire was ordered:

The rag-tag column of trucks, cars and armored vehicles was trapped in a killing zone, with Iraqis abandoning their vehicles and fleeing in panic into the ditches along the roadside. Apache helicopters pounded them with missiles, while US tanks poured cannon fire on the defeated and unresisting column.

"We went up the road blowing the shit out of everything," one soldier with a tank platoon told Hersh. "It was like going down an American highway—people all mixed up in cars and trucks. People got out of their cars and ran away. We shot them. My orders were to shoot if they were armed or running. The Iraqis were getting massacred."......

At least one of the vehicles destroyed by a US Hellfire missile was a bus carrying Iraqi children. The same tank soldier said that a sergeant came and told him and other members of his unit to prepare for a grim task. "He said, 'We've blown away a busload of kids,' and warned us that we were going to get called for a burial mission." However, the US soldiers were never sent to bury the children's bodies. In all likelihood the corpses were plowed under the sand together with the rest of the Iraqi dead.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/iraq-j01.shtml

Perhaps some have forgotten this? I know I haven't.

Those Iraqis leaving Kuwait weren't on their way back from some church picnic, if you remember. They initiated that war. The point was to ensure that they couldn't easily return, and the "Highway of Death" was their price for invading their neighbor, which they knew was a U.S./U.N. ally. Whatever rumors of atrocity you've heard are beside the point, whether they're true or not.. even if the World Socialists say so.. :roll:

Those Iraqis leaving Kuwait weren't on their way back from some church picnic, if you remember.
Actually, many of them probably were...

They initiated that war. The point was to ensure that they couldn't easily return, and the "Highway of Death" was their price for invading their neighbor, which they knew was a U.S./U.N. ally. So pre-emptive wars are only wrong when they are against US allies?

Whatever rumors of atrocity you've heard are beside the point, whether they're true or not.. even if the World Socialists say so.. :roll: What if they're from the soldiers that were there... not to mention well documented in the major media?

Those Iraqis leaving Kuwait weren't on their way back from some church picnic, if you remember.
Actually, many of them probably were...

They initiated that war. The point was to ensure that they couldn't easily return, and the "Highway of Death" was their price for invading their neighbor, which they knew was a U.S./U.N. ally. So pre-emptive wars are only wrong when they are against US allies?

Whatever rumors of atrocity you've heard are beside the point, whether they're true or not.. even if the World Socialists say so.. :roll: What if they're from the soldiers that were there... not to mention well documented in the major media?

I'm sure Saddam thought it was cool to invade Kuwait.. it just wasn't smart. I guess they underestimated their allies among the U.N... I guess France wasn't there for them that time. And what exactly did Saddam "pre-empt" by invading Kuwait? Nothing. If the "World Socialist" party thinks there were war crimes, it's up to them to prove it. If a bus full of children were travelling among military vehicles fleeing Kuwait, then they got what was to be expected, then, didn't they?

I'm sure Saddam thought it was cool to invade Kuwait.. it just wasn't smart. I guess they underestimated their allies among the U.N... I guess France wasn't there for them that time.
The US should never do the bidding of other nations...

And what exactly did Saddam "pre-empt" by invading Kuwait? Nothing.
What, Saddam can't topple dictators? Why not?

If the "World Socialist" party thinks there were war crimes, it's up to them to prove it. If a bus full of children were travelling among military vehicles fleeing Kuwait, then they got what was to be expected, then, didn't they?
I had hoped the idealogy of "Let's just kill everyone and let God sort them out" had died along time ago... it's amazing how little we learn as a society...

The real lesson here is that
America needs to do some more ass kicking

the real lesson, as far as I can tell, is that the bodies of americans are more significant than the lives themselves. Many people have died in this war, but until atrocities were comitted upon the bodies themselves, it wasn't THAT big a deal. I don't know what to think about this at all.

What it means to me is: the iraqi Sunnis needed a morale boost, and a photo-op, but instead they're going to pay in blood, while accomplishing very little.
So you are advocating pay back? This has been proposed as per an MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/

Kimmitt said U.S. forces didn’t respond for fear of ambushes and the possibility that insurgents would use civilians as human shields. “A pre-emptive attack into the city could have taken a bad situation and made it even worse,” he said.

“We are not going to do a pell-mell rush into the city. It will be deliberate, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming. ... We will plan our way through this and we will re-establish control of that city. ... It will be at the time and place of our choosing,” he said.

Defacing the dead is pretty low, I'd agree, but maybe it'll energize the kids more than their Jihad comic-books could. I hope it does. Kill 'em young, while they're acting on impulse instead of training, I always say. :wink:
"Defacing the dead is pretty low", but "kill'em young" is okay? What kind of twisted logic is this?

Does anyone recall the Gulf War when American troops were unleashing their massive firepower at retreating Iraquis? This was after a ceasefire was ordered:

The rag-tag column of trucks, cars and armored vehicles was trapped in a killing zone, with Iraqis abandoning their vehicles and fleeing in panic into the ditches along the roadside. Apache helicopters pounded them with missiles, while US tanks poured cannon fire on the defeated and unresisting column.

"We went up the road blowing the shit out of everything," one soldier with a tank platoon told Hersh. "It was like going down an American highway—people all mixed up in cars and trucks. People got out of their cars and ran away. We shot them. My orders were to shoot if they were armed or running. The Iraqis were getting massacred."......

At least one of the vehicles destroyed by a US Hellfire missile was a bus carrying Iraqi children. The same tank soldier said that a sergeant came and told him and other members of his unit to prepare for a grim task. "He said, 'We've blown away a busload of kids,' and warned us that we were going to get called for a burial mission." However, the US soldiers were never sent to bury the children's bodies. In all likelihood the corpses were plowed under the sand together with the rest of the Iraqi dead.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/iraq-j01.shtml

Perhaps some have forgotten this? I know I haven't.

Those Iraqis leaving Kuwait weren't on their way back from some church picnic, if you remember. They initiated that war. The point was to ensure that they couldn't easily return, and the "Highway of Death" was their price for invading their neighbor, which they knew was a U.S./U.N. ally. Whatever rumors of atrocity you've heard are beside the point, whether they're true or not.. even if the World Socialists say so.. :roll:
First question: Why is America in Iraq again today?
Second question: Who "initiated" THIS war?
Third question: It is okay to slaughter retreating, defeated forces, and women and children?
Fourth question: What "price" will Americans have to pay for "invading" Iraq?

I'm sure Saddam thought it was cool to invade Kuwait.. it just wasn't smart. I guess they underestimated their allies among the U.N... I guess France wasn't there for them that time.
The US should never do the bidding of other nations...

And what exactly did Saddam "pre-empt" by invading Kuwait? Nothing.
What, Saddam can't topple dictators? Why not?

If the "World Socialist" party thinks there were war crimes, it's up to them to prove it. If a bus full of children were travelling among military vehicles fleeing Kuwait, then they got what was to be expected, then, didn't they?
I had hoped the idealogy of "Let's just kill everyone and let God sort them out" had died along time ago... it's amazing how little we learn as a society...

Ok, you're right.. we should just accept what the World Socialists say and agree that our troops are mindless, murderous animals who love killing schoolchildren. And we should pity Saddam for starting a war with a neighbor without the means or motivation for attacking them and blame America for stopping them, despite a UN consensus that it was necessary and just to stop them.

Saddam made a dumb move by attacking a nation in good diplomatic standing, plain and simple. He was stopped and had his army taken from him, albeit temporarily. This was the risk he took.

This isn't Viet-Nam, no matter how hard some people want to make it seem that way.
You are right. This is not Viet Nam. This is much worse than Viet Nam. At least the Viet Cong was a formidable foe. The Iraqis were pretty much defenseless against America's "smart" bombs. This war is an act of unprovoked aggression.

Ok, you're right.. we should just accept what the World Socialists say

Or, you could do a little research of your own... I assumed that everybody remembered the "Highway of Death," but if you want to deny the moon then I'll go do your research for you...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/ground_war.stm

and agree that our troops are mindless, murderous animals who love killing schoolchildren.

No, the soldiers are demoralized by the commands of the superiours... who are cold-blooded killers that hide behind brainwashed farmboys...

And we should pity Saddam for starting a war with a neighbor without the means or motivation for attacking them

Sounds like Iraq in the second Gulf War... no means for attacking us and all...

and blame America for stopping them, despite a UN consensus that it was necessary and just to stop them.

The UN? Why should the US bow to the UN? I seem to remember something about a war for independence!

Saddam made a dumb move by attacking a nation in good diplomatic standing, plain and simple.

Yes, those repressive Monarchist were so much better than Saddam... really, what is so great about Kuwait that is worth US blood? I can't think of a single thing...

He was stopped and had his army taken from him, albeit temporarily. This was the risk he took.

Actually, he had virtually 1/3rd the army in 2003 compared his forces in 1990... I guess that's the price you pay for following UN guide-lines...

Ok, you're right.. we should just accept what the World Socialists say

Or, you could do a little research of your own... I assumed that everybody remembered the "Highway of Death," but if you want to deny the moon then I'll go do your research for you...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/ground_war.stm

and agree that our troops are mindless, murderous animals who love killing schoolchildren.

No, the soldiers are demoralized by the commands of the superiours... who are cold-blooded killers that hide behind brainwashed farmboys...

And we should pity Saddam for starting a war with a neighbor without the means or motivation for attacking them

Sounds like Iraq in the second Gulf War... no means for attacking us and all...

and blame America for stopping them, despite a UN consensus that it was necessary and just to stop them.

The UN? Why should the US bow to the UN? I seem to remember something about a war for independence!

Saddam made a dumb move by attacking a nation in good diplomatic standing, plain and simple.

Yes, those repressive Monarchist were so much better than Saddam... really, what is so great about Kuwait that is worth US blood? I can't think of a single thing...

He was stopped and had his army taken from him, albeit temporarily. This was the risk he took.

Actually, he had virtually 1/3rd the army in 2003 compared his forces in 1990... I guess that's the price you pay for following UN guide-lines...

I'm familiar with the Highway of Death, as they call it, and I referred to it in a previous post. I'm not going to believe some tripe work of fiction put out by the socialist party about purposefully attacking children though, simply because I am familiar with the situation. Iraq is not and was never a country in the same diplomatic standing as Kuwat, at least not since before WWII. Iraq was a known terrorist state. Saddam funded terrorism abroad and in his own country, and our soldiers engaged terrorist training camps and cells when taking over Iraq last year. It's not that complicated. Whether Iraq still has WMD or not, they were still a terrorist state and could not be trusted when they promised to have destroyed their un-accounted for WMD stockpiles. But this isn't a pro- con- Iraq war thread, is it? There's some kind of fable to be spun from the Fallujah incident, I can't wait... :P

The real lesson here is that
America needs to do some more ass kicking

Agreed. :P

Iraq is not and was never a country in the same diplomatic standing as Kuwat, at least not since before WWII.

Really, because I seem to remember Rumsfeld shaking his hand and selling him WMDs in the 80's... or did they change that part of history?


But this isn't a pro- con- Iraq war thread, is it? There's some kind of fable to be spun from the Fallujah incident, I can't wait... :P

I know it may be a bit philosophical, but if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's probably a duck!

The real lesson here is that
America needs to do some more ass kicking

More kick ass actions make America more vulnerable to any terrorist attacks, because all the world is begin to hate the US.

Iraq is not and was never a country in the same diplomatic standing as Kuwat, at least not since before WWII.

Really, because I seem to remember Rumsfeld shaking his hand and selling him WMDs in the 80's... or did they change that part of history?



This is a comparison between Iraq and Iran. Iraq being preferrable to Iran at one point in time does not = Iraq *ever* being in the same diplomatic universe as Kuwait.

This is a comparison between Iraq and Iran. Iraq being preferrable to Iran at one point in time does not = Iraq *ever* being in the same diplomatic universe as Kuwait.
and yet we never armed Kuwait...

This is a comparison between Iraq and Iran. Iraq being preferrable to Iran at one point in time does not = Iraq *ever* being in the same diplomatic universe as Kuwait.
and yet we never armed Kuwait...

We could've armed Kuwait till the cows came home, but they're still a country of (at the time) less than 2 million. Compared to Saddam's army, it would've been a complete and total waste. Even if you armed all 2,000,000 to the teeth, women, children and all, they still would've gotten steamrolled. Diplomatically, Iraq and Kuwait are and were beyond compare, either way.

We could've armed Kuwait till the cows came home, but they're still a country of (at the time) less than 2 million. Compared to Saddam's army, it would've been a complete and total waste. Even if you armed all 2,000,000 to the teeth, women, children and all, they still would've gotten steamrolled. Diplomatically, Iraq and Kuwait are and were beyond compare, either way.

What does your population matter if you have WMDs?

The lead in article included:
"History is replete with examples of occupied peoples, in the face of the systematic brutality and overwhelming military superiority of foreign invaders, giving vent to their indignation and outrage in such acts of retribution."

One can argue back to Ceasar and further whether or not conquest and occupation is right or wrong, but it's hard to argue that war isn't hell. I had asked in another thread what was the proper way to end a war? Other than the admonishment that we shouldn't get into wars, I don't think there was any good answer given.

We have crushed the Iraqi's militarily, but we have not done enough to impress them spiritually, humanly, or compassionately. The US will not pull out of Iraq in June. A coalition government will not be able to stand. The UN will only hand the job back to the US, along with a bunch of world opinion, and we'd be obliged to follow. In the big picture we (US) are clearly in control. I think that many people in the US establishment really are surprised that the Iraqi's aren't embracing the opportunity to be free, to gain a representative governement.

Overall, that was a very good article to raise awareness. Jesus said, "For those that have ears, let them hear."

For those that spoke of the highway of death....let me tell you...it was done by Harriers from the First Marine Expeditionary Force and assorted other units..I entered into Kuwait City after its liberation..the first sight I saw was that of a young Kuwaiti woman....she'd been raped..every bone in her body broken..then strapped up to a mercedes with a sign on it that said "for you Americans"..those that were leaving on Highway 1 had looted the city for all they could get..SUV's..appliances..you name they had stolen it..at the time no armistice had been called if I recall....so they were fair game as our boys saw it...they had military vehicles interspread amongst their looted vehicles..

This is a comparison between Iraq and Iran. Iraq being preferrable to Iran at one point in time does not = Iraq *ever* being in the same diplomatic universe as Kuwait.
and yet we never armed Kuwait...

We could've armed Kuwait till the cows came home, but they're still a country of (at the time) less than 2 million. Compared to Saddam's army, it would've been a complete and total waste. Even if you armed all 2,000,000 to the teeth, women, children and all, they still would've gotten steamrolled. Diplomatically, Iraq and Kuwait are and were beyond compare, either way.It is less about population size and more about skill. I am Israeli, I know that population size is not what truly counts :wink:

This is a comparison between Iraq and Iran. Iraq being preferrable to Iran at one point in time does not = Iraq *ever* being in the same diplomatic universe as Kuwait.
and yet we never armed Kuwait...

We could've armed Kuwait till the cows came home, but they're still a country of (at the time) less than 2 million. Compared to Saddam's army, it would've been a complete and total waste. Even if you armed all 2,000,000 to the teeth, women, children and all, they still would've gotten steamrolled. Diplomatically, Iraq and Kuwait are and were beyond compare, either way.It is less about population size and more about skill. I am Israeli, I know that population size is not what truly counts :wink:
Ihee. I'm Chinese. I know what population size is not what truly counts.

Ok, you're right.. we should just accept what the World Socialists say

Or, you could do a little research of your own... I assumed that everybody remembered the "Highway of Death," but if you want to deny the moon then I'll go do your research for you...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/ground_war.stm

and agree that our troops are mindless, murderous animals who love killing schoolchildren.

No, the soldiers are demoralized by the commands of the superiours... who are cold-blooded killers that hide behind brainwashed farmboys...

And we should pity Saddam for starting a war with a neighbor without the means or motivation for attacking them

Sounds like Iraq in the second Gulf War... no means for attacking us and all...

and blame America for stopping them, despite a UN consensus that it was necessary and just to stop them.

The UN? Why should the US bow to the UN? I seem to remember something about a war for independence!

Saddam made a dumb move by attacking a nation in good diplomatic standing, plain and simple.

Yes, those repressive Monarchist were so much better than Saddam... really, what is so great about Kuwait that is worth US blood? I can't think of a single thing...

He was stopped and had his army taken from him, albeit temporarily. This was the risk he took.

Actually, he had virtually 1/3rd the army in 2003 compared his forces in 1990... I guess that's the price you pay for following UN guide-lines...

I'm familiar with the Highway of Death, as they call it, and I referred to it in a previous post. I'm not going to believe some tripe work of fiction put out by the socialist party about purposefully attacking children though, simply because I am familiar with the situation. Iraq is not and was never a country in the same diplomatic standing as Kuwat, at least not since before WWII. Iraq was a known terrorist state. Saddam funded terrorism abroad and in his own country, and our soldiers engaged terrorist training camps and cells when taking over Iraq last year. It's not that complicated. Whether Iraq still has WMD or not, they were still a terrorist state and could not be trusted when they promised to have destroyed their un-accounted for WMD stockpiles. But this isn't a pro- con- Iraq war thread, is it? There's some kind of fable to be spun from the Fallujah incident, I can't wait... :P
FACT # 1: NONE of the terrorists that attacked America were from Iraq
FACT # 2: America has been bombing Iraqi positions for the past 14 years, and enforcing no fly zones, effectively eliminating the Iraqi air forces
FACT # 3: The UN inspectors in Iraq were NOT finding ANY WMD, and they were allowed access to all facilities
FACT # 4: The UN inspectors discovered some short range missles that slightly exceeded those allowed by the UN and they were being cut up.
FACT # 5: The vast majority of terrorists that attacked the US were from Saudi Arabia (15 of 19) with Al-Queda links
FACT # 6: The UN did NOT sanction ANY US troop deployment against Iraq
FACT # 7: The attacks against the USS Cole, and the US embassies were not linked in any way to Iraq
FACT # 8: The US supported Iraq in the war against Iran with diplomatic relations being re-established in 1984 (ironically Paul Rumsfield was the envoy)
FACT # 9: A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm

FACT # 10: The US told the UN inspectors to get out of Iraq, even though their job was not finished
FACT # 11: The US launched an unprovoked attacked against Iraq
FACT # 12: The US deployment of its' "Shock and Awe" campaign has terrorized a nation for the past year, yet Iraqs' citizens resist being "conquered", and they are expressing a deep seated hatred for their captors by their continued resistance
FACT # 13: Bin Laden and company are still at large
FACT # 14: Terrorism continues with bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Madrid Spain, and attacks are planned in the US (A warning that terrorists might strike trains and buses in major U.S. cities using bombs concealed in bags or luggage has the nation’s transit systems ratcheting up security measures.)

Perhaps that $86 Billion spent to subdue Iraq would have been better spent on capturing Bin Laden or beefing up Homeland Security?

This is an illegal and immoral war and the US should withdraw as soon as the UN would be able to takeover.

For those that spoke of the highway of death....let me tell you...it was done by Harriers from the First Marine Expeditionary Force and assorted other units..I entered into Kuwait City after its liberation..the first sight I saw was that of a young Kuwaiti woman....she'd been raped..every bone in her body broken..then strapped up to a mercedes with a sign on it that said "for you Americans"..those that were leaving on Highway 1 had looted the city for all they could get..SUV's..appliances..you name they had stolen it..at the time no armistice had been called if I recall....so they were fair game as our boys saw it...they had military vehicles interspread amongst their looted vehicles..
So the penalty for rape and theft in the US is death? What about the right to judge and jury, or do the ones that were with the rapists and theives get to die because they were travelling along the same highway? This is American thought in action? Is this the type of American consciousness that you want to impart to the Iraqi people?

Wow, I really cannot believe that you can call human beings "game". Sad....very sad!!