NationStates Jolt Archive

Try to do right by releasing prisoners and this is how they treat their own people?

http://www.comcast.net/News/INTERNATIONAL//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/42e3780b-fa04-4b96-b611-0011c734a6c7.html

Try to do right by releasing prisoners and this is how they treat their own people?

You're assuming that whoever attacked the convoy knew what it was and who it was carrying. If the USA can have "friendly fire" incidents, why can't the opposition?

See Americans, shoot Americans. I doubt they even registered that there were Iraqis in the convoy, although it wasn't really a heated battle from the sounds of it (unlike in other places) so maybe they realised somehow.

Try to do right by releasing prisoners and this is how they treat their own people?

You're assuming that whoever attacked the convoy knew what it was and who it was carrying. If the USA can have "friendly fire" incidents, why can't the opposition?

I don't know..it might be the HUGE FRIGGIN lettering on the bus indicating where it was from..the obviously joyous faces of the Iraqis as they are being released..in broad daylight...

They still havent't started turning in their weapons..they still fire on Coalition troops despite a cease-fire..if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?

You're assuming that whoever attacked the convoy knew what it was and who it was carrying. If the USA can have "friendly fire" incidents, why can't the opposition?

I don't know..it might be the HUGE FRIGGIN lettering on the bus indicating where it was from..the obviously joyous faces of the Iraqis as they are being released..in broad daylight...

Hmmm... I'm sure victims of US friendly fire might have similar questions. I'm reminded of the RAF helicopter pilot who was shot at by US troops, despite the fact that the Iraqis didn't have any helicopters. Guns, adrenaline and testosterone all mixed together will explain pretty much anything.

They still havent't started turning in their weapons..they still fire on Coalition troops despite a cease-fire..if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?

Welcome to war against terrorists! Much the same could (and has) been said by Unionist parties in Northern Ireland about the IRA. The real mistake is assuming that there are enemy "leaders" or "troops" in any meaningful sense. There's certainly precious little in the way of a chain of command, or of command and control.

This, ironically, is why you have to negotiate. It's either that, or fight against an enemy you can't properly locate or identify for 30 years, and then negotiate with them. You have to undercut their support mechanisms and recruitment capabilities, which means being relatively nice to them (relative to shelling inhabited parts of cities where you think some of them might be -- that's just doing their recruitment for them). Eventually, if you're lucky, most of them will give up, hardly anybody new will join and the remainder will dribble off into a criminal gang that can hopefully be quietly disposed of by the police. But it will not be easy, or pleasant.

if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?WTF? Saddam controlled them!

if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?WTF? Saddam controlled them!

Actually..these particular irregulars are part of Sadr's Madhi Army, he brokered the deal..he is the one to whom these irregulars rallied..he controls them..it is up to him or his delegated commanders such as they are to live up to their word.....they are to leave the cities of Najaf, and Kufa, they are to turn in their weapons, and they are to allow Iraqi police and Iraqi military to assume control over the security of the area..none of which they have complied with...

DP

WHERE THE HELL IS MY JOLT SERVER

Try to do right by releasing prisoners and this is how they treat their own people?

You're assuming that whoever attacked the convoy knew what it was and who it was carrying. If the USA can have "friendly fire" incidents, why can't the opposition?

I don't know..it might be the HUGE FRIGGIN lettering on the bus indicating where it was from..the obviously joyous faces of the Iraqis as they are being released..in broad daylight...

The article doesn't mention anything about any lettering on the bus indicating where it was from, that or I missed it, if there was-- what language was it in?

They still havent't started turning in their weapons..they still fire on Coalition troops despite a cease-fire..if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?

I don't know about you, but as for me, if my country were to be occupied I'd hold on to my weapons as well.

if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?WTF? Saddam controlled them!

Actually..these particular irregulars are part of Sadr's Madhi Army, he brokered the deal..he is the one to whom these irregulars rallied..he controls them..it is up to him or his delegated commanders such as they are to live up to their word.....they are to leave the cities of Najaf, and Kufa, they are to turn in their weapons, and they are to allow Iraqi police and Iraqi military to assume control over the security of the area..none of which they have complied with...But how do you know they're part of the mehdi army?

Try to do right by releasing prisoners and this is how they treat their own people?

You're assuming that whoever attacked the convoy knew what it was and who it was carrying. If the USA can have "friendly fire" incidents, why can't the opposition?

I don't know..it might be the HUGE FRIGGIN lettering on the bus indicating where it was from..the obviously joyous faces of the Iraqis as they are being released..in broad daylight...

The article doesn't mention anything about any lettering on the bus indicating where it was from, that or I missed it, if there was-- what language was it in?

They still havent't started turning in their weapons..they still fire on Coalition troops despite a cease-fire..if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?

I don't know about you, but as for me, if my country were to be occupied I'd hold on to my weapons as well.

So in other words..you'd disobey your superior's word and negotiated deal, then why should we have dealt in the first place if the rank and file can't be counted on to follow their leader's deals?

I don't know about you, but as for me, if my country were to be occupied I'd hold on to my weapons as well.

So in other words..you'd disobey your superior's word and negotiated deal, then why should we have dealt in the first place if the rank and file can't be counted on to follow their leader's deals?

This is what "asymmetric war" is like. The terms "superiors" and "rank and file" don't really apply. You negotiate with those whom you can negotiate with, and try to contain and frustrate those you can't. What you don't do is actively recruit new opponents by trying to fight an army that is embedded in a civilian population -- who will only become more sympathetic to, and supportive of, your enemies if you do.

Try to do right by releasing prisoners and this is how they treat their own people?

You're assuming that whoever attacked the convoy knew what it was and who it was carrying. If the USA can have "friendly fire" incidents, why can't the opposition?

I don't know..it might be the HUGE FRIGGIN lettering on the bus indicating where it was from..the obviously joyous faces of the Iraqis as they are being released..in broad daylight...

The article doesn't mention anything about any lettering on the bus indicating where it was from, that or I missed it, if there was-- what language was it in?

They still havent't started turning in their weapons..they still fire on Coalition troops despite a cease-fire..if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?

I don't know about you, but as for me, if my country were to be occupied I'd hold on to my weapons as well.

So in other words..you'd disobey your superior's word and negotiated deal, then why should we have dealt in the first place if the rank and file can't be counted on to follow their leader's deals?Well first that was a deal between a cliric and moqtada Sadr. Something like a deal between Israel and the US about the palestinians. The deal included that the charges against Sadr would be canceled. The US, so far, did not cancel the charges. Secondly, if the US can't control its troups, why should Sadr be any better? And if the UN can't control the US, why do you expect Sadr to control every single man who pretend to serve him? All he can do is call on his followers to stop the fighting, like the pope can call the christians to stop use condoms, that doesn't mean all christians will stop using condoms.

Try to do right by releasing prisoners and this is how they treat their own people?

You're assuming that whoever attacked the convoy knew what it was and who it was carrying. If the USA can have "friendly fire" incidents, why can't the opposition?

I don't know..it might be the HUGE FRIGGIN lettering on the bus indicating where it was from..the obviously joyous faces of the Iraqis as they are being released..in broad daylight...

The article doesn't mention anything about any lettering on the bus indicating where it was from, that or I missed it, if there was-- what language was it in?

They still havent't started turning in their weapons..they still fire on Coalition troops despite a cease-fire..if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?

I don't know about you, but as for me, if my country were to be occupied I'd hold on to my weapons as well.

So in other words..you'd disobey your superior's word and negotiated deal, then why should we have dealt in the first place if the rank and file can't be counted on to follow their leader's deals?Well first that was a deal between a high cleric and moqtada Sadr. Something like a deal between Israel and the US about the palestinians. The deal included that the charges against Sadr would be canceled. The US, so far, did not cancel the charges. Secondly, if the US can't control its troups, why should Sadr be any better? And if the UN can't control the US, why do you expect Sadr to control every single man who pretend to serve him? All he can do is call on his followers to stop the fighting, like the pope can call the christians to stop use condoms, that doesn't mean all christians will stop using condoms.

So in other words..you'd disobey your superior's word and negotiated deal, then why should we have dealt in the first place if the rank and file can't be counted on to follow their leader's deals?

If according to my own insights my superiors cut a bad deal with those who I consider to be my enemy then I would most certainly disobey if I felt I could safely get away with it. Blind faith in your leaders never did anyone any good, right?

Also, why would you expect their leaders to be able to control their troops if the leaders of your own army can't do so either?... Or maybe you have now changed your mind and are of the opinion that the torture of Iraqi POW were not some US soldiers 'gone wild', but actually soldiers acting on direct order by their superiors. In case you still believe them to have been a few soldiers acting on their own initiative, and correct me if I'm wrong, you only acomplish to put yourself on display as a hypocrit if now you want to make a big thing of the enemy not being able to control a few members of their troops, and that this alone is reason enough to no longer trust them. Well, not unless you also want to admit that its best to no longer trust US leaders either...

I see you ignored the part about the lettering on the trucks. Does this mean you have nothing to substantiate your claim?

So in other words..you'd disobey your superior's word and negotiated deal, then why should we have dealt in the first place if the rank and file can't be counted on to follow their leader's deals?

If according to my own insights my superiors cut a bad deal with those who I consider to be my enemy then I would most certainly disobey if I felt I could safely get away with it. Blind faith in your leaders never did anyone any good, right?

Also, why would you expect their leaders to be able to control their troops if the leaders of your own army can't do so either?... Or maybe you have now changed your mind and are of the opinion that the torture of Iraqi POW were not some US soldiers 'gone wild', but actually soldiers acting on direct order by their superiors. In case you still believe them to have been a few soldiers acting on their own initiative, and correct me if I'm wrong, you only acomplish to put yourself on display as a hypocrit if now you want to make a big thing of the enemy not being able to control a few members of their troops, and that this alone is reason enough to no longer trust them. Well, not unless you also want to admit that its best to no longer trust US leaders either...

I see you ignored the part about the lettering on the trucks. Does this mean you have nothing to substantiate your claim?

That is one helluva leap connecting a few soldiers in a prison guard detail to a concerted,organized assault on a convoy?

As for the lettering on the trucks..I can't confirm it..I remember two days ago...seeing a CNN broadcast of the first release of prisoners boarding buses and leaving the prison. I do beleive they were properly marked... and besides..these people came right up to the buses...it's highly doubtful they could misconstrue the happy faces of Iraqis waving outside the windows of the buses.

So in other words..you'd disobey your superior's word and negotiated deal, then why should we have dealt in the first place if the rank and file can't be counted on to follow their leader's deals?

If according to my own insights my superiors cut a bad deal with those who I consider to be my enemy then I would most certainly disobey if I felt I could safely get away with it. Blind faith in your leaders never did anyone any good, right?

Also, why would you expect their leaders to be able to control their troops if the leaders of your own army can't do so either?... Or maybe you have now changed your mind and are of the opinion that the torture of Iraqi POW were not some US soldiers 'gone wild', but actually soldiers acting on direct order by their superiors. In case you still believe them to have been a few soldiers acting on their own initiative, and correct me if I'm wrong, you only acomplish to put yourself on display as a hypocrit if now you want to make a big thing of the enemy not being able to control a few members of their troops, and that this alone is reason enough to no longer trust them. Well, not unless you also want to admit that its best to no longer trust US leaders either...

I see you ignored the part about the lettering on the trucks. Does this mean you have nothing to substantiate your claim?

That is one helluva leap connecting a few soldiers in a prison guard detail to a concerted,organized assault on a convoy?

As for the lettering on the trucks..I can't confirm it..I remember two days ago...seeing a CNN broadcast of the first release of prisoners boarding buses and leaving the prison. I do beleive they were properly marked... and besides..these people came right up to the buses...it's highly doubtful they could misconstrue the happy faces of Iraqis waving outside the windows of the buses.

if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?WTF? Saddam controlled them!

Actually..these particular irregulars are part of Sadr's Madhi Army, he brokered the deal..he is the one to whom these irregulars rallied..he controls them..it is up to him or his delegated commanders such as they are to live up to their word.....they are to leave the cities of Najaf, and Kufa, they are to turn in their weapons, and they are to allow Iraqi police and Iraqi military to assume control over the security of the area..none of which they have complied with...
Actually from the report that I am reading, it appears that the Iraqis are claiming that the US violated the agreement according to the following:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5057770/

Iraqi leaders had urged the Americans to accept the agreement, although it does not require that al-Sadr immediately disband his militia, the al-Mahdi Army, and turn himself in to authorities to face charges in the April 2003 assassination of a moderate cleric.

Instead, the future of al-Sadr’s militia and the status of the arrest warrant will be discussed during talks between the cleric and the Shiite religious and political leaders. That makes it unlikely that either step will be taken until sovereignty transfers from the coalition to a new Iraqi government on June 30.

Al-Sadr launched his uprising after an Iraqi judge issued an arrest warrant charging both him and an aide, Riyadh al-Nouri, in the April 2003 assassination of moderate cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei.

Al-Nouri was seized during a raid on his home Wednesday in Najaf, but Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi, who traveled to Najaf with al-Khafaji to negotiate the agreement, warned that arresting al-Sadr would lead to “an unending revolution.”

If this is true then the truce was not invoked, and the uprising continues.

if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?WTF? Saddam controlled them!

Actually..these particular irregulars are part of Sadr's Madhi Army, he brokered the deal..he is the one to whom these irregulars rallied..he controls them..it is up to him or his delegated commanders such as they are to live up to their word.....they are to leave the cities of Najaf, and Kufa, they are to turn in their weapons, and they are to allow Iraqi police and Iraqi military to assume control over the security of the area..none of which they have complied with...
Actually from the report that I am reading, it appears that the Iraqis are claiming that the US violated the agreement according to the following:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5057770/

Iraqi leaders had urged the Americans to accept the agreement, although it does not require that al-Sadr immediately disband his militia, the al-Mahdi Army, and turn himself in to authorities to face charges in the April 2003 assassination of a moderate cleric.

Instead, the future of al-Sadr’s militia and the status of the arrest warrant will be discussed during talks between the cleric and the Shiite religious and political leaders. That makes it unlikely that either step will be taken until sovereignty transfers from the coalition to a new Iraqi government on June 30.

Al-Sadr launched his uprising after an Iraqi judge issued an arrest warrant charging both him and an aide, Riyadh al-Nouri, in the April 2003 assassination of moderate cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei.

Al-Nouri was seized during a raid on his home Wednesday in Najaf, but Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi, who traveled to Najaf with al-Khafaji to negotiate the agreement, warned that arresting al-Sadr would lead to “an unending revolution.”

If this is true then the truce was not invoked, and the uprising continues.

It appears that the deal was accepted by the US and broken by Al-Sadr's followers. The question is, was it broken accidentally by "lone wolves" within Al-Sadr's supporters or was it never a treaty of honor in the first place. Once again, the situation on the ground over there is muddled and confused, as Al-Sadr's gone missing and his underlings are attempting to rally support for further truce breaking without any direct wor dfrom Al-Sadr.

if their own leaders can't control their troops..then why bother to negotiate?WTF? Saddam controlled them!

Actually..these particular irregulars are part of Sadr's Madhi Army, he brokered the deal..he is the one to whom these irregulars rallied..he controls them..it is up to him or his delegated commanders such as they are to live up to their word.....they are to leave the cities of Najaf, and Kufa, they are to turn in their weapons, and they are to allow Iraqi police and Iraqi military to assume control over the security of the area..none of which they have complied with...
Actually from the report that I am reading, it appears that the Iraqis are claiming that the US violated the agreement according to the following:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5057770/

Iraqi leaders had urged the Americans to accept the agreement, although it does not require that al-Sadr immediately disband his militia, the al-Mahdi Army, and turn himself in to authorities to face charges in the April 2003 assassination of a moderate cleric.

Instead, the future of al-Sadr’s militia and the status of the arrest warrant will be discussed during talks between the cleric and the Shiite religious and political leaders. That makes it unlikely that either step will be taken until sovereignty transfers from the coalition to a new Iraqi government on June 30.

Al-Sadr launched his uprising after an Iraqi judge issued an arrest warrant charging both him and an aide, Riyadh al-Nouri, in the April 2003 assassination of moderate cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei.

Al-Nouri was seized during a raid on his home Wednesday in Najaf, but Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi, who traveled to Najaf with al-Khafaji to negotiate the agreement, warned that arresting al-Sadr would lead to “an unending revolution.”

If this is true then the truce was not invoked, and the uprising continues.

It appears that the deal was accepted by the US and broken by Al-Sadr's followers. The question is, was it broken accidentally by "lone wolves" within Al-Sadr's supporters or was it never a treaty of honor in the first place. Once again, the situation on the ground over there is muddled and confused, as Al-Sadr's gone missing and his underlings are attempting to rally support for further truce breaking without any direct word dfrom Al-Sadr.

It appears that the deal was accepted by the US and broken by Al-Sadr's followers. The question is, was it broken accidentally by "lone wolves" within Al-Sadr's supporters or was it never a treaty of honor in the first place. Once again, the situation on the ground over there is muddled and confused, as Al-Sadr's gone missing and his underlings are attempting to rally support for further truce breaking without any direct word from Al-Sadr.
Perhaps I am reading this wrong? If the US accepted the deal, then why did they issue a warrant for Al-Sadr, and Riyadh al-Nouri, as per the following?:

"Al-Sadr launched his uprising after an Iraqi judge issued an arrest warrant charging both him and an aide, Riyadh al-Nouri, in the April 2003 assassination of moderate cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei.

Al-Nouri was seized during a raid on his home Wednesday in Najaf, but Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi, who traveled to Najaf with al-Khafaji to negotiate the agreement, warned that arresting al-Sadr would lead to “an unending revolution.”

So in other words..you'd disobey your superior's word and negotiated deal, then why should we have dealt in the first place if the rank and file can't be counted on to follow their leader's deals?

If according to my own insights my superiors cut a bad deal with those who I consider to be my enemy then I would most certainly disobey if I felt I could safely get away with it. Blind faith in your leaders never did anyone any good, right?

Also, why would you expect their leaders to be able to control their troops if the leaders of your own army can't do so either?... Or maybe you have now changed your mind and are of the opinion that the torture of Iraqi POW were not some US soldiers 'gone wild', but actually soldiers acting on direct order by their superiors. In case you still believe them to have been a few soldiers acting on their own initiative, and correct me if I'm wrong, you only acomplish to put yourself on display as a hypocrit if now you want to make a big thing of the enemy not being able to control a few members of their troops, and that this alone is reason enough to no longer trust them. Well, not unless you also want to admit that its best to no longer trust US leaders either...

I see you ignored the part about the lettering on the trucks. Does this mean you have nothing to substantiate your claim?

That is one helluva leap connecting a few soldiers in a prison guard detail to a concerted,organized assault on a convoy?

You seem to be missing the point. Point is that if you say that because the leaders of Sadr's Madhi Army can't control all of its members, as could be with this incident, this implies those leaders not to trustworthy, and at the same time exempt the US's Army from that same unreasonable judgement, as you appear to be doing, then you clearly show yourself as one upholding double standards, also knows as "hypocrisy".

So in other words..you'd disobey your superior's word and negotiated deal, then why should we have dealt in the first place if the rank and file can't be counted on to follow their leader's deals?

If according to my own insights my superiors cut a bad deal with those who I consider to be my enemy then I would most certainly disobey if I felt I could safely get away with it. Blind faith in your leaders never did anyone any good, right?

Also, why would you expect their leaders to be able to control their troops if the leaders of your own army can't do so either?... Or maybe you have now changed your mind and are of the opinion that the torture of Iraqi POW were not some US soldiers 'gone wild', but actually soldiers acting on direct order by their superiors. In case you still believe them to have been a few soldiers acting on their own initiative, and correct me if I'm wrong, you only acomplish to put yourself on display as a hypocrit if now you want to make a big thing of the enemy not being able to control a few members of their troops, and that this alone is reason enough to no longer trust them. Well, not unless you also want to admit that its best to no longer trust US leaders either...

I see you ignored the part about the lettering on the trucks. Does this mean you have nothing to substantiate your claim?

That is one helluva leap connecting a few soldiers in a prison guard detail to a concerted,organized assault on a convoy?

You seem to be missing the point. Point is that if you say that because the leaders of Sadr's Madhi Army can't control all of its members, as could be with this incident, this implies those leaders not to trustworthy, and at the same time exempt the US's Army from that same unreasonable judgement, as you appear to be doing, then you clearly show yourself as one upholding double standards, also knows as "hypocrisy".

bullshit...missing a point?...you make one Huge friggin jump and connect a few soliders disgusting actions and somehow say that is the same as a organized assault on a convoy?....The only way your point would be valid was if Our soldiers were under legal orders to torture, and then to disobey the order to stop...that is certainly not the case.

It appears that the deal was accepted by the US and broken by Al-Sadr's followers. The question is, was it broken accidentally by "lone wolves" within Al-Sadr's supporters or was it never a treaty of honor in the first place. Once again, the situation on the ground over there is muddled and confused, as Al-Sadr's gone missing and his underlings are attempting to rally support for further truce breaking without any direct word from Al-Sadr.
Perhaps I am reading this wrong? If the US accepted the deal, then why did they issue a warrant for Al-Sadr, and Riyadh al-Nouri, as per the following?:

"Al-Sadr launched his uprising after an Iraqi judge issued an arrest warrant charging both him and an aide, Riyadh al-Nouri, in the April 2003 assassination of moderate cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei.

Al-Nouri was seized during a raid on his home Wednesday in Najaf, but Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi, who traveled to Najaf with al-Khafaji to negotiate the agreement, warned that arresting al-Sadr would lead to “an unending revolution.”

I'm not sure, but I think what's happened is that the arrest warrent has been out for some time. In fact, on Wednesday, the US captured al-Nouri, Al-Sadr's lieutenant, under the mandate of this warrent and it is claimed to have some effect on Al-Sadr's willingness to talk truce. It's not a recent development. However, the truce which was mediated by Muslim clerics and then presented to the US is a new thing that was, as of last night in Iraq, holding. This morning, however, Al-Sadr supporters fired on US positions, breaking the truce. Then, Al-Sadr didn't show up for prayers and another lieutenant in his supporting army is claiming that the US tried to arrest Al-Sadr, which there's no proof of, and broke the truce (part of the truce agreed that Al-Sadr would turn over control of his militia and would not be tried for the murder of the moderate Muslim cleric until next year, after the new Iraqi elected government is in place).

Again, it's all a muddle with probably seven different versions of the truth floating around out there. The US may have tried to move against Al-Sadr, but this seems unlikely as they've been looking for a reason to not have to siege Najaf. A much more likely probablility is that this young cleric who's accusing the US of breaking the truce is trying to grandstand and rabble rouse.

bullshit...missing a point?...

And again you prove to be missing the point. Which is really trying my patience.

you make one Huge friggin jump and connect a few soliders disgusting actions and somehow say that is the same as a organized assault on a convoy?

I never said that. Try reading my post again.

....The only way your point would be valid was if Our soldiers were under legal orders to torture, and then to disobey the order to stop...that is certainly not the case.

Since US soldiers are, and have been since day one of this war, under legal orders NOT to torture, don't want no war criminals do we, and blatantly disobeyed that order, as recent events clearly proved beyond even the slightest amount of doubt, this does make my case indeed valid.

Which leaves you no other choice but to either admit to being a hypocrit or to abandon your earlier judgement.

Salishe, you don't have an unbaised bone in your body do you?

I suspect if the Americans dropped a nuke in downtown Baghdad you'd find a way to defend it.. sad, very sad..

"And the value of their word is what?" you say . . .

The words of some, can be valued. The words of others, cannot. And there are still others, who kill in silence. No-one can speak for all of them, even the highest apparent leaders often have only influence, not control, over their people.

One of the tricks of a successful counter-insurgency campaign is differentiating between the three, and striking a balance in your dealings with them. Attack those who are prepared to reason, or fail to provide security against attacks by those who are not, and you have lost. This is the sort of fight that you get when you fight a society rather than a hierarchical military force. The UK is well used to this sort of thing, the US will have to learn fast.

It appears that the deal was accepted by the US and broken by Al-Sadr's followers. The question is, was it broken accidentally by "lone wolves" within Al-Sadr's supporters or was it never a treaty of honor in the first place. Once again, the situation on the ground over there is muddled and confused, as Al-Sadr's gone missing and his underlings are attempting to rally support for further truce breaking without any direct wor dfrom Al-Sadr.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I agree. We can't talk about a regular US army and the bands of
thugs that want to kill Americans and their own people in the same
breath.

bullshit...missing a point?...

And again you prove to be missing the point. Which is really trying my patience.

you make one Huge friggin jump and connect a few soliders disgusting actions and somehow say that is the same as a organized assault on a convoy?

I never said that. Try reading my post again.

....The only way your point would be valid was if Our soldiers were under legal orders to torture, and then to disobey the order to stop...that is certainly not the case.

Since US soldiers are, and have been since day one of this war, under legal orders NOT to torture, don't want no war criminals do we, and blatantly disobeyed that order, as recent events clearly proved beyond even the slightest amount of doubt, this does make my case indeed valid.

Which leaves you no other choice but to either admit to being a hypocrit or to abandon your earlier judgement.

I did read your post..my interpretation was spot on in my opinion. And no I will not admit to being a hypocrite....nor will I abandon any judgement I've made.

Salishe, you don't have an unbaised bone in your body do you?

I suspect if the Americans dropped a nuke in downtown Baghdad you'd find a way to defend it.. sad, very sad..

How did this come bout to my defending American actions?...That's way off-topic considering I put up this post in reference to Iraqis attacking a convoy of released prisoners...and the fact that in spite of a truce, organized, not unorganized nor spotty assaults are continuing despite the Commanding Officer's (Al-Sadr) of the Mahdi Army intent for a cease-fire.

I dont know that you can really trust the word of a people that believe you are the devil with every fiber of thier being, and want nothing more than to see you die.

These are the people who we are supposed to be helping...

All the more reason why we dont belong there.

This has gone from .."We are here to liberate you."

To...

"We are here to give you a democracy wether you like or not, and if you resist..we will crush you."

I dont know that you can really trust the word of a people that believe you are the devil with every fiber of thier being, and want nothing more than to see you die.

These are the people who we are supposed to be helping...

All the more reason why we dont belong there.

This has gone from .."We are here to liberate you."

To...

"We are here to give you a democracy wether you like or not, and if you resist..we will crush you."

I dont know that you can really trust the word of a people that believe you are the devil with every fiber of thier being, and want nothing more than to see you die.

These are the people who we are supposed to be helping...

All the more reason why we dont belong there.

This has gone from .."We are here to liberate you."

To...

"We are here to give you a democracy wether you like or not, and if you resist..we will crush you."

bullshit...missing a point?...

And again you prove to be missing the point. Which is really trying my patience.

you make one Huge friggin jump and connect a few soliders disgusting actions and somehow say that is the same as a organized assault on a convoy?

I never said that. Try reading my post again.

....The only way your point would be valid was if Our soldiers were under legal orders to torture, and then to disobey the order to stop...that is certainly not the case.

Since US soldiers are, and have been since day one of this war, under legal orders NOT to torture, don't want no war criminals do we, and blatantly disobeyed that order, as recent events clearly proved beyond even the slightest amount of doubt, this does make my case indeed valid.

Which leaves you no other choice but to either admit to being a hypocrit or to abandon your earlier judgement.

I did read your post..my interpretation was spot on in my opinion. And no I will not admit to being a hypocrite....nor will I abandon any judgement I've made.

I see that instead of being man enough to stand by your words and what they imply, something I had my doubts you would do in the first place, you opted for playing dumb, that or you really are. Too bad.

Regardless of your denial, which should be evident for anyone who read your posts, it is certain that the only one here who you are fooling is yourself.

bullshit...missing a point?...

And again you prove to be missing the point. Which is really trying my patience.

you make one Huge friggin jump and connect a few soliders disgusting actions and somehow say that is the same as a organized assault on a convoy?

I never said that. Try reading my post again.

....The only way your point would be valid was if Our soldiers were under legal orders to torture, and then to disobey the order to stop...that is certainly not the case.

Since US soldiers are, and have been since day one of this war, under legal orders NOT to torture, don't want no war criminals do we, and blatantly disobeyed that order, as recent events clearly proved beyond even the slightest amount of doubt, this does make my case indeed valid.

Which leaves you no other choice but to either admit to being a hypocrit or to abandon your earlier judgement.

I did read your post..my interpretation was spot on in my opinion. And no I will not admit to being a hypocrite....nor will I abandon any judgement I've made.

I see that instead of being man enough to stand by your words and what they imply, something I had my doubts you would do in the first place, you opted for playing dumb, that or you really are. Too bad.

Regardless of your denial, which should be evident for anyone who read your posts, it is certain that the only one here who you are fooling is yourself.

Being man enough?...boy..you don't know one thing bout me to question me on my manhood or my integrity..what we have is a difference of opinion of your interpretation of events...and your poorly disguised attempt to link criminal actions of some individuals to a blatant organized attempt to continue assaults by our enemy.