NationStates Jolt Archive

Wednesday, March 16, 2005. 8:34am (French Press)

The deputy commander of the Iraqi army in western Al-Anbar province was shot dead by US troops at a checkpoint Tuesday night, a police officer said.

"The US forces opened fire at 8:00 pm on General Ismael Swaied al-Obed, who had left his base in Baghdadi to head home," police Captain Amin al-Hitti said.

No immediate reaction was available from the US military.

Hmm... Soldiers making mistakes... That seems to happen in war... Must fight the urge not to laugh at the poster...

I dont know what happened, but he was going to fast on the checkpoint, he failed to stop, even after the numerous signals from US troops, that had no idea that he was a general (he could be an ebil terrorist! He is brown skinned, how can they tell the difference?).

So those soldiers are all competent, its the fault of the general!

lol.


Edit: F***! I wanted to beat everyone to be the first poster..

As we all know, OceanDrive would never make a mistake at a checkpoint. He's psychic, and has X-ray vision.

He would know which cars contain car bombs - so he would open fire on those - and he would know which cars have good people in them - so he would never make a mistake.

If only we had OceanDrive's gifts and talents!

I dont know what happened, but he was going to fast on the checkpoint, he failed to stop, even after the numerous signals from US troops, that had no idea that he was a general (he could be an ebil terrorist! He is brown skinned, how can they tell the difference?).

So those soldiers are all competent, its the fault of the general!

lol.


Edit: F***! I wanted to beat everyone to be the first poster..

can you pu the source...please :)
anyway....they are (the US soldier,)becoming paranoiac....hum! not a good sign
but i guess like we say in french :
"Qui seme le vent recolte la tempete"

As we all know, OceanDrive would never make a mistake at a checkpoint. He's psychic, and has X-ray vision.

He would know which cars contain car bombs - so he would open fire on those - and he would know which cars have good people in them - so he would never make a mistake.

If only we had OceanDrive's gifts and talents!
I can almost feel the Love :D

Yes, because we all know that OceanDrive is an experienced combat genius.

"Genius" means never having to say you're sorry. ;)

If I'm not mistaken we're at war. Mistakes happen in war. Nothing one can do about it except move on. So, Oceandrive, get over it and find something worth using to bash the U.S..

::laughs::

Make no mistake, it's a tragedy.

Having said that, I think there are way more fingers to be pointed than just one.

I'm dying to know (no pun intended) - how many "mistakes" like this have to happen before people understand - Go darn slow at these checkpoints!

THis is the 2nd incident where the American checkpoints have opened fire on important political and military people.
The previous one the military opened fire on a car with the Italian Intelligence agent, killing him and wounding an Italian journalist.
On the same day the US fired upon a Bulgarian soldier- killing him as well.

Not only are they trigger happy, they're killing their allies.

Good going Uncle Sam. :sniper:

THis is the 2nd incident where the American checkpoints have opened fire on important political and military people.
The previous one the military opened fire on a car with the Italian Intelligence agent, killing him and wounding an Italian journalist.
On the same day the US fired upon a Bulgarian soldier- killing him as well.

Not only are they trigger happy, they're killing their allies.

Good going Uncle Sam. :sniper:

Your name is appropriate. So, you're a genius?

Don't hold your breath for the "I'm sorry".

Hmm... Soldiers making mistakes... That seems to happen in war... Must fight the urge not to laugh at the poster...

Yes... but they seem to be doing it with alarming regularity, and with very few consequences. Still, until there is more evidence one there's really no point in putting the blame on either party.

Make no mistake, it's a tragedy.

Having said that, I think there are way more fingers to be pointed than just one.

I'm dying to know (no pun intended) - how many "mistakes" like this have to happen before people understand - Go darn slow at these checkpoints!

Here's a source:

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=38797

If I'm not mistaken we're at war. Mistakes happen in war. Nothing one can do about it except move on. So, Oceandrive, get over it and find something worth using to bash the U.S..I was over it the minute i was done reading the French News,

Why dont you ask the victims Families to "get Over it" ...all the British,Canadian,Italian,Ukranian,Iraqui, etc...

That would be more realistic to ask, cos they sure will have a hard time "getting over it".

Here's mine:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7089948/

:headbang: You are mistaken. The War is over. They had elections for fuck sake. If I'm not mistaken we're at war. Mistakes happen in war. Nothing one can do about it except move on. So, Oceandrive, get over it and find something worth using to bash the U.S..

::laughs::

:headbang: You are mistaken. The War is over. They had elections for fuck sake.

I'm sure you'll be driving over to tell the insurgents the War is over.

We'll look to see your happy face on al-Jazeera.

Hmm... Soldiers making mistakes... That seems to happen in war... Must fight the urge not to laugh at the poster...

How many such mistakes are acceptable. They happen yes, but they do not seem to happen with the same frequency with the other armed forces in Iraq. Perhaps it is just percentages, but it does seem to be a little too frequent.

How many such mistakes are acceptable. They happen yes, but they do not seem to happen with the same frequency with the other armed forces in Iraq. Perhaps it is just percentages, but it does seem to be a little too frequent.

Yes, it was simply an accident when US soldiers shot at the Italiian woman's car after she was released. Lots of accidents in Iraq. The situation sucks.

Guess what?
When people drive at you trying to blow your damned brains out it tends to make you a little paranoid. Sure it is a tragedy, but when there is a checkpoint you must stop. We can all engage in America bashing because it is so easy right now. They are at war, and no one likes war. But maybe if instead of listening to radicals like Michael Moore who say America is evil we should take a hard look at what really is happening. There are atrocities in war, but many good things come out of it in the end. I would have liked to see Moore during Hitlers reign. What would it have been then, "He's only killing Jews, Leave him alone to govern his people

In conclusion, people cant just pick out bad things to talk about. Like anything war brings about good and bad.

Guess what?
When people drive at you trying to blow your damned brains out it tends to make you a little paranoid. Sure it is a tragedy, but when there is a checkpoint you must stop. We can all engage in America bashing because it is so easy right now. They are at war, and no one likes war. But maybe if instead of listening to radicals like Michael Moore who say America is evil we should take a hard look at what really is happening. There are atrocities in war, but many good things come out of it in the end. I would have liked to see Moore during Hitlers reign. What would it have been then, "He's only killing Jews, Leave him alone to govern his people

How does soldiers accidently shooting the wrong people compare with Hitler murdering millions of Jews? The two are hardly the same.

im surprised at this thread, usually most people would use this opportunity to bash the US military. well, most people that post here anyways.

I'm not "bashing Americans", i would poke fun at it were it another country, but didn't they do the same think to an Italian agent a few days ago? And why is it you only hear of the Americans doing it, rather than any ohters, like the British?

How many such mistakes are acceptable. They happen yes, but they do not seem to happen with the same frequency with the other armed forces in Iraq. Perhaps it is just percentages, but it does seem to be a little too frequent.

Hard to say. It's not acceptable, which is why it's being investigated.

But...

Modern weapons make a friendly fire (I like to call them "own goal") incident more lethal.

Modern media makes any friendly fire incident immediately broadcast worldwide.

No one broadcasts the quiet stop of a car that passes later through a checkpoint without shots being fired - no matter how many times a day that might happen at any checkpoint.

And...

Given rules of engagement (which they have), and given humans at a checkpoint, and given an environment where insurgents kill people by driving up in civilian cars and blowing themselves up, you're going to have accidents.

Own goals happen. Even to the best soccer teams.

Oh well, that sucks.

I'm not "bashing Americans", i would poke fun at it were it another country, but didn't they do the same think to an Italian agent a few days ago? And why is it you only hear of the Americans doing it, rather than any ohters, like the British?
Statistical logic mainly. There are far more Americans in Iraq than there are Brits, or anyone else for that matter.

I'm not "bashing Americans", i would poke fun at it were it another country, but didn't they do the same think to an Italian agent a few days ago? And why is it you only hear of the Americans doing it, rather than any ohters, like the British?

4 main reasons:
1) There are simply far, far more US troops in Iraq than there are troops of any other nation.
2) The US troops are mostly operating in the most unstable parts of Iraq, so they're more likely to be attacked, and are probably therefore more jumpy.
3) I'll wager the average British soldier in Iraq is trained to a higher standard than the average US soldier in Iraq, because of quality vs. quantity, and also because the British army is less overstretched.
4) Less accountability in the US army (although recently I've noticed this changing somewhat) means less consequences for US soldiers who mistakenly shoot the wrong people.

Hard to say. It's not acceptable, which is why it's being investigated.

But...
Modern weapons make a friendly fire (I like to call them "own goal") incident more lethal.
Modern media makes any friendly fire incident immediately broadcast worldwide.
No one broadcasts the quiet stop of a car that passes later through a checkpoint without shots being fired - no matter how many times a day that might happen at any checkpoint.

And...
Given rules of engagement (which they have), and given humans at a checkpoint, and given an environment where insurgents kill people by driving up in civilian cars and blowing themselves up, you're going to have accidents.
Own goals happen. Even to the best soccer teams.

The question is what is the coach doing to reduce the number of own goals? The USA, specifically, is suffering from a plague of freindly fire incidents. It is not happening with the British, who are in the same circumstances. Why not? What is the difference and is there anything that the US military can learn from this difference?

Wow, is it just me or is it whenever right-wingers defend themselves they come off as the biggest assholes, and they seem to know it too. I don't know, maybe it's just me...

It was an accident, like many have said before me, accidents will happen in wartime environments such as Iraq. Even though the "mission" of freeing Iraq has already been "accomplished", incidents like these will still occur. I'm sure all the bush butt-sniffers are waiting for the "expansive" and "overwhelming" Liberal media to eat this all up, yea right, what a joke.

4 main reasons:
1) There are simply far, far more US troops in Iraq than there are troops of any other nation.
2) The US troops are mostly operating in the most unstable parts of Iraq, so they're more likely to be attacked, and are probably therefore more jumpy.
3) I'll wager the average British soldier in Iraq is trained to a higher standard than the average US soldier in Iraq, because of quality vs. quantity, and also because the British army is less overstretched.
4) Less accountability in the US army (although recently I've noticed this changing somewhat) means less consequences for US soldiers who mistakenly shoot the wrong people.

The British soldiers are also largely not in the Sunni areas. They are in areas that receive fewer car bombs. So they can be more relaxed. Hard to say about the training - I was US Army Infantry enlisted, and I was not impressed with, say, the Royal Marines.

The British soldiers are also largely not in the Sunni areas. They are in areas that receive fewer car bombs. So they can be more relaxed.

2) The US troops are mostly operating in the most unstable parts of Iraq, so they're more likely to be attacked, and are probably therefore more jumpy.

.

THis is the 2nd incident where the American checkpoints have opened fire on important political and military people.
The previous one the military opened fire on a car with the Italian Intelligence agent, killing him and wounding an Italian journalist.
On the same day the US fired upon a Bulgarian soldier- killing him as well.

Not only are they trigger happy, they're killing their allies.

Good going Uncle Sam. :sniper:
Trigger happy? I heard an interview with a journalist who was in Iraq and he said the American troops manning the checkpoints are very professional. The Iraqi manned checkpoints are a very different story.

When you are in a situation where people are shooting at you, running car bombs at you, and shelling you with mortars you tend to shoot anyone who tries to run your checkpoint. It's the correct response.

How many such mistakes are acceptable. They happen yes, but they do not seem to happen with the same frequency with the other armed forces in Iraq. Perhaps it is just percentages, but it does seem to be a little too frequent.
Other armed forces in Iraq? They are fewer in numbers, and handle business in less hostile areas. The US troops have more checkpoints to man and those are in more dangerous areas.

Trigger happy? I heard an interview with a journalist who was in Iraq and he said the American troops manning the checkpoints are very professional. The Iraqi manned checkpoints are a very different story.
most (if not all) of these "accidents" are happening at the US checkpoints...

most (if not all) of these "accidents" are happening at the US checkpoints...
Really? Do you hear about every shooting at a checkpoint? I'm sure most of them that don't involve influencial people don't get press coverage, so you can't say with any authority that all of them involve American troops.

Reasons have been given why most of them involve American troops. You just seem to ignore them.

Really? Do you hear about every shooting at a checkpoint? ...Of course not, probably several Iraqi Families are killed on a regular basis...and we never learn bout it.

And no matter how many Iraqi witnesses there is...the US soldiers would only do jailtime...If (against all odds) some VideoFootage makes it to the free world.

...or to the Internet.

Of course not, probably several Iraqi Families are killed on a regular basis...and we never learn bout it.

And no matter how many Iraqi witnesses there is...the US soldiers would only do jailtime...If (against all odds) some VideoFootage makes it to the free world.

...or to the Internet.
If the car refuses to stop the soldiers shouldn't be punished at all.

Of course not, probably several Iraqi Families are killed on a regular basis...and we never learn bout it.

And no matter how many Iraqi witnesses there is...the US soldiers would only do jailtime...If (against all odds) some VideoFootage makes it to the free world.

...or to the Internet.

Are you also an expert on the UCMJ? Tell me, oh wise one, can you receive the death penalty under the UCMJ? And if so, for what offenses?

Are you also an expert on the UCMJ? Tell me, oh wise one, can you receive the death penalty under the UCMJ? And if so, for what offenses?
I'd be surprised if he knows what UCMJ stands for. I'm not trying to insult, I just don't think he knows.

Hmm... Soldiers making mistakes... That seems to happen in war... Must fight the urge not to laugh at the poster...

Maybe the general was not wearing his general medals and was instead wearing his off duty RPG and militant facemask yellin "GOD IS GREAT!!" while approaching the checkpoint in a cubevan....

Oh, the war in Iraq is still going on? I thought we nuked them already. Maybe I'm thinking of WWII? ;)

If the car refuses to stop the soldiers shouldn't be punished at all.


ummm ok. But i guess it is a warzone, couldnt be some scared family or something :rolleyes:

Are you also an expert on the UCMJ? Tell me, oh wise one, can you receive the death penalty under the UCMJ? And if so, for what offenses?
Im not talking only about this late kills...Im talking about all alleged Iraq/Afghanistan/Guantanamo War crimes...

My bet is that if there is an "incident" and there is Dozens of Iraqui witnesses...The Pentagon will simply deny it,even if there is Allies or Americans talking about an "incident"...it will be brushed under the carpet...

If the Pentagon get ahold of Video/Photos...they will keep it secret... and later destroy it...

But if -against all odds- some Pics or Video make it to the free world... :eek:

Then the Pentagon will start an "investigation".... then...and only then...there is a chance a USwarCriminal makes it to Jail.

The British soldiers are also largely not in the Sunni areas. They are in areas that receive fewer car bombs. So they can be more relaxed. Hard to say about the training - I was US Army Infantry enlisted, and I was not impressed with, say, the Royal Marines.


I thought you were a chick?

If the Pentagon get ahold of Video/Photos...they will keep it secret... and later destroy it...

But if -against all odds- this Pics Video make it to the free world.

Then the Pentagon will start an "investigation"...and then...only then there is a chance a USwarCriminal makes it to Jail.

I guess this is why Abu Gharaib was under investigation and the photos known to the Pentagon long before the story went public. I guess that's why the photos weren't destroyed - and were released to the public.

Im not talking only about this late kills...Im talking about all alleged Iraq/Afghanistan/Guantanamo War crimes...

My bet is that if there is an "incident" and there is Dozens of Iraqui witnesses...The Pentagon will simply deny it,even if there is Allies or Americans talking about an "incident"...it will be brushed under the carpet...

If the Pentagon get ahold of Video/Photos...they will keep it secret... and later destroy it...

But if -against all odds- some Pics or Video make it to the free world... :eek:

Then the Pentagon will start an "investigation".... then...and only then...there is a chance a USwarCriminal makes it to Jail.

Wow-we have Oliver Stone here. Already knows what the Pentagon would do in sticky situations.

It is not clear if the Uniform Code of Military Justice includes currently the death penalty. It certainly makes provisions for it.

* 843. ART. 43. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
(a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war, or with any offense punishable by death, may be tried at any time without limitation.

However it also outlaws cruel and unusual punishments and states:

856. ART. 56. MAXIMUM LIMITS
The punishment which a court-martial may direct for an offense may not exceed such limits as the President may prescribe for that offense.

So you tell me. Does the UCMJ include the death penalty?

Wow-we have Oliver Stone here. Already knows what the Pentagon would do in sticky situations.

He hasn't noticed that the Pentagon starts multiple investigations at multiple levels whenever something smells.

He hasn't noticed that people get court martialed. That policies change. That people lose command and are replaced.

He hasn't noticed that there isn't anyone in the military who could keep their mouth shut.

He believes that the whole military is involved in a perfect conspiracy, and that a million people are in on it, and are able to keep their mouth shut.

I'll have to take a break to laugh here.

Then the Pentagon will start an "investigation".... then...and only then...there is a chance a USwarCriminal makes it to Jail.


What do you call al-Qaeda operatives that decapitate someone on video?

Misunderstood?

:rolleyes:

I guess this is why Abu Gharaib was under investigation and the photos known to the Pentagon long before the story went public. I guess that's why the photos weren't destroyed - and were released to the public.
not only about Abu Ghrail.

and not it was not the wish Pentagon to make it public.
It is the other way around, the Pentagon wants to keep "incidents" away from the news.

there is a lot more "incidetns" that never make it to the public.

Okay, is everyone going to assume that any and all vehicles that the US military shoots always move at high speed and refused to slow down and stop at warnings that we *assume* were given loud and clear? This unconditional apology for the American side is just as bad the opposite end of assuming the US opened fire deliberately.

It's just as inflammatory as me stating that every American checkpoint guard has adoped an Uncle Jimbo policy of shouting "LOOK OUT!! IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!" before opening fire on whatever they feel like with a carte blanche.

Jumping to conclusions is bad for both sides of the argument.

What do you call al-Qaeda operatives that decapitate someone on video?
I call them "al-Quaeda Operatives".

and sometimes I call them "Al-Quaeda hopefuls", "Al-Quaeda Juniors" "Al-Quaeda wanna bees",etc

and sometimes...they could be .."Al-Quaeda Impersonators", mossad, CIA, etc.

you call them potatoes...I call them potatos...
who cares? (you are wasting my time)

not only about Abu Ghrail.

and not it was not the wish Pentagon to make it public.
It is the other way around, the Pentagon wants to keep "incidents" away from the news.

there is a lot more "incidetns" that never make it to the public.


You are assuming "there is a lot more incidetns that never make it to the public? Or do you have some infallible, secret inside source? How would you know if the incidents never make it to the public? Or you just loathe authority and government so much that you make this crap up and then believe it ?

Article 118, as the potential punishment for murder.
Article 85, as the potential punishment for desertion in time of war.
Article 94, as the potential punishment for mutiny and sedition.
106, 106a, Spying and Espionage - death

Not for 93, Cruelty and Maltreatment.
Not for 97, Unlawful Detention.

He hasn't noticed that the Pentagon starts multiple investigations at multiple levels whenever something smells.

He hasn't noticed that people get court martialed. That policies change. That people lose command and are replaced.

He hasn't noticed that there isn't anyone in the military who could keep their mouth shut.

He believes that the whole military is involved in a perfect conspiracy, and that a million people are in on it, and are able to keep their mouth shut.

I'll have to take a break to laugh here.

All this happens.

But there has to date been no investigation held of US military actions where the chain of responsibility ends at the secretary of state rather than at the pentagon. Until this happens there will always be suspicion of a cover up.

The UK soldiers tried for abuse were tried under the auspices of the Home secretary, not under the Ministry of Defence.

The US has to be seen to be being just, it is not sufficient, when you enter a war as the "agressors" to be just. It has to be aparent to all and sundry.

Note: The US did enter Iraq as the agressors. There is no proven link between Iraq and 9/11. No attack on the USA was made by Iraq. This is not to say the war was wrong (a seperate subject altogether), it just says that the hostilities were initiated by the USA.

I can't find any independent confirmation of this, so I would have to say that it's an incorrect report.

B

Okay, is everyone going to assume that any and all vehicles that the US military shoots always move at high speed and refused to slow down and stop at warnings that we *assume* were given loud and clear? This unconditional apology for the American side is just as bad the opposite end of assuming the US opened fire deliberately.

It's just as inflammatory as me stating that every American checkpoint guard has adoped an Uncle Jimbo policy of shouting "LOOK OUT!! IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!" before opening fire on whatever they feel like with a carte blanche.

Jumping to conclusions is bad for both sides of the argument.


No-you're right. The US Military just happened to man all the checkpoints with gun happy sociopaths that love to shoot at anything that moves. (I am impressed at what good shots these soldiers are-ever fire at a moving target? Ever man a checkpoint during war where its a well known fact some crazed nut has one thing on his mind-to blow you up? Ever dream that while you are standing there in dessert heat by day and cold temps by night that there are crapheads around the world computer-station quarterbacking when all you really want to do is YOUR DUTY and go home alive and intact to your family?

You are assuming "there is a lot more incidetns that never make it to the public? Or do you have some infallible, secret inside source? How would you know if the incidents never make it to the public?
actually Im following on Drunkumies Logical take..
Really? Do you hear about every shooting at a checkpoint? .... so you can't say with any authority that all of them involve American troops.
I think he is rigth...we dont hear about all the Iraqui "accidentally" killed at the Check-points...or elsewhere.

All this happens.


And just because it happens, it doesn't mean that anyone ordered it.

UK studies during WW II concluded that ANYONE on ANY SIDE commits atrocities - and that the main reason is small group dynamics. You can even order men NOT to do it - and it happens in any case. You can even watch men - and they know you're watching - and it still happens.

Not all men - just some.

I feel it's as simple as:
1. Pentagon concludes that torture (within their limited definition) is OK for Guantanamo detainees, as arguably, they are not protected by Geneva, according to Convention I, Article 2.

2. Some of those people transfer to Iraq.

3. No additional policy is given (this seems consistent so far).

4. The same torture and abuse occurs in Iraq.

5. Some people photo it - and distribute to friends. Others question it (you'll notice that the whistleblower was a junior enlisted man).

6. Investigations start. Some time later, the first pictures surface.

The main problem seems to be:

1. Someone allowed torture in Guantanamo (it's arguable whether it was legal, and which tactics were even moral).

2. No one gave policy to the people running the prison in Iraq, and they had bad leaders who had no moral or legal compass. So their men ran amok - according to the dictates of small group dynamics.

You see?

I would bet that the Gonzales memo (which might be morally repugnant, but perfectly legal), is the top of the chain. Nothing more sinister is required. From one stupid decision, there's a cascading waterfall of stupidity.

No sinister conspiracy required. You do, however, end up with people at the top of the chain discussing an abstract subject from which they are distantly removed - and whose salient effects they have no way of knowing about until they occur.

All this happens.

But there has to date been no investigation held of US military actions where the chain of responsibility ends at the secretary of state rather than at the pentagon. Until this happens there will always be suspicion of a cover up.

So your dumbass is saying that the secratary of state invaded Iraq for fun, enjoys torturing others, likes to kill those that help him out. Im sorry that doesn't make sense to me.

No-you're right. The US Military just happened to man all the checkpoints with gun happy sociopaths that love to shoot at anything that moves. (I am impressed at what good shots these soldiers are-ever fire at a moving target? Ever man a checkpoint during war where its a well known fact some crazed nut has one thing on his mind-to blow you up? Ever dream that while you are standing there in dessert heat by day and cold temps by night that there are crapheads around the world computer-station quarterbacking when all you really want to do is YOUR DUTY and go home alive and intact to your family?

I was calling for the facts to be revealed before making judgments for either side, but then I see this sarcastic crap.

How come every pro-Bush poster on NationStates has to come off as assholes making all sorts of snide and demonizing remarks about anyone who may have conflicting or even neutral perspectives on a situation involving America?

As for calling me a computer-station quarterback Junior, unless you're sitting somewhere near the Green Zone ducking bullets and mortars right now it's "Hello Kettle, I'm Pot."

Typical news from the faggot French.
I think the US should bomb those jerks next, and thoroughly!

How come every pro-Bush poster on NationStates has to come off as assholes making all sorts of snide and demonizing remarks about anyone who may have conflicting or even neutral perspectives on a situation involving America?

You don't have to be a pro-Bush poster to come off like that. Especially after the long-term trolling by OceanDrive.

Why don't you go back and read what Ocean posts? If you look up the word "snide" in the dictionary, you'll see his picture.

ummm ok. But i guess it is a warzone, couldnt be some scared family or something :rolleyes:
If you were the soldier you would shoot at an oncomming car that refused to stop too. They're not there to throw their lives away, they're there to get a job done.

How come every pro-Bush poster on NationStates has to come off as assholes making all sorts of snide and demonizing remarks about anyone who may have conflicting or even neutral perspectives on a situation involving America?

Because If you aren't understanding of the current situation in Iraq you shouldn't be talking about it.

What do you call al-Qaeda operatives that decapitate someone on video?

Misunderstood?

:rolleyes:
[sarcasm] Well, you see, you have to understand the root causes. It's really a symptom of poverty and American cultural imperialism. America is to blame for those beheadings. [end sarcasm]

Gauthier seems to think that if you see a logical means to see the soldier's point of view, you must be pro-Bush.

Because If you aren't understanding of the current situation in Iraq you shouldn't be talking about it.

DO you mean if they don't understand it the way YOU understand it?

If you notice he wasn't doing anythign but tellign people not to jump to conclusions.

So your dumbass is saying that the secratary of state invaded Iraq for fun, enjoys torturing others, likes to kill those that help him out. Im sorry that doesn't make sense to me.

Grow up. Come back and join the discussion when you can actually think somewhat. I did not say any of what you are placing in my post, and you know it. I will now go and reply to the intelligent one Whispering Legs

actually Im following on Drunkumies Logical take..

I think he is rigth...we dont hear about all the Iraqui "accidentally" killed at the Check-points...or elsewhere.
Yeah, you're using my words, but altering the meaning. I was refering to the fact that shooting incidents not involving influential people wouldn't get press coverage due to the fact that it's a war, such things happen, and there aren't reporters at every checkpoint or in every village. In fact, the press is very restricted in where it can operate because of the insurgents and gangs that kidnap westerners and sell them to insurgents.

You're implying that it's a cover up. I don't think it is.

DO you mean if they don't understand it the way YOU understand it?


There is only one way to understand the Iraqi conflict and that is from the perspective of someone who is there

I was calling for the facts to be revealed before making judgments for either side, but then I see this sarcastic crap.

How come every pro-Bush poster on NationStates has to come off as assholes making all sorts of snide and demonizing remarks about anyone who may have conflicting or even neutral perspectives on a situation involving America?

As for calling me a computer-station quarterback Junior, unless you're sitting somewhere near the Green Zone ducking bullets and mortars right now it's "Hello Kettle, I'm Pot."


No-I have respect for soldiers and will always give them the benefit of doubt first-they earned it. Sorry to whip you into a little hissy fit, junior. And why do all of the self-loathing would be elitists just assume that anyone with balls is pro-Bush?

And just because it happens, it doesn't mean that anyone ordered it.

I was referring to the investigations, not the problems that they investigate.
Sorry if that was not clear.

UK studies during WW II concluded that ANYONE on ANY SIDE commits atrocities - and that the main reason is small group dynamics. You can even order men NOT to do it - and it happens in any case. You can even watch men - and they know you're watching - and it still happens.

Not all men - just some.
I do not deny this. It is generally accepted as true, and I know enough psychology to be aware of compliance behaviour etc.

I feel it's as simple as:
1. Pentagon concludes that torture (within their limited definition) is OK for Guantanamo detainees, as arguably, they are not protected by Geneva, according to Convention I, Article 2.

2. Some of those people transfer to Iraq.

3. No additional policy is given (this seems consistent so far).

4. The same torture and abuse occurs in Iraq.

5. Some people photo it - and distribute to friends. Others question it (you'll notice that the whistleblower was a junior enlisted man).

6. Investigations start. Some time later, the first pictures surface.

The main problem seems to be:

1. Someone allowed torture in Guantanamo (it's arguable whether it was legal, and which tactics were even moral).

2. No one gave policy to the people running the prison in Iraq, and they had bad leaders who had no moral or legal compass. So their men ran amok - according to the dictates of small group dynamics.

You see?
The chain of events is plausible, and it may well have happened that way. All I am suggesting is that some accountability has to be made outside of the military sphere.

I would bet that the Gonzales memo (which might be morally repugnant, but perfectly legal), is the top of the chain. Nothing more sinister is required. From one stupid decision, there's a cascading waterfall of stupidity.

No sinister conspiracy required. You do, however, end up with people at the top of the chain discussing an abstract subject from which they are distantly removed - and whose salient effects they have no way of knowing about until they occur.

I do not think that Rumsfeld ordered the torture or anything like that. The torture however ocurred. These events and the circumstances that led to them should be investigated by independent courts, not just by military courts. Until that happens, those who want to see a conspiracy, and there are enough of them in the world, will do so.

There is only one way to understand the Iraqi conflict and that is from the perspective of someone who is there

I am of the impression that there are as many ways to understand the conflict as there are people. Depending on your point and position you are going to understand it in different ways. Even people over there understand the conflict in different ways isn't that true?

You don't have to be a pro-Bush poster to come off like that. Especially after the long-term trolling by OceanDrive.

Why don't you go back and read what Ocean posts? If you look up the word "snide" in the dictionary, you'll see his picture.

I had to look...(thats like me...always double-checking)

http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=snide&x=12&y=9

main entry snide

1 a : FALSE, COUNTERFEIT b : practicing deception : DISHONEST

Gauthier seems to think that if you see a logical means to see the soldier's point of view, you must be pro-Bush.

If you can see the soldier's point of view, you're thinking.

However, If you can't see the soldier's point of view without throwing in sarcastic responses and/or a snide remark about [the French, anti-war activists, Democrats, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, etc.] in the same sentence that makes you Pro-Bush. Worse than that, a Bushevik.

DO you mean if they don't understand it the way YOU understand it?

If you notice he wasn't doing anythign but tellign people not to jump to conclusions.

Thank you.

What do people expect will happen if they give an 18 yr old a gun and put him in the streets of Bagdad?

What do people expect will happen if they give an 18 yr old a gun and put him in the streets of Bagdad?
According to a journalist for the NY Times working in Iraq the US soldiers display a very professional and responsible attitude at the checkpoints. These are no ordinary 18 year olds. They are well trained professional soldiers.

Your right..the soldiers in abu graib where very professional

I do not think that Rumsfeld ordered the torture or anything like that. The torture however ocurred. These events and the circumstances that led to them should be investigated by independent courts, not just by military courts. Until that happens, those who want to see a conspiracy, and there are enough of them in the world, will do so.

Well, the military can only investigate the chain of command downwards from the point that orders the investigation. Rumsfeld ordered some of the investigations - some were started lower.

One could see a Justice Department investigation. They are investigating Guantanamo that way. And, if they find something on the President, then we can have Congress appoint a special prosecutor.

Maybe, just maybe, these checkpoints are a bad idea. I know that their primary purpose is to stop insurgants from blowing people up but the mistakes tend to color public sentiment much more than the successes. The more civilians and allies we kill the more public opinion turns against us. The more civilians insurgents kill the more public opinion turns against them. In a guerilla war public opinion is far more important than individual losses. Insurgents can't hope to win without public support and we should give them every oppertunity to lose it while cultivating it for ourselves. The enemies we are fighting now in Iraq are persistant but they lack the capibility of causing real damage. Their attacks are annoying mosquitobites that can only turn their one and only defense against them.

If you can see the .....

that makes you Pro-Bush. Worse than that, a Bushevik.
LOLz...the Boshevik must be turning in their graves...

Your right..the soldiers in abu graib where very professional

Well, if I was to generalize from the behavior of a few the conclusion about the whole, then I could look at your post and conclude that everyone on this forum was a blithering idiot.

Of course, I'm not going to make that generalization. I'll stick with the specific cases.

their are children as young as 11 at abugraib and reports of a 14 yr old prisoner being raped by and american soldier..one sec let me get the link on that

I am of the impression that there are as many ways to understand the conflict as there are people. Depending on your point and position you are going to understand it in different ways. Even people over there understand the conflict in different ways isn't that true?

People may have different opinions but no American soldier in Iraq thinks there is a massive conspiracy in which people are murdered and tortured just for the hell of it. Nor are they intentionally killing allies. The soldiers are nervous because Al Queda operatives in Iraq are trying to kill them.

If you can see the soldier's point of view, you're thinking.

However, If you can't see the soldier's point of view without throwing in sarcastic responses and/or a snide remark about [the French, anti-war activists, Democrats, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, etc.] in the same sentence that makes you Pro-Bush. Worse than that, a Bushevik.



Thank you.


I provided the soldier's point of view and never once added any remarks-negative or otherwise about anyone, even your beloveds, whom you refer to above. Dont lump me on the heap of all the others that intimidate you. I'm actually a liberal in the true sense of the word-I listen to facts AND THEN make up my mind, if possible. And I'm tolerant of those who dont deserve it.

Your right..the soldiers in abu graib where very professional
Yeah, a small group of assholes proves that the whole US army is evil. The vast majority of US troops are very good at their job. They don't cause unnecessary civilian casualties. They don't abuse the Iraqis that they were sent to protect.

their are children as young as 11 at abugraib and reports of a 14 yr old prisoner being raped by and american soldier..one sec let me get the link on that

so from that you conclude that ALL US soldiers are unprofessional.

Sorry. Your argument doesn't wash.

Maybe, just maybe, these checkpoints are a bad idea. I know that their primary purpose is to stop insurgants from blowing people up but the mistakes tend to color public sentiment much more than the successes. The more civilians and allies we kill the more public opinion turns against us. The more civilians insurgents kill the more public opinion turns against them. In a guerilla war public opinion is far more important than individual losses. Insurgents can't hope to win without public support and we should give them every oppertunity to lose it while cultivating it for ourselves. The enemies we are fighting now in Iraq are persistant but they lack the capibility of causing real damage. Their attacks are annoying mosquitobites that can only turn their one and only defense against them.
Yeah, but if the US fails to provide any security for Iraqi civilians and lets the insurgents run wild we get the blame too.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005. 8:34am (French Press)

The deputy commander of the Iraqi army in western Al-Anbar province was shot dead by US troops at a checkpoint Tuesday night, a police officer said.

"The US forces opened fire at 8:00 pm on General Ismael Swaied al-Obed, who had left his base in Baghdadi to head home," police Captain Amin al-Hitti said.

No immediate reaction was available from the US military.


Maybe they thought he was an Italian reporter.

Maybe they thought he was an Italian reporter.

No, an Italian intelligence officer.

They didn't kill the reporter.

Maybe, just maybe, these checkpoints are a bad idea. I know that their primary purpose is to stop insurgants from blowing people up but the mistakes tend to color public sentiment much more than the successes. The more civilians and allies we kill the more public opinion turns against us. The more civilians insurgents kill the more public opinion turns against them. In a guerilla war public opinion is far more important than individual losses. Insurgents can't hope to win without public support and we should give them every oppertunity to lose it while cultivating it for ourselves. The enemies we are fighting now in Iraq are persistant but they lack the capibility of causing real damage. Their attacks are annoying mosquitobites that can only turn their one and only defense against them.

Maybe the soldiers at checkpoints are taking the destruction that was meant for the civilians. Maybe the insurgents blowing up an average of a soldier a day meant to get to a populated area and blow up civilians or another police station.

People may have different opinions but no American soldier in Iraq thinks there is a massive conspiracy in which people are murdered and tortured just for the hell of it. Nor are they intentionally killing allies. The soldiers are nervous because Al Queda operatives in Iraq are trying to kill them.

well actually there was a story just recently where a soldier got in trouble for not firing on a harmeless family when he was ordered to. although I know that doesnt qualify as a massive conspiracy to kill innocent people in his eyes or anyone elses, but it's one thing to look at when considering obeying orders from above.


What I think they should do to cover their asses is film every checkpoint experience. So they can point and say - see here we are yelling to stop and here are our flashing lights and here the car is speeding toward us and here is the radar guns clocking of the vehicle.

March 11th, 2005 3:35 pm
US held youngsters at Abu Ghraib


Children as young as 11 years old were held at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison at the centre of the US prisoner abuse scandal, official documents reveal.

BBC

Children as young as 11 years old were held at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison at the centre of the US prisoner abuse scandal, official documents reveal.

Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of the jail, gave details of young people and women held there.

Her assertion was among documents obtained via legal action by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The Pentagon has admitted juveniles were among the detainees, but said no child was subject to any abuse.

Brig Gen Karpinski made her remarks in an interview with a general investigating the abuses at the prison.

'Innocent civilians'

The transcript of her May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of papers obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act.

In one case, witness statements among the released documents allege that four drunken Americans took a 17-year-old female prisoner from her cell and forced her to expose her breasts and kissed her.

In another documented incident, troops are alleged to have smeared mud on the detained 17-year-old son of an Iraqi general and forced his father to watch him shiver in the cold.

Brig Gen Karpinski, who was in charge at Abu Ghraib from July to November 2003, said she often visited the prison's youngest inmates.

She said in her interview that she thought one boy "looked like he was eight years old".

"He told me he was almost 12," she said. "He told me his brother was there with him, but he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother. He was crying."

She said the military began holding children and women at Abu Ghraib from mid-2003. She did not say what the youngsters had been locked up for.

In her interview with Maj Gen George Fay, she also said intelligence officers had worked out an agreement to hold detainees without keeping records.

The Pentagon has acknowledged holding so-called "ghost detainees" on the basis that they were enemy combatants and therefore not entitled to prisoner of war protections.

Brig Gen Karpinski said US commanders were reluctant to release detainees, an attitude she called "releasophobia".

In her interview, she said Maj Gen Walter Wodjakowski, then the second most senior army general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians," she said Maj Gen Wodjakowski told her. "We're winning the war."

The ACLU has sued US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of four Iraqis and four Afghans who say they were tortured in US facilities.

Mr Rumsfeld has stated that neither he nor his aides ever condoned or authorised abuses.

Seven soldiers have been convicted by US courts martial in connection with the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Two others are still on trial


We sholdent even be in Iraq

Maybe the soldiers at checkpoints are taking the destruction that was meant for the civilians. Maybe the insurgents blowing up an average of a soldier a day meant to get to a populated area and blow up civilians or another police station.

Nah, you can't say that. No European who hates the war in Iraq is ever going to give any American credit for anything good, no matter what.

We sholdent even be in Iraq

And how does that follow from what you posted? Hm? How does it follow that ALL US soldiers are somehow bad, or that the whole war is wrong?

There are better arguments for why the war is wrong - and that isn't one of them.

And you can't derive the idea you have that "all US soldiers are unprofessional" from the actions of a few.

.. The soldiers are nervous because Al Queda operatives in Iraq are trying to kill them.What did they expect?

to actually be welcomed with flowers and music? :confused:

Well, the military can only investigate the chain of command downwards from the point that orders the investigation. Rumsfeld ordered some of the investigations - some were started lower.

One could see a Justice Department investigation. They are investigating Guantanamo that way. And, if they find something on the President, then we can have Congress appoint a special prosecutor.

Of course the military can not instigate this. Bush should, however, see the need for an independent investigation. Even if it is only a PR operation.

and the soldier who fired at a half dead uncountious man in a mosque
yes, I know this is not the case with the VAST majority of soldiers, but most of these KIDs in Iraq will come back traumatized

What did they expect?

to actually be welcomed with flowers and music? :confused:

Oh, so you agree now that there are al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq?

Yay!

Nah, you can't say that. No European who hates the war in Iraq is ever going to give any American credit for anything good, no matter what.


I'm afraid you're right.

hey alien born i also live in Brazil..Campinas SP its been like almost 4 yrs now

March 11th, 2005 3:35 pm
US held youngsters at Abu Ghraib


Children as young as 11 years old were held at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison at the centre of the US prisoner abuse scandal, official documents reveal.

BBC

Children as young as 11 years old were held at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison at the centre of the US prisoner abuse scandal, official documents reveal.

Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of the jail, gave details of young people and women held there.

Her assertion was among documents obtained via legal action by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The Pentagon has admitted juveniles were among the detainees, but said no child was subject to any abuse.

Brig Gen Karpinski made her remarks in an interview with a general investigating the abuses at the prison.

'Innocent civilians'

The transcript of her May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of papers obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act.

In one case, witness statements among the released documents allege that four drunken Americans took a 17-year-old female prisoner from her cell and forced her to expose her breasts and kissed her.

In another documented incident, troops are alleged to have smeared mud on the detained 17-year-old son of an Iraqi general and forced his father to watch him shiver in the cold.

Brig Gen Karpinski, who was in charge at Abu Ghraib from July to November 2003, said she often visited the prison's youngest inmates.

She said in her interview that she thought one boy "looked like he was eight years old".

"He told me he was almost 12," she said. "He told me his brother was there with him, but he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother. He was crying."

She said the military began holding children and women at Abu Ghraib from mid-2003. She did not say what the youngsters had been locked up for.

In her interview with Maj Gen George Fay, she also said intelligence officers had worked out an agreement to hold detainees without keeping records.

The Pentagon has acknowledged holding so-called "ghost detainees" on the basis that they were enemy combatants and therefore not entitled to prisoner of war protections.

Brig Gen Karpinski said US commanders were reluctant to release detainees, an attitude she called "releasophobia".

In her interview, she said Maj Gen Walter Wodjakowski, then the second most senior army general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians," she said Maj Gen Wodjakowski told her. "We're winning the war."

The ACLU has sued US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of four Iraqis and four Afghans who say they were tortured in US facilities.

Mr Rumsfeld has stated that neither he nor his aides ever condoned or authorised abuses.

Seven soldiers have been convicted by US courts martial in connection with the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Two others are still on trial


We sholdent even be in Iraq
I don't beleive we should have gone into Iraq, but were there now, and we have to make sure it doesn't become a failed state like Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

On the subject of Abu Graib, It's a known fact that some of the guards were abusive. Guess what? They're being punished. Their punishment is an example to any who were considering violating the prisoner's rights in the future.

Originally posted by OceanDrive
What did they expect?

to actually be welcomed with flowers and music?

That's the kind of attitude Bush instilled in the American people before the war. I'm pretty sure that man had no idea that there would be an insurgency.

We sholdent even be in Iraq

and Saddam should.. because that is the alternative.. him and his sons, who were even worse then he was (if that is even possible)

I DONT think american soldiers are evil..of course their not...Most of them are forced into the military because of financial conditions so0 they can get some money and go school

and the soldier who fired at a half dead uncountious man in a mosque


Conveniently forgetting that a few days before, a "half dead unconscious man in a mosque" blew himself up, injuring that very soldier.

can you pu the source...please :)
anyway....they are (the US soldier,)becoming paranoiac....hum! not a good sign
but i guess like we say in french :
"Qui seme le vent recolte la tempete"
no onw cares what u have to say if yr going to say something make sure its not stupid :sniper:

That's the kind of attitude Bush instilled in the American people before the war. I'm pretty sure that man had no idea that there would be an insurgency.

If you look at the broader picture, I think that they believed that Iraq was defeated, and that the Kurds and Shiites welcomed being liberated.

And I also believe that they were COUNTING on a Sunni insurgency - because they knew it would draw radical Sunnis to the region, where they would be engaged by US forces.

Easier than invading every Middle Eastern country and looking for them.

Think of it as a Roach Motel (Fallujah). Insurgents check in, but they don't check out.

That's the kind of attitude Bush instilled in the American people before the war. I'm pretty sure that man had no idea that there would be an insurgency.

that is NOT what he instilled in the american people before the war.. had you even watched any of his speeches or the news... from day one he said the rebuilding would be harder then the liberation

I DONT think american soldiers are evil..of course their not...Most of them are forced into the military because of financial conditions so0 they can get some money and go school

HAHAHAHAHA! Forced to volunteer. That's a new one. Do they teach that one in clown college?

so from that you conclude that ALL US soldiers are unprofessional.
From that I conclude we should allowed Blix to finish his Job.

I also conclude that the Iraquis do not want US there.

what is in your wallet? (what about you, what do you conclude?)

HAHAHAHAHA! Forced to volunteer. That's a new one. Do they teach that one in clown college?

NOT FORCED PHISICLY BUT FINANCIALY..they need the money....I THOUGHT U WOULD BE ABLE TO COMPRAHEND THAT!!..lol

I DONT think american soldiers are evil..of course their not...Most of them are forced into the military because of financial conditions so0 they can get some money and go school

Boy are you ignorant.

I am a typical US Army infantryman.

I already had a degree before I enlisted.

I already had a nice job as a programmer.

I wanted to have adventure and serve my country, so I enlisted.

Most of the infantrymen I met in the 101st had similar backgrounds - less than 1/3 did not have a degree.

I had no trouble getting a job when I got out. Now I'm a lawyer.

I served in the first Gulf War. I killed a few Iraqis.

Are you feeling stupid now? For not knowing who is in service?

HAHAHAHAHA! Forced to volunteer. That's a new one. Do they teach that one in clown college?

another shamefull argument.. they are "forced" into the military.. just like they would otherwise be forced into the selling of drugs or "forced" into car jackings "FORCED" into GANGS..

no.. I think not... Any person with half a brain knows what he or she is getting into when they join the military and it is a CHOICE.. weather it be a good or bad one.. it is one they make. Nothing FORCES us to do anything in this country.

Originally posted by Invidentia
that is NOT what he instilled in the american people before the war.. had you even watched any of his speeches or the news... from day one he said the rebuilding would be harder then the liberation

If so, why didn't he send the amount of troops needed, and suggested by some of his top generals, to be able to stop any insurgency? Why didn't he or anyone in his administration create a realistic strategy for rebuilding Iraq that would account for the insurgency? What most government leaders say is mostly half-lies that are made to ensure public support.

Eh, really, this is both the fault of the driver and the fault of the US troops. Both sides could have taken better precautions to ensure that this didn't happen. But thats collateral damage for you.

Think of it as a Roach Motel (Fallujah). Insurgents check in, but they don't check out.

I think it's that American policy of treating every other country as a Roach Motel combined with its readiness to use military solutions to any problem that has world opinion sour towards the United States among other things.

can you pu the source...please :)
anyway....they are (the US soldier,)becoming paranoiac....hum! not a good sign
but i guess like we say in french :
"Qui seme le vent recolte la tempete"
All we need are trigger happy paranoid freaks at checkpoints. That way NO ONE will get in, everyone will be safe, unless they want to leave, then they might be shot

Eh, really, this is both the fault of the driver and the fault of the US troops. Both sides could have taken better precautions to ensure that this didn't happen. But thats collateral damage for you.
What do you expect a soldier manning a checkpoint to do if a vehicle approaching him refuses to stop?

hey alien born i also live in Brazil..Campinas SP its been like almost 4 yrs now

You have a TG

If so, why didn't he send the amount of troops needed, and suggested by some of his top generals, to be able to stop any insurgency? Why didn't he or anyone in his administration create a realistic strategy for rebuilding Iraq that would account for the insurgency? What most government leaders say is mostly half-lies that are made to ensure public support.

first of all.. becuase some top generals suggested one thing and others suggested another.. did you ever think had we sent in 200 to 300 thousand troops into IRaq having troopers on every street corner that it would then have looked EVEN MORE like some sort of occupation then it already did... perhaps because they anticapted overwhelming by numbers, which was not nesseary to win the war in the first place would be even more detremental in the aftermath by EVEN MORE people preciving an occupation instead of a liberation!

Because not even the best strategic minds could have guessed an insurgency this strong, which would eventually target the Citizens of Iraq to make their statement.

and the "Most" governments your speaking of (Especially the most influential ones).. i suspect like oh France and Russia and China, where ones with alterior motives (ie... oil for food scandel) and would have done anything to undermine the effort.

If so, why didn't he send the amount of troops needed, and suggested by some of his top generals, to be able to stop any insurgency? Why didn't he or anyone in his administration create a realistic strategy for rebuilding Iraq that would account for the insurgency? What most government leaders say is mostly half-lies that are made to ensure public support.

You'll notice that the insurgency is confined largely to the Sunni triangle.
It can't even kidnap a US soldier now - they have to buy a GI Joe doll.
They don't dare attack US soldiers directly - they have to use roadside bombs.

Confronting US soldiers directly results in death to the insurgents at a grossly imbalanced rate. By comparison, the Viet Cong had freedom of movement and attack in Vietnam during the whole war - and could attack US forces using small arms at will. The VC killed 6111 US soldiers per year.

The Iraqi insurgents can't do more than 750 per year.

More troops aren't necessary.

Boy are you ignorant.

"I am a typical US Army infantryman.

I already had a degree before I enlisted.

I already had a nice job as a programmer.

I wanted to have adventure and serve my country, so I enlisted.

Most of the infantrymen I met in the 101st had similar backgrounds - less than 1/3 did not have a degree.

I had no trouble getting a job when I got out. Now I'm a lawyer.

I served in the first Gulf War. I killed a few Iraqis.

Are you feeling stupid now? For not knowing who is in service? "

Have u served post 9/11? in the CURRENT war in Iraq?...What this thread is about? most CURRENT soldiers come from low income families..thats why you find more enlistment centers in poor neiborhoods..the govenment knows that more poors will enlist because they need it.

Maybe the soldiers at checkpoints are taking the destruction that was meant for the civilians. Maybe the insurgents blowing up an average of a soldier a day meant to get to a populated area and blow up civilians or another police station.

Of course. However the later is preferable to the former from a strategic view. It is better to have civilian anger directed at insurgents than it is to have it directed at occupying soldiers.

So long as the insurgents are killing occupying soldiers they are freedom fighters. Killing Iraqi civilians makes them murders. It is better for them to be murders because the Iraqi public isn't going to support murderers. They may support freedom fighters. Even after the new government is installed there will be fighing. In the long term it is better than the people to hate us and hate the insurgents than it is for the people to hate us and love the the insurgents. In the former case the new govnerment will be seen in a heroic and protective light. In the later case the new government will be seen as a puppet and would be terribly vulnerable to violent revolution. The last thing we want is a potentially moderate Iraqi government to be replaced with a dictatorial Theocracy because they people like the guerillas and percieve the democratic government to be the pupet of an invading power.

Are you also an expert on the UCMJ? Tell me, oh wise one, can you receive the death penalty under the UCMJ? And if so, for what offenses?

The only one that comes to mind is Desertion in a time of War

I think it's that American policy of treating every other country as a Roach Motel combined with its readiness to use military solutions to any problem that has world opinion sour towards the United States among other things.


I dont know of any other country in the world that pours the amount of aid and assistance and CASH into all these Roach Motels. The military option is the last resort after how many UN resolutions are made and scoffed at?
Your statement is ignorant and horribly biased.

and the soldier who fired at a half dead uncountious man in a mosque...like I said...this "incidents" happen on a regular basis...

this particular incident captured the public attention because of the Video footage made public.

The generals are not really mad at the marine...they are really mad at the Reporter!

my brother has told me stories of that stuff b/c he was in iraq.... the general was probably tkaen out by a sniper :sniper: ....

they have 50 cal. sniper rifles.... nnniiiiiccceeee

in what 3 years just reminde me how many soldiers we've lost again ??? >.> oh thats right a grand total of 1400 or so ?? such outlandish losses in a 3 year period i know... i know.. how can we ever continue this un winable war :rolleyes:

FAct of the matter is no number of troops we could put into Iraq would have brought about more security.. because the more foregin troops you poor in.. the more of an occupier you look like, instead of a liberator.. You have to strike a balance I feel America probably came close to

Boy are you ignorant.

"I am a typical US Army infantryman.

I already had a degree before I enlisted.

I already had a nice job as a programmer.

I wanted to have adventure and serve my country, so I enlisted.

Most of the infantrymen I met in the 101st had similar backgrounds - less than 1/3 did not have a degree.

I had no trouble getting a job when I got out. Now I'm a lawyer.

I served in the first Gulf War. I killed a few Iraqis.

Are you feeling stupid now? For not knowing who is in service? "

Have u served post 9/11? in the CURRENT war in Iraq?...What this thread is about? most CURRENT soldiers come from low income families..thats why you find more enlistment centers in poor neiborhoods..the govenment knows that more poors will enlist because they need it.
Still doesn't mean they're forced to enlist. It's an option, but there are others. Scholarships, grants and loans help many poor kids go to univesity. They don't need to join the military to do it.

like I said...this "inidents" happen on a regular basis...

this particular incident captured the public attention because of the Video footage made public.

The generals are not really mad at the marine...they are really mad at the Reporter!


Those soliders weren't even repremanded because of the state of events which preceeded the event.. just days before the same unit had be targeted by a simliar tactic where a half dead man pretended to be dead.. and when they were searched that half dead man detinated a bomb on himself .. a trap.. what a shocker.. thats why he responded in the way he did.

Its all about PERSPECTIVE! .. obviously your lacking serious perspective and only catching the headlines.. try reading the stories

whats easier?..go to the military for 4yrs or get a student loan and pay it off in 10 yrs?

whats easier?..go to the military for 4yrs or get a student loan and pay it off in 10 yrs?
Student loan. It takes ten years, but while you pay it off you have time to work on your career, can take time off whenever you want, and don't have to wear a uniform.

Originally posted by Invidentia
first of all.. becuase some top generals suggested one thing and others suggested another.. did you ever think had we sent in 200 to 300 thousand troops into IRaq having troopers on every street corner that it would then have looked EVEN MORE like some sort of occupation then it already did... perhaps because they anticapted overwhelming by numbers, which was not nesseary to win the war in the first place would be even more detremental in the aftermath by EVEN MORE people preciving an occupation instead of a liberation!

Because not even the best strategic minds could have guessed an insurgency this strong, which would eventually target the Citizens of Iraq to make their statement.

and the "Most" governments your speaking of (Especially the most influential ones).. i suspect like oh France and Russia and China, where ones with alterior motives (ie... oil for food scandel) and would have done anything to undermine the effort.

How could you not have predicted a strong insurgency, did anyone honestly beleive a Muslim nation that had been told for years Americans were evil and Satanic would just let us prance on in and they would kiss our feet. The Sunnis whio were favored under Sadaam were the obvious one, did anyone think that they'd prefer a bad economy and general anarchy over a generelly well rule under Sadaam. As for the troop numbers, I'm not saying we need thousands upon thousands more, we need more specialized anti-terrorism units that are trained in urban warfare and who can bust down insurgencies.
If you beleive everything that Bush or anyone othre governemtn leader says your incredably naive.

I dont know of any other country in the world that pours the amount of aid and assistance and CASH into all these Roach Motels. The military option is the last resort after how many UN resolutions are made and scoffed at?
Your statement is ignorant and horribly biased.

A lot more ignorant and horribly biased than blatantly calling those countries Roach Motels? Easily taken as a representative sample of American attitude on foreign policy.

Boy are you ignorant.

"I am a typical US Army infantryman.

I already had a degree before I enlisted.

I already had a nice job as a programmer.

I wanted to have adventure and serve my country, so I enlisted.

Most of the infantrymen I met in the 101st had similar backgrounds - less than 1/3 did not have a degree.

I had no trouble getting a job when I got out. Now I'm a lawyer.

I served in the first Gulf War. I killed a few Iraqis.

Are you feeling stupid now? For not knowing who is in service? "

Have u served post 9/11? in the CURRENT war in Iraq?...What this thread is about? most CURRENT soldiers come from low income families..thats why you find more enlistment centers in poor neiborhoods..the govenment knows that more poors will enlist because they need it.

.. and is it wrong to enlist where there is a demand.. would you say a kid who joins a gang because of his poverty strucken socio-economic conditions was FORCED to join that gang ? ... maybe the one who turns into a drug dealer.. surely he was FORCED ... or the one who steals for a living, or the one who kills people SURELY aLl these UNFORTNATE people in sad socio-economic conditions were FORCED into the deeds they did....

atleast according to YOUR logic they were.

And you speak of military service so lowly.. if im not mistaken, Colen Powel as well came form a poor family joining the Military to gain an education.. a black boy no less... only to become the Secretary of State.. I wish I could be forced into such an unfortunate position as this :rolleyes:

no onw cares what u have to say if yr going to say something make sure its not stupid :sniper:
Yeah, he's not from an english speaking country. Whats your excuse?!

How could you not have predicted a strong insurgency, did anyone honestly beleive a Muslim nation that had been told for years Americans were evil and Satanic would just let us prance on in and they would kiss our feet. The Sunnis whio were favored under Sadaam were the obvious one, did anyone think that they'd prefer a bad economy and general anarchy over a generelly well rule under Sadaam. As for the troop numbers, I'm not saying we need thousands upon thousands more, we need more specialized anti-terrorism units that are trained in urban warfare and who can bust down insurgencies.
If you beleive everything that Bush or anyone othre governemtn leader says your incredably naive.

... Im Naive ?? IM NAIVE ?? have you even listend to any of the suggestions other generals made.. there is no such urban warfare specialized anti-terroism unit you speak of which just BUST DOWN INSURGENICES.. thats why INSURGENCIES are so effective... the suggestions by other generals were for the very numbers i stated.. 200 to 300 thousand troops... no my friend.. its you who is Naive on these matters

and those great sunnis you speak of... you mean the massive 20% who were favored under the Saddam.. y es who would have thought that 20% of the population who be so effective to hold the other 80% hostage... who would have thought that 80% who had suffered genocide, repression, starvation would be so unwilling to lose their oppressive dictator.

A lot more ignorant and horribly biased than blatantly calling those countries Roach Motels? Easily taken as a representative sample of American attitude on foreign policy.
As I recall from the original post he didn't call any nation a Roach Motel. He called Fallujiah a Roach Motel. It's not an insult to the city, it's an analogy. A Roach Motel is a sort of glue trap for roaches. Fallujiah was a trap for insurgents. If anyone should be insulted by the statement it's the insurgents, and who gives a crap what those dickheads think?

off topic question: how long does it usaly take for the UN in NS to come up with a resolution?

A lot more ignorant and horribly biased than blatantly calling those countries Roach Motels? Easily taken as a representative sample of American attitude on foreign policy.


I paraphrased your use of Roach Motels, I am not referring to any specific country. I am glad when the United States gives assistance to people who need it, whomever they might be. Its the right thing to do and most of my kind feel the same way. Maybe though, I 'd like to see some one appreciate it. We are expected to give and no matter what we give, its never enough.
We also have our share of problems, but I rarely see another country send experts or money or assistance.

I had to look...(thats like me...always double-checking)

http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=snide&x=12&y=9

main entry snide

1 a : FALSE, COUNTERFEIT b : practicing deception : DISHONEST
Huh? This is you: http://webster.com/images/audio.gif
:D

Originally posted by Invidentia
... Im Naive ?? IM NAIVE ?? have you even listend to any of the suggestions other generals made.. there is no such urban warfare specialized anti-terroism unit you speak of which just BUST DOWN INSURGENICES.. thats why INSURGENCIES are so effective... the suggestions by other generals were for the very numbers i stated.. 200 to 300 thousand troops... no my friend.. its you who is Naive on these matters

I'm not saying there is that kind of unit, I'm saying there needs to be. And yes 200,000 troops in a kind of rotation would probably be more effective than the overworked troops we have now.

As I recall from the original post he didn't call any nation a Roach Motel. He called Fallujiah a Roach Motel. It's not an insult to the city, it's an analogy. A Roach Motel is a sort of glue trap for roaches. Fallujiah was a trap for insurgents. If anyone should be insulted by the statement it's the insurgents, and who gives a crap what those dickheads think?

I want you to answer a question..If we neven invaded Iraq would those insurgents be a threat to us ..or did we make them a threat?..If Iraqis invaded the Us saying "bush is an evil tyrant and they have WMDs" and an american shot at one of them would he have been a threat to the Iraqi if the Iraqi never went to the US?

Huh? This is you: http://webster.com/images/audio.gif
:D
:D Im not posting FALSE or COUNTERFEIT News.

If you been around long enough...You d know that for sure.

I want you to answer a question..If we neven invaded Iraq would those insurgents be a threat to us ..or did we make them a threat?..If Iraqis invaded the Us saying "bush is an evil tyrant and they have WMDs" and an american shot at one of them would he have been a threat to the Iraqi if the Iraqi never went to the US?
Dude, I wasn't in favor of the invasion to begin with. The problem is I don't get to make those descisions. We're there now, and we have no option but to fight the insurgents and help the Iraqi people build a stable nation.

:D Im not posting FALSE or COUNTERFEIT News.

If you been around long enough...You d know that for sure.
Check the third definition down.

I wasn't in favor of the invasion to begin with. The problem is I don't get to make those descisions. We're there now, and we have no option but to fight the insurgents ...Probably the same argument of some German officers...at the Nuremberg WarCrimes trials.

:D Im not posting FALSE or COUNTERFEIT News.

If you been around long enough...You d know that for sure.
I know I'm just joking.

I want you to answer a question..If we neven invaded Iraq would those insurgents be a threat to us ..or did we make them a threat?..If Iraqis invaded the Us saying "bush is an evil tyrant and they have WMDs" and an american shot at one of them would he have been a threat to the Iraqi if the Iraqi never went to the US?


These insurgents have no love of sadaam-they are being coached and taught to hate the west by mullahs who want to replace sadaam with one of their own. They are convinced we will remain and occupy and govern them. These are people who dont have the benefit of education and free information. They truly believe we are there to destroy Iraq and Islam.

Check the third definition down.
Just say what you want to say...let your frustrations out and get over with..

I can take it! :cool:

Probably the same argument of some German officers...at the Nuremberg WarCrimes trials.
I guess you'd prefer that we pull out immediately, a civil war makes the nation ungovernable for a couple of decades, international terrorist organizations set up shop there while the civilians suffer and die in massive numbers, and local warlords are free to rape, steal and kill people at will.


I seriously think you care less about the people of Iraq than you do about badmouthing the USA. That makes you a pretty sorry excuse for a human being.

I guess you'd prefer that we pull out immediately,...

You got that rigth!

You got that rigth!
Just goes to show that you're not bright enough to know what the consequences of a failed state are, or you are hateful enough to sacrifice Iraq to humiliate the USA.

I seriously have no respect for you.

Probably the same argument of some German officers...at the Nuremberg WarCrimes trials.


I believe that inference is inappropriate and incorrect.

I DONT think american soldiers are evil..of course their not...Most of them are forced into the military because of financial conditions so0 they can get some money and go school


Show evidence that MOST of them joined because of financial conditions. I was in the Marines and all of my friends that joined did so because they wished to be a part of one of the greatest fighting forces in the world. Yes, I know, anecdotal evidence does not an argument make, so you show evidence that most joined due to financial conditions or stop making dumbassed generalizations.

Just goes to show that you're not bright enough to know what the consequences of....future telling powers? :confused:
You know what will happen if we pull out...and we dont. :eek:

What did your Crystall ball said were the consequenses of pulling out of Vietnam?

future telling powers? :confused:
You know what will happen if we pull out...and we dont. :eek:

What did your Crystall ball said were the consequenses of pulling out of Vietnam?
There's a civil war brewing in Iraq already. The Shia civilians are being targeted by Sunni insurgents. Without the US to keep a relative peace and protect the fledgeling government it's pretty clear that the situation would degrade into a new Afghanistan. Just because you are too blinded by your ideology to see it doesn't mean it's not true.

You got that rigth!

Wow, I think you just won the most ignorant comment of the year award. First, you would condemn the people of Iraq to the torture, starvation and death that would follow a pullout by the US. Even the countries most against the Iraq war do not suggest such an ignorant strategy. Pulling out immediately would be socially irresponsible. Ask people who have actually been to Iraq. They will inform you that the majority of insurgents are not Iraqis and the majority of Iraqis are not insurgents. In general, Iraqis would like for us to slowly turn over power to the new government and leave when the government is stable.

... it doesn't mean it's not true.just because you think you know what is going to happen...it doesn't mean it is going to happen.

just because the Bushites say chaos is the only alterantive to occupation...
just because the Bushites say they are the saviours...
just because the Bushites say saddam has WMD...
just because the Bushites say "they will welcome us with flowers and music"..

just because they say it...it does not mean I is the truth...

<<< I dont have to thrust the Politicians and the Generals...

just because you think you know what is going to happen...it doesn't mean it is going to happen.

just because the Bushites say chaos is the only alterantive to occupation...
just because the Bushites say they are the saviours...
just because the Bushites say saddam has WMD...
just because the Bushites say "they will welcome us with flowers and music"..

just because they say it...it does not mean I is the truth...

I dont have to thrust the Politicians and the Generals...
I'm done with you for now. I can't stand the ignorance any longer.

k, I had enough of this. As someone who still has many friends in the military and only left the military shortly before all of this activity broke out, I appreciate an intelligent discussion about a responsible military, but this is far from that. If you guys find some people more educated than OceanDrive and Libertiam to discuss this with send me a telegram and I'd be glad to join. Thanks for the intelligent comment from Gauthier, Whispering Legs, Drunk Commies, et all.

... Ask people who have actually been to Iraq....
You mean people like you? people like Whiitier? people like Wlegs?... :rolleyes:

I believe that inference is inappropriate and incorrect.
Why is that?

I am dying to know why is it that US soldiers at a checkpoint AREN'T MADE AWARE that a VIP will be passing through their area. Is there no one on the radio saying "excuse me checkpoint guys, but the general's coming... please don't blow his car up"??????

What the hell is the matter with Allied communications over there? Sooner or later a visiting US senator or maybe Rummy himself will be driving by and get blown to pieces.

If I'm not mistaken we're at war. Mistakes happen in war. Nothing one can do about it except move on. So, Oceandrive, get over it and find something worth using to bash the U.S..

::laughs::

i was under the impression that bush had already declared this war won. and it's not just a case of simple mistakes being made. openly firing on released hostages and open sadism against iraqi prisoners and civilians isnt my idea of a mistake

I am dying to know why is it that US soldiers at a checkpoint AREN'T MADE AWARE that a VIP will be passing through their area. Is there no one on the radio saying "excuse me checkpoint guys, but the general's coming... please don't blow his car up"??????

What the hell is the matter with Allied communications over there? Sooner or later a visiting US senator or maybe Rummy himself will be driving by and get blown to pieces.
Yeah, I'm waiting for "BREAKING NEWS: US soldiers at check point kill US president" or Condoleeza Rice

You mean people like you? people like Whiitier? people like Wlegs?... :rolleyes:

I mean I have and you should. I served my country for eight years, and just happened to choose to stop before 9/11. I mean you should try talking to people who have seen the reactions of Iraqi people firsthand. It's enlightening, assuming you wish to be enlightened.

I am dying to know why is it that US soldiers at a checkpoint AREN'T MADE AWARE that a VIP will be passing through their area. Is there no one on the radio saying "excuse me checkpoint guys, but the general's coming... please don't blow his car up"??????

What the hell is the matter with Allied communications over there? Sooner or later a visiting US senator or maybe Rummy himself will be driving by and get blown to pieces.

Bush should visit Iraq some time. And make sure to drive fast.

I want you to answer a question..If we neven invaded Iraq would those insurgents be a threat to us ..or did we make them a threat?..If Iraqis invaded the Us saying "bush is an evil tyrant and they have WMDs" and an american shot at one of them would he have been a threat to the Iraqi if the Iraqi never went to the US?

In fact the answer to your question is yes.. they would... because a great many of those insurgents are Al-queda and other terrorist organizations who were activily organizing against the US to begin with. All of the native Iraqis of whome are Bathists have no interest in killing americans but only to regain power, of which they will kill and mame any who stand in their path including their own people. If America were to leave so would their immediate distain for America as they refocus on any other party in power. They are not suddenly fighting american forces because of a new eternal hatrid for Americans and Western culture.