NationStates Jolt Archive

Iraqi Civilians Fight Back Against Insurgents (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/international/worldspecial/23iraq.html?th&emc=th)
By ROBERT F. WORTH, The New York Times

Published: March 23, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 22 - Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon on Tuesday, a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming toward his shop here and decided he had had enough.

As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their Kalashnikov rifles and opened fire, the police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhia's nephews and a bystander were wounded, the police said.

"We attacked them before they attacked us," said Dhia, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement, as he stood barefoot outside his home a few hours after the battle, a 9-millimeter pistol in his hand. He would not give his last name.

"We killed three of those who call themselves the mujahedeen," he said. "I am waiting for the rest of them to come, and we will show them."

It was the first time that private citizens are known to have retaliated successfully against the insurgents. There have been anecdotal reports of residents shooting at attackers after a bombing or an assassination. But the gun battle on Tuesday erupted in full view of at least a dozen witnesses, including a Justice Ministry official who lives nearby.

The battle was the latest sign that Iraqis may be willing to start standing up against the attacks that leave dozens dead here nearly every week.

After a suicide bombing in Hilla last month that killed 136 people, including a number of women and children, hundreds of residents demonstrated in front of the city hall every day for almost a week, chanting slogans against terrorism. Last week a smaller but similar rally took place in Firdos Square in downtown Baghdad. Another demonstration in the capital is scheduled for Wednesday.

Like many of the attacks here, Tuesday's fight had sectarian overtones. Dhia and his family are Shiite Arabs, and they cook for religious festivals at the Shiite Husseiniya Mosque across from his shop. The insurgents are largely Sunni Arabs, and they have aimed dozens of attacks at Shiite figures, celebrations and even funerals.

The conflict has grown sharper in the last year, with Shiites dominating Iraq's new police force and army and holding a narrow majority in the newly elected national assembly.

In the past, Shiite religious leaders have counseled against revenge after attacks. But there are indications that some are no longer willing to turn the other cheek. Last fall an armed group called the Anger Brigade was formed after attacks on Shiite pilgrims south of Baghdad.

Elsewhere in Iraq, insurgents continued their campaign of violence. In the northern city of Mosul, 4 civilians were killed Tuesday morning and 14 were wounded when a roadside bomb detonated near an American military convoy, health officials said. The bomb did not appear to harm the convoy, witnesses said, but destroyed four or five civilian cars that were passing near it on the Sunharib bridge in the city center.

On Monday evening in Mosul, 17 insurgents were killed in a gun battle after they ambushed a convoy of Iraqi security officers, The Associated Press reported.

In Anbar Province, the violence-plagued area west of Baghdad, gunmen kidnapped six Iraqi soldiers on Tuesday as they walked to a bus station, The A.P. reported.

Dhia's gun battle on Tuesday unfolded in Doura, a working-class neighborhood in southern Baghdad where much of the capital's violence is concentrated. Killings and bombings have taken place there in recent weeks, and the police acknowledge that they have little control. Before the fight, an Interior Ministry official was gunned down in Doura as he drove to work, officials said.

Witnesses saw the gunmen circling near the Husseiniya Mosque in three cars just before the violence started, said Amjad Hamid, 25, who works at the Justice Ministry. They stopped near Dhia's shop, across from the mosque. The men carried pistols and rifles, and one had a belt full of hand grenades, he said. They drove an Oldsmobile, a gray Honda and a red Volkswagen Passat.

When the shooting began, Mr. Hamid said, his mother ran outside shouting his name and was struck by bullets in the leg and the ear.

After the insurgents fled, without the Honda, one was left behind, the Doura police chief said. That gunman broke into a nearby house and hid there, holding the residents at gunpoint until his friends arrived and drove him away, the police chief said.

The owner of the house, who spoke on condition that he not be identified, said the gunman had entered through the garage and made his way to the living room. "I heard the screaming of the women," the owner said, "so I went to see what was the matter, and I saw a man holding an AK-47."

The owner said the gunman then shouted: "Keep me here for a short time until I can leave the area or I will kill you all. I don't want anyone to leave this room."

They obeyed. The gunman telephoned some friends and stayed for about an hour until they arrived to pick him up. Before he left, the owner of the house said, he issued a final warning: "If you scream or call the police, my friends will come and kill you. They know where you are."

Two of Dhia's nephews who were with him during the attack, one 13, the other 24, were wounded, family members said. After the police arrived, they recovered the bodies of the three dead insurgents, who were identified through documents in their clothing as Abdul Razzaq Hamid, Abdul Hamid Abed and Zaid Safaa, officials said.

Hours later, Dhia was still furiously cursing the insurgents when he spoke to a reporter outside the front gate of his home, a short walk from his shop. A Shiite cleric standing nearby quickly told him to stop talking, and he went silent.

Meanwhile, a group of armed neighborhood men stood watch on the roof of the house.

"I am sure they will be back," one of the guards said. "We killed three of them."

How could you not cheer someone defending their home and family? This is very encouraging!:)

Edit: I do hope that they come back and get their arses kicked, but what I hope for most is the safety of his and other's famalies.

If this sort of thing becomes common, Iraq may stabilize in a year or two instead of a decade!!

(fingers crossed)

Though I am a pacfist, and opposed to the occupation of Iraq, I am nonetheless encouraged by the willingness of some of the population to simply not tolerate the insurgency which is causing most of the problems now. It's only through this enforcement that it isn't acceptable that it's going to die down, and Iraq can return to some semblance of normality.

Yep, a stable democatic Iraq, and a strong middle eastern allie as well, hears to hoping, if wish were horses, I would have rode them all. *Holds a toast*

go the Iraqi's

Great Story.

Iraqi Civilians Fight Back Against Insurgents (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/international/worldspecial/23iraq.html?th&emc=th)
By ROBERT F. WORTH, The New York Times
Actually, knowing how patriotic that you are, or at least presenting yourself as such, I am surprised by your header comment:

"My kinda man! Ordinary Iraqi fights back!"

If the US was invaded, wouldn't you yourself identify as an "insurgent", willing to battle the invaders and their sympathizers?

An honest answer would suffice.

I thought the Iraqi's had been fighting back against the insurgants since they invaded Iraq a couple of years ago!

Actually, knowing how patriotic that you are, or at least presenting yourself as such, I am surprised by your header comment. If the US was invaded, wouldn't you yourself identify as an "insurgent", willing to battle the invaders and their sympathizers?

An honest answer would suffice.

Thats a good question.. But is Bush a dictator?

And are insurgents fighting for their country? Or are they just anti-american?

Plus not all Insurgents are Iraqi's fighting for the good of the country, especially the foreigners. Their just there to kill and cause chaos and imposing their own beliefs on the people.

The people have voted, and the majority has decided.

Goddamn Zarqawi. His sectarian bloodletting is just increasing tensions between Shiite and Sunni, and and creating a massive gap of support between the two communities for the resistance where there used to be solidarity. Although you can't really blame the insurgency entirely for that.. the whole political strategy of the US here is designed to create and inflame sectarian tensions among the people.

In any case, this story gets it totally backwards. The Iraqis who are "fighting back" are the men who are part of the insurgency. And the people who are committing the most vicious and brutal violence against the Iraqi people are not the resistance (despite all their flaws), but the Iraqi National Guard and the United States military. One shopkeep defending his personal property hardly seems like a reason to believe the resistance is waning, or losing its support base.

It sounds like it is the start of real civil unrest that might grow.

Edit: I do hope that they come back and get their arses kicked, but what I hope for most is the safety of his and other's famalies.
Since it is clear that the Americans are incapable of providing any.

Since it is clear that the Americans are incapable of providing any.

If you want safety, you have to provide it yourself.

Are you the kind of person who believes that the police will save you at all times in all situations?

This guy and his family did act heroically-they have a lot to lose and acted for what they believed in. I hope the attention he gets works positively, instead of attracting a concerted effort of reprisal against him.

If you want safety, you have to provide it yourself.

Are you the kind of person who believes that the police will save you at all times in all situations?
Well, you were the agressors. That there are insurgents is the fault of the US. And since the US wants to continiue their occupation of Iraq it is their responsibility. At which they have failed utterly.

Thats a good question.. But is Bush a dictator?
This question is irrelevant.

And are insurgents fighting for their country? Or are they just anti-american?
I believe that both would be the correct answer?

Plus not all Insurgents are Iraqi's fighting for the good of the country, especially the foreigners. Their just there to kill and cause chaos and imposing their own beliefs on the people.
One could argue that the insurgents are fighting against a foreign power that is trying to impose "their" beliefs on them?

The people have voted, and the majority has decided.
And when the people voted, do you know what they were voting for? Do you think that they all love American imposed "democracy"?

Perhaps you might enjoy reading this article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FA30Ak02.html)?

The insurgents are trying to militarily do what the Shiites are trying to do politically, and that would be to get rid of the American occupiers.

The man was defending his property. Good for him. I would have done the same. I can't for the life of me figure out why the war monkeys want to politicize this incident.

On a different note, I don't really know what should be done with Iraq at the moment. If the US were to pull out, the Iraqis would be screwed; if we stay there, the Iraqis will be screwed. This dilemma could have been easily enough avoided by either entering Iraq with a realistic plan for what to do with it afterwards or by getting rid of the terrorists and then talking about what to do with Saddam. The way things were done, the removal of Asshole Dictator #1 only served to make room for more dumbass fundamentalists.

I'll go ahead and say it: we told you so. We said that it would be a mess. We said that it would be a quagmire. We said that the conflict would continue for several years. We said that there would be massive civilian casualties. Tooting your horn over every piece of vaguely positive news from Iraq does not change that we were right, and you were wrong. Yes, I get a sick sort of satisfaction from this, just as you get a completely irrational feeling of satisfaction every time you hear of something vaguely positive happening in Iraq. There's no way for there to be any rational discussion on this matter because nobody involved really cares about the present condition of Iraq. All anyone cares about is being right in their original opinion about whether Iraq should have been invaded in the first place. It's still pro-war v. anti-war and Republican v. Democrat bullshit. Personally, I have a general dislike for Republicans, and I don't make many exceptions. Does that make me a bigot? Yes, that makes me a bigot. Is that a bad thing? I don't know. Give me a fucking break. It's part of human nature, and I can't really help it.

So, let me put it this way: if things turn out well for the Iraqis, well, good for them. I was still right about the war, and you were still wrong, nanny-nanny boo-boo. There's too much bad blood between the participants in these discussions for that line to ever change in how well it reflects what's really beneath all the rhetorical rubbish. Fuck all of you.

Actually, knowing how patriotic that you are, or at least presenting yourself as such, I am surprised by your header comment:

"My kinda man! Ordinary Iraqi fights back!"

If the US was invaded, wouldn't you yourself identify as an "insurgent", willing to battle the invaders and their sympathizers?

An honest answer would suffice.

I wouldn't identify myself with a foreigner/terrorist(Zarqawi) to fight vs an invader.

One shopkeep defending his personal property hardly seems like a reason to believe the resistance is waning, or losing its support base.

No, but this is.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453452.863194444.html

Add in the protests against the Hilla bombings by foreign arabs, and widespread reports of increased cooperation by Iraqi civilians, and you have a trend.

So, let me put it this way: if things turn out well for the Iraqis, well, good for them. I was still right about the war, and you were still wrong, nanny-nanny boo-boo. There's too much bad blood between the participants in these discussions for that line to ever change in how well it reflects what's really beneath all the rhetorical rubbish. Fuck all of you.

Wow.. can I add this to Wikipedia under "sour grapes?" Sounds like someone's afraid the Iraqis will establish a working democracy, knowing they did nothing but try and prevent it.. Liberals getting a little hot under the collar? Will you brag about how you knew Iraq would be a quagmire then?

Well, you were the agressors. That there are insurgents is the fault of the US. And since the US wants to continiue their occupation of Iraq it is their responsibility. At which they have failed utterly.

I guess that's why so many of the insurgents aren't Iraqis. Last I heard, being Syrian or Lebanese or Jordanian or Saudi didn't make you Iraqi - or give you any right to "defend" Iraq.

Under international law, that makes you a "mercenary".

I wouldn't identify myself with a foreigner/terrorist(Zarqawi) to fight vs an invader.
Not all insurgents identify themselves with Zarqawi. The ones that do, still believe that the Americans have no business being in Iraq and will do everything in their power to get them out?

I guess that's why so many of the insurgents aren't Iraqis. Last I heard, being Syrian or Lebanese or Jordanian or Saudi didn't make you Iraqi - or give you any right to "defend" Iraq.
Firstly, most insurgents are Iraqis. Secondly, why would you question anyones "right to defend" Iraq, when no one gave the US the "right to attack" Iraq?

Under international law, that makes you a "mercenary".
Only if they are being paid to defend Iraq. And as far as international law is concerned, the US seems fairly adept at breaking them?

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]I guess that's why so many of the insurgents aren't Iraqis. Last I heard, being Syrian or Lebanese or Jordanian or Saudi didn't make you Iraqi - or give you any right to "defend" Iraq.
Firstly, most insurgents are Iraqis. Secondly, why would you question anyones "right to defend" Iraq, when no one gave the US the "right to attack" Iraq?

Only if they are being paid to defend Iraq. And as far as international law is concerned, the US seems fairly adept at breaking them?

I can name many instances in which the US investigates itself, changes policy to meet those laws, and at least makes an effort to stop it.

I see NO such effort on the part of the insurgents. Please provide a convenient excuse, I'd love to hear it.

I guess that's why so many of the insurgents aren't Iraqis. Last I heard, being Syrian or Lebanese or Jordanian or Saudi didn't make you Iraqi - or give you any right to "defend" Iraq.
So I take it you would be completely against Canadians, British or anyone else coming to the aid of America if it ever got invaded?
ANd jump back 60 years, you would have been against America helping to stop Nazi Germany and Japan from their invasions of several countries?

So I take it you would be completely against Canadians, British or anyone else coming to the aid of America if it ever got invaded?
ANd jump back 60 years, you would have been against America helping to stop Nazi Germany and Japan from their invasions of several countries?

As long as they're part of an official military, representing an official country and its foreign policy, it's not a violation of international law - and they are not mercenaries.

If you aren't wearing a uniform, and you aren't representing your official government, and you go to another country and fight for someone, you're a mercenary.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]

I can name many instances in which the US investigates itself, changes policy to meet those laws, and at least makes an effort to stop it.

I see NO such effort on the part of the insurgents. Please provide a convenient excuse, I'd love to hear it.
A Bush type "convenient excuse", such as WMD, or links to terrorist organizations, to invade Iraq?

No need to provide a "convenient excuse", for those trying their utmost to get the US out of "their" country. The very presence of US troops on Iraqi soil is all the excuse they need.

As long as they're part of an official military, representing an official country and its foreign policy, it's not a violation of international law - and they are not mercenaries.

If you aren't wearing a uniform, and you aren't representing your official government, and you go to another country and fight for someone, you're a mercenary.
I didn't ask you whether they were mercenaries. I asked you whether you would support them coming to the USA's aid.
So all those people who went to fight against Franco during the Spanish civil war are nothing more than mercenaries and had no right to be there, in your opinion?

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]
A Bush type "convenient excuse", such as WMD, or links to terrorist organizations, to invade Iraq?

No need to provide a "convenient excuse", for those trying their utmost to get the US out of "their" country. The very presence of US troops on Iraqi soil is all the excuse they need.

Under international law, it doesn't provide any reason for using foreigners to fight for them.

I didn't ask you whether they were mercenaries. I asked you whether you would support them coming to the USA's aid.
So all those people who went to fight against Franco during the Spanish civil war are nothing more than mercenaries and had no right to be there, in your opinion?

As long as people came as official military, and came on official behalf of their respective governments, and were recognized as such by their official governments, I would support it.

The people in the Spanish Civil War who went there (including some Americans) were often shot when captured - legally so, because they were mercenaries under international law.

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]
A Bush type "convenient excuse", such as WMD, or links to terrorist organizations, to invade Iraq?

No need to provide a "convenient excuse", for those trying their utmost to get the US out of "their" country. The very presence of US troops on Iraqi soil is all the excuse they need.

I was unaware that Zarqawi was Iraqi! :rolleyes:

And while you're backing your terrorist buddy,

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

Something tells me that "treated humanely" doesn't include decapitation!

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]

I was unaware that Zarqawi was Iraqi! :rolleyes:

Canuck probably thinks it's OK under international law. He probably also believes that we should only apply international law to the US, and not to anyone else.

I guess that's why so many of the insurgents aren't Iraqis. Last I heard, being Syrian or Lebanese or Jordanian or Saudi didn't make you Iraqi - or give you any right to "defend" Iraq.

Well they weren't there before the US goos stepped in. Were they?
Under international law, that makes you a "mercenary".
Yes. Probably.

Yes. Probably.

It's "Yes, certainly it does." Historically, this is the case, and people who show up in someone else's country to fight as an insurgent have been legally shot for doing so.

Interesting that the US isn't executing them when they capture them, eh?

I suppose that we're doing the illegal thing by interrogating them with panties on their heads - rather than the perfectly legal option of shooting them in public.

[QUOTE=Custodes Rana]

Canuck probably thinks it's OK under international law. He probably also believes that we should only apply international law to the US, and not to anyone else.


Isn't that Europe's motto "Do as we(europe) say, not as we(europe) do"??

He'll whine about the deaths from invasion and occupation, while ignoring the deaths due to starvation(a direct result of the Oil-for-Food Scam), of which Russsia,France, Germany, and Jordan were a direct party!! :rolleyes:

As long as people came as official military, and came on official behalf of their respective governments, and were recognized as such by their official governments, I would support it.

The people in the Spanish Civil War who went there (including some Americans) were often shot when captured - legally so, because they were mercenaries under international law.
You're still dodging the question. I wasn't asking you whether they were legal combatants or not. I was asking if you supported their actions.
So let's try again:
Did those people who went to fight against Franco's fascist regime during the Spanish Civil war, in your opinion, should have been there?
If America was invaded, would you accept help from, say, a Canadian who has crossed the border with the sole purpose of fighting the invading army, even if the Canadian government had said it wasn't going to support such action?
Do you think the partisans who secretly fought against the Germans in France - some of whom weren't French, and none of them wore uniforms of any sort - had any right to be there?

According to your previous answers, the answers to all the above would be no.

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]


Isn't that Europe's motto "Do as we(europe) say, not as we(europe) do"??

He'll whine about the deaths from invasion and occupation, while ignoring the deaths due to starvation(a direct result of the Oil-for-Food Scam), of which Russsia,France, Germany, and Jordan were a direct party!! :rolleyes:

Well, Oil For Food is technically a UN sponsored program, and the UN has no auditing checks and balances and no method of internal law or punishment. Technically, none of the scandal was a violation of international law, no matter how many Iraqis were starved or deprived of medicine.

Ah, how well I recall how the Europeans accused the US of starving Iraqis, and of letting innocent children die by the thousands from lack of medicine. And to think that all this time, it was really the Europeans who took money under the table from Oil For Food, in a perfectly (technically) legal way.

So that makes it all OK now.

Insurgents are terrorists and should be treated accordingly (aka... wipe them out with any means necessary, war's a bitch). And I think this "International law" stuff is a huge POS anyway. 'Sides, there are no laws in war, it's all just propaganda to make the pacifists feel good. If you're in a situation where you kill people, how can there be law at all. And I still want to see an Arclight on those insurgents (even though it's not called like that anymore, sadly).

There's only one rule: If it carries a weapon, it's a legal target.

But you have to admit one thing about them, they're entertaining. Like that one insurgent who kneeled in the open with an RPG-7 and aimed at some US APC. Oh did they blast him, that idiot. I really wonder if they believe that they can deal with the US war machine. I mean, some badly trained, badly armed idiots vs something like an M1? Yeah, right.

And hell, to those Iraqi who kicked their ass?

Hoo-ah! Well done.



And, Custodes... Europe's moto? Europe? Excuse me... but well... Europe isn't Europe, there are different countries. I still think if the EU would have to agree on the colour of shit, they'd argue over it for a few months.

Since it is clear that the Americans are incapable of providing any.

You try to patrol an area the size of California with 100,000 troops and see how far you get.

Did those people who went to fight against Franco's fascist regime during the Spanish Civil war, in your opinion, should have been there?

No, they were mercenaries.
If America was invaded, would you accept help from, say, a Canadian who has crossed the border with the sole purpose of fighting the invading army, even if the Canadian government had said it wasn't going to support such action?

No, because that would be a war crime on his part, and would subject him to more than unreasonable risk
Do you think the partisans who secretly fought against the Germans in France - some of whom weren't French, and none of them wore uniforms of any sort - had any right to be there?

Members of the UK SOE, who were the founders of the French Resistance (not the French), and who fought in civilian clothes, were commonly tortured and executed by the Germans. Legally. No German was ever even accused of a crime in those matters. Because it was legal.

A secret agent who engages in such activities is acting in an official capacity. But because their government denies their existence, and disavows their activity, they can be shot. The secret agent knows this is dangerous.

According to your previous answers, the answers to all the above would be no.

Yes. And if we're going to live in a world where the critics of the US are going to hold it to the standards of international law, no matter how ridiculous they might end up sounding, those same critics have to hold EVERYONE to those standards, without exceptions.

Personally, it would be legal and correct and inarguably clean to have quick trials for the foreign fighters captured in Iraq - and then have them hung or shot at the conclusion of each hearing. Far, far more legal under international law than holding them prisoner indefinitely, or putting panties on their heads, or forcing them to form homoerotic human pyramids.

If you want the US to uphold international law, then I suggest we start by shooting every prisoner who is not a native Iraqi (if captured in Iraq), and shooting every prisoner who is not a native Afghan (if captured in Afghanistan). That might be thousands of executions. But it could be done. Legally.

It's "Yes, certainly it does." Historically, this is the case, and people who show up in someone else's country to fight as an insurgent have been legally shot for doing so.

Interesting that the US isn't executing them when they capture them, eh?

I suppose that we're doing the illegal thing by interrogating them with panties on their heads - rather than the perfectly legal option of shooting them in public.

I found this interesting.....

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Which means anyone associated with Zarqawi is out!

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
Not even close!


(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;Big NO!


(c) That of carrying arms openly;
Not exactly.

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I don't think decapitating civilians falls under "laws and customs of war"....


Which means any "insurgents" captured do not fall under the POW of the Geneva convention.

And, Custodes... Europe's moto? Europe? Excuse me... but well... Europe isn't Europe, there are different countries. I still think if the EU would have to agree on the colour of shit, they'd argue over it for a few months.


My apologizes for the generalization, since so many on here generalize about others as well...

Which means any "insurgents" captured do not fall under the POW of the Geneva convention.

Technically, insurgents of any kind not wearing a common uniform OR not wearing a common, distinctive, visually recognizable emblem or symbol while fighting are in violation of the Hague Convention. Technically, war criminals who could be shot. After a short trial, of course.

Technically, insurgents of any kind not wearing a common uniform OR not wearing a common, distinctive, visually recognizable emblem or symbol while fighting are in violation of the Hague Convention. Technically, war criminals who could be shot. After a short trial, of course.
I think you could argue that an arab man running towards you with his face covered and carrying a large gun is a distinctive, visually recognisable symbol.

I think you could argue that an arab man running towards you with his face covered and carrying a large gun is a distinctive, visually recognisable symbol.

Not according to international law.

I think you could argue that an arab man running towards you with his face covered and carrying a large gun is a distinctive, visually recognisable symbol.

I don't think so... else you could argue for anyone wearing pants.

A face covering and a weapon are *not* distinctive. A pin on the face covering or a specific design (ie: a letter painted, not a red-and-white checker patterned cloth that anyone could buy)? Sure.

Wow.. can I add this to Wikipedia under "sour grapes?" Sounds like someone's afraid the Iraqis will establish a working democracy, knowing they did nothing but try and prevent it.. Liberals getting a little hot under the collar? Will you brag about how you knew Iraq would be a quagmire then?No, this is me saying that nobody Stateside really gives a shit about the Iraqis. Hey, you want satisfaction? You REALLY want me to be honest? Okay, here you go, bitch: Yeah, I want Iraq to FAIL. I want them to go down in flames just so I can say that I was right, and you were wrong. There's one thing that makes me feel better, though: you're no better than I am, asshole! You won't even consider the possibility that your favorite politician's strategy for Iraq isn't working! You won't even consider the possibility that we should have put Kerry in office, not on your life! What it all boils down to is politics, bitch, and just face facts: you're just as bad as me! Unlike you, though, I know I don't give a shit about anything other than my ego, and I like it, YEAH! And if you don't like it, you can kiss my ass, bitch! HA! I don't really know shit about the situation in Iraq, I don't know what the right solution is, and all I know is that I'll feel GOOD if you turn out to be DEAD FUCKING WRONG! You happy to hear that? It's too much to expect you to have the BALLS to admit you're just like me, but don't think I don't know how pleased you are to hear the rest of it! Have a nice day, bitch!

No, this is me saying that nobody Stateside really gives a shit about the Iraqis. Hey, you want satisfaction? You REALLY want me to be honest? Okay, here you go, bitch: Yeah, I want Iraq to FAIL. I want them to go down in flames just so I can say that I was right, and you were wrong. There's one thing that makes me feel better, though: you're no better than I am, asshole! You won't even consider the possibility that your favorite politician's strategy for Iraq isn't working! You won't even consider the possibility that we should have put Kerry in office, not on your life! What it all boils down to is politics, bitch, and just face facts: you're just as bad as me! Unlike you, though, I know I don't give a shit about anything other than my ego, and I like it, YEAH! And if you don't like it, you can kiss my ass, bitch! HA! I don't really know shit about the situation in Iraq, I don't know what the right solution is, and all I know is that I'll feel GOOD if you turn out to be DEAD FUCKING WRONG! You happy to hear that? It's too much to expect you to have the BALLS to admit you're just like me, but don't think I don't know how pleased you are to hear the rest of it! Have a nice day, bitch!

No more sugar for you today.

No, this is me saying that nobody Stateside really gives a shit about the Iraqis. Hey, you want satisfaction? You REALLY want me to be honest? Okay, here you go, bitch: Yeah, I want Iraq to FAIL. I want them to go down in flames just so I can say that I was right, and you were wrong. There's one thing that makes me feel better, though: you're no better than I am, asshole! You won't even consider the possibility that your favorite politician's strategy for Iraq isn't working! You won't even consider the possibility that we should have put Kerry in office, not on your life! What it all boils down to is politics, bitch, and just face facts: you're just as bad as me! Unlike you, though, I know I don't give a shit about anything other than my ego, and I like it, YEAH! And if you don't like it, you can kiss my ass, bitch! HA! I don't really know shit about the situation in Iraq, I don't know what the right solution is, and all I know is that I'll feel GOOD if you turn out to be DEAD FUCKING WRONG! You happy to hear that? It's too much to expect you to have the BALLS to admit you're just like me, but don't think I don't know how pleased you are to hear the rest of it! Have a nice day, bitch!

See? I told you I was right about Democrats.

-edit-

Well, I guess I learned why we don't let 12-year olds vote. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]


Isn't that Europe's motto "Do as we(europe) say, not as we(europe) do"??

He'll whine about the deaths from invasion and occupation, while ignoring the deaths due to starvation(a direct result of the Oil-for-Food Scam), of which Russsia,France, Germany, and Jordan were a direct party!! :rolleyes:
I read a bit about the Oil-For-Food Program and could nowhere find any complicity of Germany (at least) among the documents. Could you back up your accusations with facts please?

http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/faq.aspx

Bill Mutz - Have you looked into some anger management therapy? Yours seems, to me, to be a bit out of control.


Whispering Legs - While I thoroughly agree with what you have been saying, one angry man ( Bill ) does not all Democrats make. We should give the whole the benefit of the doubt.

It's "Yes, certainly it does." Historically, this is the case, and people who show up in someone else's country to fight as an insurgent have been legally shot for doing so.

Interesting that the US isn't executing them when they capture them, eh?

I suppose that we're doing the illegal thing by interrogating them with panties on their heads - rather than the perfectly legal option of shooting them in public.
No you rather torture them to death without camera's present.
But when a couple of US mercs get toasted the outcry is huge.

You try to patrol an area the size of California with 100,000 troops and see how far you get.
Just tripple the number of troops.

Ein Deutscher'][QUOTE=Custodes Rana]
I read a bit about the Oil-For-Food Program and could nowhere find any complicity of Germany (at least) among the documents. Could you back up your accusations with facts please?

http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/faq.aspx

Germany
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[10]
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[11]
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[12]
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[13]
Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980’s.[14]
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.[15] An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

See? I told you I was right about Democrats.I bet you think you're soooo much better! Haha!

Just tripple the number of troops.

Would that we could. Still a little busy with Afghanistan/South Korea/Tsunami Relief.

Bill Mutz - Have you looked into some anger management therapy? Yours seems, to me, to be a bit out of control.I'm actually having an enjoyable time of being a total cynic, thank you very much.

[QUOTE='[NS]Ein Deutscher']

Germany
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[10]
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[11]
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[12]
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[13]
Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980’s.[14]
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.[15] An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm
Ok so the trade is fine. That doesn't count as being complice in the Oil-For-Food scandal. Secondly, when so many German companies sent stuff for WMDs there, where are these WMDs and where are these components? All I've seen were accusations about firms like Siemens who i.e. provided medical equipment, which - with a large chunk ofcreativity - could be used for something to make WMDs in an attempt to defame Siemens. Sorry, but since there have been no definite results of investigations as far as I know, there has been no trade of WMD-relevant equipment.


And while we're at it, let's not forget this:



* The United States remains the largest importer of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil-for-Food program. However, U.S. companies can no longer deal directly with Iraq for its oil imports. U.S. companies are forced to deal with third party vendors as a result of a ban on all American companies imposed by Iraq. In 2002, the U.S. imported $3.5 billion worth of Iraqi oil.[32]
* Iraq is the sixth largest supplier of oil to the United States. In 2002, imports from Iraq accounted for only 5 percent of total U.S. oil imports, dropping down from 8.5 percent in 2001. In addition, American oil companies have not signed a contract with Baghdad since 1972.
* In 2002, the U.S. exported $31 million worth of goods to Iraq.[33] The exports consisted mostly of agricultural goods and machine parts. U.S. sales to Iraq dropped off after the Gulf War and resumed only on a limited scale in 1996 under the UN Oil-for-Food program.
* According to the SIPRI arms transfers database, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying approximately $200 million of Iraq’s weapons imports. The top three suppliers, from 1981 to 2001, were Russia, China and France respectively.[34]

So what exactly is the problem?!

I'm actually having an enjoyable time of being a total cynic, thank you very much.
Fine, but do that without flaming.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

Ein Deutscher'][QUOTE=Custodes Rana]
I read a bit about the Oil-For-Food Program and could nowhere find any complicity of Germany (at least) among the documents. Could you back up your accusations with facts please?

http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/faq.aspx

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-10232004-388266.html

The oil-for-food program, which ran from 1996 to 2003, was created to permit the former Iraqi government to sell limited amounts of oil in exchange for humanitarian goods as an exception to U.N. sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

One of the documents, known as "the exempt list" and obtained by AP from congressional investigators at the House International Relations Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., catalogues companies personally approved by Saddam and top lieutenants to circumvent Iraqi regulations to sign deals. The list contains hundreds of names of companies from more than two dozen countries.

No French, Chinese or American companies are on the list, but more than 280 Russian and 100 Saudi companies account for well over half of the list. The investigator who provided the document to AP said Congress might not have the full list.

Earlier this month, the top U.S. arms inspector, Charles Duelfer, published a report that listed foreign companies and individuals who had received vouchers for oil contracts under the U.N. program from the former Iraqi government. The report said Saddam himself approved companies.

Duelfer's report alleged that Saddam's government had used the oil vouchers to both solicit kickbacks and to reward countries and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq's political goals. Companies and individuals from Russia, France and China dominated the list.

Saddam was able to "subvert" the $60 billion U.N. oil-for-food program to generate an estimated $1.7 billion in revenue outside U.N. control from 1997-2003, the Duelfer report said. In addition to oil-for-food schemes, Iraq brought in over $8 billion in illicit oil deals with Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt through smuggling or illegal pumping through pipelines during the full period that sanctions were in place, the report added.

But the new lists obtained by AP of both companies favored and spurned by the Iraqi government are a more overt illustration of Saddam's manipulation of the program.

One investigator described the exempt list as the equivalent of the list in Duelfer's report of oil voucher recipients, but in this case for goods imported under the U.N. program.

"Until now, it had been thought that only vouchers for oil were handed out, but due to disclosures by Iraqi officials from the Ministry of Trade, we now understand that the practice was spread even further," said the investigator, who spoke on condition of anonymity.


Companies on Saddam's special lists got vouchers giving them priority for deals in humanitarian goods under oil-for-food, or to act as middlemen for companies providing goods.

Some Iraqi officials confirmed the lists were crafted to reward companies from countries supporting Iraqi political goals, especially the lifting of U.N. sanctions, investigators said.

"These lists illustrate how Saddam Hussein cynically manipulated and corrupted the oil-for-food program," said Hyde. "The fact, disclosed in the Duelfer report, that some countries based their Iraq policies on these corrupt practices is shameful."

The exempt list came from an official at the Iraqi Ministry of Trade and was authenticated separately by over a dozen current and former Iraqi officials, investigators said.

The official told investigators in Amman that names could be placed on this list by Saddam through his secretary, Abdel Hamoud, by Iraqi Vice-President Taha Ramadan, or Hussein's sons Oday and Qusay, according to notes of the interviews obtained by AP.

"Many foreign delegations were coming to Baghdad by plane with businessmen and sometimes even artists," the official told investigators, according to other notes that were read to AP. "They broke sanctions laws and spread propaganda then they would go to the ministry of trade. Anyone who could agree to a contract for any item at a set price would get a voucher."

and

"A handful of obscure companies from Western countries including Germany, Belgium, Cyprus, Italy and Switzerland appear on the list."

Look, folks, this is what I'm talking about:Wow.. can I add this to Wikipedia under "sour grapes?"andLiberals getting a little hot under the collar?What this tells me is that it's all about "my guys are right, and your guys are wrong." The war is over, but we're still talking pro-war v. anti-war. There IS no war anymore. The liberals tried to stop the war, and they failed. The only reason I can think of for calling oneself "anti-war" at this point is that you still haven't accepted that the score came out Republican gun nuts: 1, liberal pacifists: 0, Bush had his fucking war, the Republicans had a nice little parade over it, and all we have left is the aftermath. Will things turn out well for Iraq? I dunno. I'm not an expert on the politics of the region. Predictions, at this point, are completely worthless. Do I think Bush is a fucking idiot? Yes, I think that Bush is a fucking idiot. Do I think that this guarantees that Iraq will stay fucked up? No, I don't. It doesn't improve their odds, but Bush isn't the only dude with his fingers in this.

Does anyone see what I'm getting at?

US/Iraqi forces kill 85 "insurgents."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7254703/

This morning.

They're co-operating, the Iraqi civilians. That's three attacks this week where we've killed 25 or more 'insurgents,' without taking casualties.

It seems to me that the Iraqi population wants this thing over, and the few thousand insurgents that want it to continue are finding this out the hard way. We've had no U.S. casualties, and relatively few Iraqi Military casualties in the process. The number of attacks on our troops has been more than cut in half in the last few months.

And how exactly do these "handful obscure companies" make Germany a complice in the Oil-For-Food scandal? I highly doubt that these "handful obscure companies" had the permission of the government, if they asked at all - which I highly doubt. :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']And how exactly do these "handful obscure companies" make Germany a complice in the Oil-For-Food scandal? I highly doubt that these "handful obscure companies" had the permission of the government, if they asked at all - which I highly doubt. :rolleyes:

Maybe not the German government. But there aren't any American companies on that list.

I don't see Halliburton on that list, for example.

If you benefit from it, you wear it.

Good for these guys. I hope the Mujahadeen do not return to retaliate.

It's very admirable, brave and gives us new hope for the quagmire Bush has plauged the Iraqis with. Despite all of the death that Bushs' war has caused them, they are still strong and willing to defend themselves. I just hope the Bushies don't try to give Bush any credit whatsoever for these peoples actions, with their twisted Bushie "logic".

If you want safety, you have to provide it yourself.

Are you the kind of person who believes that the police will save you at all times in all situations?

Nice. If they want freedom shouldn't they have supplied that themselves too? Are you the kind of person that believes that the World Police will save you at all times in every situation?

The number of attacks on our troops has been more than cut in half in the last few months.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3359080/

Oh really? Utter. Nonsense. :rolleyes:

Nice. If they want freedom shouldn't they have supplied that themselves too? Are you the kind of person that believes that the World Police will save you at all times in every situation?

No, they were lucky the US came first. But to keep their freedom from insurgents, they'll have to do that themselves.

And no, I don't believe police will save me. That's why I carry a gun.

Maybe not the German government. But there aren't any American companies on that list.

I don't see Halliburton on that list, for example.

If you benefit from it, you wear it.
Sure. There's no name given of these obscure companies, so just because they happen to have their seat in Germany, these handful (if they were that much at all from Germany) make Germany guilty of being a complice of the Oil-For-Food scandal? Give me a break. :mad:

Ein Deutscher']Sure. There's no name given of these obscure companies, so just because they happen to have their seat in Germany, these handful (if they were that much at all from Germany) make Germany guilty of being a complice of the Oil-For-Food scandal? Give me a break. :mad:

I think that every person who blamed Iraqi starvation and Iraqi children dying from lack of medicine needs to apologize to the US for that accusation, and blame every country on that list.

Especially the French, whose officials are knee-deep in the money.

Ein Deutscher']http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3359080/

Oh really? Utter. Nonsense. :rolleyes:

The number of attacks has decreased from around 25 to aroound 10 per day. That's less than half, and fewer resulting in casualties. I linked to an article citing the specific statistics earlier in the thread.

Edit: How old is that article of yours? :rolleyes:

No, they were lucky the US came first. But to keep their freedom from insurgents, they'll have to do that themselves.

And no, I don't believe police will save me. That's why I carry a gun.


They were lucky that the US put them in more danger then they were ever in under Saddam? how is that? OR What were you saying when you said " they were lucky the US came first". How can you believe that people should take care of themselves and still support the action taken in Iraq? Isn't that hypocritical to say the least?

I think that every person who blamed Iraqi starvation and Iraqi children dying from lack of medicine needs to apologize to the US for that accusation, and blame every country on that list.How about blaming the corporations on that list?

Especially the French, whose officials are knee-deep in the money.Yeah, let's blame the French for everything and eat Freedom Fries, YEAH! You're just mad because they voted against your beloved Bush. There's no other reason, honey, and everyone but you knows it.

They were lucky that the US put them in more danger then they were ever in under Saddam? how is that? OR What were you saying when you said " they were lucky the US came first". How can you believe that people should take care of themselves and still support the action taken in Iraq? Isn't that hypocritical to say the least?

No. We created Saddam. We were responsible for initially arming him and tolerating his abuse of the Iraqi population. There are plenty of people who accused us of that - and they were right.

We had a moral obligation to liberate them from Saddam.

Some insurgents rose up. Some because they loved Saddam. Some because they hate America. Some because they don't like any invaders. Not all for the same reasons. And, some foreign fighters showed up, too.

We have a moral obligation to stay, only long enough to the point where the Iraqis feel that they can take care of themselves and keep their freedom.

Are you saying that we should never be responsible for our messes - that we should never have deposed our infernal creation - Saddam - and that we should not try to finish cleaning up the mess that is the aftermath of the invasion?

You do know that after we "liberated" Germany, there were attacks against American soldiers by isolated diehards as late as 1954? Should we just have left suddenly? Was it morally remiss for the Americans to wait as long as they did while France was overrun, while Poland fell, while the UK struggled, while the Russians were dying? Should America just stand back at all times, in all situations, unless called to some task by other countries in the UN, or should it be more proactive about cleaning up its own messes?

Of the former colonial powers, only France seems to try to clean anything up - and I don't see any countries giving France a rash of shit for doing it.

No. We created Saddam. We were responsible for initially arming him and tolerating his abuse of the Iraqi population. There are plenty of people who accused us of that - and they were right.

We had a moral obligation to liberate them from Saddam.

Some insurgents rose up. Some because they loved Saddam. Some because they hate America. Some because they don't like any invaders. Not all for the same reasons. And, some foreign fighters showed up, too.

We have a moral obligation to stay, only long enough to the point where the Iraqis feel that they can take care of themselves and keep their freedom.

Are you saying that we should never be responsible for our messes - that we should never have deposed our infernal creation - Saddam - and that we should not try to finish cleaning up the mess that is the aftermath of the invasion?

You do know that after we "liberated" Germany, there were attacks against American soldiers by isolated diehards as late as 1954? Should we just have left suddenly? Was it morally remiss for the Americans to wait as long as they did while France was overrun, while Poland fell, while the UK struggled, while the Russians were dying? Should America just stand back at all times, in all situations, unless called to some task by other countries in the UN, or should it be more proactive about cleaning up its own messes?

Of the former colonial powers, only France seems to try to clean anything up - and I don't see any countries giving France a rash of shit for doing it.

Then send a team to assisinate Saddam and his family and allow someone else to take power on their own.

but I think you know as well as I do that is isn't abot cleaning up a mess as I have heard you say so yourself. This is purely selfish political business at play as always. Nice to send a bunch of kids off to their death and throw an entire country into turmoil over lies. To support that reconfirms once again for me that you are crazy

No. We created Saddam. We were responsible for initially arming him and tolerating his abuse of the Iraqi population. There are plenty of people who accused us of that - and they were right.

We had a moral obligation to liberate them from Saddam.

Some insurgents rose up. Some because they loved Saddam. Some because they hate America. Some because they don't like any invaders. Not all for the same reasons. And, some foreign fighters showed up, too.

We have a moral obligation to stay, only long enough to the point where the Iraqis feel that they can take care of themselves and keep their freedom.

Are you saying that we should never be responsible for our messes - that we should never have deposed our infernal creation - Saddam - and that we should not try to finish cleaning up the mess that is the aftermath of the invasion?

You do know that after we "liberated" Germany, there were attacks against American soldiers by isolated diehards as late as 1954? Should we just have left suddenly? Was it morally remiss for the Americans to wait as long as they did while France was overrun, while Poland fell, while the UK struggled, while the Russians were dying? Should America just stand back at all times, in all situations, unless called to some task by other countries in the UN, or should it be more proactive about cleaning up its own messes?

Of the former colonial powers, only France seems to try to clean anything up - and I don't see any countries giving France a rash of shit for doing it.I heartily agree, actually. However, the reason we shouldn't have invaded Iraq at that particular time is exactly the set of problems facing Iraq now. If anyone's worse than Saddam, it's the religious extremists, and we should have gotten rid of this infection before trying to do something about Saddam, you know, like what the more rational Democrats have been saying since the very beginning.

Then send a team to assisinate Saddam and his family and allow someone else to take power on their own.

Saddam was merely the head of an enormous power infrastructure composed of his armed forces and secret police.

It wouldn't be enough to remove him alone. What, and let another military dictator take his place? That's what would have happened.

Should we have left the moment he was deposed, and let the country slide into anarchy and civil war?

No, really. When I hear about the French intervening in former colonies in Africa to ensure stability, I NEVER HEAR ONE SINGLE WORD OF CRITICISM - EVER.

NOT ONE.

They seem to be cleaning up their messes, no matter how long it takes. They seem to have permission to do so, without a UN resolution. Unilaterally.

And no one gives them shit for it. So the US is cleaning up the Saddam mess - and the UK and a few other nations seem to be gracious enough to help. Maybe the UK realized that the whole Middle East was the result of some bad map drawing and meddling by the UK in the mid-20th century.

You know, maybe Saddam DID have WMD. And MAYBE we know because WE GAVE IT TO HIM and we're wondering where the fuck it is, because WE CAN'T FIND IT NOW.

You should be a bit more worried. Because the US created Saddam and blessed his actions for years. And a lot of European companies armed him and blessed his actions as well.

Saddam was merely the head of an enormous power infrastructure composed of his armed forces and secret police.

It wouldn't be enough to remove him alone. What, and let another military dictator take his place? That's what would have happened.

Should we have left the moment he was deposed, and let the country slide into anarchy and civil war?

No, really. When I hear about the French intervening in former colonies in Africa to ensure stability, I NEVER HEAR ONE SINGLE WORD OF CRITICISM - EVER.

NOT ONE.

They seem to be cleaning up their messes, no matter how long it takes. They seem to have permission to do so, without a UN resolution. Unilaterally.

And no one gives them shit for it. So the US is cleaning up the Saddam mess - and the UK and a few other nations seem to be gracious enough to help. Maybe the UK realized that the whole Middle East was the result of some bad map drawing and meddling by the UK in the mid-20th century.

You know, maybe Saddam DID have WMD. And MAYBE we know because WE GAVE IT TO HIM and we're wondering where the fuck it is, because WE CAN'T FIND IT NOW.

You should be a bit more worried. Because the US created Saddam and blessed his actions for years. And a lot of European companies armed him and blessed his actions as well.

So if Iraq turns out to elect a brutal dictatorial regime , we invade them again? Because we would have made that mess to so we'd have to clean it up right?

If another brutal dictator had arisen from merely just an assasination, then assasinate him too and another and another until they get the message. It would be no different from what is going on right now except for we would have less US deaths and there would probably be no country wide insurgency, so therefor less Iraqi deaths as well. The real problem for the US woudl be that we wouldnt have control of the oil and make the rules for their economy in US favor.

So if Iraq turns out to elect a brutal dictatorial regime , we invade them again?

If another brutal dictator had arisen from merely just an assasination, then assasinate him too and another and another until they get the message. It would be no different from what is going on right now except for we would have less US deaths and there would probably be no country wide insurgency, so therefor less Iraqi deaths as well. The real problem for the US woudl be that we wouldnt have control of the oil and make the rules for their economy in US favor.

You probably would have had civil war after a while. And we wouldn't be there to stop it.

Our intervention in cleaning up Iraq also sends an interesting message.

We made the Libyan mess, you know. Ever wonder why Qaddafi is suddenly trying to be our friend? Gave up his nuclear weapons program?

Since we made an example in one place, we might not even have to kill anyone at all in the next place. Demonstration of resolve. If people don't believe you'll really do it, they will ignore you.

You probably would have had civil war after a while. And we wouldn't be there to stop it.

Our intervention in cleaning up Iraq also sends an interesting message.

We made the Libyan mess, you know. Ever wonder why Qaddafi is suddenly trying to be our friend? Gave up his nuclear weapons program?

Since we made an example in one place, we might not even have to kill anyone at all in the next place. Demonstration of resolve. If people don't believe you'll really do it, they will ignore you.You know how fucked-up this sounds, right?

You know how fucked-up this sounds, right?

No. He honestly doesn't. Really exemplifies the whole problem, don't it?

You probably would have had civil war after a while. And we wouldn't be there to stop it.

Our intervention in cleaning up Iraq also sends an interesting message.

We made the Libyan mess, you know. Ever wonder why Qaddafi is suddenly trying to be our friend? Gave up his nuclear weapons program?

Since we made an example in one place, we might not even have to kill anyone at all in the next place. Demonstration of resolve. If people don't believe you'll really do it, they will ignore you.

Not necessarily and even so, we'd at least have gotten Saddam out of the picture so that would have cleaned up our mess. If they ahve a civil war then let them. At least the winner of the civil war would be the rightful leaders of the country. OR at least teh guys we funded would win.

So if Iraq turns out to elect a brutal dictatorial regime , we invade them again? Because we would have made that mess to so we'd have to clean it up right?

If another brutal dictator had arisen from merely just an assasination, then assasinate him too and another and another until they get the message. It would be no different from what is going on right now except for we would have less US deaths and there would probably be no country wide insurgency, so therefor less Iraqi deaths as well. The real problem for the US woudl be that we wouldnt have control of the oil and make the rules for their economy in US favor.

Funny. I always hear people complain that the US should *not* stoop to assassinations, and that the CIA attempts on Castro and around the world in the 50s through the 70s were wrong.

You know how fucked-up this sounds, right?

He just likes to argue. So thats all I take it as. He doesnt even put forth arguments he truely believes in. *psst* he's a lawyer supposedly and I believe it.

You know how fucked-up this sounds, right?

And how is this fucked-up? Or should we never clean up any mess we create?

And if that's what you believe, then I expect you to be out in front of the French Embassy, protesting their unilateral, non-UN sponsored actions in various African nations over the years. Get busy.

You know how fucked-up this sounds, right?

It sounded perfectly logical. Why do you think Kim-Jong-Il *hid* for two months after the war in Iraq started?

Not necessarily and even so, we'd at least have gotten Saddam out of the picture so that would have cleaned up our mess. If they ahve a civil war then let them. At least the winner of the civil war would be the rightful leaders of the country. OR at least teh guys we funded would win.

I see. Might makes right. If I have the guns, you say I can have the country. That, and I should be assassinating people instead of establishing an order by which the people can peaceably assemble and vote for a leader.

I see. Nice Democratic Party thinking there.

Funny. I always hear people complain that the US should *not* stoop to assassinations, and that the CIA attempts on Castro and around the world in the 50s through the 70s were wrong.



The US is damned if we do something and damned if we dont. Dont let it get to you.

Funny. I always hear people complain that the US should *not* stoop to assassinations, and that the CIA attempts on Castro and around the world in the 50s through the 70s were wrong.

Well I personally agree with assasinations in certain situations. Avoiding the deaths of many is better in my eyes. I don't hold views of other people just because they hold them. What do YOU think of my idea about assasination?

I see. Might makes right. If I have the guns, you say I can have the country. That, and I should be assassinating people instead of establishing an order by which the people can peaceably assemble and vote for a leader.

I see. Nice Democratic Party thinking there.

When did I say I was a Democrat? :confused:

ALso the world isn't black and white for me personally. I see different actions being good to take in certain situations.

It sounded perfectly logical. Why do you think Kim-Jong-Il *hid* for two months after the war in Iraq started?


Yep- we showed resolve- said we were going to do something and did it. Without making sure we had the approval of every waffling phony. Khadafi saw the light.

The insurgents are trying to militarily do what the Shiites are trying to do politically, and that would be to get rid of the American occupiers.

There's a right way and a wrong way to do most things. The Shiites are doing things the right way. Guess who's wrong.

It sounded perfectly logical. Why do you think Kim-Jong-Il *hid* for two months after the war in Iraq started?

Was it not because he was building those nuclear weapons, making the world a much safer place all round? Perhaps invading NK and taking him out would have been a much better idea than attacking Iraq, which we all knew was contained and had no WMDs?

When did I say I was a Democrat? :confused:

Sorry.

BTW, we learned a few things in the short time in Afghanistan.

1. You can't pay people (like the Northern Alliance or other warlords) to fight on behalf of the US. It just doesn't work out well.
2. So we did the fighting in Iraq ourselves - and afterwards, we train an Iraqi force to take over on behalf of Iraqis.
3. We learned during the Cold War that there are a few good ways to really screw up a country: assassinate leaders, stage coups, and finance rebellion.
4. History has taught the US that occupying a country, giving it a new, stable, elected government, and rebuilding its infrastructure and tying its economy to the US in some way WORKS. As in Germany and Japan.

At least we're trying.

Well I personally agree with assasinations in certain situations. Avoiding the deaths of many is better in my eyes. I don't hold views of other people just because they hold them. What do YOU think of my idea about assasination?

I think it'd have been a nice idea, with a few flaws; It was difficult for Saddam's own sons to see him; His sons would have happily taken over, and possibly started a civil war (Always happens when siblings inherit a nation.); plenty of other generals and such who could have stepped in.

I just find it so funny that there's something wrong with helping the Iraqi people be free - yes, we need to look at our intelligence reports, but no, we still aren't doing anything wrong.


Was it not because he was building those nuclear weapons, making the world a much safer place all round? Perhaps invading NK and taking him out would have been a much better idea than attacking Iraq, which we all knew was contained and had no WMDs?

We're currently in talks with N. Korea. Will they yeild results? Who knows. At least Kerry didn't get in, because HE was the one who thought unilateral talks would work, whilst Bush recognises a larger scope of political pressure is more likely to work. But yeah, next time you bitch about how the US went to war without UN backing, look at what they're doing with N.K. - waiting and trying to resolve it peacefully. Just like they almost always do. What's your preference there, that the US didn't wait for UN backing and just dropped three dozen hydrogen bombs on P'yongyang?

Oh, back ontopic, hooray for this Iraqi! I sincerely hope this galvanizes other Iraqi citizens into fighting back against the terrorists.

You know this s*** is really uncommon in Iraq cause they used to fight against us rather than fighting them.

really this shit is really surpriseing me damn.

let is smiley face do the talking. :) :sniper: :mad: then

:mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :)

BYE

Well I personally agree with assasinations in certain situations. Avoiding the deaths of many is better in my eyes. I don't hold views of other people just because they hold them. What do YOU think of my idea about assasination?

I don't think it's a good idea. Assassination is inherently destabilizing, and that's not what the US should want in ANY nation. Further, I dislike the idea of other governments getting the idea that they should start assassinating our leaders.

You know this s*** is really uncommon in Iraq cause they used to fight against us rather than fighting them.

really this shit is really surpriseing me damn.


I guess he never noticed that a lot of Iraqi came out in defiance of orders from the insurgents, and voted in an election.

Didn't notice a thing.

Was it not because he was building those nuclear weapons, making the world a much safer place all round? Perhaps invading NK and taking him out would have been a much better idea than attacking Iraq, which we all knew was contained and had no WMDs?

A military confrontation with NK would be much harder than against Iraq. Iraq never recovered from Gulf War 1, and NK's citizenry can be described (at best) as being highly indoctrinated.

We most certainly did *not* know that three years ago.

A military confrontation with NK would be much harder than against Iraq. Iraq never recovered from Gulf War 1, and NK's citizenry can be described (at best) as being highly indoctrinated.

We most certainly did *not* know that three years ago.

Among the nations of the world, we did know that for decades now, the North Koreans have had more chemical weapons stockpiled than most other nations on earth have ever possessed. Mostly in the form of artillery shells. And we know that they have a massive number of artillery pieces right on the border.

North Korea has never made a secret of any of this. They could, even a decade ago, killed everyone within artillery range of the border within a few minutes.

They have had extensive underground facilities, including air bases. The planes take off through doors in the sides of mountains.

It would not have been easy.

It sounded perfectly logical. Why do you think Kim-Jong-Il *hid* for two months after the war in Iraq started?It basically amounts to attacking one country to scare the other into either submission. That's not a good justification for any war. I've been pretty clear on my stance on Iraq: I think that we should have stamped out the infestation of religious extremists, particularly those who have a history of using terror tactics, before going into Iraq. It is because Bush was impatient that we are facing our current set of problems in Iraq. However, I do think that getting rid of Saddam was a must. We don't disagree on whether or not Iraq should have been invaded, merely on how it should have been done.

You were doing good until you suggested that it is appropriate to attack one country in order to frighten the other into cooperation. This is not a good reason to make war on a country, and it never will be.

It basically amounts to attacking one country to scare the other into either submission. That's not a good justification for any war. I've been pretty clear on my stance on Iraq: I think that we should have stamped out the infestation of religious extremists, particularly those who have a history of using terror tactics, before going into Iraq. It is because Bush was impatient that we are facing our current set of problems in Iraq. However, I do think that getting rid of Saddam was a must. We don't disagree on whether or not Iraq should have been invaded, merely on how it should have been done.

You were doing good until you suggested that it is appropriate to attack one country in order to frighten the other into cooperation. This is not a good reason to make war on a country, and it never will be.

Do you believe that the infestation of religious extremists will stay in one place while we stamp them out? BTW, nice genocidal thought there.

You'll also note that occupying Iraq has an interesting effect regarding religious extremists. It attracts them. Like a baited trap. Saves time - they come to us, instead of us chasing them around the world.

You were doing good until you suggested that it is appropriate to attack one country in order to frighten the other into cooperation. This is not a good reason to make war on a country, and it never will be.

If it helps to stabilize the world, and reduce the chance that a nuclear weapon is used, and no one in that frightened country is killed by American bombs, how is that a bad thing?

It's the traditional reason for demonstrating military strength. It's always been a good reason, and in terms of realpolitik, it always will be.

Do you believe that the infestation of religious extremists will stay in one place while we stamp them out? BTW, nice genocidal thought there.If it is genocide to bring murderers to justice, then so be it.

You'll also note that occupying Iraq has an interesting effect regarding religious extremists. It attracts them. Like a baited trap. Saves time - they come to us, instead of us chasing them around the world.This conversation just ended because you are insane, evil, or both. Good night.

If it is genocide to bring murderers to justice, then so be it.

This conversation just ended because you are insane, evil, or both. Good night.

I'm not the one advocating genocide, assassination, or war in EVERY country we have a problem with.

Nice try, though. Method #21 in How To Win An Internet Argument: "End the conversation claiming that your opponent is insane."

One word to describe what happened to the insurgents.

"OWNED!"

Ein Deutscher'][QUOTE=Custodes Rana]
I read a bit about the Oil-For-Food Program and could nowhere find any complicity of Germany (at least) among the documents. Could you back up your accusations with facts please?

http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/faq.aspx

Deutsche Welle is reporting on a story from the "Berlin-based left-wing paper" Tageszeitung which apparently got it's hands on the Iraqi WMD declaration to the United Nations.

According to the report Germany has been the number one weapons supplier to Iraq for a number of years -- up to and through 2001. The report, according to Tageszeitung, names eighty German entities who transferred knowledge, components, substances and "even entire technical facilities for the development of atomic, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Iraq since 1975."


The paper reports that the dossier contains several indications of cases, where German authorities right up to the Finance Ministry tolerated the illegal arms cooperation and also promoted to it to an extent.

This, I do not hesitate to say, is completely unacceptable. I completely understand a German reluctance to invade Iraq -- I share Germany's feelings on the matter. But to be supplying Iraq with WMD for all these years? An invasion of a sovereign country is nothing compared to that crime!

This even comes after the Germans refused to export armored personnel carriers to Israel because they may be used against Palestinians. And what of WMD exported to Iraq? Will they be used against no one? Will they not be used against Kurds and US troops? Will they not be used against British troops?

If German resistance to an invasion of Iraq didn't ruin Washington-Berlin relations, this surely will -- or at least it should. If the number one weapons supplier to Baghdad were any other country -- if it were Russia or China or Turkey or North Korea or Libya -- there would be very serious consequences for such weapons sales. But what will we do with Germany, a member of NATO and the European Union? What can we do?

Here, all this time, Germany has been fighting Gulf War Redux. The US government wouldn't be fighting for Gulf War Redux if Iraq hadn't been capable of developing WMD all this time -- if Germany hadn't been giving them that capability! I still "agree" with Germany that Gulf War Redux isn't necessary -- strongly backed arms inspections are necessary -- but those arms inspections can't be completely undermined by an allied nation.

And here I thought the French would sell weapons to anyone. All this time it was the Germans.

And
The BND's warnings didn't stop with that report. In April 2001, Hanning told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that Iraq was developing a new class of chemical weapons, reiterated his alert on Iraq's missile and nuclear programs, and said that several German companies had continued to deliver to Baghdad components needed for the production of poison gas. In March 2002, he told the New Yorker magazine that, "It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years." The German opposition parties' demand that the government make public what it knows is thus no irresponsible, idle, politically inspired chatter as the ruling Social Democrats and Greens charge. The irresponsible chatter and politicking is Herr Schroeder's.

And
The list in Iraq's 1998/current chemical weapons declaration contains 31 "major suppliers", 14 from Germany. The 1996/current nuclear suppliers list has 62 company names on it, 33 from Germany. As Iraq claims that since 1991 it has not engaged in WMD production, the lists name no post-Gulf War suppliers. Call it old news. So much the sillier that the UN refuses to make them public. But since the BND claims that deliveries did not stop at the end of the Gulf War as well as simply as a matter of record of German complicity in arming Iraq, the issue remains an urgent current concern.

Leading the honor roll of chemical agents and production equipment suppliers (in this case nerve gas precursors and manufacturing) to Iraq is the German firm Preussag, now a subsidiary of Europe's largest travel agent and tour operator TUI - happy holidays! And Preussag has long been a firm dear to Schroeder's heart. In early 1998, when Schroeder was running for re-election as prime minister of the state of Lower Saxony which he had governed for eight years, he had the state buy 51 percent of Preussag's troubled steel division to the tune of US$500 million, claiming that 12,000 jobs were at stake. It was a characteristic Schroeder move: he knew that the Social Democrats would appoint him chancellor's candidate if he won in Lower Saxony. Win he did - first in Hannover, later in 1998 at the federal level to become chancellor. What did he know about the Preussag conglomerate's Iraq poison gas dealings? Don't ask.

Included on the Iraqi suppliers' lists are other world-renowned (eg, Hoechst, Daimler-Benz, Siemens, Kloeckner, Carl Zeiss, Schott Glas, etc) and smaller German firms. Notable are Karl Kolb/Pilot Plant and WTB (Walter Thosti Boswau) who built and equipped Iraq's two major "pesticide and detergent" plants which, said a WTB employee, produce "detergents to exterminate two-legged flies" (Spiegel 4/1989, p 24). The WTB undertaking was supported by a credit guarantee for several hundred million German marks by Hermes, a German government export and credit insurer. Noteworthy also is Rhein-Bayern, which supplied Iraq with eight mobile toxicological labs housed in sand-colored, camouflage-painted Magirus trucks.

Chemical agents? Biological agents? Machine tools and parts and materials for uranium enrichment and missile production? You name them and the Germans delivered them - and not only that: they supplied the plants and know-how for Iraq to make its own "pesticides" ("to protect the date harvest"), "vaccines" ("to eradicate smallpox and other contagious diseases"), and "x-ray machines".


:rolleyes:

There's no point in posting evidence of German companies complicity. They'll just say the evidence isn't really there, or the German government somehow "didn't know" it was going on.

Let an American company get involved in something, and any other nation will cry "CIA conspiracy from the President on down!"

There's no point in posting evidence of German companies complicity. They'll just say the evidence isn't really there, or the German government somehow "didn't know" it was going on.

Let an American company get involved in something, and any other nation will cry "CIA conspiracy from the President on down!"

So true and WL;

I agreed with nearly everything you have written here. Good Job and keep it up.

It basically amounts to attacking one country to scare the other into either submission. That's not a good justification for any war. I've been pretty clear on my stance on Iraq: I think that we should have stamped out the infestation of religious extremists, particularly those who have a history of using terror tactics, before going into Iraq. It is because Bush was impatient that we are facing our current set of problems in Iraq. However, I do think that getting rid of Saddam was a must. We don't disagree on whether or not Iraq should have been invaded, merely on how it should have been done.

Minor detail: We weren't looking to scare anybody by going into Iraq. We had already intervened in Afghanistan. It was an unforseen benefit.

You were doing good until you suggested that it is appropriate to attack one country in order to frighten the other into cooperation. This is not a good reason to make war on a country, and it never will be.

I suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out what actually happened.

Hooha to that guy!

I have no problem with those acting in self defense. This insurgency is doing more harm than good for Iraqis. I hope this is a sign that people have had enough.

I was unaware that Zarqawi was Iraqi! :rolleyes:
Actually, he is a Jordanian. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3691548.stm)

And while you're backing your terrorist buddy,
The Iraqi situation, is kinda like "Catch 22"......while I don't like to see US troops die, I do believe that Iraqis have every right to defend "their" country, and define what "their" freedoms will be.

Something tells me that "treated humanely" doesn't include decapitation!
I am surprised that you would bring this topic forward, especially since the inhumane treatment that Iraqis have suffered due to US occupation of Iraq?

Actually, he is a Jordanian. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3691548.stm)

I guess you missed his rolled eyes? He knows full well that he is isn't Iraqi! Anyone following this knows full well that Zarqawi isn't Iraqi. He's an Al Qaeda thug trying to destablize the government and so far, it AIN'T working.

The Iraqi situation, is kinda like "Catch 22"......while I don't like to see US troops die, I do believe that Iraqis have every right to defend "their" country, and define what "their" freedoms will be.

How many Iraqis are actually a part of this insurgency? Very few! How many are not Iraq that are taking part in this insurgency? The vast majority.

I am surprised that you would bring this topic forward, especially since the inhumane treatment that Iraqis have suffered due to US occupation of Iraq?

What inhumane treatments have the civilians suffered? What about their inhumane treatment at the hands of Saddam?

Maybe not the German government. But there aren't any American companies on that list.

I don't see Halliburton on that list, for example.

If you benefit from it, you wear it.
And who put together that list?
Your gonna ask a Stormfronter about who runs America next?

And who put together that list?
Your gonna ask a Stormfronter about who runs America next?

In Reality? The UN put it together.

Ein Deutscher'][QUOTE=Markreich]
Ok so the trade is fine. That doesn't count as being complice in the Oil-For-Food scandal. Secondly, when so many German companies sent stuff for WMDs there, where are these WMDs and where are these components? All I've seen were accusations about firms like Siemens who i.e. provided medical equipment, which - with a large chunk ofcreativity - could be used for something to make WMDs in an attempt to defame Siemens. Sorry, but since there have been no definite results of investigations as far as I know, there has been no trade of WMD-relevant equipment.


And while we're at it, let's not forget this:



So what exactly is the problem?!
Ask then about how Saddam got to power. :D

Would that we could. Still a little busy with Afghanistan/South Korea/Tsunami Relief.
Afghanistan. Please. :rolleyes:

Afghanistan. Please. :rolleyes:

Please what? The US has 17,000 in Afghanistan.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_afghan_022005,00.html

I guess you missed his rolled eyes? He knows full well that he is isn't Iraqi! Anyone following this knows full well that Zarqawi isn't Iraqi. He's an Al Qaeda thug trying to destablize the government and so far, it AIN'T working.]
I understood the sarcasm about Zarqawi.

How many Iraqis are actually a part of this insurgency? Very few! How many are not Iraq that are taking part in this insurgency? The vast majority.
Proof please.

What inhumane treatments have the civilians suffered? What about their inhumane treatment at the hands of Saddam?
Inhumane treatment = Abu Gharib (http://billandkent.com/gallery/abu-gharib-torture-photos).

Also, check this (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1399055,00.html) out:

Marines used the napalm-like bombs on at least two other occasions during the drive to Baghdad - against Iraqis defending a bridge across the Saddam Canal and near a Tigris river bridge north of the town of Numaniyah in south central Iraq, the San Diego Tribune reported on Tuesday.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," Colonel Randolph Alles, the commander of Marine Air Group 11, was quoted as telling the newspaper. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," he said.

The MK-77 are filled with a different mix of incendiary chemicals than napalm, but have the same terrifying effect, a penetrating fire that seeps into dug-in infantry positions.

"The generals love napalm," Alles was quoted as saying. "It has a big psychological effect."

I am surprised that you would bring this topic forward, especially since the inhumane treatment that Iraqis have suffered due to US occupation of Iraq?

Since you're keeping score:

And just how many "insurgents" have been prosecuted for the decapitation of civilians?

And how many involved in the "inhumane treatment" of Iraqi's have been prosecuted?

[QUOTE='[NS]Ein Deutscher']
Ask then about how Saddam got to power. :D


Saddam was named vice president by General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr who, backed by Egyptian and Syrian Ba'athists, led a coup in 1967 and became Iraq's 4th president . By 1972, Saddam was in negotiations with the USSR to buy Migs. :D

So its ok for a carpenter to attack 'insurgents' but not for 'insurgents' to fight back against others? ????

Since you're keeping score:

And just how many "insurgents" have been prosecuted for the decapitation of civilians?

And how many involved in the "inhumane treatment" of Iraqi's have been prosecuted?
Just to let you know, I am not keeping score. All I do know is that man's inhumanity towards man exists on BOTH sides of the equation. There are no angels here.

Perhaps I should remind you that Saddam was a puppet of the US and that the US aided him in his war against the Iranians. President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush supported Saddam Hussein and gave him what he needed, or have you forgotten that part of history (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)?

Both of them also double crossed Saddam during their presidencies.

The only reason that we are discussing Iraqi insurgents is due to the illegal US invasion of Iraq in the first place.

Funny thing is,

The war was legal in the eyes of international law! If the war was illegal then why isn't anyone trying to sanction the US? If the war was illegal why isn't anyone trying to invade us?

What about Hussein's violation of 17 UN Resolutions? What about Husseins violation of the UN Cease-fire?

The US still has the right to wage war and peace and no international body has taken that away from us nor from any other country. We used our right to wage war to enforce 17 UN Resolutions + a cease-fire.

Before you tell me that he didn't CH, let me remind you that I have people that know far more than you about this situation. I don't even listen to the press when it comes to this. I listen to people that were there constently.

Actually, he is a Jordanian. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3691548.stm)


Yes, Custodes Rana knew that. He was trying to be sarcastic.

Funny thing is,

The war was legal in the eyes of international law! If the war was illegal then why isn't anyone trying to sanction the US? If the war was illegal why isn't anyone trying to invade us?

What about Hussein's violation of 17 UN Resolutions? What about Husseins violation of the UN Cease-fire?

The US still has the right to wage war and peace and no international body has taken that away from us nor from any other country. We used our right to wage war to enforce 17 UN Resolutions + a cease-fire.

Before you tell me that he didn't CH, let me remind you that I have people that know far more than you about this situation. I don't even listen to the press when it comes to this. I listen to people that were there constently.

The war was (is) illegal in the eyes of international law and the majority of mankind. That the US are not being punished (yet) is just a result of the political and military power that the US has and the futility of trying to punish the US for breaches of international law. Kofi Annan and various other law specialists already clarified that the US acted in breach of the UN charter and thus against international law. If it weren't the US, Bush & Co. would end up in front of the tribunal in the Hague. :mad:

Ein Deutscher']If it weren't the US, Bush & Co. would end up in front of the tribunal in the Hague. :mad:

Yes, as we know, international law is enforced against every other country in the world. I've seen Saddam hauled before the Hague. I saw the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide hauled before the Hague. And I saw Bin Laden hauled before the Hague. Not to mention the rulers of Sudan.

Yes, every time someone violates international law, if they're not the US, they get hauled before the Hague.

La la la la la la la la yadda yadda yadda

Yes, as we know, international law is enforced against every other country in the world. I've seen Saddam hauled before the Hague. I saw the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide hauled before the Hague. And I saw Bin Laden hauled before the Hague. Not to mention the rulers of Sudan.

Yes, every time someone violates international law, if they're not the US, they get hauled before the Hague.

La la la la la la la la yadda yadda yadda
La la la la la la la la yadda yadda yaddaAmericans good guysLa la la la la la la la yadda yadda yadda

La la la la la la la la yadda yadda yaddaAmericans good guysLa la la la la la la la yadda yadda yadda

I'm not saying we're the good guys.

I'm saying that the Hague is laughable, especially considering that the only countries that ever kidnap and drag anyone to the Hague in recent memory were UK and US Special Forces kidnapping Serbs and dragging their asses to the Hague.

Everyone else was content to sit on their asses and wring their hands, "oh, who will see that justice is served?"

Didn't see any other nations volunteer. It looks like if the US and UK aren't interested in dragging you to the Hague, and you don't go there on your own (as Milosevic was sent there by his own people), you will NEVER go to the Hague.

Laws are only as good as their enforcement. Don't blame the US because you NEVER enforce the law.

I'm not saying we're the good guys.

I'm saying that the Hague is laughable, especially considering that the only countries that ever kidnap and drag anyone to the Hague in recent memory were UK and US Special Forces kidnapping Serbs and dragging their asses to the Hague.

Everyone else was content to sit on their asses and wring their hands, "oh, who will see that justice is served?"

Didn't see any other nations volunteer. It looks like if the US and UK aren't interested in dragging you to the Hague, and you don't go there on your own (as Milosevic was sent there by his own people), you will NEVER go to the Hague.

Laws are only as good as their enforcement. Don't blame the US because you NEVER enforce the law.
Ah so the US enforce the law by breaking it. Good job at that too. Killing more than 100.000 iraqis in the process. Do you expect applause for that? Dream on.

Let's face it: the US has the political and military power to do what it wants, even if the rest of the world doesn't like it. Until the world unites against the US and says a united "NO!", the giant in the west will continue acting like a spoiled child.

Ein Deutscher']Ah so the US enforce the law by breaking it. Good job at that too. Killing more than 100.000 iraqis in the process. Do you expect applause for that? Dream on.

Let's face it: the US has the political and military power to do what it wants, even if the rest of the world doesn't like it. Until the world unites against the US and says a united "NO!", the giant in the west will continue acting like a spoiled child.

There's no proof for your 100,000 number. Even the Lancet says they're guessing.

And we're not acting like a spoiled child. If you read back in the thread, you'll see that my theory is that we're trying to clean up our messes. We created Bin Laden by paying him and his men to screw with the Soviets in Afghanistan. We created Saddam. So we're coming back around, and cleaning up. You don't give the French a single word of criticism for doing the same thing in their former colonies - without UN permission - completely unilaterally - and they have "permission" to machinegun unarmed civilians in the street - without any criticism from Germany or any other European nation.

Yes, as we know, international law is enforced against every other country in the world. I've seen Saddam hauled before the Hague. I saw the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide hauled before the Hague. And I saw Bin Laden hauled before the Hague. Not to mention the rulers of Sudan.

Yes, every time someone violates international law, if they're not the US, they get hauled before the Hague.

La la la la la la la la yadda yadda yadda


I certainly hope they dont haul people who voted for Bush before the Haque too-that would be-uh-a majority of us.

Ein Deutscher']The war was (is) illegal in the eyes of international law and the majority of mankind. That the US are not being punished (yet) is just a result of the political and military power that the US has and the futility of trying to punish the US for breaches of international law. Kofi Annan and various other law specialists already clarified that the US acted in breach of the UN charter and thus against international law. If it weren't the US, Bush & Co. would end up in front of the tribunal in the Hague. :mad:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! How funny is this?

Can anyone show me a treaty where the US gave up its right to wage war?

I certainly hope they dont haul people who voted for Bush before the Haque too-that would be-uh-a majority of us.

Agreed. Why should they haul us off when we exercised our right to vote and voted for GWB for a second term?

So its ok for a carpenter to attack 'insurgents' but not for 'insurgents' to fight back against others? ????
You got it! Took you awhile, but I think you finally begin to understand. Our carpenter, their terrorists. :D

Just to let you know, I am not keeping score. All I do know is that man's inhumanity towards man exists on BOTH sides of the equation. There are no angels here.

Perhaps I should remind you that Saddam was a puppet of the US and that the US aided him in his war against the Iranians. President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush supported Saddam Hussein and gave him what he needed, or have you forgotten that part of history (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)?



Saddam was the puppet of the US? Why? Because he decided to attack Iran? :rolleyes:

Maybe you've forgotten that Saddam was supported by numerous nations, not just the US.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm

Supported both Iran & Iraq
US
USSR
Brazil
UK
France(the peace-lovers)
DDR(East Germany)
Czechoslovakia
Italy
China
North Korea

Supported Iraq
West Germany(what a shock!)
Belgium
Spain
Portugal
Poland
Hungary
Yugoslavia
Pakistan
Egypt
Sudan
Ethiopia
Jordan
Kuwait
UAE
Phillipines

Talk about "tunnel vision"........... :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']The war was (is) illegal in the eyes of international law and the majority of mankind. That the US are not being punished (yet) is just a result of the political and military power that the US has and the futility of trying to punish the US for breaches of international law. Kofi Annan and various other law specialists already clarified that the US acted in breach of the UN charter and thus against international law. If it weren't the US, Bush & Co. would end up in front of the tribunal in the Hague. :mad:
Kofi Annan. Now there's a name to conjure with. The King of Korruption telling the United States it's doing something illegal. And then leftists wonder why we're not enthusiastic about the UN. :rolleyes:

Kofi Annan. Now there's a name to conjure with. The King of Korruption telling the United States it's doing something illegal. And then leftists wonder why we're not enthusiastic about the UN. :rolleyes:

Not just the left but most democrats in general. Most democrats support this IGO even though it is very very corrupt!

Now if we could just clone that guy, we'd be out of Iraq in a month. Too bad we don't have a cloning machine.

Funny thing is,

The war was legal in the eyes of international law! If the war was illegal then why isn't anyone trying to sanction the US? If the war was illegal why isn't anyone trying to invade us?

What about Hussein's violation of 17 UN Resolutions? What about Husseins violation of the UN Cease-fire?

The US still has the right to wage war and peace and no international body has taken that away from us nor from any other country. We used our right to wage war to enforce 17 UN Resolutions + a cease-fire.

Before you tell me that he didn't CH, let me remind you that I have people that know far more than you about this situation. I don't even listen to the press when it comes to this. I listen to people that were there constently.
Well I don't really care who you know.....it doesn't stop you from being dead wrong:

Iraq war illegal, says Annan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm)

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

I understand that your father is involved in the military, and that you want to believe that everything that the US does is above board, but according to the UN and most people outside of the US and many inside the US, this war was not only illegal, but also immoral.

Well I don't really care who you know.....it doesn't stop you from being dead wrong:

Iraq war illegal, says Annan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm)

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

And we should trust the word of a moron who is being investigated for corruption?

As for the UN Charter, it DOES NOT take away the right of the US to wage war. No nation has given up that right. So no this isn't an Illegal war. As for the UN Charter, I like to know what he is basing it on since we were enforcing 17 UN Resolutions as well as a UN Cease-Fire. I also like to know why he hasn't declared the French Intervention in Africa illegal.

I understand that your father is involved in the military, and that you want to believe that everything that the US does is above board, but according to the UN and most people outside of the US and many inside the US, this war was not only illegal, but also immoral.

I never said that I believe everything the US does is above board. Thanks for making that false statement. However, I do know that he has MORE EXPERIENCE than you do in this area. He has also been to the Middle East on MORE THAN ONE occassion. Served in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, and even Bahrain I believe. Frankly, I take his experience in this over Annan and the media, and especially this board.

As for this being illegal, SHOW ME (The Show Me State--State Motto of MO :D) a treaty that takes away the US's right to wage war.

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

I understand that your father is involved in the military, and that you want to believe that everything that the US does is above board, but according to the UN and most people outside of the US and many inside the US, this war was not only illegal, but also immoral.

Obviously, the majority of voters in the US voted for Bush. So most either don't give a flying damn about the UN, or could care less about international law.

They're in good company. The only countries in recent memory who have gone out of their way to kidnap and bring international war criminals to justice at the Hague were UK and US special forces who grabbed Serbs. That, and Serbia handed over Milosevic. Other than that, the whole illegal immoral argument falls on deaf ears and impotent countries - even if the US is not the violator.

Laws are only as good as their enforcement. Blame your own country for not enforcing the law - don't blame us. You've already said you don't want us to be the world police.

Saddam was the puppet of the US? Why? Because he decided to attack Iran? :rolleyes:

Maybe you've forgotten that Saddam was supported by numerous nations, not just the US.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm

Supported both Iran & Iraq
US
USSR
Brazil
UK
France(the peace-lovers)
DDR(East Germany)
Czechoslovakia
Italy
China
North Korea

Supported Iraq
West Germany(what a shock!)
Belgium
Spain
Portugal
Poland
Hungary
Yugoslavia
Pakistan
Egypt
Sudan
Ethiopia
Jordan
Kuwait
UAE
Phillipines

Talk about "tunnel vision"........... :rolleyes:
Speaking of "tunnel vision", you seem to have something against Germany?

When you go searching for the truth, don't forget to see what parts were played by Reagan, H. W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W. Bush.

While you are looking for the truth, you might want to see what "excuses" that might come into play when the US invades Iran?

Speaking of "tunnel vision", you seem to have something against Germany?

When you go searching for the truth, don't forget to see what parts were played by Reagan, H. W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W. Bush.

While you are looking for the truth, you might want to see what "excuses" that might come into play when the US invades Iran?

You'll see in my previous posts that I say that the US created Saddam.

What would you have us do? Let him continue to run things there, or put him out of power, strip out the Baath Party, and hold elections?

Oh, and keep some extremists insurgents from grabbing power while we're trying to rebuild a country ravaged not only by war, but by the dictator we put in power.

I don't see you criticizing the French from intervening unilaterally in Ivory Coast for purposes of establishing order - with no UN mandate and no "coalition". They even machinegun civilians in the streets to keep order, and I don't hear you say a single word.

I don't see you criticizing the French from intervening unilaterally in Ivory Coast for purposes of establishing order - with no UN mandate and no "coalition". They even machinegun civilians in the streets to keep order, and I don't hear you say a single word.
Care to back up your claims with commonly accepted news sources?

And we should trust the word of a moron who is being investigated for corruption?
Although I am still waiting for you to validate your claim that "most" insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi, let's add the above claim of yours to the list. What are the charges against Anan? Lets see you cough up some proof.

As for the UN Charter, it DOES NOT take away the right of the US to wage war. No nation has given up that right. So no this isn't an Illegal war. As for the UN Charter, I like to know what he is basing it on since we were enforcing 17 UN Resolutions as well as a UN Cease-Fire. I also like to know why he hasn't declared the French Intervention in Africa illegal.
The US is a signator to the UN and as such, violated the UN Charter by invading....not like you haven't been told this before, but it seems to be taking a long time to sink in?

I never said that I believe everything the US does is above board. Thanks for making that false statement. However, I do know that he has MORE EXPERIENCE than you do in this area. He has also been to the Middle East on MORE THAN ONE occassion. Served in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, and even Bahrain I believe. Frankly, I take his experience in this over Annan and the media, and especially this board.
Well sonny, I am afraid that your father's vast experience does not trump the "facts", and those that bring the "facts" forward. It is unfortunate that you don't like the "facts" that are presented here, but it is also unfortunate that the US invaded Iraq.

As for this being illegal, SHOW ME (The Show Me State--State Motto of MO :D) a treaty that takes away the US's right to wage war.
Read your Constitution and then read the UN Charter, and perhaps you will see that the US is committed to defending herself from "imminent threat", which did not exist in the case of Iraq.

Ein Deutscher']Care to back up your claims with commonly accepted news sources?

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1624417,00.html
Paris - Ivory Coast leader Laurent Gbagbo said on Saturday he believed reports were true that French troops had decapitated local demonstrators during anti-French riots in the West African state this month.


http://news.tf1.fr/news/monde/0,,3188075,00.html
A colonel of the Ivorian gendarmerie interviewed by Agence France Presse (AFP) has affirmed that French forces on November 9 fired directly and without warning upon the crowd of protestors gathered in front of the Hotel Ivoire in Abidjan. Colonel Georges Guiai Bi Poin, who was in charge of a contingent of Ivorian gendarmes dispatched to control the crowd and coordinate with the French troops, says that the order to fire came from the commander of the latter, colonel D'Estremon. An English version of an AFP report containing some of the details is reprinted here. Note that these details concerning the Hotel Ivoire incident are, in effect, buried in a report whose title refers rather to the prospect of the Ivory Coast filing a complaint against France with the International Court of Justice in the separate matter of the French destruction of the Ivorian air force. The relevant passages of the report begin with the words “meanwhile in Ivory Coast's main city Abidjan….”

Colonel Guiai Bi Poin is quoted saying: “French troops fired directly into the crowd. They opened fire on the orders of their chief Colonel D'Estremon. Without warning.” Note that the last sentence in the French original implies more precisely that there were not warning shots [“aucune sommation”] – and thus explicitly contradicts the version of events still being defended by French officials. The AFP report, dated Sunday November 28, continues:

Guiai Bi Poin said the crowd at the Hotel Ivoire was yelling insults but was unarmed.
"Not one of my men fired a shot," he said. "There were no shots from the crowd. None of the demonstrators was armed -- not even with sticks, or knives or rocks."
He said that when he reported to the French commander on the day of the riot [sic.], he was told: "Colonel, my barbed wire has been crossed, and the crowd is getting excited. If they do not let us leave within 20 minutes, I am going to shoot."
"Suddenly," said Guiai Bi Poin, "there was a movement on our left and my gendarmes were pushed violently by the crowd. They fell back a meter or two. D'Estremon then said to me, 'Colonel, the red line has been crossed. I am going to open fire. FIRE!'"
The officer said the French troops began shooting. "It was not a haphazard fusillade. It was carried out on the orders of their chief. And there was no warning."
Guiai Bi Poin said he yelled at the French officer to fire in the air, to aim higher, "He did this but some of his men did not obey and some continued to fire on the crowd. I saw lots of people falling, but I do not know how many victims there were."

In a more complete AFP report published on the website of the private French television network TF1, Colonel Guiai Bi Poin adds: “At the same time we distinctly heard much more powerful detonations coming from upper floors in the hotel. It was one of these detonations that blew off the head of one of the protestors.” According to Guiai Bi Poin, six masked members of French special forces leaving the hotel then ran by his own troops.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1624417,00.html
Paris - Ivory Coast leader Laurent Gbagbo said on Saturday he believed reports were true that French troops had decapitated local demonstrators during anti-French riots in the West African state this month.


http://news.tf1.fr/news/monde/0,,3188075,00.html
A colonel of the Ivorian gendarmerie interviewed by Agence France Presse (AFP) has affirmed that French forces on November 9 fired directly and without warning upon the crowd of protestors gathered in front of the Hotel Ivoire in Abidjan. Colonel Georges Guiai Bi Poin, who was in charge of a contingent of Ivorian gendarmes dispatched to control the crowd and coordinate with the French troops, says that the order to fire came from the commander of the latter, colonel D'Estremon. An English version of an AFP report containing some of the details is reprinted here. Note that these details concerning the Hotel Ivoire incident are, in effect, buried in a report whose title refers rather to the prospect of the Ivory Coast filing a complaint against France with the International Court of Justice in the separate matter of the French destruction of the Ivorian air force. The relevant passages of the report begin with the words “meanwhile in Ivory Coast's main city Abidjan….”

Colonel Guiai Bi Poin is quoted saying: “French troops fired directly into the crowd. They opened fire on the orders of their chief Colonel D'Estremon. Without warning.” Note that the last sentence in the French original implies more precisely that there were not warning shots [“aucune sommation”] – and thus explicitly contradicts the version of events still being defended by French officials. The AFP report, dated Sunday November 28, continues:

Guiai Bi Poin said the crowd at the Hotel Ivoire was yelling insults but was unarmed.
"Not one of my men fired a shot," he said. "There were no shots from the crowd. None of the demonstrators was armed -- not even with sticks, or knives or rocks."
He said that when he reported to the French commander on the day of the riot [sic.], he was told: "Colonel, my barbed wire has been crossed, and the crowd is getting excited. If they do not let us leave within 20 minutes, I am going to shoot."
"Suddenly," said Guiai Bi Poin, "there was a movement on our left and my gendarmes were pushed violently by the crowd. They fell back a meter or two. D'Estremon then said to me, 'Colonel, the red line has been crossed. I am going to open fire. FIRE!'"
The officer said the French troops began shooting. "It was not a haphazard fusillade. It was carried out on the orders of their chief. And there was no warning."
Guiai Bi Poin said he yelled at the French officer to fire in the air, to aim higher, "He did this but some of his men did not obey and some continued to fire on the crowd. I saw lots of people falling, but I do not know how many victims there were."

In a more complete AFP report published on the website of the private French television network TF1, Colonel Guiai Bi Poin adds: “At the same time we distinctly heard much more powerful detonations coming from upper floors in the hotel. It was one of these detonations that blew off the head of one of the protestors.” According to Guiai Bi Poin, six masked members of French special forces leaving the hotel then ran by his own troops.
I guess the French troops in Africa aren't any better than the US troops in the Middle East then. :mad:

As the Americans are doing now, the French have a LONG LONG history of trying to restore order in former French colonies. Unilaterally, without UN resolution, and without any European nation criticizing them for it.

They are the only European nation to do so. Take responsibility for the disorder that followed the end of colonialism.

The US is trying to follow the French model. We helped create the insurgents in Afghanistan who became the Taliban and al-Qaeda. We created Saddam.

Should we follow the Belgian example, and let the areas we formerly screwed up go to hell, or should we follow the French example and try to restore order?

As the Americans are doing now, the French have a LONG LONG history of trying to restore order in former French colonies. Unilaterally, without UN resolution, and without any European nation criticizing them for it.

They are the only European nation to do so. Take responsibility for the disorder that followed the end of colonialism.

The US is trying to follow the French model. We helped create the insurgents in Afghanistan who became the Taliban and al-Qaeda. We created Saddam.

Should we follow the Belgian example, and let the areas we formerly screwed up go to hell, or should we follow the French example and try to restore order?
The US never had actual colonies and I am not a fan of colonialism. What the US does is enforce it's own economic and political will overseas, which is close to colonialism. The French should not be in the Ivory Coast if they do not have the permission of the UN security council.

You can kill just as many or more people by standing by and doing nothing.

Which is what the UN is very good at.

Sorry guys... but could you direct me to a better story about that Ivory Coast incident. One with number of casualties and such. I would kind of need the exact figures. Happened some time ago, but I still haven't find credible sources for the amount of dead and/or injured. Thanks in advance.

Sorry guys... but could you direct me to a better story about that Ivory Coast incident. One with number of casualties and such. I would kind of need the exact figures. Happened some time ago, but I still haven't find credible sources for the amount of dead and/or injured. Thanks in advance.
The French TV link I gave is all in French. AFP has pulled the stories (well, they're French!).

You can kill just as many or more people by standing by and doing nothing.

Which is what the UN is very good at.
Sure. Look at Sudan. Russia and China don't want to vote for sanctions because they sell weapons there. France and other European nations don't want sanctions because they buy oil there. Because of those economic reasons civilians have been and are being slaughtered.

The French TV link I gave is all in French. AFP has pulled the stories (well, they're French!).
Oh, right, didn't read the link. Seems to be saying something about 64 victims in the final chapter. Must investigate further. Thanks.

Ein D thinks that standing by and doing nothing is morally upright, even if people are being killed.

That's the line his grandparents took in WW II, when the SS was shooting people into pits. Well, it's not happenning to us, and we have to wait for the police to do something about it. So we'll stand by and do nothing.

Met quite a few people who lived in Dachau (the town, not the camps) who said, "oh, I never thought to do anything about the killing in the camps, because it would be against the law..."

You know those Germans. Always law and order, no matter who gets killed.

Ein Deutscher']The US never had actual colonies and I am not a fan of colonialism. What the US does is enforce it's own economic and political will overseas, which is close to colonialism. The French should not be in the Ivory Coast if they do not have the permission of the UN security council.


FYI: The French have had a base in Cote d'Ivorie for years prior to the civil war! Not to mention the 20+ civilians murdered, by French troops, in Cote d'Ivorie for protesting French occupation(amazing how that was kept out of the media!!). I'm sure France had UN approval for it's role in Rwanda(1994).....Maybe we should ask CH to get Kofi's opinion on the legality of that and the genocide that followed!!

Rwanda is the perfect example of the UN in action or inaction, depends how you want to look at it:

Throughout the late '80s and early '90s, Rwanda's Hutu Power dictatorship had enjoyed the patronage of France. As a former Belgian colony, Rwanda was a French speaking country, and Paris's neo-colonial policy in Africa was to support those who spoke its language at all costs. In the early '90s, when Rwanda was plunged into civil war between the Hutu government, and the predominantly Tutsi rebel group, the Rwandese Patriotic Front, France threw its military support behind the Hutu regime. After all, the RPF came out of Uganda--where its leaders had been living in exile--and Uganda is an English speaking country. French leaders were unconcerned by their murderous Hutu Power clients. As the genocide reached its peak in the early summer of 1994, France's President François Mitterand was reported to say, "In such countries as this, genocide is not too important."

.... the Security Council authorizes the deployment of French forces in south-west Rwanda--"Operation Turquoise." They create a "safe area" in territory controlled by the government. However, killings of Tutsis continue in the safe area.

Policymakers in France and in Belgium, were wedded to the notion that an ethnic majority was necessessarily the same as a democratic majority. They could not bring themselves to condemn the genocide because they feared increasing the likelihood of an RPF victory and the subsequent establishment of a government dominated by the minority.

But instead of using the peacekeeping troops to stop the genocide, the U.N. sought primarily to protect its soldiers from harm. Dallaire was ordered to make avoiding risk to soldiers the priority, not saving the lives of Rwandans. To do so, he regrouped his troops, leaving exposed the Rwandans who had sought shelter in certain outposts under U.N. protection. In the most dramatic case—for which responsibility may belong to commanding officers in Belgium as much as to Dallaire—nearly one hundred Belgian peacekeepers abandoned some two thousand unarmed civilians, leaving them defenseless against attacks by militia and military. As the Belgians went out one gate, the assailants came in the other. More than a thousand Rwandans died there or in flight, trying to reach another U.N. post.





Where was Kofi and his "legality" during all this??

Off topic... but: I don't think you can convince anybody in Europe liking USA more by pointing out how arrogant France is. They aren't wildly popular here at the moment either. :D

Disclaimer: I like both, the USA AND France. Call me silly, please.

Ein D thinks that standing by and doing nothing is morally upright, even if people are being killed.

That's the line his grandparents took in WW II, when the SS was shooting people into pits. Well, it's not happenning to us, and we have to wait for the police to do something about it. So we'll stand by and do nothing.

Met quite a few people who lived in Dachau (the town, not the camps) who said, "oh, I never thought to do anything about the killing in the camps, because it would be against the law..."

You know those Germans. Always law and order, no matter who gets killed.

Easy, WL.

Ein Deutscher']The US never had actual colonies and I am not a fan of colonialism. What the US does is enforce it's own economic and political will overseas, which is close to colonialism. The French should not be in the Ivory Coast if they do not have the permission of the UN security council.

Um... every nation does that. Including Germany.

The UN is not a World Government. Thank God.

Although I am still waiting for you to validate your claim that "most" insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi, let's add the above claim of yours to the list. What are the charges against Anan? Lets see you cough up some proof.

Nepotism for one. Another is seeing how much he actually knew what was going on around him. I suggest you watch the news more.

The US is a signator to the UN and as such, violated the UN Charter by invading....not like you haven't been told this before, but it seems to be taking a long time to sink in?

Care to point to a treaty that takes away our right to wage war?

Well sonny, I am afraid that your father's vast experience does not trump the "facts", and those that bring the "facts" forward. It is unfortunate that you don't like the "facts" that are presented here, but it is also unfortunate that the US invaded Iraq.

Actually it does trump it because HE WAS THERE! He has always been over there. He goes over there year after year. He has more knowledge of what was going on over there than press ever reported. I will take his knowledge over the press. As for his facts, he knows more about the culture over there as well as the political situation MORE THAN YOU!

Read your Constitution and then read the UN Charter, and perhaps you will see that the US is committed to defending herself from "imminent threat", which did not exist in the case of Iraq.

Care to point to the section under Article II regarding the President and his role as CIC? Oh wait, I already did. Care to show me where it says imminent threat in the US Constitution? Oh wait, you CAN'T!!!!!

Now show me the treaty that we gave up our right to wage war? Oh wait! There isn't one.

Um... every nation does that. Including Germany.

The UN is not a World Government. Thank God.

Amen!

Off topic... but: I don't think you can convince anybody in Europe liking USA more by pointing out how arrogant France is. They aren't wildly popular here at the moment either. :D

Disclaimer: I like both, the USA AND France. Call me silly, please.

Oh, I'm not out to convince anyone to like the US, or France. I'm not saying that what they do is "good", either. I seek only to give some appearance of rational motives for their actions. It appears to me that unlike other powers, the US, UK, and France seek to intervene to prevent complete destabilization - after decades of selling people weapons and involving innocent third world people in Cold War intrigues. Other powers seek to make money selling them weapons - and never intervening no matter how stupid people get.

The world is a mess - and it's going to take time to fix all of it.

Oh, I'm not out to convince anyone to like the US, or France. I'm not saying that what they do is "good", either. I seek only to give some appearance of rational motives for their actions. It appears to me that unlike other powers, the US, UK, and France seek to intervene to prevent complete destabilization - after decades of selling people weapons and involving innocent third world people in Cold War intrigues. Other powers seek to make money selling them weapons - and never intervening no matter how stupid people get.

The world is a mess - and it's going to take time to fix all of it. Oh, I know. I wasn't talking to anybody in general. Just saying...

I only wished I lived in a country I could profit from this all... or even be part of the fighting... but our friggin constitution... well, you know. :)

Oh, I know. I wasn't talking to anybody in general. Just saying...

I only wished I lived in a country I could profit from this all... or even be part of the fighting... but our friggin constitution... well, you know. :)

Don't knock it. At least you have a decent sauna you can go to.

Don't knock it. At least you have a decent sauna you can go to.
I'd have to be pretty generous with the water for a sauna being as hot as some hotspots in the world... (and don't tell anybody... but I haven't been in sauna for 8 years... other Finns would kill me if they knew this...).

My favorite way to spend the day:
Go sit in sauna until you can't stand it.
Go take a quick shower.
Swim in freezing water.
Repeat.

Is Minnesota part of Jesusland too? :D

EDIT: yes, I know this is about Iraqis taking charge, and more power to them!
... but where in USA do you live WL? Sauna isn't the favourite thing of those from the lower latitudes... believe you me... I was herding the exchange students in when in university...

Is Minnesota part of Jesusland too? :D
No, I live in Virginia. I've been to Germany (and other European countries) in the winter, and I fell in love with the sauna habit (as well as the habit of swimming in ice cold water).

Ahh, Sweet Virginia. Plenty hot and moist for me without sauna. But as they say... if you can't take the heat - stay out...

Ahh, Sweet Virginia. Plenty hot and moist for me without sauna. But as they say... if you can't take the heat - stay out...

Really. The Europeans really have something there with the sauna habit and the mineral water. I thought the whole "cleansing" idea was BS when I first heard it, but it really worked for me.

Yea well, I'm from Finland... If I go around with a mineral water bottle in my hand... 7 months of the year it's condidered a lethal weapon (if carried outdoors that is).

Yea well, I'm from Finland... If I go around with a mineral water bottle in my hand... 7 months of the year it's condidered a lethal weapon (if carried outdoors that is).

That's what alcohol is for.

Of course. But this is NS general... gross exaggerations allowed. Normally you wouldn't catch a Finnish male WITHOUT a bottle of vodka... that's how you single them out in Afghanistan, I'd assume. Not a single friendly-fire incident... them muslims just detest vodka...

Of course. But this is NS general... gross exaggerations allowed. Normally you wouldn't catch a Finnish male WITHOUT a bottle of vodka... that's how you single them out in Afghanistan, I'd assume. Not a single friendly-fire incident... them muslims just detest vodka...

Well, that does explain the praying 5 times a day... but with all the spare time, you'd think they'd have time to shave those beards! I mean, it's *hot* in the Middle East... :D

Well, that does explain the praying 5 times a day... but with all the spare time, you'd think they'd have time to shave those beards! I mean, it's *hot* in the Middle East... :D
It's Sunnah to keep a beard.

It's Sunnah to keep a beard.


:D = it's a joke.

:D = it's a joke.
Yes I know.

Yes I know.

WE LOVE YOU, JAMIL!

President, Jamil Fan Club

WE LOVE YOU, JAMIL!

President, Jamil Fan Club
Yes I know.

I cheer for Iraqis taking the defense of their country into their own hands, helping the US out in rebuliding their country from scratch, its a great thing, and I saw on the news, don't know which channel, that women are even training to become officers, now that's gotta be a huge step forward for them and Iraq.

I cheer for Iraqis taking the defense of their country into their own hands, helping the US out in rebuliding their country from scratch, its a great thing, and I saw on the news, don't know which channel, that women are even training to become officers, now that's gotta be a huge step forward for them and Iraq.
You know, in Iraq women were amongst the most liberated women in the Middle East.

So if Iraq turns out to elect a brutal dictatorial regime , we invade them again? Because we would have made that mess to so we'd have to clean it up right?

If another brutal dictator had arisen from merely just an assasination, then assasinate him too and another and another until they get the message. It would be no different from what is going on right now except for we would have less US deaths and there would probably be no country wide insurgency, so therefor less Iraqi deaths as well. The real problem for the US woudl be that we wouldnt have control of the oil and make the rules for their economy in US favor.

In most civilized countries Assasination is a punishable offense, esepcially no a days. The world looks down on countries that commit this act. The rest of what you say is just utter BS with no backing what so ever.

Was it not because he was building those nuclear weapons, making the world a much safer place all round? Perhaps invading NK and taking him out would have been a much better idea than attacking Iraq, which we all knew was contained and had no WMDs?

Actually the World over said he had WMD's up to and leading to the invasion. It wasn't till the US said "We are going to invade Iraq unless they correct all these violations to the UN resolutions" then all of a sudden Iraq had no WMD's. Of course that means that Clinton lied, The UN lied, British lied, French Lied, Germans lied, Russians lied, Spanish lied and just about everybody else. So which is it? Either Saddam had WMD's in 1998 when Clinton and the world agreed to send in cruise missiles to take out an aspirin factory. Or after 1993 the WMD's were all destroyed and there was no need to have sanctions on Iraq. Including the Oil for dea… food program, oh wait then the EU and UN couldn’t of profited and caused the estimated 300k+ Iraqi’s found in mass graves after Saddam’s fall. or the 1000's of childern imprisoned because the parents didn't act the way Saddam wanted them too. I suppose though sometime between 1998 and 2000 when Bush became the President Saddam went ahead and destroyed the rest of his weapons that he had the two years prior.

CanuckHeaven- Prove to me that the insurgents are all Iraqi? That they are lead by Iraqi's and have Iraqi weapons. Also prove to me that France does not have citizens fighting there. Make sure the news sources are acceptable main stream sources and not some internet blogger with to much time on their hands.

thanks



I always love liberals who cry about proving something yet they never provide proof of their own.

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
Although I am still waiting for you to validate your claim that "most" insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi, let's add the above claim of yours to the list. What are the charges against Anan? Lets see you cough up some proof.
Nepotism for one. Another is seeing how much he actually knew what was going on around him. I suggest you watch the news more.
Continually you dance around the issues. Rarely do you provide any substantive proof to YOUR allegations. Your debating skills are poor to non existent to say the least. If you are called on something, you should be prepared to back up your arguments with some credible truths.

Care to point to a treaty that takes away our right to wage war?
It is called the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/) and like I already said, you are having a hard time grasping the fact that the US is a signatory to this Charter.

Actually it does trump it because HE WAS THERE! He has always been over there. He goes over there year after year. He has more knowledge of what was going on over there than press ever reported. I will take his knowledge over the press. As for his facts, he knows more about the culture over there as well as the political situation MORE THAN YOU!
I am sure that you think highly of your father’s opinion, experience, and wisdom but none of that can trump the “truth”. Since you suggest that your father is all knowledgeable, how often is he quoted in the press, or do they just not bother asking for his opinion/facts? :eek:

Care to point to the section under Article II regarding the President and his role as CIC? Oh wait, I already did. Care to show me where it says imminent threat in the US Constitution? Oh wait, you CAN'T!!!!!

Now show me the treaty that we gave up our right to wage war? Oh wait! There isn't one.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article. VI.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Should we start counting now?? :rolleyes:

Zarqawi - Jordanian

And if you've read the BBC....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4374533.stm

10 more from six different countries....

Hurray for vigilantes!

*snip*

The UN Charter doesn't take the right to wage war from any nation.

Want to try again or shall we say that you are an idiot for not knowing?

Frankly, I take it that you think that the UN is a world government, it isn't. It cannot prevent a nation from going to war. It cannot prevent a nation from waging one.

You obviously did not know this so I'll chalk this up to a learning experience for you. No nation has given up its right to wage war on another.

I am sure that you think highly of your father’s opinion, experience, and wisdom but none of that can trump the “truth”. Since you suggest that your father is all knowledgeable, how often is he quoted in the press, or do they just not bother asking for his opinion/facts? :eek:

Since he has more experience in the Middle East, he has more facts than you can shake a stick at. Since he has to know what is going on over there everytime he is there, he has a more updated situational awareness than we do. He knows about the political makeup and knows what each country tolerates as well as the customs of those areas.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nice use of the preamble but it doesn't make your case.

Article. VI.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As for Article IV...

Since we already established that no treaty has given up America's right to wage war, can you point to a treaty that does?

Well, you were the agressors. That there are insurgents is the fault of the US. And since the US wants to continiue their occupation of Iraq it is their responsibility. At which they have failed utterly.


I see. It is the fault of the U.S. that people from several other countries came into Iraq to provide funding, equipment, training, and warm bodies to use force to prevent the actual Iraqi citizens from deciding what their government should be? And now that their efforts have failed, it is ALSO the fault of the U.S. that those same NON-IRAQI people are using force to punish the Iraqi citizens, and attempt to reverse their democratic decision?

That is logically equivalent to a man screaming "See what you made me do!" as he breaks his wife's jaw for not having supper ready on time. The insurgents are in control of their actions, and therefore to blame for them. They fight because they know they don't have the support of the great majority of Iraqis. They fight because one person using force can intimidate dozens of peaceful people. If they laid down their arms and participated in a peaceful process, the U.S. would already be out of there...but then they'd have no excuse to keep fighting. As a U.S. soldier who did my year over there, I can damn well tell you we'd MUCH rather be at home!

Oh, and while we're at it, I'd love to see honest statistics on the number of civilian casualties per month since the U.S. invasion as compared to the number of civilian casualties per month during Hussein's rule. Of course, that will be impossible, since Hussein didn't keep records of his atrocities. I'd also like a comparison of civilian casualties caused by DIRECT U.S. and U.S.-supported forces action, and those DIRECTLY caused by the insurgents.

[QUOTE=Sumamba Buwhan]Good for these guys. I hope the Mujahadeen do not return to retaliate.

It's very admirable, brave and gives us new hope for the quagmire Bush has plauged the Iraqis with. Despite all of the death that Bushs' war has caused them, they are still strong and willing to defend themselves. I just hope the Bushies don't try to give Bush any credit whatsoever for these peoples actions, with their twisted Bushie "logic".[QUOTE]

Lemme see here. Twisted logic coming up.

Case 1: No invasion, Bush keeps his hands in his pockets and his soldiers at home. Hussein is still in power, civilians are still starving while he and his friends build another 50 or so multi-acre palace complexes with money gained from "Oil-for-Food". Out of fear of an invasion a few years ago, he got rid of the chemical weapons he had previously developed and tested on his own citizens, so his soldiers are forced to use bullets, bombs, and artillery to wipe out the Kurds and anyone else who showed faint signs of resistance to his rule...slowing the process down slightly, but not a lot. Various countries and UN diplomats share in the wealth while publically deploring the horrible conditions in Iraq, spouting vague hopes that someone might someday make it better.

Case 2: Bush sends troops to invade. Within months, Hussein is gone. Former members of Hussein's party connect with fanatical insurgents from other countries to cause gradually increasing chaos and deaths over the next few years...which then begins to run down as the silent and scared majority begin the process of taking control of their own country.

You're right. It's a quagmire. It's been costly in terms of money, and more importantly, lives to the United States. It's been hell on Earth for the Iraqis, far worse than for the U.S., and it may take years to get better...and there's still a pretty good chance it'll all fall down again. But it's a hell of a lot more hopeful than it was before we went in. Is that logic twisted enough for you?

Oh, and by the way, I voted AGAINST Bush. Twice. I disagree with much of what he stands for. That doesn't make him ineffective.

Inhumane treatment = Abu Gharib (http://billandkent.com/gallery/abu-gharib-torture-photos).

Also, check this (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1399055,00.html) out:

Marines used the napalm-like bombs on at least two other occasions during the drive to Baghdad - against Iraqis defending a bridge across the Saddam Canal and near a Tigris river bridge north of the town of Numaniyah in south central Iraq, the San Diego Tribune reported on Tuesday.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," Colonel Randolph Alles, the commander of Marine Air Group 11, was quoted as telling the newspaper. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," he said.

The MK-77 are filled with a different mix of incendiary chemicals than napalm, but have the same terrifying effect, a penetrating fire that seeps into dug-in infantry positions.

"The generals love napalm," Alles was quoted as saying. "It has a big psychological effect."

Inhumane treatment...okay, let's look at the record again.

U.S. - Soldiers force prisoners into humiliating poses during interrogations and just for the hell of it. Those prisoners live through it, the soldiers are currently being court-martialed, as are some of the lower-level supervisors...and the investigation ain't over, it's just barely possible that some Generals cound end up on the Defendant's bench. Other U.S. soldiers, in isolated incidents, are accused of torturing or killing prisoners and innocent civilians. Those soldiers are investigated, and where sufficient proof exists, are also court-martialed. In some cases, I strongly suspect, U.S. soldiers kill, maim, or torture prisoners and/or civilians, and get away with it, through sufficient (though evil and criminal) intelligence and luck, but always with the risk of capture and punishment by their own people.

Insurgents - Kidnap or attack civilians from the U.S. or other nations who are providing logistic support for the military forces. Torture them, maim them, execute them painfully and slowly on camera, then broadcast it to the world. Set up roadside bombs, car bombs, suicide bombs (aka Not-so-smart bombs) to take out random victims. Report their actions back to their supervisors, receive more money and equipment, and go do it again.

Yes, both sides are flawed...but are we really calling them EQUALLY evil?

As far as the Napalm...it was used against military personnel to achieve a military objective. It's a horrible way to die, that's true, but so is getting gut-shot by an AK-47 or M-16, impaled on a bayonet or dangling from barbed wire, or getting run over by a tank. Are we supposed to restrict ouselves to gentle weapons against enemy soldiers? Maybe we can use long-range hypodermics to overdose the soldiers on Demerol so they can die on an opium high, or drown them in cherry-flavored gelatin? How would YOU have taken the bridge without destroying it, and with minimal risk to your own forces?

Since he has more experience in the Middle East, he has more facts than you can shake a stick at. Since he has to know what is going on over there everytime he is there, he has a more updated situational awareness than we do. He knows about the political makeup and knows what each country tolerates as well as the customs of those areas.

Nice use of the preamble but it doesn't make your case.

As for Article IV...

Since we already established that no treaty has given up America's right to wage war, can you point to a treaty that does?
I have decided that debate with you from here on is absolutely futile. When you are pressed for facts, you cannot provide them, or insist that your father has all the answers, and then you resort to calling people "idiots" or suggesting that they don't know anything about history.

Perhaps someday, we shall read a book entitled "The World According to Cornlieu's Father"? :eek:

Inhumane treatment...okay, let's look at the record again.

U.S. - Soldiers force prisoners into humiliating poses during interrogations and just for the hell of it. Those prisoners live through it, the soldiers are currently being court-martialed, as are some of the lower-level supervisors...and the investigation ain't over, it's just barely possible that some Generals cound end up on the Defendant's bench. Other U.S. soldiers, in isolated incidents, are accused of torturing or killing prisoners and innocent civilians. Those soldiers are investigated, and where sufficient proof exists, are also court-martialed. In some cases, I strongly suspect, U.S. soldiers kill, maim, or torture prisoners and/or civilians, and get away with it, through sufficient (though evil and criminal) intelligence and luck, but always with the risk of capture and punishment by their own people.

Insurgents - Kidnap or attack civilians from the U.S. or other nations who are providing logistic support for the military forces. Torture them, maim them, execute them painfully and slowly on camera, then broadcast it to the world. Set up roadside bombs, car bombs, suicide bombs (aka Not-so-smart bombs) to take out random victims. Report their actions back to their supervisors, receive more money and equipment, and go do it again.

Yes, both sides are flawed...but are we really calling them EQUALLY evil?

As far as the Napalm...it was used against military personnel to achieve a military objective. It's a horrible way to die, that's true, but so is getting gut-shot by an AK-47 or M-16, impaled on a bayonet or dangling from barbed wire, or getting run over by a tank. Are we supposed to restrict ouselves to gentle weapons against enemy soldiers? Maybe we can use long-range hypodermics to overdose the soldiers on Demerol so they can die on an opium high, or drown them in cherry-flavored gelatin? How would YOU have taken the bridge without destroying it, and with minimal risk to your own forces?
I don't condone "inhumane" treatment by either side in a dispute, and that is why the Geneva Conventions were developed. The point I was making is that both sides are guilty and should be punished if caught.

Speaking of man's inhumanity to man, have you ever heard of the "Highway of Death", circa 1991?

I always love liberals who cry about proving something yet they never provide proof of their own.
You have a total of what....39 posts and you are whining about liberals not providing proof....give me a break. I have posted tons of articles to back my posts, and so have most liberal minded posters, and if you read the earlier part of this thread, you would know why I was asking Cornlieu for proof.

Speaking of man's inhumanity to man, have you ever heard of the "Highway of Death", circa 1991?
Speaking of dense and deaf ... as I and several others have repeatedly pointed out, the so-called "Highway of Death" was a media creation which had virtually nothing to do with the actual road in question. The media hype given to this creation was in large part responsible for the premature ending of Gulf War I, thus partially causing "Gulf War II" to finish what should have been done in Gulf War I.

I have decided that debate with you from here on is absolutely futile. When you are pressed for facts, you cannot provide them, or insist that your father has all the answers, and then you resort to calling people "idiots" or suggesting that they don't know anything about history.

Perhaps someday, we shall read a book entitled "The World According to Cornlieu's Father"? :eek:
He ( she? ) has as much right to post as you do, oh arrogant one. Perhaps someday we shall read a book of humor entitled "The World According to CanuckHeaven."

He ( she? ) has as much right to post as you do, oh arrogant one. Perhaps someday we shall read a book of humor entitled "The World According to CanuckHeaven."
He/she can post away to their hearts content. I have decided that it is futile to debate with them any further if they refuse to validate their assertions. Geez Eutrusca you have never come to my defence, is Cornlieu a special project or is it that Cornlieu tends to agree with anything you say?

Speaking of dense and deaf ... as I and several others have repeatedly pointed out, the so-called "Highway of Death" was a media creation which had virtually nothing to do with the actual road in question. The media hype given to this creation was in large part responsible for the premature ending of Gulf War I, thus partially causing "Gulf War II" to finish what should have been done in Gulf War I.
Dense and deaf?

A media creation you say?

WAR CRIMES

A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal (http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm)

You can start with this web site (http://home.alltel.net/roedder/abdali/abdali.html). I will search for the more pictorial one.

He/she can post away to their hearts content. I have decided that it is futile to debate with them any further if they refuse to validate their assertions. Geez Eutrusca you have never come to my defence, is Cornlieu a special project or is it that Cornlieu tends to agree with anything you say?
I've never noticed whether Cornlieu agrees with me or not. Since this is a discussion forum, constantly dinging posters who present their opinions doesn't seem to be very constructive. This was one of the problems I had with the way Stephistan presented things, as a matter of fact, you sound a lot like Stephistan. Hmmm.

Dense and deaf?

A media creation you say?

WAR CRIMES

A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal (http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm)

You can start with this web site (http://home.alltel.net/roedder/abdali/abdali.html). I will search for the more pictorial one.
Ramsey Clark? Now just how did good ole Ramsey determine there were 300,000 casualties on that road? Somehow, I don't think "Ramsey Clark and others" qualify as military casualty experts. The photographs are rather startling, but the figures are even moreso.

Ramsey Clark, by the way, was Lyndon Johnson's Attorney General. How does that equate to being an expert in military casualty estimation?

Dense and deaf?

A media creation you say?

WAR CRIMES

A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal (http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm)

You can start with this web site (http://home.alltel.net/roedder/abdali/abdali.html). I will search for the more pictorial one.
From PBS: " Most of what existed on the so-called highway of death were stolen goods and stolen vehicles from Kuwait city. There were very few Iraqi solders that were found amongst the wreckage. Most of them when the bombing started were smart enough to jump out of their stolen vehicles and run into the safety of the desert so the highway of death was the highway of death for vehicles, washing machines and stolen television sets, but it really wasn't the highway of death for Iraqi solders."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/

I've never noticed whether Cornlieu agrees with me or not. Since this is a discussion forum, constantly dinging posters who present their opinions doesn't seem to be very constructive. This was one of the problems I had with the way Stephistan presented things, as a matter of fact, you sound a lot like Stephistan. Hmmm.
Perhaps you need to do a bit more research on the subject? Cornlieu is always agreeing with you ad nauseum, and he/she is always the one throwing out the "idiot" tags, when feeling outgunned. So be my guest and browse and don't play Mr. Innocent.

The problem you had with Steph, is that you don't like anyone that is against your principles, or makes a stand against US imperialistic policies?

And as far as "dinging posters" on here, you have done more than your fair share of that. :eek: Actually, I think you take delight in doing so (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8521212&postcount=2). :eek:

And as far as Steph is concerned, I liked her straightforward approach, and contrary to your thinking, I did not agree with all of her posts.

And to return to your comment regarding the "dinging posters", you are still "dinging" Steph, even though she no longer posts here. How classy is that? :eek:

Dense and deaf?

A media creation you say?

WAR CRIMES

A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal (http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm)

You can start with this web site (http://home.alltel.net/roedder/abdali/abdali.html). I will search for the more pictorial one.

Why, yes, it DOES appear to be a media creation! I checked out your links. Can anyone tell me the commissioning body behind the "International War Crimes Tribunal," its "Commission of Inquiry," or the Commissioners who prepared the report? Despite frequent HTML references to the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention, and other recognized documents of International law, the "Tribunal" appears to have NO OFFICIAL CONNECTION to any international or national organization. The primary connection it seems to have is to its publisher, from whom you can buy the book. My first clue here was the hosting site. Deoxy.org (http://Deoxy.org) appears to be a fairly interesting web hosting site with an "alternative" focus. Some of the subjects listed on their home page include Anarchy, Consciousness, Drug Freedom, Magick, and Meditation. Check it out, folks, it looks interesting...but I don't plan to read it for serious journalism.

At any rate, the official-sounding "IWCT" appears to be a totally independent group set up to blame the U.S. for the world's problems. This independence certainly leaves them free to express their opinion, as well as explaining why they have to pay (or possibly beg) for web space instead of getting it from www.un.org or some similar group. Like the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (http://www.un.org/icty)) does. It does NOT provide me with a great deal of respect for that opinion. After all, anyone can build a website, and post whatever made-up "facts" and "statistics" they'd like. I'm bored with them now, but maybe someone else would care to research the names of the folks who signed the report, see if they're who they claim to be?

As far as the Highway of Death site...horrible pictures. Of military vehicles and personnel destroyed by military weapons. Are you aware, CanuckHeaven, that a retreating soldier is not the same as a surrendered soldier? We destroyed the Iraqi Army in 1991 with very low U.S. and allied casualty rates. This highway is an example of how we did it - bombing them from too high up for them to shoot back. I suppose we could have sent ground troops in first to go tank to tank, knocking on turrets and asking if they'd like to surrender first, but that strikes me as pretty risky, and in a war, we're supposed to kill the enemy, not ourselves. Oh, and you left out another page on the site...
301st MP Co. EPW/POW Camp (http://home.alltel.net/roedder/pow/pow.html) You know, the one that shows U.S. doctors providing free medical and dental care to the captured prisoners?

In short, CanuckHeaven, you have chosen to use one propaganda page to support your argument, and another page that, while graphic, doesn't actually support your position at all. You have also, by using such a bogus pseudo-official page, cast doubt on any and all past and future links you provide. But thanks for playing!

I have decided that debate with you from here on is absolutely futile. When you are pressed for facts, you cannot provide them, or insist that your father has all the answers, and then you resort to calling people "idiots" or suggesting that they don't know anything about history.

Futile because I'm right? All I have to do is point to all the non-iraqi insurgent casualty count as well as local Iraqis who have stated publicaly that most aren't Iraqi.

As for my dad, I never stated that he had all the answers. However, he has more experience with the Middle East than you and most people on this board. He also knows international law better than most people because he is always in a combat zone or another.

Perhaps someday, we shall read a book entitled "The World According to Cornlieu's Father"? :eek:

No such book forthcoming.

I don't condone "inhumane" treatment by either side in a dispute, and that is why the Geneva Conventions were developed. The point I was making is that both sides are guilty and should be punished if caught.

Ok, here I will agree with you.

Speaking of man's inhumanity to man, have you ever heard of the "Highway of Death", circa 1991?

There goes the Iraqi military. Oops, that's right! A legitament military target.

He ( she? ) has as much right to post as you do, oh arrogant one. Perhaps someday we shall read a book of humor entitled "The World According to CanuckHeaven."

I'm a he Eutrusca! And I agree with you.

You got it! Took you awhile, but I think you finally begin to understand. Our carpenter, their terrorists. :D
Yeah your just lucky i wasnt posting at the time the thread started or my logic would have finnished the argument so so fast! :rolleyes:

Further to the "Highway of Death" and other purported US "War Crimes" (http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/CampaignMore/Flashback.htm) during the Gulf War.

The Unseen Gulf War (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt04.html)

Further to the "Highway of Death" and other purported US "War Crimes" (http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/CampaignMore/Flashback.htm) during the Gulf War.

The Unseen Gulf War (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt04.html)

I guess someone here doesn't realize that it was a legal military target?

Thought not

Nice links! very unbiased.

The guy's family ROCKS!

I'm a he Eutrusca! And I agree with you.
Ut oh! Be vewwy, vewwy careful or you will bring the wrath of CanuckHeaven down upon you as I have! Tsk! :D

Further to the "Highway of Death" and other purported US "War Crimes" (http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/CampaignMore/Flashback.htm) during the Gulf War.

The Unseen Gulf War (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt04.html)

Let's see your War Crimes link. Oh, my, it's pretty much a rehashing of your earlier bogus IWCT (http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm) link, isn't it? Why, yes, I believe that Francis Boyle starts off with the statement that he worked with that group, and that these were their claims. This appears to be an attempt at the Big Lie through the time-honored process of Repetition. And I see that Boyle found a good impartial organization (http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/) to host the page, too.

Your other link? Hmmm, more graphic images of soldiers killed in a war. Plus a few that prisoners being used for burial details, standard practice. And lots of U.S. support troops making a start on the necessary tasks following a horrible but successful battle. (Oh, by the way, despite the captions, those are NOT Special Forces troops, who were the first to get complete sets of desert cammies, including tan boots, long before the start of the air war.) I see the message of this one as "War is Hell." Which we knew, but is pretty much meaningless regarding your position.

Once again, CanuckHeaven, excellent links! What's next, a blog from one of the insurgents complaining about the unfairness of having to attack soldiers who tend to shoot back?

Ut oh! Be vewwy, vewwy careful or you will bring the wrath of CanuckHeaven down upon you as I have! Tsk! :D

lol! I have before so its no big deal :D

I don't condone "inhumane" treatment by either side in a dispute, and that is why the Geneva Conventions were developed. The point I was making is that both sides are guilty and should be punished if caught.

Speaking of man's inhumanity to man, have you ever heard of the "Highway of Death", circa 1991?

Bombing fleeing enemy troops, no matter how many you kill, and no matter how incapable they are of stopping your attack, is no violation of the laws of war. Ever.

Even if they throw down their weapons and run away. Historically, you will find that most battles have their heaviest casualties in those situations. No one with any real knowledge of the laws of war calls that a violation of the laws of war.

Anyone who says that killing fleeing enemy troops is a violation of the laws of war needs to go back to the books. The same books that will also tell you that the use of napalm and fire weapons against military troops and military targets is also legal.

Bombing fleeing enemy troops, no matter how many you kill, and no matter how incapable they are of stopping your attack, is no violation of the laws of war. Ever.

Even if they throw down their weapons and run away. Historically, you will find that most battles have their heaviest casualties in those situations. No one with any real knowledge of the laws of war calls that a violation of the laws of war.

Anyone who says that killing fleeing enemy troops is a violation of the laws of war needs to go back to the books. The same books that will also tell you that the use of napalm and fire weapons against military troops and military targets is also legal.Gotta admit tho... they (Iraqi Troops) probably could've fled faster if they wern't weighted down by all the stuff they looted from Kuait.

Bombing fleeing enemy troops, no matter how many you kill, and no matter how incapable they are of stopping your attack, is no violation of the laws of war. Ever.

Even if they throw down their weapons and run away. Historically, you will find that most battles have their heaviest casualties in those situations. No one with any real knowledge of the laws of war calls that a violation of the laws of war.

Anyone who says that killing fleeing enemy troops is a violation of the laws of war needs to go back to the books. The same books that will also tell you that the use of napalm and fire weapons against military troops and military targets is also legal.


Abolutly true. The thing is, the events of the Highway of Death occured after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawal from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who “are out of combat”.

And the use of Napalm and other phosphorus weapons were outlawed in 1977 Geneva Protocols.

Abolutly true. The thing is, the events of the Highway of Death occured after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawal from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who “are out of combat”.

And the use of Napalm and other phosphorus weapons were outlawed in 1977 Geneva Protocols.

Nope. Until there was at least a cease-fire agreement and hostilities stop, you can shoot all you like. Hussein did not agree to cease hostilities. Wars continue until there is at least a cease-fire.

You see, troops fleeing Kuwait enter the area of Iraq that we occupied, and posed a threat to Coalition Forces.

No one has brought it up at the UN as a violation. No one has even complained at the Hague that it was a violation.

Nope. Until there was at least a cease-fire agreement and hostilities stop, you can shoot all you like. Hussein did not agree to cease hostilities. Wars continue until there is at least a cease-fire.

You see, troops fleeing Kuwait enter the area of Iraq that we occupied, and posed a threat to Coalition Forces.

No one has brought it up at the UN as a violation. No one has even complained at the Hague that it was a violation.


http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm
ROFLMAO!!! That's already been debunked as a specious organization.

Let's see your War Crimes link. Oh, my, it's pretty much a rehashing of your earlier bogus IWCT (http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm) link, isn't it? Why, yes, I believe that Francis Boyle starts off with the statement that he worked with that group, and that these were their claims. This appears to be an attempt at the Big Lie through the time-honored process of Repetition. And I see that Boyle found a good impartial organization (http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/) to host the page, too.

Your other link? Hmmm, more graphic images of soldiers killed in a war. Plus a few that prisoners being used for burial details, standard practice. And lots of U.S. support troops making a start on the necessary tasks following a horrible but successful battle. (Oh, by the way, despite the captions, those are NOT Special Forces troops, who were the first to get complete sets of desert cammies, including tan boots, long before the start of the air war.) I see the message of this one as "War is Hell." Which we knew, but is pretty much meaningless regarding your position.

Once again, CanuckHeaven, excellent links! What's next, a blog from one of the insurgents complaining about the unfairness of having to attack soldiers who tend to shoot back?
So you are suggesting that the following person is not a credible source for these charges?

Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.

And the charges (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-crime.htm) are unsupportable?

In the US at least, Ramsey Clark is widely regarded, even by Democrats, as a nutjob.

So you are suggesting that the following person is not a credible source for these charges?

Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.

And the charges (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-crime.htm) are unsupportable?

That's exactly what we are saying. Hell, this guy got hammered in the 9/11 commission report too. This guy is a major piece of work. Great in his field of terrorism but not military matters.

BTW: The website is biased did you know that?

In the US at least, Ramsey Clark is widely regarded, even by Democrats, as a nutjob.

That's because he is. He gets totally discredited when he opens his mouth.

He is a real nutjob.

Ramsey Clark is also on Saddam's legal defense team. He doesn't think that Saddam *ever* did anything wrong at any time.

Ramsey Clark also said that Jesus was a terrorist.

Clark’s slur of Jesus did NOT result in murderous mobs of angry Christians taking to the streets of American cities. In that respect, it—like the innumerable slurs on Christ and Christianity that are commonplace in the mainstream American entertainment media—stands in stark contrast to the “Miss Universe” riots in Nigeria, where angry Muslims killed more than 100 innocents to protest one editorialist’s suggestion that Mohammed might have used the pageant to bolster his stockpile of wives.

Finally, as of this writing, no Christian clerics anywhere have called for a death sentence for Ramsey Clark or put a price on his head. The former Johnson Administration official can continue with his protests and his outlandish statements without fearing for his life like Salman Rushdie.

Ramsey Clark IS a nutjob.

In the US at least, Ramsey Clark is widely regarded, even by Democrats, as a nutjob.
Perhaps that it is through efforts by such "nutjobs" that could lead to a more humane world, whereby people can actually resolve their differences without bombing them into oblivion (http://www.iacenter.org/jc_falluja.htm)?

Ramsey Clark is also on Saddam's legal defense team. He doesn't think that Saddam *ever* did anything wrong at any time.

Isn't he a socialist?

Perhaps that it is through efforts by such "nutjobs" that could lead to a more humane world, whereby people can actually resolve their differences without bombing them into oblivion (http://www.iacenter.org/jc_falluja.htm)?

I will reiterate. Fallujah was not "bombed into oblivion". Here is the After Action Report by the Marines. If the place was "bombed into oblivion, there wouldn't have been any buildings left. As you can see from this report, the Marines had to clear buildings where they encountered armed resistance. Obviously, the insurgents were also still alive when the Marines went through the buildings.

Lessons Learned: Infantry Squad Tactics in Military Operations in Urban Terrain During Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah, Iraq

Sgt. Catagnus, Jr. E. J., Cpl. Edison, B. Z., LCpl. Keeling, J. D., and LCpl. Moon, D. A.

3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, Scout/Sniper Platoon, Section 1

Fallujah, Iraq

Introduction

Historically speaking, military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) have created casualty figures that are extraordinary compared to similar operations conducted in different types of environments. The casualties in MOUT present a significant challenge to small unit leaders. Casualties hit Marine infantry squads and fire teams extremely hard because generally speaking they were already under the table of organization (T/O) standards. Some squads in 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines (3/5) commenced the assault on the Jolan with only six Marines. It is the small unit leaders’ duty to accomplish the mission with the least amount of casualties possible. In order for small unit leaders to complete the above task they need tactics and techniques that will prevent casualties.

Section 1 of the Scout/Sniper Platoon has attacked and cleared buildings with all the line companies in 3/5. The authors have observed nearly all the squads in the battalion and have “rolled in the stack” with many of them. This is an experience which few in the battalion have. Knowing this, the authors believe it is their duty to consolidate their observations, produce a comprehensive evaluation of squad tactics and techniques, and pass it onto the squad leaders. The authors’ intent is to give the squad leaders options in combat. It is by no means a “bible,” but it is a guideline. All the tactics and techniques have been proven in combat by one squad or another. Section 1 does not take any credit for the information contained within. The information was learned through the blood of the infantry squads in 3/5.

The entire evaluation has one underlying theme: Accomplish the mission with the least amount of casualties possible.

Terrain and Enemy

Terrain:

The city of Fallujah, Iraq is unlike any city in which Marines have trained for. The layout of the city is random. Zoning distinguishing between residential, business, and industrial is non-existent. An infantry squad could be clearing a house and next door may be clearing a slaughterhouse or furniture wood shop.

The streets are narrow and are generally lined by walls. The walls channelize the squad and do not allow for standard immediate action drills when contact is made. This has not been an issue because the majority of contact is not made in the streets, but in the houses.

The houses are densely packed in blocks. The houses touch or almost touch the adjacent houses to the sides and rear. This enables the insurgents to escape the view of Marine overwatch positions. The houses also are all made of brick with a thick covering of mortar overtop. In almost every house a fragmentation grenade can be used without fragments coming through the walls. Each room can be fragged individually.

Almost all houses have an enclosed courtyard. Upon entry into the courtyard, there is usually an outhouse large enough for one man. The rooftops as well as a large first story window overlook the courtyard. Generally, all the windows in the house are barred and covered with blinds or cardboard restricting visibility into the house.

The exterior doors of the houses are both metal and wood. The wood doors usually have a metal gate over top on the outside of the house forming two barriers to breach. The doors have two to three locking points. Some doors are even barricaded from the inside to prevent entry. There are generally two to three entrances to the house. The entrances are the front, the kitchen, and the side or rear.

The interior doors are also made of metal and wood. The differences between the interior and exterior doors are the strength and durability of the doors. Interior doors only have one locking point and most of them can be kicked in. All doors inside and outside of the house are usually locked and must be breached.

The layout of all the houses is generally the same. Initial entry in the front door leads to a small room with two interior doors. The two doors are the entrance to two adjacent open seating rooms. The size of the rooms varies according to the size of the house. At the end of the sitting rooms are interior doors that open up into a central hallway.

The central hallway is where all the first floor rooms lead and it contains the ladderwell to the second deck. The second deck will contain more rooms and an exit to the middle roof top. The middle roof top will have an exterior ladderwell leading up to the highest rooftop.

Enemy:

The two types of insurgents that the squads are engaging will be labeled the Guerrillas and the Martyrs in this evaluation. The Guerillas are classified by the following principles:

1. Their purpose is to kill many Marines quickly and then evade. They DO NOT want to die. Dying is an acceptable risk to the Guerillas, but their intention is to live and fight another day.

2. The tactics used are classic Guerilla warfare. The Guerillas will engage Marines only on terrain of their choosing when they have tactical advantage. After contact is made the Guerillas will disengage and evade.

3. Their evasion route normally is out of sight of Marine overwatch positions.

The Martyrs are classified by the following principles:

1. The Martyrs’ purpose is to kill as many Marines as possible before they are killed. Time does not have any significance. The Martyrs want to die by the hands of Marines. The final outcome of their actions results in dead Marines as well as their death.

2. Their tactics directly reflect their purpose. The Martyrs will make fortified fighting positions in houses and wait. Marines will come, they will fight, and they will die in place.

Both the Guerillas and Martyrs employ the same weapons. The weapons used are mostly small arms, grenades, and rocket propelled grenades (RPG’s). The Martyrs have used heavy machine guns and anti-air machine guns, unfortunately, with good effects.

The battle positions and tactics that the both employ are somewhat similar. The major differences between the two are the egress route and the fortifications. Guerrillas have an evasion plan, while the martyrs do not. The Guerrillas normally do not have fortified positions.

Marines have been engaged from mouse holes within the house, Guerrillas shooting down from the rooftops when they are moving into the courtyard, Guerrillas and Martyrs shooting and throwing grenades down the ladderwells, in second deck rooms that are fortified or blacked out, and upon breaching of interior doors. Martyrs have emplaced machine gun positions in rooms facing down the long axis of hallways.

The egress routes the Guerrillas use are preplanned and well-rehearsed. They move in groups and withdrawal perpendicular to Marines’ forward line of troops (FLOT). Their movement is through windows of houses, down back alleys, and from roof to roof (only when obscured from Marine overwatch positions). The routes minimize exposure in the streets. Escape routes do not cross streets that run perpendicular to the FLOT, only parallel. This is done because Marine snipers during 2nd Battalion/1st Marines’ (2/1) attack last April devastated the insurgents when attempting to cross those streets. If contact is made with Guerrillas and the block is not isolated on all four sides then their chance of escape increases exponentially. Isolation of the block is absolutely necessary in order to prevent any “squirters.”

Overall, the enemy has adapted their tactics and techniques in order to maximize their strong points and hit Marines when they are the most vulnerable. They have learned from 2/1’s attack last April. This is common sense, but it must be said in order that Marines realize the enemy they are fighting is somewhat intelligent. In MOUT it only takes a miniscule amount of intelligence in order to create massive amounts of casualties.

Squad Tactics

Squad Movement:

During house to house detailed clearing attacks, squads must minimize exposure in the streets. The streets, especially in Fallujah, can become a death trap if a squad is engaged. The squad should run from house to house in a stack with all elements (security, assault, and supporting) in their appropriate position. In the street the stack should be slightly staggered like a tight tactical column. The Marines should have some dispersion, and the pace of the running should not be so fast that the Marines are uncontrolled and not maintaining all around security. As soon as the point man/one man reaches the courtyard breach the stack should close the gaps of dispersion and swiftly move to accomplish their tasks.

All danger areas while on the move must be covered. Security must be three-dimensional and all around. Each Marine in the stack looks to the Marines to his front, assesses danger areas that are not covered, and then covers one of them. If every Marine does this then all danger areas will be covered.

Top Down verse Bottom Up Assaults:

An infantry squad can assault structures using two different methods. Traditionally, the top down assault is taught as being the most ideal method for clearing a structure. Realistically, this may not be the best option for the infantry squad. Below are the advantages and disadvantages of both top down and bottom up assault methods.

Top Down:

Advantages-

1. Surprising the enemy by moving from the top down may throw the enemy off balance. The enemy’s defenses may not be prepared for a top down assault and the squad could overwhelm the enemy rapidly.

2. The squad has more momentum when moving down the ladderwells.

3. If the squad knows that the enemy is inside the roof can be breached in order so grenades and explosives could be dropped on top of the enemy.

4. The enemy’s egress routes are greatly reduced because the squad can isolate the house by holding security on the back alleys and the front of the house from the roof.

Disadvantages-

1. Once the squad makes entry and contact is made, pulling out of the structure is extremely difficult. This limits the options for the squad leader on how to engage the enemy. The structure must be flooded and Marines have to go overtop of casualties in order to kill the enemy. Momentum must not be lost. Marines have been left behind in houses because the momentum was lost.

2. If the squad decides to break contact they are moving opposite of their momentum and more casualties will result.

3. Marine squads may not have enough Marines to effectively flood the structure.

4. If casualties are taken they are nearly impossible to pull up the ladderwell with all their gear and a limp body. This is another reason why the structure must be flooded.

5. The casualties will not receive the immediate first aid because the entire squad must be committed to neutralization of the threat. The swiftness of medical attention may mean the difference between life and death.

Bottom Up:

Advantages-

1. The squad leader has a slew of options when contact is made. The structure does not have to be flooded.

2. Momentum can be maintained in assaulting or breaking contact and the squad leader can switch rapidly from one to the other relatively quickly.

3. The structure can be cleared with fewer Marines because the clearing is more controlled and smooth whereas top down is always in high gear.

4. Casualties can be pulled out faster and easier simply because gravity is working for the squad.

Disadvantages-

1. The squad is moving into the enemy’s defenses. It is easy for the enemy to hold the second deck and ladderwell.

2. The squad is slow moving up the ladderwell which makes it harder to maintain momentum.

3. The enemy has the ability to escape by using its preplanned routes.

Overall, there should not be a standard assault method. Rather the squad leader should understand the advantages and disadvantages of each, assess each structure quickly, make a decision on which method to employ, and then take actions that maximize its advantages while minimizing its disadvantages.

Gaining Footholds:

Footholds are extremely important. By establishing footholds the squad establishes strongpoints during the assault that can be used for consolidation, coordination, base of fire positions, rally points, and casualty collection points. The squad must move from one foothold to another, never stopping until each foothold is attained.

The succession of footholds that the squad establishes will be different when assaulting from either the top down or the bottom up. The following footholds should be seized in this order when assaulting from the top down:

1. All rooftops

2. The inside top deck

3. Each individual lower level to the bottom deck

4. The courtyard

The footholds seized when assaulting from the bottom up are in the reverse order. They are the following:

1. The front courtyard

2. The first two seating rooms

3. The central hallway

4. Each successive upper deck with its respective rooftop

5. Uppermost rooftop

At each individual foothold the squad can consolidate and coordinate its further clearing of the structure. If contact is made the footholds can be used to establish a base of fire in order to assault or break contact. When breaking contact they are used as rally points in order for the squad and fire team leaders to get accountability of all their Marines. The squad will bound back through each foothold. A foothold can also be used as a casualty collection point.

Structure Clearing:

Types of entry

During the assault on a structure there are three different tactics that the squad can use for entry into the structure. The three types of entry are dynamic, stealth, and subdued. The dynamic entry is violently aggressively from start to finish. The commands are verbal and yelled. The squads lead by fire placing one or two rounds in every door that is closed or window that is blacked out. Fragmentation grenades, stun grenades, and flashbangs are used. At night, surefire flashlights are employed in order to clear. The movement of the squad is swift and overwhelming for the enemy inside.

The stealth entry is exactly the opposite of the dynamic entry. The squad breaches quietly, moves slowly, speaks only in whispers, and listens for any movement within the house. There is extreme emphasis placed on initiative based tactics (IBT). During night clearing, night vision goggles and PE Q-2’s are used instead of surefire flashlights. The stealth entry confuses the enemy on exactly where the squad is in clearing the house and allows the squad to maintain the element of surprise.

Subdued entry is a combination of the two previous types. The squad moves quietly until they encounter a room. Upon entry into the room, Marines are violently aggressive. After the room is cleared, the Marines switch back to the stealth method of entry. This type of entry allows the squad leader to control the rate of clearing while maintaining some element of surprise.

It is important to note that squad leaders must vary the type of entry. The squad must constantly mask its movement through every form of deception that may confuse the enemy inside the building or room. It is up to the entire squad to use its imagination and vary their entry tactics and techniques as much as possible. The objective is to keep the enemy off balance and not allow him to get into the squad’s rhythm.

Breaching

There are three types of breaching that were used in Fallujah. The types of breaching are mechanical, ballistic, and explosive. Mechanical breaching of the exterior walls of the courtyard or gate was mostly done by amphibious assault vehicles (AAV’s), tanks, D-9 bulldozers, or HMMWV’s. Sledgehammers and hooligans were used to breach both the metal and wooden doors of the house, but this was and is not the preferred method for breaching. Sledgehammers and hooligans are slow and they require the breacher to stand in front of the door being breach. Obviously, standing in front of the door allows the enemy to engage the breacher through the door.

Ballistic breaching was used mostly on exposed pad locks. Both M16A4’s and shotguns were used. The M16A4’s were employed because there was not enough shotgun ammunition for the amount of locks that had to be breached. They were fairly effective on first round breaching of pad locks if the round was placed near the center. The M203 was also used for breaching. Squads would breach doors of houses that were 50 to 100 meters in front of their position with the M203. It worked extremely well on the exterior metal doors.

The last type of breaching employed was explosive. A multitude of charges were used in order to breach walls, gates, exterior doors, and interior doors. Some of these will be discussed later in this evaluation.

An important principle in breaching that was learned is the Marine making entry is NEVER the breacher. The breacher should always fall in the back of the stack and never go in first. Marines have died because they followed there own breach.

Speed is the most significant factor in all types of breaching. If one method of breaching is not working then the breacher must quickly transition to a different type. Standing in front of a door and beating it with a sledgehammer for ten minutes is unacceptable. The breacher must be able to employ different methods. The squad leader must ensure that the breacher has the necessary equipment and explosives for each method. Every time the squad is stalled because of a breach it is placed in a vulnerable position. Breaching swiftly and effectively is necessary in order for the squad to maintain momentum.

Movement of the Squad within the Structure

Within the structure the squad should move from one foothold to another. The initial foothold is established by the security element. The security element rolls into the courtyard or rooftop and clears every room on the outside. The assault element proceeds directly to an entry point to prepare for the breach. The support element falls in trace and makes the breach.

After the breach is made the assault element makes entry and clears the first two sitting rooms simultaneously by splitting the stack or clears the entire top deck. The support element will assist the assault element by peeling off and clearing rooms or breaching any doors. Security will be left at the courtyard or rooftop foothold in order to isolate the structure and secure the squad’s egress route. Security can be maintained by only two Marines. The rest of the security element will fall in the stack.

After the initial foothold in the structure the stack will consolidate and then advance and clear to the next foothold. The succession will continue until the entire structure is cleared.

At all times the squad will move by using IBT and adhere to its principles which will be addressed later. No Marine should make an uncovered move. The squad should move at a pace that is swift, but controlled, exercising “tactical patience.”

Actions upon Enemy Contact

The squad leader’s options for actions upon enemy contact vary according to where the squad is in its clearing and whether any casualties have been taken. In any contact, the squad and squad leader have two priorities. The two priorities are eliminating the immediate threat and pulling out any casualties. More often than not, the two priorities are connected because in MOUT the enemy is usually close (within feet) and the enemy fire has wounded a Marine.

If contact is made in the courtyard or rooftop the squad should break contact, isolate the house or block, and call in supporting arms (tanks, tracks, etc.). There is no reason to place Marines into the building until it is thoroughly prepped.

If contact is made in the house then the squad leader must quickly evaluate the situation and decide the best course of action. Generally, the squad leader has the following three options:


1. Break Contact – Breaking contact is more of an option during the bottom up assault because of the difficulties in changing the momentum during the top down assault. If casualties are taken or the enemy resistance is strong then this may be the best action for the squad leader to take. Upon breaking contact the squad will bound from one foothold to another getting accountability of all Marines and ensuring that no Marine is left behind. When leaving the house the squad can place a satchel charge or another explosive device in order to bring down the house or burn the enemy out.

2. Flood the House – Squad leaders may choose to flood the house with Marines if a casualty is taken during the top down assault or if the enemy threat is not significant. Casualties cannot be dragged up the stairs quickly, therefore, Marines must neutralize or suppress the threat in order to extract the casualties. In some situations the only way to do this may be to flood the house.

3. Hold the Last Foothold and Clear by Fire – Footholds are strongpoints where the squad can fight from. At the foothold Marines can return fire, throw grenades, and use explosive devices to neutralize the enemy. After the enemy has been damaged the squad can move in and clear the house. If the roof top is the foothold the squad is holding, then the roof could be breached by a directional charge. Grenades or incendiary devices can be thrown into the structure flushing out the enemy.

CASUALTIES MUST NEVER BE LEFT BEHIND! The squad leader must ensure that every Marine moves with a buddy. Each buddy is responsible for pulling the other out of the fight if he goes down. The squad leader and fire team leaders must have accountability for all their Marines at all times. There is no excuse for Marines being left behind in a building while the squad pulls out.

Organization of the Squad:

Some squad leaders in the battalion split their squads in two and assigned different sectors to the two different parts. They did this to move faster through the houses because they were tasked with clearing a lane that may have contained up to fifty or sixty houses. Although this worked and the squads moved faster through their assigned sector it is not the best employment of their squad. The following reasons are given on why splitting the squad is not advisable:

1. If the squad contained twelve Marines and is split in two that leaves two teams of six Marines. Clearing a structure with six Marines, even though the house is small, is extremely risky. If a buddy team of two Marines got hit and went down there would not be enough Marines to provide covering fire while pulling the casualties out. Critical seconds would be wasted waiting for the other team of the squad to come in the house and support the extraction of the casualties. The chances of wounded Marines getting left behind increases exponentially.

2. If contact is made by both teams simultaneously then the squad could be cut down in a piecemeal fashion within a matter of seconds before other squads could even move to reinforce.

When the squad leader organizes his squad he must think about enemy contact always. Squads must not be split in order to increase the speed of clearing. Commanders should not put stress on the squad leaders to clear at a speed that would force the squad leaders to split their squad. Tactical patience must be exercised at every level.

The squad should be organized by using the traditional three elements of assault, support, and security. The amount of Marines contained within each element will vary according to the squad’s number of Marines, the skills and abilities that each individual Marine possess, and the weapons systems that each Marine employs (M249 SAW, M203, and ACOG scoped M16A4’s).

The assault element must contain no SAW’s if that is possible. A SAW gunner must never clear rooms. The assault element should contain the most number of Marines because every room must be cleared with two Marines. The support element will supplement the assault by falling in the stack and peeling off to clear rooms.

Support should include any engineers or assaultman attached to the squad. A SAW gunner should be included in this section in order to provide massive firepower in the house if contact is made. The corpsman is also located in support because he can use his shotgun to breach as well as provide quick medical attention to casualties. The support section will fall in the stack behind the assault element to assist in any way.

Security should contain the other remaining SAW’s in the squad. The security element is responsible for clearing and securing the courtyard or rooftop foothold prior to the assault element moving to the entry point. When assault and support make entry into the structure, two Marines are left behind to isolate the house (rooftop) and secure the squad’s entry point. The rest of the Marines will fall in the stack behind the support section. The security Marines will hold security on all danger areas (mostly the stairs) when the assault and support are clearing each foothold.

Squad leaders must appoint each fire team leader as an element leader. There are no longer fire teams, only assault, support, and security sections. Each element leader will maintain accountability for his section. It is easier for the squad to maintain this organization until the attack is completed and then the traditional four-Marine fire team can be reinstated. The squad leader should emphasis unity of command and succession of command should the squad leader become a casualty.

Squad Communications:

Inter-squad communication between the Marines in the stack is both verbal and visual. Simple, clear, and universal language should be used. Universal language is words and phrases that are standardized so every Marine understands the other. Words and phrases such as, “Hold right, clear left,” and, “Frag out.”

The one man should describe to the stack what he is seeing. In other words, the one man verbally paints the picture for the stack behind. Marines in the stack should be listening not talking. Talking should be kept to a minimum.

After Clearing-Continuing Actions:

After the structure has been cleared the squad must immediately conduct the detailed search of the house for weapons. The search must be quick but thorough leaving nothing untouched. Weapons were found in every conceivable place, underneath couches in the cushions, in between piled up blankets, etc.

Another continuing action would be to render the interior and exterior doors unable to close. This will help if the structure needs to be recleared later. Marines will use their creativity to think of ingenious ways to accomplish this task.

Mission or Time has Priority:

In detailed clearing attacks, time should never be the priority. Marines should never be rushed because they become sloppy and are forced to create shortcuts in order to accomplish the mission under the time restraints. This does not mean that the squads shouldn’t be pushed. This means that a realistic timeline for the attack should be made; a timeline that takes into account the overwhelming task of clearing multiple blocks of houses that may contain platoon sized elements of insurgents.

Individual Techniques and Tactics

Training:

Training is continuous, whether in a combat zone or not. The responsibility of the squad leader is to ensure his squad is combat ready. The individual Marines in his squad must be continuously trained otherwise the Marines will lose proficiency in MOUT skills learned through experience during the attack.

Training does not have to be physical, it can be verbal. The most effective training in this environment is for the squad leader to sit down with his squad and talk. The squad should run through combat scenarios and have individual Marines tell the squad what their jobs are and how they will do it. Communication between Marines can be practiced by talking through universal language, such as, “Open door right, closed door left,” or, “Peel right,” and telling each other what is meant.

All Marines must exercise initiative during combat. Squad leaders must design training techniques in order to stress initiative. Marines must be able to look around, assess what his squad or partner is doing, feed off it, and act in order to support them. Initiative based training is paramount.

Constructive criticism should be encouraged. Every Marine debriefs each other, telling good and bad observations. The squad leader will also be critiqued by his Marines in an appropriate fashion. The criticism is not meant to undermine the squad leaders’ authority. It is to allow the squad leader to instruct the Marines on why he chose to run the squad the way he did. Young Marines will gain knowledge about squad tactics that they may never have figured out if the squad leader did not tell them. It will prepare them for leadership billets. It will also give them confidence in their squad leader because they will trust him and his knowledge.

Techniques:

Techniques that individual Marines need to be taught and practiced are the following:

1. Pieing off all danger areas. Even before entry into a room as many danger areas as possible should be pied off leaving only one or two corners that need to be cleared. Don’t blindly rush into a room, especially if the door is opened.

2. Using the buddy system. Two Marines always peel off the stack, never one.

3. Picking up uncovered danger areas, including when opening doors to furniture when it can fit a man inside.

4. Clearing obstacles, such as furniture.

5. Prepping rooms with grenades.

6. If the room is too small for two Marines or not enough Marines are clearing the house to hold security on all the danger areas, the two-man turns around and covers the rear of the Marine clearing the room.

7. Moving stealthily through a structure even with broken glass on the ground.

8. Making a stealth entry with NVG’s and PEQ-2’s.

9. Making breaching charges and placing them on the locking points of different types of doors.

These are just some of the techniques that need to be practiced and passed on to younger Marines.

Tactics:

Initiative based tactics (IBT) should be taught. There are four rules of IBT. They are the following:

1. Cover all immediate danger areas.

2. Eliminate all threats.

3. Protect your buddy.

4. There are no mistakes. Every Marine feeds off each other and picks up the slack for the other. Go with it.

Every Marine needs to understand and memorize the rules governing IBT. These rules should not only apply to MOUT, but all small unit infantry engagements. Rule number four must be pounded into the squad. There are no mistakes when clearing a structure in combat, only actions that result in situations; situations that Marines must adapt to, improvise, and overcome in a matter of seconds.

Supporting Arms

Throughout contemporary American military history there has not been any opponent that could not be overwhelmed by American supporting arms. The United States Marine Corps has historically been an innovator with the employment of supporting arms. The Marine Corps created the concept of close air support (CAS) in Haiti during the Banana Wars, helicopter envelopment in Korea, and the combined arms team portrayed in the modern Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF). Fallujah has been another proving ground for American supporting arms. The insurgents were completely overwhelmed by the massive indirect fires and close air support on the first two days of the battle.

At the squad level the results of the fires were felt through the type of enemy they encountered. The enemy dug in deep into the houses, not allowing themselves to get caught in the open. The infantryman of 3/5 have learned the advantages and disadvantages of fixed wing CAS, rotary wing CAS, tanks, combined anti-armor team (CAAT), AAV’s, artillery, bulldozers, and 81 and 60 mm mortars through practical experience.

Fixed wing CAS is an enormous weapon that has great effects on the ground. The major problem with it is the amount of time it takes to get bombs on target. It took entirely too long for bombs to be dropped when Marines were in contact. The minimum safe distance of the ordnance was too great in order for even the block to be isolated and that allowed the enemy to escape countless times. Fixed wing CAS should be used for deep targets. It should not be used when Marines have isolated the structure and trapped the enemy inside. A tank or CAAT section can be more effective Marines do not have to be withdrawn from the cordon.

In contrast to fixed wing CAS, rotary wing CAS was extremely timely, but the effects on target were not extraordinary. The hellfire missiles used did not bring down entire structures, but they did do some damage.

By far the best two supporting arms used were tanks and CAAT. Tanks and CAAT were the infantryman’s best friend. The battle would have been incredibly bloodier if it hadn’t been for tanks and CAAT. The tanks were able to provide a 120 mm direct fire weapon on the spot of any contact within a matter of minutes. The thermal sites were able to pinpoint exact position of snipers and then effectively neutralize them within seconds. CAAT was able to use its M2 .50 caliber machine guns and Mk19 grenade launchers to breach as well as destroy buildings were fire was received from. CAAT also helped the squads by clearing the buildings that lined the street in their lane. The infantry should never attack in MOUT without tanks or CAAT.

Mortars and artillery proved effective by forcing the enemy to stay in the houses and not allowing the enemy to fight the Marines in the streets.

Demolitions

The variety of explosives used during the fight for Fallujah will not be mentioned here. The few that will be explained have a common theme of being obscure and may be forgotten if they are not written down. Each explosive device was developed in response to the enemy’s tactics and has been proven to work.

The following is a list of explosives, a description, and their uses:

1. “Eight Ball” – 1/8 stick of C-4 – Used for breaching both interior and exterior doors, effective and doesn’t use a lot of C-4

2. “House Guest” (Named by 2nd squad, 1st platoon, I Company) – Propane tanks placed in the central hallway with C-4 used to ignite it, creates a fuel air explosive – Used for bringing down a house when contact is made inside, propane tanks must be full

3. A 60 or 81 mm white phosphorous mortar round, wrapped three times with detonation cord and a 1/4 or 1/2 stick of C-4 – Used when contact is made in a house and the enemy must be burned out

4. Molotov cocktails – one part liquid laundry detergent, two parts gas – Used when contact is made in a house and the enemy must be burned out

All Marines should be familiar with explosives and proper placement of the charge for breaching. Any Marine should be able to cut time fuse, crimp a blasting cap, and put the blasting cap in C-4.

Randomness of Tactics and Techniques

The infantry squad must have a tool box of tactics and techniques. The squad should not fall into a pattern were they become predictable. Being predictable allows the enemy to prepare and modify his tactics in order to exploit the squad’s weaknesses. The squad must be trained well enough to flow through or combine each tactic and technique fairly easily. Marines must use their imagination to think of ways to vary their tactics. The enemy must be kept off balance by changing, at random, squad tactics. For instance, vary the method of entry into the structure, lead by fire then don’t, assault top down then bottom up, don’t use the same entry point every time, throw a fragmentation grenade on the middle roof then assault bottom up. Avoid patterning by all means.

Combat Mindset

Preparing Marines for battle is a difficult task for the squad leader. Squad leaders must be the rock and drill into his Marines that no Marine will be left behind. Marine combat infantrymen understand the meaning of Semper Fidelis. No Marine is left behind.

Marines have to prepare mentally for casualties and be able to rebound quickly in order to kill the enemy swiftly to prevent more casualties. The old saying, “Anything that can go wrong, will,” is always in effect in combat.

Every time a squad makes entry they should expect to make contact. Surprise, speed, and maximum violence wins small unit battles. Marines and leaders need to make quick decisions on the move and under fire, always remembering unity of command.

In combat, Marine leaders are required to stand up and take charge. Unfortunately, sometimes there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The “chief syndrome” will create mass confusion on the battlefield. Being a good combat leader sometimes means stepping back and allowing the Marines to do their jobs. Platoon commanders must allow squad leaders to lead their squads, squad leaders must allow element leaders to lead their elements, and element leaders must allow their Marines to take initiative.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this evaluation is nothing more than a guideline for infantry Marines. Squad leaders should take this evaluation, study it, critique it, give it to their squad, have them study it, critique it, and then sit down together to discuss it. The tactics and techniques contained in the evaluation were gained at an enormous price. Marines were killed on the field of battle developing these tactics. It is the duty of every Marine infantryman to not allow these lessons to die with time. This evaluation is only one step in passing on the knowledge.

Ramsey Clark is also on Saddam's legal defense team. He doesn't think that Saddam *ever* did anything wrong at any time.


Since Clark is so big on pictures, maybe he needs to see Halaja after Iraqi Mirages dropped nerve gas there.

Since Clark is so big on pictures, maybe he needs to see Halaja after Iraqi Mirages dropped nerve gas there.

Here here!

So you are suggesting that the following person is not a credible source for these charges?

Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.

And the charges (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-crime.htm) are unsupportable?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Mr. Clark, at one time a respected U.S. government official, has dedicated the last few decades to defending high-profile, controversial, unpopular accused criminals. An honorable task, in my opinion, as ANY accused criminal deserves the best possible defense. However, his dedicated anti-war activities seem to apply EXCLUSIVELY to military operations by the United States, and worse yet, to ALL of those military operations, without any evident consideration of possible fault on the opposing side. His decision to defend government leaders who started genocidal military actions (Milosevic, Hussein) while simultaneously leveling charges at the leaders who stopped them causes me to doubt his impartiality. I also note that such charges against U.S. leaders tend to assist in his defense of those LEGALLY accused war criminals that he defends, which defines his bias. He is apparently a skilled attorney, doing the best for his clients, but that does not make him a reliable and credible source for his charges.

I won't go so far as to call him a nutjob. I think he's a sane and rational person who has chosen to use questionable tools to "muddy the waters" while defending the actions of virtually undefendable criminals. As such, I see him as far more dangerous than a mere nutjob.

Dense and deaf?

A media creation you say?

WAR CRIMES

A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal (http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm)

You can start with this web site (http://home.alltel.net/roedder/abdali/abdali.html). I will search for the more pictorial one.

From the site:
"Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991."


He has any sort of credibility *why*? :rolleyes:
An AG who served under a flamingly DEM President, smarting from being the party that dragged us into 'Nam?

:EDIT: I see that some other folks spoke to this.

Is it every Iraqis right to own a gun?

Is it every Iraqis right to own a gun?

It is useless for the sheep to pass laws against eating meat, when wolves are of a different opinion.