NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like they were killed in Cold blood to me, but that's just my opinion.



BAGHDAD, Iraq - Car bombs targeting Shiite areas devastated a bustling outdoor market and an auto dealership Tuesday, part of a relentless onslaught that killed 54 people and prompted the United States to deploy more troops to combat insurgents in western Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT



The bombs also wounded 120 people, officials said. The death toll made Tuesday one of the bloodiest days in Iraq this month, and lawmakers still had not agreed on who should lead the nation's army and police forces.

Authorities also captured a suspected terrorist who allegedly confessed to beheading hundreds of people. The operation by Iraqi forces also netted documents, cell phones and computers containing information on other wanted terrorists and Islamic extremist groups.

The worst bombing hit the outdoor market as Iraqis were doing their evening shopping in Husseiniyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. At least 25 people were killed and 65 were wounded, Interior Ministry spokesman Lt. Col. Falah Al-Mohamedawi said.

Hours earlier, a car packed with explosives blew up at a dealership in the largely Shiite city of Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, killing at least 12 people and wounding 32, Capt. Muthana Khalid said.

A bomb hidden in a plastic bag also detonated outside a bakery in a religiously mixed neighborhood in eastern Baghdad, killing at least nine people and injuring 10, police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi said.

Separately, mortar rounds fired by remote control from a car hit the third floor of the heavily guarded Interior Ministry and a nearby park, killing two government employees and wounding three other people.

A day earlier, 40 people were killed in various attacks, including a car bombing in Baghdad that killed two CBS News crewmen and seriously wounded network correspondent Kimberly Dozier. She underwent two emergency surgeries and was transferred to a U.S. military hospital in Germany, where she was reported to be in critical but stable condition.

CBS News reported that Dozier briefly regained consciousness on the flight to Germany. Vice President Sandy Genelius said Tuesday night that Dozier was expected to stay at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center for several days.

Before Tuesday, at least 4,066 Iraqis had been killed in war-related violence this year, and at least 4,469 had been wounded, based on Associated Press reports. Those may not be complete, however.

During May, at least 871 Iraqis have been killed, surpassing the 801 killed in April. The deadliest month this year for Iraqis was March, when 1,038 were killed and 1,155 were wounded.

The deadliest day for Iraqis this month was May 7, when at least 67 civilians were killed.

Amid the surge in violence, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki held another day of meetings aimed at getting Iraq's ethnic, sectarian and secular factions to agree on new interior and defense ministers.

But the key security posts remained vacant 10 days after al-Maliki's national unity government took office.

The Interior Ministry, which controls the police forces, has been promised to the Shiites. Sunni Arabs are to get the defense ministry, overseeing the army. It is hoped the balance will enable al-Maliki to move ahead with a plan for Iraqis to take over all security duties over the next 18 months so U.S.-led troops can begin withdrawing.

Al-Maliki told the British Broadcasting Corp. his government had a better chance of suppressing the violence than his predecessors because it is the nation's first permanent government since Saddam Hussein fell.

"Previous governments were either temporary or transitional. They did not receive full backing from the Iraqi people to deal with this issue," he told the BBC.

In the meantime, U.S. military commanders have moved about 1,500 combat troops from a reserve force in Kuwait into the volatile Anbar province to help authorities establish order in the insurgent hotbed stretching from Baghdad west to Syria.

The military command in Iraq described the new deployment as short-term. The plan is to keep the newest troops in Anbar no longer than four months, said one military official, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the move.

The military also said a roadside bomb killed a U.S. soldier Tuesday southeast of Baghdad, while small-arms fire killed an American soldier Monday in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad.

The bodies of two Marines missing after a helicopter crash in western Iraq over the weekend also were recovered.

The AH-1 Cobra helicopter from 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing was on a maintenance test flight when it went down Saturday in Anbar. The military said hostile fire was not suspected as the cause, but the crash was being investigated.

The prime minister's office said suspected terrorist Ahmed Hussein Dabash Samir al-Batawi was captured Monday and confessed to hundreds of beheadings around the country. They released a mugshot of the balding al-Batawi wearing a white T-shirt with a nametag hanging around his neck.

Beheadings are a common tactic used by Islamic extremist groups or sectarian death squads. Al-Qaida in Iraq has claimed responsibility for beheading several foreign hostages, including American Nicholas Berg.

Police also said three unidentified insurgents described as well-known aides of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were killed last week during clashes in Latifiyah, about 20 miles south of Baghdad.

Elsewhere in Baghdad, a roadside bomb also killed one police officer and wounded four others, and police found the bodies of nine shooting victims. A decapitated body was discovered floating in a river about 35 miles south of the capital.

Police Capt. Laith Mohammed, meanwhile, said a pregnant woman and her cousin were killed in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, while driving to a maternity hospital. The U.S. military had no immediate comment.

Separately, the U.S. military freed 204 male detainees from Abu Ghraib and other detention centers after an Iraqi-led panel recommended their releases.

To date, the board has reviewed the cases of more than 39,000 detainees, recommending more than 19,600 individuals for release, the military said.

In other violence, according to police and hospital officials:

• Three people were killed and 10 others were wounded in Ramadi, although the circumstances were unclear.

• A suicide car bomber tried to ram into an Iraqi army checkpoint in a village west of Mosul, but Iraqi soldiers opened fire, killing the driver.

• Masked gunmen killed a real estate broker, a baker and the owner of a convenience store in separate attacks in Baghdad.

ETA: For those not in the know, nothing makes me angrier than innocent people intentionally killed. Fills me with rage. Grr.

Marine: Sir! I'm sorry to report that we killed men, women, and children with no provocation and then covered it up for months!

Commander: Don't worry son, I'm sure the wingnuts will cover for you and quickly point out how other innocent Iraqis are killed every day along with American troops.

Marine: Sir! I'm sorry to report that we killed men, women, and children with no provocation and then covered it up for months!

Commander: Don't worry son, I'm sure the wingnuts will cover for you and quickly point out how other innocent Iraqis are killed every day along with American troops.


oorah!

Damn that's where the Marines messed up. They didn't Decapitate the people! Those fools! But it sounds like they're getting desperate.

...and if we pull out now, Iran just waltzes in and takes over it all. Fun choice. I think the Iraqis would rather not live under another fundamentalist regime, thanks.

So the question is, "Who's not killing innocent Iraqis"? :confused:

...but the World's better now that an impotent, contained and largely defanged Saddam (who was staunchly secular,) is gone. Right?

Personally, as a selfish bastard, I would prefer that the Iraqis hated Saddam rather than us. But that's just me.

oorah!
That actually did make me laugh out loud. You get a beer (http://www.biblebiere.com/Bieres/F/Flensburger/Btl_Verre_Flensburger_Pilsener.jpg)!

Looks like they were killed in Cold blood to me, but that's just my opinion.
Death looms large on your mind, my boy. :(

During May, at least 871 Iraqis have been killed, surpassing the 801 killed in April. The deadliest month this year for Iraqis was March, when 1,038 were killed and 1,155 were wounded.
So in the last 3 months, at least 2710 Iraqis have been killed and ppl are still saying the situation is improving?
Wow. Just. Wow.

Marine: Sir! I'm sorry to report that we killed men, women, and children with no provocation and then covered it up for months!

Commander: Don't worry son, I'm sure the wingnuts will cover for you and quickly point out how other innocent Iraqis are killed every day along with American troops.
Commander: Congratulations, soldier! You're now as bad as the insurgents you're fighting. Well done!

Marine: Sir! I'm sorry to report that we killed men, women, and children with no provocation and then covered it up for months!

Commander: Don't worry son, I'm sure the wingnuts will cover for you and quickly point out how other innocent Iraqis are killed every day along with American troops.

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the US is investigating the incident the Marines were involved in. Several people have been relieved of command, and they are trying to figure out who to charge with what. Someone will be prosecuted.

Something the insurgents will never do. They feel free to kill whoever they please, and most of the opponents of the US invasion also feel that it's perfectly OK for insurgents to kill wholesale, and never be held accountable for it.

By the rules, only the US is ever held accountable.

I also love the implied generalization that since a few soldiers have killed and covered it up, that somehow they all are in on it, and that it was really just a case of formal policy being carried out.

Yes, as we all know, all veterans are bloodthirsy assholes who can't wait to screw someone over:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13043877/

Or maybe not.

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the US is investigating the incident the Marines were involved in. Several people have been relieved of command, and they are trying to figure out who to charge with what. Someone will be prosecuted.

Something the insurgents will never do. They feel free to kill whoever they please, and most of the opponents of the US invasion also feel that it's perfectly OK for insurgents to kill wholesale, and never be held accountable for it.

By the rules, only the US is ever held accountable.

Kill whoever they please? You do realize they are retalliating to an invasion, right?

Kill whoever they please? You do realize they are retalliating to an invasion, right?

Not very well. Most of the people the insurgents end up killing had nothing to do with the invasion or the occupation. They kill enough of their own to make the phrase "own goal" sound funny.

They've killed, by proportion, orders of magnitude more Iraqis than the US has killed, and orders of magnitude more Iraqis than they've killed US soldiers.

Very, very stupid. It doesn't pay, for instance, to be a Sunni insurgent whose main claim to fame is killing more Sunnis than the Marines.

By the rules, only the US is ever held accountable.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
It's bad that the media and people like you don't want to hold insurgents accountable for waging a war of resistance that targets primarily their own people in a wave of terror and death that kills and wounds more people by a factor of over 100 than the invading military does.

Yes, you. Get up and speak out and hold the insurgents accountable as well, or I will assume that you only hold the US accountable because you hate it, and not because you hold some high moral ground.

Not very well. Most of the people the insurgents end up killing had nothing to do with the invasion or the occupation. They kill enough of their own to make the phrase "own goal" sound funny.

They've killed, by proportion, orders of magnitude more Iraqis than the US has killed, and orders of magnitude more Iraqis than they've killed US soldiers.

Very, very stupid. It doesn't pay, for instance, to be a Sunni insurgent whose main claim to fame is killing more Sunnis than the Marines.

Source please?

It's bad that the media and people like you don't want to hold insurgents accountable for waging a war of resistance that targets primarily their own people in a wave of terror and death that kills and wounds more people by a factor of over 100 than the invading military does.

Yes, you. Get up and speak out and hold the insurgents accountable as well, or I will assume that you only hold the US accountable because you hate it, and not because you hold some high moral ground.
Tell me - is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

Source please?
The same place all those flying monkeys come from.

Source please?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3223523.stm

The US killed 13,000 Iraqis. But, since the occupation, over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, mostly by insurgents.

That's easily 50 times as many Iraqi dead from insurgents as US dead from insurgents.

Wasn't DM the one comparing Murtha to Benedict Arnold about a week ago?

If the facts indicate civilians were killed deliberately , then those involved should be dealt with accordingly . JUST LIKE THEY HAVE SINCE THE FUCKING WAR WAS STARTED . In every case that was was made court marshalls and arrests have resulted . And no other MILITARY in history has ever faced the close scrutinity that the US military has durring a war . NOR has any other military in history been as proffessional and honorable while performing its duties in an insurgency , Escept for the British they have done a better job dealing with their area . Time to send someone to take notes. Of course occasionaly they get accused of killing civilians but its dealt with immediately.
this case has been hanging over since November..and if anyone had bother to go beyond the POLITICAL bullshit andf the bleatings of the bleeding hearts..they would find a difficult investigation..with little forensic evidence because the bodies were taken by the families and buried and so far they have refused to have them disturbed ...as is their RIGHT . So all we have is what has been leaked to the media and rumors and speculation...you do not have all the facts..the investigators are trying to get them ..all of them ..not just the ones that suit you or any other person with an opinion . Now since the Marines try to do things by the book ...especially if they may be CHARGING A FELLOW MARINE with MURDER ..then tend to want things investigated in the most fair and thourough manner... Or is it somehow different for a civilian in the US who is to be charged with murder to wait as long as a year for the invesgtigation to proceed before he is charged ? Is a civilian entitled to more or less protection than a soldier ?

Again the bleaters and the political hacks are using the military for their own purposes they care little about the Iraqis only the agenda .
If they cared about the Iraqis they would let the US do its damm job and leave . And they would support the Iraqi democracy that is trying to exist .
Instead of playing the amplify the terrorist aims game ..

Murtaugh has proven himself to be as big a hack as the rest..he could have handled the situation in channels and accomplished much more .
I have lost all respect for the man..he's sold his soul and is using his brothers for his political agenda...he is no different than Kerry and I hope he can still look at himself in the mirror when he's done ...another poster child defeatest. He of all people should know better . God help him if he intends to run again for any office . he will be hung by his own words and action s out to dry .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3223523.stm

The US killed 13,000 Iraqis. But, since the occupation, over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, mostly by insurgents.

That's easily 50 times as many Iraqi dead from insurgents as US dead from insurgents.

The US military has published no details on Iraqi deaths in either war.

Then how do you know who actually killed these Iraqis? The article says nothing about Sunnis killing Sunnis. Sorry, but youre making shit up.

Then how do you know who actually killed these Iraqis? The article says nothing about Sunnis killing Sunnis. Sorry, but youre making shit up.



You ever read a news paper or watch the news ? If you do then you know Sunnis are killing Sunnis because they do not want a Government in Iraq and some Sunnis do . Its nothing new and there's been hundreds of incidents .
It falls under " common " knowlage .

So where have you been hiding ? or did you just wake from a coma ?

You ever read a news paper or watch the news ? If you do then you know Sunnis are killing Sunnis because they do not want a Government in Iraq and some Sunnis do .

SOURCE PLEASE.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3223523.stm

The US killed 13,000 Iraqis. But, since the occupation, over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, mostly by insurgents.

That's easily 50 times as many Iraqi dead from insurgents as US dead from insurgents.
That article was:
Last Updated: Wednesday, 29 October, 2003
Why aren't you using a more recent article? Maybe cause the 13000 would be quite a bit higher now, hmmm?

Also when that 100 000 figure came out it was immediately villified in the press as “a politically timed hatchet job from a blatantly partisan source.”, and “preposterous.”(source (http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=9349)) and dismissed out of hand by the conservative media and supporters, including I have no doubt the right-leaning posters on this forum (indeed, just yesterday Corny and a couple of others dragged it out to slag off Iraqi Bodycount, even though that org had nothing to do with the study - guilt by association, I guess).
Now, however it's used by a neocon to substantiate his outbursts.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic and pathetic.

btw, that figure of 100 000 was not just of people killed in direct conflict.
It counted the people shot or buried under rubble—and it also counts the people who died of malnutrition or starvation, who became sick and died from drinking polluted water, and people who died from all other causes directly and indirectly related to the war, including the skyrocketing crime rate.

In other words, it counted (rather estimated) everyone who died as a direct result of the invasion. And tell me, who where the ones doing the invading?

It's bad that the media and people like you don't want to hold insurgents accountable for waging a war of resistance that targets primarily their own people in a wave of terror and death that kills and wounds more people by a factor of over 100 than the invading military does.

Yes, you. Get up and speak out and hold the insurgents accountable as well, or I will assume that you only hold the US accountable because you hate it, and not because you hold some high moral ground.If you want to be thought of as the good guys, you have to act like it.

Nobody's saying the insurgents aren't responsible for a lot of violence and death, but then, they're not claiming to be the good guys in this whole thing other than to an extremely small group that agrees with their methods.

As for American military men being properly prosecuted..

4 Canadian soldiers dead by American hands.
Result? 1 deriliction of duty charge, 2 reprimands and a $7,500 fine.

Justice served.

Nobody's saying the insurgents aren't responsible for a lot of violence and death, but then, they're not claiming to be the good guys in this whole thing other than to an extremely small group that agrees with their methods.

well, technically, there is near majority support overall for the resistance attacking the invaders (with significantly less support for attacking collaborationists, and essentially none for attacking iraqi civilians). but that's to be expected when about 90% of the population wants the u.s. out and they want them out starting several years ago. the resistance is a lot more nuanced than the soundbite-based u.s. msm really gets into.

Wasn't DM the one comparing Murtha to Benedict Arnold about a week ago?

Ooh, Designated Marksman and Deep Kimchi both think Murtha is a traitor. Atleast that's how it was three weeks ago:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10989286&postcount=28 Designated Marksman
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10989250&postcount=25 Deep Kimchi

There ya have it folks. Murtha is a traitor according to our resident right-wing zealots. Except DM seems to of changed his tune.

Marine: Sir! I'm sorry to report that we killed men, women, and children with no provocation and then covered it up for months!

Commander: Don't worry son, I'm sure the wingnuts will cover for you and quickly point out how other innocent Iraqis are killed every day along with American troops.

As the other guy was trying to say, "Hoorah!"

Ok, now this pisses me off when people whine, "Oh, they complain when the US does these things, but they don't say a thing about the terrorists doing them!"

Terrorists kill civilians. That's what they do. There is a difference between a terrorists and an insurgent, I think, and that's whether or not they target civilians.

Wanting to hold terrorists to the same rules as the US is to imply that they are on the same level, that the US can be morally compared to terrorists. If that's what you're saying, continue on, but if not, you should rethink what it is you're trying to say. What saddens me is that the US is in such a bad position that no one thinks twice about this comparison being made.

If anything you should be calling for an investigation, and if the Marines are found guilty, punishment. Anything less would be to tarnish the reputation of our military even more.

SOURCE PLEASE.


SOURCE ???

READ THE NEWS....Watch the news....COMMON knowlage...:rolleyes:


For mercy .... You may not know how to look up artcles or do research...

Sunni leader assassinated in Fallujah


Wednesday, February 08, 2006

AP

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Gunmen assassinated a Sunni community leader Tuesday in the former extremist stronghold of Fallujah — part of an insurgent campaign to prevent prominent Sunni Arabs from joining the U.S.-backed political process.

Bombs and bullets killed at least 11 other people, including four Marines who died in a pair of bombings in western Anbar province.

Sheik Kamal Nazal, a Sunni preacher and chairman of the Fallujah city council, was gunned down in a hail of bullets from two passing cars as he walked to work, said police Chief Brig. Hudairi al-Janabi.

No group claimed responsibility for the killing, which occurred in one of the most tightly controlled cities in Iraq. However, it appeared part of a campaign of intimidation by Sunni insurgents against Sunni Arabs interested in promoting a political settlement to stem the violence.

Last month, Nazal welcomed Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and U.S.
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to the city 40 miles west of Baghdad.

U.S. officials have been working hard to encourage Sunni Arabs to abandon the insurgency, and have been urging Shiite and Kurdish leaders to give major government posts to the disaffected minority.

American diplomats and military commanders believe that strategy offers the best way to calm the insurgency so U.S. and other international troops can begin heading home.

U.S. authorities arranged a meeting with local Sunni leaders in Ramadi on Nov. 28 as a major step in a political dialogue. But a suicide attack Jan. 5 against Sunni police recruits in the city — which is about 30 miles from Fallujah — set back the process. Nearly 60 people were killed, including two Americans.

A senior member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni political group seeking a place in the new government, deplored Tuesday's assassination and blamed U.S. and Iraqi authorities in part for failing to protect the sheik.

"Those who wanted to eliminate Sheik Nazal are aimed at bringing more instability to the city," Dr. Salman al-Jumaili said. "We hold the Iraqi government and occupation forces responsible for bringing all this suffering and damage to this city."

Fallujah was the major stronghold of insurgent and religious extremists, including al-Qaida in Iraq, until the city fell to a U.S. air and ground assault in November 2004. Fallujah since has become one of the most intensely guarded cities in the nation.

The four Marines died in bombings in Anbar province, which also includes Fallujah and Ramadi and is a focus of insurgent activity.

Three Marines assigned to the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit were killed Monday in a bombing in Hit, 85 miles west of Baghdad, the military said. The other Marine, attached to the 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, died from wounds caused by a bombing Sunday in an unspecified location in Anbar.

The deaths bring the number of U.S. military personnel killed to at least 2,257 since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

In Baghdad, seven people were killed when two bombs exploded within 10 minutes on a commercial street near downtown Tahrir Square.

The Associated Press





Now in case you have missed the point...the SUNNI minority makes up the MAJORITY of the ANTI GOVERNMENT forces...they are among the GROUPS of insurgents ...like AL -Queda in Iraq that are fighting both the US anan coalition forces and the IRAQI government .

As the other guy was trying to say, "Hoorah!"

not trying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oorah)

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the US is investigating the incident the Marines were involved in. Several people have been relieved of command, and they are trying to figure out who to charge with what. Someone will be prosecuted.

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that except for a Time magazine doing a piece on the killings there never would have been an investigation.

and most of the opponents of the US invasion also feel that it's perfectly OK for insurgents to kill wholesale, and never be held accountable for it.

Hah! Find me one notable opponent of the war who thinks that "it's perfectly OK for insurgents to kill wholesale".

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that except for a Time magazine doing a piece on the killings there never would have been an investigation.



Hah! Find me one notable opponent of the war who thinks that "it's perfectly OK for insurgents to kill wholesale".


bullshit an investigation was already being done by the navy into allegations very shortly after the incident...it was reported initially by another Marine unit that photo documented MOST OF THE EVIDENCE NOW BEING used .

The Times knows it ...they added to the " urgency " and put more pressure on those that were already doing there jobs .

read the times story .

...but the World's better now that an impotent, contained and largely defanged Saddam (who was staunchly secular,) is gone. Right?

Personally, as a selfish bastard, I would prefer that the Iraqis hated Saddam rather than us. But that's just me.
And therein lies the kicker. What many kneejerk Bush supporters (I fail to call them conservatives on purpose) fail to understand is that the insurgents in Iraq do not need international legitimacy and goodwill to accomplish their goals which, quite frankly, are to destroy America and the West and build an Iraq that is squarely theocratic. In order for the US to accomplish it's goals, which should be the protection of American soil and our continued prosperity, it needs international legitimacy and goodwill. The insurgents are not trying to maintain an international system of trade and balance that allows for the legitimate exercise of democracy in the context of an educated and economically liberated society. The only way for the US to maintian this experiment in democratic, technocratic, liberal democracy that has allowed for so much prosperity and stability is to promote the existence of similar systems in nations that we can then ally with economically and politically. This is necessary for the procurement of the resources, energy and brain power we need to make all that we hold dear and take for granted possible.

How much you want to bet some Bushie will come along and attack the use of the word "liberal" in that second to last sentance. We truely are building a society of morons. Maybe we all deserve the fate this administration is leading us into. :(

Well, I don't, but many of us do. I'm not taking any credit for the destruction the last six years will bring in the future.

bullshit an investigation was already being done by the navy into allegations very shortly after the incident...it was reported initially by another Marine unit that photo documented MOST OF THE EVIDENCE NOW BEING used .

The Times knows it ...they added to the " urgency " and put more pressure on those that were already doing there jobs .

read the times story .
You obviously didn't or you would have known the story was not in The Times. It was in Time magazine.

...snip
Very good post there. Well thought out and well-reasoned.


Ok, back into your box now and our usual petty bickering can be resumed.

The majority of insurgents are resistance fighters from Iraq and target US forces The minority are foreign terrorists and not insurgents at all, and they are the ones fighting for a theocratic Iraq and target civilians to, well, terrorize them. At least thats what a US General on the ground in Iraq says.

Of course there are Iraqis killing other Iraqis but that is secular violence - akin to civil war.

And therein lies the kicker. What many kneejerk Bush supporters (I fail to call them conservatives on purpose) fail to understand is that the insurgents in Iraq do not need international legitimacy and goodwill to accomplish their goals which, quite frankly, are to destroy America and the West and build an Iraq that is squarely theocratic. In order for the US to accomplish it's goals, which should be the protection of American soil and our continued prosperity, it needs international legitimacy and goodwill. The insurgents are not trying to maintain an international system of trade and balance that allows for the legitimate exercise of democracy in the context of an educated and economically liberated society. The only way for the US to maintian this experiment in democratic, technocratic, liberal democracy that has allowed for so much prosperity and stability is to promote the existence of similar systems in nations that we can then ally with economically and politically. This is necessary for the procurement of the resources, energy and brain power we need to make all that we hold dear and take for granted possible.

How much you want to bet some Bushie will come along and attack the use of the word "liberal" in that second to last sentance. We truely are building a society of morons. Maybe we all deserve the fate this administration is leading us into. :(

Well, I don't, but many of us do. I'm not taking any credit for the destruction the last six years will bring in the future.
How dare you call our democracy "liberal"?! You rat bastard, anti-American traitor!

...

Okay, in all seriousness, that was well thought out. I definitely feel at times we are creating a society of morons. I've often been involved in discussions on similar topics as discussed on Nationstates with people at another forum, and most of them never even bother to listen. On is so partisan she thinks reading up on a conservative blog is researching things from all sides. *shakes head*

Of course there are Iraqis killing other Iraqis but that is secular violence - akin to civil war.
Get with the program!
There is no civil war! Bush said so himself (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4829786.stm). And if we can't trust him, who can we trust?
It's not like a former US ambassador to Iraq has said it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4784626.stm) or the former prime minister of Iraq, for that matter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4821618.stm).
Nor is there any major problems outside of Baghdad (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5032294.stm).

So, to reiterate: There is no civil war.

Get with the program!
There is no civil war! Bush said so himself (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4829786.stm). And if we can't trust him, who can we trust?
It's not like a former US ambassador to Iraq has said it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4784626.stm) or the former prime minister of Iraq, for that matter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4821618.stm).
Nor is there any major problems outside of Baghdad (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5032294.stm).

So, to reiterate: There is no civil war.

shit, you're right. thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't know where my head is today.

Very good post there. Well thought out and well-reasoned.


Ok, back into your box now and our usual petty bickering can be resumed.
See, I'm not such an unreasonable guy. :) It comes from having been a bible thumping Christian and now an athiest, a vegatarian animal rights activist and a now steak loving meat slob, a straight up leftist and member of several socialist, even communist organizations and my now, more conservative self. Wishy washy? Sure, but allowing new information to change your perpective promotes the understanding that you are not always right and that moral straight jackets only serve to blind you to information and realities that may undermine your political positions and objectives. I'm about practicality. I'm about middle ground. Ideoligical rigidity in any form, left or right, only serves to promote abstract morality over real world practicality.

Thanks for the compliment. ;)

I also love the implied generalization that since a few soldiers have killed and covered it up, that somehow they all are in on it, and that it was really just a case of formal policy being carried out.

Yes, as we all know, all veterans are bloodthirsy assholes who can't wait to screw someone over:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13043877/

Or maybe not.

Yes, it's terrible when people generalise about armies isn't it? I for one think people who do that ought to be ashamed of themselves.

One particularly despicable individual posted a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=483653) not long ago, claiming that because one low ranking British serviceman lost his weapon it proved the entire British army and gun control laws were on the brink of collapse.

If you see the idiot who started that thread I'd give them what for if I were you.

Yes, you. Get up and speak out and hold the insurgents accountable as well, or I will assume that you only hold the US accountable because you hate it, and not because you hold some high moral ground.

Personally I condemn the insurgents who are targeting civilians. Can you though?

Funny, not long ago you were ranting about 'Realpolitik' and how right and wrong were defined by whether one could get away with an act or not. I'd assume that by your standards the insurgents have done nothing wrong because, for the most part, they're getting away with their attacks.

For the benefit of anyone who missed that particular discussion, DK was using Realpolitik to justify the idea of using nuclear weapons on Afghanistan to stop bin Laden from escaping. Nice to see he's consistent in maintaining the 'moral high ground'.

Personally I condemn the insurgents who are targeting civilians. Can you though?

Funny, not long ago you were ranting about 'Realpolitik' and how right and wrong were defined by whether one could get away with an act or not. I'd assume that by your standards the insurgents have done nothing wrong because, for the most part, they're getting away with their attacks.

For the benefit of anyone who missed that particular discussion, DK was using Realpolitik to justify the idea of using nuclear weapons on Afghanistan to stop bin Laden from escaping. Nice to see he's consistent in maintaining the 'moral high ground'.


You should note that I'm not on moral high ground - but most everyone else here claims to be.

If you claim to be on the moral high ground, you had best start condemning the insurgents for every kill.

Kill whoever they please? You do realize they are retalliating to an invasion, right?


In anyones book, retalliating for an invasion would be targeting

1. the invading army
2. the collabrating ppl ie police etc.
3 the collabrating government ppl.

all fair and good

however resistance to an invasion does'nt mean driving a fuel tanker with a large amount of fertiziler explosive in it, into a crowded market and blowing to hell 87 people who just happened to want to buy some food that day, or attempting to blow up a army patrol and taking out a bus full of kids instead.

The liberal whiners , they can be summed up in the following.
In 1973 an US backed military coup in chile removed the elected socialist president and imposed a facist military dictatorship..... the left whined and whined and condemned the US
In 2003, the US attempted to remove a facist dictator and create a democracy, the left whined and whined and condemned the US.

And as for the people claiming the EU is a bastion of human rights for throwing out the airline passenger data thing yesterday, what about the human rights in former Yugoslavia.... 1000,s of people dead while the EU fiddled for 3 years.

In anyones book, retalliating for an invasion would be targeting

1. the invading army
2. the collabrating ppl ie police etc.
3 the collabrating government ppl.

all fair and good

however resistance to an invasion does'nt mean driving a fuel tanker with a large amount of fertiziler explosive in it, into a crowded market and blowing to hell 87 people who just happened to want to buy some food that day, or attempting to blow up a army patrol and taking out a bus full of kids instead.

The liberal whiners , they can be summed up in the following.
In 1973 an US backed military coup in chile removed the elected socialist president and imposed a facist military dictatorship..... the left whined and whined and condemned the US
In 2003, the US attempted to remove a facist dictator and create a democracy, the left whined and whined and condemned the US.

And as for the people claiming the EU is a bastion of human rights for throwing out the airline passenger data thing yesterday, what about the human rights in former Yugoslavia.... 1000,s of people dead while the EU fiddled for 3 years.
I'm whining about this admin's policies and I think if you look around you'll find I'm not very liberal. I don't like this admin's policies because I'm practical.

You should note that I'm not on moral high ground - but most everyone else here claims to be.

If you claim to be on the moral high ground, you had best start condemning the insurgents for every kill.

Wow, you didn't even read the first sentence: "Personally I condemn the insurgents who are targeting civilians." Try again.

SOURCE ???

READ THE NEWS....Watch the news....COMMON knowlage...:rolleyes:


For mercy .... You may not know how to look up artcles or do research...

Oh shit, one guy. That must mean all Sunnis are being killed.

Now in case you have missed the point...the SUNNI minority makes up the MAJORITY of the ANTI GOVERNMENT forces...they are among the GROUPS of insurgents ...like AL -Queda in Iraq that are fighting both the US anan coalition forces and the IRAQI government .

What are we arguing over again?

Wow, you didn't even read the first sentence: "Personally I condemn the insurgents who are targeting civilians." Try again.

Put your words in better form - try posting a completely separate thread once a week, where you highlight how bad the insurgents are for killing their own people.

When I see as many threads on this started by people who condemn US soldiers for egregious slaughter, I'll believe you.

Otherwise, you're talking through your hat.

Put your words in better form - try posting a completely separate thread once a week, where you highlight how bad the insurgents are for killing their own people.

When I see as many threads on this started by people who condemn US soldiers for egregious slaughter, I'll believe you.

Otherwise, you're talking through your hat.

How utterly childish and petty.

You do realise why there are so many threads on US troops killing in cold blood and none about insurgents doing the same don't you?

It's because we expect terrorists to be cold blooded killers.

It's because we don't expect terrorists to play by the rules of war.

It's because we expect terrorists to callously murder women and children.

The US army is NOT regarded as a mob of genocidal lunatics, whatever your persecution complex would like you to think. It's because atrocities by the US army are the exception and not the norm that so much more notice is taken of atrocities when they are committed by the army.

Do you expect me to start a thread every day saying 'today four commercial jets WEREN'T hijacked and flown into large buildings!!!!!' to counterbalance the number of threads started when it did happen?

Put your words in better form - try posting a completely separate thread once a week, where you highlight how bad the insurgents are for killing their own people.

When I see as many threads on this started by people who condemn US soldiers for egregious slaughter, I'll believe you.

Otherwise, you're talking through your hat.

But you know what? Our soldiers should be above meaningless slaughter. Why is it okay to lower ourselves to the insurgents?

Oh shit, one guy. That must mean all Sunnis are being killed.



What are we arguing over again?

you thinking that Sunnis were not killing each other along with anyone else they didnt aggree with I expect .



Not all sunnis just the ones that are trying to join a Democratic government and solve problems diplomaticly and politically ...instead of guns and terrorism .

How utterly childish and petty.

You do realise why there are so many threads on US troops killing in cold blood and none about insurgents doing the same don't you?

It's because we expect terrorists to be cold blooded killers.

It's because we don't expect terrorists to play by the rules of war.

It's because we expect terrorists to callously murder women and children.

The US army is NOT regarded as a mob of genocidal lunatics, whatever your persecution complex would like you to think. It's because atrocities by the US army are the exception and not the norm that so much more notice is taken of atrocities when they are committed by the army.

Do you expect me to start a thread every day saying 'today four commercial jets WEREN'T hijacked and flown into large buildings!!!!!' to counterbalance the number of threads started when it did happen?
Also, as I pointed out, it is in our interests to maintain legitimacy on the international stage. When things like this happen it hurts our cause. When the insurgents kill civilians it doesn't hurt them because they have no reason to worry about what the international community thinks. That's just a cold, hard fact. We have to play by rules that the insurgents are free to ignore and we have to conduct ourselves in as civilized a manner as possible during wartime while the insurgents have no such mandate. It is interesting, though, that as Al Qeada becomes a more international organization that there is pressure on them to reform some of their methods. Witness Zawahiri's letter to Zacari (sp?) asking him to stop cutting people's heads off and posting the videos on the internet.

But you know what? Our soldiers should be above meaningless slaughter. Why is it okay to lower ourselves to the insurgents?

Didn't say we were "okay" to lower ourselves.

When you're the one holding up that standard, you had better spread it around - or you're showing a definite bias.

Didn't say we were "okay" to lower ourselves.

When you're the one holding up that standard, you had better spread it around - or you're showing a definite bias.

That's what is sounds to me like you're saying. Either we lower ourselves to be on par with them, or we raise them up to be on par with us. Both of which are wrong.

Didn't say we were "okay" to lower ourselves.

When you're the one holding up that standard, you had better spread it around - or you're showing a definite bias.
We should never expect the insurgents in Iraq to live up to our ideals regarding behavior in war. Not because they shouldn't, but because it is impractical to expect that. They never will and we should just accept it and still strive to live up to our ideals anyway. It is the only way we can win this thing and still maintain some kind of international legitimacy. Not that I think we can win this thing without an intelligent president, but hopefully we can hold on and not allow it to slide into utter chaos before Bush is out of office.

That's what is sounds to me like you're saying. Either we lower ourselves to be on par with them, or we raise them up to be on par with us. Both of which are wrong.

No.

I am not the one pointing out that Marines slaughtered people, nor am I the one on the forum who constantly brings up how bad US forces are.

My point is that if you ARE going to bring it up as a moral issue, and you want to hold US forces accountable, then I suggest that you spend an equal amount of forum posts and threads on how nasty the insurgents are, and condemn them with equal volume.

Otherwise, stop saying US troops are SO bad while giving silent assent (and duplicitous approval) to what insurgents do.

So, to reiterate: There is no civil war.
Kinda like "There is no spoon"...

We should never expect the insurgents in Iraq to live up to our ideals regarding behavior in war. Not because they shouldn't, but because it is impractical to expect that. They never will and we should just accept it and still strive to live up to our ideals anyway. It is the only way we can win this thing and still maintain some kind of international legitimacy. Not that I think we can win this thing without an intelligent president, but hopefully we can hold on and not allow it to slide into utter chaos before Bush is out of office.


Bullshit. If they are human beings with whom we wish to hold a dialog on equal footing, we must hold them to the same standards as ourselves.

Otherwise, you're repeating the racism of the "White Man's Burden". And you know what colonialism got us.

You'll note that there's an investigation into the murders and the coverup. Officers have been relieved of command. And when the investigation wraps, there will be court martials.

Funny, I don't see the insurgents doing that.

If you're going to hold conduct in war up to some moral standard, it either applies to everyone, or it is completely meaningless.

You can't go around saying, "it's ok for the insurgents to shoot men who made the mistake of wearing shorts to play tennis" while saying "it's bad for the Marines to shoot uninvolved civilians because they're pissed off".

Either both are heinous, or both are NOT.

Stop cutting insurgents slack. They are as intelligent and cultured as any other human being.

Bullshit. If they are human beings with whom we wish to hold a dialog on equal footing, we must hold them to the same standards as ourselves.

Otherwise, you're repeating the racism of the "White Man's Burden". And you know what colonialism got us.

You'll note that there's an investigation into the murders and the coverup. Officers have been relieved of command. And when the investigation wraps, there will be court martials.

Funny, I don't see the insurgents doing that.

If you're going to hold conduct in war up to some moral standard, it either applies to everyone, or it is completely meaningless.

You can't go around saying, "it's ok for the insurgents to shoot men who made the mistake of wearing shorts to play tennis" while saying "it's bad for the Marines to shoot uninvolved civilians because they're pissed off".

Either both are heinous, or both are NOT.

Stop cutting insurgents slack. They are as intelligent and cultured as any other human being.
Your whole fallacy here is in your first sentence. We should not expect to have a dialogue with them. I have been pretty vocal here with my opposition to this administration. They stupidly rushed to war without having any idea what they were getting into and arrogantly expecting a quick, easy solution to ethnic conflicts that have existed for centuries. We should have never actually attacked when our rhetoric was doing the job. Having said all that, Colin Powell was right. We broke it, we own it. If we pull out now or we lose the fight to form a central government in Iraq that has the strength and legitimacy to hold the country together it will be a humanitarian, economic and regional disaster. We have to stay and we have to win. What that means is that we need to kill the insurgents. Plain and simple. No dialogue and no quarter. The task is to accomplish that and still maintain as much of the moral high ground as possible. We need to make it clear that joining the insurgency does not hold a future and that the only way to be a part of an emerging Iraq is to join in the legitimate political dialogue, not to blow up school children.

No.

I am not the one pointing out that Marines slaughtered people, nor am I the one on the forum who constantly brings up how bad US forces are.

My point is that if you ARE going to bring it up as a moral issue, and you want to hold US forces accountable, then I suggest that you spend an equal amount of forum posts and threads on how nasty the insurgents are, and condemn them with equal volume.

Otherwise, stop saying US troops are SO bad while giving silent assent (and duplicitous approval) to what insurgents do.

Ok, first off, that's a false dilemma. It's not a question of giving assent to one or the other. I believe both are morally wrong, but I only bring it up when US troops do bad things. The reason for that is that the moral condemnation is implied in the term "terrorist". However, US troops (I was one for 4 years, including Apr 03-Mar 04 in Iraq) are held to a higher standard because that's what makes them better than terrorists.

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from. You're tired of people ragging on the US when they do something bad, but not the other guys when they do something worse. The problem is that the terrorists are murdering scum, by definition. When they murder someone that's not unexpected. That's simply another check on the already long list of things against them. However, when a US troop murders someone that's an entirely different issue because the overwhelming majority of US troops are not murderers, despite what some people here may think.

My point is that when US troops do something of this nature it's brought up because it's not the norm. When terrorists do it, it's still just as bad, but it's hardly surprising. The difference between US troops and terrorists is that US troops play by the rules, and terrorists do not. That's what makes us better than them, but when we stoop to their level that's unacceptable, as in what allegedly happened with these Marines.

Bullshit. If they are human beings with whom we wish to hold a dialog on equal footing, we must hold them to the same standards as ourselves.

So then its okay to lower ourselves to their level?

You'll note that there's an investigation into the murders and the coverup. Officers have been relieved of command. And when the investigation wraps, there will be court martials.

Funny, I don't see the insurgents doing that.

If the insurgents were US military. You know, those highly elite forces who defend their country with honor and dignity?

If you're going to hold conduct in war up to some moral standard, it either applies to everyone, or it is completely meaningless.

No, not at all. Its expected, but not right, for these people to kill each other. It is not expected for United States Marines to massacre unarmed civillians.

You can't go around saying, "it's ok for the insurgents to shoot men who made the mistake of wearing shorts to play tennis" while saying "it's bad for the Marines to shoot uninvolved civilians because they're pissed off".

First of all, noone is saying its okay for the insurgents to kill people. We are saying its not okay for a United States Marine to walk into a home full of innocent Iraqis and massacre them. Werent you bitching about the failure to address the actions of the insurgents completely?

This just in: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_women_killed_7

So then its okay to lower ourselves to their level?

I never said that. You did.

I never said that. You did.

If they are human beings with whom we wish to hold a dialog on equal footing, we must hold them to the same standards as ourselves.

Those standards must be pretty low.

Those standards must be pretty low.
Even I have to stick up for him here. He's not saying that we shoudl lower ourselves to the level of terrorists, he's saying that we should demand a higher moral standard from them. Which, of course, means they tell us to go pound sand while they plant another IED in a market.

Those standards must be pretty low.

Really?

The actions of a few soldiers and officers, who will surely be court martialed, is "holding ourselves to a low standard".

Atrocities happen in war.

What matters is how you punish them, not how you prevent them - and as scale goes, we seem to be pretty far behind the terrorists on random mayhem on unarmed women and children when we're pissed off.

But you go ahead and keep thinking that the US is at a very low standard - it fits in with your thinking that everything Western is evil, and there would be peace in the Middle East if only we gave the Muslims what they want.

Killing an innocent Iraqi accidentally is one thing, but planning out and going into a town on intent to kill (whom ever) will that really anger me. Those perpetrators are no different then the insurgents. Also, the Iraqis are losing patience for all those so-called “accidental” killings done by the American troops. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CD5FE8B1-0763-4F5F-A70D-73FAD6BD6A05.htm). Iraqis are becoming more intolerant to both Zarqawi’s and America’s presence in Iraq.

I'm still wondering if those killed by the ex-marines were perhaps familys of known insurgents?

I'm still wondering if those killed by the ex-marines were perhaps familys of known insurgents?
Do we now punish the sins of the father on his son (or wife and daughters)?

I'm still wondering if those killed by the ex-marines were perhaps familys of known insurgents?
No indications of that whatsoever, no.

Looks like the american occupation is working. :rolleyes:

Not very well. Most of the people the insurgents end up killing had nothing to do with the invasion or the occupation. They kill enough of their own to make the phrase "own goal" sound funny.

They've killed, by proportion, orders of magnitude more Iraqis than the US has killed, and orders of magnitude more Iraqis than they've killed US soldiers.

Very, very stupid. It doesn't pay, for instance, to be a Sunni insurgent whose main claim to fame is killing more Sunnis than the Marines.
Well, when we bombed the crap out of Dresden, Hiroshima, Tokyo, etc, I don't think we were exactly aiming for people who had anything to do with the invasion.

Wow, this is the first that i heard about this incident. I understand the emotion but they are trained to keep it in check. These guys disgraced the Corps when they murdered them (assuming the're guilty). Definately warrants the death penalty.

Definately warrants the death penalty.

Don't personally think that's really neccessary. Simply showing that it is not tolerated, a proper and open trial (and public inquiry into the massacre and cover up) and sentence should do.

Doubt the death penalty would be used, its been what, 80 odd years since thats happened?

Don't personally think that's really neccessary. Simply showing that it is not tolerated, a proper and open trial (and public inquiry into the massacre and cover up) and sentence should do.

Doubt the death penalty would be used, its been what, 80 odd years since thats happened?

I'm not saying it's going to be used, i just think it is warranted. Everything that we work for and they throw it all out the window on pure emotion by killing innoocent civilians. I don't think so.

I hate it when people complain about this.


ITS WAR. Our soldiers have been stuck in that shithole for too long and have grown very angry.

And when soldiers get very angry innocent civilians pay the price, it has been happening in every war. The only way that this couldnt have happened is if our troops never arrived there in the first place.

War is cruel, you people dont seem to get that! :headbang:

I hate it when people complain about this.


ITS WAR. Our soldiers have been stuck in that shithole for too long and have grown very angry.

And when soldiers get very angry innocent civilians pay the price, it has been happening in every war. The only way that this couldnt have happened is if our troops never arrived there in the first place.

War is cruel, you people dont seem to get that! :headbang:
What the hell would you know about war?

Bullshit. If they are human beings with whom we wish to hold a dialog on equal footing, we must hold them to the same standards as ourselves.

Otherwise, you're repeating the racism of the "White Man's Burden". And you know what colonialism got us.
Umm..when has the Bush admin ever said they wanted to have dialog with the insurgents? I must have missed that news release.

And how is adhering to a higher code of ethics, racism? I can't see that at all.

Nowhere has anyone said that they accept the insurgents tactics because they're Muslims. Indeed, reading through this thread, no-one has said they accept the insurgents tactics at all. full stop.
What they have said, is that the insurgents, as terrorists, are just destructive and have no interest in doing anything constructive. Hence their tactics are understandable.
Note - not acceptable.
Undersandable.
Whereas the US army being, as it should be in this situation, a constructive force, needs to have a strong moral code to adhere to. To differentiate itself from the insurgents and to show/give the Iraqis a more postive option.

Why is that so hard for you to accept?

What the hell would you know about war?


I know enough so that I dont make an idiotic fairy tale out of it like you and your peers seem to be doing.

I know enough so that I dont make an idiotic fairy tale out of it like you and your peers seem to be doing.
Fairy tale?

So what should the public do when we hear of such atrocities?

Shrug our shoulders, say "Shit happens" and then go back to our daily grind without a care in the world?

Niiice.

War is cruel, you people dont seem to get that! :headbang:
Oh good. It's ok to murder, pilage, and other fund things because it's war!

It's ok for insurgents to behead people because it's war!

It's ok for them to drag the burned bodies of Americans through the streets because it's war!

It's ok for our guys to NOT follow the rules that they were trained for because it's war!

At what point do we just state that what we're doing is having a mass riot and leave it at that?

I know enough so that I dont make an idiotic fairy tale out of it like you and your peers seem to be doing.
How is it a fairy tale (sorry idiotic fairy tale) to state one's dissapointment and disgust about some soldiers in the US Marines killing innocent civilians?
Please explain.

Fairy tale?

So what should the public do when we hear of such atrocities?

Shrug our shoulders, say "Shit happens" and then go back to our daily grind without a care in the world?

Niiice.


The public(sheep) shouldnt have voted Bush into office in the first place if they didnt want these "atrocities" to be happening as we speak.

Pissing and moaning about it now is just a waste of time.

The public(sheep) shouldnt have voted Bush into office in the first place if they didnt want these "atrocities" to be happening as we speak.

Pissing and moaning about it now is just a waste of time.
As much as I dislike Bush and his supporters, I really don't think many of them (a few cretins, but not many) really voted for Bush, hoping that one day US Marines would go round killing innocents.
Nope. Can't remember that ever been put forward as an reason to vote for him.
"Vote Bush! And he'll guarantee another My Lai!"

Why is it a waste of time to demand a full investigation and, if true, punishment for those guilty?

Tell me, do you say these things for domestic murders as well?

"Yeah, I know your mum got murdered, but pissing and moaning about it now is just a waste of time."

I'm going to get all egotistical and repost my earlier point because I'd really like to see an apologist for this act or a person who responds to it with, "But the insurgents..." Can someone address this?

And therein lies the kicker. What many kneejerk Bush supporters (I fail to call them conservatives on purpose) fail to understand is that the insurgents in Iraq do not need international legitimacy and goodwill to accomplish their goals which, quite frankly, are to destroy America and the West and build an Iraq that is squarely theocratic. In order for the US to accomplish it's goals, which should be the protection of American soil and our continued prosperity, it needs international legitimacy and goodwill. The insurgents are not trying to maintain an international system of trade and balance that allows for the legitimate exercise of democracy in the context of an educated and economically liberated society. The only way for the US to maintian this experiment in democratic, technocratic, liberal democracy that has allowed for so much prosperity and stability is to promote the existence of similar systems in nations that we can then ally with economically and politically. This is necessary for the procurement of the resources, energy and brain power we need to make all that we hold dear and take for granted possible.

How much you want to bet some Bushie will come along and attack the use of the word "liberal" in that second to last sentance. We truely are building a society of morons. Maybe we all deserve the fate this administration is leading us into. :(

Well, I don't, but many of us do. I'm not taking any credit for the destruction the last six years will bring in the future.

Marine: Sir! I'm sorry to report that we killed men, women, and children with no provocation and then covered it up for months!

Commander: Don't worry son, I'm sure the wingnuts will cover for you and quickly point out how other innocent Iraqis are killed every day along with American troops.

Star & Stripes: Then why did we report on it weeks before everyone else?

Star & Stripes: Then why did we report on it weeks before everyone else?
Link/Source please?

As much as I dislike Bush and his supporters, I really don't think many of them (a few cretins, but not many) really voted for Bush, hoping that one day US Marines would go round killing innocents.
Nope. Can't remember that ever been put forward as an reason to vote for him.
"Vote Bush! And he'll guarantee another My Lai!"

Why is it a waste of time to demand a full investigation and, if true, punishment for those guilty?

Tell me, do you say these things for domestic murders as well?

"Yeah, I know your mum got murdered, but pissing and moaning about it now is just a waste of time."


You really are daft.

Of course Bush did not directly state that he would invade a foreign country even if the original reasons for doing so were complete lies.

But anyone who knew anything about George W. Bush knew that Iraq was certainly in his agenda. In the end the majority of you idiots fell for his lies during the elections(you voted for him twice for gods sake) and now complaining about his leadership and the war he had begun is a waste of time. Now if you want to put him out of power as soon as possible then start an armed revolution...either that or you should all just shut up and wait until the next presidential election comes around.

...either that or you should all just shut up and wait until the next presidential election come around.

YEAH! Don't anyone DARE voice their objections to massacres and unwarranted crimes committed by their troops abroad!
You all ASKED for it when you barely voted your President in!

SILENCE DOGS!

Link/Source please?
Indeed, I can't find it on a search of their web site.

You really are daft.

Of course Bush did not directly state that he would invade a foreign country even if the original reasons for doing so were complete lies.

But anyone who knew anything about George W. Bush knew that Iraq was certainly in his agenda. In the end the majority of you idiots fell for his lies during the elections(you voted for him twice for gods sake) and now complaining about his leadership and the war he had begun is a waste of time. Now if you want to put him out of power as soon as possible then start an armed revolution...either that or you should all just shut up and wait until the next presidential election comes around.

We got Nixon out without violence why should we start now?

Marine: Sir! I'm sorry to report that we killed men, women, and children with no provocation and then covered it up for months!

Commander: Don't worry son, I'm sure the wingnuts will cover for you and quickly point out how other innocent Iraqis are killed every day along with American troops.
Funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks, NERVUN.

We got Nixon out without violence why should we start now?


Because silly, the government has learned from the Nixon administration and made all the right changes so that the conclusion of the Nixon case will never happen again.

You really are daft.

Of course Bush did not directly state that he would invade a foreign country even if the original reasons for doing so were complete lies.

But anyone who knew anything about George W. Bush knew that Iraq was certainly in his agenda. In the end the majority of you idiots fell for his lies during the elections(you voted for him twice for gods sake) and now complaining about his leadership and the war he had begun is a waste of time. Now if you want to put him out of power as soon as possible then start an armed revolution...either that or you should all just shut up and wait until the next presidential election comes around.
I'm daft? You're the one who said:
The public(sheep) shouldnt have voted Bush into office in the first place if they didnt want these "atrocities" to be happening as we speak.
I think quite a few Bushites would have still supported him, had they known his intentions to invade Iraq before the 2000 elections.
But I can't see many of them would have wanted any atrocities to take place by US forces during the invasion, which is what you implied.

There is a difference there.

What a bunch of hypocrits. What ever became of "innocent until proven guilty"? Cops and the military are always guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the left. It makes me mad.

What a bunch of hypocrits. What ever became of "innocent until proven guilty"? Cops and the military are always guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the left. It makes me mad.

As opposed to the "never guilty" mentality by the right?

See? I can do false generalizations too. Although after certain people's responses to clear cut cases of murder of innocent civilians by US troops, that might not be as false as it seems.

As opposed to the "never guilty" mentality by the right?

See? I can do false generalizations too. Although after certain people's responses to clear cut cases of murder of innocent civilians by US troops, that might not be as false as it seems.

I don't know where you live but where I come from people or innocent until proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. If they are found guilty they will be .....guilty in my opinion as well as the courts. Stop assuming things and get real.

What a bunch of hypocrits. What ever became of "innocent until proven guilty"? Cops and the military are always guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the left. It makes me mad.
Could you direct me to any posts here that claim the Marines are definitely guilty?

I was being sarcastic. It is insane to assume that anybody is guilty who has not had a trial!