Iraq Horror - Page 2

Well this thread got derailed a long time ago.

My question is, if these are anti-Sadam folks...why aren't they thankful for the U.S. coming in an getting rid of him? Why aren't they supportive of a new "democratic" form of government where they might have a voice (though not necessarily the dominant voice)? Why are they choosing to use violence as their means?

In short, I do not accept that these are not (at least in part) Saddam loyalists.

I actually believe that this issue is more complicated than that and that it is a combination of factions that are at work here...some of which being foreign (to Iraq).

Maybe they found the price too high for the reward.
It would be perfectly reasonable for an Iraqi to think, "I am glad Saddam is gone, but the way it was done is an injustice and so is the continued American occupation."

That would be a 100% logical train of thought.


Maybe they believe that the system will be corrupt from the outset and designed to bend to America's will.

Once again, it would be a 100% logical train of thought.

Or perhaps they understand that democracy must come from the people through struggle, not forced on top by an invading and occupying foreign armed force.


Because violence works, as proven by Gulf War 2.0.


Only because you appear to view the entire thing through a loyal American lens. Put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes and think about all the different emotions possible in such a situation.

So what you're saying is that those who opposed Saddam must support the US because the US also opposed Saddam - have I got that right ?

I've just been reading this report from the embedded reporter at the scene of the shooting.

It is perhaps worse reading it than the pictures, maybe we're numb or something.

I can't really comment o it right now but maybe you guys ought to read it.

"Incredibly, the only injuries were to a girl who suffered a cut hand and a boy with a superficial gash in the small of his back that was bleeding heavily but was not life-threatening."

This differs from the earlier report saying someone was killed.

EDIT: I missed the next paragraph. Sorry.

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

Oh so now, just because Saddam killed more, its OK for us to kill them too?

Is this what you are saying?

And he asked you to explain how many "unfortunate incidents" like this were caused during the cause of this war by the US army and not cough up numbers from Saddam's era.

I thought we were there to free them from Saddam, not give them a lesser Saddam.

Yes...that's exactly what I'm saying.



What I'm saying is that the unintentional killing of civilians by U.S. troops doesn't even compare to the intentional atrocities committed by Saddam and Co.

And that parading out a few incidents does not somehow make the U.S. a bunch of bad guys. Bottom line, whether I agree with the reasons for going to war...in the end, Iraq can be much better off. But there will be some unfortunate casualties along the way to that goal.

i'll be the first one to say that our troops shouldn't have been placed in the position that they are currently in, but that is irrelevant at this point because the are there, and that's not going to change any time soon. but, with all the soldiers, iraqi security forces, and civilians being blown up by car bombs on a regular basis, how can anyone fault these guys for reacting the way they did? a car fails to stop at a check point after being repeatedly warned to do so. how are they supposed to know if it's another car bomb attack or not? wait for it to blow up. fuck that. you can't put them out there in that environment and not expect them to defend themselves from perceivable threats, and the actions taken by the driver made that car a perceivable threat. the way i see it, with all the information that we have to go by, they did the right thing.

Well you're comparing both when asked about something else so I see it as trying to justify the INTENTIONAL deaths of Iraqi civilians.



There is no unintentional death. You shoot with an intention. That's it. Remember that guy in Fahreinheit 9/11?

'Burn motherf*cker, burn!' - seemed to be his intention. I don't see innocence in that at all.



Some organizations are estimating that as much as 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the course of this war.

If that is 'a few incidents' to you, then I've nothing else to add.

Iraq can be much better off if we just leave them alone. They didn't want us there, they don't want us there, and I have no reason to believe they will.

But, whats 'a few incidents' when there is Freedom on the March! (or April.. or whatever).

You're right. We should just pull out. They don't want us. Fine. That's cool. Pack it up and let them kill themselves.

Perhaps if the military operated within restrictions that meant that the end did not always justify the means less 'accidents' would happen.

Once it becomes acceptable for (volunteer) service personel to drop 500lb bombs onto targets within mixed populations of activists and non participants, because that is a less risky way to engage the 'enemy' and is simply a price that civillian population must bear, there seems little prospect of a scared, bewildered young man armed with assault weapons, exerciscing a great degree of critical judgement or restraint when a threat is perceived.

The real crime is in the creation of the circumstances under which the individuals operate. The ones who will be criticized most have very little influence over those conditions.

Yeah and we dropped a couple of atomic bombs on Japan...

...to scare the Russians.

was that a bad thing to do? should we not have done that?

Yes.. and US supplied weapons and military advisers, some of which reported chemical weapon use. Miraculously, none of this was apparently a problem when it happened. Now it's late to say "what we REALLY want is to unseat dictators and build democracies". The worth of US' action is not graded on a human rights scale. If that's the standard you use to measure the actions taken by the US, then both past and current US administrations has failed utterly. What troops and aid can do for human rights in a place like Iraq is trumped at least tenfold by what they could accomplish in the warring, AIDS-ridden, medieval life expectation areas of Africa. This would be true in the days when Saddam was active in killing people, and even more obvious in the time since the Gulf War when Iraq was under the looking glass of the US and the UN.

As for the soldiers, I don't really see how they could be faulted for their actions in this case or most other incidents, since they are only acting rationally under strict orders. That makes things interesting - since if the soldiers aren't responsible, then the people who sent them there (in person, or through representatives) are responsible. When you perceive those people are in the wrong, whether or not you are correct, if you carry out retaliation, you are a terrorist. \

From that one could infer to follow that either some terrorism is okay, a democratic country can start a war of aggression with no one being morally responsible for the decision, or the Bible teaching of "turn the other cheek" should be followed to the letter. Which do you reckon?

Where is the problem? Unfortunate, yes. Indicative of 'all' American troops are running around committing atrocities? Hell no...

This is somewhat off topic, but after almost 2 years of occupation, you'd think the Iraqi's would know how to recognize a checkpoint, and what not to do at one...

Death of Civilians in war is horrible at any time and place, but for some perspective on whether the Coalition is doing all it can to avoid Civilian casualties:

WW2: TOTAL Civilians killed: approximately 37.2 million TOTAL people killed in World War II: approximately 54.9 million

Vietnam: The Hanoi government revealed on April 4, 1995 that the true civilian casualties of the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south. Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war. These figures were deliberately falsified during the war by the North Vietnamese Communists to avoid demoralizing the population.
(makes you wonder, given the situation in Iraq, if the opposite is true there...the number of casualties varies greatly depending on where the story comes from.)

Note: Given a Vietnamese population of approximately 38 million during the period 1954-1975, Vietnamese casualties represent a good 12-13% of the entire population. To put this in perspective, consider that the population of the US was 220 million during the Vietnam War. Had The US sustained casualties of 13% of its population, there would have been 28 million US dead.

Aren't most of the attacks being orchestrated today against US soldiers and their collaborators?

So, how are they killing themselves, if most of the attacks are against US soldiers?

Now, they are resisting to the US occupation, and its quite clear that if the motif is gone, then the act need not happen.

But we are forgetting that the US is the reason for bitter divisions and that reason is US' support for people like Allawi, Chalabi and whatnot. When you support one group, the other feels left out. You support the Kurds until they're of military use to you, once they're not, you just 'forget' your promises to them.

You support the Sunni until they're of use to you (to catch Saddam), once thats done, goodbye.

Now you support the biggest group because you need them to come out and vote. Once thats done... we'll see what happens.