"Hundreds of Iraqis shouting 'Welcome to Iraq' greeted Marines who entered the town of Shatra Monday after storming it with planes, tanks and helicopter gunships," Reuters reports. Says one young man: "There's no problem here. We are happy to see Americans."
"The welcome they had hoped for finally greeted American troops yesterday, as waving Iraqis lined the streets when the advance northwards to Baghdad was resumed," reports the Daily Telegraph from central Iraq.
The Telegraph also reports that Royal Marine commando, mopping up after completing the delightfully named Operation James, an assault on a southern Basra suburb, "received a warm welcome from the members of the 30,000-strong population, with children and adults giving the thumbs-up, smiling and shouting 'Mister, mister, England good.'_"
Another Reuters dispatch, from outside Basra, explains why Iraq's second city has been slow to rise up: Fleeing Iraqi civilians "said on Tuesday they faced heavy pressure from members of President Saddam Hussein's Baath party not to rise up against him." One unnamed local resident says: "The Baath Party has been going around Basra and using megaphones to warn us that we had better join the war effort."
The Washington Times reports from Qara Hanjir, in northern Iraq, that the locals "are welcoming the budding American military presence with undisguised enthusiasm." Soleyman Qassab, a local businessman who runs a burger joint called MaDonal's (yes, that's the right spelling), wrote in a local newspaper: "If the USA comes here, we'll get our freedom. It's time to welcome the American military."
The Associated Press reports that at a Centcom briefing today, "Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks described several instances in which local residents had helped U.S. forces throughout the country, paving the way for successful attacks against 'death squads' loyal to Saddam."
Another AP dispatch tells a moving story of an Iraqi soldier who deserted, turning himself in to Kurdish fighters at Kalak:
The soldier covered his face and wept.
It was a deep, sudden sobbing he couldn't control. His shoulders heaved. Tears wet the frayed cuffs of his green Iraqi army sweater.
He cried because he was alive. He cried because his family may think he's dead. He cried for his country. He cried because--for him--the war was over.
"I'm so sorry. Excuse me. I just can't stop," wept the soldier who fled Saddam Hussein's army and was taken Monday into the hands of U.S.-allied Iraqi Kurdish fighters. "Could this terrible time be over soon? Please, tell me."
"Two Iraqi soldiers who said they were sent on a suicide attack mission to the country's largest port have turned themselves in to British troops," the Associated Press reports. The AP quotes Col. Steve Cox of the Royal Marines: "We had two suicide bombers turn themselves in yesterday because they didn't want to be suicide bombers any more. We are accommodating them."
OMFG I love this Brit!
The Telegraph reports that one Royal Marine "told of how an Iraqi colonel driving a car with a briefcase full of cash refused to stop and was shot dead. 'I didn't know what to do with the money so I gave it to the kids, bundles of the stuff,' the Royal Marine said."
The Los Angeles Times reports that one Iraqi prisoner of war "wore nothing but black thong underwear."
Sky News reports that "fanatical pro-Saddam Hussein fighters are shooting children in and around Basra, fleeing civilians told British forces. One mother told British medics her 12-year-old son was among dozens of youngsters gunned down by death squads."
[edit to add]
Forgot this one. Contrast this with Saddam's poeple.
In contrast, check out this New York Times report: "On the contested bridge in Hindiya, the captured town south of Baghdad, an American company commander, Capt. Chris Carter of Watkinsville, Ga., dashed to a wounded Iraqi woman in a black chador lying exposed to fire in the center of the span. Captain Carter crouched with his M-16 rifle to cover her position until medics could evacuate her by stretcher, according to journalists traveling with the unit." While Saddam Hussein murders Iraqi civilians in cold blood, America's fighting men risk their lives to save them.
So as I see it, the officer tries to avert a crisis by having his men fire a warning or disabling shot into the vehicle. Then when his men don't comply, he starts yelling at them to do it. Finally, after still not complying, the last-ditch effort to stop the vehicle is made in the form of a bunch of cannon fire which ends up killing the women and children in the back.
Okay, I don't KNOW that that's how it happened, but it sure sounds like that. I'm not saying they should have let the vehicle go, no way. But I think it should have been prevented if they were able to prevent it, which is I think where they fell down on the job. So all I'm saying is that it sounds like it might have been able to be prevented, and that the commander tried to do so but his troops were unable to for some reason.
It's very tragic, and it probably shouldn't have happened, but given the situation I think it was justified.
I am against the war but I don't want the US to lose. Why do you think that anyone who doesn't support the US in the war is anti-USA, pro-Saddam, and wants the US to do poorly, SDW? I want the US/UK to win a decisive, fast victory, and I want the pure, unaltered truth, not a glossed over version. I don't want people flatly denying "facts" about the war without justification. And that applies in either direction. I've seen both pro-war and anti-war people do it... they just say "No, you're wrong, you stupid liberal/warmonger." It gets on my nerves, especially when the very people who argue without justification accuse others of it. I'm not going to name names or point out specific instances, but we all know that both sides are guilty of it. I probably am... I don't remember doing it but I'm sure I have at some point.
So as I see it, the officer tries to avert a crisis by having his men fire a warning or disabling shot into the vehicle. Then when his men don't comply, he starts yelling at them to do it. Finally, after still not complying, the last-ditch effort to stop the vehicle is made in the form of a bunch of cannon fire which ends up killing the women and children in the back.
Don't forget to consider that this incident may have occured in the course of 3 seconds- a mere fraction of the time it took for you to articulate everything that happened in your paragraph above. This isn't a Final Fantasy game where you take a step, then they take a step, then you, then them, etc. So it is difficult to build a case for "his men don't comply" since they didn't get a shot off into the radiator. By the time that message got radioed in, registered in the brain of the receiver, all the while he is staring down this vehicle that is accelerating towards him, it was probably too late for a "radiator" shot to do any good. So you get the ensuing response of massive fire directed at the vehicle. Mind you, this final action was probably a hair trigger away from happening. It didn't happen because the officer finally "gave the order". It was clear that it would happen when the vehicle was obviously intent on breaching the checkpoint. That's how I envision the incident.
Losing a few soldiers at a checkpoint is what we should expect. There's no excuse for blowing up a bus full of people. Shoot first and ask questions later is not justifiable. A civilian life is worth more than a military life.
The U.S. military/republicans are just scared of sending body bags home because of the political damage it would do.
Yeah, you're probably right. The vehicle was probably driving pretty fast for them to shoot so many rounds into it to stop it. That doesn't make it any less tragic, though.
Yeah, you're probably right. The vehicle was probably driving pretty fast for them to shoot so many rounds into it to stop it. That doesn't make it any less tragic, though.
Unquestionably it is tragic. I think we all have had life experiences where things happened seemingly too fast and then you find yourself in the situation you are in. Especially, when your life is on the line, you don't pause a moment just to think "what if" (as if to placate other's wishes) when the calibrated response is already clear. I'm not saying they acted hysterically, either. They were simply holding a checkpoint. That is their primary objective. A rogue vehicle needs to be stopped no matter who is inside it.
Losing a few soldiers at a checkpoint is what we should expect. There's no excuse for blowing up a bus full of people. Shoot first and ask questions later is not justifiable. A civilian life is worth more than a military life.
Soldier casualties are plausible, but I certainly don't think soldiers should give up their lives indiscriminantly. They have every right to defend themselves and to render their objective. What was the point of a "checkpoint" anyway if you aren't allowed to enforce it? A vehicle that refuses to comply is every bit a threat as one that has been sent as a terrorist bomb. That is the excuse for "blowing up a bus". Whether or not it is full of people does not enter into the equation once it has gone rogue. "Shoot first/ask questions later" doesn't even apply here, because it was the people in the bus that made the first move, and this move was not an intelligent one. "civilian life worth more than military life" does not apply here, either. Very simply, one group of participants did not play by the rules under very tense circumstances, and they paid the price.
No human's life is worth any more than another's. You could argue that someone like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, etc, had less of a right to live than a little Iraqi child... but they are still lives and you shouldn't "expect" to lose them. Military deaths are inevitable but that doesn't make them "acceptable" (I mean acceptable from a moral standpoint, not from a military standpoint - obviously, there are a certain number of deaths that are considered "acceptable" before the costs outweigh the benefits and we change plans/pull out).
Soldier casualties are plausible, but I certainly don't think soldiers should give up their lives indiscriminantly.
Certainly not. And this case could still go either way. I've read conflicting reports about the warning shots. If they fired warning shots, then possibly the soldiers didn't have any other choice. Although by reading the transcript that certainly doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't think people should hang on the formality of "warning shots", either. It is more a courtesy, for lack of a better term. It was clear the vehicle was intent on breaching the checkpoint, for good or bad (thus the notion of "warning shots" is purely trivial at that point). There was only one possible outcome to minimize further risk, loss, and casualty. Whether or not warning shots were given does not preclude that the vehicle had to be rendered immobile for the actions it had undertaken. It's very, very simple- when you are ordered to stop (at gunpoint, to boot), you STOP. It is not a suggestion.
As usual, no solution at all is given- just criticism and "this would not have happened if we did something different way back when". Apparently some people haven't gotten acclimated to the fact that we are here in reality now with given conditions in place. Belaboring over the past does very little vs. thinking in the present- how you respond to ongoing circumstances. One could easily argue that if the US did not enter into the war, a family would have been wiped out from UN sanctions or unfortunate "mishap" with an industrial shredder under Saddam's rule. So what's the point of belaboring over "what if"? The issue is we are herenow- what do you do? ...still awaiting jimmac's brilliant countermove (fostered entirely with the benefits of hindsight, mind you).
The solution WAS offered before the fidiotic war (meaning the particularly idiotic method of appraoch to the war by Bush and gang) their misunderstanding of the region and the need for diplomatic grace via working with more Arab allies in an active role
for instance, I think it may not be too late to actually invite the forces of the shai Iran/Iraq armies in exile and have them fight for the liberation of Basra . . . then the people would understand that we mean liberation . . . that is, if we do
Just say you have no solution for the incident as it was occuring and be done with it. We'll just have to take your word for it that the world would have spontaneously become peachy keen otherwise.
Just say you have no solution for the incident as it was occuring and be done with it. We'll just have to take your word for it that the world would have spontaneously become peachy keen otherwise.
Sometimes NO solution would be better than a very BAD solution
your rapt adoration and willingness to grasp all aspects of this war are deeply disburbing
Sometimes NO solution would be better than a very BAD solution
your rapt adoration and willingness to grasp all aspects of this war are deeply disburbing
Once again, the "guilt trip" for being pro-Iraq War. What an evil, evil monster I must be. That's about as relevant as me calling you a French-luvin' hippy tree hugger. Tell you what, I guarantee all of your problems will disappear if you would just take that plastic sheeting and duct tape and seal yourself in a room. Wait there, and we'll come and get you when the coast is clear. Heh, heh.
I don't think people should hang on the formality of "warning shots", either. It is more a courtesy, for lack of a better term. It was clear the vehicle was intent on breaching the checkpoint, for good or bad (thus the notion of "warning shots" is purely trivial at that point). There was only one possible outcome to minimize further risk, loss, and casualty. Whether or not warning shots were given does not preclude that the vehicle had to be rendered immobile for the actions it had undertaken. It's very, very simple- when you are ordered to stop (at gunpoint, to boot), you STOP. It is not a suggestion.
What were some moments in history were diplomacy worked? Where no war was completely averted? Its hard to come across any, the only one I can think of is India and Pakistan, sure no war, but a whole lot of nuclear weapons. The only thing I think works without war is threats... like the Cuban Missile Crisis, the "Star Wars" Program, stuff like that. Between Russia and the United States, but Russia had a big revolution so in a way that doesn't count. I guess success stories would be Canada and India leaving England. Don't get me wrong its great to have ideals and aspirations, but we have to understand this is completely human nature. Maybe War is the only way to truly solve things and let off steam.
Can you be certain that a shot to the radiator would necessarily have shut the show down?
Of course the vehicle was far enough away that the van was far enough away from the intersection that Johnson needed to use binoculars to see what happened to it.
Sure it wasn't in the article I posted before, but for someone who feels so strongly about the incident, your expected to at least be informed.
I'm sure knocking out the engine would have done the trick. But we can't know for sure, since the soldiers obviously didn't follow orders. Oh, but to you, it's OK for soldiers not to follow orders and just unload with explosive shells on a van and kill women and children.
Quote:
Why don't you go become a human shield or fly to Iraq to join forces with those who oppose an "invasion"?
You're the one that's not doing anything productive. I guess it's not surprising that you suggest unproductive measures for the pro-peace movement.
Stop being lazy and join the military. As the saying goes: put up or shut up.
Once again, the "guilt trip" for being pro-Iraq War. What an evil, evil monster I must be. That's about as relevant as me calling you a French-luvin' hippy tree hugger. Tell you what, I guarantee all of your problems will disappear if you would just take that plastic sheeting and duct tape and seal yourself in a room. Wait there, and we'll come and get you when the coast is clear. Heh, heh.
Comments
The soldier covered his face and wept.
It was a deep, sudden sobbing he couldn't control. His shoulders heaved. Tears wet the frayed cuffs of his green Iraqi army sweater.
He cried because he was alive. He cried because his family may think he's dead. He cried for his country. He cried because--for him--the war was over.
"I'm so sorry. Excuse me. I just can't stop," wept the soldier who fled Saddam Hussein's army and was taken Monday into the hands of U.S.-allied Iraqi Kurdish fighters. "Could this terrible time be over soon? Please, tell me."
OMFG I love this Brit!
[edit to add]
Forgot this one. Contrast this with Saddam's poeple.
Okay, I don't KNOW that that's how it happened, but it sure sounds like that. I'm not saying they should have let the vehicle go, no way. But I think it should have been prevented if they were able to prevent it, which is I think where they fell down on the job. So all I'm saying is that it sounds like it might have been able to be prevented, and that the commander tried to do so but his troops were unable to for some reason.
It's very tragic, and it probably shouldn't have happened, but given the situation I think it was justified.
I am against the war but I don't want the US to lose. Why do you think that anyone who doesn't support the US in the war is anti-USA, pro-Saddam, and wants the US to do poorly, SDW? I want the US/UK to win a decisive, fast victory, and I want the pure, unaltered truth, not a glossed over version. I don't want people flatly denying "facts" about the war without justification. And that applies in either direction. I've seen both pro-war and anti-war people do it... they just say "No, you're wrong, you stupid liberal/warmonger." It gets on my nerves, especially when the very people who argue without justification accuse others of it. I'm not going to name names or point out specific instances, but we all know that both sides are guilty of it. I probably am... I don't remember doing it but I'm sure I have at some point.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
So as I see it, the officer tries to avert a crisis by having his men fire a warning or disabling shot into the vehicle. Then when his men don't comply, he starts yelling at them to do it. Finally, after still not complying, the last-ditch effort to stop the vehicle is made in the form of a bunch of cannon fire which ends up killing the women and children in the back.
Don't forget to consider that this incident may have occured in the course of 3 seconds- a mere fraction of the time it took for you to articulate everything that happened in your paragraph above. This isn't a Final Fantasy game where you take a step, then they take a step, then you, then them, etc. So it is difficult to build a case for "his men don't comply" since they didn't get a shot off into the radiator. By the time that message got radioed in, registered in the brain of the receiver, all the while he is staring down this vehicle that is accelerating towards him, it was probably too late for a "radiator" shot to do any good. So you get the ensuing response of massive fire directed at the vehicle. Mind you, this final action was probably a hair trigger away from happening. It didn't happen because the officer finally "gave the order". It was clear that it would happen when the vehicle was obviously intent on breaching the checkpoint. That's how I envision the incident.
The U.S. military/republicans are just scared of sending body bags home because of the political damage it would do.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Yeah, you're probably right. The vehicle was probably driving pretty fast for them to shoot so many rounds into it to stop it. That doesn't make it any less tragic, though.
Unquestionably it is tragic. I think we all have had life experiences where things happened seemingly too fast and then you find yourself in the situation you are in. Especially, when your life is on the line, you don't pause a moment just to think "what if" (as if to placate other's wishes) when the calibrated response is already clear. I'm not saying they acted hysterically, either. They were simply holding a checkpoint. That is their primary objective. A rogue vehicle needs to be stopped no matter who is inside it.
Originally posted by bunge
Losing a few soldiers at a checkpoint is what we should expect. There's no excuse for blowing up a bus full of people. Shoot first and ask questions later is not justifiable. A civilian life is worth more than a military life.
Soldier casualties are plausible, but I certainly don't think soldiers should give up their lives indiscriminantly. They have every right to defend themselves and to render their objective. What was the point of a "checkpoint" anyway if you aren't allowed to enforce it? A vehicle that refuses to comply is every bit a threat as one that has been sent as a terrorist bomb. That is the excuse for "blowing up a bus". Whether or not it is full of people does not enter into the equation once it has gone rogue. "Shoot first/ask questions later" doesn't even apply here, because it was the people in the bus that made the first move, and this move was not an intelligent one. "civilian life worth more than military life" does not apply here, either. Very simply, one group of participants did not play by the rules under very tense circumstances, and they paid the price.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Soldier casualties are plausible, but I certainly don't think soldiers should give up their lives indiscriminantly.
Certainly not. And this case could still go either way. I've read conflicting reports about the warning shots. If they fired warning shots, then possibly the soldiers didn't have any other choice. Although by reading the transcript that certainly doesn't seem to be the case.
Originally posted by Randycat99
As usual, no solution at all is given- just criticism and "this would not have happened if we did something different way back when". Apparently some people haven't gotten acclimated to the fact that we are here in reality now with given conditions in place. Belaboring over the past does very little vs. thinking in the present- how you respond to ongoing circumstances. One could easily argue that if the US did not enter into the war, a family would have been wiped out from UN sanctions or unfortunate "mishap" with an industrial shredder under Saddam's rule. So what's the point of belaboring over "what if"? The issue is we are here now- what do you do? ...still awaiting jimmac's brilliant countermove (fostered entirely with the benefits of hindsight, mind you).
The solution WAS offered before the fidiotic war (meaning the particularly idiotic method of appraoch to the war by Bush and gang) their misunderstanding of the region and the need for diplomatic grace via working with more Arab allies in an active role
for instance, I think it may not be too late to actually invite the forces of the shai Iran/Iraq armies in exile and have them fight for the liberation of Basra . . . then the people would understand that we mean liberation . . . that is, if we do
Just say you have no solution for the incident as it was occuring and be done with it. We'll just have to take your word for it that the world would have spontaneously become peachy keen otherwise.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Just say you have no solution for the incident as it was occuring and be done with it. We'll just have to take your word for it that the world would have spontaneously become peachy keen otherwise.
Sometimes NO solution would be better than a very BAD solution
your rapt adoration and willingness to grasp all aspects of this war are deeply disburbing
Originally posted by pfflam
Sometimes NO solution would be better than a very BAD solution
your rapt adoration and willingness to grasp all aspects of this war are deeply disburbing
Once again, the "guilt trip" for being pro-Iraq War.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I don't think people should hang on the formality of "warning shots", either. It is more a courtesy, for lack of a better term. It was clear the vehicle was intent on breaching the checkpoint, for good or bad (thus the notion of "warning shots" is purely trivial at that point). There was only one possible outcome to minimize further risk, loss, and casualty. Whether or not warning shots were given does not preclude that the vehicle had to be rendered immobile for the actions it had undertaken. It's very, very simple- when you are ordered to stop (at gunpoint, to boot), you STOP. It is not a suggestion.
Nice spin.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Can you be certain that a shot to the radiator would necessarily have shut the show down?
Of course the vehicle was far enough away that the van was far enough away from the intersection that Johnson needed to use binoculars to see what happened to it.
http://www.delphi.co.uk/cgi-bin/news...killwomen.html
Sure it wasn't in the article I posted before, but for someone who feels so strongly about the incident, your expected to at least be informed.
I'm sure knocking out the engine would have done the trick. But we can't know for sure, since the soldiers obviously didn't follow orders. Oh, but to you, it's OK for soldiers not to follow orders and just unload with explosive shells on a van and kill women and children.
Why don't you go become a human shield or fly to Iraq to join forces with those who oppose an "invasion"?
You're the one that's not doing anything productive. I guess it's not surprising that you suggest unproductive measures for the pro-peace movement.
Stop being lazy and join the military. As the saying goes: put up or shut up.
Originally posted by giant
As the saying goes: put up or shut up.
Or in this case: put up, shut up or blow up....
Originally posted by Randycat99
Once again, the "guilt trip" for being pro-Iraq War.
Randycat99 : High on mud low on content.