U.S. Soldiers Fire Into Baghdad Crowd [Archive]

View Full Version : U.S. Soldiers Fire Into Baghdad Crowd

Seraphim

08-13-2003, 06:04 PM

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/posting.php?mode=newtopic&f=7

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030813/capt.1060778704.iraq_dlm101.jpg

A small group of dozens of Iraqis shout anti-American slogans after claiming that U.S. forces attacked them in the Al-Sadr City district in Baghdad, Iraq (news - web sites) on Wednesday Aug. 13, 2003. According to the protesters, a U.S. military helicopter overflew a tower where religious flags were flying and tried to take down a flag and later opened fire on the people. (AP Photo/Dario Lopez-Mills)

By TAREK AL-ISSAWI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. soldiers shot into a crowd of thousands of demonstrators in a Baghdad slum on Wednesday, killing one civilian and wounding four after a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at them, the military said. North of Baghdad, guerrillas killed two American troops.

In Sadr City, a Shiite Muslim slum, about 3,000 demonstrators gathered around a telecommunications tower where they said American forces in a helicopter tried to tear down an Islamic banner. U.S. military spokesman Sgt. Danny Martin said it was apparently blown down by rotor wash from a helicopter.

However, amateur video footage obtained by Associated Press Television News showed a Black Hawk helicopter hovering a few feet from the top of the tower and apparently trying to tear down the banner. Later, U.S. Humvees drove by and the crowd threw stones at them. Heavy gunfire could be heard and demonstrators were seen diving to the ground.

Martin said U.S. forces opened fire after stones, gunfire and one rocket-propelled grenade were directed at soldiers of the 1st Armored Division. One civilian was killed and four were wounded, he said. He said no soldiers were hit.

Sadr City, formerly known as Saddam City, is a Shiite stronghold in the otherwise Sunni Muslim-dominated capital.

"We're peaceful people, but one edict (from the imams) and the entire American Army will become our prisoner," said Hassan Azab, a member of the local district council.

Also Wednesday, an attack 15 miles south of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s hometown, killed one U.S. soldier and wounded a second when their four-vehicle convoy hit a roadside bomb, according to Maj. Josslyn Aberle, spokeswoman for the 4th Infantry Division.

The military also reported a soldier killed and two wounded in a bomb attack Tuesday near Taji, 12 miles north of Baghdad. The attack was in the same region where an oil pipeline fire sent flames 200 feet into the air on Tuesday.

It was unclear whether the pipeline fire was the work of saboteurs. Many pipelines across Iraq (news - web sites) have been hit by guerrillas seeking to destabilize U.S. reconstruction efforts.

The military also reported killing two Iraqis in separate incidents in the Baqouba region, 45 miles northeast of Baghdad. Aberle said the two were killed after firing on U.S. troops.

Officials at the 4th Infantry Division said they had released 10 men detained Tuesday in a sweep through the outskirts of Tikrit, but four remained in custody.

The military has not made public the names of those held, but said they include a Republican Guard corps-level chief of staff, a Republican Guard division commander and a paymaster for the Fedayeen militia.

All those detained were members of a family described as a pillar of support for the ousted regime, said U.S. Lt. Col. Steve Russell.

"They were trying to support the remnants of the former regime by organizing attacks, through funding and by trying to hide former regime members," he said.

Also Wednesday, the U.S.-led coalition said it had sent in 6.6 million gallons of gasoline, much of it to southern Iraq. Fuel and power shortages had been particularly acute in the southern city of Basra, where weekend protests left at least three people dead.

"There is no shortage of petrol and we are able to fully meet the demand," coalition spokesman Charles Heatly said.

The American administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, met Wednesday with the U.S.-picked Governing Council about local efforts on restarting the shattered economy and creating jobs, Heatly said.

Bremer also urged the 25-member council to submit names for the so-called "de-Baathification council," which is charged with purging government offices of Saddam's Baath Party.

Heatly said the coalition has fulfilled a number of goals, including establishment of the Governing Council, which on Monday appointed a committee to study ways of writing a democratic constitution.

The spokesman said the benchmark for the departure of U.S.-led forces "remains having Iraqi people write a new constitution for this country and having it approved in a referendum, holding democratic elections and then hand over power to a sovereign, elected Iraqi government."

Merik

08-13-2003, 06:10 PM

"We're peaceful people, but one edict (from the imams) and the entire American Army will become our prisoner," said Hassan Azab, a member of the local district council.

Peaceful my ass. If we shoot someone its for a f-ing reason and they sure as hell are not peaceful.

C'mon Morty, where are you anti-american antics for this article?

Chris1

08-13-2003, 06:50 PM

oh dear a man brandishing a submachine gun is complaining people are shooting at him.
How will I sleep at nights :roll:

Argyll

08-13-2003, 07:01 PM

Hey Merik,ain't you forgetting something.........it is their Country!!!!
It is not the 54 state of the USA.......there is serious unrest with the very people the Coalition went to Free,does Iraq resemble a free country at the moment?The normal Iraqis are suffering,there is no power to keep airconditioning going,there is very little water,it is 105 degrees in the shade,they are becoming increasingly frustrated at what they percieve as a lack of promises the UK/US made,I can recall the Generals saying they'd have the power restored in a matter of weeks,that was 3 months ago!!...........are you seriously trying to tell me that all of this unrest,and illfeeling was prepared for,and all the clandestine attacks.......we can keep sticking our heads in the sand,but things in a lot of areas particualrly the Baghdad region are definately not good! no matter what spin you put on it!.........it always gets worse before it gets better!!

California Joe

08-13-2003, 07:12 PM

It's a cluster****.

ScoutRanger

08-13-2003, 08:08 PM

The nation is at one half of its potential of 8000 Mw. The Army and the People are working together to bring power to every home, so you may not be able to run the air conditioner at the time being but things change in time.

Who is they Argyll? You speak on behalf of the Iraqi nation as a whole? How many Iraqis have you spoken with? Been there, seen that right? So wait, what channel is the BBC?

usa320

08-13-2003, 08:12 PM

i second what Chris said...
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030813/capt.1060778704.iraq_dlm101.jpg

Hes clearly armed...anyone who walks into a warzone witha machine gun yelling beligerantly cant expect NOT to get shot at.

DixieDude

08-13-2003, 08:17 PM

Angry - Think about it. It takes a long time to pretty much "restart" a country. I'm sure the Coalition F.'s are doing everything they can over there. It just takes time, and some of the Iraqis don't understand that and what the Coalition F.'s are doing for them. :bash:

Argyll

08-13-2003, 08:24 PM

Nope ,I don't speak for the Iraqis,do you speak for the USA?
Have I been there......nope.........have you?
Have I spoke to any Iraqis..nope...have you?
I used the airconditioning as an example.....the news is full of these reports on ever single Network about the unrest and whats causing them!!
So you're telling me they are ALL wrong,when they speak to locals and civil administrators every day.........so there there is no truth in anything these reports say........but the Military are always 100% truthfull
What channel is the BBC rofl "Duh",I ain't a fan of the BBC I'm more into SKY News,and the US networks pal!!
Man that is a typical head in the sand response!!
Seeing as you seem to know all the answers then answer these?
1.What caused the Riots in Basra last week?
2.What caused the disturbances today?
3.Why is there so much animosity towards the US troops?
4.Why have you not been able to capture Saddam?
5.What really happened at the end of the X files?

budanski

08-13-2003, 08:33 PM

"We're peaceful people, but one edict (from the imams) and the entire American Army will become our prisoner," said Hassan Azab, a member of the local district council.

Go ahead, Hassan, make our day. This is the nuclear ALCM, the most powerful cruise missile in the world. It could blow your whole country clean off.

Argyll

08-13-2003, 08:37 PM

RK my point exactly,it does take time,and I don't believe for one minute that the administration had this written into their Short/long term plans?
It was clearly a very unsettling period for the GI's who were simply not used to this type of Policing/and Clandestine warfare roles.

320 if you've ever fired that SMG before you'd know it was a useless piece of crap,that would be better off thrown at the enemy!!
I can see your point tho,but look at the way the guys holding it,if he was ready to use it he'd be holding it by the pistol grip,this looks very much like a staged photo.......just like the 1000's we seen during Saddams reign of terror, the troops are perhaps getting a little frustrated,htey've jus t been told they're there for a year,there wiil be some disent among them,they are getting attacked daily,its damn hot,and they're in full Battle gear,and the natives are restless.......it's not a good recipe for harmony at the present moment in time!!

Gordon

08-13-2003, 08:39 PM

Hes clearly armed...anyone who walks into a warzone witha machine gun yelling beligerantly cant expect NOT to get shot at.

does he speak for everyone in Iraq? ... was everyone holding an SMG?

Chris1

08-13-2003, 08:44 PM

Gordon, with respect it doesn't matter.
If you're standing around this guy while some goon is shooting at the US Army of all people then you are going to get shot at. Disarm him or take cover.
If they want a peaceful protest they should get the hell away from this cnut.

Rantanplan

08-13-2003, 09:16 PM

"Anyone who runs is a V.C. Anyone who

stands still is a well-disciplined V.C."

Please Guys, Not again such ****. :|

hood

08-13-2003, 09:36 PM

The most important part of this, is that the US declared somewhere around a month ago that such weapons were illegal and that you'd be slapped about the head if you weren't quick to give it up. See man with gun. See man not give up gun while shouting wildly. See US Army slap him about the head, although not in so many words. Simple enough. Where's that ultra slick no-stand non-lethal goop when you need it?

ScoutRanger

08-13-2003, 09:46 PM

Try not to pop a vain Argyll.

Mortimer

08-13-2003, 11:16 PM

While the soldier who fired into the crowd was defending himself (i'd do the same) Argyll made a good point, they're (US) arn't making it easy for anyone, i bet 100% of the guys here would FREAK if it was Iraqi's on YOUR streets.

There would be home guards operating all over the place and a lot of people here would be operating in them.

Its a hyperthetical...but think about it from a different perspective...if there was ANY foreign country driving around Sydney streets like they owned...i'd tell you what i'd have my RPG at the ready and so would everyone here.

think about it...they're not just doing it to cause trouble, they're tired hungry, hot and angry...and muslims....you do the math.

hood

08-13-2003, 11:42 PM

The problem is that it's not something that can be hypothesized even. It's hard to imagine how much of a complete radical change would have to take place to entertain the idea of an occupying force in the US. The idea is to make it so the situation never gets to that point. One could blame the Iraqi's for not taking care of Saddam themselves. That someone else had to go in there and take him out for them is goofy. Now they're paying the price for it with some biting inconvenience for 6-8 months until utilities are restored. This is on the verge of being a "The US is wrong no matter what we do" kind of situation.

Mortimer

08-13-2003, 11:45 PM

My comment was generally in reference to peoples repsonses....you imagine if you were in the Iraqi's shoes....

Argyll

08-14-2003, 02:40 AM

Whatever happened to ROE?
Firing blindly into a crowd ,is asking for serious repercussions........have you never heard of the Para's illfated "Bloody Sunday"......an action taken 30 years ago by Brit Para's,who according to many witnesses fired indiscriminately at protestors,killing 13 I believe......and to this day there are still ongoing enquiries,whach are not favourable towards the Para's.
When someones takes an innocent live someone has to be accountable for that.!
Another thing to consider here is the West v's the Muslim culture as already mentioned,if there was respect for the Iraqi culture,it may help,but there just seems to be this struggle for "Hearts and Minds"...I do think it will take time also,but at the same time the US of A will have to accept that they will loose a lot more Fathers and Sons,Uncles and Brothers.....if the trend of KIA's continue...a year can look pretty ugly in relation to theses deaths..I'm sorry guys,but this ain't being negative,this is just facing up to a real possibility !

Mortimer

08-14-2003, 02:43 AM

Argyll

08-14-2003, 03:06 AM

I asked about the ROE,of which I'm also in agreement about the "justification" of the use of force,as If it is like the UK "Yellow Card",
it also states that targets must be identified prior to engagment?
I was using the ROE as an overall genaralisation of the the way in which troops have responded in the past!
No matter what mate,these guys are at the sharp end of the stick,hats off to them,they're doing the best they can under the circumsatnces!!

Royal

08-14-2003, 03:24 AM

I've got to stand up for Argyll here.

I have absolutely not problem with dropping a floppy who's a threat to you or anothers life.

Unless ROE's have changed drastically in the 8 months since I was last deployed, there is a massive difference between someone carrying a weapon and someone aiming a weapon - one is a legitimate target and one isn't. Also, using lethal force to protect property has to be authorised by a theatre commander. And BTW woe betide the commander that issues ROE's that do not conform with the laws of war...

IMHO disarming people is a good idea (maybe we should do it in ConUS too :P ), firing indiscriminately into crowds (and by that I mean riflemen and not snipers/sharpshooters enagaging fleeting/difficult to aquire targets) is not.

Gentlemen, we are not war-fighting here (despite GWB's rhetoric), that phase is over. We are now like it or not in a policing action.

SABER 2-3

08-14-2003, 04:30 AM

Its very easy to arm-chair quarterback the actions of the soldiers involved; and they do need to be examined (AAR, CID, ETC). Just keep in mind as you are picking this action apart the human factors that go along w/ very high stress events. All of the training, prepping and ROEs cannot replace True fear, anger or even perceived impending violence. Most U.S. forces allow in their ROEs that deadly force may be used when in fear for ones life or the life of another (this includes the threat of great bodily harm as well). It is no longer the practice of U.S. forces to restrict its personel from defending them-selves by giving the exact enemy posture required to act but rather a set of conditions that must be present.

Mortimer

08-14-2003, 04:34 AM

yeah well none of it matter because the US won't let its troops be prosecuted for warcrimes by the ICC....

Royal

08-14-2003, 04:39 AM

Agreed Saber.

I come back to our reccuring bugbear, Bloody Sunday. I fully believe that the Para's on the street that day thought thier or their oppo's lives to be in danger (I also believe there were shots fired by the IRA). But the bottom line 30 years on is that it gave the republicans a massive worldwide propaganda victory.

I have been that soldier on the ground. In all but one occasion I have held my fire (Bloody Sunday has a large part in that). As I've said already this is a policing action now, not general war. All I am advising is a degree of caution and some accountability for actions - something that seems to reduce the further we are from the 'homeland'...

martinexsquaddie

08-14-2003, 04:54 AM

it comes down to the blokes on the ground.
If there not really trained for low intensity Operations and there commanders are not either then you've got problems.
Its going to be bloody difficult to sort out Utlitlies if there is sabotage especially if the saboters used to run the Electiricty supply about an hours work to bring down a pylon. Thats from my basic assualt pioneer Training
probably less if you know a bit about pylons or just want to whack half a dozen rpg rounds into it. weeks to fix. You can then sit back and watch the crowd get angry No power means no pumps for water let alone air con when the temp gets much past 100 degrees you'd want air con.
Mind you taking a gun to a demo against armed soldiers really bad idea

Argyll

08-14-2003, 06:25 AM

ROE are there to prevent soldiers going off half cocked,if we were to say "oh what the fu*k,it's only Iraqis and he started it 1st",then there is nothing to stop aggitated squaddies from loosing of a few rounds and making Bulls*it stories about being under fire,and being exonerated by their actions,which would tantamount to murder!!.This type of thing has been happening with us brits in Ireland for years,as Royal and Martin will testify,remember the 2 "Jock Guards".?
Saber ,
I agree,it is all about that 1st round coming your way,in the heat of the moment,and that split decision whether to engage or not is a tough call...but you must be able to identify you target proir to engaging,otherwise you will have a bloodbath on your hands,and in an already volatile situation does nothing to close the credability gap!!

I remember during basic training we were doing an advance to contact with that crap stuff that beeped when you were hit(SAWES i think it was called),and we were getting round fired at us from 600 m +,it was our enemy company who just wanted to see the Jock completely bollocksed,by the time we reached the trenches!!.
Our DS were telling us to stop skirmishing at such long ranges,and to wait until it was effective enemy fire....in laymans terms casualties!,and this didn't happen until 200-300m!,......in this circumstances the rounds fired were not acted upon,and there was a controlled level of restraint,and it also conserved ammo....so we followed the ROE's.
Sure it was only an exercise.......but folowing ROEs is also about discipline!!

SABER 2-3

08-14-2003, 07:29 AM

I agree w/ both of you (Not to include mortimer, of course) ROEs are ment to be followed and have been followed overwhelmingly in Iraq. I do belive that using the Infantry to conduct MP missions is asking for trouble and is unfair to the Rifleman who is sent mixed signals when commanders give the order to become international Policemen. No country under occupation has ever welcomed an outside soldier/police force (even those w/ good intentions) and I do not belive the Iraqis will be any exception. I feel that many incidents are to follow on this course.

Chris1

08-14-2003, 09:53 AM

Er.. who said anything about firing into a crowd?
If someone shoots at a yank, he turns and see's this berk running around with an SMG, then that soldier will fire at the percieved threat (the cnut running around with a SMG)
This guy is near other people
Although the soldier is aiming at the guy with the gun, is that going to mean the unlucky bystanders are going to say 'oh well he's shooting at habib and his sterling' or 'THOSE AMERICAN OCCUPIERS FIRED AT ME'
If you'd like to bring NI into this there are occasions where the local PIRA player has turned up to a protest and been told to **** off, as when he gets involved its not a bunch of people with legal greivances, its a republican march/riot/protest

They were shot at (from the sounds of it by more than a few odd shots too, RPG's involved) They shot back. Some people might have gotten in the way but I'm sorry, it happens and it happens everywhere. No-one is that good a shot to be able to pick out under stress and engage with 100% accuracy someone shooting from a crowd.
You cannot however allow someone to fire at you and get away with it because the chances are he will go away and come back and one day actually hit something.

Royal

08-14-2003, 09:58 AM

I have absolutely not problem with dropping a floppy who's a threat to you or anothers life.

Chris, I think (I can only speak for myself), that we were driving at a wider problem of war fighting mentality in a policing situation. It's a problem that, if we don't address it soon (and that includes us Brits) will lead to an increase in antipathy towards us and a much longer lasting occupation - we are now planning for Op Telic 5...

budanski

08-14-2003, 10:13 AM

Argyll

08-14-2003, 12:25 PM

Red

08-14-2003, 12:33 PM

This is a lose lose situation for the US,firs of all they should not have gone in there, and secondly if we did go in, we should have saturated the whole country with enough troops to assert control and provide law and order.But right now,the troops are low on morale and zeal.I have been in situations like this and i can tell you it will only get worse.

Seiyuuki

08-14-2003, 12:59 PM

Budanski,
I hear ya,but your Military must be accounatble for their actions,otherwise they are no better than their enemies!To think yourselves above any laws,National or international is very arrogant,and very dangerous!

Correction, we and our military are not above the Constitution of the United States of America, hence our Nationals' laws. After all, if our military were very arrogance and very dangerous...what's the point of having a Judge Advocate General.

Argyll

08-14-2003, 01:11 PM

Chris1

08-14-2003, 01:53 PM

Chris, from your post,can I assume you no nothing about ROE's?
Unless you are Military or ex military the concept behind ROE will be difficult to understand,and I don't mean to be patronising.EVERY single soldier on the ground have ROE's,follow them,and you will not have a large bodycount and the worlds press at your throats branding the soldiers undisciplined,trigger happy,loose cannons!!
Firing into crowds,as has happened tends to favour the protestors despite the fact that they tend to use the volatile situation to their advantage!.
Speaking from experience as a 19 year old,standing behind a plastic shiels with a mob of 500+ throwing petrol bombs,stones ,and anything else they could get their hands on,is not for the faint hearted,it is very very unnerving,at the same time you must maintain discipline,and proffesionalism at ALL times,and maintain restraint,even when your mates have split skulls from these stones,that is what they are trying to do,is to antagonise the troops,to try and make them do something that they will use against them through the worlds media!

Budanski,
I hear ya,but your Military must be accounatble for their actions,otherwise they are no better than their enemies!To think yourselves above any laws,National or international is very arrogant,and very dangerous!
Yes I am aware of ROE's
Yes I have sat behind a thin piece of plastic while someone throws bricks at me... sometimes without the plastic! but my point was that if these guys are around an armed man during a gunfight, even if they are not in danger then from their perspective they are getting shot at, even though from the perspective of those doing the shooting they are not firing at them.
There are a lot of times when you can criticise the US for not adhering to ROE, but if I remember correctly even in the darker days of UNPROFOR if you were fired upon directly you could return fire.
We're not on about molotov cocktails and stones here, to quote the Original post

killing one civilian and wounding four after a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at themHow do we know the man killed was not the shooter?
We don't.

Pakrat

08-14-2003, 02:06 PM

It's easy to say you should have done this or that..were you there?..nope..so you don't know what happened..you have to take the medias side of it..as for me I was there when it started..and believe me when a round came into our AO..we responded..I know what you're going to say..unarmed crowd this or that..but agiatators hide among them..there's nothing wrong with a peaceful protest..but I have NEVER seen a peaceful protest in the middle east..do you think the iraqis protested when Saddam did something they didn't like??..the ones that did are taking dirt naps..lost out in the desert somewhere..they can protest now becase WE went in and changed things..which most of the world can't stand..so **** it..throw your **** and bitch away..I stand tall as a U.S. Marine and citizen!

Argyll

08-14-2003, 02:19 PM

If I remember correctly one of the main bugbears in Bosnia was that the ROE were very much adhered to,and that UK troops could only return fire on clearly identified targets!!
I gather you're an ex brit too,well our SOP's were to avoid confrontation with crowds with intent to do damage,if you were in no position to deal with it,a tactical withdawl to a sfae area,call out the QRF,and Standby Company who were better equiped to deal with crowds,how many times have ever heard of UKLF ,firing INTO crowds in rescent years,very very little,if ever,purely because if you broke the ROE without following the correct procedures you were fuc*ed big time!!
Yes your right to say perhaps the KIA was the shooter,but using crowds as cover is the oldest trick in the book!,and if you're not thinking about that then it can and inevitabley become a slaughter,as we have already seen this happen in places like Fallujah!If there was direct fire coming from the crowd,then the follow up investigations shold reveal empty cases lying around,and the actions would therefore be justified,as adhered to by the ROE/Yellow card!
If a SWAT/ARV team engaged targets ,using the same scenario as above,and the subsequent investigations found no evidence of an attack on them,they would be held accountable,and possibly charged!
If this is not the case there is no reason why a very pissed off squaddie,cannot simply shoot someone and say he "appeared to have a weapon sir ,so I dropped the mother!!"
Now more than ever the coalition need to show discipline and restraint,when confronted by angry protestors,otherwise I fear a major catastrophe lies in the waiting!!

Argyll

08-14-2003, 02:37 PM

Pakrat,your right I wasn't there,but if you'd taken the time to read my posts you would've read I've been in these situations!
You say you were there in the beggining,well I'll take your word for it,but at the start of the war the Objectives were very different from what they are now,then you were acting as a combat unit,these guys now are acting as peacekeepers/policemen,a whole new ball game,and that is where the difficulties lie.The transition from All out combat to Policemen/Peacekeeping,and now fighting a clandestine war is a fact!!
there's also no need to rattle on about Patriotism,and I hope when you refered to the WE,as to include tthe UK,Aussies and the Poles?
Stay safe Marine should you get redeployed!

butkus

08-14-2003, 03:19 PM

...IMHO disarming people is a good idea (maybe we should do it in ConUS too :P ), ...

Coming from across the pond, you're about 227 years too late with that idea Royal. :D

Seiyuuki

08-14-2003, 03:23 PM

Seiyuki,
So are JAG investigating ANY of the civilain deaths at present?
Are they investigating the shooting that involved the 10 people in a car?During the war,or will that be put down to a "war time" scenario?
Just curious thats all!
The trouble is these incidents are not within the United States,so therefore must they not fall into the International category?

How would I know, I'm not a JAG, how would you know, you're not a JAG.

The trouble is these incidents involved United States military, so therefore must they not fall into the JAG category?

We have our own tribunal to deal with the actions of our military, domestic and abroad, just as any other countries have their own tribunal to deal with their military. If a U.S. soldier decided on his own accord to kill 1, 10, 100 Iraqis...of course we're going to prosecute him in accordance to the due process of the UCMJ. If a British soldier decided on his own accord to kill 1, 10, 100 Iraqis...of course he's going to prosecute him in accordance to the due process of the British's UCMJ. If an Australian soldier decided on his own accord to kill 1, 10, 100 Iraqis...of course he's going to prosecute him in accordance to the due process of the Australian's UCMJ...and so on and so on...

The chance are that the ICC could potentially be a kangaroo court or a political court rather than one of laws.

martinexsquaddie

08-14-2003, 04:15 PM

The Icc is there to deal with war crimes not dealt with by local goverment
for example even MAI LI massacre which was a US war crime could'nt have been taken to the ICC as the Us military dealt with it.
The US refusal to back the ICC is Bull**** because they don't understand its role its not about point scoring its about real war crimes.

Saranof

08-15-2003, 07:05 AM

yeah well none of it matter because the US won't let its troops be prosecuted for warcrimes by the ICC....

The world seems to forget....

Our country, The United States of America was founded by poeple sick and tired of the way Europe was being run. They can have it.

So we created another country where Individual rights surpassed all other rights that the Europeans demanded of them.

So lest anyone believe otherwise, it will be a cold day in hell before our country or its citizens surrender its Constitution to the likes of the European Union, The United Nations, or Belgium.

If the EU and others want to form some super state while still holding individual votes in worthless bodies like the United Nations, fine by me.

But then stay the hell out of our way when we go to protect our interests, and quit being obstructionists.

Yeah, you took the words right out of mt mouth.
Our intrests. (This means taking over other countrys, if you didn't know)

But if the US is so good at what they do, do not commit war crimes ect, why don't they wanna be in the tribunal?
Feel kinda sorry for all you americans who have to live with hicks like budanski, who belives everthing he reans in "US Patriot daily"

SABER 2-3

08-15-2003, 07:19 AM

lefador1

08-15-2003, 07:27 AM

The United States Constitution is the only law of man that any American citizen answers to. All countries wishing to enforce their law on Americans acting under the U.S. Constitution should be encouraged to hold such trials in absention. And all countries wishing to go hands on w/ the above listed should be fully prepared to deal w/ the cost borne by such action.

It is a bit problematic as the US constitution only applies to the United States of America (mainland, Hawaii, Alawka, and associated territories). It so happens that the US constitution does not apply when you leave your country, you know? So you can not go to England for example, kill someone and tell the Brits to shove it up their arse because you are an American and you were acting under the US constitution.

Besides the US constitution deals with civilian law not Military law and rules of engagement.

budanski

08-15-2003, 08:14 AM

Yeah, you took the words right out of mt mouth.
Our intrests. (This means taking over other countrys, if you didn't know)

But if the US is so good at what they do, do not commit war crimes ect, why don't they wanna be in the tribunal?
Feel kinda sorry for all you americans who have to live with hicks like budanski, who belives everthing he reans in "US Patriot daily"

Right.... as I recalled a little while back, a belgian waffle court gave us
a cautionary ICC tale that resulted a lawsuit against Tommy Franks after
the war. The Belgian law's absurd history largely confirms the
administration's view that permanent international judicial bodies will be
exploited for political ends and inimical to U.S. interests. Anyhow, join it
if you want. If youre awaiting for the U.S. to join for its legitimacy,
don't hold your breath.

Remember. If you arrest and/or detain American citizens we will take them
back by force and raze the ICC buildings to the ground. Call it the
Hague Invasion Act (http://www.google.nl/search?q=hague+invasion+icc&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=nl&lr=) ;)

SABER 2-3

08-15-2003, 08:22 AM

Regardless of what people think military members are governed by the U.S. Constituion just like civilians. U.S. Code enables the use of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (the military equal to U.S. Code) for crimes commited by military members. Military members may also be tried by the civilian courts and regularly are, using you guessed it; the U.S. Constituion. As for the matter of murdering some one in another country the U.S. courts may allow for the host country to try you (not the usual protocal) but only w/ the representation afforded by the U.S. Constituion. If you were acting under the name of (officially) the U.S. flag we would not call it murder and we would not allow for host country penality.

Argyll

08-15-2003, 08:31 AM

Interesting post there Bud.
I seriously doubt any president would risk such an operation though!
You,whether you like it or not need a Europe,otherwise your economy would start to crumble,as you must export a pretty large sum of Moneys worth of goods into the EU?
The consensus here is about the way the US blatantly sticks it 1 or 2 fingers up to the rest of the world,about actions taken by the US outwith the USA.....I can sort of relate to that,but why then are you trying "Battlefield combatants" in Gitmo,and not in the Country of their capture,as I'm not familiar with you laws,I can't really understand why you would do this,now these guys are part of an International Orginisation,and surely this ICC or whatever it is ,has more authority to try them than the US,if this is so then why are the Captured Iraqis not under the same jurastiction,as they were engaged in combat against US forces?
Is there somewhere dumb limeys like me can read up on the legal issues regarding these "Battlefield combatants",as it must be quite an interesting read.....thanks!

SABER 2-3

08-15-2003, 08:47 AM

We have not taken any of those at Camp X-ray to trial and as of yet they have no body willing to take them back!

vryhpyammoadded

08-15-2003, 09:21 AM

What happened? Did some Fedayeen Saddam group plan a setup to fabricate this kind of event? Did some Iranian spec ops do it to worsen our credibility? Was it imported resistance fighters? Was it some psycho with a death wish or some punks showing off to their friends? Did a soldier get too jumpy? Or, did it start with a simple AD followed by escalation?
I wonder what the investigation will find?

A permanent war crimes court could end up a waste of money and too invasive of every nations sovereignty with the court quickly degrading into a stage for lawyers seeking fame and fortune as most governments ignore it.

I do see a need for an organization to clean up many of the worlds tyrants and warlords but a court, being somewhat useful at legitimizing things, wasn’t what I had in mind and I don’t trust anyone else other than the US or parts of Europe to do the clean up.

budanski

08-15-2003, 10:39 AM

Argyll,
There are several problems to releasing them.
1) They are illegal combatants not fighting for any nation. So no treaty or cease fire agreement relates to them.

2) Releasing terrorist and their supporters will NOT stop their terrorist activities. They are not subject to international codes or guidelines in their actions associated with terrorism. Once released they wll likely resume their terrorist activities.

3) Most nations do not want them back as they are classified by most of their host nations as undesirable. Add to the fact that there will be ones that are immediately relaeased by their country of orgin as having no grounds to hold them as they have not broken its internal laws.

Need legality?:
U.S. Supreme Court:
By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. . . . The enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are farmiliar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
Ex Parte Quirin in 1942, in which the Supreme Court approved, unanimoously, the trials of eight German saboteurs who entered the US in Long Island and Florida from submarines, trianed, funded and prepared to blow up US war facilities.

All eight were captured on the beach. None carried their plans into action. One, named Haupt, claimed to be a US citizen. All eight were convicted. The two who turned state's evidence received life sentences. The other six were executed.

The name of the Quirin case has never passed the lips of Chairman Laehy of Senate Judiciary. He regularly quotes the Milligan case from the Civil War (1864) in which the Court said that Milligan could not be tried by a military tribunal. But in Quirin the Court noted that Milligan was charged with an ordinary crime, not an "act of war." So, the Civil War case did NOT apply to the WW II defendants.

Quirin is short, written in plain English, and unanimous -- virtues that have largely disappeared from modern Supreme Court decisions. Those interested in reading Quirin to see the state of the law for themselves can find it here (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html) . You will find two decisions -- a one-page emergency Order allowing the military tribunals to proceed, and a 20-page Opinion issued later that explained the reasons for that decision.

The short of it is that Democrats in Congress and their sycophants in the press are pretending that the Quirin case does not exist. Only in that way can they raise a phoney issue about constitutionality to attack the Bush Administration.

In short, the Administration is referring to these Al-Qaeda prisoners as "unlawful combatants" because that is the phrase used by the Supreme Court in Quirin in permitting such trials of defendants. As usual, the Administration is doing exactly what it should, and the lamestream media is clueless as to why it is proceeding as it is.

Also, I Found an interesting read from that side of the pond... here (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/08/13/dl1301.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/08/13/ixopinion.html) and one over here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/27/212434.shtml)

usa320

08-15-2003, 11:05 AM

Argyll

08-15-2003, 03:32 PM

Thanks Bud,its easy to see the can of worms scenario eh?Some very interesting stuff ;)
USA320,
This was one of many such incidents,that has occured,and will continue to occur as long as there is unrest within that country,it is not a new tactic,it's as old as the hills!!
Again I will say this,as difficult the situation is on the ground,if the ROEs are disciplined ,and adhered to,the innocent civilian deaths will be minimised,and again I ask you to take a good look at these guys brandishing the weapon(Sterling)there is no intent,it looks as if he was handed it 5 mins before,to attempt the US Forces to take the action they did,it looks like a classic set up,provoking a response,and then go crying to the world media,the more the wolves of the press see this type of incident,the more unproffesional,and undisciplined the Military is painted!!

martinexsquaddie

08-15-2003, 06:40 PM

lefador1

08-16-2003, 12:38 AM

The Belgium courtcase had nothing to do with the ICC
the ICC is not a political football its a no brainer really.
ITS SET UP FOR WARCRIME tRIALS MOSTLY 3RD WORLD DICTATORS ETC. nobody apart from the US belive its looking to ban yanks But you do have a gibbion as president what can the rest of the wrold expect

It is setup for war crime trials period, not just by 3rd world dictators. It so happens that having to comply with international law would put some of the current plans from this administration in a bit of an ucomfortable legal situation (as in lack of legality). Since we are the ones with the biggest stick, we do not need to sign no stinking laws! Only problem is that half of our moral authority dissapeared right there, the rest is slowly eroding with our current modus operandi. But we are the ones with the biggest sick yet, so that is all that matters it seems....

James

08-16-2003, 12:42 AM

Folks they didnt fire indiscriminately into the crowd with a machine gun-

One man was shot, presumably because he had a gun.

Boooohoooo. A guy yelling out crazy talk and waving around a machine gun got shot- even though it has been made clear of the consequences for carrying an assault weapon in Baghdad.

The man that was killed was apparently the same fellow who fired the RPG at our boys.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3185

SOG

08-16-2003, 02:57 AM

""""think about it...they're not just doing it to cause trouble, they're tired hungry, hot and angry...and muslims....you do the math.""""

whats changed in the past 3000 years? why nothing at all! you do the math! sounds like some frikkin kids screaming because the world wants to move on without em. great satan, allah, islam, god its getting old. all that hate for the past and the poor education of the present is whats killing them.

and stating air conditioners as one of the reasons as to why there angry is hilarious. most of em cant afford em and i lived in the desert (trona and ridgecrest CA ala death valley) without a air conditioner growing up no prob! (hell we couldnt afford ac growing up either!) if the pussies havnt learned to live with the heat by now they should move. a dry heat is easily tolerable. just be very glad it isnt humid and hot. youll go down like a sack of potatoes.

lefador1

08-16-2003, 03:10 AM

whats changed in the past 3000 years? why nothing at all! you do the math! sounds like some frikkin kids screaming because the world wants to move on without em. great satan, allah, islam, god its getting old. all that hate for the past and the poor education of the present is whats killing them.

Also the 12 year sanctions and the fact that we just invaded their country, that we destroyed their infraestructure doesn't have anything to do with that right? BTW Islam has been around for 1300 years....

and stating air conditioners as one of the reasons as to why there angry is hilarious. most of em cant afford em and i lived in the desert (trona and ridgecrest CA ala death valley) without a air conditioner growing up no prob! (hell we couldnt afford ac growing up either!) if the pussies havnt learned to live with the heat by now they should move. a dry heat is easily tolerable. just be very glad it isnt humid and hot. youll go down like a sack of potatoes.

They have lived in that country from thousands of years, in fact Babylon is the cradle of civilization, they surelly know how to live with heat. Amazing that someone could be so ignorant as to say otherwise.

Remember it was their country.... people tend to get a "little" pissed when other countries invade theirs, why is it so hard to understand for some of you?

budanski

08-16-2003, 03:16 AM

Yeah. They actually enjoyed living under a despot. Can't a guy enjoy a dip in the acid bath with one limb in the plastic shredder in peace? Jeez.

lefador1

08-16-2003, 03:28 AM

Yeah. They actually enjoyed living under a despot. Can't a guy enjoy a dip in the acid bath with one limb in the plastic shredder in peace? Jeez.

Oh really, wasn't that despot our buddy during the 80s? you know he was fighting the Iranians..... he was a swell guy during the 80s!!!!

Last time I checked this war was because that despot ahd WMD, not becasue he was such a bad guy. We should have finished him while we had a perfect chance, you know when Rumsfeld was Reagan's special envoy to Bagdag in the mid 80s. He met Saddam first hand, and he could have take him out then. I am pretty sure they really enjoyed the 12 years of economic santions that killed thousands of them, or the bombs and bullets we fired over them, they sure did enjoy that too. Right?

budanski

08-16-2003, 03:38 AM

lefador1

08-16-2003, 03:55 AM

Wow what a coup that turned out to be for the U.S during GW1 and GW2. Are we sure Rumsfield isnt a CIA operative? As you've been under a rock, at the time, Iran was the bigger threat. Its only natural we aided Saddam. **** like this happens all the time. You seem to only apply different standards to the U.S. My god, who was the U.S. fighting against in the Cold War? A WW2 ally?

LOL, I mean seriously? You still have not answered me, are we there because he was a bad guy or because he had WMD? I am getting confussed, so first he is the lesser threat so we support him, now he is the enemy... I am getting very entertained with all your tangential arguments. LOL!

So... we support that despot that was killing his own people, then we starve them to death to get rid of the despot, and then we invade their country to get rid of the despot while we bomb them to the stone age. And jeez you act all surprised that the Iraqui people may be a tad "annoyed"

Argyll

08-16-2003, 04:45 AM

SOG,
If you'd have looked closer,I used the Airconditioning as an example!,and how in the hell do you or I for that matter know that the Iraqis in Baghdad do not have a/c in their houses?I was using a quote from the Media.......,and from the reasons why they were rioting in Basra.
.......so you're comparing Ridgecrest CA,to that of Baghdad,I know zip about temperatures there,but I'll bet you when it was so hot........does it reach 130 degress there most days during the summer?,that if you wanted to cool down you just went into the fridge and took out a nice cold pop!!....how refreshing!.....No power also means no water!!!!
Also did you have a Tired and frustrated Foriegn Military presence in that region ?
You idiot...when the whole of the Eastren Seaboard went down,there was chaos,and confusion everywhere,you ask how the folks that were stuck in the subwayway felt in that heat,......the Iraqis,the very people WE went to free,have been suffering this for months!!!

budanski

08-16-2003, 10:16 AM

LOL, I mean seriously? You still have not answered me, are we there because he was a bad guy or because he had WMD? I am getting confussed, so first he is the lesser threat so we support him, now he is the enemy... I am getting very entertained with all your tangential arguments. LOL!

So... we support that despot that was killing his own people, then we starve them to death to get rid of the despot, and then we invade their country to get rid of the despot while we bomb them to the stone age. And jeez you act all surprised that the Iraqui people may be a tad "annoyed"

Like I said. You've been under a rock. This discussion has been raised numerous times on this board. Do a search before you ask. Here is a recap:

The reasons for liberating Iraq were and are listed in official and public record documents and sources. These included first and foremost:

1) Iraq's failure to honor their 1991 ceasefire agreement
2) Iraq's failure to honor all international violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring its complaince
3) Iraq's WMD program, including the refusal to disclose complete and accurate information on it
4) Iraq's support of international terrorism. Including Palestinian terrorist organizations like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezzbollah and others.
5) Iraq's continued engagement of coalition military forces in the no fly zones
6) Regime change. That has been documented as far back as the Clinton administration in 1998, and voiced publicly by the Bush administration since late 2001.
7) Removing a threat to the region
take your pick.

Were we there because he was a bad guy or because he had WMD?
Both.

Its not like the U.S. did a 180 on Iraq. They werent a member of the AoE til they decided to go after the Greater Iraq strategy which in turn conflicted with US interests, not to mention that GW1 was a U.N. thing.

Merik

08-16-2003, 12:27 PM

Are they investigating the shooting that involved the 10 people in a car

If Im not mistaken, and these were Iraqis in the car, every soldier has authorization to fire at a vehicle that they presume is a threat. They only have to shoot first and ask questions later if they think they are in danger.
The reason why is because the first week or so after major combat was declared over, several troops were killed by A)Car bombs at checkpoints and B)Iraqi militants in vehicles that were basically doing drive-by shootings. Those are the ROE's for that situation.

Seiyuuki

08-16-2003, 01:25 PM

Oh really, wasn't that despot our buddy during the 80s? you know he was fighting the Iranians..... he was a swell guy during the 80s!!!!

Last time I checked this war was because that despot ahd WMD, not becasue he was such a bad guy. We should have finished him while we had a perfect chance, you know when Rumsfeld was Reagan's special envoy to Bagdag in the mid 80s. He met Saddam first hand, and he could have take him out then. I am pretty sure they really enjoyed the 12 years of economic santions that killed thousands of them, or the bombs and bullets we fired over them, they sure did enjoy that too. Right?

Mecca = Holy city of Islam. Mecca = in progressive country of Saudi Arabia. Iraq = progressive Muslims. Iran = fundamentalist Muslims. Iran = love to have control of Mecca. Iraq = buffer from Iran to Saudi Arabia.

In the 80s...Iran = won the war. Iran = double in size. Iran = double in population. Iran = closer to Saudi Arabia. Iran = eventually double in military. When you're the most powerful in the region, what to stop you from overrunning Saudi Arabia and claiming Mecca? When you hate Western's influence...what to stop you from going further?

It was a matter of the lesser evil, with Iraq and Saddam, there was more influence and more control.

12 years of economic sanction and 12 years of oil-for-food. Where does Saddam get the money to rebuild his presidential palaces and build more? Why is it that power and resources are siphon from other cities to keep Badghad going? 12 years of oil-for-food and where have all the food gone?

Argyll

08-16-2003, 01:42 PM

Who else do you think was in the car,of course it was Iraqi's,it happened in IRAQ!!!!!.
The car was full of women and Children!!!!.........and thats bollocks about the ROE for that situation,the ROE's are not interchangeable.
Yes the US forces had suffered KIA's in Car bombs,but tell me this,you go to a foreign country,not knowing the language,and run into the back of a Police car,see if you can understand what the hell the Cop is saying!!
People panic.......its human nature!!.......Soldiers react/over react that is also thier nature.......I'm not disputing what happened,the point I was making that they killed NON-COMBATANTS!!!!.And with that would there be an Investigation as to why it happened.....was there braekdowns in communications ,were there warning given,how many round were fired,why no steps taken to immobilise the vehicle etc.
In the UK we have procedures for VCP's,and that includes having guys well forward ,and also well back in cover to act as cut off's,these guys can usually ID the vehicle occupants,we have incidents like this in Ireland on numerous occasions........all were investigated by SIB/RUC,and the appropriate steps taken

Seiyuuki

08-16-2003, 01:46 PM

Didn't one of the car shooting earlier in the conflict involved some Iraqi dissidents using a pregnant woman in a car as a shield while attempting to drive-by shoot some GIs?

Argyll

08-16-2003, 01:57 PM

I think that was the incident at the Dam,where a pregnant women was the bomber,and they killed 3 SOF guys!

lefador1

08-16-2003, 02:45 PM

Didn't one of the car shooting earlier in the conflict involved some Iraqi dissidents using a pregnant woman in a car as a shield while attempting to drive-by shoot some GIs?

No I believe they were using a car patched with newborn babies as armor....

lefador1

08-16-2003, 02:58 PM

Like I said. You've been under a rock. This discussion has been raised numerous times on this board. Do a search before you ask. Here is a recap:

You seem to believe that whatever is posted in this board equals the holy gospel of truth or something. Or that because it was said before I am supposed to agree with it?

Were we there because he was a bad guy or because he had WMD?
Both.

He definitivelly was a grade A son of a bitch but....so where are those WMDs? So we invaded a country and killed thousands because they had an asshole as a leader? Is this what we have been reduced to?

Its not like the U.S. did a 180 on Iraq. They werent a member of the AoE til they decided to go after the Greater Iraq strategy which in turn conflicted with US interests, not to mention that GW1 was a U.N. thing.

The "Greater Iraq Strategy" LOL!!!!! Wasn't he axis of evil set up in 2002? I assume that AoE stands for Axis of Evil (BTW 2 points define an axis, 3 define a plane.... LOL)

Seiyuuki

08-16-2003, 03:17 PM

He definitivelly was a grade A son of a bitch but....so where are those WMDs? So we invaded a country and killed thousands because they had an asshole as a leader? Is this what we have been reduced to?

U.S. killed thousands...thousands of what? Did someone happily murdered thousands of women and children in Iraq and the world press didn't pick it up or something??? "grade A son of a bitch"...So we let a despot continue his antic? Is this what we have been reduced to?

Argyll

08-16-2003, 03:32 PM

I think he means the "collateral damage" caused by the coalition,which some places has the figures up around the 2k mark!
I can think of plenty of other despots that the US and the West have shown appeasment to for a lot longer than Saddam Hussein.
Why have the USA not invaded North Korea,who has a despot leader ,who's also a threat to Global security,and posses WMD,and has threatened to use them?......a case of double standards perhaps...or a case of appeasment........or maybe the US casualty rate will be too much for the voters to stomach?.

Seiyuuki

08-16-2003, 03:40 PM

Argyll

08-16-2003, 03:49 PM

Seiyuuki

08-16-2003, 04:03 PM

What has neighbouring countrie,or boredering countries got to do with it,you have Syria,Iran,Saudi,Kuwait around Iraq,so whats the point about South Korea?
I do think its double standards ,as the NK's are telling the whole world to Fu*k off,and mind their own business,and they are,Iraq said the same thing and look what happened!!

The double standard is being against actions against Iraq while supporting diplomatic avenue, yet, urging for actions against N. Korea. The world was against the U.S. for action in Iraq without "internaltional support," we work with the world to deal with N. Korea and we're blame for double standard by not doing enough.

SOG

08-16-2003, 04:07 PM

SOG,
If you'd have looked closer,I used the Airconditioning as an example!,and how in the hell do you or I for that matter know that the Iraqis in Baghdad do not have a/c in their houses?

ah, great example. im sure all houses in the middle east have AC. in fact very time i saw a interview on the news anywhere in the middle east i didnt see any ac in the windows so golly, every house must have built in full AC! i know they could afford that. sorry using lame ass examples to further your reasoning is less than credible, specially if there based from the MEDIA. because we know theres not a agency out there that doesnt play thier politico card huh?

I was using a quote from the Media.......,and from the reasons why they were rioting in Basra.

the reason thier rioting? how about 100 years of force fed propoganda? how about thousands of sect religions focusing on ridding the world of the great satan? how about every country around them hates us too and would love to get thier shot? egypt, siria, iraq iran, jordan. hell kuwait has probably reverted back to the good ol middle east mentality. sure if a foreign power invaded us for our own well being wed be up in arms. you know why? have you seen the people walking around the US lately? drunk, pussied craving, depressed, no nothing zombies. hell, half my friends vote on the "if he gets tail ill vote him in" policy. america is stocked with idiots. now flip that around. why wouldnt iraq with its "great education system" be stocked with ill informed idiots also? whens the last time the public was well informed about anything? so saying some ****ty power failure is the reason thier rioting is ridiculous. stating what the media spews is ignorant. you know that and i know it. iraq is full of misled peons who are raging against a enemy turned ally who is still a enemy. america would do the same. im not saying were any better. but trying to ploy off some bull**** trash pickup, no electricity is just weeeeeeek. sure it makes life hard. riot? cmon, get out and help the community, oh no that would make sense, i think ill riot and stir everything into a wee jack nip frenzy. BULL****. same ol crap, jus a different excuse. they have been rioting and protesting and plotting and planning for how long? and because the media covers it, oh well this is new!

.......so you're comparing Ridgecrest CA,to that of Baghdad,I know zip about temperatures there,but I'll bet you when it was so hot........does it reach 130 degress there most days during the summer?

yes, welcome to death valley. gee, wonder why its named that? beyond me...... maybe its hot or something.....

that if you wanted to cool down you just went into the fridge and took out a nice cold pop!!....how refreshing!.....No power also means no water!!!!

once again you glossed over how tolerable heat is and are you saying the whole country is the same tempature? right. and yeah, uhmmm drinking a soda, wow, that really gets rid of the heat for about a whole 5 minutes. your right, how refreshing!

Also did you have a Tired and frustrated Foriegn Military presence in that region ?

were frustrated? i thought we were doing our job and making headway into helping iraq? anyone? have we totally balled out and are just sitting there in the heat with our guns doing nothing? sure were getting pop shot at. sure we have some sabatuers running around from the previous regime or the ever present "hate america" gang. but are we really just sitting there frustrated doing nothing? id be curious as to where you read this? sure frustration comes iwth any job. that what makes it a job? so i assume instead of stating the obvious your hinting at some greater frustration like a block of some sorts? well please inform me as my media is so commercially run.

You idiot...when the whole of the Eastren Seaboard went down,there was chaos,and confusion everywhere,you ask how the folks that were stuck in the subwayway felt in that heat,......the Iraqis,the very people WE went to free,have been suffering this for months!!!

oh right, because before, iraq was the land of oz where everyone must have had AC! they must have slipped from thier AC homes into all thier AC diesel mercedes. like i said iraq (as well as america is stocked full of idiots who are just looking for ANY excuse (la riots) to take out thier own pent up misery on what they consider the nearest tool. sure if you add in, no electricity, a few hundred years of hating the great white infadel (europe to america) a previous war (gulf war uno) in which we killed thousands of hostile iraqi's (fathers and sons) and the general muslim/middle east view of us and our dealing with say, gee, i dont know, israel? wow, i think its just more than, omg, i dont have electricity! you think? nah, cuz i know if i had to change my life and work to rebuild my nation id say nah, phuck that, im gonna riot and kill because that makes more sense. cmon.

here, repeat after me,

in general, when people are confronted with a good or bad descision they do what? when they build debt, weight, smoke, drugs, take the easy way out, they do what? its human (and american) nature not to do the right thing. winston churchhill said what? when americans have exhausted all posibilities they will do the right thing? (paraphrase, sorry) what makes you think a bunch of non educated iraquis wouldnt do the same?

SOG

08-16-2003, 04:21 PM

Why have the USA not invaded North Korea,who has a despot leader ,who's also a threat to Global security,and posses WMD,and has threatened to use them?......a case of double standards perhaps...or a case of appeasment........or maybe the US casualty rate will be too much for the voters to stomach?.

or maybe because they actually HAVE nukes. hmmmm, iraq, no nukes, korea, nukes. hmmmm...... we invade iraq, someone might pop some gas. we invade Nkorea, well gee they might incinerate a city in seconds. maybe the whole WMD thing was a bull**** just to get us into iraq. beats me. but comparing the two from a military standpoint is HORENDOUS!

gee inavade another country where they can have briefcase nukes and diesel mini subs with tact nukes. right, just a small difference between invading iraq and getting gassed or invading Nkorea and getting turned into glass. case of double standards or appeasemant? common sense anyone? no, you forgot that one didnt you? always forfeit that to push your case dont you?

hey if bush cried wmd and its BS, i think thats wrong, am i going to lose any sleep over it? i still think wasting saddams regime was a pretty cool deal. if you dont, cool, but could you at elast stop being so overly biased? gee, the americans are doing something, it must be wrong or horribly wrong because in my eyes they can do no good. can you at least be subjective and possibly ask someone why invading Nkorea with a well known nuclear program and a very big army with quite a few vets wouldnt be a good idea to invade? you can see many differences between the two countries on a military level? like the US is the only country that has BS politics? oh its the US, we have to make a big deal of it.

Argyll

08-16-2003, 04:23 PM

Ok then smartass.......seeing as you apparently know all the answers.
Tell me why the Iraqis were rioting in Basra last week

100 years of force fed propaganda.........elaborate please as you obviously don't know the history of Iraq!Saddam Hussein came to poer in the 60's

As for your continued denial that perhaps some media happens to be right,just shows you that you are the one that is in denial.I certainly don't agree with all of it ,but they all can't be wrong.....jesus even CENTCOM was telling the world BS at times,I'll bet you believed all of their briefings then?

Of course the troops are frustrated,they were told they'd go home as soon as the war was over,it'll never be over,simply because of these extremist around the world,never mind Iraq!!They are trying to do a job that they're not trained for.........that of Policing!!They're soldiers not Diplomats or Policemen.

And get this buddy it is not just America that's over there,and who helped remove saddam!

As for the Korean thing well..........time will tell!

SOG

08-16-2003, 06:16 PM

Ok then smartass.......seeing as you apparently know all the answers.

well if thats your opinion of me, thank you :)

Tell me why the Iraqis were rioting in Basra last week

i did several times? you no reeeedy?
im sorry i just thought u made it sound like it was because main faculties were down. i think that was the tip of the iceberg, but hardly the underlying pent up agression. did i mention kill thousands of thier sons and fathers in the 1st gulf war? did you manage to catch that post? you missy missy? ah, so sahry.

100 years of force fed propaganda.........elaborate please as you obviously don't know the history of Iraq!Saddam Hussein came to poer in the 60's

im sorry did i mention saddam? NO. did i say saddam? NO. did i mention his regime? NO. thus where doth you draweth saddameth into my inclusion? to make me look bad by putting words in my mouth? perhaps. why would i even concieve that saddam was responsible for a 100 years of force fed propoganda? once again, nothing in that very large paragraph of mine mentions saddam. thanks for ass-uming.

here let me in all my smart-ass-ness explainy.

you have a very religious country. wow lots of countries in the middle east are overly very religious. im not talking talking the talk either im talking on thier bended knees to mecha.(spelling, strong point of mine it is not). now back in the middle ages, who controlled wars? who controlled power? who controlled a zealous fevour to a cry to arms? (im talking euro history for those who didnt catch the shift) why the church of course. if you look at the middle easts history, they have been overly control and fed what to think and eat by who? the "church". (or whatever you call the local cleric elder priest. now when politicians come along, how do they get control? appeal. how do they appeal? the church. if you control or align your views with the most highly indoctrinated force in the country you assume total power. ala saddam. what you do afterwords by force is your own perusal.

you have a group or set of countries (middle east) that has been exploited by the europeans and the americans for centuries. you have had leaders for centuries who have dealt with israel, europe and america, and in turn they preach we are pure evil and infidel to the bone. so it doesnt matter how well you treat a country or if you try and help it, the fact remains they have had thier hearts hardened against you (for actions becoming or unbecoming pending your view) and all they know is hate for you. all they know is you contradict thier religion, all they know is thier leaders for centuries have hated you (for good reasons or not), and slowly but surely america has become thier number one target over the years. with many radical groups progressing into terrorist cells, and with our dealings with israel whom every mid east country hates(religion connection again, very old enemies), with abuse of sides in the cold war we were coming into a lose lose situation period. now i think thats admirable because instead of bush ignoring a easily overly negative war that will be presented to us by a overly liberal media, he says screw it, sweeps in and does the job. (jr not senior i am reffering to)

is it too big of a job? i dont know. is it possible to rebuild a iraq with a free media to at least break up some of the hard liner views? i dont know. its possible as soon as we split the iraquis will revert to what theyve been indoctrinated with for hundreds of years. if they all had pentiums we all be playing starcraft and killing each other online instead of in "real time". i think thier overall refusal to open up, to incorporate other nationalities, to be the bigger man with enemies (israel included) and just stop the years of nothing but hot hate maybe they would change.

As for your continued denial that perhaps some media happens to be right,just shows you that you are the one that is in denial.I certainly don't agree with all of it ,but they all can't be wrong.....jesus even CENTCOM was telling the world BS at times,I'll bet you believed all of their briefings then?

i never said all the media was wrong. lemme check my post again...... nope, not there. i said they play political cards? ala they give you half the story then there view of what is right instead of, oh i dont know, doing the job and, hmmm, telling me the news instead of ending every news bite with a "biased editorial". ah, and yes once again, insinuating i think something to make me look bad. well my opinion of the "centcom" briefings was, well, i didnt think much of them. but of course, since i represent a opposing opinion i must be naturally against verything you are for? just curious. but no, the cent com briefings were lame, over produced (flat panel tv'ees and all that curtain ****) it was what i considered a joke, a media whore house, a full hollywood production, with bits of boring information and very little usefull information integrated into the carefully written updates. at the end of them i expected a "you are watching a fox presentation" logo. utterly, dull and pre scripted. as you can see, i have a unhealthy interest in the military for not being in the military. centcom briefings with some general jawing on, id rather listen to dan rather talk about his ranch quite frankly.

Of course the troops are frustrated,they were told they'd go home as soon as the war was over,it'll never be over,simply because of these extremist around the world,never mind Iraq!!They are trying to do a job that they're not trained for.........that of Policing!!They're soldiers not Diplomats or Policemen.

thats odd, i swear i just read our troops are staying for at least a year? i know some went back, gotta make kiddies and pet the wife, but overly i could have swore i just read we will have soldiers stationed there for at least one year. was that here that i saw that post? anyway, im sorry, i thought by "frustration" you were talking about job results. im sure our boys are felling a bit frustrated but i do consider it a step up to gulf war 1 you know? kick the enemy in his pants, run up to his doorstep, shake your fist then let him live to fight another day. what a screw up huh? then again another deeper side to that would be, give the iraqis a bloody nose, let saddam do damage control as to why they invaded a country for no reason and were slain in return, then come in to iraq at a later date, remove saddam when he has abused them more and led them into a failed war, i think maybe a few of them did the math and said saddam is bad news, so is the usa, theyll get saddam out then leave and were back to being normal? eh just ponderings i guess. was it FDR who said nothing in politics just happens?

also i thought this was GREAT closure for gulf war vets who wanted to get down with saddam. tada! and now were rebuilding. did i miss something else? should we still be in hardcore fighting? hey, i believed the media when they said the majority of it was over, i have no clue else what a soldier would be frustrated over for not being able to do there that wer are still doing? were still hunting saddam and fugitives in afgany, were rebuilding and pumping millions into iraq (yeah, prolly for oil), is there something else? i have no clue, i aint a soldier.

and yes i know mah boys in tiger stripes aint police, yes i know they werent trained to do crowd control, and yes i know as the gunny says "we want killers!". then again i never said contrary so i have no clue why you bring it up?

And get this buddy it is not just America that's over there,and who helped remove saddam!

never said we did it alone. youd have to be blind not to see the crap tony blair took for the usa to come along. i dig the guy. not only that but there were 20 or 30 countries? that sided with us in the UN and uh, gee, the media forgot to blair that out, but the sure caught the local cluster **** sitting outside a marine base yelling at moms taking thier kids to school for being married to baby killers and if the moms couldnt here em, they sure saw the sign waving. i was tempted to run the phucker over. yes there is a point when personal freedom is crossed and its when i see red.

hey, small edit' from another topic here:
Canada will contribute about 1,900 troops to the mission in the Afghan capital later this summer, making the Canadian contingent the second largest in ISAF. Currently this mission involves about 5,000 troops from 29 nations.
Photo by Sgt Frank Hudec, Canadian Forces Combat Camera

bingo, how many nations? 20-30 did i say? i hate the MEDIA. they hide this little fact like some dirty back alley secret. whats that? a boatload of other countries back the US? quick hide!

then again i have no clue why you brought up americas allies in the current war since i never stated they werent there. but if your feeling left out i might possiboly amend to your needs.

As for the Korean thing well..........time will tell!

dood, korea could have been a media blitz to overdrum the doom of the war, hell, bush coulda called crazy kim and told him to put on a show for cnn. or it could be overly real, or it could be a old man feeling his oats before he goes senile either on the Nkorea side or the america side. i dont think anyone is gonna do anything about it but small political manuevering with very small tidbits popping up in the news.

now if you can excuse me, im off to watch operation dumbo drop, for i can only afford basic cable :) no wait, that sucks :(

Argyll

08-16-2003, 07:45 PM

SOG,
I'm a little bit confused by your postings,some of them are really very good,and interesting,and totally agreable,but some others are just plain nuts!!
As far as 1000's of religious sects within Iraq,they are split Sunnii Muslims and Shi'ite(Spelling?)as the 2 main Muslim faiths within Iraq which fundamentaly splits the country into 2 main parts,with Saddam being a Sunni and the areas around Baghdad being sunni too,so it would be natural for them to have a more favourable view of Saddam and his regime.Now I'm not saying that there are not more religions within Iraq.....but 1000's I doubt!
Now you're going back in time to the crusades and saying it was the Church's fault,well they kicked ass back then too I guess.....but in the 20th century,most Middle Eastern countries had Royal Families,and were pretty supportive of the West,and in fact seemed to get along with the Western Culture pretty well.and vice versa.But some of your points are way off about exploitation etc
But here is a detailed timeline for your perousal,I must admit its is pretty good,and it gives a little more insight into that troubled region

http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm

Seiyuuki

08-16-2003, 07:51 PM

Some of the borders in the Middle East were set by the British when they were still a world empire without any regard for tribal and religious diversion.

Can we blame the British too for the mess in Middle East??? :lol: p-)

Argyll

08-16-2003, 08:06 PM

Definately!!!!
And I would go as far as to say that perhaps we caused 90% of the problems from 1917!!

James

08-16-2003, 11:53 PM

Merik

08-17-2003, 12:11 AM

Seiyuuki

08-17-2003, 02:06 AM

Did the British empire lasted longer than the Roman empire?

I can remember the old saying, "The sun never set on the British empire," or something to that effect.

SOG

08-17-2003, 03:13 AM

I'll second that, you British ba&@ards. You should be ashamed for what you did BACK IN 1917 (were you around then, Argyll?).

SOG,

I kind of lost track of what you were arguing for or against in your posts. Did you support going to war in March? I did not. Do you support the effort that is taking place now? I do. Just curious. Please try to answer in ten sentences or less.

to tell u the truth about going into the war, i have no clue. maybe the END result of our actions will mean a less hostile iraq in the future. if not then we in the ****. its nice to take a bastard out (saddam) but time will tell if we end up with a better iraq than before. i think the end result will either justify the war wholly or make the US look as stupid as hell and just playing political games as usual. but if iraq chills and becomes a better place with more freedoms and gets more into the rest of the world then the fact would be the war was justified (wmd, terrorist BS or not) and someone has some serious planning power in a deep dark hole on capital hill.

effort taking place now aka fixing what we ****ed? of course. then again i think the iraqis just want us the hell out. sticky as hell.

SOG

08-17-2003, 03:16 AM

100 years of force fed propaganda.........elaborate please as you obviously don't know the history of Iraq!Saddam Hussein came to poer in the 60's

It's my understanding that he was only in POWER for about 20-something years.

sort of. i think argyll was eluding to saddams rising through the ranks in which he actually started to acumulate power there. sort of like a overpowering general or something. from what i heard saddam was pretty much running the show anyway and just sealed the deal with some blood to make his power official. so yeah title wise it was about 20 years but saddam just didnt like, fall into the power, he built into over a period of time prior his 20.

lefador1

08-17-2003, 03:48 AM

Did the British empire lasted longer than the Roman empire?

I can remember the old saying, "The sun never set on the British empire," or something to that effect.

No, the roman empire lasted over 7 centuries, the British one barelly three.

I believe that saying was originally applied to the Spanish empire during the period they had joined with the Portuguese in the XVI century.

irishmike21

08-17-2003, 04:44 AM

You know what i say i say leave them to do what they want and watch them destroy themselves and all starve to death everyone says its their country its their country their is so much power struggle in that country and so many different factions taht if we left the country it would be in civil war the next day they are doomed without foriegn aid and i say F*CK THEM leave them to do what they want im sick of the us giving a **** about a country that is shooting our young men and women everyday for tryign to rebuild it its bull**** im starting to go from pro war to anti just because of the kind of bull**** happening over there its nonsense leave them and wathc them self destruct give them what they f*cking want!! and watch as the country burns to the ground

Royal

08-18-2003, 08:34 AM

'The sun never set on the British Empire' refers to the fact that it covered parts of both hemispheres, so literally it was always daylight in some part or other of it.

Yes, we are repsonsible for drawing most of the relevant boundries (mostly a guy called Chuchill, I believe).

As to the rest, frankly I can't be arsed to argue...

James

08-18-2003, 01:55 PM

Yes, we are repsonsible for drawing most of the relevant boundries (mostly a guy called Chuchill, I believe).

Wow! It has become clear! This is all Britain's fault! That is a load off of my shoulders... :P