U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians
 

A Reuters reporter and cameraman were filming a report in front of a crowd which had gathered around a Bradley fighting vehicle which had been damaged several hours previous. While filming, U.S. helicopters showed up and fired into the crowd.

From a Telegraph article:
From Another article:

This story, and the others like it, makes me ill. I think it's a safe bet that Bush is responsible for far more innocent civilian deaths in Iraq than Saddam ever was. Meanwhile, Osama sits comfortably in a cave somewhere while Bush is busy using his military for a personal agenda.

I know this topic has been beaten to death, but once in a while something truly appalling happens that reminds me how misguided and unspeakable our president's actions have been. God, I hope he isn't re-elected.

Sounds like a retaliation strike. If I read correctly, one piece says that 2 US soldiers were killed in the initial ambush, the other says no death, only "slight" injuries to the soldiers. Either way, the official US line was to destroy the vehicle for the safety of civilians, the reality was probably to get back in there and strike hard where the insurgents live and work. The result is perhaps some insurgents hit and some"collateral damage". And more escalation fuel for Iraqi terrorist/insurgent recruiters. I'm not sure if this war has claimed the lives of as many civilians or political opponents yet as Saddam, but these strategies suggest we're not close to being done.

I want strong, SMART leadership now. Change will not jeopardize this mission any more than it is already in jeopardy. I think changing leadership would give us a chance. A new shot at rebuilding our alliances, our global support, strengthening our national resolve and implementing more sensitive (yes!), smart, and effective approaches to this complex crisis.
Note to Toby Keith: The liberating boot in their ass policy isnt working as planned.

The report I heard said it’s standard policy to destroy any abandoned property to deny the enemy use of anything that’s still viable. You can’t tell civilians without a program.

The report demonstrates that US soldiers cannot even recover equipment from Baghdad streets. But we are winning this 'war on terror'? Begs a question: who are the terrorists? Reporters? Baghdad civilians? Streets even in Baghdad are too unsafe for US or Iraqi troops? Yet reporters have been saying this. Every month, Iraqi cities have become more unfriendly to Americans. Most every town north and west of Baghdad is now outside of US control. Only those echoing administration spin have not heard this.

it is standard procedure to scatter any crowds away from damaged military equipment using whatever means necessary. the equipment has to be destroyed so that no hardware falls into unfriendly hands. the moral of the story is stay the hell away from US military equipment.

The chopper pilots should have been able to easily see that there were news crews on site; if not on the initial run, then on subsequent runs.

Arrogance is being demonstrated. I'm not sure that is smart. Arrogant little pricks usually get their clocks cleaned by someone meaner and dumber sooner or later.

They intentionally fired missiles into a crowd of innocent civilians without warning, under orders. That is fucked up. Labeling something "standard procedure" does not make it ok. There are many ways the pilots might have tried to disperse the crowd before opening fire, but they didn't... they went in, guns blazing.

Shortly after Bush was elected, the Onion published a "humorous" article about the sweeping changes Bush was going to bring for the U.S., entitled "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over.'" Well, they recently updated the article by adding relevant links to certain phrases in the original text... makes it less funny, but more striking. It is disturnbing to consider how much of it's over-the-top mockery has come true.

So first retaliations are forbidden. The Geneva Conventions forbit retaliation attacks againt civilians. And a retaliation against military force is no retaliation but normal combat action.
As HP said already, even standard procedures have to be ok. You just can't fire on any target if you can injure or kill civilians, except, if your target is a legal military target. And it seems to me that an own, broke down tank isn't really a military target...

Telling the difference between combatants and civilians is a little difficult in Iraq. :confused:

I agree, but hten you have to presume that they are civilians... That are the rules.

Like Bruce said, telling the difference between combatants and civilians is difficult, if not impossible. They don't wear uniforms like our troops do and it's well known that these insurgents, or whatever you want to call them, will hide behind civilians and pop up just long enough to fire off an RPG or fire a few rounds at our troops. They don't play by the same rules as we are suppose to. Besides, the war has been going on long enough now that any civilian journalist should know by now what the US tactics are. Being near a recently damaged military vehicle is sure to draw fire to destroy it so stay the fuck away, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

BS - who is saying these were all innocent civilians? why would innocent civilians who want nothing to do with a fight be milling about a disabled US bradley? those we are fighting wear the same clothes as the civilians and have shown a willingness to put women and children in front of them in the hopes that the US wouldn't fire on women and children. in a guerilla warfare situation like what is going on over there, it might be fair to say that the folks messing around with a disabled bradley aren't trying to give it a jumpstart so they can deliver it to the US forces.

Well written spin. Standard procedure is to destroy or remove equipment before abandoning it. But when soldiers cannot stay to destroy equipment, only then is airpower used. Therein lies the problem. Even the streets of Baghdad are so unsafe. Soldiers could not stay to remove or destroy the Bradley. If George Jr told us the truth, then the Army had plenty of time to wait for a wrecker; to tow that Bradley out. But even in Baghdad, the streets are so unsafe that air power was required.

Standard procedure to spin facts when the truth is painful. lookout123 has demonstrated how to spin something into "It was their fault for being there". Reality: all of Iraq is slowly becoming unsafe for Americans. We cannot even provide electricity. Thousands of reconstruction projects - something over 90% - have been abandoned due to safety problems. This Bradely vehicle only demonstrates that even the Army could not even stick around to destroy or remove their equipment. It is not standard procedure to attack damaged equipment with helicopters. Is it also standard procedure to blame the victims for their own death? lookout123 did just that.

Even the Turkmen are now being called the enemy. US is now attacking the town of Talafar in northern Iraq - because even the north of Iraq has become fertile ground for insurgency. Last Friday (and little reported in the US) is this from Turkey as reported by the BBC: So why attack the Turkmen? Just another example of how things in Iraq are slowly moving just as VietNam some 30+ years ago when the United States also attacked a sovereign nation for no good or honest reason.

tw, i think we can agree that the only thing we can agree upon is that we cannot agree upon anything else.


now let's look at my real words. i didn't say that they put women and children in front of them in EVERY battle - i pointed out that they have shown a willingness to do it in some battles. my information is not from GWB or any neo-con press, i get a lot of my info from - as you like to say, from people "where the work gets done" - those that are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. I know people on the ground there right now. some rotated back stateside this weekend. I speak with these people about what they are encountering over there. Every one of them are pretty pissed about what they see on the news, because according to them, it isn't an accurate representation of what is really happening over there.


yes it would be. you absolutely do not let vital equipment, especially communications equipment fall into enemy hands. end of story. these people have been living in a warzone for more than a year now. before that they were under saddam's regime. the innocents know there are dire consequences involved in messing around with military equipment. this is not the first piece of equipment that was disabled, left behind, and then detroyed from above.
no one has stated how they know that these were innocent civilians just milling around the neighborhood, and not someone with less innocent intentions. does the media have anything to gain by presenting it the way it does? yes. if it bleeds it leads. US gunships killing innocent civilians minding their own business is a story. US gunships killing people trying to strip equipment from a Bradley is not a story. was there another way to destroy the bradley without risking the lives of US soldiers? i don't know, i wasn't on the ground. is it uncommon for equipment to be destroyed with airborne delvery? not at all. it is often the most effective and efficient means. but please, tell me how this is neo-con spin.

twisting the truth? who's truth, yours? your truth begins and ends with george jr lied. anything that is positive is ignored, anything negative is a devious plot by the neocons. you frequently take my quotes out of context and add words in, then accuse me of twisting the truth. tw, you obviously have an incredibly analytical mind and have a passion for self education but you have such hatred for gwb that you cannot see that there isn't a neocon behind every bush.
edit: (unintentional play on words) read "bush" as "wall".

Oh ok.... the helicopter pilots made a surprise attack on a crowd of people in a residential area just in case some of them were insurgents. With tactics like that, particularly when they are intentional, it's no wonder the reistance in Iraq grows daily. Having a loved one killed on their way to work because they made the mistake of walking down a street where damaged US equipment had been sitting for a few hours-- that will brew some powerful, justified hatred.

I agree with and understand the fact that we can't leave partially damaged military hardware sitting around for the enemy to pilfer. That's not the issue. The fact is that the pilots made no effort to clear the scene of innocent civilians before opening up. These people bleeding in the streets (look for heading "Civilians Killed As Dawn Battle Erupts In Baghdad") are the same people we "saved" from Saddam, and here we are blowing them up unnecessarily, and without warning. Even circling once or twice before firing would have probably done the trick. What is it, exactly, we have liberated these people from?

I wouldn't believe anything a soldier told me, because I'm a soldier too. You don't have any battle experience or similar, don't you? Ever heard of battle stress an tunnel vision? There was a film (maybe ROE, don't know anymore), who sowed it quite clearly. The fact seeing an enemy doesn't mean that there really is one. Especally when they all wear the same clothes. You're just focusing and when you see only on thing fitting in your scheme of danger, you see it everywhere.
That doesn't mean, you are going crazy, but it is a problem in military operations. Trying to get a discipline in your troops before they use their weapons and not only firing in the heap.
And there's something else, military is a lot of talking and a lot of talking to people knowing shit about what happened. It's a very good feeling, when you can tell stories about what "happened" and everything is admiring you. And it's not easy for people coming home, when everybody is against a war you're fighting, so it's normal trying to defend yourself at home.
This doesn't mean that every soldier is lying, but believe me, I do it myself, unconsiously, knowing it isn't as tough as it seems.
So be carefull when hearing stories from a soldier, always.

here is the thing - we weren't there. we don't know how or why things went down the way the did. we are relying on the reporting that is made available to us. each person has an agenda.

did the pilots just wake up and decide they were going to wack some innocents today? maybe, but it doesn't sound like the actions of any of the pilots i know or have known.

was there some type of warning given that we aren't aware of? we have no way of knowing.

would circling a couple of times opened the helicopters up to rpg fire? we have no way of knowing.

were the people milling around the disabled bradley, on a street involved in a battle really innocent civilians? we don't know.

what i do know is that professional soldiers don't get off on killing people for no good reason. i know that it is a career ender to be found guilty of firing inappropriately. i know that most soldiers do their best to help people, not go out of their way to harm them needlessly. that is my starting point for looking at all incoming information. so i run what little info we have through my life's experiences and come up with the conclusion that A) we don't know all the details so passing judgement is inappropriate B) we will never know al the details unless you speak first hand with people that were on the ground and in the air and take multiple views into account. that won't happen because the military is not going to give interviews. bad shit happens in battle.


each person's experiences will cause them to look at the same info and come to a different conclusion. if your starting point is that gwb started the Iraq war as a neocon adventure and the military is full of incompetence and they have completely lost control of the situation, it would be easy to see the incoming info and decide that these were obviously innocent civilians minding their own business before they were ambushed and killed by a helicopter attack.

i know very well what you are talking about. i am in the military and have experienced what you are talking about. i take all stories with a grain of salt. the people i lend weight to are the ones i have known for a long time (before they went) and i know their tendencies in story telling. when you have multiple perspectives that are consistant - then there is reason to believe what you hear.

edit: to clarify - i am not approaching these people for stories of glory or anything of the sort. a portion of my job requires that i hear their stories.

The whole point of the thread is that this time, it was caught on film. Any viewer can see that the people milling about had NO visible weapons. They DID NOT fire at the helicopters when they appeared. Unless you want to try to leverage an absurd argument that tape is digitally altered with special effects, then we DO know these facts to be true. We DO know there was no warning from the U.S. helicopters. We don't have to ask anybody, we can see it for ourselves.

Tell me if you disagree with this statement, and if so, why?: In a residential area, when no weapons are visible, and there is no incoming fire... the crowd must be assumed to be comprised of civilians, and every effort should be made to disperse them before firing until/unless a threat is encountered.

I don't think the problem is that soldiers have a blood lust... I don't think they are motivated by hatred to murder innocent people. It's just a passive disregard for human life, and a war policy which supports that. This is evidenced by the filmed attack, many other unnecessary civilian casualties, the infamous prison photos, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

"If they appear to be Musilims, blow them up, because they might be enemies! Remember, today's survivor is tomorrow's insurgent, so leave none alive!"

here is the thing - we weren't there.

here's the other thing- We are responsible for their actions. We fund it, we select leadership who design policies, give orders and we take responsibilty for their actions by holding them accountable. So its our duty to at least try to understand what is going on and participate by helping make the best decisions and correcting misdirection. At least try to be aware of all who are dying on your dime. This is urban guerilla warfare. This is the messy situation everyone was worried about when Baghdad was invaded. We arent facing a uniformed opposing army. And it certainly favors the insurgents.

I happened to read this today, From the Washington Post: A returning Marine corps Lt General Conway blasted the orders he was given by Sanchez and the Adminstration to pull Marines and send in the make-shift "Fallujah Brigade" when things got tense back in April. It served to create a robust no-go zone, aided by a lot of useful US gear.

Eventually, the 800 AK-47 assault rifles, 27 pickup trucks and 50 radios the Marines gave the brigade wound up in the hands of the insurgents, according to Marine officers. Marines manning a checkpoint on the city's eastern fringe were shot at by gunmen wearing Fallujah Brigade uniforms.

Nah, they get off on sexually abusing and humiliating prisoners. :rolleyes:

I love how people can take the actions of a few people and apply it to a whole group and justify what they generalize to that group as true. These people are in an incredibly stressful environment and you can do is criticize them all for the mistakes of a few. So.. how about you just shut the hell up and give these guys a little respect that they deserve. They are dealing with things that I pray to God that you and I will never have to endure, so the least you can do is not subjigate them to you're unfair generalizations and unneccessary attacks.

The whole point of the thread is that this time, it was caught on film. Any viewer can see that the people milling about had NO visible weapons.

HP, where did you see a copy of the video? I couldn't find any links in any of the articles.

There are a couple of crappy Real Video versions of it out there... I can't watch them on my work computer here, so I don't know exactly how crappy they are.

BBC Real Video
CBS News Real Video

There are probably better versions of it out there if you look hard enough.

HP - that video reiterates what i was saying. we don't know all that happened there. the reporter states that there had been heavy fighting all day. that street was involved in the fighting. a bradley was knocked out. iraqi's were celebrating at the location of the disabled bradley. we don't know what happened in the 60 seconds, 5 minutes, or 10 minutes before that short segment of video.

if the people that were milling around the were part of the forces that disabled the bradley, it wouldn't make sense to try to scatter them before launching. we have no evidence to say they were or were not a part of the force that disabled the bradley. in the end, it still stands to reason, it doesn't pay to hang out in a street where a battle just rolled through checking out disabled american equipment.

Neither did the helicopter pilots, who had just barely arrived. All they knew is that about three hours previous, one of their vehicles was disabled there. When the helicopters arrived, there was a street filled with people, some of them looking at the vehicle, some of them climbing on the vehicle, some of them just walking down the street; on their way to work, or home, or to the store. And what do the pilots do? They lob high explosives into the crowd.

We claim to be there to liberate the Iraqi people, and instead our forces needlessly and intentionally put their lives in danger every day. Our military's disregard for innocent lives in this instance is nauseating.

That's a great, big "if." Can murder be justified with something as limp as "we didn't know or sure that they weren't insurgents"? This attack took place three hours after the original exchange, and it stands to reason that the insurgents high-tailed it out of there once the Americans withdrew... that's how guerilla warfare works. No weapons were evident, and an RPG is pretty hard to conceal. So in all likelihood, while some of the people there may have hated America, it is unlikely that any of them were armed reistance fighters.

As I said before, I don't think the pilots were killing out of hatred, they just did something unspeakably stupid, and the military's casual disregard for the lives of Iraqi citizens means that no one will be held responsible. And that is fucked up.

So we recruit for the insurgents to protect equipment? If the equipment was so vital, then why did soldiers leave it? Why would they abandon vital equipment in a town that supposidely wants American liberators? This event demonstrates a major disconnect. Same disconnect that resulted in thousands of American lives sacrificed in VietNam.

If Iraqis wanted liberation as George Jr has said, then why would soldiers even with 'armor' abandon vital equipment. At a minimum, they could have removed vital stuff. Even tossed a few grenades inside. Soldiers and armor are suffering from increasing insurgency than even 3 months ago. The latter confirmed by other sources and demonstrated by this event. It suggests that administration spin is a lie.

Reporters, private contractors, and other nationals are saying this. Local temper is gently and increasingly becoming more anti-American. When a US helicopter does exactly what Israeli choppers do to Palestinians, then how do things get any better? When we start attacking even Turkmen, then who is left to be American allies? Using a missile to destroy vital equipment on streets containing civilians is only justified if the streets are full of unfriendlies. Obviously from the video, there were not masses of armed insurgents. So why would helicopters fire? Do we abandon equipment quickly - hope that choppers can destroy vital equipment later - because anti-American sentiment is that widespread even in Baghdad? Or was this and other events simply acts of cowboy chopper pilots?

No we will not agree because I have long been warning about this Iraqi war. It is proceeding as predicted The expression from the military was "200,000 troops and 2 years". What has changed? The military was apparently correct. Almost 2 years later with insufficient troops and things are worsening.

These posts were about 1 year ago. Please feel free to demonstrate any positive progress since then in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Some details were inaccurate. But please show me, UT, where things got better one year later. Iraq continues to slowly worsen as predicted. Number of insurgents have doubled. Where is a solution? Where is the exit strategy? Where is all this international support? As I predicted, based upon both knowledge and previous experience, we now stew in our own juices.

No we still will not agree because what I said then still applies today. I did not believe a lying president and his "mission accomplished" nonsense. Facts then predicted things will get worse. And so they have. So bad that soldiers even abandon vital equipment in the streets.

I have nothing to apologize for. Iraq is going just as it should considering the lessons of history - ie 1960s Vietnam. lookout123 does not have that perspective. Things are slowly getting worse as insurgents recruit even more soldiers thanks to helicopters firing missiles on civilians and TV reporters. Our Iraqi allies will not even fight - just as in Vietnam. The administration claims these were only isolated incidents or a result of insufficient training? Bull. Its called spin to deceive the American public. Having been here 30+ years ago, the expression is Deja Vue. As noted previously, lookout123, your perspective is not tempered by having lived through these same 'accidents' and listening to your predecessors making the same claims. These problems directly traceable to the president and his administration. No exit strategy. No strategic objective. Reasons for political violence remain. No political solution. Even total ignorance of SzeTsu's 500 BC lesson - Art of War.

We will never agree if you deny these facts. Your perspective will not permit you to admit that both Iraq and Afghanistan are slowly worsening - just like Vietnam. Both wars (Iraq and Vietnam) having been staged on presidential lies. Both wars conducted without a smoking gun. Its called "Making of a Quagmire". It starts with a lying president. When do we recall the movie "Wag the Dog". It applies.

I stand by my comments made so many years previously. What we have today and in lookout123's reponses were predictable. Deja Vue.

They are not really critical of soldiers. The soldiers are in this mess directly due to top management. A situation that will not improve under this administration.

How to support the troops. Eliminate their biggest problem. A president that refuses to provide troops with a workable strategic objective, an exit strategy, or a political solution. What is a soldier suppose to do when the president even lies about this as being a 'war on terror'. Hell. I don't see Al Qaeda or bin Landen in Iraq. What I do see are many people who resent American occupation for good reason. Soldiers placed in a classic 'no win' situation.

Please show me 1+ years after this unilateral invasion - where have things gotten better. Violence and death have increased. Eliminate the myths such as UT's Rape Rooms, WMDs, and aluminum tubes. We are left with an Iraq that will continue to worsen as long as America remains militaristic and intransigent. Ie. solving problems with helicopters and missiles. Support the troops. Given them a leader who actually has a brain instead of an agenda. Unfortunately, just like in Nam, the military becomes a victim of the president's personal agenda.

Yeah, don't you just hate that? I hate that too! I hate it when people take one morsel of information and blow it out of proportion. Makes my skin crawl! It would appear the little rolleyes icon totally slipped by you. Maybe I should have used this one :lol: instead? If I had said "SOME of them get off on sexually abusing and humiliating prisoners" would you have felt better? It'd be more accurate, I suppose.

I do give the Boys and Girls the respect they deserve when they deserve it. I have plenty of military in my family so I'm huzzahing for them and their companies left and right. Respect is given where respect is due and frankly, it's not due for all of them. Wouldn't wanna be in their place, of course, but that's a different can o' beans.

Sad story.

There was a detailed writeup and pictures in the Guardian yesterday of this incident which backs this up entirely, when he arrived there were wounded and a burning bradley, soon after the choppers arrived and opened fire on the crowd repeatedly despite the lack of any arms or return fire and continued to do so except when ambulances were collecting the dead and dieing. The US is losing in Iraq, fast. If they think they can bomb slums into submission with airpower they're kidding themselves.

There was a snippet from a father at a funeral from his son I saw the other day, translated as "we want to support the US but how can when they they kill our families and destroy our homes". How can they? The country is a mess, no security, no safety, nothing is any better, every day people are dieing in increasing numbers. The US seems to be slowly pulling back, more and more 'no go zones' controlled by militas and criminals, more use of air power rather than on the ground work.

tw, I do believe that both Iraq and Afghanistan are worsening. Newsweek's report this week was pretty bad. The details listed in this massive PDF from the Center for Strategic and International Studies are sobering. We don't know whether this is part of a change in operations as control shifts from the Americans to the Iraqis. But it's not good in any case.

However, I will always refuse to play any sort of "Ooh, I told you so" game with you because:

A) It's uncivil;

B) you would lose, because you have a lot more predictions on the boards and, like mine, 50% of yours are wrong;

C) you refuse to read my posts clearly and continue to unfairly characterize me with whatever stereotype you have of me in your head;

D) it discourages future conjecture, which is kinda what this place is all about.

Appreciate why UT might be touchy about games of "I told you so". He parroted the George Jr party line even about aluminum tubes. But this is not a game of "I told you so". This is a discussion about using facts verses ideologoly and political rhetoric (ie how to solve the Iraq mess). Posted a year ago were statements that would become true because they were based upon fundamental principles and historical experience. Principles that George Jr and his neocon supporters denied back then and today.

For example, one blunt, basic, fundamental, irrefutible concept is the smoking gun. Going to war without a smoking gun is wrong and simply stupid. Yet neocons who have perverted 40 years of American foreign policy decided to unitlaterally attack any nation that might, sometime, maybe, in the future, become a threat. The concept is called pre-emption. It is dangerous. It is wrong as proven by history. It is wrong as proven in Iraq.

Again, there is no "I told you so". Accurately predicted by first learning lessons of history is what would happen in Iraq. So much in Iraq is exactly what we should have learned from VietNam.

Returning to the original sentence. I simply demonstrated what happens when one first learns history. These posts were about 1 year ago. Please feel free to demonstrate any positive progress since then in either Iraq or Afghanistan. But please show me, UT, where things got better one year later. Iraq continues to slowly worsen as predicted. Number of insurgents have doubled. Where is a solution? Where is the exit strategy? Where is all this international support? As I predicted, based upon both knowledge and previous experience, we now stew in our own juices. Obvious even one year ago because we attacked without a smoking gun.

Kudos to UT for providing that study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It does what the current administration would not do - because Clinton would do it. The study defines metrics for nation building. Those opposed to nation building must ignore or now fear metrics. Why fear? Because things continue to deteriorate in Iraq as they did one year ago. So instead we deny the numbers. In part because the administration more promotes and therefore believes their own rhetoric.

But again, I can understand how UT is touchy about anything that might be construed as "I told you so". UT believed a lying president rather than conclusions from three national advanced physics labs. Those labs said alumunim tubes were not appropriate for creating weapons grade uranium. Too many did what UT did. Believe a lying politician rather than technical facts. Another lesson here: give credence to the experts and always doubt the politicians. Especially doubt extremists politicians - both left and right wing. Which returns us to today - neocon vulcans still lie about Iraq.

Why will lookout123 and myself not agree? He is desperately seeking reasons to justify missile attacks on civilians. He advocates the policies (lies) of a mental midget president. He therefore has a different perspective. He must ignore why soldiers abandoned vital equipment on Baghdad streets. He must justify missile attacks on civilians. Streets that are suppose to be so safe. He does as UT did with the aluminum tubes. He blindly believes the lying politicians of this George Jr administration. What happens when ideology rather than pragmatism makes decisions.

Yes, the attacks might be a result of cowboy helicopter pilots. However problems don't end there. Same reason why Abu Ghraid was created. George Jr's people cannot get what their agenda predicts. Therefore we must fix problems with more force. They Gitmoized Iraqi prisons. Decision to do so came from within this administration. Same administartion that must now cover up the outing of a CIA agent. Clearly the *correct* information was not being taken from prisoners. Therefore torture, as routinely performed in Guantanamo, was justified. After all, the George Jr administration could not be wrong.

History teaches this. When the top people are driven by ideology and agenda rather than by fundamental principles and real world facts - then hell is justified. It was but another lesson from Vietnam. It was the driving force behind Nazi mentality. It is why we are now in Iraq and why we make no effort to capture bin Laden.

Until we address the problem - until we remove George Jr and his Vulcan extremists - then Iraq will continue to worsen. What America is doing in Iraq now is misguided. It may be too late for America alone to correct the George Jr mistakes. We must concede to obtain international help. Things will only worsen with a mental midget and extremist as president. A missile attack on civilians only because they were nearby a burning Bradley is but another symptom of why Americans are slowly becoming Ugly Americans. Ugly even among the Kurdish. That excellent study discovered by UT notes even in Kurdish sections, American popularity is waning. Why? President George Jr is the problem.

Nation building is required in Iraq. AND we must send at least one single battalion to capture bin Laden. Under George Jr, neither will happen. Instead under George Jr, we will go to war against Iran. Please explain how more wars will solve anything? We need a president who can acutally make his own decisions - about when to get up from a chair in FL to ask critically important questions. Instead some even justify missile attacks on Iraq civilians as if they were Palestinians. How much more extremist or misguided can we become? We would justify anything to support the mental midget president?

Its not about "I told you so". Its about learning the lessons of history. I rather expect some still deny the smoking gun concept. Some still refuse to learn from Vietnam. They advocate pre-emption - and justify missile attacks on civilians.

Well spoken tw

I wonder if Bush would punch a guy down on the street and call it a pre-emptive strike to guarantee his safety because the guy looked like he might try to mug him and looks like someone who might have mugged someone before.

TW, I agree 99% (maybe even 100%) with what you say - I was against the war from the start, and I think that Bush has the intelligence of a bacteria (that's probably not fair to bacteria), but what do you suggest the US do now? Continuing with their current policies is only going to continue to degrade the situation, but for the US to pull out of Iraq now would cause it to almost instantly collapse into a state of civil war. This would certainly not be fair to the Iraqi people, and how many innocent civilians would die then?

One possible solution would be for the US to hand over to the UN, but I'm sure the UN does not want the problem, and how many countries would be willing to contribute significant numbers of troops and military equipment to the cause (ie. to replace the US forces)? Very few. It is an absolute disaster, for which no one seems to have an answer. Also, any UN based force would be targeted just like the US troops are being now. What a mess.

I don't think that a UN mission would be a failture. There are always countries like Pakistan or India, wanting to participate in a UN mission. And don't forget that the ROE of Un are stricter than those of the US Army. So there won't be any bloddy helicopter attacks. Or maybe it's gonna be a second Somalia...

That is all well and good, but for a UN mission to have any chance of working it would mean the complete replacement of US troops by UN troops. That is a *lot* of people. They can't afford to leave US troops there because they will continue to be targets. I'm pretty sure that UN troops will be targeted too, at least initially, because the radicals want all outsiders out of the country.

On a related thought - can you imagine Pakistani and Indian troops working peacefully together? That would be something to see!

It would still be viewed as outsiders - and lets face it, hurting fellow Muslims doesn't tend to stop these people, it would still get attacked. There really isn't much you can do from here, it's as good as finished. They can't stop the attacks, thus can't get the place stable and the continuing attacks are turning more and more people against them. Iraq is descending into civil war anyway - you think the elections in January were ever going to work? The only war the US will get a government it will be happy with is by rigging them anyway. How are they planning in holding elections in the increasing numbers of 'no-go zones' anyway, they're starting to include a fair number of major population centres.

The only thing you can do now is get rid of bush and his cronies that lied to the world to carry out their personal ideologies and sacrificed the lives of over 1000 US troops for the benefit of Israel and their own fat pockets. Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cherny and Feith. Not only have they wrecked havoc on international relations but by extension their actions have spat on the democratic systems of Britain and Australia as well by feeding them blatantly false intelligenge to lie to their populations as well.

Jag, I agree with you, but I have some bad news. The bombing in Jakata has given John Howard's election campaign a bit of a lift. People here are more worried now about future terrorism against us, than they are about whether we were lied to re Iraq. I have heard that a similar feeling has developed in the US. What are people thinking in the UK?

Blair is deeply unpopular for a variety of reasons, I think he'll win but my real hope is the Liberal Democrats take opposition and the torys are relegated to 3rd party status. Blair is desperately trying to win back all the people he gave the finger to over the last 7 years (unions, 'progressive voters', anyone that thinks belisconi is a fuckwit....) with a rash of messages and legislation (like the stupid ban on foxhunting out of nowhere) but it's too late, he has no credability and no trust left.

Fingers crossed Latham can fight back, that's all I can say. He's the first politician in a long time who I've thought really 'got it', from private school funding to Iraq to the FTA. He progressive but managed (unlike Blair) to keep true to a Labour position, his election would be a great thing for the country.

Iraq is but a short distance from total anarchy. If total control does break down, then substantial Iraqis might be killed in a civil war. Ironcially a civil war that may or may not result in a democracy. Why? Because the only way to impose a democracy is to have the locals impose it on themselves. Great expense such as massive loss of life may be necessary to prove to themselves that they really wanted that type of government. But the bottom line, only the fools in America think we can impose democracy on another country. Democracy must be earned - just another one of those lessons from history.

Colin Powell - one of the few in this administration that is not an ideologue - said it best. "You break it, then you own it". Well we now own it.

Listen to the BBC world service today. The man on the street does not believe America came to liberate him or to fix his economy. They believe America came only to get Saddam and to steal the oil. Furthermore, they believe (and rightly so) that everything now said by Americans is propaganda or outright lies. In that part, they would be right because this president is lying to everyone about Iraq - then and now. For example, how many foreigners are now kidnapped in Iraq. The US government fears you might realize the number is 220. They want you to believe reliable electricity and water is provided. The US governement fears you might learn that of more than 2000 construction projects, only about 10 are actually in progress. The nation is that unsafe for everyone. The George Jr administration cannot be honest about how bad security has become; worse than the day Rumsfeld said looting does not exist.

Americans have little credibility. If Ayatolla Sistani dies, so does any hope of American involvement. We are that close to losing the entire country. Furthermore, why do the world and UN refuse to cooperate? George Jr puts very stiff conditions on all foreign assistance. They all must do only what America demands. So stiff are these conditions that some in the world believe America wants to control Iraq.

The US even demands money to rebuild Iraq that is more than the entire budget for aid to African nations. This for a nation chock full of oil?

The Iraqi solution starts with America admitting to major mistakes by our government. Then completely passing control of Iraq and US military operations to a world body. Of course this will not happen. Review some 'veins hanging from teeth' responses even in The Cellar. And yet, the only way to rescue a slowly deteriorating situation is to conceded control - in a big and obvious way - to an honest third party power. Yes that means even Russia and China have major voices. Without those two nations fully involved, then the third party will not be honest. That means the US must remain in country and not have a veto power over how things will be accomplished.

We have broken it, in part, because the extremist Vulcans believed nation building is something wrong - something that Clinton does. Made painfully obvious is the purpose of war. To put the conflict back on the negotiation table. Instead we *again* (just like in Desert Storm) threw away a military victory by having no plans - none at all - nada - zippo - for how the peace would be implemented. Again, listen to the BBC today. The man in the Iraqi street most often believes we came to Iraq for the oil. We had no 'after action' plans - none - which is essential to ending a military operation. Again a lesson repeatedly taught by history. That means we cannot fix the country. We must remove the George Jr restrictions so that international assistance - people who would have credibility in Iraq - can start fixing the problem. That means we cannot fix Iraq with George Jr as president.

Getting credible powers into Iraq is not a total solution. But no solution is possible with George Jr in power and without third power cooperation. The problem is solvable now with third power operations - having honest brokers replace Americans and the 7000 mile screwdriver. But if things get worse, then a third power (an international solution) would not even be possible. If Iraq gets substantially worse (and it will if America continues this way), then only civil war will be the solution. One need only learn from the lessons of history. No one can impose democracy on another nation - no matter what Rice and Wolfowitz indoctrinated into George Jr.

Zeyad's current entry suggests what's happening. Writing from inside the country and inside the culture:
His theory is that the pattern suggests something important:Powers that be in Iraq are counting on the US's lack of resolve to continue to nation-build. So is the Kerry campaign with their plan is to be out in four years. So HP is right, you either cut off your arm (Kerry) or sit there in pain dying slowly (Bush).

Oh, on this one:I just want everyone to think about what it says about a man, if he is freely offered the last word... and not only takes it, but shouts it at the top of his lungs.

I had the option of not pointing this out, which is usually my tack; but I know a lot of you scan instead of reading, and I thought you should realize what just happened, as my subtle approach is not always evident to you.

I once knew a man who ate encyclopedias. One day, after pinching a stubborn loaf, he stepped out of the bathroom stall and pointed at the turd bobbing in the bowl. "That's an encyclopedia, there," he said proudly. "Funny," I replied, "it looks like a bunch of shit to me."

No 3rd party would work in Iraq either now, it's Iran verses the Sunnis and the kurds will do what they want, there really isn't much else to it. Anyone else getting into the fray is just going to get stung. My guess is the place will get carved up along those lines and that'll be the end of it, another failed state with the stamp of the US on it.

On the upside, the last major fuckup, Somalia, seems to be doing better these days.

You're kidding right?

Tell me you're kidding.

Do you know how many innocent people Saddam had gassed and killed? Kurds?? Over how many decades? The kuwait invasion? People in prison, tortured and killed??

I'm no fan of Bush, but geez!! That's a hell of a statement....

I think that when the US finally leaves Iraq (if it EVER does), it will go with the same immortal words of farewell that Rhett Butler said to Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind : "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." The US went into Iraq with no real intelligent motive. Wag the dog, indeed. The current administration wanted to make it appear that we were responding to 9/11 in an appropriate fashion and Iraq's Saddam Hussein was a convenient straw man to create and then knock down (and, yes, I understand Saddam was hardly an angel, but neither are any number of other various country's leaders and we do nothing about THEM). What happens to the country ultimately is of no interest to the Bush people, other than what fat defense contracts they can throw the way of their buddies at Halliburton and other corporate entities which have ties with the Bush administration.

Of course, Somalia is doing better. The US is no longer there.

You're right... you caught me uttterly failing to articulate my thoughts, accompanied by being under-informed. So, I did some reading, and here's what I came up with:

Saddam was in power for about 8,000 days and change, and estimates indicate he and his security cheifs are responsible for 60,000-100,000 civilian deaths, plus about 600 in the invasion of Kuwait. With the higher estimates, that makes it an average of about 12.6 killed per day (though not all of them Iraqi citizens). Ouch.

Bush, on the other hand, has been killing Iraqi civilians since March 19, 2003, which is about 546 days by my count. I see a wide range in estimates on this value, but one site which keeps a tally of verifyable deaths puts the tally at 14,751 today, which is lower than most other estimates (such as 40,000), but it's more credible. That makes it about 27 per day, NOT counting the 3,000-3,400 civilian deaths in Afghanistan. That's more than double Saddam's rate. Yikes.

In all fairness, I'm sure one could find sample during Saddam's regime where he and his chiefs killed more on a daily basis, but the average daily death toll over time is clearly worse for Bush, and he's not done yet. Hopefully he'll stop soon, and make me completely wrong.

True, Saddam was responsible for more total deaths, but over a much longer period of time (and some of it with the help of the US, but I digress). The day-to-day death toll under Bush is more grim, and continuing.

In my research, I found a description of an event similar to the one this thread is based on... how many other such events have occurred which we haven't heard about?
Here's one final thing to reflect on when considering our military's concern (or lack thereof) for civilan deaths in Iraq:

h_p, you have completely left out the effects that Saddam had on his country's prosperity... which was to approximately cut it to a tenth of what it had been, while building palaces and control for himself. This led to hundreds of thousands of deaths too.

I can't help but feel that we are going very far astray when we digress into discussions of brutality under Saddam versus brutality under Bush. Here's a listing of various conflicts, civil wars and acts of genocide in tthe 20th and 21st centuries: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

Take a look at the very extensive list cited there and then tell me what percentage of these conflicts did the US take any interest what-so-ever in? We are not in Iraq because of some altruistic concern over Saddam's lack of humanity. Arguments like the one in this thread beg the real issues.

Inserting poverty-related deaths isn't going to help Bush in the statistics, up to now. As with war-related deaths, we can hope that changes in the future, though.

UT forgets to mention deaths due to missing basic services. Services that were always available under Saddam and are no longer available. For example, I don't remember which is the so many recent reports I have read (UT's study or a BBC report or one of the others). But bottom line remains. All reports not from the George Jr administration say things have gotten worse. Iraqis once had a sewage system. Much of that same system no longer functions.

The number of Iraqi civilian deaths (not including those who died in the war) was recently estimated at something around 10,000+ civilians. Furthermore, the number of civilian deaths per day has been slowly increasing. Security is so non-existant that the George Jr administration has rechanneled much of the $18billion from reconstruction into training security forces. Might as well. Most Iraqi reconstruction is all but halted due to massive insecurity.

Lack of security in Iraq is so widespread now that it is not even newsworthy. But I recall Dexter Filkins comments after coming from an interview with a Sunni cleric very opposed to Americans. He expects Sahr City (a Shi'ite stronghold) to soon join other cities as all but abandoned by American forces. Cities no longer in occupation force control according to The Economist include Samarra, Fallujah, Latifya, Kufa, Najaf, and Majar al-Kabir. For example, insurgents so fully dominate the southern city of Majar al-Kabir that weapons trade is conducted openly in large open air markets. Latifya is the town just south of Baghdad were so many contractors, a group of American soldiers, and even the son of a lady member of the Provisional government were killed in routine ambushes. These are no-go cites - completely out of occupation forces control. Far more are basically in and out of rebel control. Even tribal leaders have taken over some cities.

One would think that by avoiding these no-go cities, then America death rates were lower. 55 dead Americans this month - highest since April.

In the meantime, UN Secretary General Kofi Anan repeated what everyone really knew. The US invasion of Iraq - a Pearl Harbor type of attack - was illegal. So the George Jr administration says the UN Secretary General is lying? At what point do we acknowledge this president is says same as Nixon said about VietNam just before his landslide relection victory. History repeats when the people fail to learn it.

The Economist also says this about Iraqi education: Where are the facts that support the George Jr claims of Iraq is getting better? Nixon would constantly claim the same thing. The famous expression was "Light at the end of the Tunnel".

Unfortunately, the Democrats supported a guy who cannot make a proper argument against the Iraq War. He was asked the relevant questions on the Imus in the Morning Program yesterday and he blew it. He needs to come out and say his VOTE FOR THE WAR was a huge mistake. He can't pretend to have been mislead, everyone who paid attention KNEW we were being mislead. Bush's huge weakness is his inability to recognize and admit his errors, Kerry needs to show that he is bigger than the f :mad2: cking pipsqueak.

I don't like subtle insinuation. If you have a fact, then post it bluntly and honestly. Don't play silly polictially correctness games with me. I consider that equivalent to a scam salesman selling a $100 Monster surge protector in Circuit City.

It does not matter who has the last word or if a conversation is political correctly. I have no time for games of elegance or implied kindness. Those who post honestly earn respect.

These are facts. The facts straight up are that George Jr lies. He lied about WMDs. He then lied - blaming the intelligence - when virtually every allie in the region said no such WMDs can be found. So many believed George Jr rather than facts from Advanced Physic Labs. George Jr tonight in the network news has more lies about "Iraq is getting better" when his own secret National Security assessment months previously said that all three options for Iraq are bad. He has the facts months ago and he still lies. How is it that virutally every responsible observer says Iraq is bad and getting worse. Yet the President says things are getting better? He is lying now just as he lied about WMDs. Just as he intentionally connected 11 September with Saddam. A previous president did the same thing - and we foolishly believed him. His name: Richard Nixon.

Posted are facts. Iraq is going as predicted a year ago because of this administration's 'ideologue based' policies. Furthermore, the president, knowing full well things are bad and will probably get even worse, instead, hypes lies about how Iraq is getting better. George Jr lies just as he did about the Oslo Accords, just as he did about the need for an anti-missile system, and now as he is advocating the elimination of inspections and verification for biological and nuclear weapons throughout the world (yes read that again).

UT: stick to the facts. Is George Jr lying about Iraq? Yes or no? If not, then please provide something that says George Jr could reverse the inevitable. We broke it. As Colin Powell warned, now we own it. The least this president could do is admit just one mistake he had made. He could not even do that on National TV. Maybe he might just admit to one mistake - if he had a brillant moment of honesty. So is he lying about Iraq?

If the Kurds go independent, then Turkey may just invade. Turkey that much does not want any independent Kurdish region. The politics in this region are that complex.

True. But the Iraqi war has resulted in many unquantifiable deaths as well, so there is no way to incorporate them intelligently into our findings.

Saddam Hussein is one nasty SOB, whose selfish ambitions are paid for by the lives of the people of his country, and the blood of those who opposed him. Citizens of his country lost more freedoms under his reign than any other leader in their modern history. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and sent hundreds of soldiers needlessly to their deaths. He stupidly invaded a sovereign nation, at the strenuous objection of the majority of the planet, motivated by his own agenda and on a foundation of lies. When the world responded negatively, he plowed in despite their warnings, and resulted in a net loss of life and comfort for Iraqis. Because of all this, the majority of countries worldwide agreed that the world would be a better place were he not in power.

Now, read the above paragraph again, but substitute "George W. Bush" where it says "Saddam Hussein." Like magic, it's all still accurate!

I'm not saying that Bush is worse than Saddam, that would be silly. I'm not even saying that he's just as bad. But he is unapologetically guilty of many of the same crimes against humanity, and the only difference is geography and perspective.

Imagine if 14,751 innocent Americans citizens were lost as "collateral damage" in a two year period, all because of the lies of America's leadership. Just about every intelligent American would hate the guts of those responsible, and rightly so. Consider that only about 3,000 Americans were killed in the WTC attacks. In Iraq, over four times that many innocents have died so far, and it's not over yet.

So... are Iraqi lives are worth less than American lives, because they live on a different piece of dirt, and have a different culture? If not, then why be upset about 3,000 dead Americans and not about 14,000+ dead Iraqis? All men are created equal, right? And I'll bet the percentage of children is much higher in the Iraqi death toll than it was in the WTC, given the circumstances.

I considered myself middle-of-the-road politically before Bush and his war... in fact, I tended towards Republican candidates much of the time. But of course, Bush is the first presidential candidate from whom I feared the consequences of a second term. If he was this destructive in his first term, what will he do when re-election is not a concern, and he feels his actions have been endorsed by the American people? I hope to never witness the answer to that question.

Incidentally, Happy Monkey's link is very apt... Anyone who hasn't yet read it really should.

US intervention has been anything but humanitarian. Check out this site if you believe otherwise: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/names.htm. "Where gender was recorded, 2,192 of those killed were male and 630 were female. At least 618 of the dead whose ages are known were less than 18 years old, and 64 were babies no more than two years old."

If you are truly interested in facts, and not just conjecture, the only correct answer is I don't know. But you have spent post after post claiming lie, lie, lie when you could not possibly know. Emotional? Yes in spades.

It's interesting that you first ask about lies and then demand an admission of mistakes. If the President lied wouldn't you demand an admission of lies? IF the President admits mistakes, do the lies change form? Or do you get to make it up as you go along?