The US, UN & Iraq II

littlek wrote:

perception I am getting tired of you telling us we're wrong, dumb.. if you want to disagree with anyone please don't do it with insults. Don't assume what our hearts say is anything but what we are saying out loud. Please do not assume we are uneducated. You are no more likely to change your view than any of us.

I believe that is true, little k, and only quote to get my own comment into context. You see, many who share your general viewpoints cannot concede that their opposition can be motivated by anything other than greed. I would dearly love to share in the same benefit of the doubt on this.

0 Replies

Timber
US TROOPS CAPTURE CHEMICAL PLANT

This is great news Timber---not so much about the chemical plant because we knew it was just a matter of time but the really good news is that the First Brigade had not had any casualties thus far.

0 Replies

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/20030323/ts_nm/iraq_prisoners_dc

Quote:

Iraq Displays Dead and Captured U.S. Soldiers
12 minutes ago

By Hassan Hafidh

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq (news - web sites) displayed on Sunday five shaken U.S. soldiers apparently captured in a battle near the southern city of Nassiriya and also filmed the bloodied bodies of up to eight men they said were dead American soldiers ...

... The video showed two rooms each containing what appeared to be two separate groups of four bodies in uniform, at least two with wounds to the head and some lying in pools of blood ...

... RED CROSS CONCERNED

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) agreed that the film violated the convention, which says that prisoners of war must be protected "against insult and public curiosity," and said it would seek permission to visit the captives ...

0 Replies

timber

This was apparently broadcast on Al Jazeera quite a few hours ago. I'm dearly hoping executions haven't taken place.

But this allows me to bring up an issue of consistency for discussion. Officials here have been quite adamant that showing pictures of captive Brit/American soldiers is a violation of the 'public curiosity' stipulation of the Convention. Yet our press has show pictures (clear enough for facial features to be recognized) of Iraqui soldiers now held.

0 Replies

blatham, the Iraqi POWs shown have, to the best of my knowledge, been filmed or photographed while surrendering, by "Embedded Correspndents". No exploitive film, particularly involving "Inerviews" and "Interogations" (a clear violation in its own right). The news aspect of surrenders is legitimate. The exploitive nature of the Al Jazeera film is reprehensible. The article I cited was the least graphic and least inflammatory I could find. I've seen the clip. It is entirely in character with past Iraqi POW treatment, and in fact is disgustingly graphic and sickeningly explicit. Not all Iraqis are monsters. By far the majority are plain decent folk. The Iraqis captured on this bit of tape are monsters, demonstrably engaged in monstrous, heinous, unforgiveable atrocity. Which should come as no surprise.

0 Replies

timber

I might briefly argue 'expoitive' here, but won't. These two examples are clearly not comparable. thank you.

0 Replies

It is behavior consistent with the regime that has controlled Iraq for 30 years. I refuse to think that ordinary Iraqi people would participate in such acts but yet I will not be surprised to hear of some American Saddam sympathisers who will say that the American Pows got " just what they deserved".

I'm waiting to hear the "outrage" of all you good people.

0 Replies

B-52s are departing Fairford at the moment. Again, reports say "several" aircraft have launched, and others appear to be parked in que, engines on and pylons loaded. The pylon loads do not appear to be CALCMS (Cruise Missiles), but JDAMS (Smart Bombs), but that is not confirmed. Cruise missiles would be logical munitions for another precision attack, but JDAMS would more likely be used for "Battlefield Prep" or for direct attack on emplacements, bunkers, and armored vehicles. This could presage a major assault on Baghdad's outer defenses sometime early tomorrow morning US time. Of course, it could mean something entirely different. Carrier operations do not appear to be underway, but that means little, as arming and launching can be accomplished in a relatively short time, allowing the B52s plenty of time to make their way to the warzone before the carrier strikes would need to be launched. We'll probably know in about 6 hours or so.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

It is behavior consistent with the regime that has controlled Iraq for 30 years. I refuse to think that ordinary Iraqi people would participate in such acts but yet I will not be surprised to hear of some American Saddam sympathisers who will say that the American Pows got " just what they deserved".

I'm waiting to hear the "outrage" of all you good people.

anyone still waiting for perception to be reasonable can give it up. $hit like this post proves that he is motivated by a need to simply inflame, and incite angry replies. Perception, unless you can produce ONE single post demonstrating that anyone here has EVER said anything to suggest we wish harm on Americans, or that that's what they "deserve", do so. If not, please put a lid on that BS.

0 Replies

That's probably a valid request, snood, but it perhaps might have been phrased a bit less confrontationally. No big deal, really ... but that sort of thing tends to invite precisely certain behaviors we wish to avoid.

0 Replies

i'm pretty sure all those peacenik, undereducated, Saddam lover, liberal, half brained, marginally intelligent, enemy abetting, illiterate, dope smokin', abortion loving people are jumping in glee.
"You walk into the room
Like a Camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There outta be a law
Against you comin' around
You should be made to wear ear phones
Because something is happening here
But you dont know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

B-52s are departing Fairford at the moment. Again, reports say "several" aircraft have launched, and others appear to be parked in que, engines on and pylons loaded. The pylon loads do not appear to be CALCMS (Cruise Missiles), but JDAMS (Smart Bombs), but that is not confirmed. Cruise missiles would be logical munitions for another precision attack, but JDAMS would more likely be used for "Battlefield Prep" or for direct attack on emplacements, bunkers, and armored vehicles. This could presage a major assault on Baghdad's outer defenses sometime early tomorrow morning US time. Of course, it could mean something entirely different. Carrier operations do not appear to be underway, but that means little, as arming and launching can be accomplished in a relatively short time, allowing the B52s plenty of time to make their way to the warzone before the carrier strikes would need to be launched. We'll probably know in about 6 hours or so.

The president hopes the POWs are treated in a humane manner. B-52s dropping bombs on Iraqi cities, now thats a humane manner.

0 Replies

frolic, your bias colors your perception. We are not bombing civilian targets. Errors and failures will occur, yes. However, we are not leveling cities, we are leveling the infrastructure of The Regime, while sparing bridges, residential districts, civilian broadcast facilities, shopping or cultural areas. No matter what you may think. Carpet bombing a city is a lot cheaper and less dangerous than taking out specific targets. We are taking unprecendented measures to limit non-regime-specific targets. Thems the facts, partner.

0 Replies

On this, timber is surely correct. There is a specificity of targeting on military installations which, at least in and of itself, is highly ethical. And there is an undeniable difference in treatment of the captured.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

US TROOPS CAPTURE CHEMICAL PLANT

That's interesting news, thank you timber. Wonder what exactly they will find the Iraqis to have been producing there, when it was last produced, what products of the plant might still be making the rounds, and what kind of military use they would have had. Lots of interesting questions to monitor. I mean, we knew that there was a fair chance of hidden stashes of remaining stuff in Iraq, that's why the UN inspectors were asking for more time; but the fact that nothing had been found yet did have a lot of us wondering whether Saddam actually still had any of the stuff Bush was going to war with him about.

The "abandoned slums" part suggests it hadnt been used all too intensely recently, but on the other hand there wouldnt have been 30 soldiers guarding it if it had been dormant, one'd say. I was a bit puzzled about how they knew it was "apparently used to produce chemical weapons" when "it wasn't immediately clear exactly which chemicals were being produced here", but the camouflaging for sure makes it look suspicious.

I'm sure we'll hear more about it, though this plant wasn't mentioned in any of the army briefings I saw on TV tonight. If the army does succeed in uncovering illegal chemical arms production lines that the UN inspectors might or might also not have managed to uncover if they'd been given more time, it will surely lend a little much-needed extra credence to the case Bush was making for the necessity of war, especially if the arms in question would somehow indeed turn out to suggest that Hussein was actually planning for any kind of offensive action. Again, lot of interesting questions.

0 Replies

The Chemical Plant is just now getting US Media attention. There likely will be further developments soon.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

On this, timber is surely correct. There is a specificity of targeting on military installations which, at least in and of itself, is highly ethical. And there is an undeniable difference in treatment of the captured.

In fact i read an interesting article which suggested that the bold, aggressive new military tactics spearheaded by rumsfeld actually play out very well for the civilian population.

Last gulf war, the fear of american casualties was still so paramount that the US started the war with an immense bombing campaign, weeks on end - and this was with bombs that were then still a lot less precise than now (regardless of what they would have us believe at the time). That took great numbers of civilian lives. With much of the struggle this time taking place on the ground, in soldier-to-soldier fighhts focusing on this or that house instead of, as went for the piots, this or that city, the war has become relatively more 'safe' for civilians, though all the more dangerous for soldiers.

This is from the article:

Quote:

Beach landings, commando raids deep into enemy territory and plans for mass paratrooper assaults behind the lines. The opening days of the latest Gulf war are reminiscent of another, more daring era in military tactics, the second world war.

After two decades of post-Vietnam caution, during which US forces have only gone to war on their own, overwhelming terms, this amounts to a transformation. In the last Gulf war, 12 years ago, the US-led force pulverised the Iraqi military with five weeks of air bombardment before advancing across a broad front in massed armoured columns and half a million troops. [..]

While the opening blows of the last Gulf war were aimed at killing as many Iraqi soldiers as possible, obliterating them in their camps as they stood waiting in the sand, the first moves of this conflict have been designed to give them a chance to live. [..]

The war is becoming a showcase for Mr Rumsfeld's grand plans for transforming the US military into a more flexible, more computer-literate and multidimensional force. [..]

"The last thing we want is industrial warfare," said one senior British officer, referring to prolonged airstrikes, tank fire, and artillery barrages.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,919477,00.html

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

this allows me to bring up an issue of consistency for discussion. Officials here have been quite adamant that showing pictures of captive Brit/American soldiers is a violation of the 'public curiosity' stipulation of the Convention. Yet our press has show pictures (clear enough for facial features to be recognized) of Iraqui soldiers now held.

A lady from the red cross international was making this point on bbc tonight. She said the showing of the american POWs on Iraqi TV could indeed be argued as an offense of the geneva convention, but added that the same went for the way Iraqi POWs in their turn were shown in American media.

They also had some expert opining at length that to his judgement, the tv broadcast was not against the convention, but he seemed a bit too partisan to be very convincing about a legal matter like that.

I must add that i havent seen the footage myself yet.

0 Replies

Something else is bothering me. When i switched on the tv tonight, some analysts were discussing on cnn, and while they talked the ticker-subtitles at the bottom of the screen had the item: "Al-Jazeera broadcast report from iraqi hospital, about 50 iraqi civilians said to be casualties of the US bombings".

I switched from cnn to bbc and back for something like two hours after that, during which i've seen george bush and TV commentators elaborate on the fate of the 5 american POWs some four or five times, but i never saw any more info about these supposed 50 iraqi casualties Al-Jazeera reported on. Does anybody else know more?

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know