9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 10:27 am
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2007/10/death-dont-have-no-mercy-in-this-land.html

http://bp1.blogger.com/_Dm4sFu73cJo/Rxyoa4CMKzI/AAAAAAAADbA/XiOyxMI6Pew/s400/01a-sadr.jpg

Quote:
Death Don't Have No Mercy In This Land

Pause for a moment and take a good look at Ali Hamed. I would guess that Ali was six or seven years old, about same age as the tow-headed kid from down the street who as I write this is riding his new two-wheeler past Kiko's House, his Jack Russell terrier running at his side.

Ali's body is being prepared for ritual washing before burial. Ali was one of three children who died in a gun battle and air strike on Sunday night in Baghdad's Sadr City slum. Ali may have been sleeping on a roof because it was hot and there was no electricity.

Collateral damage is inevitable in any war, and I have no doubt that the helicopter gunner who pressed the trigger that launched the round that snuffed out Ali's life would be upset to know that he was not the head of an Iranian-backed kidnapping ring, who according to American officials was the target of a raid that turned into a full-blown battle, prompting the air strike, after the raiders were fired upon. Or even a Shiite militant. But then maybe Ali's dad was a Shiite militant.
Those American officials said that 49 Shiite militants were killed, but no civilians. Officials at Imam Ali Hospital seemed less mathematically challenged. They said that 17 people were killed, including an elderly woman and other children in addition to Ali, and 69 were wounded, including a number of children.

There were no U.S. casualties.

U.S. officials explained the apparent death-toll discrepancy by claiming that Shiite militants picked up the bodies of their own people to prevent American soldiers from gaining intelligence about them.

In hospital bedside interviews, two youngsters described what happened.
"The pilot shot me when I crossed the street to buy bread," said 11-year-old Ali Ahmad. "I have been hit by shrapnel in my chest."

"I was going to buy eggs for breakfast, then I was hit by a helicopter," said Murtada Naim, an 8-year-old who suffered chest and hand wounds.

Ali's misfortune notwithstanding, I also have no doubt that the toll could have been worse. But as the war has gone on - and on and on - there has not been a concomitant increase in civilian casualties despite a substantial increase in air strikes. This is because of improved accuracy and smaller munitions, some packed with only 100 pounds of explosives, so Ali was truly in the wrong place -- or on the wrong roof -- at the wrong time.

Sorry to burden you with Ali Hamed's 15 seconds of fame. After all, he is only one of 82,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the war began by one conservative estimate. But when I saw the kid from down the street riding his bike I just had to share.


This is why we won't win in Iraq. Whatever 'winning' is, it isn't the slaughter of innocent kids and then denying that any civilians got in the way of your bullets. What do you conservatives think this does to the mind of a family?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 10:45 am
Civilian casualties in past wars.

In the information age, we get to hear and see the results of war almost immediately. The bleeding hearts post pictures of dead children to further their anti-war cause.

Civilian casualties are hardly a new concept in war and while heart breaking, are inescapable.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 10:55 am
McGentrix wrote:
Civilian casualties in past wars.

In the information age, we get to hear and see the results of war almost immediately. The bleeding hearts post pictures of dead children to further their anti-war cause.

Civilian casualties are hardly a new concept in war and while heart breaking, are inescapable.


I realize this and so do the civilians in question. Doesn't change the reality of their situation or their reactions to our actions in the slightest.

Can you see the family sitting around saying, 'well, honey, people get killed in war, so little Ali here is just a typical casualty, and hey, the Americans are being more restrained then they could be.' ... ?

I can't. If you can't understand why this sort of thing is incredibly destructive to our cause there, then you should try harder to emphasize and put yourself in the place of those who have suffered. And ask yourself how YOU would retaliate. B/c I know how I would.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 11:04 am
McG: The bleeding hearts post pictures of dead children to further their anti-war cause.


WOW! This is the ultimate in politics when the pictures of dead children is called "bleeding hearts."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 11:24 am
xingu wrote:

...

America is against the nationalist. Nationalist want us out of the country. Divide and conquer is our motto.


I'm not against nationalists per say. It depends on only what a nationalist government does to, for, or with its people and the people of its neighbors.

Nationalism = loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

Nationalism is certainly superior to a nation containing subnational groups, each of which is so loyal and devoted to its own subnational group and so opposed to the others that they each murder members of the other subnational groups.

I don't know whether or not the Bush administration agrees with me. If they don't, then shame on them. That would be another of their occupation errors.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 12:24 pm
mcg wrote :

Quote:
Civilian casualties are hardly a new concept in war and while heart breaking, are inescapable.


civilian casualties certainly are to be expected DURING a war .
however , the U.S. has now been occupying iraq for some time .
SH is no longer , the americans helped establish a new government but they CANNOT provide security for the civilians .
perhaps the U.S. needs to admit that they have taken on a job they seem unable or unwilling to complete successfully .

surely someone ought to ask : why is this not working ?
can we - the U.S. - bring security and peace to iraq or not ?
what do we need to do if we want to be succesfull ?
are we willing to complete the job and make it a success AND are we willing to commit the resources to achieve the goal ?

is it really that difficult - or perhaps impossible -to tackle those questions ?
if so , the U.S. needs to say so .
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 12:28 pm
As been repeated by so many that this war cannot be won with 140,000 troops. NEVER.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 12:30 pm
hamburger wrote:
mcg wrote :

Quote:
Civilian casualties are hardly a new concept in war and while heart breaking, are inescapable.


civilian casualties certainly are to be expected DURING a war .
however , the U.S. has now been occupying iraq for some time .
SH is no longer , the americans helped establish a new government but they CANNOT provide security for the civilians .
perhaps the U.S. needs to admit that they have taken on a job they seem unable or unwilling to complete successfully .

surely someone ought to ask : why is this not working ?
can we - the U.S. - bring security and peace to iraq or not ?
what do we need to do if we want to be succesfull ?
are we willing to complete the job and make it a success AND are we willing to commit the resources to achieve the goal ?

is it really that difficult - or perhaps impossible -to tackle those questions ?
if so , the U.S. needs to say so .
hbg


H,

Admitting that what we are doing isn't working would be the same thing as our leadership admitting that they were wrong. This is something that they are not capable of doing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 12:31 pm
As more civilians are killed, it increases the recruitment for the terrorists.
The US have reached its limits on the number of soldiers who can continue to remain in Iraq - about 140,000 troops. It's a losing proposition no matter how one looks at it. The longer we stay, the more terrorist recruitment succeeds, more of our soldiers get killed and maimed, and the future only holds more of the same. Only the numbers increase in a negative way.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 12:40 pm
Getting the Iraqi's to defend themselves is a futile task it seems so we bear the burden. Until they decide they want their country back, we remain.

Why not ask why the Iraqi's are not stepping up to defend themselves from the insurgents that are killing them? Instead, we get the typical US bashing as though that is going to solve anything beyond the poster getting their words in print.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:08 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Getting the Iraqi's to defend themselves is a futile task it seems so we bear the burden. Until they decide they want their country back, we remain.

Why not ask why the Iraqi's are not stepping up to defend themselves from the insurgents that are killing them? Instead, we get the typical US bashing as though that is going to solve anything beyond the poster getting their words in print.


Well, there's a simple answer to your question, McG: they agree with the militias and insurgents who are on their side. They don't disagree with them attacking Americans, b/c they don't like us.

Shiites (in Sadr city, for example) are protected by Shiite militas, so they don't turn them in. Sunnis, same thing. Kurds won't give up the PKK even though it is causing major problems for the US. They all see us as the enemy, except for those who are getting rich off of stealing our money.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:12 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Getting the Iraqi's to defend themselves is a futile task it seems so we bear the burden. Until they decide they want their country back, we remain.

Why not ask why the Iraqi's are not stepping up to defend themselves from the insurgents that are killing them? Instead, we get the typical US bashing as though that is going to solve anything beyond the poster getting their words in print.


Why should they defend themselves? They have us and the present administration has no intention of leaving. Some nutcases in the Bush administration wants to make things worse by attacking Iran and turning the Shiites against us.

Besides a lot of the Iraqi military are Shiites and are part of the problem of cleansing Baghdad of Sunnis. Not to mention corruption by the Iraqis and Americans.

We need to get out of there and make them work out their problems. Our staying there only aggravates the situation. When they realize that they don't have us wiping their butts anymore they'll grab some paper and do it themselves.

One problem is logistics. We have so much crap in that country that it would take us nearly two years to get it all out of there. So if we do make the decision to leave we can't do it on a very short timetable. It will take awhile.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:13 pm
xingu wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Getting the Iraqi's to defend themselves is a futile task it seems so we bear the burden. Until they decide they want their country back, we remain.

Why not ask why the Iraqi's are not stepping up to defend themselves from the insurgents that are killing them? Instead, we get the typical US bashing as though that is going to solve anything beyond the poster getting their words in print.


Why should they defend themselves? They have us and the present administration has no intention of leaving. Some nutcases in the Bush administration wants to make things worse by attacking Iran and turning the Shiites against us.

Besides a lot of the Iraqi military are Shiites and are part of the problem of cleansing Baghdad of Sunnis. Not to mention corruption by the Iraqis and Americans.

We need to get out of there and make them work out their problems. Our staying there only aggravates the situation. When they realize that they don't have us wiping their butts anymore they'll grab some paper and do it themselves.

One problem is logistics. We have so much crap in that country that it would take us nearly two years to get it all out of there. So if we do make the decision to leave we can't do it on a very short timetable. It will take awhile.


It will probably be cheaper to donate much of the material to the nascent Iraqi gov't, then it would to ship it back.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:17 pm
If we do that we would have to replace it.

That cost mucho $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:18 pm
Maybe China will pay for it???
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:18 pm
xingu wrote:
If we do that we would have to replace it.

That cost mucho $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.


hmm, I bet it costs about the same to ship it across the ocean back to America as it does to replace it. Honestly.

Not to mention replacements would be new, with better technology.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:21 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
As been repeated by so many that this war cannot be won with 140,000 troops. NEVER.


Violence has decreased 70% according to this story.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

I know Democrats are worried big time about that. The message is we cannot win, never. Plus the economy is terrible and children are starving and going without medical care.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:21 pm
I don't know but that's a lot of war material being left behind to a potential enemy. You never know who your friends are from one day to the next in that part of the world.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:28 pm
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
As been repeated by so many that this war cannot be won with 140,000 troops. NEVER.


Violence has decreased 70% according to this story.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

I know Democrats are worried big time about that. The message is we cannot win, never. Plus the economy is terrible and children are starving and going without medical care.


From your story:

Quote:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

The ministry released the new figures as bomb blasts in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul killed five people and six gunmen died in clashes with police in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala south of the Iraqi capital.


As the Interior Ministry has banned morgues from reporting casualty figures, it's hard to trust their numbers. They have a vested interest in reporting a drop in violence.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:35 pm
All that's happened is the chess pieces have been moved around, it's still a powder keg there. A lot of ethnic cleansing has been done...in a way the targets have become fewer because the damage has been done.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 07:11:48