Damaging collateral in Iraq.
March 31, 2003 12:33 AM Subscribe
Damaging collateral in Iraq: US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death. After surveying a scene of killed Iraqi civillians an American solider says: “The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy,” said Corporal Ryan Dupre. “I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin’ Iraqi. No, I won’t get hold of one. I’ll just kill him.” [reg: cpunks/cpunks]
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
Both Shay and Grossman have worked extensively with American combat veterans. Their research reveals that the lasting psychological damage suffered by some veterans (such as debilitating post-traumatic stress) is most often the result of experiences that are not simply violent, but which involve what Shay calls the "betrayal of 'what's right.'" Veterans who believe that they were directly or indirectly party to immoral or dishonorable behavior (perpetrated by themselves, their comrades, or their commanders) have the hardest time reclaiming their lives after the war is over.
posted by homunculus at 12:59 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by homunculus at 12:59 AM on March 31, 2003
(1) Can't seem to get to this article without not just registering, but subscribing to the "Times Online" (or shouldn't I have been honest in filling out the form that I never read the dead-tree version?)
(2) There's gonna be plenty of post-traumatic stress from this little war, just from witnessing some of the inhumanities perpetrated by THE OTHER SIDE. (And I am one who considered Saddam's bruality to his own people as a reason NOT to try to get him by going to war against his country)
(3) May I suggest (for the second time tonight) that you Take it to IraqFilter...
posted by wendell at 1:53 AM on March 31, 2003
(2) There's gonna be plenty of post-traumatic stress from this little war, just from witnessing some of the inhumanities perpetrated by THE OTHER SIDE. (And I am one who considered Saddam's bruality to his own people as a reason NOT to try to get him by going to war against his country)
(3) May I suggest (for the second time tonight) that you Take it to IraqFilter...
posted by wendell at 1:53 AM on March 31, 2003
Wendell.: I had no trouble reading the article by pasting in the URL and giving the supplied login and password.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:57 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Space Coyote at 1:57 AM on March 31, 2003
I just get a 404. Anyone have a mirror?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:02 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:02 AM on March 31, 2003
(1a) My eyes hath not seen the conveniently provided login/password. My bad. Nevermind. Bygones. D'oh.
(2) and (3) still stand.
posted by wendell at 2:06 AM on March 31, 2003
(2) and (3) still stand.
posted by wendell at 2:06 AM on March 31, 2003
Beholder, say hello to the metatalk thread about you, and kindly, if you will, cease with the tiresome Iraqfilter comments. wendell, you, too, might be served to read the metatalk thread in question.
Personally, I found this to be a profoundly disturbing article. It's still beyond me how anybody could read something of that nature and still make an argument that there should be a war in Iraq right now.
posted by The God Complex at 2:08 AM on March 31, 2003
Personally, I found this to be a profoundly disturbing article. It's still beyond me how anybody could read something of that nature and still make an argument that there should be a war in Iraq right now.
posted by The God Complex at 2:08 AM on March 31, 2003
Homunculus posted a very interesting link, I suggest everybody to read it.What troubles me are the "ROE" or rules of engagement, how to make them work 99,9 of times , how they are implemented in reality and how many collaterals are "enough" to rewrite the ROE or the war itself.
That said, if that Corporal said so, I'd immediately send him back to Kuwait or to USA for he's a danger to himself and to others, he's becoming a potential terrorist.
posted by elpapacito at 2:22 AM on March 31, 2003
That said, if that Corporal said so, I'd immediately send him back to Kuwait or to USA for he's a danger to himself and to others, he's becoming a potential terrorist.
posted by elpapacito at 2:22 AM on March 31, 2003
It is an interesting article, made the more interesting that it's (a) from a Murdoch paper and and (b) from an embedded journalist. If it had come from the Guardian (say) and an indie it would be easier to dismiss. But a Guardian link wouldn't fall over so easily.
The answer to the article would be "This is the sort of thing that happens in war", and the reply to that would be "well, yes. Which is why people ought to think more carefully and more critically before getting involved in wars".
Also interesting are the signs that whereas the U.S. strategy seems to have been to bomb the Iraqis for a decade to soften them up, the result has been a hardening of the Iraqi people as well as troops. The U.S. troops, on the other hand, have been psychologically prepared, but seem to be young and inexperienced.
Also the difficulty that the troops are having separating the "good guys" (the civilians they are supposedly there to save) from the "bad guys" (the army they are there to fight), largely because the two groups cannot be separated out.
These factors seem to combine to create a possibly debilitating culture-shock, of a similar kind that existed in Vietnam. Impressive that it seems to be setting in after a week, though. In order to do their job in the way that they have been prepared to do it, they have to maintain the cheering-Iraquis-and-garlands-of-flowers paradigm in the face of a reality that diverges hugely from that. This could have an effect on the army worse than any chemical weapons the Iraqis may or may not have. In particular, the quotes refer to a kind of disciplinary break-down, a way of making the killing of civilians not only bearable, but acceptable or even to aspire to.
A shame the thread won't survive long enough for me to post this, really.
I went to see if there were anything on the technologically more reliable Guardian site, and found this different story. It appears that British troops are more at risk from American pilots than they are from the Iraqis.
posted by Grangousier at 2:32 AM on March 31, 2003
The answer to the article would be "This is the sort of thing that happens in war", and the reply to that would be "well, yes. Which is why people ought to think more carefully and more critically before getting involved in wars".
Also interesting are the signs that whereas the U.S. strategy seems to have been to bomb the Iraqis for a decade to soften them up, the result has been a hardening of the Iraqi people as well as troops. The U.S. troops, on the other hand, have been psychologically prepared, but seem to be young and inexperienced.
Also the difficulty that the troops are having separating the "good guys" (the civilians they are supposedly there to save) from the "bad guys" (the army they are there to fight), largely because the two groups cannot be separated out.
These factors seem to combine to create a possibly debilitating culture-shock, of a similar kind that existed in Vietnam. Impressive that it seems to be setting in after a week, though. In order to do their job in the way that they have been prepared to do it, they have to maintain the cheering-Iraquis-and-garlands-of-flowers paradigm in the face of a reality that diverges hugely from that. This could have an effect on the army worse than any chemical weapons the Iraqis may or may not have. In particular, the quotes refer to a kind of disciplinary break-down, a way of making the killing of civilians not only bearable, but acceptable or even to aspire to.
A shame the thread won't survive long enough for me to post this, really.
I went to see if there were anything on the technologically more reliable Guardian site, and found this different story. It appears that British troops are more at risk from American pilots than they are from the Iraqis.
posted by Grangousier at 2:32 AM on March 31, 2003
I get a 404 error as well when I try to view that URL. I can view other stories on the site just fine.
posted by litlnemo at 2:33 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by litlnemo at 2:33 AM on March 31, 2003
I can't see it either. Maybe Murdoch found out about it?
posted by spazzm at 2:50 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by spazzm at 2:50 AM on March 31, 2003
The file just seems to be gone, even the print friendly version that I saw briefly earlier. Though I had some trouble even getting their front page to load. Anyway, for those of you who haven't had a chance to read it yet, there's a story at the Scotsman that includes many (if not all) of the same quotes and talks about the same thing. Might be the same story, though I didn't read the other one closely enough to tell.
posted by Orb at 2:51 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Orb at 2:51 AM on March 31, 2003
That's creepy, it really has been deleted...
Thank you corporate editorial control.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:58 AM on March 31, 2003
Thank you corporate editorial control.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:58 AM on March 31, 2003
cf. Vietnam, "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."
posted by planetkyoto at 3:03 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by planetkyoto at 3:03 AM on March 31, 2003
Well, of course you do. It disagrees with your world view. Better swept under the carpet.
posted by Grangousier at 3:05 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Grangousier at 3:05 AM on March 31, 2003
It disagrees with your world view.
Well not really, because an inanimate object cannot agree or disagree. And second, because it's just more breaking news with "he said, she said" nonsense.
It's no gem, and far from the "best of the web".
Thank goodness the entire article has been cut and pasted.
Waste not want not. Or something.
posted by hama7 at 3:16 AM on March 31, 2003
Well not really, because an inanimate object cannot agree or disagree. And second, because it's just more breaking news with "he said, she said" nonsense.
It's no gem, and far from the "best of the web".
Thank goodness the entire article has been cut and pasted.
Waste not want not. Or something.
posted by hama7 at 3:16 AM on March 31, 2003
It hasn't been taken down, though. I suspect the server is just getting beaten up.
posted by cx at 3:22 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by cx at 3:22 AM on March 31, 2003
So I take it Hama came into this thread thinking it _wasn't_ in Iraq post? (or beholder for that matter?)
posted by Space Coyote at 3:25 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Space Coyote at 3:25 AM on March 31, 2003
Well not really, because an inanimate object cannot agree or disagree. And second, because it's just more breaking news with "he said, she said" nonsense.
I love that a first-hand account of the horrors of war turns into "he said, she said nonsense" in your hands. That's a nice touch, really. As near I can tell, the article is fairly light on editorializing, aside from a few comments (the one about them resembling soldiers from Vietnam, for example). For the most part, it's simply a recounting of events he has seen while on the front line with soldiers.
I hardly read this article as an indictment of soldiers in Iraq. I read it simply as further proof that such horrors, while common problems in modern warfare, could have, and shoud have, been avoided--and with great ease, I might add. As I mentioned above, I wonder how anybody can read this and not lament the loss of both soldiers and Iraqis alike (or the reports out of Basra a few days ago of children holding their intestines in with their hands, or losing their feet) and not wonder why it is exactly the Americans and Brits are in there.
But you waited twelve years. You surely couldn't have waited another one or two months. No, surely not.
hama, shut up or take it to metatalk. Matt really needs to crack down on the trolls here.
Agreed. And thanks for re-printing the article; I was about to do it myself.
posted by The God Complex at 3:27 AM on March 31, 2003
I love that a first-hand account of the horrors of war turns into "he said, she said nonsense" in your hands. That's a nice touch, really. As near I can tell, the article is fairly light on editorializing, aside from a few comments (the one about them resembling soldiers from Vietnam, for example). For the most part, it's simply a recounting of events he has seen while on the front line with soldiers.
I hardly read this article as an indictment of soldiers in Iraq. I read it simply as further proof that such horrors, while common problems in modern warfare, could have, and shoud have, been avoided--and with great ease, I might add. As I mentioned above, I wonder how anybody can read this and not lament the loss of both soldiers and Iraqis alike (or the reports out of Basra a few days ago of children holding their intestines in with their hands, or losing their feet) and not wonder why it is exactly the Americans and Brits are in there.
But you waited twelve years. You surely couldn't have waited another one or two months. No, surely not.
hama, shut up or take it to metatalk. Matt really needs to crack down on the trolls here.
Agreed. And thanks for re-printing the article; I was about to do it myself.
posted by The God Complex at 3:27 AM on March 31, 2003
I have more breaking news for you: soldiers are trained to kill. They have only one other alternative.
posted by hama7 at 3:34 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by hama7 at 3:34 AM on March 31, 2003
I had a long repsonse to hama's latest piece of insight but I deleted it, and will jsut let it stand there drawing attention to himself and his character well enough on its own.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:47 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Space Coyote at 3:47 AM on March 31, 2003
I should add that "civilians" can only be determined by their clothing, which has proved to be fatal because of the ethical standards of coalition forces in several cases so far.
On with the baloney.
posted by hama7 at 4:02 AM on March 31, 2003
On with the baloney.
posted by hama7 at 4:02 AM on March 31, 2003
Do you mean "kill them all and let God work it out"?
posted by Grangousier at 4:13 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Grangousier at 4:13 AM on March 31, 2003
I should add that "civilians" can only be determined by their clothing, which has proved to be fatal because of the ethical standards of coalition forces in several cases so far.
On with the baloney.
I have my doubts that you even read the article past the headline and perhaps the small sections that Skallas quoted on the front page.
posted by The God Complex at 4:19 AM on March 31, 2003
On with the baloney.
I have my doubts that you even read the article past the headline and perhaps the small sections that Skallas quoted on the front page.
posted by The God Complex at 4:19 AM on March 31, 2003
I hate it when military plans are made with optimistic assumptions of that kind. I never made a plan that relied on the courage of my own troops. You hope that -- and they generally will -- fight bravely. Your plan ought to be predicated on more realistic assumptions.
And if we sent the 3rd Infantry up there naked, by themselves, because somebody assessed that they'd be throwing bouquets at us, that's the worst thing you could say about political leadership, is that they made optimistic assumptions about warfare.
...Does the diplomatic situation in Turkey and Saudi Arabia have other ramifications?
These countries have hit on the problem of legitimacy. What is a legitimate use of American power? This is an overarching problem, that's going to be with us for a long time. I mean we all pray that we'll be the premier world power for centuries.
For whatever reason, the Turks and the Saudis have decided that this is not a legitimate use of power. By the way, they appear to be in the majority worldwide. I believe that one of the elements of power is the ethical and moral authority that is conferred on forces when their use is seen to be legitimate. It's as important as bullets, in my opinion.
When we started bombing Kosovo, everybody in the world saw that -- how painful that decision was. They knew we weren't there to make Kosovo the 51st state; they knew we didn't go into Afghanistan to put George Bush's face on the money there. When we act with legitimacy, it gives our military actions a source of strength. I mean for me this is an aspect of the political maladroitness. I mean you just have to say that you wonder if there's anybody in the White House that's an educated adult.
General Merrill A. McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force 1990-94
posted by y2karl at 4:24 AM on March 31, 2003
And if we sent the 3rd Infantry up there naked, by themselves, because somebody assessed that they'd be throwing bouquets at us, that's the worst thing you could say about political leadership, is that they made optimistic assumptions about warfare.
...Does the diplomatic situation in Turkey and Saudi Arabia have other ramifications?
These countries have hit on the problem of legitimacy. What is a legitimate use of American power? This is an overarching problem, that's going to be with us for a long time. I mean we all pray that we'll be the premier world power for centuries.
For whatever reason, the Turks and the Saudis have decided that this is not a legitimate use of power. By the way, they appear to be in the majority worldwide. I believe that one of the elements of power is the ethical and moral authority that is conferred on forces when their use is seen to be legitimate. It's as important as bullets, in my opinion.
When we started bombing Kosovo, everybody in the world saw that -- how painful that decision was. They knew we weren't there to make Kosovo the 51st state; they knew we didn't go into Afghanistan to put George Bush's face on the money there. When we act with legitimacy, it gives our military actions a source of strength. I mean for me this is an aspect of the political maladroitness. I mean you just have to say that you wonder if there's anybody in the White House that's an educated adult.
General Merrill A. McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force 1990-94
posted by y2karl at 4:24 AM on March 31, 2003
The resemblance to Vietnam War can't be overlooked .
Robert Timberg and Tom Bowman
Baltimore Sun
03/30/2003
posted by y2karl at 4:30 AM on March 31, 2003
Robert Timberg and Tom Bowman
Baltimore Sun
03/30/2003
posted by y2karl at 4:30 AM on March 31, 2003
Do you mean "kill them all and let God work it out"?
Do you really think that's what I meant?
The coalition forces are doing their damndest to eliminate civilian casualties, and doing so means placing faith in supposed "civilians" who "surrender". When they actually surrender it's fine, but when "civilians" "surrender" to get closer to allied forces to detonate their semtex underpants, then there's a huge problem, and they're taking advantage of the morality of the coalition forces.
A soldier wearing civilian clothing, semtex, and waving a white flag is the deadliest of ruses.
What would you do?
posted by hama7 at 4:39 AM on March 31, 2003
Do you really think that's what I meant?
The coalition forces are doing their damndest to eliminate civilian casualties, and doing so means placing faith in supposed "civilians" who "surrender". When they actually surrender it's fine, but when "civilians" "surrender" to get closer to allied forces to detonate their semtex underpants, then there's a huge problem, and they're taking advantage of the morality of the coalition forces.
A soldier wearing civilian clothing, semtex, and waving a white flag is the deadliest of ruses.
What would you do?
posted by hama7 at 4:39 AM on March 31, 2003
The resemblance to Vietnam War can't be overlooked .
No spitting, Prisoners of War, or Missing in Action, though right?
More Bravo Sierra.
posted by hama7 at 4:41 AM on March 31, 2003
No spitting, Prisoners of War, or Missing in Action, though right?
More Bravo Sierra.
posted by hama7 at 4:41 AM on March 31, 2003
If this is an act of self-censorship on the part of the Sunday Times it's pretty useless, considering there are over 1m hard copies lying in people's front rooms right now. I don't think it is, however, as the whole of the Sunday Times site seems to be down.
posted by Summer at 4:57 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Summer at 4:57 AM on March 31, 2003
As a USMC vet and after reading the article, I can assure you that Corporal Dupre is not alone in his sentiment. That is the kind of gung-ho attitude that emerges after experiencing combat, particularly when the enemy fights without regard to 'rules'.
One piece of information (among many, undoubtedly) not mentioned but which should be highlighted, all US soldiers now know the fates of those who were captured by the Iraqis. With that knowledge, from here on US forces will fight to victory or to their deaths, rather than face capture. Needless to say, when circumstances appear grimmest, they will take out as many Iraqis as possible.
posted by mischief at 4:59 AM on March 31, 2003
One piece of information (among many, undoubtedly) not mentioned but which should be highlighted, all US soldiers now know the fates of those who were captured by the Iraqis. With that knowledge, from here on US forces will fight to victory or to their deaths, rather than face capture. Needless to say, when circumstances appear grimmest, they will take out as many Iraqis as possible.
posted by mischief at 4:59 AM on March 31, 2003
I partly agree with Hama7, in that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish civilians from soldiers in the current situation in Iraq. However, that should have been a major consideration when the decision to invade a sovereign country was made. Expecting the local populace to welcome an invading army with open arms and floral tributes always struck me as naive.
The issue of 'civilians' fighting is interesting - I'm sure that if a foreign power invaded the US then US citizens wouldn't feel an obligation to join up and wear the right uniform before using their weapons to fight back.
posted by daveg at 5:02 AM on March 31, 2003
The issue of 'civilians' fighting is interesting - I'm sure that if a foreign power invaded the US then US citizens wouldn't feel an obligation to join up and wear the right uniform before using their weapons to fight back.
posted by daveg at 5:02 AM on March 31, 2003
Do you really think that's what I meant?
To be perfectly honest I don't think you know what you meant. It is the implication of what you say.
The point is exactly that a population who are being invaded will resort to guile in order to defend themselves against the invading force. That should have been taken into account before the whole sorry affair was set in motion. If the people planning it were incapable of foreseeing that then they were not up to the job.
What would you do?
I would hope not to have been the posturing, arrogant halfwit that has dropped those soldiers into this awful situation.
I wouldn't start from here.
The current situation was deliberately induced by a small group of people for their own benefit - financial, political and (most offensively of all) of benefit to their egos. Currently it has involved the death and injury of U.S. and British troops, the deaths of large numbers of Iraqis (whose fellows will definitely not forgive and forget when this is over). Who knows what horrors the future holds.
An awful, awful mess, even if it all goes swimmingly for the US/UK from now on. If events conspire against the invaders ... ? It reminds me of the Spanish Armada of 1558 and has done for a while.
posted by Grangousier at 5:04 AM on March 31, 2003
To be perfectly honest I don't think you know what you meant. It is the implication of what you say.
The point is exactly that a population who are being invaded will resort to guile in order to defend themselves against the invading force. That should have been taken into account before the whole sorry affair was set in motion. If the people planning it were incapable of foreseeing that then they were not up to the job.
What would you do?
I would hope not to have been the posturing, arrogant halfwit that has dropped those soldiers into this awful situation.
I wouldn't start from here.
The current situation was deliberately induced by a small group of people for their own benefit - financial, political and (most offensively of all) of benefit to their egos. Currently it has involved the death and injury of U.S. and British troops, the deaths of large numbers of Iraqis (whose fellows will definitely not forgive and forget when this is over). Who knows what horrors the future holds.
An awful, awful mess, even if it all goes swimmingly for the US/UK from now on. If events conspire against the invaders ... ? It reminds me of the Spanish Armada of 1558 and has done for a while.
posted by Grangousier at 5:04 AM on March 31, 2003
A soldier wearing civilian clothing, semtex, and waving a white flag is the deadliest of ruses.
What would you do?
I thought you'd never ask.
Here's my list of things I would do:
1. Not invade a country.
Got that?
posted by spazzm at 5:25 AM on March 31, 2003
What would you do?
I thought you'd never ask.
Here's my list of things I would do:
1. Not invade a country.
Got that?
posted by spazzm at 5:25 AM on March 31, 2003
gen x (or whatever), meet your very own vietnam vets. talk about your deja vu! (/s "hajis" "gooks"). no need to spit on them (or invent myths of being spit upon), they'll spit all over themselves just fine over the next 20 years, as their lives veer off course into substance abuse, debilitating survivor guilt, violence and psychosis. but hey, we got oil. we got oil, man.
posted by quonsar at 5:25 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by quonsar at 5:25 AM on March 31, 2003
Liberate them all and let God work it out.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:26 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:26 AM on March 31, 2003
No spitting, Prisoners of War, or Missing in Action, though right?
Nope, hama7, the spitting myth lives on in Asheville, NC, undocumented as ever. And, as before, there is no documentation or any credible story of any American prisoners of war or missing in action being left in Vietnam. That was and is still a hoax used to cruelly exploit the feelings of their survivors in order to falsely manipulate American public opinion.
posted by y2karl at 5:32 AM on March 31, 2003
Nope, hama7, the spitting myth lives on in Asheville, NC, undocumented as ever. And, as before, there is no documentation or any credible story of any American prisoners of war or missing in action being left in Vietnam. That was and is still a hoax used to cruelly exploit the feelings of their survivors in order to falsely manipulate American public opinion.
posted by y2karl at 5:32 AM on March 31, 2003
...as their lives veer off course into substance abuse, debilitating survivor guilt, violence and psychosis.
On the bright side, we're saving a fortune by cutting in the veterans benefits.
posted by spazzm at 5:34 AM on March 31, 2003
On the bright side, we're saving a fortune by cutting in the veterans benefits.
posted by spazzm at 5:34 AM on March 31, 2003
On the bright side, we're saving a fortune by cutting in the veterans benefits.
1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?
a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.
b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of military personnel.
c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
d. All of the above.
If you guessed (d), you're a winner! [from zmag]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:41 AM on March 31, 2003
1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?
a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.
b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of military personnel.
c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
d. All of the above.
If you guessed (d), you're a winner! [from zmag]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:41 AM on March 31, 2003
hama7 (=="hama seven"=="hamas, even") arrives in EVERY war thread wearing civilian clothing, semtex, and waving a white flag.
posted by quonsar at 5:48 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by quonsar at 5:48 AM on March 31, 2003
1. Not invade a country.
I'm damn glad the allied forces who defeated the Nazis, Japanese and Italians under Mussolini didn't think that way.
I might add that Hussein himself agreed to those very conditions of forced disarmament when he lost the Gulf War 12 years ago.
Amnesia?
posted by hama7 at 5:48 AM on March 31, 2003
I'm damn glad the allied forces who defeated the Nazis, Japanese and Italians under Mussolini didn't think that way.
I might add that Hussein himself agreed to those very conditions of forced disarmament when he lost the Gulf War 12 years ago.
Amnesia?
posted by hama7 at 5:48 AM on March 31, 2003
Saturday here in Seattle, I saw my first car sporting a UN flag.
French flags I've seen twice but a UN flag? Man, that was a first...
Bush reportedly shielded from dire forecast - Outlooks of quick war may have prevailed
Warren P. Strobel
Charlotte Observer
President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.
Instead, Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks, the officials said.
Dissenting views "were not fully or energetically communicated to the president," said one top official, who, like the others, requested anonymity. "As a result, almost every assumption the plan's based on looks to be wrong."
posted by y2karl at 5:52 AM on March 31, 2003
French flags I've seen twice but a UN flag? Man, that was a first...
Bush reportedly shielded from dire forecast - Outlooks of quick war may have prevailed
Warren P. Strobel
Charlotte Observer
President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.
Instead, Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks, the officials said.
Dissenting views "were not fully or energetically communicated to the president," said one top official, who, like the others, requested anonymity. "As a result, almost every assumption the plan's based on looks to be wrong."
posted by y2karl at 5:52 AM on March 31, 2003
"hamas, even"
quonsar, I'm surprised you haven't seen the fabulously creative "hamas heaven" moniker applied to me by so many hysterical adolescent morans.
posted by hama7 at 5:53 AM on March 31, 2003
quonsar, I'm surprised you haven't seen the fabulously creative "hamas heaven" moniker applied to me by so many hysterical adolescent morans.
posted by hama7 at 5:53 AM on March 31, 2003
Poop. Correct URL for the Happy Funtimes Quiz (munged on preview).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:54 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:54 AM on March 31, 2003
Talkikng Points Memo on Strobel piece:
A responsible journalist -- and the author, Warren Strobel, definitely qualifies -- reserves that classification for a very select group of people: cabinet secretaries, deputy secretaries, VPs, chiefs of staff, NSC Directors, Communications Directors, press secretaries, senior political advisors, and so forth. It might be squeezed open a bit further maybe. But these three aren't assistant-deputy-sub-deputies over at Interior or Commerce.
It's a narrow enough designation that I think you can say clearly that there simply aren't "three senior administration officials" at the State Department. Indeed, this has all the looks of a story leaked right out of the White House. Presumably, we can scratch Dick Cheney's name off the list since they finger him as the person most responsible for selling the president a bill of goods. Of course, we said months ago that Cheney was the living, breathing disaster at the heart of this administration. But we'll get back to that later.
In any case, the attribution is what makes this such a big story. The White House is in such a state of pandemonium and implosion that they are discarding the policy -- indeed, they are positively undermining it -- in the hopes of insulating the president from the immense fall-out that they can see barreling down the track. Consider also that, saying the president was "out of the loop" -- seemingly a family failing -- on the central policy of his administration is a devastating admission of incompetence on its own. So that tells you what they think of the consequences of remaining attached to the policy.
If you need some evidence that our country is in some trouble, there it is.
-- Josh Marshall
posted by y2karl at 6:02 AM on March 31, 2003
A responsible journalist -- and the author, Warren Strobel, definitely qualifies -- reserves that classification for a very select group of people: cabinet secretaries, deputy secretaries, VPs, chiefs of staff, NSC Directors, Communications Directors, press secretaries, senior political advisors, and so forth. It might be squeezed open a bit further maybe. But these three aren't assistant-deputy-sub-deputies over at Interior or Commerce.
It's a narrow enough designation that I think you can say clearly that there simply aren't "three senior administration officials" at the State Department. Indeed, this has all the looks of a story leaked right out of the White House. Presumably, we can scratch Dick Cheney's name off the list since they finger him as the person most responsible for selling the president a bill of goods. Of course, we said months ago that Cheney was the living, breathing disaster at the heart of this administration. But we'll get back to that later.
In any case, the attribution is what makes this such a big story. The White House is in such a state of pandemonium and implosion that they are discarding the policy -- indeed, they are positively undermining it -- in the hopes of insulating the president from the immense fall-out that they can see barreling down the track. Consider also that, saying the president was "out of the loop" -- seemingly a family failing -- on the central policy of his administration is a devastating admission of incompetence on its own. So that tells you what they think of the consequences of remaining attached to the policy.
If you need some evidence that our country is in some trouble, there it is.
-- Josh Marshall
posted by y2karl at 6:02 AM on March 31, 2003
Ladies and gentlemen, please. Don't feed the trolls.
Are they trolls? Seems to me they are simply protesting the frequency of Iraq threads. People here seem to support other types of protestors causing mischief to get their point across. Why not recognize hama7's and beholder's right to express their unhappiness with these types of posts?
Or do you only support the right to protest if you agree with what the protestors are protesting?
posted by jsonic at 7:03 AM on March 31, 2003
Are they trolls? Seems to me they are simply protesting the frequency of Iraq threads. People here seem to support other types of protestors causing mischief to get their point across. Why not recognize hama7's and beholder's right to express their unhappiness with these types of posts?
Or do you only support the right to protest if you agree with what the protestors are protesting?
posted by jsonic at 7:03 AM on March 31, 2003
Jsonic: What makes you think I'm referring to hama7 and beholder?
posted by spazzm at 7:09 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by spazzm at 7:09 AM on March 31, 2003
Incorrect assumption probably. People seemed to be dumping on them (including you) earlier in the thread. If you were'nt referring to them, then please ignore the quote from you I used. The rest still stands.
posted by jsonic at 7:13 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by jsonic at 7:13 AM on March 31, 2003
The story about the bridge of death reads eerily like a sequel to Blackhawk Down. Miscalculations, troops sent in to a kill zone on the basis on an overoptimistic plan, and an enemy who doesn't play by our ROE. Ingredients for disaster.
posted by newlydead at 7:13 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by newlydead at 7:13 AM on March 31, 2003
Jsonic: No worries.
But since we're on the subject, people who feel that war-threads are superfluous may relieve their suffering by not posting in said threads.
It really is that simple.
And where was I dumping on hama7 and beholder?
posted by spazzm at 7:28 AM on March 31, 2003
But since we're on the subject, people who feel that war-threads are superfluous may relieve their suffering by not posting in said threads.
It really is that simple.
And where was I dumping on hama7 and beholder?
posted by spazzm at 7:28 AM on March 31, 2003
So... having read the whole article... we have this:
1) The Iraqi tactics are accomplishing what the deliberately intended, and what we knew they would do; make it extremely difficult to limit civilian casualties.
2) Despite the danger to themselves the coalition soldiers are going well out of their way to try and avoid civilian casualties.
3) The Iraqi psy-op belief that #1 will cause many anti-war Americans to scream about the supposed atrocities and "war crimes" of the US was correct.
4) When Iraqi soldiers deliberately mix with civilians, civilians will die as a result. Marines will also die.
5) #4 was always a possibility, and one we were completely aware of. It will not alter the war militarily in any significant amount, but it may unfortunately cost more lives.
It seems only the anti-war folks are fixated on the idea that we thought the Iraqis wouldn't fight. The military HOPED for the best, but always knew it could go the other way. Further, the level of resistance by civilians is not extremely high.
War is rough... people die. When the regime you are fighting is deliberately working to increase the number of civilian casualties then a lot more people will die. That sucks, but it changes nothing.
posted by soulhuntre at 7:35 AM on March 31, 2003
1) The Iraqi tactics are accomplishing what the deliberately intended, and what we knew they would do; make it extremely difficult to limit civilian casualties.
2) Despite the danger to themselves the coalition soldiers are going well out of their way to try and avoid civilian casualties.
3) The Iraqi psy-op belief that #1 will cause many anti-war Americans to scream about the supposed atrocities and "war crimes" of the US was correct.
4) When Iraqi soldiers deliberately mix with civilians, civilians will die as a result. Marines will also die.
5) #4 was always a possibility, and one we were completely aware of. It will not alter the war militarily in any significant amount, but it may unfortunately cost more lives.
It seems only the anti-war folks are fixated on the idea that we thought the Iraqis wouldn't fight. The military HOPED for the best, but always knew it could go the other way. Further, the level of resistance by civilians is not extremely high.
War is rough... people die. When the regime you are fighting is deliberately working to increase the number of civilian casualties then a lot more people will die. That sucks, but it changes nothing.
posted by soulhuntre at 7:35 AM on March 31, 2003
War is rough... people die.
A good reason to avoid it, IMHO.
Funny that people with the "people die, so what"-attitude are rarely the people in the line of fire.
posted by spazzm at 7:40 AM on March 31, 2003
A good reason to avoid it, IMHO.
Funny that people with the "people die, so what"-attitude are rarely the people in the line of fire.
posted by spazzm at 7:40 AM on March 31, 2003
But since we're on the subject, people who feel that war-threads are superfluous may relieve their suffering by not posting in said threads.
I disagree. Voicing one's opposition is an important and valid activity, whether it be protesting something as significant as the war, or something as relatively insignificant as a perceived preponderance of one-sided thread posts. If we don't allow alternative viewpoints then metafilter will just turn into the left's version of free republic.
posted by jsonic at 7:42 AM on March 31, 2003
I disagree. Voicing one's opposition is an important and valid activity, whether it be protesting something as significant as the war, or something as relatively insignificant as a perceived preponderance of one-sided thread posts. If we don't allow alternative viewpoints then metafilter will just turn into the left's version of free republic.
posted by jsonic at 7:42 AM on March 31, 2003
News flash! People in war take on whatever mindset required to survive!
Thanks skallas, I never knew! What will you tell me next? Our soldiers curse up a storm?
posted by Dennis Murphy at 8:19 AM on March 31, 2003
Thanks skallas, I never knew! What will you tell me next? Our soldiers curse up a storm?
posted by Dennis Murphy at 8:19 AM on March 31, 2003
"A good reason to avoid it, IMHO."
I agree... but the reality is that you cannot always avoid it. The concept of "peace at any price" usually means the "price" is the total destruction of all you care for.
"Funny that people with the "people die, so what"-attitude are rarely the people in the line of fire."
I don't recall that I ever said "so what". I spent my time in the military, I took the risk of backing up my convictions. It is bad. It sucks. It's horrible. None of that changes that it is sometimes necessary.
posted by soulhuntre at 8:27 AM on March 31, 2003
I agree... but the reality is that you cannot always avoid it. The concept of "peace at any price" usually means the "price" is the total destruction of all you care for.
"Funny that people with the "people die, so what"-attitude are rarely the people in the line of fire."
I don't recall that I ever said "so what". I spent my time in the military, I took the risk of backing up my convictions. It is bad. It sucks. It's horrible. None of that changes that it is sometimes necessary.
posted by soulhuntre at 8:27 AM on March 31, 2003
But not on this occasion.
posted by Grangousier at 9:01 AM on March 31, 2003
posted by Grangousier at 9:01 AM on March 31, 2003
Yes, war is sometimes necessary.
Why was it necessary to invade Iraq?
I don't recall that I ever said "so what". I spent my time in the military,...
My point exactly.
posted by spazzm at 9:16 AM on March 31, 2003
Why was it necessary to invade Iraq?
I don't recall that I ever said "so what". I spent my time in the military,...
My point exactly.
posted by spazzm at 9:16 AM on March 31, 2003
Whether it is justified or not at this time is obviously up for debate - but many anti war people get very caught up in the rhetoric that it is >never< justified.
Me? I think this war is justified.
"My point exactly."
I haven't seen anyone say "so what" that wasn't obviously a whacko. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of people who were never in the military make judgements on all sorts of things they have no clue about.
posted by soulhuntre at 9:23 AM on March 31, 2003
Me? I think this war is justified.
"My point exactly."
I haven't seen anyone say "so what" that wasn't obviously a whacko. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of people who were never in the military make judgements on all sorts of things they have no clue about.
posted by soulhuntre at 9:23 AM on March 31, 2003
For whatever reason, the Turks and the Saudis have decided that this is not a legitimate use of power.
According to Seymour Hersh, "there is also evidence that Turkey has been playing both sides. Turkey and Syria, who traditionally have not had close relations, recently agreed to strengthen their ties, the businessman told me, and early this year Syria sent Major General Ghazi Kanaan, its longtime strongman and power broker in Lebanon, to Turkey. The two nations have begun to share intelligence and to meet, along with Iranian officials, to discuss border issues, in case an independent Kurdistan emerges from the Iraq war. A former U.S. intelligence officer put it this way: 'The Syrians are coördinating with the Turks to screw us in the north—to cause us problems.' He added, 'Syria and the Iranians agreed that they could not let an American occupation of Iraq stand.'"
posted by homunculus at 9:46 AM on March 31, 2003
According to Seymour Hersh, "there is also evidence that Turkey has been playing both sides. Turkey and Syria, who traditionally have not had close relations, recently agreed to strengthen their ties, the businessman told me, and early this year Syria sent Major General Ghazi Kanaan, its longtime strongman and power broker in Lebanon, to Turkey. The two nations have begun to share intelligence and to meet, along with Iranian officials, to discuss border issues, in case an independent Kurdistan emerges from the Iraq war. A former U.S. intelligence officer put it this way: 'The Syrians are coördinating with the Turks to screw us in the north—to cause us problems.' He added, 'Syria and the Iranians agreed that they could not let an American occupation of Iraq stand.'"
posted by homunculus at 9:46 AM on March 31, 2003
The Iraqis are using "deplorable" tactics because they are outgunned on their own turf by a country that has spent most of its attention for the past half-century on amassing guns. Yeah, it's awful. But what's more awful is our side's thinking "since they're outgunned, they'll just roll over and play dead."
4) When Iraqi soldiers deliberately mix with civilians, civilians will die as a result. Marines will also die.
5) #4 was always a possibility, and one we were completely aware of. It will not alter the war militarily in any significant amount, but it may unfortunately cost more lives.
Yeah, that sure is unfortunate - not just because of the individual lives lost now, but because the more Iraqi lives are lost, the more terrorists we have trying to kill us in the months, years and decades to come. In other words, the more wrong our military experts turn out to have been about how easy this is, the worse - far worse - it is for all of us and the state of the world. That's what makes this worth paying close attention to, Iraqfilter or no.
posted by soyjoy at 9:59 AM on March 31, 2003
4) When Iraqi soldiers deliberately mix with civilians, civilians will die as a result. Marines will also die.
5) #4 was always a possibility, and one we were completely aware of. It will not alter the war militarily in any significant amount, but it may unfortunately cost more lives.
Yeah, that sure is unfortunate - not just because of the individual lives lost now, but because the more Iraqi lives are lost, the more terrorists we have trying to kill us in the months, years and decades to come. In other words, the more wrong our military experts turn out to have been about how easy this is, the worse - far worse - it is for all of us and the state of the world. That's what makes this worth paying close attention to, Iraqfilter or no.
posted by soyjoy at 9:59 AM on March 31, 2003
Hey skallas, somewhat OT, but in October 2000 you wrote:
There has to come a point when someone decides "Hey maybe this Sadam character isn't going to change his mind" and take real action.
Isn't that what we did with the Nazis? We didn't send in a few laser guided million dollar bombs on a bunch of targets, we took down their fascist government and put them on trial and set up a democratic government, err at least on one side.
My point wansn't about bombs. If you read the post you'd see I was advocating dismantling the Hussien government instead of the mess we're left in now.
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that you've slyly gone from a position advocating regime change, to one in which you view this war (which will do just that) as a great injustice. Interesting, no?
posted by pardonyou? at 11:13 AM on March 31, 2003
There has to come a point when someone decides "Hey maybe this Sadam character isn't going to change his mind" and take real action.
Isn't that what we did with the Nazis? We didn't send in a few laser guided million dollar bombs on a bunch of targets, we took down their fascist government and put them on trial and set up a democratic government, err at least on one side.
My point wansn't about bombs. If you read the post you'd see I was advocating dismantling the Hussien government instead of the mess we're left in now.
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that you've slyly gone from a position advocating regime change, to one in which you view this war (which will do just that) as a great injustice. Interesting, no?
posted by pardonyou? at 11:13 AM on March 31, 2003
great link, great reporting. fair and balanced and extremely detailed. it's the first time i'm glad that there are embedded troops.
pardonyou?, i have no need to defend skallas, but there's nothing in *this* particular post (except for using that specific quote from the article) to indicate he thinks the Iraq invasion is a "great injustice," and his comments from 2000 are specifically in response to the failed Iraqi embargo.
there's a big difference between advocating the removal of a war criminal from power (which, supposedly, Saddam Hussein is) and advocating an illegal invasion.
again, thanks for the link and password. this is the type of war reporting (i.e. honest) that i'm looking for.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:29 AM on March 31, 2003
pardonyou?, i have no need to defend skallas, but there's nothing in *this* particular post (except for using that specific quote from the article) to indicate he thinks the Iraq invasion is a "great injustice," and his comments from 2000 are specifically in response to the failed Iraqi embargo.
there's a big difference between advocating the removal of a war criminal from power (which, supposedly, Saddam Hussein is) and advocating an illegal invasion.
again, thanks for the link and password. this is the type of war reporting (i.e. honest) that i'm looking for.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:29 AM on March 31, 2003
pardonyou?, i have no need to defend skallas, but there's nothing in *this* particular post (except for using that specific quote from the article) to indicate he thinks the Iraq invasion is a "great injustice," and his comments from 2000 are specifically in response to the failed Iraqi embargo.
You're right that there's nothing in this particular post (which is why I noted it was OT), but it's pretty clear where skallas stands on the war. In any case, maybe he has a legitimate explanation for his flip-flop -- certainly people can change their opinions. If I was a betting man, I'd say it was nothing more than political expediency -- in 2000 he was so against sanctions that he was willing to advocate for military conflict, whereas in 2002 if you want to be on the far left, you damn well better not support the war, even if it means the removal of a dictator and a better life for Iraqis.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:50 AM on March 31, 2003
You're right that there's nothing in this particular post (which is why I noted it was OT), but it's pretty clear where skallas stands on the war. In any case, maybe he has a legitimate explanation for his flip-flop -- certainly people can change their opinions. If I was a betting man, I'd say it was nothing more than political expediency -- in 2000 he was so against sanctions that he was willing to advocate for military conflict, whereas in 2002 if you want to be on the far left, you damn well better not support the war, even if it means the removal of a dictator and a better life for Iraqis.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:50 AM on March 31, 2003
...but it seems to me that you've slyly gone from a position advocating regime change, to one in which you view this war (which will do just that) as a great injustice. Interesting, no?
I'm not replying for Skallas but no it's not really very interesting, more like predictable - remember, it was going to be a cakewalk. Many who believed (and trusted) the chickenhawks may find themselves surprised and let down by the admission/realisation that this war will now "take as long as it takes".
posted by niceness at 12:14 PM on March 31, 2003
I'm not replying for Skallas but no it's not really very interesting, more like predictable - remember, it was going to be a cakewalk. Many who believed (and trusted) the chickenhawks may find themselves surprised and let down by the admission/realisation that this war will now "take as long as it takes".
posted by niceness at 12:14 PM on March 31, 2003
Going through my posting history? Man that's desperate.
Actually, I wasn't. I was doing a search of the archives for another point being discussed in another thread (specifically, that around this same time in the Afghanistan war there the media was predicting the U.S. would get bogged down in a quagmire). I happened upon the thread and thought it was funny how you alone were suggesting that the U.S. should forcefully remove Hussein from power.
Like I said a few posts above: "In any case, maybe he has a legitimate explanation for his flip-flop -- certainly people can change their opinions." I guess you did -- no shame in that. Many of my opinions have changed, too. But both times your opinions just seemed so concrete, yet they're diametrically opposed.
Not shooting the messenger. Just curious is all.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:56 PM on March 31, 2003
Actually, I wasn't. I was doing a search of the archives for another point being discussed in another thread (specifically, that around this same time in the Afghanistan war there the media was predicting the U.S. would get bogged down in a quagmire). I happened upon the thread and thought it was funny how you alone were suggesting that the U.S. should forcefully remove Hussein from power.
Like I said a few posts above: "In any case, maybe he has a legitimate explanation for his flip-flop -- certainly people can change their opinions." I guess you did -- no shame in that. Many of my opinions have changed, too. But both times your opinions just seemed so concrete, yet they're diametrically opposed.
Not shooting the messenger. Just curious is all.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:56 PM on March 31, 2003
Ah, classic. Predictable. Less than two weeks into this craven little escapade, and already we have the chickenhawk brigade rationalizing for American soldiers as they describe and advocate for crimes against humanity.
I have more breaking news for you: soldiers are trained to kill. They have only one other alternative.
I have some real breaking news for you: American soldiers killing civilians are murderers, pure and simple. And they have plenty of alternatives, including somehow acquiring the moral courage to make their lives into something more than dutiful little followers at the hands of our idiot political leaders.
If we don't allow alternative viewpoints then metafilter will just turn into the left's version of free republic.
posted by jsonic at 7:42 AM PST on March 31
~guffaw~
Alarm. Yellow Level DoubleThink Alert. Don your gas masks, the stench is getting pretty intense. The only attempt at editing alternative views is by the usual gang whining ad nauseum about any post that doesn't rally around the flag, trying as usual to stifle any dissent from America's party line. Don't like front page posts that give reasons for America to stop this wretched war? Stop reading them....and go make some front page posts that celebrate whatever you find so very wonderful and inspiring about people killing one another. But stop trying to cowardly dictate content.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:56 PM on March 31, 2003
I have more breaking news for you: soldiers are trained to kill. They have only one other alternative.
I have some real breaking news for you: American soldiers killing civilians are murderers, pure and simple. And they have plenty of alternatives, including somehow acquiring the moral courage to make their lives into something more than dutiful little followers at the hands of our idiot political leaders.
If we don't allow alternative viewpoints then metafilter will just turn into the left's version of free republic.
posted by jsonic at 7:42 AM PST on March 31
~guffaw~
Alarm. Yellow Level DoubleThink Alert. Don your gas masks, the stench is getting pretty intense. The only attempt at editing alternative views is by the usual gang whining ad nauseum about any post that doesn't rally around the flag, trying as usual to stifle any dissent from America's party line. Don't like front page posts that give reasons for America to stop this wretched war? Stop reading them....and go make some front page posts that celebrate whatever you find so very wonderful and inspiring about people killing one another. But stop trying to cowardly dictate content.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:56 PM on March 31, 2003
Three British soldiers sent home after protesting at civilian deaths
posted by homunculus at 2:26 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by homunculus at 2:26 PM on March 31, 2003
Did this particular "incident" get reported in the mainstream US media? I'm not watching the US network coverage at all (except when they break into other programming with a non-news newsbreak), and I'm only sometimes reading a few major US newspapers online.
Also, could someone who is watching US TV tell me if you think the tenor or manner of the reporting seems to have changed at all? Or is the war still being treated like a patriotic action-adventure reality show/video game?
Do any of the talking-heads shows present strongly anti-war positions?
(BTW I also can't find this particular incident/two-sided ambush/massacre on the website Iraqi Body Count.)
posted by NorthernLite at 4:29 PM on March 31, 2003
Also, could someone who is watching US TV tell me if you think the tenor or manner of the reporting seems to have changed at all? Or is the war still being treated like a patriotic action-adventure reality show/video game?
Do any of the talking-heads shows present strongly anti-war positions?
(BTW I also can't find this particular incident/two-sided ambush/massacre on the website Iraqi Body Count.)
posted by NorthernLite at 4:29 PM on March 31, 2003
No, the major nets won't present any strongly anti-war positions, except as "look at these freakos" pieces.
It's bad for business don't ya know.
posted by zaack at 4:48 PM on March 31, 2003
It's bad for business don't ya know.
posted by zaack at 4:48 PM on March 31, 2003
Me? I think this war is justified.
Care to elaborate on why?
Is it because Hussein is a tyrant, and we are going to install a democracy? Then why are we allied with Saudi Arabia?
Is it because he gassed kurds? Then why are we allied with Turkey, who are responsible for far more kurdish deaths? And wasn't the whole kurd-gassing episode actually done by IRAN?
Is it because of 9/11? Then why are we allied with the country that spawned the 9/11 terrorists, Saudi Arabia?
Is it because we're fighting fundamentalist islam? Then why are we allied with Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist islamic state, against Iraq, a secular socialist state?
I'm sure you have good answers to all these questions, you just haven't had the opportunity to express them before. Here's your chance to rectify that.
posted by spazzm at 5:10 PM on March 31, 2003
Care to elaborate on why?
Is it because Hussein is a tyrant, and we are going to install a democracy? Then why are we allied with Saudi Arabia?
Is it because he gassed kurds? Then why are we allied with Turkey, who are responsible for far more kurdish deaths? And wasn't the whole kurd-gassing episode actually done by IRAN?
Is it because of 9/11? Then why are we allied with the country that spawned the 9/11 terrorists, Saudi Arabia?
Is it because we're fighting fundamentalist islam? Then why are we allied with Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist islamic state, against Iraq, a secular socialist state?
I'm sure you have good answers to all these questions, you just haven't had the opportunity to express them before. Here's your chance to rectify that.
posted by spazzm at 5:10 PM on March 31, 2003
I don't like posting to Iraqfilter, but I wanted to inlcude some information regarding the US media's coverage of civilian deaths.
The Army announced tonight that American soldiers killed seven women and children this afternoon after a vehicle in which they were riding failed to stop when troops from the Third Infantry Division waved them down and fired warning shots.nytimes front page today
I also watched the PBS NewHour tonight ( only real war news analyis, in my opinion ). They had the Vice-Chair of the Chiefs of Staff-Marine guy- talking about the nytimes' case, if not the specific instance related in this post.
Whether or not you disagree with the event, it's not censored. Also see homunculus's link. WaPo isn't IndyMedia. If US citizens are ignorant, it's by choice,.
posted by superchris at 8:00 PM on March 31, 2003
The Army announced tonight that American soldiers killed seven women and children this afternoon after a vehicle in which they were riding failed to stop when troops from the Third Infantry Division waved them down and fired warning shots.nytimes front page today
I also watched the PBS NewHour tonight ( only real war news analyis, in my opinion ). They had the Vice-Chair of the Chiefs of Staff-Marine guy- talking about the nytimes' case, if not the specific instance related in this post.
Whether or not you disagree with the event, it's not censored. Also see homunculus's link. WaPo isn't IndyMedia. If US citizens are ignorant, it's by choice,.
posted by superchris at 8:00 PM on March 31, 2003
« Older Sophisticated terrorism? | That bird will peck out your eye. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Due to technical difficulties, we are currently unable to complete the required action. "
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:53 AM on March 31, 2003