US troops kill four Iraqis (Including Woman and Child)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

Tikrit - Four Iraqis, including a woman and a child, were killed Saturday when a US convoy opened fire on a car trying to overtake it in the northern town of Tikrit, police said.

<snip>

"The car, a grey Chevrolet Caprice, was hit by 27 shots and skidded, resulting in the death of four people, including a woman and a nine year-old child," Tikrit police chief Colonel Ussama Adham Abdel Ghaffer told reporters.

more: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1465345,00.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Minstrel Boy]

2. you're serious, aren't you?

I wonder: what do you find unjustified?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. "What kind of sick father and mother uses kids as shields like this?"?????

What article did you read?

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. Is there anything, in your opinion, done by the military that could

be construed as wrong?

I guess all cars should be considered fair game?

What if they were looking for help?

What if they found out Osama was hiding in a Spidy hole duplex and wanted to inform coalition troops?

WTF is wrong with NOT shooting Iraqi families?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treepig]

8. way to spread mis-information!

where does the article say the car was being driven AT the soldiers?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

19. buh-bye!

[treepig]

15. however, i'd be willing to be that the subject of your picture

has a much better command of the english language . . .

[truth2power]

17. LOL , Billy

I love that graphic that appears in various threads at the most appropriate times. :+

[MysticMind]

7. no, not all killing by soldiers is justified

Like rounding up people and shooting them.

[Flagg]

10. winning hearts and minds....

France warned them

[OrAnarch]

11. Funny...

I thought any and all killing by soldiers in an unjust invasion of foreign land is unjustified. Never in such a situation does any soldier have the moral highground, even with thier life in danger, to pull any trigger.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OrAnarch]

24. No they shouldn't...nor attack children in cars...

They should put down their guns and grab a boat home. Period. And in this case they clearly were not defending themselves anyway.

[MysticMind]

26. sure they were..

If they put down their guns and leave without orders to do so they'd be charged with desertion.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OrAnarch]

36. The ones that participate in unjust invasions are...

And Ill dance my jig any day rather than pander to right wing ideology.

[Zhade]

48. Better to be a deserter from an illegally invading army...

...than a murderer for empire.

Besides, how serious are we about punishing deserters? I mean, look at Bush - he deserted, but was he ever punished for being AWOL for a year? Nah...he had his Daddy to ensure that wouldn't happen.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[teach1st]

29. Lots of unnecessary name calling...

..but some points to consider on all sides.

IF the car approaching had indeed acted in a manner considered threatening, what should these soldiers have done? These are probably young twenty-somethings with loaded weapons and quite possibly very scared. There's little time to decide. It can't be easy for them.

Who put these kids in this awful situation?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

35. Viable questions. Unfortunately the article doesn't give enough

information to discern and the Military ain't talking.

And you allude to the crux of the problem: Who made this situation in the first place. If Bush hadn't lied to Congress about the threat of Iraq's WMD, the discussion would be moot.

[NNN0LHI]

77. Your right. Why don't them Iraqis just go home and leave our troops alone

Oh, wait a minute. The Iraqis are already at home. Maybe our soldiers should come home and leave them Iraqi's alone? Yea. Thats just the ticket.

Don

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arcane1]

22. yeah, that's what he said

:eyes:


do you even read the posts, or just copy/paste NewsMax editorials?

[MysticMind]

23. Newsmax?

They hate Hillary Clinton thus I hate them.

[arcane1]

25. funny, you use enough of their buzz-words

and pre-packaged thoughts...

telling the truth does not make one a traitor


how many Americans do you think should die in this invasion? How many would be un-acceptible?

And, how many dead Iraqis?

[MysticMind]

27. I'm not calling anyone a traitor for opposing the war..

Am I?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OrAnarch]

32. Not exactly...

You called me a traitor for oppossing the killing of innocents in an unjust invasion, asserting I jsut wanted Americans to die. That is pretty fallacious.

[Cuban Peril]

44. Definition please.

I'm mystified by the terms "unjust" and "illegal" regarding this war. They've been mainstreamed into most conversations to the point where their usage is totally inaccurate. The war is certainly, by the judiciary standards applied, not illegal. And how could the removal of a murderous @sshole be unjust?
Also, soldiers don't operate with an 'independent' moral code. They're supposed to follow orders, and in the absence of those orders, reference the rules of engagement to protect themselves and destroy the enemy.

[treepig]

67. quite simply

the war was illegal because it's legal basis (the threat of wmd's) was based on deliberate and calculating lies told by the pnac crowd.

removal of a murderous asshole (if you're referring to saddam hussein)is unjust due to the method by which it was achieved. for example, the murderous assholes who are in charge of this country perhaps deserve a similar fate, but if a bunch of foreigners were to invade our country to provide this "justice" - you bet i'd be super-pissed. but perhaps these points are lost on someone with a second grade, the-ends-justifies-the-means mentality.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

75. By your logic, there was nothing illegal about Germany invading Poland

What about the total destruction of an entire city block in two attempts to get at Saddam?

What about the use of depleted uranium munitions in an urban setting, which will lead to long-term health effects on the civilian population?

What about the UN Charter which outlawed wars of aggression?

U.S. Using Cluster Munitions In Iraq

(Washington, D.C., April 1, 2003) - U.S. ground forces in Iraq are using cluster munitions with a very high failure rate, creating immediate and long-term dangers for civilians and friendly soldiers, Human Rights Watch reported today.

While use of the weapon has not yet been confirmed by official U.S. military sources, it is evident from television images and stories from reporters embedded with U.S. units that U.S. forces are using artillery projectiles and rockets containing large numbers of submunitions, or cluster munitions. When these submunitions fail to explode on impact as designed, they become hazardous explosive "duds"—functioning like volatile, indiscriminate antipersonnel landmines.

Two U.S. Marines were killed in separate incidents on March 27 and 28 after stepping on unexploded cluster munitions delivered by artillery in southern Iraq.

"The United States should not be using these weapons," said Steve Goose, executive director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. "Iraqi civilians will be paying the price with their lives and limbs for many years."

http://hrw.org/press/2003/04/us040103.htm

[Cuban Peril]

76. Once again...

You're confusing the concept of 'universal truth' with what you desire 'to be' the truth. Problem is, universal truth wins every time. You can only agree with it or be wrong.

'Illegality' implies the commitance of 'legal' wrongdoing in the eyes of an OFFICIAL GOVERNING BODY UNDER WHOSE AUSPICES THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED. Those conditions do not apply here even in the slightest sense. Has the U.S. been charged with any crimes by the World Court? Have we lost our NATO charter? Have we been kicked out of the U.N.? Whereas the 'Arms Division' of 'Human Rights Watch' may not like our military tactics, they are absolutely powerless to do anything about it. If you maintain that the U.S. Government is conducting an 'illegal war' against Iraq, you are not only wrong, you're oblivious to the truth.

[treepig]

79. yeah, once again - you provide a rather bizarre analysis

you ask "Has the U.S. been charged with any crimes by the World Court? Have we lost our NATO charter? Have we been kicked out of the U.N.?"

do you have any clue why these events have not taken place? not because "no crime was committed" but rather because we're the big bully on the block, and no one has been able to take us to task. similarly, no one in the bush administration has been charged with any crimes, although at least some (and probably many) have been committed (e.g., the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame affair). you know, just yesterday i exceeded a 45 mph speed limit - a definitely illegal action - but you know what? i wasn't charged or cited in any way - so by your reasoning, what i did was perfectly A-OK!

[Cuban Peril]

83. How far does your consistency extend?

You claim the U.S. acted illegally against Iraq and just because no crimes have been found, does not mean that they don't exist.

You claim that you committed an illegal act but because you weren't caught, doesn't mean the crime didn't happen.

Now, do you extend the same benefit of the doubt to the Bush Administration and their claims of WMD's? If not, Why?

My point was that many people 'desire' this concept of an 'illegal war' to be the truth, despite ALL evidence to the contrary. There is no shame in being wrong, but plenty in not admitting it.

[treepig]

84. even the war's perpetrators acknowledge it's illegality

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html


ok, i'm eagerly awaiting your next words of wisdom (but if you're too busy campaigning for mr. leiberman or some other republican to reply, i'll understand)

[Columbia]

85. Bill Clinton doesn't mind

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

[treepig]

86. there's plenty of iraqi blood on clinton's hands too

i've never been able to ascertain if clinton's iraq policy (8 years of bombing and 500,000 dead children due to sanctions that knowing, perhaps deliberately, targeted civilians, not the b'aathist thugs running the country) was

1) because he's just as evil as the bush's who bookended his presidency

2) whether he was duped by the cia into actually believing the faultly intelligence (when the cie knew full well by 1995 that there were no wmd's in iraq)

3) whether he was trying to "reach out" to the facists in this country and gain favorable editorial coverage in the wsj and washington times

[iverglas]

97. "Has the U.S. been charged with any crimes by the World Court?"

Was OJ Simpson convicted of murder?

You seem likely to understand the difference between facts and findings of fact, or actions taken on the basis of facts.

Just btw, nations are not "charged with crimes". And no one is ever charged with anything by a court.

An action could be brought against the US in the International Court of Justice, by a state party with an interest, based on its invasion of Iraq. Like Nicaragua did in respect of the illegal acts of war committed against it by the US. Like a future government of Iraq might do.

An individual USAmerican (whether an executive authority or an individual under his/her command) could be charged with the commission of a war crime, crime against humanity or crime of genocide (whether before a domestic court in the US or Iraq or somewhere else, or before an international tribunal with jurisdiction). As both executive authorities and lesser individuals have been in the war crimes prosecutions relating to events in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, for instance.

None of this is to say that such an action by a state party against the US would succeed, or that such a charge against an individual US citizen would lead to a conviction. Allegations are of course not the same as proof to whatever standard applies.

The point is that, conversely, absence of a judicial finding is not proof of the non-existence of facts. A war may indeed be illegal despite never being judicially found to be illegal, just as a death may indeed be murder despite never being judicially found to be murder. And individuals may have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity or crimes of genocide despite never being judicially found to have committed them, just as an individual may have committed a murder despite never being judicially found to have committed it.

.

[demdave]

37. You are all arguing from a point of ignorance.

This article doesn't contain enough info to determine anything.

"The car, a grey Chevrolet Caprice, was hit by 27 shots and skidded, resulting in the death of four people, including a woman and a nine year-old child,"

Were all the dead in the car? Did the car skid into innocent pedestrians? What was the car doing to give the impression it was "trying to overtake" the convoy? Are cars normally allowed to pass a convoy?

But don't let a little issue like a total lack of facts get in the way of your tirades....carry on.

[JoeNormal]

38. Exactly

There is not nearly enough info in the article to draw a conclusion.

[Just Me]

52. Gotta' admit, use of the term "traitor" is a dead give away,...

,...every time,...a dead give away.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

81. wrong forum

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pinto]

42. fact is this is a guerrilla war

and the longer it goes on, there's a shift in perception by the occupying forces - gradually civilians are seen as possible/probable insurgents, there is no indentifiable "front line" and, as they so euphemistically say, "mistakes are made".

i.e. civilians get killed.

Not a good thing for US to be, imho.

ps: Saddam Hussein did not attack the US or the UK, and couldn't, let's remember that.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

40. FURTHER INFORMATION (link)

<snip>

A fifth occupant who survived the incident with chest injuries also said the vehicle had received fire from a US convoy.

"A soldier from the convoy opened fire as we tried to overtake," Ibrahim Alawi Ahmad Ali al-Amiri, 31, said from his bed in Tikrit's general hospital. He added the dead woman and child were his wife and son and the other two were his parents.


The restive hometown of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Tikrit is now under the supervision of US troops from the 4th Infantry Division and has been the scene of several clashes between resistance fighters and occupation forces.

US Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell, head of the 4th Infantry Division battalion, said he was aware of the incident but his men were not involved.

Several Iraqi civilians have been killed in similar circumstances when approaching or overtaking US vehicles.

According to the independent Anglo-American group Iraq Body Count, roughly 8000 to 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US-led invasion in April 2003.

The UK-based medical charity Medact last month said up to 55,000 Iraqi lives had been lost since the invasion.

<snip>
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C4CF34B9-9D0C-48B2-88C7-7485ED9D6108.htm

[pinto]

43. Geez, his wife, child and parents........n/t

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

51. Another sad fact from the above figures is that we

have killed a number of Iraqis equal to nearly 20 WTC disasters.

And they had nothing to do with Al Quada or 9-11.

Sigh.

[saigon68]

45. US Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell,

This guys back again.
Yikes

[ozymandius]

46. Is this guy bad news? nt

[NickB79]

54. Geez, did we clone him or something?

A Steve Russell for every platoon in Iraq? This guy is EVERYWHERE.

[Guaranteed]

50. I think I might hold this

against the US for a little while, if I had been this guy.

[IndianaGreen]

68. "US Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell" (our Bible thumping Colonel)

This is the puke that holds prayer breakfasts for his troops and allows the dissemination of religious tracks to the grunts.

Do a Google or a DU search of his name, and you will find plenty of stuff about this fundie.

There are two light colonels that have made a name for themselves in Iraq. The first is Dominic J. Caraccilo, who was responsible for the spam of letters from GIs to their hometown newspapers in support of the Bush regime, too bad that many of those GIs did not know they had written a letter.

The second notable is LTC Steve Russell, the man that wanted to plaster posters of Saddam in drag and Elvis wearing a huge cross necklace.

[Leilani]

41. The soldiers have been placed in an untenable position

They are being used in an illegal war, based on lies told by this administration.

They are pawns in this game, & are trying to stay alive.

My heart goes out to military, their families, & innocent Iraqis.

[Sir Craig]

49. Bravo!

:thumbsup: Thank you for a succinct, straight-to-the-point observation. As a member of the military, I wish to also thank you for your compassion for those serving in this unjust conflict, and to let you know I share your feelings for any and all of the innocents who have had their lives shattered because of BushCo...

[dawgman]

53. thank you for your service and welcome to DU.

I just wish the soldiers would be used for self-defense instead of agression.

[Sir Craig]

62. You are most kind, Dawgman...

I can say this with the utmost sincerity: There are few soldiers who do not share your view. We would be much happier remaining at home, near our families and loved ones, instead of being used for some twisted foreign policy created in the name of Big Oil.

My thanks to all DUers who share my beliefs and concerns...

<edited for grammar - it's been a long day - someone beer me> :beer:

[Cuban Peril]

55. craig

Why on earth did you ever join? Did you not know that people would be making life and death decisions that directly involve you regardless of your politics? Did you not know, going in, that the innocent as well as the guilty are the victims of war? Lastly, if you think the removal of murderous tyrant is 'unjust', I'd suggest not re-upping.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

56. There's a difference between anti war and anti soldier....

I was in the anti war movement during Nam, and I am in the anti war movement now.

NEVER have I (or reasonable people I know) blamed the average soldier who following orders.

I find what you say to be cold and cliche. It was the Bush admin that started this debacle, not the EM or his officer.

[Cuban Peril]

59. How magnanimous of you!

The point I was trying to make is that if you decide on a career in the military, you had best resign yourself to the fact that your personal politics don't matter. Period.

Also, on behalf of the millions who have risked their lives for your freedoms, thanks to you and your 'reasonable' friends for approving. How's the weather in Canada this time of year?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

63. It's cold. It's winter and usually is. Why do you ask?

[haele]

99. Well, up until about three years ago,

A career in the military, especially in the Guards or the Reserves, actually did mean - for the most part - supporting and protecting your country (well, for the most part) and upholding international law. There was also a lot more leeway to express one's personal politics, and the possibility for participating in an unjust or illegal conflict was growing less and less possible.

Unfortunately, after January, 2001, things rapidly changed and careened out of control for most people in the military - there are no jobs to leave for even if one could. When balancing the choice between supporting your family the best you can or going to prison for acting out against what is in all intents and purposes an illegal use of a national resource - that's a choice that in my experience, few people anywhere - and I also include many of the so-called radicals who snipe at the sidelines without taking chances - are courageous enough to take the moral high road and let their families suffer along with them.

I was lucky, I retired in 1998. In 2002, I would have faced the choice above, and I'll tell you straight up - had it been prior to my marriage, I'd have taken the chance and done everything in my power to retire honorably, and if that couldn't be done, I'd have taken the consequences of refusing a so-called "lawful order".
However, had it been after my marriage, with a disabled husband to support - no. I would have stuck it out and hoped, prayed, and constantly created rituals so that I wouldn't be put in a position to kill an innocent, or be killed myself. I'd be doing my best to keep my personal sense of honor and mitigate the damage done by Bushco in any way possible.

The truth is that it's a tough decision that spans so many personal criteria that everyone has to make on their own - and having been there myself, I would never stoop to belittle anyone's response to making that choice.
I wouldn't want to be judged by moral perfectionists for doing what I perceived as being "the right thing", nor would I want shoulder the responsibility of "making" that choice for someone else by not allowing them the freedom to make that choice without judgment from others who have an imperfect idea of what the realities facing the one making the choice are.


Haele

[Skittles]

57. SOME OF US

served in the military to SERVE OUR COUNTRY, not HALLIBUTON AND OTHER RICH FRIENDS OF BUSH INC.

[bearfan454]

80. Damn right Skittles !

Vietnam Era Vet right here.

[Sir Craig]

60. All good questions. Allow me to give you some answers...

1. As I said, I joined because I felt (and still do feel) that this country is worth preserving. For all it's bumps and bruises, this is still one of the best examples of a democracy in action. This country and its principles have stood the test of time longer than almost any other on this planet, and it gives me a small measure of satisfaction that I am able to look out my window and see that I am doing something to ensure our preservation.
   
   
2. Now that the flag-waving is done, it was also one of the few employment opportunities available at the time I enlisted (I enlisted when Reagan was in control, and for those who are old enough to remember what the job market was like back then, you might understand). I did not go into the military all sparkly-eyed and innocently trusting - I knew and understood what might happen, even though at the time such notions seemed rather unrealistic (who knew about the Bushies?).
   
   
3. I am more aware of the costs of war than I'm sure you'll ever be, just as I am more aware of the costs of simple daily life. I have seen death in all its ugliness, and no death has ever left me unaffected, no matter whether it was justified or not. To be otherwise is to be less than human. Unfortunately, being human also means understanding that we are not perfect and that we'll never achieve that perfection - we must do what we can to minimize or discourage others who would view our humanity as weakness, and encourage others who would like to see our world grow and flourish.
   
   
4. The removal of a murderous tyrant is never unjust, but if that were the only excuse given for this current policy of "pre-emptive action," as opposed to the dire threats of WMDs and imminent attacks that were fed to the American public initially, then we still have a major problem: There are many countries out there with murderous tyrants running the show. North Korea, Zimbabwe, China, etc., would all fall under consideration for "pre-emptive action," which is what alarmed North Korea. Plus the stage is now set for other countries (such as India and Pakistan) to use "pre-emptive action" as an excuse.
   
   As it turns out, Hussein was not the danger to America as he was presented to be by BushCo. Yes, he was an evil man, and I'll shed no tears for him once his sentence is carried out, but the mess remains: This fabrication was not worth over 450 Coalition lives lost, and not the thousands of Iraqi lives lost. And if you've read your world history, you'll know that democracy has never worked as a system of government if it was forced upon said government: If the country wasn't ready for it, what makes anyone think a few hundred thousand well-armed soldiers is going to make it work?
   

As for re-upping, too late, been there, done that, and I'm about to retire, and as much as I have hated and despised what I have had to do at times, I would never throw away any of my experiences. If nothing else, I know it has made me a better person when I can say, "I know what it was like."

[Cuban Peril]

61. Thanks for the candor and insight. Best wishes.

[Sir Craig]

64. And thank you for your earnestness, civility, and best wishes.

Travel well in life...

[Zhade]

70. Bravo, soldier.

I am pretty anti-military due to what my own father was involved in militarily, but I am not anti-soldier. I protested before Operation Occupation to try to keep our troops here, safe and not dying in an illegal war.

Your answers here are very honest and forthright, and I salute you. Number 4, by the way, is exactly right, and I wish more people civilians and non would grasp what you understand.

[Sir Craig]

82. I thank you, Zhade. It might surprise you to know...

Many people in the service are themselves "anti-military." We understand that the very presence of a military means there is something fundamentally not right in the world; many of us would love to see a world where there is no need for a military.

But I do wish to thank you for making the distinction between being "anti-military" and being "anti-soldier."

I can only hope a few of the other posters might stop and think about the difference themselves.

[Sir Craig]

47. Huh...

I had this nice, long tirade all lined up and ready to post, but it seems the moderator has effectively taken the wind out of my sails.

In short, there is not enough information here to allow an objective discussion, but at the same time there seems to be an awful lot of armchair quarterbacks.

[0007]

58. LOL!!

[madforffingyears]

65. It's a safe assumption that we murdered these innocent civilians

There is no law against passing a military convoy on the road. We committed a war crime and now it's time to procecute the guilty.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

66. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[madforffingyears]

69. Thanks BP,I am fed up with the US dictatorship across the planet

I don't know what to do but I'm here, queer and ready to get America back on the right track to become accepted by the more progressive countries that outnumber us.

[Zhade]

71. Yeah, welcome to DU!

Good to see a post headline like yours - always welcome. We need fighters. It's war, in my opinion, and the more patriots we have fighting the fascists, the better!

I'm queer too, so welcome on that angle as well. :)

[lib13]

87. no trial?

We committed a war crime and now it's time to procecute the guilty.

Prosecute the guilty? How about an investigation first, then maybe a court martial?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

88. Prosecution is part of a trial.

And we should investigate and bring charges...

The problem is, how far up the chain would one go? None of this would have happened if Bushco had not lied to Congress about the reasons for going to war. If you take it to the top, Bush should be tried for mass murder.

[lib13]

89. how far up the chain?

That is a very interesting idea...I don't think bush should be tried for mass murder, but the administration SHOULD be held accountable for bad intelligence.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

90. They had good intelligence from our people, they chose to

believe Chalabi's unproven intelligence and and twisted what the CIA gave them to compliment Chalabi (who has had a hard on for Saddam for 20 years).

Like the Yellow Cake, three monts b4 the SOTU speech, they dropped the yellow cake from a Bush speech. When asked why they included it in the SOTU, Condi said "We forgot." I don't think so.

On Sept 12, Rummy stated, "We can use this to take care of Iraq."

The neocons had been looking for a "Pearl Hrbor" event to move into the oilfields of the ME. They found one and kicked off the largest propoganda blitz the world has ever seen.

[lib13]

92. I agree it was a lie, but not about Iraqi oil

I think the reason we went in there was so that we could get rid of Saddam so that we could get our troops out of Saudi Arabia and try to get democracy started in Iraq, then try to spread it to other Arab states in the long run. I seriously think Bush is thinking in (what He and Cheney and Rumsfeld) think is in Americas best interests. And if they have to make up a reason - Was it Wolfowitz who actually said 'WMD was chosen as a a political reason' or something like that? - then so be it.

It is up to us the American people to say good bye to President Bush in the election. Let him try to steal it again.

[treepig]

93. hmm, so this thread has re-surfaced

but (ironically?) the quality posts continue to plunge.

you say bush is acting in the best interests of america? huh? could you kindly tell us what color the sky is in in your world?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

96. This isn't nearly as obtuse as many of the preceding (and deleted)

comments made earlier. Methinks this poster be a good Dem. :toast:

[treepig]

100. sure, i'll concede that poster may indeed be a good Dem

in the mold of the pro-war bush apologists joe lieberman, zell miller, and john edwards.

and that's what's so scary - perhaps ralphie was right after all . . .

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

101. LOL.... At least he didn't want four more years of Shrub...

I think a lot of people are having trouble admitting that all these lives and all that money have been used basically for the biggest lie ever told.

[lib13]

102. best interests...

I didn't say that !

I said...I seriously think Bush is thinking in (what He and Cheney and Rumsfeld) think is in Americas best interests.

It is true that I refuse to believe that the President of the United States, the VP and the Secretary of Defense would knowingly and blatantly start a meaningless war and kill Americans just for profit and fun. They are negligent and incompetent, but THEY THINK they are doing the right thing.

[treepig]

103. ok, i believe that we may have narrowed down the problem,

and it is that you "refuse to believethat the President of the United States, the VP and the Secretary of Defense would knowingly and blatantly start a meaningless war and kill Americans just for profit and fun." - why do you refuse to believe this, despite voluminous evidence to the contrary?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

95. IMO, what you say is true, but not inclusive,

I think these people see this as a way of furthering America's interests. PNAC pretty much spells it out (Google it if you aren't familiar with it).

I'm sure that in their own screwed up logic, they think that all this is "good for America."

I think they are terribly wrong.

[beanball]

74. Murder in the desert

how long will the so called good people of this so called democracy stand silent and let the bush barbarians murder their fello humans as if they were mad animals? I am reminded of a Marvin Gaye ballad that says"Its been a long time coming but there are gonna be some changes made".We need to make some changes here in america,we need to get that mad manout out of the white house before the planet goes up in flames.Its our choice peace or war and more wars and suffering.DAMMIT AMERICA WAKE UP.

[treepig]

78. unfortunately, america is AWAKE

and approve of what mr. bush (et al) are doing. heck, even look on this board of how many people approve and support the troops' efforts in iraq (or else excuse their actions because of their innocence and naivety, or economic necessity, in joining the military).

perhaps it time for a rehash of "Bush's Willing Executioners" :

Partisan politics are so dead that the American resistance is entrusted by default into the unlikely hands of the same intelligence establishment that poisoned Fidel's cigars. Every day brings startling revelations from angry CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency spymasters: despite what Bush said over and over again, there was never any proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the trailers Bush claimed were mobile chemical weapons labs were no such thing, and Colin Powell presented, in the UN, evidence on Iraq that he privately considered doctored and unreliable. The recent DIA leak of a November 2002 analysis shows that intelligence experts believed that Saddam Hussein would never use WMDs--even if he had them--unless "regime survival was imminently threatened." The Iraqis would use them only "in extreme circumstances," the report said, "because their use would confirm Iraq's evasion of UN restrictions."

Where is the outrage? Even though it's painfully clear that Bush lied about the WMDs, even though daily ambushes of American troops indicate that the war is far from over, a CBS News poll shows that 62 percent of Americans still support Bush's con job on Iraq. "The president is 99 percent safe on this one," says Newt Gingrich.

Protestors who demonstrated against the war before it began ought to be energized by the WMD scandal, but the streets of Washington are quiet. Editors who parroted the Administration's lies, given the chance to redeem themselves now, downplay the latest Slaughtergate news. An army colonel e-mails, urging me to keep asking questions, yet confesses, "I'm keeping my thoughts to myself and waiting until I retire to get the hell out of here." Daniel Goldhagen's controversial 1996 book "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" pointed out an obvious truth: that the Nazis could never have triumphed, retained power or gotten anything done without the explicit complicity of the people they ruled. Therefore, Goldhagen argued--and thoughtful people agree--the failure of the German people to resist Hitler made them just as guilty as he was.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3988.htm

[AromaticSocks]

91. What do you suppose happened Billy?

"Tikrit - Four Iraqis, including a woman and a child, were killed Saturday when a US convoy opened fire on a car trying to overtake it in the northern town of Tikrit, police said."

Billy, why do you suppose the soldiers fired on the car? Do you suppose they just wanted to kill the woman and child or did they feel under threat by being overtaken and a possible bomb on board?

What is your take on this incident?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

94. Pure conjecture on my part, but I imagine overworked

and possibly under trained (from the # of reservists over there) troops who, in fear for their lives, fired on a civilian vehicle before there was indications of real threat.

I live in an area with an Army base and the majority of military convoys I see travel slowly compared to a passenger vehicle. It's second nature to pass them when you can. These people live(d) in a country where they probably hear "We are here to liberate you. We are your friends." and may not have considered passing military vehicles to be punishable by death.

I hope this was the case. There is also the remote possibility that it was done for the sake of killing. The desensitization to killing that can occur to a very small minority in a wartime environment can cause bizarre behavior such as the four soldiers just found culpable for abusing Iraqi prisoners. There were more than a handful of occurrences in Nam where our troops "went over the line."

Bad shit happens on both sides. As the "good guys," we should be vigilant in assuring our troops behave in a manner representing our beliefs as a nation.

That is why I believe that a full investigation of this and similar occurrences should be made. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than other countries that invade sovereign nations on the basis of lies.

[AromaticSocks]

98. I see your point

Tought call too as I see it.

[atreides1]

104. "Rules of Engagement"

There are suppose to be "Rules of Engagement", these rules determine when a soldier is supposed to use any kind of force including "deadly
force".

When a photographer was killed by a US tank crew, the soldiers were
exonerated by the army because they supposedly used the rules of engagement. When asked what those rules were, the spokesperson told
the reporters that the rules of engagement were classified.

One of the first things that needs to be discovered is what instructions did the soldiers in that convoy receive regarding how to
react to civilian vehicles.

Without the "Rules of Engagement", and with some in the chain of command looking the other way when both the Geneva Conventions and
the Laws of War have been violated, a soldier can make their own decision as to when they might feel threatened. If this is the case
then don't count on any investigation taking place.

Besides the good freedom loving people of America don't really care if Iraqi or Afghan children are killed by US troops, they only seem to show concern when terrorists/insurgents/resistance fighters, etc.
are responsible for the killings.(Sarcasm)