»

[Karlos]

@Smithy

You: They are cluster bombing civilian areas! Massacring everyone in Fallujah with a punishment campaign! Wait until they find some fresh mass graves, then they'll be worse then Saddam!

Hmm. You really did misunderstand the mass graves thing. I said "more people have died in this timeframe than saddam managed in the same period before the war. Until they find some fresh mass graves, this is a fact"

I'm not sure how you misread that (after all, nobody else did) but I am saying that until they (the coalition/iraqi authorities that is) find some fresh mass graves that were down to saddam in that same timeframe immediately prior to the invasion, the observation that the coalition have exceeded Saddams ability to kill iraqis within this timescale is true. There, is that clear enough for you?

For the record and for clarity, since you really don't seem to understand a word I say:

I am saying civilian areas have been targetted in order to eliminate perceived/known threats therein. Consequently a lot of innocent civilians have been hurt. Unlike Mr Hoon who thinks the victims of cluster munitions (as defined as any ordnance that fragments into smaller explosive devices) "will thank us one day", I'm pretty sure they won't.

As regard those percieved known threats, they are only as good as the intelligence, and given the very premise for the invasion, you'll excuse me if I am highly skeptical. How else do you explain, for example, the bombing of a wedding party? In case you forgot, an old news link here]

Regarding Fallujah, you're totally right as ever, there was no destruction at all, which is why all 980,000 google hits for destruction+fallujah are all outright lies, no matter what the source. Even after you skip past all those loony left wing sites. I won't lie to you, I didn't read them all.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are, the way you claim things like "new hospitals, schools" or "access to water and power has never been higher" as signs of progress, as if none of these things ever existed in iraq previously. After all, they all lived in mud houses, didn't they?

[PMC]

Am going slightly off topic, but my views on the Iraq invasion aren't necessarily representitive of either extreme:

For one, I was against the invasion because I felt lied to by my government. Had the arguement been "we need to topple the leader of a cruel and unjust regieme" then I (and I suspect many in the Arab world) would have supported it. However, the publically declared grounds for the invasion and subsequent allied conduct after March 2003 convinced me that the occupation of Iraq isn't working out in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

@smithy

Me: The coalition does not target civilians or commit murder.

So what would you call the indiscriminate shooting of unarmed people in Falluja, not to mention the deliberate targetting of people attempting to retrieve the dead and wounded in the streets?

Hardly "winning the hearts and minds of the people". It amazes me how the lessons of Vietnam have gone completely unheeded.

[Glaucus]

(summarising the discussion so far)
You: They are cluster bombing civilian areas! Massacring everyone in Fallujah with a punishment campaign! Wait until they find some fresh mass graves, then they'll be worse then Saddam!
Me: The coalition does not target civilians or commit murder.
You: I never said they did.
Me: "Mass graves", "punishment campaign", "cluster bombs", etc...
You: I meant civilian areas not civilian targets. I feel strongly so I use strong language. I still maintain Fallujah was a punishment campaign.

Ever hear of criminal negligence?

- Mike

[jkirk]

Glaucus wrote:
Ever hear of criminal negligence?

in war? i haven't.

[Glaucus]

PMC wrote:
Hardly "winning the hearts and minds of the people". It amazes me how the lessons of Vietnam have gone completely unheeded.

Truth is, foreign armies rarely go that extra mile to ensure the safety of the locals. If American soldiers were defending American citizens on American soil, they'd be more careful about who they bomb and who they snipe and they wouldn't be so keen on raising entire residential blocks to the ground. American forces protecting Americans would be more likely to sacrifice themselves to save the civilians. These actions would build trust between the forces and the civilians.

In Iraq it's the opposite. Americans are foreigners who probably have little trust of the people and thus are less likely to be as careful and selective of their targets. They're also far less likely to sacrifice themselves to save the people. Indeed, reports from Iraq tell us of frustration and low morale amongst US troops. Of course this is to be expected from any modern military and is how these wars tend to pan out. This is also why such a war makes little sense, considering the goals set out by the US government. It's not just a case of the means not justifying the end, I believe it's a case of the means could never achieve the end.

For these reasons I believe Iraq is a lost cause. There's no amount of training, there's no tactics or strategies that can change this. Like in Vietnam, US forces in Iraq will always be strangers in a strange land. History will repeat itself.

- Mike

[Glaucus]

jkirk wrote:

in war? i haven't.

Well how lucky of you to live in America then.

- mike

[Wilse]

2,176 coalition deaths (according to CNN). "Hundreds of thousands" (according to Wilse's Not-made-up-figure-but-can't-back-it-up). That's well over 95%.

1. I never claimed there have already been hundreds of thousands, merely that the final toll would likely be that. I do, however, believe that there may well already have been over 100,000. Proper reading of Iraq Body count site only backs this up.
The Lancet report also points to this. You then laughably assert that it is I who cannot back up figures.(Unless you have some other source of information than these two sources?)

2. You, in typically ludicrous style, assert that not a single civilian death resulted from coalition fire, in order to reach this 'statistic'.

So, thank you for confirming that it indeed was another invented Smithy statistic. Keep 'em comin'. ;-)

[Wilse]

@PMC:

For one, I was against the invasion because I felt lied to by my government. Had the arguement been "we need to topple the leader of a cruel and unjust regieme" then I (and I suspect many in the Arab world) would have supported it.

It is quite possible that I would have too. I had no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan at the time.

[jkirk]

Glaucus wrote:
Well how lucky of you to live in America then.

well enlighten me who has been charged with this during or after wartime. since apparently the u.s. media does not cover such things(or i have forgotten).

[Glaucus]

jkirk wrote:
well enlighten me who has been charged with this during or after wartime. since apparently the u.s. media does not cover such things(or i have forgotten).

Sure they do. Just for starters look up friendly fire & four dead Canadians in Afghanistan. That went to trial, and the only reason it got that far is because Canadians aren't Afghans.

- Mike

[PMC]

@Wilse

I too was in favour of the invasion against Afghanistan. Mainly because I wanted to see the crazily mysoginistic Taleban to fall.

Why is Mugabe still in power?

[Karlos]

PMC wrote:

Why is Mugabe still in power?

Unlike Afghanistan / Iraq:

1) There's no assumption that he had anything to do with 9/11.
2) Zimbabwe has nothing the US wants.

[Karlos]

PMC wrote:

@smithy

So what would you call the indiscriminate shooting of unarmed people in Falluja, not to mention the deliberate targetting of people attempting to retrieve the dead and wounded in the streets?

You forget that seemingly in Smithy's view of the situation, these sorts of things simply never happened. No matter what you have read/heard/seen, this did not happen, it is quote "Rediculous". Just as the demolition of entire swathes of the town did not happen. Just as there was absolutely nobody there by the time the troops rolled in other than terrorist types begging for a bullet. The poor, old, weak and those with nowhere else to go when ordered out simply do not exist and therefore could not have been there in order to be indiscriminately killed.

[cecilia]

Frontline documentary shown tonite on US TV about the use of torture.

Anyone who thinks this was just a couple of kooks is Deluded.

there's NO justification for this behavior, for this stupid war, nothing.

anyone who thinks so makes me sick.

[metalman]

Karlos wrote:
How else do you explain, for example, the bombing of a wedding party? In case you forgot, an old news link here]

No Wedding Party, or Children's Deaths Indicated, at Mogr el-Deeb

WASHINGTON, May 22, 2004 – There are no indications a wedding party took place at a remote desert site in western Iraq near the Syrian border where U.S. forces are accused of killing about 20 people May 19, including women and children, a senior military spokesman said today.

"Contrary to media reports, there was no wedding tent and no nuptial tent in the area," Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for Multinational Force Iraq said during a Baghdad news conference.

"To the allegation that there was a wedding going on, there was no evidence of a wedding," Kimmitt reiterated. "There were no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration and no gifts.

"The men were almost all military-aged, no family elders that one would expect to see at an event of this type," he said.

To help substantiate his comments, the general showed reporters slides of items found at the site, which included a significant number of weapons, battery packs used to power improvised explosive devices and a host of other non-wedding-related items.

"What was interesting is that the building seemed to be somewhat of a dormitory," Kimmitt pointed out. "There were more than 300 sets of bedding gear in it and about 100 sets of prepackaged clothing. It's suspected that when foreign fighters come in from other countries they change their clothes into typical Iraqi clothing sets.

"We also found a significant number of identity cards, ID-making machines, the capability to make exit visas for Iraq and a couple of passports," the general noted. "And we found a waist-high medical table for examination and treatment."

Highlighting some other intelligence found at the site, Kimmitt said, "There were a couple of other items we found to be quite interesting. None of the bodies had any identification of any kind – no ID cards, no wallets, no pictures. They had watches, and that was about the only way you could identify one person from another.

"We feel that that was an indicator that this was a high-risk meeting of high-level anti-coalition forces," he said. Kimmitt pointed out items found in the victims' pockets, "including a lot of telephone numbers to foreign countries -- Afghanistan, Sudan and a number of others."

He said the site was purported to be a ranch, but there was no indication of ranching activities. "Most homes in remote desert areas support sheep ranching operations," Kimmitt noted. "But there wasn't any evidence of livestock at that location. There were large farm trucks present, but no indication that they'd ever been used for ranching."

"There were also a number of terrorist training manuals (and) suspected forged Iraqi IDs," he said.

Kimmitt said there may have been some kind of celebration going on at the said, but not a wedding. "Bad people have celebrations too," he noted. "Bad people have parties too. It may have been that what was seen as some sort of celebration may have just been a meeting in the middle of the desert by some people that were conducting either criminal or terrorist activities. That's the conclusion we're continuing to draw the more we look at the material, intelligence, post-strike, and follow-up intelligence."

Kimmitt said the coalition believes "a handful of women" could have been present. "We believe six were killed, and we acknowledge that in all of our reports," he said. "But there are still not reports of any children being killed."

Kimmitt said a videotape distributed to the media showing at least a dozen bodies, including small children, wrapped in blankets for burial, being unloaded from a truck doesn't look like the video taken at the site of the attack.

"None of the geography in those videos match the geography of this open area," he noted. Kimmitt said the video showing dead children, was recorded in Ramadi, far from the attack scene.