Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Well now that all the british soldiers are going home the americans have got to shoot at somebody. it's either at the iraqis or shoot at themselves.
Posted: 16:10 Apr 30 2003
"Winning the peace"
After an incident in Falluja yesterday, the final score was:
Iraqi civilians... 14 dead and 50 injured.
American soldiers... some minor bruising.
Reports vary... the US claims to have been under attack (by two men with rifles) and that is why the marines opened fire on a crowd with their machine guns. Iraqi witnesses say that the marines were retaliating to a stone being thrown from the crowd of people who were demonstrating against the US's appropriation of a school to serve as their base.
Today, more Iraqis demonstrated, this time about the fact that their liberators had shot and killed 14 people. The demonstrators (in everyday clothing) threw stones and shoes at the American compound in which were the US soldiers (wearing kevlar and carrying automatic weaponry).
The response of the US soldiers... they opened fire on the crowd killing two more and injuring many others.
Sometimes words simply fail me. It is hard though to think of a more dangerous combination than innate American gung-ho stupidity and automatic weapons.
Iraqi civilians... 14 dead and 50 injured.
American soldiers... some minor bruising.
Reports vary... the US claims to have been under attack (by two men with rifles) and that is why the marines opened fire on a crowd with their machine guns. Iraqi witnesses say that the marines were retaliating to a stone being thrown from the crowd of people who were demonstrating against the US's appropriation of a school to serve as their base.
Today, more Iraqis demonstrated, this time about the fact that their liberators had shot and killed 14 people. The demonstrators (in everyday clothing) threw stones and shoes at the American compound in which were the US soldiers (wearing kevlar and carrying automatic weaponry).
The response of the US soldiers... they opened fire on the crowd killing two more and injuring many others.
Sometimes words simply fail me. It is hard though to think of a more dangerous combination than innate American gung-ho stupidity and automatic weapons.
4 Replies and 749 Views in Total.
Posted: 16:10 Apr 30 2003 How about American Jingoism/patriotism and a large collection of nuclear weapons (special ones not covered under the non-proliferation treaty of course!!)
by Incandenza
Sometimes words simply fail me. It is hard though to think of a more dangerous combination than innate American gung-ho stupidity and automatic weapons.
Posted: 17:02 Apr 30 2003 
“gung-ho military stupidity” is far from endemic to America; a certain incident called “Bloody Sunday” seems to have conveniently slipped the minds of those who crow about innate British military superiority. One of the speakers at the last anti-war demonstration told how British soldiers had learned the phrase “Piss off” in Arabic to enable them to deal with local leaders in their accustomed manner.
Which is a lot better than using them as target practise, but both are a consequence of the same obdurately aggressive attitude.
This attitude hasn't materialised in isolation, it's a result of the indoctrination the soldiers have undergone and conditions they've endured in this war. Troops are geared up to wage open warfare, so when they're subsequently expected to deal with delicate and complex civil unrest in a foreign culture, the results are predictably disastrous.
This quote from today’s Guardian shows the crux of the problem: In the town hall police inspector Omar Minar Esawi said there was no reason for US troops to be in Falluja. They were not needed as liberators because the Iraqi army fled the day Baghdad fell. They were not needed as a security force because people had chosen a new mayor and the imams in the mosque had managed to stop the looting and get some of the stolen goods returned. Most of the police force was back in action. “We controlled the town. When the troops came eight days ago they said they would stay for two or three days, but they're still here and the numbers have been increasing,” he said. Like many Iraqis, Inspector Esawi is part of the “thank-you-and-goodbye” school of thought. With Saddam gone, the US ought to leave, he believes. “We need freedom and democracy. Now we're afraid because the US army creates these problems,” he said.
Asked whether it might have been better to place his forces on the edge of town, Lieutenant-Colonel Nantz said: “No, I never considered that. You need to be engaged. You can't do that if you're sitting outside. We want to help them build themselves up and build a police force.”
That his help could be neither warranted nor desired has apparently not occurred to him.
Neither Britain or America has any inherent right to be in Iraq; while they maintain the belief that they have, there will be many more of these tragic events.
Which is a lot better than using them as target practise, but both are a consequence of the same obdurately aggressive attitude.
This attitude hasn't materialised in isolation, it's a result of the indoctrination the soldiers have undergone and conditions they've endured in this war. Troops are geared up to wage open warfare, so when they're subsequently expected to deal with delicate and complex civil unrest in a foreign culture, the results are predictably disastrous.
This quote from today’s Guardian shows the crux of the problem: In the town hall police inspector Omar Minar Esawi said there was no reason for US troops to be in Falluja. They were not needed as liberators because the Iraqi army fled the day Baghdad fell. They were not needed as a security force because people had chosen a new mayor and the imams in the mosque had managed to stop the looting and get some of the stolen goods returned. Most of the police force was back in action. “We controlled the town. When the troops came eight days ago they said they would stay for two or three days, but they're still here and the numbers have been increasing,” he said. Like many Iraqis, Inspector Esawi is part of the “thank-you-and-goodbye” school of thought. With Saddam gone, the US ought to leave, he believes. “We need freedom and democracy. Now we're afraid because the US army creates these problems,” he said.
Asked whether it might have been better to place his forces on the edge of town, Lieutenant-Colonel Nantz said: “No, I never considered that. You need to be engaged. You can't do that if you're sitting outside. We want to help them build themselves up and build a police force.”
That his help could be neither warranted nor desired has apparently not occurred to him.
Neither Britain or America has any inherent right to be in Iraq; while they maintain the belief that they have, there will be many more of these tragic events.
Posted: 18:03 Apr 30 2003
Well of course Britian and America have no right to be there after all this "war" has only been about who can control a relatively untapped oil supply. after all the Kurds have been persucuted not only by Saddam but also by the Turks who don't want an independent kurdistan, but do you see the Americans saying they'll help the kurds get their independence, no, why because the kurds have nothing to offer them i.e oil. because that is after all the only thing that the American "government" cares about.
Posted: 03:44 May 01 2003