Iraqi Teens Drag Bloodied U.S. Soldiers

[MrRant 0]

MOSUL, Iraq - Iraqi teenagers dragged two bloodied U.S. soldiers from a wrecked vehicle and pummeled them with concrete blocks Sunday, witnesses said, describing the killings as a burst of savagery in a city once safe for Americans.

 

Another soldier was killed by a bomb and a U.S.-allied police chief was assassinated.

 

The U.S.-led coalition also said it grounded commercial flights after the military confirmed that a missile struck a DHL cargo plane that landed Saturday at Baghdad International Airport with its wing aflame.

 

Nevertheless, American officers insisted they were making progress in bringing stability to Iraq (news - web sites), and the U.S.-appointed Governing Council named an ambassador to Washington — an Iraqi-American woman who spent the past decade lobbying U.S. lawmakers to promote democracy in her homeland.

 

Witnesses to the Mosul attack said gunmen shot two soldiers driving through the city center, sending their vehicle crashing into a wall. The 101st Airborne Division said the soldiers were driving to another garrison.

 

About a dozen swarming teenagers dragged the soldiers out of the wreckage and beat them with concrete blocks, the witnesses said.

 

 

"They lifted a block and hit them with it on the face," said Younis Mahmoud, 19.

 

 

It was unknown whether the soldiers were alive or dead when pulled from the wreckage.

 

 

Initial reports said the soldiers' throats were cut. But another witness, teenager Bahaa Jassim, said the wounds appeared to have come from bullets.

 

 

"One of the soldiers was shot under the chin and the bullet came out of his head. I saw the hole in his helmet. The other was shot in the throat," Jassim said.

 

 

Some people looted the vehicle of weapons, CDs and a backpack, Jassim said.

 

 

"They remained there for over an hour without the Americans knowing anything about it," he said. "I ... went and told other troops."

 

 

Television footage showed the soldiers' bodies splayed on the ground as U.S. troops secured the area. One victim's foot appeared to have been severed.

 

 

The frenzy recalled the October 1993 scene in Somalia, when locals dragged the bodies of Marines killed in fighting with warlords through the streets.

 

 

In Baqouba, just north of Baghdad, insurgents detonated a roadside bomb as a 4th Infantry Division convoy passed, killing one soldier and wounding two others, the military said.

 

 

In Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt confirmed the Mosul deaths but refused to provide details.

 

 

"We're not going to get ghoulish about it," he said.

 

 

 

 

 

The savagery of the attack was unusual for Mosul, once touted as a success story in sharp contrast to the anti-American violence seen in Sunni Muslim areas north and west of Baghdad.

 

In recent weeks, however, attacks against U.S. troops have increased in Mosul, raising concerns the insurgency is spreading.

 

Simultaneously, attacks have accelerated against Iraqis considered to be supporting Americans — such as policemen and politicians working for the interim Iraqi administration.

 

On Sunday, gunmen killed the Iraqi police chief of Latifiyah, 20 miles south of Baghdad, and his bodyguard and driver, American and Iraqi officials said. No further details were released.

 

The assassination occurred one day after suicide bombers struck two police stations northeast of Baghdad within 30 minutes, killing at least 14 people. Gunmen on Saturday also killed an Iraqi police colonel protecting oil installations in Mosul.

 

In Samara, about 75 miles north of Baghdad, Iraqi police said six U.S. Apache helicopter gunships blasted marshland after four rocket-propelled grenades were fired at the American military garrison at the city's northern end. One Iraqi passer-by was killed in the air attack, police said.

 

In Kirkuk, 150 miles north of Baghdad, a bomb exploded at an oil compound, injuring three American civilian contractors from the U.S. firm Kellogg Brown & Root. The three suffered facial cuts from flying glass, U.S. Lt. Col. Matt Croke said.

 

KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, also has a significant presence at Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, which was rocketed by insurgents Friday, wounding one civilian.

 

"We all know that Americans are being threatened," Croke said.

 

Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad that witnesses saw two surface-to-air missiles fired Saturday at a cargo plane operated by the Belgium-based package service DHL as it left for Bahrain.

 

The plane was the first civilian airliner hit by insurgents, who have shot down several military helicopters with shoulder-fired rockets.

 

DHL and Royal Jordanian, the only commercial passenger airline flying into Baghdad, immediately suspended flights on orders of the coalition authority.

 

Despite the ongoing violence, U.S. officials insisted the occupation was going well.

 

"If you look at the accomplishments of the coalition since March of this year, it has been enormous," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in Tikrit.

 

Pace is touring Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq.

 

Also Sunday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said veteran Washington lobbyist Rend Rahim Francke was appointed Iraq's ambassador to the United States. Francke, an Iraq native who has spent most of her life abroad, led the Iraq Foundation, a Washington-based pro-democracy group, and has helped plan Iraq's transition from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s rule.

 

The appointment will renew the diplomatic ties between Washington and Baghdad severed in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

-------------------------------

 

Too bad we can't be just a brutal and line up the Iraqis and start shooting them 1 per hour until they gave up the ones that did this.... and then just shoot those that did on the spot.

 

That would be my way of dealing with this type of thing. Let them know of the supreme consequences for fucking with us.

[Downhome 0]

Fucking hell.

 

We can't even shoot NEAR people to get information once we have them

 

*grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, let's just sit and talk about "hearts and minds" and shining beacons of democracy and all of this will go away. Right?

 

 

Right?

 

 

Anyone who's looked at the history of the middle east knows that's bullshit, and this is just more proof.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Good thing we didn't fire a shot in the air with one of them in the same room...

[Justice 0]

Well, let's just sit and talk about "hearts and minds" and shining beacons of democracy and all of this will go away. Right?

 

 

Right?

 

 

Anyone who's looked at the history of the middle east knows that's bullshit, and this is just more proof.

I'd prefer to just plain pull out of Iraq and leave the UN to do the job with an inadequate amount of troops and all the resolve and backbone of the 2002 Democratic Party. THEN all the problems would go away because we wouldn't have to look at it anymore.

 

Problems aren't there if we pitch them off to other countries who couldn't give a rat's ass... right?

 

Right?

[Styles 0]

Hell, I'd love to just pull out and bomb the entire region back into the stone age...o wait...um...well, whatever came before the stone age then...but that wouldn't be seen very kindly to the rest of the world...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

If we were to do that, we'd be no better than them.

[Downhome 0]

I personally think that bullshit where we can't even shoot near the fuckers after we capture them is wrong.

 

Then again, who here AGREES that all of that is right?

 

We should be able to do whatever the hell we need to do to those that are against us. That's how I feel.

[Guest JMA]

Hell, I'd love to just pull out and bomb the entire region back into the stone age...o wait...um...well, whatever came before the stone age then...but that wouldn't be seen very kindly to the rest of the world...

Bomb the entire region? What about the innocent people that would get vaporized by those bombs? Or do they not matter? I'm with you on killing those responsible for killing our troops, but innocents should not have to suffer. We're the United States of America, not Al Queda.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Hell, I'd love to just pull out and bomb the entire region back into the stone age...o wait...um...well, whatever came before the stone age then...but that wouldn't be seen very kindly to the rest of the world...

Bomb the entire region? What about the innocent people that would get vaporized by those bombs? Or do they not matter? I'm with you on killing those responsible for killing our troops, but innocents should not have to suffer. We're the United States of America, not Al Queda.

We have this same debate whenever anything bad happens in the Middle East. Someone suggests we bomb the middle east, JMA (and others) argue for the innocents. Someone retorts that there are no innocents in the Middle East. Big shitstorm kicks up over nothing.

 

Overreacting like that is what they do, not us. That's why we're the USA and they're a despotic hell hole. Argument over, hopefully.

[Downhome 0]

Exactly, you can't even allow that shit into the conversation, unless you are just insane.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Death would be to kind for these savage little fuckheads.

 

It's time to show the full power of the military. Bring back shock and awe. Forget about being friends with Iraqi's. The terrorist have to be taken care of before a gov't can firmly established.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'd prefer to just plain pull out of Iraq and leave the UN to do the job with an inadequate amount of troops and all the resolve and backbone of the 2002 Democratic Party.

I never suggested that.

 

But I think these visions of a commercialized Iraq with unrevokable freedoms and a government with as little theocratic influence as possible are all a pipe dream to anyone who knows the reality of the situation.

 

 

Iraqis are not going to change their minds because a McDonalds, Wal-Mart, and a Blockbuster were built in their town on our dime.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

*points to post above*

[Justice 0]

I'd prefer to just plain pull out of Iraq and leave the UN to do the job with an inadequate amount of troops and all the resolve and backbone of the 2002 Democratic Party.

I never suggested that.

 

But I think these visions of a commercialized Iraq with unrevokable freedoms and a government with as little theocratic influence as possible are all a pipe dream to anyone who knows the reality of the situation.

 

 

Iraqis are not going to change their minds because a McDonalds, Wal-Mart, and a Blockbuster were built in their town on our dime.

So what should we do? Are we just to resign ourselves to saying "Well, they are ALWAYS going to be a backwards society and there is no hope for the region and just let it be?" I don't think that the change will come soon, but I believe that the change will eventually come. It has to happen and it will happen. Maybe not in the next five years, or even the next ten, but it will happen and we have to stay there allow it to occur. Do you argue with this or no, because I think we argee on this.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So what should we do? Are we just to resign ourselves to saying "Well, they are ALWAYS going to be a backwards society and there is no hope for the region and just let it be?"

We could rededicate our efforts to getting it working, getting elections running, getting their military operative again, and leaving. Getting the UN involved from the ground floor would at least insure a government that an eye can be kept on, as opposed to the Saddam government style of using smoke and mirrors to try and hide from the UN and commiting heinous acts of brutality behind the scenes.

 

Of course, if you're not willing to trust the UN and believe it's secretly against us, then you're never going to get to that point and you're going to wind up at square one in another dozen years.

 

If the new government's first order of business isn't to adapt themselves into an order that's not ideal to our situation (and trust me, it won't), then yes, we'll have to deal with the fact that this area is far too steeped in religion and history to change in a few years. These people are NOT going to put down their guns and eat a Big Mac and forcing them to through occupation and fear will only make enemies in many years to come.

[Justice 0]

So what should we do? Are we just to resign ourselves to saying "Well, they are ALWAYS going to be a backwards society and there is no hope for the region and just let it be?"

We could rededicate our efforts to getting it working, getting elections running, getting their military operative again, and leaving. Getting the UN involved from the ground floor would at least insure a government that an eye can be kept on, as opposed to the Saddam government style of using smoke and mirrors to try and hide from the UN and commiting heinous acts of brutality behind the scenes.

 

Of course, if you're not willing to trust the UN and believe it's secretly against us, then you're never going to get to that point and you're going to wind up at square one in another dozen years.

 

If the new government's first order of business isn't to adapt themselves into an order that's not ideal to our situation (and trust me, it won't), then yes, we'll have to deal with the fact that this area is far too steeped in religion and history to change in a few years. These people are NOT going to put down their guns and eat a Big Mac and forcing them to through occupation and fear will only make enemies in many years to come.

So you basically made your witty little first post irrelevant by posting your actual plan. Odd.

 

How is the UN going to be that much more effective at rooting out theocratic influences than we are? I mean, you mention their failure with keeping an eye on Saddam when he was in power, why would they do that much better of a job now? Or are you saying that the US Interim government is corrupt and full of smoke and mirrors? It doesn't quite work out, man.

 

Not to say they can't help us, but why would they succeed where we wouldn't? Your first post basically said "Looking at the history of the region, there is nothing we can do to change it". Well, what will the UN, which is just as looked down upon as the US (Remember that UN buildings have been targeted a few times in attacks, so they are obviously not happy to have them in the country either) going to do that's so drastically different than us? Fact is that, while this post is a somewhat feasible plan (I'd like to see the UN involved, but a full pullout would be moronic considering that many countries simply won't pledge the amount of troops that we can put there).

 

We just believe that commercializing Iraq will make everything better? When the fuck did we claim this? And hell, why wouldn't the UN do this? It certainly isn't a total solution, but it wouldn't hurt to open up more modernized service jobs there and put in some high-tech industry. I don't see why the UN wouldn't try to attract business to the area.

 

I agree with some of your points, but your first post was NOT the same as the second.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So you basically made your witty little first post irrelevant by posting your actual plan. Odd.

Well, no. I posted a plan to try and make the country able to defend itself to any outside threat and give them the oppertunity to make it stable, not use it as a pet experiment in industrializing the middle east at the expense of our time, our money, and our military.

 

How is the UN going to be that much more effective at rooting out theocratic influences than we are?

 

Well, part of the whole picture you have to come to grips with is that it will never be theocratic-free. At least, not in our lifetimes. That region is most stubborn to change, and religion is going to unfortunately always have a role, even if a minor one. My guess is that the first sign of a corruption in the Iraqi government will be that the religious representation is not equal to the people. Already the various sects of Muslims are arguing over who should get how much representation.

 

I mean, you mention their failure with keeping an eye on Saddam when he was in power, why would they do that much better of a job now? Or are you saying that the US Interim government is corrupt and full of smoke and mirrors? It doesn't quite work out, man.

 

Iraq's former UN presence was simply about keeping up appearances. It was one guy just spouting off the dictatorship's propaganda and it was pretty obvious that UN visits were considered an inconvenience to Saddam. Now, if the UN is involved in building the government, that gives them inroads with the new government.You either trust others to help do it right or decide to do it all yourself, and I don't like the idea of another country hanging on our back like a heroin monkey, taking our resources while not really liking us anyway.

 

Well, what will the UN, which is just as looked down upon as the US (Remember that UN buildings have been targeted a few times in attacks, so they are obviously not happy to have them in the country either)

 

But I was under the impression that was supposed to be the work of Saddam loyalists?

 

We just believe that commercializing Iraq will make everything better? When the fuck did we claim this? And hell, why wouldn't the UN do this? It certainly isn't a total solution, but it wouldn't hurt to open up more modernized service jobs there and put in some high-tech industry. I don't see why the UN wouldn't try to attract business to the area.

 

For the most part, they're going to have to grow their own economy. Importing a bunch of American businesses and culture (which is what I was talking about when I mentioned that they're not going to get overjoyed at their local McDonalds and decide we're good guys after all) is going to create more violence.

 

Iraq is actually pretty far along for a Muslim nation. People actually drive cars, women can read, etc. That's a good deal more advanced than, say, Afghanistan. They WILL get there. But they're sensitive to our presence and want us to leave as soon as we possibly can.

[Justice 0]

So you basically made your witty little first post irrelevant by posting your actual plan. Odd.

Well, no. I posted a plan to try and make the country able to defend itself to any outside threat and give them the oppertunity to make it stable, not use it as a pet experiment in industrializing the middle east at the expense of our time, our money, and our military.

And we are doing that now? How so? Seriously, you are making up shit now. Have I ever said I wanted to industrialize the Middle East? No. I said that having new industries being able to go over there now wouldn't be bad. But hey, whatever. If you want to believe that we are trying to turn it into a capitalistic dream-world and that we think it will solve all their problems, so be it. I just don't remember it ever being discussed.

 

Well, part of the whole picture you have to come to grips with is that it will never be theocratic-free. At least, not in our lifetimes. That region is most stubborn to change, and religion is going to unfortunately always have a role, even if a minor one. My guess is that the first sign of a corruption in the Iraqi government will be that the religious representation is not equal to the people. Already the various sects of Muslims are arguing over who should get how much representation.

 

I never said it can be religion free. Religion is so interconnected with our morals that no political machine can be completely free of religion. We can, though, try and keep out the bigger stuff such as intolerance and most forms of favoritism. Please, don't put words into my mouth so you can sound better.

 

And please explain to me how the UN will be better at keeping the major religious influences out of the government.

 

Iraq's former UN presence was simply about keeping up appearances. It was one guy just spouting off the dictatorship's propaganda and it was pretty obvious that UN visits were considered an inconvenience to Saddam. Now, if the UN is involved in building the government, that gives them inroads with the new government.You either trust others to help do it right or decide to do it all yourself, and I don't like the idea of another country hanging on our back like a heroin monkey, taking our resources while not really liking us anyway.

 

And you don't think this one will be the same as well? The UN hasn't done anything to impress me, so please state where it suddenly has the ability to do things like keep a close eye on a rebuilding nation when all they've done in the past is done "aethestic appearances? Seriously, you put your faith in something that hasn't done anything worthwhile in God only knows how long.

 

We are taking their resources?! OMG NO WAR FOR OIL!!!E$&*(#$*(!@)#&

 

Christ, that's so played. Again, I don't see how you can't trust the American Government to do what is right here, yet you'll allow a international body with a horrid track record come in and (With the most honest intentions, because UN is all about that) magically make everything better. I'm not saying the UN shouldn't help, but it should be just that: Help. They didn't want to commit to the action, so they shouldn't get full control. Besides, it isn't like this is just the US. You have the whole Coalition of the Willing there as well. But hey, if you really want Germany and France and Russia to come along and not pledge any troops, okay.

 

But I was under the impression that was supposed to be the work of Saddam loyalists?

 

Yes. But why would the normal Iraq citizen take any better to someone from France or Bolivia rather than someone from the US? Will your average loyalist stop attacking when he sees a UN soldier instead of a US soldier? Explain the advantage of having a UN military force here, because "Less troops, less resolve" doesn't seem like a pro in this situation.

 

I suppose what I'm saying here is explain to me why the UN should take over this operation. How have they proven to us that they can do a better job here with less manpower and a less-than-watchful eye?

 

For the most part, they're going to have to grow their own economy. Importing a bunch of American businesses and culture (which is what I was talking about when I mentioned that they're not going to get overjoyed at their local McDonalds and decide we're good guys after all) is going to create more violence.

 

When I say "Opening up to new industries", I'm not talking about bulldozing a mosque and putting up a Walmart. I'm talking a slow and natural progression of outside influences to come in. I don't see how everyone is going to be suddenly driven to rage when they see a McDonald's pop up. That's just me, though.

 

Iraq is actually pretty far along for a Muslim nation. People actually drive cars, women can read, etc. That's a good deal more advanced than, say, Afghanistan. They WILL get there. But they're sensitive to our presence and want us to leave as soon as we possibly can.

 

They are far along, that's obvious. But to say "DON'T ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE TO COME IN!" is not the smartest thing. If you don't let anyone in, you will just make them more inclusionary and xenophobic. Do you want Iraq to have no business connections to the outside world or something?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And you don't think this one will be the same as well? The UN hasn't done anything to impress me, so please state where it suddenly has the ability to do things like keep a close eye on a rebuilding nation when all they've done in the past is done "aethestic appearances?

Actually, I was calling Saddam's connections to the UN simply there for appearances.

 

The most important reason to involve the UN in some functions is because it reduces our bill. The second most important reason is becuase, despite what you said about bombings, I don't think the people there consider the UN an occupying presence.

 

We are taking their resources?! OMG NO WAR FOR OIL!!!E$&*(#$*(!@)#&

 

No I said they're taking our resources: Money, time, manpower, etc. Energy and dollars that could be used to better America will go to that other nation dragging at our coattails.

 

I'm not saying the UN shouldn't help, but it should be just that: Help. They didn't want to commit to the action, so they shouldn't get full control.

 

Judging by what our arguements are and what's come forth, they were seeemingly right now to. But let's not get into that here.

 

Yes. But why would the normal Iraq citizen take any better to someone from France or Bolivia rather than someone from the US?

 

Because it won't be too long before a new generation is taught by their parents that life was good until the Americans came in and started squatting on their land. The faster we CAN leave, and the UN can speed that up (and no, I didn't suggest completely leaving the UN to do it all, I was talking about cooperating to get the job done faster), the less likely that is to happen and then we won't have to deal with a gang of Iraqis flying planes into buildings or otherwise necessitating our need to go back there.

 

Will your average loyalist stop attacking when he sees a UN soldier instead of a US soldier?

 

No, because he's a loyalist. I doubt there's an "average" loyalist though. There is your average Iraqi who sees a US machine gun fill a car with bullets or someone who's neighbor's house was raided the night before last with the US "shoot first, then ask questions, then file answers away to be investigated some other time, then leave without bothering to look for innocent deaths" policy.

 

I suppose what I'm saying here is explain to me why the UN should take over this operation. How have they proven to us that they can do a better job here with less manpower and a less-than-watchful eye?

 

*Points up to the paragraph above the "will your average loyalist" quoting*

 

 

I haven't studied the options in the business angle all that well really. I'm just playing Armchair Politician here for the most part, but at least I'm sounding better than Wesley Clark.

[Justice 0]

I think we argee for the most part. I'd prefer the UN to foot some of the bill and give us some manpower, but they don't seem to want to give any of the latter unless they get full control, which I'm leery of because they haven't had a successful operation in God only knows how long. Again, help is nice, but they should want to help; We need not beg from them for the small amount they are likely to give.

 

UN wouldn't be looked upon as an occupying force? Why not? They look exactly the same and would be doing the exact same things, and they would still be outsiders. They'd still be look upon as an 'occupying force' simply because they are there. I don't see anything that would really suggest that.

 

I'll quote this one part because I think it needs attention:

 

Because it won't be too long before a new generation is taught by their parents that life was good until the Americans came in and started squatting on their land.

 

Really, was it that much better? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration there...

 

But seriously, putting a UN face on it does nothing. We would still do the same things, and if we didn't it would probably take a turn for a less aggressive stance against taking on this current resistance, which is not something that should be done. You know there are British, Italian, Polish, and other countries there as well. I mean, a lot of what's already there is probably what would have comprised of a UN police force because Russia, France, and Germany aren't pledging troops any time soon. A lot of the manpower would still be coming from the US and the 'being occupied' mentality that some have right now would still be there.

 

No, because he's a loyalist. I doubt there's an "average" loyalist though. There is your average Iraqi who sees a US machine gun fill a car with bullets or someone who's neighbor's house was raided the night before last with the US "shoot first, then ask questions, then file answers away to be investigated some other time, then leave without bothering to look for innocent deaths" policy.

 

Um, what? Excuse me? Let's stop shovelling bullshit here. When did we "Shoot first, file blah blah blah" this? We've been very restrained in our actions and we've tried to keep civilian casualties to a minium in a conflict where that hinders us a bunch. That's just more "The US Army has the Rambo Mentality" bullshit that Mummering Beast was spouting months ago.

 

Hell, what would the UN do differently that would be so much more effective? The "Stay there until resistance is met, then pull the hell out" gameplan? Explain to me what the UN plan of attack would be, and then tell me why this would be so much more effective.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

UN wouldn't be looked upon as an occupying force? Why not? They look exactly the same and would be doing the exact same things, and they would still be outsiders. They'd still be look upon as an 'occupying force' simply because they are there. I don't see anything that would really suggest that.

 

Because they see Americans as imperial; the UN's charter and mission in and of itself is one of peace, not of "imperialism and capitalism and..."

 

I'm not saying it's right, but that's how it's seen.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Um, what? Excuse me? Let's stop shovelling bullshit here. When did we "Shoot first, file blah blah blah" this? We've been very restrained in our actions and we've tried to keep civilian casualties to a minium in a conflict where that hinders us a bunch. That's just more "The US Army has the Rambo Mentality" bullshit that Mummering Beast was spouting months ago.

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...ST&f=18&t=42382

 

Iraqis living in this region of rich and influential tribes -- largely spared the repression of Hussein's government because it sought to win their loyalty -- are outraged by the scale of the U.S. shootings. They say hundreds of innocents have been killed since Hussein was deposed.

 

That claim cannot be corroborated because no one is counting. Lt. Kate Noble, a spokeswoman for alliance troops, said soldiers who are engaged by guerrillas almost never stop afterward to see if they have accidentally killed any civilians.

 

"Wherever something happens we respond. . . . We don't keep an estimate of civilian casualties," Noble said. "There may be twice as many (as first appears), or there may be none."

[Justice 0]

Problem is, how do you tell a civilian from a guerilla? They engage in a target, they shoot 10 people dead. They are all in civilian clothing. Who is who is who? And it's not as though all guerillas carry rifles: You can have people with just a molotov cocktail, an RPG that they toss after they fired it, and other makeshift explosive devices. This isn't "Shoot first, ask questions later", this is "Get shot at first, return fire, 'Uh, who is who, sir?', 'Don't rightly know...'"

 

And not to call the Sunnis biased or anything, but... well, I think you know what i mean there.

[Guest MikeSC]

UN wouldn't be looked upon as an occupying force? Why not? They look exactly the same and would be doing the exact same things, and they would still be outsiders. They'd still be look upon as an 'occupying force' simply because they are there. I don't see anything that would really suggest that.

 

Because they see Americans as imperial; the UN's charter and mission in and of itself is one of peace, not of "imperialism and capitalism and..."

 

I'm not saying it's right, but that's how it's seen.

If you replace the U.S with the U.N, you simply substitute a great power for a piss-poor organization and the people will STILL hate the evil "West" for telling them how to run their lives.

 

The UN didn't give two damns about Iraq when the people were being tortured and slaughtered by Saddam. Bringing them in pulls off the double whammy: Kills off ANY support for this brought about because the U.S led the effort while not decreasing ANY of the animosity of an int'l group running the country.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Problem is, how do you tell a civilian from a guerilla? They engage in a target, they shoot 10 people dead. They are all in civilian clothing. Who is who is who?

If you shoot and kill someone you didn't intend to, it's an accidental shooting. How hard is that?

[Justice 0]

Problem is, how do you tell a civilian from a guerilla? They engage in a target, they shoot 10 people dead. They are all in civilian clothing. Who is who is who?

If you shoot and kill someone you didn't intend to, it's an accidental shooting. How hard is that?

Because civilians can still be shot if you meant to shoot them as well. Hell, I'll bet that a lot of the people who get shot and killed were not just bystanders, but either guerillas or people mistaken for guerillas. What about richochets and other things? Maybe you didn't see a guy get killed, but now he's dead. Is he a guerilla or a civilian? The matter of civilian casualties is not as black and white as you seem to make it.

[Firestarter 0]

the UN's charter and mission in and of itself is one of peace, not of "imperialism and capitalism and..."

 

I'm not saying it's right, but that's how it's seen.

despite what you said about bombings, I don't think the people there consider the UN an occupying presence.

 

Just curious, do you kids ever read the news?

 

Y'know why that happened? The UN set up its headquarters in blithe insouciance and snottily refused American protection, because as everyone's aware, we're the bad guys, and goodness knows they've always try to stay on the best of terms with terrorists all around the world. They refused to set up guardposts, checkpoints, or barriers of their own because gracious, it would've been wrong to separate themselves from the people, wouldn't it? After all, the terrorists wouldn't attack their own allies!

 

Surprise! The terrorists don't really care who you are as long as you're white. The result: well over a hundred casualties in a single day, the UN's special representative went to the great security council in the sky, and they immediately ran off, whimpering, with their tails between their legs, blaming us for not having "stablised" Iraq sufficiently.

 

Hands up, everyone who didn't see that coming.

 

...

 

Shut up Jacques. Go to the back of the room.