The Iraq Thread

[Die Alive 0]

The Price of Booze just went up in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, April 1 (Reuters) - Drinkers in the Iraqi capital are hard up these days -- the main liquor-selling district in Karradet Mariam has the misfortune of being right next to the main presidential palace, a top target for U.S. bombers.

Scores of liquor stores selling everything from Tayyara (Plane) arak, an ultra-strong alcohol made of dates with a picture of an airliner taking off on the label, to European beer brands were closed even before the war started 13 days ago.

And those which struggled to stay open to meet wartime demand have bad news for their customers.

Hanna Boulos (John Paul), a small store in the mainly Christian area, re-opened on Tuesday, hours after the presidential compound took another battering on Monday night.

"Yes, we raised our prices. Try to find another Heineken in Baghdad," said Akram, the son of the owner as he doubled the price of a half-litre can of imported beer to $3.....

[Hunnicutt 0]

It is good to see the support for the war.

[DarkLight 0]

2 days ago 4 soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber... sad news of course, every life is worth more than human words can say.

But still... The US is the aggressor, they are attacking, you can't deny that, right? They went into Iraq, now if you ask me, they have to face the consequences, as hard as it may seem. If some people want to blow themselves up and kill some Americans while doing it then there's nothing we can do to stop them. The only thing you can do on a moment like that is sit down and hope this guy isn't a suicide bomber.

I don't think acting in a rough way against civilians is justified, as i said, they never asked you to invade. You did, now face the opinions, some people will fall on their knees and thank you, others will slit your throat when you least expect it. It's a hard world... but soldiers are on the battlefield to fight, and they have to be prepared to die because tomorrow it can be their turn.

Did you really think everyone was just gonna wait until Baghdad was invaded? Hell, i knew this kinda stuff was gonna happen, i knew that everyone was gonna get paranoia, it was all so obvious.

The big difference is that the ppl sitting in the van never wanted to be invaded, the soldiers who are fighting are in the army and they are there to fight. When a soldier dies, it's as bad as when a civilian dies, the loss of their lifes is as bad, but the reason why a civilian death is "worse" is because most civilians never wanted to be on the battlefield.

When a car like that drives towards US soldiers, there are many things to do... One can say that the soldiers should wait until the end, it's their job not to kill for no good reason.

But you can also say that they had to fire, to save themselves...

We cannot say what's best, simply because we cannot know what exactly happened over there, maybe it was impossible to identify the van. Or maybe it wasn't, maybe the soldiers could see the civilians, or maybe not.

If they could identify them as civilians, the shouldn't have fired under any circumstances, they are soldiers, they are on the battlefield to fight against the enemy, not the civilians. Pre emptive killing of civilians is wrong. But if they couldn't identify the van, what can we say about it?

The answer is nothing... we can't say anything about it because we weren't there...

I know this sounds crazy but if you ask me it's the most logical thing.

Oh and about the van that was shot at, i guess that was a pre emptive attack too... And i guess a lot of innocent people died there too...

Maybe it's justified because it was pre emptive, but i don't believe in pre emptive aggression.

It probable is better if this is the last pre emptive thing we'll do.

Pre emptive...That word scares me... Just cuz it can be used any time by anyone to justify anything. (goddamn that's a pretty fucking sweet sentence to put in a signature) Copyright DarkLight

[Guest]

Syria now officially supports Iraq

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The statement said Syria has already made its choice: "Syria has chosen to be with international legality represented by the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council." "Syria has also chosen to stand by the Iraqi people who are facing an illegitimate and unjustified invasion," the statement said.

....

On Sunday, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said "Syria has a national interest in the expulsion of the invaders from Iraq" and accused the U.S. of being "shortsighted and ignorant of the region's history and culture."

<span id='postcolor'>

[Badgerboy 0]

Syria next on the hit list then Denoir? The sad thing is it wouldn't surprise me.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

Now the question is, will Syria send combatants? If they do, things might get even uglier than they are now. Not to sound panicky, but if Syria sends combatants to help Saddam, this might escalate into a World War.

BIG @#$%ing 'uh oh' time.

[Tovarish 0]

I don't think it would take as much as Syria sending combatants. "If you're not with us, you're against us" right?

Anyone care to bet how long before we start hearing from CNN about how opressed the Syrian people are and how one of the 9/11 hijackers once met with the cousin of the wife of a friend of a Syrian General?

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 01 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to sound panicky, but if Syria sends combatants to help Saddam, this might escalate into a World War.<span id='postcolor'>

"Everything works out as planned. We have everything under control." TBA statement

[Longinius 1]

"and , also , in case if the driver didn't know where the shots were coming from , i think that his instinct would push him to accelerate and to flee as fast as possible , at least that's what i would do"

If you are shooting warning shots, I imagine its in your own interest to make sure your target actually know who you are and why you are shooting.

"Of course the Iraqis have a choice. they can always surrender. As long as they haven't been using 'dirty' tactics, even if they've fired upon U.S. troops, if they lay down their arms, and lay prone, they will probably betaken as P.O.W.s."

Maybe they dont want to surrender to the invaders? I mean, would you expect American soldiers and militia men to lay down their arms if Sweden came to liberate you?

"Nothing happened after the warning shot(s). The Captain on the scene berates his soldiers for not firing warning shots quickly enough. I won't comment on this particular example of leadership."

Again, there were no warning shots. At all.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I mean, would you expect American soldiers and militia men to lay down their arms if Sweden came to liberate you?<span id='postcolor'>

Count me in when you start your F-Day, Longinius.

"There`s an evil madman over there in the USA who think he`s God`s only Paladin. In addition to that his voting was very obscure and he has strong dictatorical tendencies. Also he wants to supress anyone who has a different opinion than him.

Hey, we have lots of reasons to go to war. We want to bring the US citicens the holy light and freedom of speech again."    

See, anyone can invent stupid reasons for even more stupid solutions.

I really wonder what will be written in future history books about this war in Iraq and about the TBA. It won`t be something good, I`m sure. I`m so tired of all this shit...

[whisperFFW06 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ April 01 2003,22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2 days ago 4 soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber... sad news of course, every life is worth more than human words can say.

But still... The US is the aggressor, they are attacking, you can't deny that, right?  They went into Iraq, now if you ask me, they have to face the consequences, as hard as it may seem.   If some people want to blow themselves up and kill some Americans while doing it then there's nothing we can do to stop them.  The only thing you can do on a moment like that is sit down and hope this guy isn't a suicide bomber.  

I don't think acting in a rough way against civilians is justified, as i said, they never asked you to invade.  You did, now face the opinions, some people will fall on their knees and thank you, others will slit your throat when you least expect it.  It's a hard world... but soldiers are on the battlefield to fight, and they have to be prepared to die because tomorrow it can be their turn.  

Did you really think everyone was just gonna wait until Baghdad was invaded?  Hell, i knew this kinda stuff was gonna happen, i knew that everyone was gonna get paranoia, it was all so obvious.  <span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm... I think it's easy to say when sitting behind a computer. When facing the real danger, whatever it could be, you react. That's a self-defense reflex. No one would stay unmoving knowing that the approaching thing may blow up at anytime.

Seems there has been panic on both sides, but ...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We cannot say what's best, simply because we cannot know what exactly happened over there, maybe it was impossible to identify the van. Or maybe it wasn't, maybe the soldiers could see the civilians, or maybe not.

If they could identify them as civilians, the shouldn't have fired under any circumstances, they are soldiers, they are on the battlefield to fight against the enemy, not the civilians. Pre emptive killing of civilians is wrong. But if they couldn't identify the van, what can we say about it?

The answer is nothing... we can't say anything about it because we weren't there...

I know this sounds crazy but if you ask me it's the most logical thing.

Oh and about the van that was shot at, i guess that was a pre emptive attack too... And i guess a lot of innocent people died there too...

Maybe it's justified because it was pre emptive, but i don't believe in pre emptive aggression.

It probable is better if this is the last pre emptive thing we'll do.

Pre emptive...That word scares me... Just cuz it can be used any time by anyone to justify anything. (goddamn that's a pretty fucking sweet sentence to put in a signature) Copyright DarkLight <span id='postcolor'>

... so sadly true

The fact is that one cannot dismiss these deaths arguing that this was "in case of". The error has to be punished, or this will be an unacceptable justification for future mistakes.

Whis'

[whisperFFW06 0]

For those who thinks that Iraqis could just surrender, as Loginius stated, what would be your reaction in the face of a liberator destroying your towns, buildings and monuments?

With Iraq, multiply this reaction by at least 2. Iraq is way more than a dry country with oil. It has thousands years of history behind it. Europe, America are nothing in age compared to it. Ottoman empire, Babylon, Sumerian empire, the beginning of civilization, many things you read in the Bible (Ancient Testament), this is Iraq.

Seeing this country invaded like it is now, whatever the reason, would shake the heart of many living there. No wonder some react.

You think we (Occident) are the upper stage of civilization? Think twice.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, there were no warning shots. At all.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, there apparently were.  You really should re-read the WP article.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"<span id='postcolor'>

Washington Post (again)

To paraphrase:  "You just [expletive] killed a family because you fired a warning shot too slowly!"  This isn't just my interpretation of the event.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Post reporter, however, quoted a 3rd Infantry captain as saying the checkpoint crew did not fire warning shots quickly enough.

The Post described a captain watching the incident through binoculars and ordering the soldiers by radio to fire a warning shot first and then shoot a 7.62mm machine-gun round into the vehicle’s radiator. When the vehicle kept coming, the captain ordered the soldiers to “stop him!â€<span id='postcolor'>

MSNBC

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And so what's taken place is a very unfortunate incident, which is still under investigation in which seven to 10 women and children were actually shot up after warning shots were fired and fired -- and shots were fired into the engine.<span id='postcolor'>

CNN

The BBC does note discrepancies in the reporting of the incident; however, as you'll notice the issue of whether the shots were fired is not in dispute:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are two different versions of what happened. According to coalition Central Command, the soldiers first fired warning shots, then aimed at the engine, and finally targeted the vehicle itself.

But the Washington Post newspaper quotes a senior officer as telling a subordinate: "You killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough."<span id='postcolor'>

BBC

The irony here is that I'm actually claiming that the soldiers did something that my four years of infantry training (three years front-line experience in antiterrorism) taught me never to do.

Semper Fi

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ April 01 2003,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For those who thinks that Iraqis could just surrender, as Loginius stated, what would be your reaction in the face of a liberator destroying your towns, buildings and monuments?<span id='postcolor'>

Ask some Nederlanders about when the allies liberated them.

[FallenPaladin 0]

George W. Bush is the last stage of civilisation.

George W. Bush is

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 02 2003,00:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ April 01 2003,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For those who thinks that Iraqis could just surrender, as Loginius stated, what would be your reaction in the face of a liberator destroying your towns, buildings and monuments?<span id='postcolor'>

Ask some Nederlanders about when the allies liberated them.<span id='postcolor'>

Holland was occupied by a foreign nation.

Iraq isn't occupied, but someone is trying to occupy them for whatever reason. That is the whole problem.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 01 2003,23:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think it would take as much as Syria sending combatants. "If you're not with us, you're against us" right?

Anyone care to bet how long before we start hearing from CNN about how opressed the Syrian people are and how one of the 9/11 hijackers once met with the cousin of the wife of a friend of a Syrian General?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, no doubt any country entering the frey on the side of Iraq will suddenly have mysterious links to S11 and Al Quada.

Most of the pro-war advocates laughed it off when we expressed concerns this could escalate into a much larger conflict, potentially uniting the muslim/arab nations against the west. Hasn't happened yet, but we are starting to see that it isn't the impossibility many claimed.

As for the checkpoint fiasco, I'm with Denoir. Someone, somewhere f**ked up, and needs to be held responsible. But no doubt it will all get swept under the carpet and be lumped in as "acceptable collateral damage".

Sure, I can understand the checkpoint guys being twitchy after the recent car bombings, but that's no excuse to get sloppy. They are soldiers, payed to put their life at risk. The Iraqi civilians didn't get any such choice. The first duty of care of the coalition troops is to safeguard the lives of Iraqi civilians. If this means placing themselves in danger to confirm that a vehicle is hostile and not full of innocent children, then so be it.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 01 2003,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 02 2003,00:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ April 01 2003,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For those who thinks that Iraqis could just surrender, as Loginius stated, what would be your reaction in the face of a liberator destroying your towns, buildings and monuments?<span id='postcolor'>

Ask some Nederlanders about when the allies liberated them.<span id='postcolor'>

Holland was occupied by a foreign nation.

Iraq isn't occupied, but someone is trying to occupy them for whatever reason. That is the whole problem.<span id='postcolor'>

The Baathists are fairly equivalent to the Nazis.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Someone, somewhere f**ked up, and needs to be held responsible.<span id='postcolor'>

Those f**k-ups you're looking for are Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf and the rest of his crackpot goons.  They will indeed be held responsible, or reduced to component molecules, whichever can be arranged first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, I can understand the checkpoint guys being twitchy after the recent car bombings, but that's no excuse to get sloppy.<span id='postcolor'>

They didn't get sloppy, they followed their ROE's.  Verbal warnings, warning shots, and they didn't engage until the vehicle was within 250m.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They are soldiers, payed to put their life at risk.<span id='postcolor'>

We're not paid to be frickin' stupid, though.  We're sure as hell not paid to trust the Iraqi army won't drive high explosives into our basecamps, as you're implying we should.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Iraqi civilians didn't get any such choice.<span id='postcolor'>

More evidence that the f**k-ups referenced above are, indeed, f**k-ups.  I know that we're freakin' savages and all that, but we're trying damned hard not to kill civvies.  It would be nice if the f**k-ups shared our concerns.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The first duty of care of the coalition troops is to safeguard the lives of Iraqi civilians. If this means placing themselves in danger to confirm that a vehicle is hostile and not full of innocent children, then so be it.<span id='postcolor'>

A dead soldier can't safeguard anything.  "Confirming that a vehicle is hostile" => Waiting for bomb to detonate.  Not a very good plan.  Confirming that a vehicle appears hostile (as these soldiers did) is as reasonable a criteria as can be applied in this type of situation.

Semper Fi

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I get it, I get it.

Iraqi paramilitaries using civilians as human shields is acceptable behavior because of the circumstances (their regime is kaput), but American soldiers following ROEs is not? Even for certain individuals on this forum, this double-standard is absolutely unprecedented. I am of the opinion that despite the fact that civilians died in this incident, the US soldiers acted appropriately, and the civilian deaths can be laid squarely at the feet of the bus driver and any paramilitaries who might have induced him to disregard the [heavily armed] US personnel.

An aside: how should we deal with Iraqi military and paramilitary commanders found guilty of using Iraqi civilians as human shields?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Iraqi paramilitaries using civilians as human shields is acceptable behavior because of the circumstances (their regime is kaput), but American soldiers following ROEs is not? <span id='postcolor'>

So who the hell has said it's OK for Iraq to use human shields? Quote from one single post that says this. There are none.

And the question is did they follow their ROEs? Was the warning shot fired at all, and if it was, was it fired in time when the CO ordered?

-----

E6 hotel - so because the Iraqis leaders and extremists are bad guys (and no one is disputing they are), does that mean all tactical blunders and friendly fire etc etc committed by coalition forces are their fault? I don't think so.

The cold hard fact is that if US followed international law, those 7 people would be alive today.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The irony here is that I'm actually claiming that the soldiers did something that my four years of infantry training (three years front-line experience in antiterrorism) taught me never to do.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed, training is very important.  After all, look what happens when the occassional van full of women and children haven't been properly trained about how to behave within 250 meters of an occupying force.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So who the hell has said it's OK for Iraq to use human shields? Quote from one single post that says this. There are none.<span id='postcolor'>

Let's just say that the counter in Denoir's sig isn't keeping tally of civilians who were killed because they were forced at gunpoint to play host to a SAM launcher. I'll keep it at that.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">E6 hotel - so because the Iraqis leaders and extremists are bad guys (and no one is disputing they are), does that mean all tactical blunders and friendly fire etc etc committed by coalition forces are their fault? I don't think so.<span id='postcolor'>

No, and I've never claimed otherwise.  What I am saying is that a tactical blunder is not the same thing as following ROE's.  Especially when the opposition is trying to take advantage of your ROE's by intentionally placing the civilians they're supposed to protect at risk.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The cold hard fact is that if US followed international law, those 7 people would be alive today.<span id='postcolor'>

If Saddam gave a damn about laws 1,500,000 Iraqis (give or take) might be alive today.  If the U.N. gave a damn about enforcing its resolutions 500,000 Iraqis might still be alive today.  The difference is that after we take him down (if he's not already a worm feast) there's a chance to put an end to this garbage.

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Indeed, training is very important.  After all, look what happens when the occassional van full of women and children haven't been properly trained about how to behave within 250 meters of an occupying force.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it's a bad situation. If you had been in charge of the soldiers at the checkpoint, what would you have done?

Semper Fi