The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

More news from the BBC-US soldiers fire into protesting Iraqi ex-soldiers

It seems the US soldiers feelings were a bit hurt when rocks started coming their way so they fired into the crowd.

It's not the first time. IIRC there have been two previous such incidents. So much for the "hearts and minds", right?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

the most important thing now is to make the Iraqis respect the new authority. And this only works with determination and an ironfist!

Believe it or not, but the anarchy right now in Iraq is causing by far MORE deaths and destruction than a few shot demonstrators.

[theavonlady 2]

Yes, sure. That makes everything so much easier. If someone pisses you of you shoot him.

I again suggest you go back and read the details.

Sounds like more than just pissing off.

As for Col. Kurtz' assertion that this was a response to a few harmless rocks:

1. rocks are not harmless.

2. they were throwing rocks for an hour beforehand. That doesn't seem to be the cause of the shooting. Or, simply, to quote:

"The personnel (Iraqis) on the other side of the street swarmed the convoy, shaking the vehicles, breaking out windows, throwing rocks at extremely close range to the personnel in that convoy.

"(They) felt threatened understandably as their vehicle was swarmed and windows broken out and they fired shots then directly into the crowd and injured two personnel...To me it appeared to be in self-defense."

[FallenPaladin 0]

Don`t bother me repeatedly with "read the details"!

I read the "details", and what?

I still believe there are other ways besides shooting into a crowd. Other ways that still underline your authority and your ironfist.

Did you read what I wrote about molotov-cocktails and other dangerous stuff? More dangerous like rocks and stones? Are all the idiots here and in other countries throwing that shit shot? No, because there are other ways to deal with situations like that.

If the crowd was throwing rocks for a hour why didn`t the US troops spread the crowd out? Drive an armored vehicle in there or launch a slow assault with tower shields and polymer sticks.

The US forces failed to act in the beginning and overreacted in the end.

[theavonlady 2]

Don`t bother me repeatedly with "read the details"!

I read the "details", and what?

And nothing.

Details are irrelevant.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I seem to get the leftwing European commie "biased" version of that Reuters link. Must`ve something to do with my Explorer settings I guess.

[Jinef 2]

Well, we aren't much better, we fired in to a crowd on bloody sunday, in 1972. The soldiers claimed to be shot at but there was no evidence.

I would say remove all British military personnel from Iraq and leave it to the Americans, they are so confident in themselves so let them prove it.

[theavonlady 2]

I seem to get the leftwing European commie "biased" version of that Reuters link. Must`ve something to do with my Explorer settings I guess.  

Oh.............. then it's not your fault.

All is forgiven.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Well, we aren't much better, we fired in to a crowd on bloody sunday, in 1972. The soldiers claimed to be shot at but there was no evidence.

I would say remove all British military personnel from Iraq and leave it to the Americans, they are so confident in themselves so let them prove it.

You did that 31 years ago and I think you learned from it. At least you got a lot more experience than the US troops.

[Crazysheep 1]

Interesting. This sort of thing, unruly Iraqis being shot, is exactly the sort of thing the anti-war people warned about. Why has it evolved into sticking up for the Americans actions? It can be justified probably, as the soldiers who fired were most likely scared witless. Do you, Avon Lady, agree the war was a bad idea from the Iraqi peoples perspective as this sort of thing is obviously going to happen?

[Crazysheep 1]

Have they never heared of using teargas in such situations or other non lethal tools?  

No!

In times of war you have to make clear that you are strict on imposing rules and order. Otherwise there is no way to succeed in the long-term. To a certain extent I believe shooting into the crowd can indeed be the right solution! (sounds barbaric I know, but lets be realistic)

I beg to differ. Ruling with an iron fist does not realistically help control order, as you only make the Iraqis more willing to resist.

[Jinef 2]

Having experience is a quality but is still something i don't brag about. I find it amazing when people on the internet (*cough*Mr____*cough*) start bragging about how much better their military is and how many wars they have been in, that is not good. I would be prouder if our military didn't go all over the world killing people and just remained as a defense force.

The US forces need to get into one of these situations to learn, unfortunately the Iraqis are going to be the ones that suffer. I feel sympathy for them.

[theavonlady 2]

Do you, Avon Lady, agree the war was a bad idea from the Iraqi peoples perspective as this sort of thing is obviously going to happen?

It is estimated that Saddam eradicated over 100,000 Iraqi citizens through torture and execution.

There are figures of half a million children who died of malnutrition because Saddam horded the money that came into the country in recent years.

Some one million + Iraqis/Kurds/Iranians lost there lives in Iraqi initiated wars.

The Iraqi people, overall, seem to be very happy that Saddam is gone.

So, up to this point, I'll answer your question with a NO.

That does not translate to their being happy that the Americans and British are there. DUH.

Since Iraq is in a transition, these are indeed unstable times.

Now my answer to your question is both YES and NO.

[theavonlady 2]

 US Soldier Killed In Baghdad Drive-By Shooting

Also, from within the about item:

The spokesman said reports two other U.S. soldiers had been killed in a grenade attack in Baghdad were still being checked.

[Balschoiw 0]

It´s ok to shoot at people throwing stones ?

No it´s not.

I´ve been to stoney alleys a cupple of times and I never shot directly at the people throwing stones. In some countries throwing stones at troops is as usual as having tea in the afternoon in GB.

It is a totally normal situation to be attacked with stones, bottles, etc.

As a soldier you have a protective gear to avoid injuries, like the helmet, flak vests and such. There is no need to shoot at riot people. this only worsens the situation.

What can you do if someone throws stones at you ?

Well it´s duck and cover

I didn´t care much about stones and Î enjoyed plenty of them.

To shoot at stone throwers is ridiculous. It only causes chaos. And chaos is the last thing you want to have when travelling on patrol or guarding a convoi. Whenever you shoot people there will be thousands of them blocking your way in a minute and rip the convoi apart.

The US really should know that as they had the same problems in african countries.

Warning shots really short above the heads make a good threat to stone throwers but shooting should always be the last solution.

In my opinion US troops have major gaps in knowledge on how to interact with civillians and protesters. This causes always more and more problems. Hearts are won elsewhere but certainly not by shooting protesting people.

The US troops dig their own grave if they continue to attack Iraq´s civillians the way they do right now.

The iron fist mentality is bullshit. It´s a cooperative way they should seek and not another version of a suppressive regime. Iraq´s citizens know that way to good to think it´s the thing they want to have.

[FSPilot 0]

Don`t bother me repeatedly with "read the details"!

This is almost sig-worthy. j/k

Anyway back on topic. I heard on, you guessed it, fox news last night that there was a big upheaval in Iraq and that a "general" (don't know his nationality) had joined the muslims in their fight. This was pretty vague, so has anybody heard of this?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Have they never heared of using teargas in such situations or other non lethal tools?  

No!

In times of war you have to make clear that you are strict on imposing rules and order. Otherwise there is no way to succeed in the long-term. To a certain extent I believe shooting into the crowd can indeed be the right solution! (sounds barbaric I know, but lets be realistic)

I beg to differ. Ruling with an iron fist does not realistically help control order, as you only make the Iraqis more willing to resist.

incorrect. The Saddam regime was one of the most "stable" in the entire middle East. And guess what, this was only because Saddam and his sons ruled the country in the good old Pinochet style (or Pol Pot). The amount of mass-graves are probably the best indictator of the brutality of the system. And it worked so smoothly for such a long time.

Iraqis are not used to resist..they never had the liberty. The only problem that they have right now is liberty itself.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/17/sprj.irq.lynch.convoy/index.html

more Lynch convoy details. she was wounded in the leg not by bullets but by an auto accident that was caused by RPG.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/18/ticket.terror.ap/index.html

the Village judge who called a arab woman contesting double parking ticket a terrorist resigns.

Quote[/b] ]Crosbie said he was "probably kidding" when he made the terrorist remark. He denied accusing Khoder of financially supporting terrorism.

sure, just kidding my ass.  first he says he did not say it and is now admitting it, but is still not admitting to his problem.

[Badgerboy 0]

See! Bloody REMF's never keep their weapons clean!

[Balschoiw 0]

I mean sorry but this convoi had GPS and such. I mean they drove directly up towards iraqi lines with sand in their face AND in their guns ! Hell ! If anyone of my men should ever, I really mean EVER have his gun in a state like these guys and girls had theirs I would kick his ass to the moon and stick his thumby into his mouthy. Damn they are soldiers and no Kindergarten. Is it really that worse ?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Army maintenance battalions have the best mechanics and logitics clerks that the US Army can field, but God help them if they get into a situation that requires fighting.

[Balschoiw 0]

A soldier is a soldier and no matter if he repairs tanks or knits underwear he has to know his gun and his job. Aren´t it the americans who always say they have a job to do ?

They are soldiers. They have run directly into saddams troops. Not by fault but by lack of basic military knowledge with sand in their guns.

Hey what is this going to be ?

"In 20 days around the world"

One of the major rules for soldiers is that they always have to be able to defend themselves and their comrades. It´s rule number one to be able to save his own life with instruments given to a soldier.

Sand is like cancer for weapons and everybody who knows his job will it keep clean and dry like a fart. Not once a day, but 20 - 30 times. If he fails to maintain a gun the correct way he fails in his job as a soldier.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well, obviously their CO and senior NCOs had their heads up their asses. Otherwise their weapons would have been clean and they wouldn't have even needed them.

[Balschoiw 0]

Well I agree but it´s not the missing control of gun maintenance. It´s the fact that a soldier driving around in a hostile country should really need no order to clean his gun and keep it in a working state. It´s incredibly stupid not to do it on your own.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Go figure, huh? I guess this is the part where I say 'read my sig'.