The Iraq thread 4

[FerretFangs 0]

And I think we can chalk that photo up to someone simply possessing a great sense of humor, and perhaps a little well-earned exuberance.

[FerretFangs 0]

let's say NY Mets beat Boston RedSox. then they go around saying 'We beat the Boston.' to Bostonians. It's statement of fact, but also gloating.

gloating - A feeling of great, often malicious, pleasure or self-satisfaction.

I did serve during Desert Storm. I'd say I'm entitled.

[ralphwiggum 6]

And I think we can chalk that photo up to someone simply possessing a great sense of humor, and perhaps a little well-earned exuberance.

so is degrading of US culture, lumping it all into Golden Arches of McDonalds. Would you accept the notion that US Americans are nothing but a fat lazy ass whose main meal is a over fried greasy meals, and lump us all as some redneck drinking bear all day long, while abusing spouse in bayou?

the photo might be humorous, but is based on prejudice. after 2 years, who is the correct one?

Quote[/b] ]I did serve during Desert Storm. I'd say I'm entitled.

And I'm the queen of England. even if you were whom you claim to be, the act of cleaning one's own mess is nothing to be gloating about.

edit: DS != OIF

[FerretFangs 0]

And I think we can chalk that photo up to someone simply possessing a great sense of humor, and perhaps a little well-earned exuberance.

so is degrading of US culture, lumping it all into Golden Arches of McDonalds. Would you accept the notion that US Americans are nothing but a fat lazy ass whose main meal is a over fried greasy meals, and lump us all as some redneck drinking bear all day long, while abusing spouse in bayou?

the photo might be humorous, but is based on prejudice. after 2 years, who is the correct one?

Quote[/b] ]I did serve during Desert Storm. I'd say I'm entitled.

And I'm the queen of England. even if you were whom you claim to be, the act of cleaning one's own mess is nothing to be gloating about.

edit: DS != OIF

Hmm, I'd say someone who says such things about all Americans might be just a little personally invested, and obviously biased- not to mention quite rude. You are of course, entitled to your opinions, as are those who wrote that slogan on that tank, and me to mine.

I am most certainly who I say I am. Infact I served on the Lincoln tens years ago, which is why that photo of Bush, and that sign moved me to post.

So you don't put any stock in cleaning up your own messes, well, that's something you've got to live with. The fact that we've cleaned up one of our messes, is also something you've got to live with. This is reality. Welcome to the New World.

[ralphwiggum 6]

so is degrading of US culture, lumping it all into Golden Arches of McDonalds. Would you accept the notion that US Americans are nothing but a fat lazy ass whose main meal is a over fried greasy meals, and lump us all as some redneck drinking bear all day long, while abusing spouse in bayou?

the photo might be humorous, but is based on prejudice. after 2 years, who is the correct one?

Quote[/b] ]I did serve during Desert Storm. I'd say I'm entitled.

And I'm the queen of England. even if you were whom you claim to be, the act of cleaning one's own mess is nothing to be gloating about.

edit: DS != OIF

Hmm, I'd say someone who says such things about all Americans might be just a little personally invested, and obviously biased- not to mention quite rude. You are of course, entitled to your opinions, as are those who wrote that slogan on that tank, and me to mine.

did you just say that saying Americans are McD's degenerates are rude? then how come such generalization applied to French are not, which is what the message on the tank is about?

Quote[/b] ]

So you don't put any stock in cleaning up your own messes, well, that's something you've got to live with. The fact that we've cleaned up one of our messes, is also something you've got to live with. This is reality. Welcome to the New World.

as the old saying goes, "an ounce of vaccine is better than a ton of medicine." I'd rather not do questionable action before causing problem later. if US stayed the heck out of Hussein's war with Iran, there wouldn't be a clean up to start. also, did you forget that it wasn't about clean up but about WMD and the terror threat it poses to US?

you want reality? most of the nations are not that friendly towards US gov't's action. Italy is pulling there troops out, and someother nations's troops did too.

[FerretFangs 0]

Quote[/b] ]did you just say that saying Americans are McD's degenerates are rude? then how come such generalization applied to French are not, which is what the message on the tank is about?

Is that what it's about? Maybe they were simply annoyed at Chienrac's support for Saddam? In any case, they were certainly entitled to state their feelings on the matter, as far as I'm concerned. I must admit, I certainly sympathize.

Again, there's nothing wrong with owning up to one's own mistakes, ( unlike France, et al ) and doing what must be done to fix it. And stating that one is proud that it was done well, is not gloating. It's simply stating one's satisfaction in a job well done.

[FerretFangs 0]

Quote[/b] ]you want reality? most of the nations are not that friendly towards US gov't's action. Italy is pulling there troops out, and someother nations's troops did too.

I'm sure you must realize, we aren't losing any sleep over this, either.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Is that what it's about? Maybe they were simply annoyed at Chienrac's support for Saddam? In any case, they were certainly entitled to state their feelings on the matter, as far as I'm concerned. I must admit, I certainly sympathize.

it's about danger of blind generalization. they would have been annoyed at Chirac, but he doesn't represent all French, just like Bush not representing all Americans. Now that WMD is not found, perhaps it's better to listen to them a bit more attentatively.

Quote[/b] ]Again, there's nothing wrong with owning up to one's own mistakes, ( unlike France, et al ) and doing what must be done to fix it. And stating that one is proud that it was done well, is not gloating. It's simply stating one's satisfaction in a job well done.

but the fact is it was about WMD, not about cleanup. What did France did that they did not own upto? US certainly has enough in the basket to make French shortcoming quite childish.

being proud of something you should have done(or should not have been in place to do to begin with) is simply a lack of decency.

let's say some jerk robbed a car, and was caught and spent some time in jail. should he be proud of paying the debt to society?

Quote[/b] ]I'm sure you must realize, we aren't losing any sleep over this, either.

seems like there is no more talk of how big the coalition is.

[FerretFangs 0]

Quote[/b] ]it's about danger of blind generalization. they would have been annoyed at Chirac, but he doesn't represent all French, just like Bush not representing all Americans. Now that WMD is not found, perhaps it's better to listen to them a bit more attentatively.

No, I'd say that would be pretty foolish. If the French had their way, Saddam would still be free to do as he pleases. Non?

Quote[/b] ]but the fact is it was about WMD, not about cleanup. What did France did that they did not own upto? US certainly has enough in the basket to make French shortcoming quite childish.

being proud of something you should have done(or should not have been in place to do to begin with) is simply a lack of decency.

let's say some jerk robbed a car, and was caught and spent some time in jail. should he be proud of paying the debt to society?

No, It was infact about Saddm and the Ba'athists. I fought against that regime a decade ago. It was about Saddam then. Because of our unwillingness to rock the boat with our Muslim allies, we didn't do what needed doing at that time, much to the disappointment of me and my military brethren, I assure you.

Since then, all the way up to just before the beginning of this war, starting with Clinton, and echoed by GWB, the idea was about "regime change". And everyone agreed that was the correct path. Everyone but Iraq, and it's partners of course.

The rest of the world needed claims of WMD's because they sincerely lacked the will to do anything about Saddam unless THEY felt threatened- not whether or not it was the right thing to do.

It was ALWAYS about Saddam. He was the primary target.

Quote[/b] ]seems like there is no more talk of how big the coalition is.

Well, the important ones are still there.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]it's about danger of blind generalization. they would have been annoyed at Chirac, but he doesn't represent all French, just like Bush not representing all Americans. Now that WMD is not found, perhaps it's better to listen to them a bit more attentatively.

No, I'd say that would be pretty foolish. If the French had their way, Saddam would still be free to do as he pleases. Non?

if French had their way, there would be inspectors roaming around Iraq, instead of piles of dead bodies from IEDs.

Quote[/b] ]No, It was infact about Saddm and the Ba'athists. I fought against that regime a decade ago. It was about Saddam then. Because of our unwillingness to rock the boat with our Muslim allies, we didn't do what needed doing at that time, much to the disappointment of me and my military brethren, I assure you.

Since then, all the way up to just before the beginning of this war, starting with Clinton, and echoed by GWB, the idea was about "regime change". And everyone agreed that was the correct path. Everyone but Iraq, and it's partners of course.

The rest of the world needed claims of WMD's because they sincerely lacked the will to do anything about Saddam unless THEY felt threatened- not whether or not it was the right thing to do.

It was ALWAYS about Saddam. He was the primary target.

then why was Powell loudly presenting the WMD evidence? The shortcomings of DS was that it was 'rescue Kuwait' not 'kill Saddam' there is a big difference between the two.

everyone wanted to change the regime, but not the way TBA took. they wanted to have it from inside, not from outside. as bleak as that might sound, it actually had no moral difficiency comapred to starting a war on false evidence.

Quote[/b] ]Well, the important ones are still there.

let's see, Italy pulling out, France never was there, Germans were not there, only UK was. Japan has some troops, and South Korea, but China doesn't, Canada has how many?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]it's about danger of blind generalization. they would have been annoyed at Chirac, but he doesn't represent all French, just like Bush not representing all Americans. Now that WMD is not found, perhaps it's better to listen to them a bit more attentatively.

No, I'd say that would be pretty foolish. If the French had their way, Saddam would still be free to do as he pleases. Non?

if French had their way, there would be inspectors roaming around Iraq, instead of piles of dead bodies from IEDs.

How many people were Saddam and the Baathists, in Abu Gharib alone, executing daily?

Quote[/b] ]let's see, Italy pulling out, France never was there, Germans were not there, only UK was. Japan has some troops, and South Korea, but China doesn't, Canada has how many?

You forgot Australia.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]it's about danger of blind generalization. they would have been annoyed at Chirac, but he doesn't represent all French, just like Bush not representing all Americans. Now that WMD is not found, perhaps it's better to listen to them a bit more attentatively.

No, I'd say that would be pretty foolish. If the French had their way, Saddam would still be free to do as he pleases. Non?

if French had their way, there would be inspectors roaming around Iraq, instead of piles of dead bodies from IEDs.

How many people were Saddam and the Baathists, in Abu Gharib alone, executing daily?

hmm..let me see, the claim of mass graves were given up to 2 million over say 20 years of Ssaddams's rule. so about 100,000 per year? i wish we can find out how many Iraqi civilans are caught in crossfire and get killed, but there is no statistics for it since interim gov't stopped taking it?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]let's see, Italy pulling out, France never was there, Germans were not there, only UK was. Japan has some troops, and South Korea, but China doesn't, Canada has how many?

You forgot Australia.

And you forgot POLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]How many people were Saddam and the Baathists, in Abu Gharib alone, executing daily?

How many innocent people got and get killed by coalition ?

How does the coalition plan to clean up the mess they served to the people of Iraq ?

How many terrorists were in Iraq before the great coalition invasion ?

How many WMD´s have been found lately ?

How is US torture different to Saddam torture ?

How stable is the US emplaced government ?

How do you think to explain about 100.000 killed Iraquis to oust one man ?

How do you explain a killed coalition soldiers relative that the WMD issue was just an excuse to go there?

[FerretFangs 0]

Quote[/b] ]if French had their way, there would be inspectors roaming around Iraq, instead of piles of dead bodies from IEDs.

And a boatload of Ba'athist monsters leading the circus.

Quote[/b] ]then why was Powell loudly presenting the WMD evidence? The shortcomings of DS was that it was 'rescue Kuwait' not 'kill Saddam' there is a big difference between the two.

everyone wanted to change the regime, but not the way TBA took. they wanted to have it from inside, not from outside. as bleak as that might sound, it actually had no moral difficiency comapred to starting a war on false evidence.

And again, I must state that sometimes, the ends DO justify the means. The only alternative is to say you wish Saddam to still be in power. Go ahead, give it a try, you might find it enlightening.

Quote[/b] ]let's see, Italy pulling out, France never was there, Germans were not there, only UK was. Japan has some troops, and South Korea, but China doesn't, Canada has how many?

Obviously, you didn't get my meaning. The really IMPORTANT one is the big guy with all the ships, planes, tanks, SPECOPS, reconniasance satellites, UAVS, etc. etc. etc.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the help our allies have provided. But, we all know we could have gone it alone, and we're doing all the heavy lifting.

Because we can.

If that's not agreeable to you, I must assure you, both of those statements are simple facts.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]How many people were Saddam and the Baathists, in Abu Gharib alone, executing daily?

How many innocent people got and get killed by coalition ?

Thousands. Happens in major wars.

Quote[/b] ]How does the coalition plan to clean up the mess they served to the people of Iraq ?

Numerous projects, in the public and private sphere.

Quote[/b] ]How many terrorists were in Iraq before the great coalition invasion ?

Before, relatively few, and still the innocents killed by the Iraqi government far surpassed those killed in the war and by terrorists.

Quote[/b] ]How many WMD´s have been found lately ?

None, barring the sarin or mustard gas shells here or there.

Quote[/b] ]How is US torture different to Saddam torture ?

Both is quality and quantity. I've not heard of the US using butcher hooks or shredding people alive in pastic shredder machines. The comparision is foolish.

Quote[/b] ]How stable is the US emplaced government ?

Not stable enough. And it's not exactly US emplaced. It's certainly Iraqi emplaced by democratic elections and if they keep on going in this direction, it may very well improve. If you want instant success, buy an old Polaroid camera on eBay.

Quote[/b] ]How do you think to explain about 100.000 killed Iraquis to oust one man ?

There weren't 100,000 killed, as we've discussed the bunk that's made up the Lancet statistics report already. But keep on repeating it, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And let's try not to forget the 21 million living, who have a fighting chance of living free lives and having a say in the running of their own country.

Quote[/b] ]How do you explain a killed coalition soldiers relative that the WMD issue was just an excuse to go there?

It wasn't an excuse.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]There weren't 100,000 killed, as we've discussed the bunk that's made up the Lancet statistics report already. But keep on repeating it, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Share your knowledge. How many were killed ?

In fact the number is expected to be much higher with Falluja and other "operations" in mind.

Again, prove me wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Thousands. Happens in major wars.

That was started for what reason again ?

Quote[/b] ]Numerous projects, in the public and private sphere

Sure, those projects are all up and running and do improve the life in Iraq. Up to now. Not.

Quote[/b] ]

Both is quality and quantity. I've not heard of the US using butcher hooks or shredding people alive in pastic shredder machines.

So sexually abusing and exploiting prisoners, beating them to death, executing Iraquis and deporting them or imprisoning them without charges and children sexually abused are not on your list.

Noted.

Quote[/b] ]I've not heard of the US using butcher hooks or shredding people alive in pastic shredder machines.

So ? You don´t hear it means it doesn´t happen ?

Quote[/b] ]It wasn't an excuse.

Yes, you´re right. It was a blatant lie as we know today.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]There weren't 100,000 killed, as we've discussed the bunk that's made up the Lancet statistics report already. But keep on repeating it, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Share your knowledge. How many were killed ?

It even used to be in so many people's sigs here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

I guess those numbers just don't wow you any more.

Sorry, no time for the rest now.

[Balschoiw 0]

Maybe you should read their disclaimer:

Quote[/b] ]We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.

Reported -> journalist reports.

I don´t think that the hotspots in Iraq are/were crowded with journalists and as we have learned coalition authorities kept them away from major hotspots. So, as they say on their own:

". Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

So your point was what again ?

[miles teg 1]

The sexual abuse is just a means to an end. As Mr. Ferret says, "The ends DO justify the means." So anal raping with a nightstick and shocking the gonads of Iraqi prisoners is all good as long as we get good intel out of it. Same goes for the recent evidence coming out of Guantanomo.

What you guys gotta realize is that Mr. Ferret represents typical American arrogance. It goes something like this: "We Americans ARE the premiere ass kickers of the world and the rest of the world, especially Eurotrash, are just jealous of our power because we lead the world and get things done. Meanwhile Europe just whines and crys like little babies everytime some terrorist gets a boo boo in Abu Graeb. SO move aside Europe and let America do the job you wusses are too afraid to do."

So basically Americans like Mr. Ferret (the conservative right of America) have mostly contempt for liberals and Europeans who they see as a haven of liberalism and terrorist coddlers.

So basically he's trying to portray you guys as Saddam lovers.

I disagree with Mr. Ferret's assessment that Saddam would necessarily still be in power if the French had their way.

Under better leadership it is possible that a much stronger coallition could have been formed. In addition Kurdish and Shi'a guerilla units could have been trained by US Special Forces for the long term goal of creating a strong insurgency against Saddam.

However even if he had stayed in power, he would have been totally contained. The UN weapons inspectors were doing very good work. Furthermore, yes a dictator would have still been doing bad stuff... but guess what? There are TONS more dictators in the world, many of whom are even WORSE then Saddam Hussein if you want to measure #'s of people killed by their regimes per year in relation to their population sizes. North Korea springs to mind at the top of the list. Then you have Iran, Libya (our new bestest oil buddy in the ME), Sudan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Burma, etc...

In other words, if we were just going in to free people from a dictator, there were alot better targets. That was NOT why we originally went in. It was because Bush told everyone that it was a certainty that Saddam had WMD's and was preparing to use them against America or give them to terrorists. Cheney and Rumsfeld also made numerous statements alluding to the possibility of a Saddam-9/11 connection. These things are what got many Americans rallying around the flag and around Bush.

Now we've found that Bush and Co. flat out lied about many things and are continuing to lie or stretch the truth.

WE ARE NOT CLEANING UP OUR MESSES...WE ARE MAKING EVEN MORE OF A MESS!!!!

This war has been the BIGGEST BOOST TO TERRORISM then any other factor. It has insured a steady stream of recruits for Al-Qaeda while bringing relations between the US and the Islamic world to an all time low.

As for solutions, I've come up with plenty and won't restate them again in full detail. I'm sure you've read them before. Oddly enough none of you conservative guys (except maybe Avon Lady) ever commented on those solutions which is why I got tired of posting them. Its like, "Yeah we'll just ignore any liberal ideas and just support killing bad guys in Iraq. That'll solve the problem cuz dead men don't fight back."

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

Can wait to see how this turns out, I wonder what she is going to say about it when they find out that the car was infact traveling faster then 30mph(if it was).

It's quite simple. If it was going the speed the US claims it was, then there's no way in hell the soldiers could have

1) Shouted

2) Waved flashlights

3) Fired warning shots in the air

before opening fire on the car. If it took three seconds from the point they spotted the car until they opened fire on it, then there's no way in hell those in the car were properly warned.

Keep trying.

Quote[/b] ]U) At approximately 2050 hours, Specialist Lozano saw a car approaching the on-ramp, approximately 140 meters from his position. (Annexes 79C, 134C, 144K). Specialist Lozano, holding the spotlight in his left hand, shined his spotlight onto the car before it arrived at the Alert Line. (Annexes 79C, 85C). At this time, Sergeant Domangue acquired the vehicle’s headlights and saw the spotlight shining on it. He then focused his green laser pointer onto the windshield of the car as it reached the Alert Line. (Annexes 87C, 129C). Both Specialist Lozano and Sergeant Domangue perceived the car to be traveling in excess of 50 mph (and faster than any other vehicles that evening). (Annexes 79C, 87C, 129C, 134C).

(U) The car crossed the Alert Line still heading towards the Soldiers’ position without slowing down. Specialist Lozano continued to shine the spotlight, and shouted at the vehicle to stop, a fruitless effort, but an instantaneous reaction based on his training.

30 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

(Annexes 85C, 130C). Without slowing down, the car continued toward the Warning Line with the spotlight and laser still on it. (Annexes 79C, 87C, 129C).

(U) The car continued to approach at a high rate of speed, coming closer to the Soldiers than any other vehicle that evening. (Annexes 79C, 87C, 129C). When the car got to the Warning Line, Specialist Lozano, while still holding the spotlight in his left hand, used his right hand to quickly fire a two to four round burst into a grassy area to the on-coming vehicle’s right (the pre-set aiming point) as a warning shot. (Annexes 79C, 87C, 125C, 129C, 134C).

(U) The vehicle maintained its speed as it went beyond the Warning Line. (Annexes 77C, 79C, 81C, 83C, 129C, 131C, 132C, 133C). Staff Sergeant Brown, a New York City Police Officer trained in vehicle speed estimation, estimated the car was traveling at 50 mph and believed that it would not be able to stay on the road around the curve at that speed. (Annex 83C). Specialist Lozano dropped the spotlight and immediately traversed his weapon from his left to his right, without having to move the turret, to orient on the front of the car. With both hands on the weapon, he fired another burst, walking the rounds from the ground on the passenger’s side of the vehicle and towards the car’s engine block in an attempt to disable it. (Annexes 77C, 79C, 81C, 83C, 87C, 129C, 131C, 132C, 133C). The rounds hit the right and front sides of the vehicle, deflated the left front tire, and blew out the side windows. (Annexes 104C, 105C, 132C, 1I).

Source: Full report. Note that classified information was clumsily leaked by the US military in the original PDF file.

LOL, thank's - it's a good laugh.

Quote[/b] ]Specialist Lozano continued to shine the spotlight, and shouted at the vehicle to stop, a fruitless effort, but an instantaneous reaction based on his training.

I hope you see the humor in this . No wonder that the Italians are pissed.

Italian report to query US claims [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

Italy says its report into the death of an Italian secret agent killed by US troops at a roadblock in Iraq differs greatly from the US version of events.

Rome has refused to back a recent US report which exonerated the soldiers involved in the 4 March shooting of Nicola Calipari.

Calipari was killed as he escorted hostage Giuliana Sgrena to freedom.

The Italian document reportedly accuses the US military of "tampering with the incident scene" and removing evidence.

Disputed circumstances

Observers say that following the report from the US military's investigation panel, relations between the two countries have deteriorated considerably.

The findings in the US report were heavily censored, with large blocks of the text blacked out when it was published. However, a university student in Italy claims he was able to remove the censored parts using his computer and has passed a seemingly full US report to Italy's media.

Correspondents say the Italian report will reply point by point to the Pentagon inquiry, which recommended that no disciplinary action be taken against the soldiers involved in Calipari's death.

Warning shots

The Italian foreign ministry said it would release its findings at 1600 GMT on Monday, adding that it would show clear differences from the US conclusions of the joint inquiry.

"Regardless of the fact that the two parties have made analogous evaluations on many points, the main aspects on which it has not been possible to reach agreement concern, above all, the dynamic of the incident, rules of engagement and co-ordination with the competent authorities in Iraq," a statement said.

Italy says at least three troops opened fire on the car taking Ms Sgrena to Baghdad airport with Calipari and a second Italian intelligent agent.

Italian newspapers say an Italian reconstruction of events show the US authorities were informed of the operation to release Ms Sgrena several hours before the shooting, though the US denies that.

Reports say the experts who drafted the Italian report will also claim that a three-second warning given by the US troops was not enough time for the car to stop. The US version says the Italians ignored several warnings and did not slow down before they were shot at.

Details of personnel

A Greek medical student at Bologna university surfing the web on Sunday found he could restore censored portions of the 40-page US report with a couple of clicks of his computer mouse.

He passed the details to Italian newspapers, which put out the full text on their websites. The apparently full text contains a few details that US authorities would have preferred to remain secret - such as the names and ranks of the US military personnel involved in Calipari's death - the BBC's David Willey says from Rome.

Our correspondent adds that the censored material also includes embarrassing details about communication failures and reveals the rules of engagement at checkpoints. The US invited two Italians to join in their inquiry, but the Italian representatives protested at what they claimed was lack of objectivity in presenting the evidence and returned to Rome.

Now, I don't know how much the Italians are bullshitting, but you can be fairly certain that the US version is a white-wash, given previous international incidents involving US soldiers.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]There weren't 100,000 killed, as we've discussed the bunk that's made up the Lancet statistics report already. But keep on repeating it, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Share your knowledge. How many were killed ?

In fact the number is expected to be much higher with Falluja and other "operations" in mind.

Again, prove me wrong.

You haven't proved anything right.

But let's go around in circles again and refer to pages 8 and 9 of the Brookings Institute Iraq Index.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]if French had their way, there would be inspectors roaming around Iraq, instead of piles of dead bodies from IEDs.

And a boatload of Ba'athist monsters leading the circus.  

given now that there were no WMDs to begin with, with Saddam pulling a bluff, it would not have mattered. there were no WMDs and that is the truth. UN inspectors would have had there work done, as it is now shown.

Quote[/b] ]

And again, I must state that sometimes, the ends DO justify the means. The only alternative is to say you wish Saddam to still be in power. Go ahead, give it a try, you might find it enlightening.

again, you are relying on 'but saddam is an evil man! we must drive him out' argument. if end justifies mean, i guess it is ok to assasinate even US political leaders since some of them are nothing but hot heads who lack competent analytic view of international affairs?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]let's see, Italy pulling out, France never was there, Germans were not there, only UK was. Japan has some troops, and South Korea, but China doesn't, Canada has how many?

Obviously, you didn't get my meaning. The really IMPORTANT one is the big guy with all the ships, planes, tanks, SPECOPS, reconniasance satellites, UAVS, etc. etc. etc.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the help our allies have provided. But, we all know we could have gone it alone, and we're doing all the heavy lifting.

nope US could not have gone at it alone, as shown by lack of security in iraq as shown. Ge. Shinseki warned that we would need upto 400,000 trrops. went to war with 170,000 or so and now look what happened.

Quote[/b] ]Because we can.

just becuase I can kill someone doesn't mean I should.

[denoir 0]

And again, I must state that sometimes, the ends DO justify the means. The only alternative is to say you wish Saddam to still be in power. Go ahead, give it a try, you might find it enlightening.  

Quote[/b] ]let's see, Italy pulling out, France never was there, Germans were not there, only UK was. Japan has some troops, and South Korea, but China doesn't, Canada has how many?

Obviously, you didn't get my meaning. The really IMPORTANT one is the big guy with all the ships, planes, tanks, SPECOPS, reconniasance satellites, UAVS, etc. etc. etc.

That Saddam was a dictator with blood on his hands is not disputed. But given the cost of the war in terms of civilian casualties, and primarily the instability now in the region, having Saddam contained was certainly the better choice.

Saddam could have been handled step by step. Re-integrated into the international community and kept on a tight leash. Economic support and international acceptance in exchange for international cooperation and human rights. It certainly would have been less expensive in terms of human rights.

Primarily however, it would have been a much more stable solution. Right now, Iraq is on the brink of a civil war. If that happens, chances are the whole region will implode. Iran will almost certainly get involved. If the system collapses, the Kurds will try to leave, which won't be accepted by anybody etc

Bottom line, it's a very unstable situation that could go either way. And that risk is a too high cost.

Should it happen, who would handle the mess? Europe has decidedly shown that it's not going to get too much involved. The US has shown itself incapable of dealing with a bunch of insurgents - how would it handle a region-wide conflict?

Quote[/b] ]Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the help our allies have provided. But, we all know we could have gone it alone, and we're doing all the heavy lifting.

Because we can.

Actually, you have demonstrated so far that you really can't. Iraq has been a miserable failure so far, and it's not getting better. The chance of collapse is close as ever. Shia-Sunni animosity has become a problem.

If anything was shown by this conflict is that the US is not much of a superpower to speak of. Or better to say that it's military capability is still based on long-gone Cold War ideas.The big ships, tanks, satellites, nukes etc mean shit against an insurgency like the one we're seeing in Iraq.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]There weren't 100,000 killed, as we've discussed the bunk that's made up the Lancet statistics report already. But keep on repeating it, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Share your knowledge. How many were killed ?

In fact the number is expected to be much higher with Falluja and other "operations" in mind.

Again, prove me wrong.

You haven't proved anything right.

But let's go around in circles again and refer to pages 8 and 9 of the Brookings Institute Iraq Index.

Are you refering to the underlined segment saying:

Quote[/b] ]"We recognize that these estimates aremost probably lower than the actual number since many separate incidents go unreported or unnoticed.

?  

As far as the Lancet report goes, I don't recall any serious arguments against it. It was as far as I know the first proper scientific attempt at getting the whole picture across Iraq. They published their data, their methods etc

There was nothing very controversial about the methods they used (unlike the Iraq Body Count Project which collects data from media) and they did a proper confidence analysis.

The Economist went over the methodology and statistics approach that Lancet used, and concluded that it was valid:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3352814

[Balschoiw 0]

Not valid enough for Avon as she simply doesn´t like the content.

Anyway, 2 F/A-18 Hornets got lost of Iraq in an assumed in-air collision:

US planes go missing in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]The US military has lost contact with two Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornet aircraft in Iraq.

In a statement on Monday night, the military said the two planes were from the USS Carl Vinson. The status of the crew is unknown and a search effort is under way.

"Contact was lost with two US Marine F/A-18 Hornet jets flying over Iraq," said Nick Minecci, a staff sergeant at the US military's press centre in Baghdad.

Contact was lost at 10.10pm (1810 GMT) on Monday, the statement confirmed.

There was "no initial indication of hostile fire" involved in the incident, he said.

There were unconfirmed reports that the two fighter jets may have collided.

The military could not immediately say whether the planes were single or two-seaters.

The US military said it had no further information to release.

While the Italian report on the checkpoint incident contradicts the US report in several key findings:

Italy criticizes U.S. over its Iraqi checkpoints

Quote[/b] ] ROME (Reuters) - Italy criticized the U.S. military on Monday for failing to establish rules for checkpoints in Iraq, saying nervous U.S. troops manning a haphazard road block were to blame for the killing of an Italian agent near Baghdad.

In a 52-page report on the "friendly fire" incident, Italy said the shooting of intelligence officer Nicola Calipari was not intentional, but it took issue with U.S. findings released at the weekend that exonerated the American forces.

Calipari was shot by a U.S. soldier on the night of March 4, as he was escorting an Italian hostage to freedom on the notoriously dangerous road to Baghdad airport.

The U.S. inquiry into the incident, in which the newly freed journalist Giuliana Sgrena and another Italian secret service agent were wounded, has determined that it was a "tragic accident" in which U.S. forces followed correct procedures.

Italy sat on the same inquiry, but refused to sign up to the U.S. conclusions and instead issued its own findings in which it accused U.S. troops of failing to set up "the most elementary precautions" to warn drivers of the approaching checkpoint.

"The attention with which the road block was planned and organized was careless to say the least," the report said.

It also denied there were communication problems between the Italians and the U.S. forces before the shooting.

"It is likely that tension … inexperience and stress led some of the U.S. troops to react instinctively and with little control," the Italians said.

The dispute has strained ties between Rome and Washington, prompting calls in Italy for Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to withdraw 3,000 Italian troops deployed in Iraq.

Berlusconi, who is one of President Bush's most fervent allies in Europe, was due to address parliament on Thursday about the incident, but is highly unlikely to heed demands for an immediate pullout of the Italian contingent.

NO WARNING

The U.S. report put much of the blame on Italy for the fatal shooting, saying Italian agents had failed to communicate to U.S. officials their plans to take Sgrena to the airport.

Rome denied that, saying U.S. authorities were "indisputably" aware of the presence of Calipari and a second Italian agent in Baghdad even if "it is likely that they were not aware of the details of their mission."

It added that the Italians were not under any obligation to inform the U.S. military about their journey to Baghdad airport, but said the road block should have been signaled to give drivers a chance to slow down.

The Italian report condemned the U.S. military for failing to lay down precise rules for its checkpoints, saying this had added to the confusion.

"The lack of formal reference points within clear rules, which could and should have been observed, makes it difficult to identify precisely … individual responsibilities," it added.

The U.S. military acknowledged in its report that new safeguard procedures may now be required.

The seven U.S. reservists involved had been warned of suicide bombers in the area and were forced to stay in an exposed temporary roadblock position for much longer than was necessary or normal because of a lapse in U.S. communications.

When the Italian car approached, the machine-gunner first shone a spotlight at it, then had to fire warning shots and finally lethal rounds, all within seconds, the U.S. report said.

The Italians said the soldier had been given far too many tasks, adding: "He said he felt threatened by the approaching car, to have thought about his daughters and was literally overwhelmed by actions that needed to be performed in very little time."

Rome said the initial U.S. inquiry, by hearing only the U.S. soldiers involved in the incident, "excluded any burden of responsibility on the military."

The Italians also criticized the U.S. forces for removing forensic evidence from the scene of the shooting, making it impossible to reconstruct the precise chain of events.

It concluded that evidence given by Sgrena and the Italian driver, who have both said they were given virtually no warning before coming under attack, was "coherent and plausible."

This does indeed sound a bit different than the US incvestigation finds. On a sidenote: Italian investigators were neither allowed to talk to the units in question and not allowed to examine the car itself during the investigation. So they were basically just bystanders and not really involved in the investigation itself.

They had to take for granted what US investigators served them.