Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

The Iraq thread 4

Recommended Posts

Hi all

@ b_ringer25

What would you say were the reasons for the Iraq war?

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all

@ b_ringer25

What would you say were the reasons for the Iraq war?

Kind Regards Walker

Not for Oil not for WMD

Ok I forgot the number but it is over 70% of the people of Iran want a regime change. The current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was losing the race to some other canidate. Ayatollah added some couple millions of votes... that where all in Ahmadinejad's favor... USA went to war to hopefully end the threat that was brewing from Iran. I like to call it squeezing the head of the snake. The head being Iran and the body being Middle East. Notice around Iran, I think all or most of the countries are democratic. USA was hoping that the people of Iran would start an uprise but it didn't prevail so now USA is in the nuclear situation. It doesn't help when Russia and China won't do shit and the UN is corrupt... There are only 3 countries brave and willing enough to destroy the threat. UK, USA, Isreal.

That is why we went to war. Not because Iraq had WMD's nor for oil but to protect the United States. Iraq could of had WMD's we found traces of them but we never found them but then the press did leak about us going to war with Iraq... So he had plenty of time to destroy them. A couple of months. So i'm not even discounting that atm.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never read such a 2-cents strategy speech for a long time rofl.gif

Quote[/b] ]That is why we went to war. Not because Iraq had WMD's nor for oil but to protect the United States. Iraq could of had WMD's we found traces of them but we never found them but then the press did leak about us going to war with Iraq... So he had plenty of time to destroy them.

With a such long term memory and honest heart, I'm sure taht with giving you a rifle, you'll be able to clean-up all this mess, eradicate the terrorism and create a new era of universal peace, freedom and democracy to the galaxy rofl.gif

Allah Akbar yay.gif

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all

@ b_ringer25

What would you say were the reasons for the Iraq war?

Kind Regards Walker

Not for Oil not for WMD

Each of those has been listed by the NeoConMen Liars as their reason for going to war, along with a supposed link to 9/11 and supposed link between Al-Qaida and Iraq. The oil one was one where they said if we did not go in there could be a threat to oil supplies and a massive increase in prices.

But just to remind everyone

There was no WMD

There was no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq

Oil Prices have gone up

The only ones to make money out of it are big oil and the speculators.

Ok I forgot the number but it is over 70% of the people of Iran want a regime change...


I asked you about Iraq not Iran this is the Iraq thread.

Not because Iraq had WMD's nor for oil but to protect the United States.

What from the bogey man under the bed?

They was no threat:

There was no WMD

There was no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq

Iraq could of had WMD's we found traces of them but we never found them but then the press did leak about us going to war with Iraq... So he had plenty of time to destroy them. A couple of months. So i'm not even discounting that atm.

Specious drivel. The Press did not leak anything. We had a massive build up on the Iraqi border. We threatened Iraq almost every day with messages and press briefings for two months before we went in.

We told them quite clearly we were going to attack if they did not give up their WMD. They said they did not have any. TBA and TBA2 gave out what has turned out be fake evidence that Iraq did have WMD.

Just to remind every one.

There was no WMD it had been destroyed after the Gulf War I

There was no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq.

I do not like being lied to.

I do not like being forced to give my assent to war only to find out it has been gained by false claims and manufactured evidense.

I do not like people who using such lies and false claims cause the death of innocents in the tens of thousands and of the brave soldiers who defend my county.

I do not like people who cause my countries defense to be sent on a wild goose chase while the real culprits are alowed to escape.

I do not like those who then cripple our brave soldiers ability by deliberately designing a strategy with too few soldiers so they cannot win.

I do not like those who cry wolf thus disarming the nation I live in when a true wolf comes.

I think I am not alone in these dislikes and that the majority of honnest free thinking brave people are angered just the same as me.

So as you seem unable to answer the question and the answering of it seems to cause you some dicomfort: I will give you a second chance to answer it by asking you it again.

@ b_ringer25 what would you say were the reasons for the Iraq war?

Regards Walker

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Europe really better get their head out of their ass unless I have been misinformed, the fundamentalist are taking over Europe.

Really? Wow, you're really much better inormed than I am then. I never realised Muslim fundamentalist were taking over a non-existing federation. Good show!

Just in case you didn't get the sarcarsm... Ah what the hell, I'll let you figure this one on your own.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok I forgot the number but it is over 70% of the people of Iran want a regime change.  The current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was losing the race to some other canidate.


this is funny...

"Ok I forgot the number but it is over 50% of the people of USA want a regime change.  The current President Bush was losing the race to some other canidate...TWICE!!"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think big countries seeking to invade smaller countries would have learned by now that a bitter internal opposition does not mean they are willing to lay down and give up their country.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This maybe be a dumb question but on after gulf war 1 whats the average yearly estiamte of Iraqi's that sadam killed? Now whats the average yearly estiamte of Iraqi's that die due to suicide bombings/military operations?

The reason i ask is because often the respones to anti war people is "would you rather have sadam still in power?"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jezz

That is an excelent question and one I answered before in this thread but I am unhappy to have to expand on it as it just depresses me.

The death rate has risen -- In 2004 100,000 more civilians had died since the invasion, based on the death rate before the war. The Percentage increase was from 5 percent annually before the invasion and by 2004 it had risen to 7.9 percent. (Lancet/Johns Hopkins). This set of figures do not descriminate between deaths due to violence and those due to loss of clean water supply loss of hospitals etc.

Quote[/b] ]100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq

By Rob Stein

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A16

One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion.

The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths, indicated that many of the excess deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers making the calculations.

Pentagon officials say they do not keep tallies of civilian casualties, and a spokesman said yesterday there is no way to validate estimates by others. The spokesman said that the past 18 months of fighting in Iraq have been "prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare," and that "the loss of any innocent lives is a tragedy, something that Iraqi security forces and the multinational force painstakingly work to avoid."

Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq were far lower, never exceeding 16,000.


That situation has worsened over the last two years and we are able now to descriminate the deaths due to violence to some degree.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq violence: Facts and figures

Gathering reliable data on the current bloodshed in Iraq is difficult, but the available figures help build up a picture of the complex mixture of insurgent attacks and sectarian killings.


Death tolls - both military and civilian - since the fall of Saddam Hussein have far outstripped those during the initial period of US-led military action.

Numbers of civilian casualties are highly controversial and not recorded by the US or UK military.

Iraqi civilians: 42,358

Iraqi security forces*: 5,182

US military: 2,596

UK military: 115

Other coalition military: 115

Journalists: 77

*Since June 2003

Sources: Iraq Body Count (baseline estimate of civilian deaths), Brookings Institution Iraq war dead figures


Insurgent attacks have become part of daily life in some sections of Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The last few months have exceeded the peaks of violence ahead of national elections in January 2005 and the referendum on the constitution in October 2005


Although about 80% of insurgent attacks are targeted against coalition forces, the Iraqi population suffers about 80% of all casualties, according to US officials in late 2005. ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5052138.stmFollow the link for the full story

More worrying is that as I have pointed out the fly paper analogy based policy is having exactly the oposite effect of what it was suposed to do. Rather than acting as a place to bring Al Qiada sympathisers in for the coalition to kill them, thus reducing the number of our enemies; it is acting as a breeding and training ground for them.


Estimates of the size of the insurgency vary considerably, partly due to varying definitions of the term "insurgent".

According to figures collated by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, from autumn 2003 US officials put the total number of insurgents at 5,000, until late 2004 when they raised their estimates to between 12,000 and 16,000.

By 2006, US military estimates ranged from 8,000 to 20,000, although Iraqi intelligence officials have issued figures as high as 40,000 fighters, plus another 160,000 supporters.

The majority of insurgents are thought to be Iraqi and Sunni. The proportion of foreign fighters in the insurgency is widely considered to be less than 10%, although the US military said in May 2006 that 90% of suicide bombers used by Iraq's former al-Qaeda leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, were from outside Iraq...


It is also acting as breeding ground for Shia and Kurdish terrorists witness the recent attacks on Turkey and the the increasingly actions of the Shia militias. Clearly with the attacks on Turkey the fly paper is not sticky.

These groups are being trained in the increasingly sectarian war developing in Iraq that even the pentagon has now admited has become the strategic objective of the the coalition forces to prevent. The figures point out just how bad the situation is.


Since early 2005, gruesome finds of groups of corpses, often showing signs of execution or torture, have been becoming increasingly common.

Such discoveries have become more frequent and high profile since the outbreak of a wave of sectarian violence which followed the Samarra mosque bombing.

A large proportion of these killings can be identified as sectarian because of the style of killing, the identities of the victims or the context of the deaths.


12 July 06 - 23 killed

Kidnapped from bus station in Muqdadiya

9 July 06 - 40 killed

Mainly Sunnis, dragged from cars by Shia gunmen, Baghdad

26 March 06 - 30 bodies

Most decapitated, found near Baquba

14 March 06 - 29 bodies

Found bound, tortured and shot in south-east Baghdad

23 Feb 06 - 47 killed

Workers dragged from vehicles in Nahrawan, Baghdad

22 Jan 06 - 23 bodies

Police volunteers shot dead, found north of Baghdad

7 Oct 05 - 22 bodies

Found handcuffed and shot near the town of Badra

25 Aug 05 - 36 bodies

Found blindfolded, handcuffed and executed, near Badra

However, no available figures differentiate between sectarian killings and crime deaths in a country where kidnapping, extortion and tribal feuds are rife.

The numbers of bodies processed by Baghdad morgue, which deals only with those who died violent or suspicious deaths, are a widely-used guide.



Acute malnutrition among children has almost doubled, from 4.4 percent to 8 percent (Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science).

Twenty-five percent of Iraqi children don't get enough food to eat (UN Human Rights Commission).

Health care is less available.

Clean water is less available

Quote[/b] ]Sanctions, wars and slashed budgets had left Iraq's once impressive health system in tatters by the start of the 2003 invasion. Facilities suffered further damage and looting during the war.

In 2004, child mortality had more than doubled since 1990, life expectancy was eight years below the regional average and 25% of under-fives were malnourished.

However, health spending has risen from $16m in 2002 to about $1bn in 2005. Some hospitals have been refurbished and the spread of disease has slowed, but diarrhoea caused by dirty water still claims children's lives in some areas.

Drug shortages are improving, but an exodus of doctors has left expertise in short supply.


Follow link to see graphs

The above link is worth following as the different tabs give info on such diverse things as education, electricity generation, oil production etc.

A depressed walker

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

With the death toll in Iraq continuing to rise and no end to the violence in sight it apears more troops will be needed (Duh)

The question is with Chicken Hawks like the NeoConMen liars and Donald Rumsfeld in charge will it just be a NeoConMen whiney trickle of too little too late or will they finaly take the advice of the sacked Generals and Colin Powell and put in enough troops to do the job?

Quote[/b] ]General says U.S. may increase troops in Iraq

Abizaid: Military likely to maintain force of 147,000 through spring 2007

Associated Press

Updated: 11:44 p.m. ET Sept. 19, 2006

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military is likely to maintain and may even increase its force of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring, the top American commander in the region said Tuesday in one of the gloomiest assessments yet of when troops may come home.

Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said military leaders would consider adding troops or extending the Iraq deployments of other units if needed. Until sectarian violence spiked early this year, Bush administration officials had voiced hopes that this election year would see significant U.S. troop reductions in what has become a widely unpopular war.

"If it's necessary to do that because the military situation on the ground requires that, we'll do it," Abizaid said of longer deployments. "If we have to call in more forces because it's our military judgment that we need more forces, we'll do it."

His comments came as violence around Iraq killed at least 16 civilians on Tuesday and wounded dozens of others. Iraqi lawmakers angered by the relentless violence demanded that the defense and interior ministers appear before parliament to explain what they are doing to eliminate the death squads that have claimed hundreds of Iraqi lives.

The U.S. military said a U.S. soldier was killed Tuesday by a suicide car bomber in northern Iraq, another died of non-battle related injuries on Monday and two others were killed Sunday...


Follow link for the full story

So with massive troop increases on the cards and a continued large scale presence in Iraq inevitable where is the US going to find the troops?

The Donald Rumsfeld has already dropped the standards for recruitment in to the US armed forces in an attempt to boost the number of troops.

Quote[/b] ]US lowers standards in army numbers crisis

Jamie Wilson in Washington

Saturday June 4, 2005

The Guardian

The US military has stopped battalion commanders from dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol, poor fitness and pregnancy in an attempt to halt the rising attrition rate in an army under growing strain as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An internal memo sent to senior commanders said the growing dropout rate was "a matter of great concern" in an army at war. It told officers: "We need your concerted effort to reverse the negative trend. By reducing attrition 1%, we can save up to 3,000 initial-term soldiers. That's 3,000 more soldiers in our formations."

Officially, the memo, reported in the Wall Street Journal and posted on Slate.com, ordered battalion commanders to refer cases of problem soldiers up to brigade level. Military experts warned that the move would make it more difficult to remove poor soldiers and would lower quality in the ranks.

A military spokesman told the Guardian yesterday: "It was merely a question of an additional set of eyes looking at an issue before we release potential recruits."

The Wall Street Journal quoted a battalion commander as saying: "It is the guys on weight control ... school no-shows, drug users, etc, who eat up my time and cause my hair to grey prematurely ... Often they have more than one of these issues simultaneously."

Asked what the new policy meant, John Pike from the thinktank Globalsecurity.org said: "It means there is a war on. They need all the soldiers they can get. But it is a dilemma. You need good soldiers more in wartime than peacetime."

The latest controversy comes amid a growing recruitment and retention crisis in the US military. Last month the army announced that it was 6,659 soldiers short of its recruitment targets for the year so far. On Wednesday, the department of defence withheld the latest figures, a move seen by most commentators as heralding more bad news.

The military's target is 80,000 new recruits this year, but the army only managed 73% of its target in February, 68% in March and 57% in April, forcing the expansion of a pilot programme offering 15-month active duty enlistments, rather than the usual four years.

The crisis has even led to fears - despite repeated denials by President George Bush - of a return to the draft system that conscripted 1.8 million Americans during the Vietnam war...


Follow link for the full article

The numbers required just do not add up.

So what next? Multiple two year tours in Iraq and forced extension of enlistment as per the enlistment papers you sign




a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial enlistment,

I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part

of that service not served on active duty must be served

in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an

Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or

national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become

a member during that period, my military service may be

extended without my consent until six (6) months after

the end of that period of war.

c. As a member of a Reserve Component, in time of

war or national emergency declared by the Congress, I

may be required to serve on active duty (other than for

training) for the entire period of the war or emergency

and for six (6) months after its end...

or will it be another Vietnam style draft?

If the US is not to cut and run the numbers have to be made up some how.

The major question should be how to deal with incompetant bunch of idiot NeoConMen Liars who got us into this mess in the first place.

Sadly walker

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

There are increasing signs that the army and the inteligence service is taking very dim view of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and NeoConMen liars who conned us into a needless war and then totaly mismanaged the prosecution and conduct of the war.

What members of the general staff responsible for planning the Iraq war have to say about Rumsfeld's deliberate policy of cripling the US and coalition troops by refusing to allow them to plan to win the Iraq war is most enlitening.

Quote[/b] ]Retired officers slam Rumsfeld handling of Iraq war

POSTED: 1320 GMT (2120 HKT), September 25, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retired military officers on Monday bluntly accused Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld of bungling the war in Iraq, saying U.S. troops were sent to fight without the best equipment and that critical facts were hidden from the public.

"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste said in remarks prepared for a hearing by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

A second witness, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, assessed Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically ...."

"Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making," he added in testimony prepared for the hearing, held six weeks before the November 7 midterm elections, in which the war is a central issue.

The conflict, now in its fourth year, has claimed the lives of more than 2,600 American troops and cost more than $300 billion.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, the committee chairman, told reporters last week that he hoped the hearing would shed light on the planning and conduct of the war. He said majority Republicans had failed to conduct hearings on the issue, adding, "if they won't ... we will."

Since he spoke, a government-produced National Intelligence Estimate became public that concluded the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the attacks of September 11, 2001. (Full story)

Several members of the Senate Democratic leadership were expected to participate in the hearing. Dorgan said Republican lawmakers had been invited.

It is unusual for retired military officers to criticize the Pentagon while military operations are under way, particularly at a public event likely to draw widespread media attention.

But Batiste, Eaton and retired Col. Paul X. Hammes were unsparing in remarks that suggested deep anger at the way the military had been treated. All three served in Iraq, and Batiste also was senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, also blamed Congress for failing to ask "the tough questions."

He said Rumsfeld at one point threatened to fire the next person who mentioned the need for a postwar plan in Iraq.

Batiste said if full consideration had been given to the requirements for war, it's likely the U.S. would have kept its focus on Afghanistan, "not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents."

Hammes said in his prepared remarks that not providing the best equipment was a "serious moral failure on the part of our leadership."

The United States "did not ask our soldiers to invade France in 1944 with the same armor they trained on in 1941. Why are we asking our soldiers and Marines to use the same armor we found was insufficient in 2003," he asked.

Hammes was responsible for establishing bases for the Iraqi armed forces. He served in Iraq in 2004 and is now Marine Senior Military Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University.

Eaton was responsible for training the Iraqi military and later for rebuilding the Iraqi police force.

He said planning for the postwar period was "amateurish at best, incompetent a better descriptor."...


Follow link for the full article

This coincides with the latest National Intelligence Estimate that states that failures by the NeoConMen liars and mishandling of the war in Iraq has made America and the rest of the world less safe.

Even Fox News has been forced to carry the fact that NeoConMen's lieing incompetance and mismanagement have increased the danger to the US citizen.

Ladies and Gentlemen the flypaper ain't sticky

Quote[/b] ]Intel: War Has Worsened Terror Threat


The Associated Press

Sunday, September 24, 2006; 10:49 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Iraq war has contributed to an increased threat of terrorism, according to an intelligence assessment that has not lessened the Senate majority leader's defense of the U.S.-led invasion three years ago and occupation.

The classified assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, an intelligence official said Sunday. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is classified.

The report found that the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn. said he had not seen the classified report, which was completed in April, but said Americans understand the United States must continue to fight terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

"Either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it's going to be right here in this country," Frist said on ABC's "This Week," echoing an argument that President Bush frequently makes.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement that the assessment "should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war."

"How many more independent reports, how many more deaths, how much deeper into civil war will Iraq need to fall for the White House to wake up and change its strategy in Iraq?"...


Follow link foir the full story

And the killings in Iraq go on and on for a war we did not need to fight

They was no threat:

There was no WMD

There was no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq

An average of two or three coalition soldiers have been killed every day of this needless war:


It will reach 3,000 in the next month.

For Iraqis the cost has been truely stagering the average death rate for them is more than a 100 a day now. Their total losses are in the tens of thousands and for what?

We are less safe.

The terrorists have become stronger and better trained.

Al Qaida now has more bases than ever.

For our soldiers longer and longer deployments

Quote[/b] ]Army extends another brigade's tour in Iraq

Updated 9/25/2006 12:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a new sign of mounting strain from the war in Iraq, the Army has extended the combat tours of about 4,000 soldiers who would otherwise be returning home, a defense official said Monday.

The 1st Brigade of 1st Armored Division, which is operating in the vicinity of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, will be kept in place for several weeks beyond their scheduled departure, the official said. The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced by the Pentagon.

The brigade's home base is in Germany. The soldiers' families were notified of the extension Monday, the official said.

The brigade has about 4,000 soldiers in Iraq. They were scheduled to be there a maximum of 12 months, but they are not the first to be extended.

In late July the Army extended the Iraq tour of the Alaska-based 172nd Stryker Brigade. About 300 soldiers from that unit had already returned home and were required to go back to Iraq. The brigade is now operating in Baghdad.

The 1st Brigade of the 1st Armored Division was extended in order to allow its replacement unit, from the 3rd Infantry Division, the minimum 12 months between overseas tours, the official said. The 3rd Infantry has already served two tours in Iraq, including the initial invasion of the country in March 2003.

Last week, the top American commander in the region said the U.S. military is likely to maintain and may even increase its force of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring. Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said military leaders would consider adding troops or extending the Iraq deployments of other units if needed...


Follow link for the full article

There is occasion bright patches of good news like this from Reuters but reading on it just points out the incompetance of starving the Afghan war for troops to fight the pointless two front war with Iraq. A war that has become a quagmire we are all truly stuck in up to our necks.

Quote[/b] ]British troops in Iraq kill top Qaeda figure

Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:58am ET138

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - British troops in Iraq said on Monday they had killed a senior al Qaeda figure who escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan in 2005.

Omar Faruq was shot dead while resisting arrest during a pre-dawn raid by about 200 British troops in Iraq's second biggest city, Basra, British military spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge said.

Burbridge called him a "very, very significant man", although he was believed to be hiding inside Iraq, not necessarily operating there.

"The individual had been tracked across Iraq and was in hiding in Basra," Burbridge said.

"Two companies (about 200 troops) launched the operation in the early hours of this morning. The troops returned to base without any multinational force casualties."

Faruq, a Kuwaiti citizen who was captured in Indonesia in June, 2002, was described by Washington as the most senior al Qaeda figure in southeast Asia, a key link between Osama bin Laden's followers and Indonesia's Jemaah Islamiah militants.

He was one of four men who escaped from the high-security U.S. detainee center at Bagram air base north of the Afghan capital, Kabul, in June last year.

Washington did not reveal that he had escaped until six months later, when defense lawyers demanded he be produced as a witness at the trial of an army sergeant accused of abusing prisoners in Bagram. U.S. officials were then forced to reveal that he could not testify because he had escaped.


[iRticle Quoted in full as it was the sole bit of good news I could find[/i]

And the killings and brutality go on

Another two marines died yesterday. While a video circulates of two others their bodies brutaly burned and mutilated in June. They have become just a statistic, it is not even headline news. They seem forgotten, a footnote in this the only article I could find that mentioned them.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq Puts Autonomy Issue on Hold, Heading Off Crisis

A deal provides for an 18-month delay, a forum and changes on a federal system that would boost Shiites' and Kurds' hold on oil-rich regions.

By Doug Smith and Saif Rasheed, Times Staff Writers

September 25, 2006

BAGHDAD — Iraq's leaders stepped back from a simmering constitutional crisis Sunday, agreeing to wait at least 18 months before setting up autonomous regions that would shift power away from the central government.

During the cooling-off period, parliament would consider amendments to the constitution, providing a public forum for the divisive issue of autonomy.

The deal, which was still being fine-tuned Sunday night, allows lawmakers to avoid a looming deadline that threatened to exacerbate the sectarian violence ravaging the country.

The compromise leaves intact southern Shiite Muslims' and northern Kurds' goal of creating a federal system that would strengthen their hold on the vast oil resources of their two regions. At the same time, Sunni Arabs, who dominate in the resource-poor central and western provinces, would have time to seek constitutional changes to limit the effects of autonomy.

The breakthrough occurred on a day in which bombings and killings claimed dozens of lives and Iraqi TV broadcast a videotape of two dead American soldiers being mutilated.

The military reported the deaths of two Marines in Al Anbar province Sunday. It did not release their names...


Follow link for the full article

I posting this around in the hope it will shame some newspapers to take notice.

I wonder what tommorow will bring.

Sadly Walker

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Another day Dawns in Iraq.

Dark with distrust and full of forboding that things will only get worse.

Quote[/b] ]Distrust Breaks the Bonds Of a Baghdad Neighborhood

In Mixed Area, Violence Defies Peace Efforts

By Sudarsan Raghavan

Washington Post Foreign Service

Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- It began with a dispute over the price of ice and erupted into full-scale violence over the sighting of two strange cars cruising the neighborhood. A week later, the scars of sectarian strife were visible everywhere in Tobji.

Short concrete blocks and long coils of razor wire barred entry into every block. Stores stood shuttered, and black banners mourned the dead. Women and children stayed inside their sunbaked houses. And young men stood on corners, their eyes darting suspiciously at every car that drove through their divided neighborhood.

The scars were also heard in the perplexed voice of Ibrahim Abdul Sattar, a Sunni Arab whose mother and wife, as well as three-quarters of his friends, are Shiite Muslims. He and so many others in Tobji are trapped in a war that is reshaping the identity of their neighborhood and their shared way of life.

"We have been living together for 30 years. We've never had such tensions like this before," he said. "We are fearing for our future."


Follow link for the full story

We did not need to go in. There was no threat:

There was no WMD

There was no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq

The kidnapping, torture and murder the did not need to happen. And we did not need to be the reason for it:

Quote[/b] ]Last Updated: Thursday, 21 September 2006, 16:27 GMT 17:27 UK

Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'

Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says.

Manfred Nowak said the situation in Iraq was "out of control", with abuses being committed by security forces, militia groups and anti-US insurgents.

Bodies found in the Baghdad morgue "often bear signs of severe torture", said the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq in a report.

The wounds confirmed reports given by refugees from Iraq, Mr Nowak said.


And we continue to be outmanouvered by the likes of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr:

Quote[/b] ]Baghdad's Secure Shiite Slum

Mehdi Army Fills Social Services Gap In Sadr, But U.S. Says It Must Disarm

SADR CITY, Iraq, Sept. 26, 2006

(CBS) Late into the night, Sadr City is still bustling with life. There's no sign of the curfew that shuts down the rest of Baghdad in the early evening, CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan reports.

The shops and the market are open, and everybody can go and come back to their homes safely.

The vast Shiite slum of 3 million, which from time to time experiences big bombing attacks like one that killed dozens of people last Saturday, is still one of the most secure areas in a city ravaged by violence.

It's not because of Iraq's police or the U.S. Army; it's because of the local men, with weapons out of sight, who enforce order on every street. They are the Mehdi army, a militia founded by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a man who has twice sent gunmen into battle against the United States.

To Sadr City's Shiites, the Mehdi army are their protectors. But to Iraq's Sunni minority, they are the executioners behind most of the sectarian killings dividing Iraq.

A young Mehdi army fighter tells CBS News that the Mehdi army is doing everything in Sadr City that the Iraqi government is not doing. The Mehdi army is responsible for security, for justice and for social services, he says. In that way, the army is operating much like Lebanon's Hezbollah.

Moqtada al-Sadr's local government was in action at a social services office, where officials were handing out supplies to people in need. There were three women outside the office, all desperate and penniless. They said they had nowhere else to go.

"Moqtada is very good with us," one woman says. "Everything comes from him."...


Follow link for the full story

We should have filled that vaccum but the people we put in charge were all NeoConMen cronies.

If we had not been conned out of 9 Billion dollars of US tax payers money by the NeoConMen who cannot or perhaps will not even say where the money they spent went because they used a NeoConMan cronie company to account for it who had no accounting qualifications. If the NeoConMen in charge of over 18 billion dollars worth Iraqi oil money had not managed to "loose" it. Yep you hear me they dont know where it went. OVER 18 BILLION DOLLARS OF IRAQI OIL MONEY PLUS OVER 9 BILLION DOLLARS OF US TAX PAYERS MONEY! and they "Lost it!" They dont know where it is!

Quote[/b] ]Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds

Pentagon, Bremer dispute inspector general's report

Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT (1212 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds...


Follow link for the full story

The phrase "Where is the money George?" Springs to mind.

Not suprisingly US tax payers and even true republican conservatives are as mad as hell about the NeoConMen's disapearing money trick. I guess everyone hates being conned.

Quote[/b] ]October 24, 2005 Issue

Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Money for Nothing

Billions of dollars have disappeared, gone to bribe Iraqis and line contractors’ pockets.

by Philip Giraldi

The United States invaded Iraq with a high-minded mission: destroy dangerous weapons, bring democracy, and trigger a wave of reform across the Middle East. None of these have happened.

When the final page is written on America’s catastrophic imperial venture, one word will dominate the explanation of U.S. failure—corruption. Large-scale and pervasive corruption meant that available resources could not be used to stabilize and secure Iraq in the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), when it was still possible to do so. Continuing corruption meant that the reconstruction of infrastructure never got underway, giving the Iraqi people little incentive to co-operate with the occupation. Ongoing corruption in arms procurement and defense spending means that Baghdad will never control a viable army while the Shi’ite and Kurdish militias will grow stronger and produce a divided Iraq in which constitutional guarantees will be irrelevant.

The American-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority could well prove to be the most corrupt administration in history, almost certainly surpassing the widespread fraud of the much-maligned UN Oil for Food Program. At least $20 billion that belonged to the Iraqi people has been wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Exactly how many billions of additional dollars were squandered, stolen, given away, or simply lost will never be known because the deliberate decision by the CPA not to meter oil exports means that no one will ever know how much revenue was generated during 2003 and 2004.

Some of the corruption grew out of the misguided neoconservative agenda for Iraq, which meant that a serious reconstruction effort came second to doling out the spoils to the war’s most fervent supporters. The CPA brought in scores of bright, young true believers who were nearly universally unqualified. Many were recruited through the Heritage Foundation website, where they had posted their résumés. They were paid six-figure salaries out of Iraqi funds, and most served in 90-day rotations before returning home with their war stories. One such volunteer was Simone Ledeen, daughter of leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen. Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training, she nevertheless became a senior advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad. Another was former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer’s older brother Michael who, though utterly unqualified, was named director of private-sector development for all of Iraq...


Follow link for the full story well worth a read if you want to know where the money went

Please note my use of bold in the article to bring out points

And because of this we have lost the support of the Iraqi people. We cannot win without hearts and minds. Without the Iraqi publics support we are just an alien invader. How long before Iraqis throw the tea off the boat in the harbour?

Quote[/b] ]Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show

Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public

By Amit R. Paley

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A22

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

The stark assessments, among the most negative attitudes toward U.S.-led forces since they invaded Iraq in 2003, contrast sharply with views expressed by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Last week at the United Nations, President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."...


Follow the link for the full story

And why has the terroism took root?

We did not need to go in. There was no threat:

There was no WMD

There was no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq

The terorism took root because we did not send in enough troops in the first place.

Because Donald Rumsfeld refused to plan to win the war in Iraq. Becuse never enough troops were sent. Because the borders were left porous.

Do not believe me how about sworn testimony to the US senate from one of the Generals involved

Quote[/b] ]USA: Maj. General John Batiste’s testimony before Sen. Democratic Policy Committee

Army Major General John R.S. Batiste (retired)

September 25, 2006

My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform. I am a West Point graduate, the son and son-in-law of veteran career soldiers, a two-time combat veteran with extensive service in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, and a life-long Republican. Bottom line, our nation is in peril, our Department of Defense’s leadership is extraordinarily bad, and our Congress is only today, more than five years into this war, beginning to exercise its oversight responsibilities. This is all about accountability and setting our nation on the path to victory. There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except “how to win.†He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build “his plan,†which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today. Our great military lost a critical window of opportunity to secure Iraq because of inadequate troop levels and capability required to impose security, crush a budding insurgency, and set the conditions for the rule of law in Iraq. We were undermanned from the beginning, lost an early opportunity to secure the country, and have yet to regain the initiative. To compensate for the shortage of troops, commanders are routinely forced to manage shortages and shift coalition and Iraqi security forces from one contentious area to another in places like Baghdad, An Najaf, Tal Afar, Samarra, Ramadi, Fallujah, and many others. This shifting of forces is generally successful in the short term, but the minute a mission is complete and troops are redeployed back to the region where they came from, insurgents reoccupy the vacuum and the cycle repeats itself. Troops returning to familiar territory find themselves fighting to reoccupy ground which was once secure. We are all witnessing this in Baghdad and the Al Anbar Province today. I am reminded of the myth of Sisyphus. This is no way to fight a counter-insurgency. Secretary Rumsfeld’s plan did not set our military up for success.

Secretary Rumsfeld’s dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq. He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency. He violated fundamental principles of war, dismissed deliberate military planning, ignored the hard work to build the peace after the fall of Saddam Hussein, set the conditions for Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that further ignited the insurgency, disbanded Iraqi security force institutions when we needed them most, constrained our commanders with an overly restrictive de-Ba’athification policy, and failed to seriously resource the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces as our main effort. He does not comprehend the human dimension of warfare. The mission in Iraq is all about breaking the cycle of violence and the hard work to change attitudes and give the Iraqi people alternatives to the insurgency. You cannot do this with precision bombs from 30,000 feet. This is tough, dangerous, and very personal work. Numbers of boots on the ground and hard-won relationships matter. What should have been a deliberate victory is now an uncertain and protracted challenge.

Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension. America went to war with “his plan†and to say that he listens to his generals is disingenuous. We are fighting with his strategy. He reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war, and caused delays in the approval of troop requirements and the deployment process, which tied the hands of commanders while our troops were in contact with the enemy. At critical junctures, commanders were forced to focus on managing shortages rather than leading, planning, and anticipating opportunity. Through all of this, our Congressional oversight committees were all but silent and not asking the tough questions, as was done routinely during both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Our Congress shares responsibility for what is and is not happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our nation’s treasure in blood and dollars continues to be squandered under Secretary Rumsfeld’s leadership. Losing one American life due to incompetent war planning and preparation is absolutely unacceptable. The work to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime was a challenge, but it pales in comparison to the hard work required to build the peace. The detailed deliberate planning to finish the job in Iraq was not considered as Secretary Rumsfeld forbade military planners from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq. At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan. Our country and incredible military were not set up for success.

Our country has yet to mobilize for a protracted, long war. I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the Administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld failed to address the full range of requirements for this effort, and the result is one percent of the population shouldering the burdens, continued hemorrhaging of our national treasure in terms of blood and dollars, an Army and Marine Corps that will require tens of billions of dollars to reset after we withdraw from Iraq, the majority of our National Guard brigades no longer combat-ready, a Veterans Administration which is underfunded by over $3 billion, and America arguably less safe now than it was on September 11, 2001. If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents...


Follow link for the full testimony

And with every dawn in Iraq the cost in life and blood increases. Everyday another 100 plus Iraqis smashed to bits in bombings tortured to death or murdered by death squads.

Every dawn another two or three Coalition Soldiers die and tens more are left crippled and maimed because we did not plan to win.

Quote[/b] ]West Point Mourns a Font Of Energy, Laid to Rest by War

By Joshua Partlow and Lonnae O'Neal Parker

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A01

WEST POINT, N.Y., Sept. 26 -- They remember Emily Perez in her many bursts of motion: the diminutive young woman calling out orders to the freshman cadets on the castled military campus of West Point.

They see her sprinting the third leg for Army's 400-meter relay team. Or in the school's gospel choir, filling her lungs and opening her mouth to sing.

Emily J.T. Perez, a determined 23-year-old from Prince George's County, rose to the top of her high school class and then became the first minority female command sergeant in the history of the U.S. Military Academy.

Now she has another distinction. The second lieutenant was buried Tuesday at the academy, the first female graduate of West Point to die in Iraq. Perez, a platoon leader, was killed while patrolling southern Iraq near Najaf on Sept. 12 when a roadside bomb exploded under her Humvee.

And at the service on the high bluffs along the Hudson River, her former fellow cadets, the younger women who looked up to Perez and now are preparing to follow her path, were still learning from her...


Follow the link for the full story and photos of 2nd Lt. Emily J.T. Perez

How can any voter even consider voting for a party where the commie based NeoConMen have conned their way into control?

Angry as hell Walker

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

655000 Iraqis died in the war

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK - A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates. ADVERTISEMENT

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

"Deaths are occurring in

Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal.

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study — that one was released just before the November 2004 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate.

Speaking of the new study, Burnham said the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports.

A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably overlook "many if not most civilian casualties."

For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths to coalition forces.

Accurate death tolls have been difficult to obtain ever since the Iraq conflict began in March 2003. When top Iraqi political officials cite death numbers, they often refuse to say where the numbers came from.

The Health Ministry, which tallies civilian deaths, relies on reports from government hospitals and morgues. The Interior Ministry compiles its figures from police stations, while the Defense Ministry reports deaths only among army soldiers and insurgents killed in combat.


United Nations keeps its own count, based largely on reports from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry.

The major funder of the new study was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I thought it would be a long time before I would ever say this again with regards to the atrocious Iraq war but alas I am once again speachless.

I will not talk about the irony about a war started under false pretenses and then shifting to the cause of removing a dicator that killed more people then a brutal dictator managed to in 30 years of leadership.

I will not curse George W Bush and his partners for starting such a war that I will for now on call it a crime against humanity unfolding,even though they fully diserve the sharp words directed at them by a minority that was always right.

I would just like to express my complete sympathy for the famillies of 655,000 or more Iraqis that died an utter useless death sad_o.gif

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

USA and Bush have caused the death of 600,000 iraqi's.  Saddam killed 20,000 kurds. who should really be on trial?

USA have done nothing to help iraq at all.  there is no more freedom, the standard of living has decreased, and they have started a civil war.  

Under Saddam iraq was stable, the jury system actually worked (alough not very fair), people didnt live in poverty despite western sterotye, they had running water, power, cars and jobs.  

Now iraq is a mess, the most unstable country in the world.  People are dragged out there houses and shot by militia groups, "police", terrorists, US soldiers and different Muslic fanatical groups for no good reason.  Bush says it "troubles" him, Ha! yeh right, seeing as how he owns shares in Lockheed Martin whos revenue has skyrocketed, and dick's (what an apropriate name) company has hundreds of contracts in iraq.  War on Terror? No. This is a war of terror.  More people have died and will die than if the USA (no, Bush) simply kept there noses out of other peoples buisness.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Quote[/b] ]

Army chief: British troops must pull out of Iraq soon

General attacks government policy that has 'exacerbated' security risks

Richard Norton-Taylor and Tania Branigan

Friday October 13, 2006

The Guardian

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, dropped a political bombshell last night by saying that Britain must withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk serious consequences for Iraqi and British society.

In a blistering attack on Tony Blair's foreign policy, Gen Dannatt said the continuing military presence in Iraq was jeopardising British security and interests around the world.

"I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them," he said in comments that met with admiration from anti-war campaigners and disbelief in some parts of Westminster.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Gen Dannatt, who became chief of the general staff in August, said we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".

Well, this is awkward.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great, for the first time in twenty years our General isn't a shit eater.

Our troops have all got pay rises to closer match the other armies the fight along side, and the politicians can no longer lie about what the army recommends.

Lets hope he keeps it up. British armed forces have suffered weak leadership for far too long. It has been very damaging. Nice to see someone with some balls in the job.

It is of note that he hasn't said anything new or outside the public domain, only formerly admitted things that the politicians have been unwilling to.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]CORONADO, Calif. - A Navy SEAL sacrificed his life to save his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade Iraqi insurgents tossed into their sniper hideout, fellow members of the elite force said.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor had been near the only door to the rooftop structure Sept. 29 when the grenade hit him in the chest and bounced to the floor, said four SEALs who spoke to The Associated Press this week on condition of anonymity because their work requires their identities to remain secret. (Read more at source)

“He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it,†said a 28-year-old lieutenant who sustained shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. “He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs’ lives, and we owe him.â€

Dang, he had no hesitation.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258312/

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a Medal of Honour for this guy.  I think it's exactly the sort of thing the award was meant for... the instant and selfless act intended to save your comrades.

The cynic in me sees the Pentagon totally going to town making this guy into super hero as a propaganda ploy, which is sad.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smell a movie/miniseries already?

God, I hope not :P

The ultimate way to cheapen a sacrifice like this is to use it so shamelessly.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smell a movie/miniseries already?

God, I hope not :P

The ultimate way to cheapen a sacrifice like this is to use it so shamelessly.

Hollywood films based on things like this almost always suck... crazy_o.gif And generally using such things to make money isn't a good thing.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hy all,

I was just wondering today after reading about US mid-term ellections and another article announcing Saddam`s execution verdict date.

Am I the only one who finds the delay in announcing his execution to be postponed only two days before the mid-term ellections a blatant ploy to win back a few points in the publics eye favour?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope those guys will be sentenced to death.

This is what you get if you set up a rules fiasco like Rumsfeld and Bush do/did.

U.S. military trials ordered in Iraq murder cases

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. service members will face military trials in three separate cases for the murders of Iraqi civilians, including the gang rape and murder of a teenage girl and the killing of her family in their home in Mahmudiya, the military said on Wednesday.

An Army general ordered the court-martial of four soldiers in the Mahmudiya case and said two of the four could face death if found guilty. One of the accused will testify against the others, according to his Washington attorney, David Sheldon.

Army Maj. Gen. Thomas Turner also ordered military trials for four other soldiers accused of murdering three Iraqi detainees during a raid on a suspected insurgent camp near Thar Thar Lake, southwest of Tikrit.

In the third case, three U.S. Marines will be tried on murder charges in the death of an Iraqi grandfather kidnapped from his house in Hamdania in the middle of the night, the U.S. Marine Corps said.

Those cases, particularly the alleged Mahmudiya gang rape, as well as the killing of 24 people in Haditha, have sparked outrage among Iraqis. Mahmudiya led Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to call for a review of foreign troops' immunity from Iraqi prosecution.

Haditha is still being investigated and no Marines have been charged.

"I think what today's events show is the United States military is committed to investigating any allegations of this nature thoroughly and determining the facts of the matter," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, a Pentagon spokesman.

"Clearly the allegations aren't representative of our department as a whole and they're not representative of the professional conduct of the vast majority of service members serving in Iraq," he said.


According to U.S. military prosecutors, former private Steven Green, who faces charges in a U.S. civilian court, shot dead 14-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi's father, mother and six-year-old sister in Mahmudiya, near Baghdad, in March.

Green then raped the teenager and killed her, and tried to burn the bodies and house to conceal evidence of the crime.

At least two other soldiers raped or tried to rape the girl before she was murdered, prosecutors say.

Pfc. Jesse Spielman and Sgt. Paul Cortez face the possibility of death if found guilty. Sheldon's client, Spc. James Barker, and Pfc. Bryan Howard do not.

"Barker has agreed to cooperate in the prosecution that the military and the United States have brought against the soldiers and Mr. Green. He is deeply remorseful for what happened and will take responsibility for his actions," Sheldon said.

The court-martial will be held at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the military said. No date has been set, but Sheldon said it should occur in late November or early December.

In the Thar Thar case, four soldiers are accused of premeditated murder for the May 9 killing of three detainees.

The soldiers -- Staff Sgt. Raymond Girouard, Spc. William Hunsaker, Spc. Juston Graber and Pfc. Corey Clagett -- said the detainees were trying to escape when they were shot, but prosecutors say the detainees were freed before being killed.

A date has not yet been set for that court-martial. It will also be held at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

Separately, three Marines -- Lance Cpl. Tyler Jackson, Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington and Cpl. Trent Thomas -- will face trials on charges of murder and kidnapping stemming from the April 2006 death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad in Hamdania.

Seven Marines and a Navy medic are accused of dragging the man from his home, shooting him dead and placing a rifle and shovel next to his body to create the impression that he was an insurgent planting a roadside bomb.

(Additional reporting by Ibon Villelabeitia in Baghdad and Adam Tanner in San Francisco)

Burn them to death slowly.

In the end they will get away with some funny "punishments" like all did, who comitted capital crimes in Iraq.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did you become a supporter of capital punishment?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this