This week in Iraq

[Rekna]

Note: Articles not posted in entirity just the intro blurbs

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...9AE7F0EA4F.htm

Carnage after Baghdad bomb blast

Wednesday 15 September 2004, 1:55 Makka Time, 22:55 GMT

Baghdad witnessed one of its bloodiest days in months when a bomb went off outside its main police headquarters, killing 47 people.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/N...rticle01.shtml

US Fire Kills 128 Iraqis in 24 Hours

FALLUJAH, September 13 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – A sweeping US incursion into the western Iraqi city of Fallujah killed early Monday, September13 , 18 Iraqis and injured up to 26 others one day after some 110 people were killed by US gunfire and roadside attacks in one of the bloodiest days witnessed by the occupied country.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...883C79AF78.htm

Northern pipeline blown up in Iraq

Tuesday 14 September 2004, 16:07 Makka Time, 13:07 GMT

A multiple oil pipeline in northern Iraq has been blown up by saboteurs.

Aljazeera learnt oil pipelines in the Fatha area linking Biji and Kirkuk refineries to the Turkish Jihan oilfield came under attack on Tuesday.

"Pumping oil to the Turkish Jihan field has now stopped," an official at the Iraqi al-Shamal oil company told Aljazeera.

Ok so why have I posted all of these? The fact is Iraq is very unstable. Unfortunatly our media doesn't report a lot of what goes on in Iraq. Although there is a decent amount of spin in articles from Aljazeera and IslamOnline I still like to read them because they cover stories our media won't for instance from Aljazeera

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...816BA7A5F0.htm

Witnesses: Apache fired on crowd

Sunday 12 September 2004, 19:27 Makka Time, 16:27 GMT

Most of the young Iraqi men and boys mingling around the burning wreckage of a US armoured car in Baghdad were unfazed by the clattering of an American helicopter gunship overhead. Moments later they were under fire.

Some had pointed to the Apache helicopter. Others jogged slowly from the burning Bradley fighting vehicle, which the US military said had been set ablaze by a bomb. None expected it would shoot at them.

Standing next to him, Fuad's colleague and friend Mazin Tumaizi, a producer for Dubai-based al-Arabiya, was killed as he prepared to give a stand-up piece to camera.

"I looked at the sky and saw a helicopter at very low altitude", Fouad said. "Just moments later I saw a flash of light from the Apache. Then a strong explosion", he said.

Unarmed civilans

The first explosion sent Fuad crashing to the ground.

"Mazen's blood was on my camera and face," Fuad said. Tumaizi screamed to Fuad for help: "Saif, Saif! I'm going to die. I'm going to die."

A second blast hit some 15 seconds later, lodging shrapnel in Fuad's leg and waist as he was trying to pull Tumaizi from danger. Fouad's camera, its lens stained with blood, filmed the chaos.

Iraqis had gathered around the
wreckage of the US vehicle
The US military said the Bradley's crew of four were slightly wounded by the bomb and had been evacuated from the scene.

"Air support destroyed the Bradley fighting vehicle to prevent looting and harm to the Iraqi people," the US military said in a statement.

Reuters footage showed the crowd to be made up of unarmed boys and men, two of whom were standing on top of the Bradley.

Others were discussing what had happened and quietly watching the Bradley burn, sending thick black smoke into the sky. Then the attack began.

Why would we fire on a crowd of people? These people were not the ones that damaged the vehicle these were people flocking to the scene of an accident to gauck at it. Do we really have that sensitive of equipment on our bradly fighting vehicles?

If we keep killing scores of Iraqi's we will only fuel their hatred twoard us. For every 1 we kill 10 more pop up to fill there place. We are stuck in a quagmire here. We need to drastically change our Iraq policy. Avoid the cities and let local governments run themselfs until elections are set up. We need to keep our troups away from the Iraqis because it is just making things worse.

[Rdr4evr]

You are surprised that US troops would fire at innocent bystanders? This is a usual occurrence as the US military will fire at anything and everything. Its unfortunate that all those unarmed people had to die in this manner. And you are right about killing one and having 10 more pop up. The hatred for this country is only going to escalate from this point forward thanks to our wonderful leader.

[Mephisto2]

The helicopter reported it had been fired upon from the crowd. Personally I think that's bullshit, but that's the official reason.

I think the Iraqi situation is a terrible one, with no easy answers. We can sit around for years and wring our hands debating why it was invaded, whether it was justified or not etc. We shouldn't debate if Iraq was linked to Al Queda, as we know that's not the case, but the invasion was originally predicated upon WMD's and the flagrant disregard for UN Resolutions.

What we should be doing is trying to work out how to stabilize the country, withdraw Western powers as soon as possible, repair broken bridges (both literally and figuratively) and concentrate on treating the causes (as well as the symptoms) of international terrorism.

Fundamentalist terrorism is here with us to stay. But we can work towards "emasculating it" in many ways.

There are no easy answers. It makes me sad and angry at the same time.


Mr Mephisto

[onetime2]

Funny that despite the fact that "our media" isn't reporting it I got all that information in the local newspapers, tv, and radio. I guess I must just be special.

[Rekna]

Originally Posted by onetime2

Funny that despite the fact that "our media" isn't reporting it I got all that information in the local newspapers, tv, and radio. I guess I must just be special.

The problem is many times the american media leaves out details or slants it to pro US government. (Where aljazeera does the opposite and slants pro iraqi). Also it is usualy is hidden somehwere behind scott peterson.... What I do is read both places and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

here is another
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...C077629783.htm

More Iraqis killed in clashes, blast

Wednesday 15 September 2004, 16:49 Makka Time, 13:49 GMT

Up to 10 people have been killed in clashes between Iraqi fighters and US marines in Ramadi, while a car blast south of Baghdad has left two dead.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Rekna

The problem is many times the american media leaves out details or slants it to pro US government. (Where aljazeera does the opposite and slants pro iraqi).

Change 'pro-Iraqi' to pro-terrorist and you might have a point.

Or do you think Iraq is better off in the hands of foreign terrorists and hard line Baathists who kill innocent Iraqi citizens on purpose?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Anybody but America!

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by Rekna

The problem is many times the american media leaves out details or slants it to pro US government. (Where aljazeera does the opposite and slants pro iraqi). Also it is usualy is hidden somehwere behind scott peterson.... What I do is read both places and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

here is another
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...C077629783.htm

The reports provided the details and nothing more. Details are details. Even with slanted news pieces it's not difficult to pick out the details like who, what where, when, how many, etc (which are typically fairly accurrate). I tend to come to my own conclusions and naturally filter out the fluff from the "reporters" and their bosses.

[roachboy]

e is an overview of this past week's events that argues it might be the emergence of civil war:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...304852,00.html

bushwar is a fiasco, it is opening onto other fiascos--the only way the right can continue to support this lunacy is to engage in term substitution, limiting interpretive possibilities, dismissing news sources outright, obstructing thinking whenever possible.
it is in the case of border control when thinking about iraq that you can see the delusional status of right ideology most clearly. want to see a little example--as usual, ustwo is available for examination.....

the iraq adventure is an incoherent colonial occupation without a plan, undertaken without adequate understanding of what they were getting into, that tried to shift authority to a puppet regime in allawi for damage control purposes, only to find that the legitimacy of that regime is obviously, to say the least, a problem.
now, if this article is correct, you have the opening rounds of outright civil war in a context where the americans are not a stablizing center but an active part, a faction--chaos on all quadrants---how far will thing shave to spiral down before the right even starts to think that maybe, just maybe, they, like the rest of us, have been chumped?

and not a bit of it has anything to do with the war on terrorism, and even ideologues of the ustwo caliber--low-wattage repeaters in the conservative radio ring--know it. there is not a single justification for this adventure that holds any water outside the sad, self-limiting little world of the right.

what is really unfortunate is that while the right splits off into irrational cheerleading and others cry foul, people who are none of us die on all sides. in great numbers.

[The_wall]

I'm gonna have to say Ustwo is gonna disagree with Roachboys post

[roachboy]

probably...heh heh....

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

You are surprised that US troops would fire at innocent bystanders? This is a usual occurrence as the US military will fire at anything and everything.

That may be true of a few, but the majority are honest people who would not intentionally kill civilians in cold blood. If what you are saying was true, than Iraq's major cities would not be standing. I don't appreciate this sort of unprovoked attack on my friends who are serving honorably in the armed forces.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I don't appreciate this sort of unprovoked attack on my friends who are serving honorably in the armed forces.

Nor do I.

Can it happen?

I suppose.

But my friends and family that have served are not the blood thirsty murderers you have callously named them to be.

[Seaver]

You are surprised that US troops would fire at innocent bystanders? This is a usual occurrence as the US military will fire at anything and everything.

You're right... that's why we would bomb the military buildings only at night (least amount of collateral), and many times informed them ahead of time so the janitors could get out of the building. Sound firing on anything and everything to you?

[onetime2]

I love how some will claim they support our soldiers yet the second the soldiers defend themselves their reputations are impugned and their motives, professionalism, and respect for life are trampled upon by those sitting thousands of miles away staring at a computer or tv screen. Not unlike those soldiers who returned fire on a mosque containing insurgents trying to kill them.

I wish I could say I'm surprised but, alas, I am not.

[roachboy]

i do not see how heading in this direction will help anything---on the other hand, it would seem to me that if the guardian's assessment of what is starting to happen in iraq is correct, and if the americans find themselves as a faction rather than as an overarching ordering force--which appears to be a real possibility--then i would expect that the incoherence of american occupation will increase.
that general incoherence will in all probability decrease the ability of combattants to be sure who they are fighting, and with that will increase the occaision for "accidents" or "collateral damage"--seen in this way, you can avoid the snippy "my friends are nice people and they are in iraq and so this cant be intentional so fuck you" kind of argument and their counter.

if good people, nice people, on all sides, find themselves in an increasing chaotic situation, the blame for that has to rest with the administration that put them in this situation. if that chaos is such that good, nice people become capable of committing atrocities in specific situations, triggered by specific events, out of fear or out of not being able to determine who was who, then, again, blame has to rest on the administration that put them there.

over and over on this and other boards i see the same kind of argument deployed: my firends are good people, they are in iraq therefore anything you say about atrocities (from the american side, in this case, in particular--but they have no monopoly) is a priori offensive as a way of trying to short circuit political argument about the nature of the war in iraq.
if that is what is going on, then i would caution the folk who go this way to think about why they make this kind of argument.
there is a real danger that they are instrumentalizing the associations with their friends/relatives, and by doing that are not developing the arguments they imagine they are, but are instead trying to shut down debate.

if you cant win the debate, you can at least get the thread closed.

there is the gap that seperates emotion felt personally from emotion as written in a public space--there is a switch in meaning and function. you cant stop that switch from occurring, so you can at least keep it in mind.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by roachboy

if you cant win the debate, you can at least get the thread closed.

Interesting but unwarranted, since two of the people making the comments referenced have the power to close this thread, but didn't.

[Rdr4evr]

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

That may be true of a few, but the majority are honest people who would not intentionally kill civilians in cold blood. If what you are saying was true, than Iraq's major cities would not be standing. I don't appreciate this sort of unprovoked attack on my friends who are serving honorably in the armed forces.

Unfortunately, I must be exposed to all the wrong information. I have never seen nor heard anything positive about the US military occupying Iraq. Everything I hear and see is ALWAYS negative. Maybe I am not searching in the right place. Maybe your "honorable friends" care deeply for those poor Iraqis and would die for their innocent souls. Please direct me to some positive sources so maybe I can change my view. And by positive, I dont mean anti-Iraqi bullshit.

over and over on this and other boards i see the same kind of argument deployed: my firends are good people, they are in iraq therefore anything you say about atrocities (from the american side, in this case, in particular--but they have no monopoly) is a priori offensive as a way of trying to short circuit political argument about the nature of the war in iraq.
if that is what is going on, then i would caution the folk who go this way to think about why they make this kind of argument.
there is a real danger that they are instrumentalizing the associations with their friends/relatives, and by doing that are not developing the arguments they imagine they are, but are instead trying to shut down debate.

Exactly......If I state that the Iraqi militants are my friends and that their beheadings are justified, I would be flamed to no end. There is a double standard when this issue is involved.

You're right... that's why we would bomb the military buildings only at night (least amount of collateral), and many times informed them ahead of time so the janitors could get out of the building. Sound firing on anything and everything to you?

Wow, they actually wait till the janitors leave??? Do they send them roses as well......that is so incredibly sweet. I never heard of such a thing, are you in the military? And if not, where did you get your info. When I see military footage, it seems that they go about their campaigns in the day time quite a bit, and I never see them warn the poor children they are about to blow to oblivion. Once again, maybe I'm looking in all the wrong places.

I love how some will claim they support our soldiers yet the second the soldiers defend themselves their reputations are impugned and their motives, professionalism, and respect for life are trampled upon by those sitting thousands of miles away staring at a computer or tv screen. Not unlike those soldiers who returned fire on a mosque containing insurgents trying to kill them.

I wish I could say I'm surprised but, alas, I am not.

If you are referring to me in this post. I just want to let you know I never was for the US soldiers. I have always felt the same way toward them and I always will.

I am not trying to offend anyone, but whenever some people have friends in Iraq, they will take it offensively and it pretty much kills any debate, as roachboy has stated. It is probably not to wise of me to argue when mods have friends in Iraq, but I see that as not a fair reason to get upset over my comments.

[Ustwo]

Define 'anti-Iraqi bullshit'

[Rdr4evr]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Define 'anti-Iraqi bullshit'

Isn’t it self explanatory? Your views, for example, are anti-Iraqi. So anyone who is not bias towards one side or the other. A neutral source is what I speak of. Not anti-Iraqi American media.

[irateplatypus]

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

You are surprised that US troops would fire at innocent bystanders? This is a usual occurrence as the US military will fire at anything and everything.

take that back.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

Isn’t it self explanatory? Your views, for example, are anti-Iraqi. So anyone who is not bias towards one side or the other. A neutral source is what I speak of. Not anti-Iraqi American media.

Oh really? You are inside my head? You know I hate the Iraqi people? I am, anti-terrorist, anti-despotist, anti-mass grave, but I am NOT anti-Iraqi.

Now please sir, tell me why you think I am anti-Iraqi? What makes you think I hate the people of Iraq?

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by roachboy

the only way the right can continue to support this lunacy is to engage in term substitution, limiting interpretive possibilities, dismissing news sources outright, obstructing thinking whenever possible.

and not a bit of it has anything to do with the war on terrorism, and even ideologues of the ustwo caliber--low-wattage repeaters in the conservative radio ring--know it. there is not a single justification for this adventure that holds any water outside the sad, self-limiting little world of the right.

So funny Roachboy, so true too! lol

[powerclown]

The way I see it, the Apache wasn't firing on a crowd, it fired on the Bradley to destroy it and prevent the looting of it. This is standard operating procedure for military vehicles destroyed and surrounded by the enemy. If you are in a warzone and have nothing better to do than loiter around a burning combat vehicle watching the pretty flames, looking for shit to steal, your a prime candidate for a Darwin Award.

[Mephisto2]

Ohh... I get it powerclown.

It's THEIR fault that they were cut to pieces by an attack helicopter.

I understand now.

Kinda like it was the fault of the gooks in My Lai, eh? [/sarcasm]

Oh, and for the record, the initial reports stated that the Apache believed it was fired upon from that crowd. It had nothing to do with destroying a Bradley IFV.


Mr Mephisto

[Ustwo]

A Bradley fighting vehicle rushing down Haifa Street, a major traffic artery near the Green Zone, to assist a U.S. patrol was disabled by a car bomb about 6:50 a.m., the U.S. military said. Two Bradley crewmen were wounded by the bomb and four were injured by grenades and small-arms fire as they fled the vehicle, the military said.

Jubilant fighters, curiosity seekers and young boys swarmed around the burning vehicle, dancing, cheering and hurling firebombs. Several young men placed a black and yellow banner of Tawhid and Jihad in the barrel of the Bradley's main gun.

Fearing the crowd would loot the vehicle of weapons and ammunition, American soldiers called for air support, and as U.S. Army helicopters flew over the burning Bradley ``they received small-arms fire from the insurgents in vicinity of the vehicle,'' a military statement said.

The helicopters ``fired upon the anti-Iraqi forces and the Bradley preventing the loss of sensitive equipment and weapons,'' the statement said. ``An unknown number of insurgents and Iraq civilians were wounded or killed in the incident.''

Yes it was their fault, in fact as a rule its best to avoid burning vehicles and its best to avoid waving the flag of the enemy over that vehicle and its also best to avoid shooting at an apache helicopter. Any one of the three is a good cause for a Darwin award.

Also while I see many condemnations of anything the US does fighting wise, I have yet to see anyone who would be, shall I say, a 'Bush hater' , say anything negative about the purposeful targeting of civilians in Iraq by terror organizations.

Also

We shouldn't debate if Iraq was linked to Al Queda, as we know that's not the case,

We know that Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11, nor has the Bush admin ever said they did. We do know that Iraq had dealings with Al Queda and provided safe haven to Abu Musab Zarqawi who is currently leading the terrorist attacks in Iraq.

The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

[Rdr4evr]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh really? You are inside my head? You know I hate the Iraqi people? I am, anti-terrorist, anti-despotist, anti-mass grave, but I am NOT anti-Iraqi.

Now please sir, tell me why you think I am anti-Iraqi? What makes you think I hate the people of Iraq?

Being anti-something does not mean that you hate them, it means that you are opposed to them. And If I am not mistaken, being opposed to something does not neccessarily mean you hate them. But must I really search your posts and quote your anti-Iraqi, or for that matter anti-middle eastern statements? I could do that, and if you really want me too, I might. But will that really further the discussion in any way?

[Pacifier]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We do know that Iraq had dealings with Al Queda

Not "we", "you" cause you want to believe.

Days before last year's invasion of Iraq that Osama bin Laden called Saddam Hussein a "socialist infidel" : 36»
Yeah, sure they were buddies...

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Also while I see many condemnations of anything the US does fighting wise, I have yet to see anyone who would be, shall I say, a 'Bush hater' , say anything negative about the purposeful targeting of civilians in Iraq by terror organizations.

I am not a "Bush-hater" (your moniker). Nor am I a "Bush-Butt-Lackey" (my sarcastic moniker).

Yet I have repeatedly and consistently condemned the terrorist targeting of civilians. Not only in Iraq, but also Ireland, Chile, Sierra Leone, America, and probably some others I can't explicitly remember. You can search for the specific posts if you wish.

If you can't see them, it's because you're not opening your eyes.

We know that Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11, nor has the Bush admin ever said they did. We do know that Iraq had dealings with Al Queda and provided safe haven to Abu Musab Zarqawi who is currently leading the terrorist attacks in Iraq.

They had "dealings"? We also know that Iraq did specifically not support Al Queda. And if we're justifying the invasion of countries that had "dealings" with Al Queda, when do the attacks on Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sudan, France, Germany, UK and Turkey begin? Oh, and the United States... I wonder how Bush would explain that one?

The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

I agree with you. The Bush Administration should really stop it.


Mr Mephisto

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Pacifier

Not "we", "you" cause you want to believe.

Days before last year's invasion of Iraq that Osama bin Laden called Saddam Hussein a "socialist infidel" : 36»
Yeah, sure they were buddies...

And you don't want to believe. I only go with what seems logical and we know Abu Musab Zarqaw is currently in Iraq, and we know Saddam would pay the family of homicide bombers in Israel. Now maybe you would trust what Osama Bin Laden said, I'm sure he would have no reason to lie about relations, but oddly I don't. Perhaps its a character flaw that I don't trust mass murderers.

[Rdr4evr]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Perhaps its a character flaw that I don't trust mass murderers.

Exactly why I dont trust Bush.

[irateplatypus]

this is getting silly.

[Pacifier]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And you don't want to believe. I only go with what seems logical and we know Abu Musab Zarqaw is currently in Iraq

Yes, the keyword is "currently". What makes you think Saddam, a secular leader, supported fanatical islamists in his own land?

[Rekna]

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

Being anti-something does not mean that you hate them, it means that you are opposed to them. And If I am not mistaken, being opposed to something does not neccessarily mean you hate them. But must I really search your posts and quote your anti-Iraqi, or for that matter anti-middle eastern statements? I could do that, and if you really want me too, I might. But will that really further the discussion in any way?

You don't have to search very far

Change 'pro-Iraqi' to pro-terrorist and you might have a point.

hopefully he isn't calling the Iraqi's terrorists. I have a feeling that he is claiming aljazeera is pro-terrorist but this is not true. They just have a western perspective. They see things differently then we do.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And you don't want to believe. I only go with what seems logical and we know Abu Musab Zarqaw is currently in Iraq, and we know Saddam would pay the family of homicide bombers in Israel. Now maybe you would trust what Osama Bin Laden said, I'm sure he would have no reason to lie about relations, but oddly I don't. Perhaps its a character flaw that I don't trust mass murderers.

http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle2471.html
That's a conservative web-site by the way.

Allow me to quote

"Following 9-11, neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration tried to create the illusion of a connection between Iraq, a secular socialist state, and Al Queda, an Islamist extremist terrorist group. This effort was unsuccessful."

"The Administration’s attempt at nation-building and indeed empire-building in Iraq constitutes the very antithesis of conservatism and is doomed to ultimate failure. If continued, it will further provoke an increasingly visible global backlash of anti-Americanism which will likely culminate in further catastrophic terrorist attacks against the US homeland, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and perhaps thousands more Americans. The prompt withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is absolutely necessary to minimize further loss of life among our heroic and selflessly-serving military servicemen. It is also essential to do so in order to conserve our military strength and save untold billions of dollars in taxpayer funds for winnable missions that clearly advance, rather than jeopardize the US national security interest."

The article was written by David T. Pyne, Esq. a national security expert who serves as President of the Center for the National Security Interest, a national security think-tank based in Arlington, VA.


Moving on, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks determined that Iraq and Osama bin Laden did not collaborate on the attacks. Allow me to quote Statement 15 (REF:http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearin...atement_15.pdf)

"Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Finally, a news story from the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

But I guess you know better?


Mr Mephisto

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

Exactly why I dont trust Bush.

I knew you would say this. Hate makes one predictable.


You see Mr. Mephisto, this is what I mean by a Bush hater, you always seem to assume I am targeting you, and I am not. I don't agree with you on much but you seem to have the gift of reason. I think you overestimate my support of Bush, I don't agree with about half of his domestic agenda, but over all I respect your postings.

[Mephisto2]

You know, at the risk of this becoming a love-fest, I have to say the same about you Ustwo.

Hahah...

Mr Mephisto

[Rekna]

kindof homo-erotic

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

If you are referring to me in this post. I just want to let you know I never was for the US soldiers. I have always felt the same way toward them and I always will.

Nope, not referring specifically to you as I had no idea of your stance.

I mean in the general sense here on TFP and in the world of politics. I've heard countless people who want to either be elected or have "their" guy elected claim to be for the troops and then turn around and say "well they shouldn't have fired on this person or that person" or "they should have retreated rather than firing on the mosque" etc. Being "for" the troops means understanding that you are not there and giving them the benefit of the doubt until there is any kind of proof that there was an obviously better alternative to their actions. They are there to accomplish a mission whether you agree with that mission or not every person has a right to defend themselves. If you're fine with the Iraqis killing US soldiers to defend themselves then you should be ok with US soldiers killing Iraqis to defend themselves. Argue all you want that they should or shouldn't be there but the simple fact is the soldiers are there and they have no choice in the matter at this point. They have a RIGHT to defend themselves and do all they can to bring themselves safely back to their families.

[Rdr4evr]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I knew you would say this. Hate makes one predictable.

Must.............Hit.............Back...........Button.......