Soldiers
 

While reading reports from Iraq today I noticed something that struck me as odd. The article said something about Iraqi soldiers dieing in a bombing. Here is the strange thing, I notice that I feel worse about Iraqi soldiers dieing then our own soldiers. I don't know why I feel like this but for some reason I feel like these soldiers are giving a lot more than ours. They go to work with a fraction of the gear we have, by joining the military they put their entire family at risk, they are taking a much larger risk than our soldiers. I hope that their sacrifice will not be invain.

I know our soldiers are making big sacrifices also (especially since it isn't for themselfs) but at the same time I have a feeling that there is this shadow over everything they do because I don't have faith that our government has been interested in what is best for Iraq as a primary concern since the begging of the war (just look at how often the justifications have changed). Also since our soldiers are removed from the results of the war (aside from their death) they do not always act for what is best for Iraq.

Overall I think the real heros in Iraq are the Iraqis who haven chosen to try and make it a better place knowing the risk they face.

What do you all think?

I think the real heros in Iraq are the ones who are trying to make it a better place, period. When this is over with Iraq would be a much better place than it was with Saddam, cutting our soldiers and those of other countries out of that equation is doing them a huge disservice.

It is sad hearing about those Iraqi civilians that suit up to help their own police force and end up dead because of a cowardly roadside bombing, but the fact that they still line up for the job shows that they have a positive attitude and are willing to help out their country for the better.

Quite honestly, I don't consider anyone fighting "heroes", but I do tend to favor the Iraqi fighters more for the simple fact that it was their land that was wrongly invaded, it is their friends and families that are wrongfully being killed and it is them who really are fighting for justice, rather than simply taking orders from superiors and blindly fighting an unjust war.

I'm not referring to the "terrorists" killing innocent people to get their points across, I'm referring to the citizens who are trying to protect their homes, friends and families and realize their current situation is no worse than it was under Saddam, the only difference is that they actually have sufficient allies helping them remove the enemy at any cost necessary.

The only heroes in my eyes are the people who realize that killing one another is not the answer, the people who refuse to involve themselves in the senseless killing, not just the Iraqis, but also the Americans who realize the value of life.

Just an aside, and forgive me if its a little off topic here, but as long as we are talking heroes and courage and such, I think its relevant.

Why are roadside bombings and the now infamous IEDs so often used with the word 'cowardly'? I mean do we really have such a romanticized sense of the battlefield that we expect our opponents to come out and challenge us to a duel? Plus, its perposterous to think that we don't do the same thing. Who do you think invented the Claymore Mine, or hundreds of other devices designed to strike our enemies without warning while not exposing our own troops to to harm?

I mean seriously, do we cal SEALs cowardly for planting explosives? Do we call a stealth fighter pilot when he drops a 2,000lb LGB on a terrorist hide out, giving them no warning or recourse? Heck, were the Rovolutionaries cowards for hiding behind rocks and shooting at the Redcoats from cover?

Seriously, can anyone give me a good reason why we should consider these attacks cowardly versus other military tactics? Or is our continued attachment of 'cowardly' to 'roadside bombing' evidence of an effective propaganda machine?

Josh

1 vote here for propaganda.

Repetition is the mother of all learning. Say it often enough, and it will sink in.

edit - when we do it, it's called Economy of Force

IED's are fair game aslong as they are aimed at military targets. I don't call attacking unarmed Iraqi Police or military personal coming back from graduation fair game.

I think this post is extremely disrespectful to every fallen American/Coalition soldier that has died in Iraq. Period. An American soldier KIA is just as dead as an Iraqi soldier KIA. How does an Iraqi soldier lose more?

I really hope no family member of a soldier stationed in Iraq reads your post.

I don't know that I agree that policemen are out, especially when they are a key part of the anti-insurgency effort. I certainly don't think we'd cut them out of our planning. Anyway, it was more an observation than anything else, as I'm not even opposed to propoganda really. But it isn't very constructive for accurate analysis of whats going on, which is of course the reason military history students like me avoid using such phrases when we can.

And yet 95% of America thinks an american death is worse than an Iraqi death. My post was not ment to be disrespectful but instead meant to bring up discussion on soldiers. If you think American soldiers have more to loose you are mistaken. Iraqi soldiers risk their entire family, does an american soldier do that? No. They both risk their lives but which group gets the more risky positions? Which group gets worse equipment? We have soldiers complainging (rightly so) about lack of humvee armor. At least they have body armor (the Iraqi's don't). American soldiers live in a secured base, where do the Iraqi soldiers live? When America pulls out our troops are safe, how about theirs? Nope. If you think i'm being disrespectful i'm sorry but i'm not. I did not say by dieing there loss is more, i'm not comparing the value of one death to another. I am compairing the fact that an Iraqi risks more than an Americian.

89.67% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Can you provide evidence of your contention?

I never said American soldiers have more to lose. You made the assertion that Iraqi's do.


They both risk their lives. You said it. Americans and Iraqis are both on the front lines of the war.

I give up. Who?

Do you mean like that secure base where all those American soldiers were killed in that mess hall bombing last month?

I refer you to your orignal post when you said you feel worse for a dead Iraqi soldier than a dead American soldier.

I do feel worse for an Iraqi soldier what is wrong with that? How is that insulting? As for the rest of your comments.... Look in the media what gets reported? 3 Americans killed, 1 American shot, ect but yet we never hear anything about the Iraqi deaths. You have to go to BBC or elsewhere normaly to get that info.

So they hit one of our mess halls, i'm glad you remember that. Do you also remember the countless times Iraqi soldiers were killed waiting to get paychecks, sign up, ect? Of course not it is the 1 time it happens to Americans then we hear about it.

As for the rest of you post please explain to me how imature quips further the discussion?

Here is a challenge to anyone that disagrees with my comment on American deaths reported more than Iraqi deaths. Find me the current number of American soldier deaths then find me the number of Iraqi deaths. By in large many Americans don't care about Iraqi deaths on either side.

I don't know what news cast you are watching but there is reporting every single day of the American and Iraqi KIA. As for remembering, I don't remember every single incident that killed Americans let alone the Iraqis, that would be almost physically impossible and I doubt you remember them all so your point is ??????? While I admit I have a certain admiration for the Iraqis for being brave and taking the risk they take to make their country a better place I feel their KIA is no better than our KIA. Do you not feel our soldiers are equally as brave? After all, they are literally laying it on the line every day and some sacrifice it all for complete strangers to make Iraq a better place. Is there anything important enough in your life that you feel passionate enough about and would be willing to sacrifice it all for? Or do you just sit around in security of your armchair all day feeling sorry for Iraqis who are willing to sacrifice everything they have for freedom and the promise of a better tomorrow? I think both the Iraqis and Americans over there laying it on the line every day deserve our equal support.

Well I think Americans have fought many wars on foreign soil and the people that live there always have more to gain or lose than our soldiers.

It also seems to me that those willing to make sacrifices (become heroes) fighting for their homeland is an easier decision to make than those who are there to help them.

Neither group deserves to be judged less heroic than the other but our soldiers are there risking their lives for someone elses freedom. Most of them would rather be home with their wives and husbands, etc... I don't see how you can you assign their heroism to less status than the people they are there to help.

yea seriously what has war ever solved, nazism fascism slavery.....


this post is in extremely bad taste to whoever lost a family member in the war. if you love the iraqi's so much move to iraq. you should be ashamed of yourself talking this way about people that put their life on the line to protect YOUR rights. Thats like hiring a bodyguard and yelling at him when he shoots somebody to save your life.

EDIT: Forget it; everyone here already knows how I feel about soldiers so there is no point in reiterating it. I will say just one thing though. Spare me the childish "move to Iraq" and "they are dying for my freedoms" non-sense, it is irrelevant and annoying. I will just simply state that NOBODY is in control of my life but me and my creator, whatever/whomever that might be, so don't' bother telling me that so and so is dying for me, because they are not, as much as you would like to believe they are.

if you love the godamn iraqi people so much why are you so against making their life better by removing their tyrant leader? You seriously think that the war overall wont improve the lives of the iraqi's?

You are seriously a sick individual if you dont care that an american soldier dies fighting. That is the most unpatriotic thing i have ever heard. I am sick of people that hate America so godamn much move to canada hippy

*sigh* ok, I admit it, I'm an unpatriotic hippy...lol...well, it's better than being a blind patriot, so I don't mind.

you still didnt answer my question.

I'm still waiting for someone to find me the number of iraqi soldiers have died (excluding the 100,000 prior to the reformation of the army). IE how many Iraqi soldiers/police officers have died since they US was working with them.

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying the Iraqis are no better off as a result of our actions there?

With apologies to Newton, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

Some people try to climb back down.

Although this might be a little off-topic, when my son was in Spain, I made him vote absentee. I told him "A lot of people died for you to be able to do this."

For those who might care, I include this link:

The Veteran

and this photo:

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TQCfAqEYt96u1P4dkgYp2HE9o0Dso*fNqNIzoc97dfXRdHFqvZYwvr9kjeY1Kbpl!fRpYppU7zyapU55*RzwheuW*7JVkk6oIGUTRsEQabdVuJ08uoNWvA/Wheelchair.jpg?dc=4675505067505700777></IMG>

I'm not going to explain that one to anybody.

Keep telling yourself that. Because the laws of this country dont touch you.

I think a good way to look at it, is it's disrespectful to those that HAVE died for you. From the Revolution to WWII, even you can't claim that they didnt directly benefit you.

This thread is disrespectful to Americans,Iraqi's,Canadians and Hippies..this thread makes me sad.

It may be helpful for everyone to understand that "Disrespect" is usually an emotional response created in the mind of the individual who feels it. That said....simply because someone holds opinion of something contrary to yourself, does not automatically mean the are showing a lack of respect.

Please keep this in mind.................

As for this reply.....you will likely be waiting quite some time, as the administration has decided to forgo accurate data on this number, and no one else truly has enough access to gather the information. This has led to broad speculation concerning this number, particularly in alternative publications..

Estimates currently range from 35,000 to 100,000 dead among the combined Iraqi population. And these numbers do not include Iraqi military deaths, as there can be no designation of such in this kind of warfare.

Exactly Tecoyah, this is part of my problem, why is this information being withheld from us? Unfortunatly we won't find out until after the war accuret numbers because there isn't any public outcry to know these numbers. We in general don't really care about Iraqi deaths.

Because they are the enemy, the terrorists, silly. Don't you listen to anything George Bush says. :rolleyes:

Who is this 'we' you mention? Why would someone not care about Iraqi civilian deaths? Are there people applauding somewhere when Iraqi civilians die? Things get interesting when these unknown figures of deaths are used to justify the 'insurgency' and provide them with some sort of moral legitimacy, which I don't think they deserve. The Iraqi people want peace and stability, like any other. The 'insurgents' idea of a society represents regression, intimidation and isolation; more of the same of what Hussein gave them or worse. The coalition stands for progression, growth and partnership among the rest of the civilized world. The Iraqis are understandably nervous about moving forward because they've never yet moved forward in the modern world.

As for having any regard for Iraqi soldiers, I hold them in high regard. They are the lynchpin in this entire scenario, and they need to continue to be built up and trained. I have no regard at all for the 'insurgents' who are doing everything in their power to intimidate the populace and kill off the legitimate Iraqi security force.

Sob,

That is an awesome photo and pretty much sums up the state of the nation today. It always bothers me when people don't pay attention at ball games when the anthem is being played, or talking on their cell phones, eating, chewing gum, etc. The ball players do it too. Is it too much too ask for a minute of respect? but I bet it's more from ignorance than malice. I think most people don't know protocol or ettiquette regarding this type of thing.

I think we need to bring back Civics Class in to the schools. (By the way, I am commenting on the photo and our nation in general and not the topic in this thread).

Where did you get that photo?

civics classes?
without also bringing back some level of encouragement for students to think for themselves, this class amounts to little more or less than political indoctrination.
which would seem to me a sign of the bushtimes--you can counter problems that might be raised by critique of irrational policies by working to create a totally servile public by using education as an explicitly political instrument.

this sets up even more people for this kind of discussion: introduce military personnel as fetish-objects to cut off debate about whether a particular state action is or is not defensable....because if you oppose the policy, you disrespect the folk who have put themselves in the position of having to carry it out (for whatever reason---this type of argument tends to reduce the motivations folk might have to enter to military to a one-dimensional matter).

follow this pattern to its logical conclusion and you can imagine people expressing everything about how the think of america in relation to the world as summed up in those stupid magnetic ribbons you can buy at 7-11. one-dimensional thinking for a one-dimensional regime enframing its one-dimensional conception of the world as a natural horizon. if you want to make servility a habit, get people early. and let no child be left behind.


on an unrelated note, i have never understood why it is necessary to play the national anthem at sporting events......

I meant Civics Classes as a generic term, but I envisioned one that introduced the basics: Nothing wrong with that.

Obviously, we need to teach our students critical thinking and levels of analysis, I wasn't mixing the issues and they're not mutually exclusive.

EX: how our government works (branches, bill to law ec), civic pride, basic manners and etiquette, respect for the elderly etc. At least a rudimentary learning. Then you can decide what you want to do with that information, but at least make it available.

I agree that it is rather odd to play the national anthem before a sports games, and have military procedures, flybys - seems a bit excessive and inappropriate too. But my point was, if they're playing it, proper protocol should be exercised. (I know, I know, it's a personal choice, but I'm just expressing my opinion, I'm not advocating draconian measures for patriotism).

Here:

The Veteran

Although I am no longer in the military, I live in a community with a large military presence. One or another of my friends is always e-mailing me something like this.

I was encouraged to hear from one of them at a party today that we haven't buried a Navy SEAL since April. I also met a SEAL who had been in Iraq, and who is going back in February.

It was interesting.

Because it would take too long to sing the Communist Manifesto?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

:thumbsup:

Let freedom ring. Fuck the government.

I would also be very interested to hear how many Iraqis have died in this endeavor. It's been glossed over in so many reports that I've lost count. "1 American soldier and 50 of some other guys died in..." how many times have you heard something similar? Wouldn't it be nice to hear the truth for a change?

If memory serves, the tradition of playing the national anthem before sporting events started in WW2 when it was done for a baseball game (can't recall which). It proved so popular that it has been done ever since and has spread to other sports.

What about La Marseillaise or Amhrán na bhFiann? :)

Mr Mephisto

Freedom is not free. It is paid for in blood by those with the courage to face the enemy. The new Iraqi Army is like ours in one big way. It is made up of volunteers wanting to make a difference in the world for more than themselves. Some of the Iraqi soldiers are not good people, some of our soldiers are not good people but they all know the risk they take when they put on the uniform and take the oath.

By the way Rdr4evr, we do what we do just for people like you. Like it or not you are allowed to live how you like and say what you like because of men like me. Warriors.

JUST A NOTE:

Gents (Rdr and Texasmortarman),

I appreciate that both of you can express your feelings here, but please keep it polite.

(Experience tells me that servicemen replying to rdr4evr tend to get...enthusiastic, so I am posting this before that may (or may not) happen.)

cheers,

-lebell

It already has :eek:

But to avoid further problems, I will avoid the "warriors" comment.

gosh... i thought everyone understood this. guess not.

the reason that IEDs are considered to be cowardly is that they are placed there by people who are not wearing a uniform and are not sanctioned soldiers by any government or treaty. once these guys detonate an explosive they waltz back to their homes wearing their day-to-day clothes and put their families and neighbors in grave danger. U.S. and iraqi soldiers must engage those who try to kill them, but the cowardice of those who set IEDs dictate the terms of engagement. US and iraqi soldiers must go door-to-door and raid entire neigborhoods to find the guerillas. the cowards have the luxury of obviously marked vehicles and uniformed soldiers to target.

people seem to think that soldiers wear their uniforms just to look snappy and maybe get a military discount on a Subway sandwich. nope. those uniforms are there to restrict combat to engagements between two recognizable forces in order to limit civilian damage and loss of life. U.S. soldiers honorably wear their uniforms (at their own peril)... those cowards who try to kill and shrink back to hide among women and children do not.

i can't stand it when ignorant people whine about the horrors of war and the tragic damage it does to those caught in its scope... yet they are unable to recognize the deliberate things the enemy does that make it worse.

Irate, war doesn't have rules. That's what many of the "ignorant" people you refer to have qualms about. IED's aren't cowardly, they're war at its finest.

In any case, it takes at least two opposing forces to wage a war. I fail to see the difference between the soldier who hides behind a child and the soldier who makes the choice to shoot through the child to kill the soldier hiding behind the child(literally or figuratively). Neither is particularly courageous in my eyes.

So is it fair to fly a jet over top of a bunch of people who have no means of fighting back and drop bombs on them?

war certainly does have rules. it's called the law of armed conflict. there are no rules that are imposed from outside of humanity (unless you are willing to grant the involved presence of God and will count moral structures based on religious convictions) but we do limit ourselves in very meaningful ways in order to align our method with internationally accepted standards. do you think that we could not be more effective in killing our enemy without any self-imposed limitations? i'm speaking about the very limitations that our enemy does not observe.

rekna, war is not fair... not fair in the sense that each side has equal opportunity to kill the other. it can, however, be fought honorably and lawfully. dropping bombs on an army with no air force isn't fair... but in a conflict between two recognized armies it is honorable.

Disagree. There are some quite formal rules to warfare, as formal as any engineering or economics paradigm. See: Sun Tzu or Carl von Clausewitz for examples.Exactly right. What irate is describing (IED's, civilian fighter, etc.) is 'asymetrical warfare', and there are rules for that as well.

Absolutely correct.

Like America's refusal to accept the International Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines?

You're right. War is not fair. And insurgents don't follow the "rules". They no longer have a State and therefore cannot, by definition, wear a uniform.

Carbombs are not typically used in conventional warfare; even though Claymores are. One car argue over the distinctions for hours (and I'll keep my personal opinion to myself on this issue), but the fact remains that the war in Iraq is not a conventional war and therefore conventional norms do not seem to apply.

One cannot expect the insurgents to throw away their arms, shrug their shoulders and say "OK, fair enough. The rules say we can't go on. You beat us fair and square". Modern invasions, occupations and rebellions simply do not work that way.


Mr Mephisto

What are these rules? Who enforces the law of armed conflict? Is it the U.N. that america only acknowledges as a matter of convenience or is it the international criminal court that america refuses to recognize? Whatever rules you claim exist, i think they all go out the window as soon as bullets start flying. What do you think the ratio of prosecuted atrocities to unpunished atrocities is? I think we could be a lot more effective in killing our enemies, but we'd also probably be a lot more effective in killing civilians, which is bad for public support of war.

The problem with pointing to the law of armed conflict is that it really doesn't amount to anything. It might strive to make war more humane, but i would argue that such a thing is not possible. That's like coming up with a "law of sexual assault" in an effort to make rape more humane. It's lip service. In the end innocent people are still dying and someone is still getting raped. I'm not saying soldiers are rapists, either, just that war seems to have a many rape-like qualities.

I'm not saying i don't respect the role armed conflict has played throughout the history of our humanity. I'm just not trying to pretend that it is anything other than what it is, namely, horrible.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm has a good overview

we do. it's self-enforced for our our enemy's protection as well as our own when the tables are turned.

think what you want, just don't think your opinion has any effect on the truth.

very true. there is certainly a practical component as well as a moral component.

why?

so which is it? you went from claiming there were no rules (last post) to the rules not making it more humane... even though it might?

who is saying it isn't horrible? as unfortunate as having to fight with lethal force is... you must grant that there are more lawful and humane ways to practice and that there are despicable and cowardly ways to prosecute it.

If IEDs are cowardly, so are smart bombs.

Okay, but since we're fighting "unlawful combatants" it would seem to me that these rules don't apply. Even so, i don't understand how dropping bombs in places where you know civilians are present doesn't amount to a violation of the pricipal of distinction.


It's self enforced, meaning we only enforce it when we want to.


Likewise.

It's all practical. We only care about the lives of civilians when it is practical to do so. We hate killing civilians, right up until civilians cease to become civilians and start being "collateral damage".

Ask the civilians who've been killed by american forces in iraq.

What i meant is that there are effectively no rules, because the person who is willing to do what the other guy won't has an advantage. Rules are secondary to success.

Who is more humane? The soldier that hides behind the child or the soldier who shoot through the child? Any "humanity" we inject into war is either the result of more precise technology or part of the p.r. necessary for winning the war in the minds of americans.

How is dropping a bomb less cowardly than putting it on the side of the road?

but, if we're to take your definitions... then all laws are self-enforced (and, i suppose... inconsistently enforced by your estimation). the citizenry abides by laws that are enforced by those elected and supported by us... why is the military (an institution that must enforce the most stringent levels of discipline and regulations for its own survival) exempt from the same principle?

in fact, the military has even more people peeking over its shoulder to ensure that justice is done than anyone in the private sector does. it has the weight of 1) international law and the LOAC 2) congressional oversight and executive responsibility 3) it's own internal codes of conduct, regulations, and methods of prosecution 4) the media and press's oversight and investigation 5) each soldiers individual moral compass and discipline.

you see, given additional layers in which military policy and action is scrutinized under... i would argue that enforcement of military law and conduct is just as legitimate (or more so) as anything you're likely to find in any traditional government court. the law is one of combat and bloodshed... no doubt about that. however, i find it difficult to side with your bleak assessment of the military's overall law abiding practice when your opinion is (so far) based on nothing more than something between your ears.

and to provide an answer to your hypothetical question: the one who holds the child is the guiltier party. the one who chooses to involve the innocent will always hold the guilt, the holder of the child is dictating the rules of engagement. if you cannot win with honor... perhaps you just cannot win. there are worse things than death, holding a child in the line of fire in hopes of saving your own or incriminating your enemy is one of them.

Fair analogy.
I don't think the US military sees IEDs as 'cowardly. They are simply remote controlled landmines. Another nut for the experts to crack.

link

very well.

The insurgent holding the child is a microcosm of war in general. Each side is both the hostage taker and the hostage taker's enemy. War always involves the killing of civilians. No war should ever be pursued without the understanding that many innocent people will be killed by either side. That is why i think so many people find war to be distasteful. The problem with hiding behing civilians is that it never works to anyone's advantage. Obviously, the threat that our invasion of iraq posed, in terms of civilian casualties, wasn't a large factor in saddam's decision to effectively tell us to "bring it on". What you don't see is that we were "holding the child" in the run up to the war. We'll be "holding the child" right up until the last remnants of america's military presence are gone. It may not be explicit, but that's what it is. Who plans a war without considering the fact that it will necessarily result in the maiming and death of large numbers of completely innocent people? I don't care how smart your bombs are, or how well trained your teenage soldiers are in any kind of law. If the powers that be gave more than just lip service to the plight of the innocent civilian war as we know it would be a thing of the past.

You cannot have a war without holding the civilan populace hostage. I fail to see the "honor" involved with doing so on a macro scale as opposed to a micro scale.

i generally find that this is the least productive possible tack to adopt in debating, directly or indirectly, the war in iraq. this for any number of reasons, from its tendency to polarize folk across unnecessary matters to the occaisional explosion of bad taste (see the warriors remark above) that seems to be of a piece with it.

It amazes me that I am still suprised at the mentality of some of the posters here.

Most of what I want to say has already been said, so I'll keep it brief.

However you may think, whether the Iraqis are putting more at risk than the American soldiers, the truth is it is the Iraqis that have more to loose. We are there giving them the opportunity to fight for their freedom, and it is them who must stand up and fight for it.

Also, every time I hear of a car bomb or IED detonating there is always a report of Iraqi and American deaths, even if there are only Iraqi deaths, and I watch mostly FNC, but also flip around to the other cable news channels.

stevo you should try reading aljazera and see how many stories aren't reported in the US media

I didn't see this in the American media

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...far/html/1.stm

it is being carried in a more fleshed out story by newsday...

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...-world-big-pix

you've got to wonder why that guy didn't slow down. gosh, what an awful situation.

"The statement also said that military officials extended their condolences for this "unfortunate incident" and were investigating"

Well whoopdi fucking doo...I'm sure the children who will grow up parentless will be mighty appreciative of the militaries "condolences" for murdering their parents. What a sad and disgusting story, and people wonder why I feel the way I do.

Ok, I'm going to run the risk of being a total ass here. But why didn't they just stop? Short of purposely lighting up this car and foul play... it's fucking tragic.

According to the article they didn't have much a chance to stop as the soldiers fired at them less than a second after the warning shots. These people probably hear gunfire everyday, they didn't even have a chance to react.

You all seem so suprised. Like this is the first car that has been shot up because the driver failed to stop at a checkpoint. Its happened before, and I've read the stories before, in fact, some have been posted on this forum before. The question remains, why didn't they stop? I doubt they were new to the country, didn't know what a checkpoint was? It was an accident either way you look at it. Do you remember the story from the other day, where a carbomber drove his truck up to the gates of an embassy, accelerated toward it and the iraqi gurad opened fire causing the bomber to detonate his load outside the gate? here, only the bomber and the Iraqi guard were killed. That is why they must shoot when a car fails to stop. I also remember this report saying how it was an Iraqi guard that was killed....hmmm funny they mention the iraqis, huh?

Just because I listed what I watch does not mean these are my only sources of news. We were talking about the mainstream american media, and in my response I listed the mainstream american news channels I watch.

you would think that, at this point in the sorry history of bushworld, that relying on mainstream american media would effectively disqualify you from debating meaningfully on the question of iraq.

Did you not read my post? I never said I rely on the mainstream american media. I actually said it is not my only source for news. Read the whole post and think a bit before you reply. It might actually help to steer the conversation somewhere constructive.