US Helicopter Fires On Iraqi Wedding

[Lonestar]

The spreading freedom and democracy bit was always mentioned as one of the reasons to go to war its just that now WMD is proven to be bollocks its all they have left.
How exactly do you translate "The son of a bitch has it coming" into international law anyway?

If I had it my way, I'd use those exact words. Seriously, I would make the case that for the good of the people of Iraq, and it's neihbors, the government has to change. I would sit down with all the bordering nations beforehand, and explain our intentions, and what our postwar policy would be to facilitate to reconstruction of Iraq and return of self-rule to the Iraqis. I would also ask said nations (even Syria and Iran) their opnions, and if they would be willing in advising in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Are we not also morally obligated not to kill lots of innocent civilians unnecessarily?

Yes


But everything seems easier in hindsight. I'm sure it didn't seem that way to the Gunship pilot suddenly seeing fire at 0300 at night.

Why need any change increase the risk to our troops “dramatically” what if it increased the risk slightly?

Then it would be a good order, hence my use of the word "dramatically". Waiting until the bullets start impacting your vehicle might qualify as dramatically.

What about the incitement factor of all these civilian deaths doesn’t that in the long term increase the risks to our troops?

I know. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Personally, I already think American Servicemen have taken measures to reduce civilian deaths at the cost of increasing their own personal risks.

Are you seriously suggesting there was a point when US troops didn’t shoot first and ask questions later?

yes.

Didn’t our piss poor handling of the occupation create the insurgency?

You must be mistaking me from someone who supported my boss when he publically ridiculed General Shinseki's war plan and canned him. The answer to your question is yes, yes it did.

I would argue that the large scale insurgency is caused by a number of factors:
Since the invasion of Kuwait amongst other things the US & UK have:
1. bombed the shit out of Iraq
2. invaded and half conquered Iraq killing thousands of Iraqi troops in the process

1. With UN approval and the approval of the neighboring coountries.
2. Again, under a UN Mandate (with Syrian, Egyptian, Saudi, French and miscellaneous Troops besides).

3. incited a rebellion against Saddam & then failed to back it up leading to thousands of deaths amongst groups previously sympathetic to the west

I think Bush Senior was expecting a Coup, not a massive uprising. In fact, I would bet on it. But that doesn't exonerate him from sitting on his hands while the Shi'ites were getting slaughtered.

4. enforced sanctions upon Iraq leading to great suffering amongst its population and hundreds of thousands of deaths

And yet, by an amazing coincidence, the Kurds recieved their allotement under the "food-for-oil" program without Saddam controlling where the money went. The Kurds are at this time the most well off, secure, and democratic of Iraq's three groups. Why? Because Saddam wasn't able to play politics with their lives like he was the Shi'ites and to a lesser degree the Sunnis.

5. bombed the shit out of Iraq again
6. invaded iraq again

Met with cheering crowds, check.

[quote
7. occupied the oil fields and infrastructure but let everything else be looted[/quote]

Secured the only immediate Commodity Iraq has to offer to rebuild, check.

8. repeatedly shot first and asked questions later if at all – several times at the allied trained Iraqi security services

Well, after check points get charged with carbombs a few times, the instinct sets in pretty quick.

9. reintroduced censorship,

To what degree? I have a cousin in civil affairs in Iraq right now who has written home about new newspapers that are everything from communist rags, to Islamsts, to "General News", to his team getting sued by an Iraqi paper for having a similiar name.

internment,

You know, those guys we not put in prision for traffic violations.

torture… basically most of the things we were supposedly there to stop

You mean dumbasses who ignore the little Geneva convention cards every servcieman in Iraq is given? (like how cops in the states are given little Miranda Rights cards to put in their wallets). Yeah, it sure as hell didn't help matters. And we need to make sure heads role, in a very promient way, to try to fix that.

10. taken and released photos of Iraqis being tortured in Sadams old prison

See above. Though personally, a lot of the (released) photos seem akin to really, really, crappy fraternity intiation practices.

Basically over the years we did an incredible number of things (I’m not saying if they were justified or not merely that they won’t have endeared us to the locals) to the Iraqis to make them dislike and distrust us, since the start of operation freedom or whatever it was called we have done a whole bunch more. After everything we’ve done to these people we have to earn their trust we can’t just demand it.


It’s their country they didn’t invite us in, it is for us to get used to their customs no matter how dumb they may be and that includes shooting in the air to celebrate, which they have been doing for decades. If westerns are anything to go by I believe Americans (cowboys) used to do a very similar thing.

You know, I commented the other day that when I go to my cousin's wedding next month in Kilean (near Ft. Hood) I fully intend to follow the fine Tejano tradition of going outside and shooting my six shooters in the air. Because, you know, it makes an absolute astonishingly amount of sense to fire randomly into the air while Helicopter gunships are flying by.

I thought the people on this board support evolution. If it was indeed a wedding, they should have considered the consequences of firing weapons into the air. I mean, Jesus! It isn't like Helicopters are quiet! Are you telling me it just didn't occur to them what the pilots would think with the increased fighting going on the past few months?

[Master of Ossus]

Shep, do you have any idea how fucking hard it is to check stories like this in a war zone, in a restricted area? The US military only NOW has troops checking the site out for a reason--the area in which this occurred is REALLY inhospitable, and there are real problems with getting people out there.

Then why are they running this shit as FACT, Instead of splashing "DISCLAIMER" all over it?

I don't think they are. The reports I've seen usually say something like, "A group of Iraqis claimed..." and "Al Jazeera showed footage of..." before their reports.

However, if there were reports that actually did run these things as facts then you're right in that that was irresponsible journalism.

[Plekhanov]

If I had it my way, I'd use those exact words. Seriously, I would make the case that for the good of the people of Iraq, and it's neihbors, the government has to change. I would sit down with all the bordering nations beforehand, and explain our intentions, and what our postwar policy would be to facilitate to reconstruction of Iraq and return of self-rule to the Iraqis. I would also ask said nations (even Syria and Iran) their opnions, and if they would be willing in advising in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Well it sounds like you might well have done a significantly better job than the current incumbents, however if neighbouring nations had told you in no uncertain terms that they thought the invasion would be disastrous would you still have gone ahead?

Are we not also morally obligated not to kill lots of innocent civilians unnecessarily?

Yes
But everything seems easier in hindsight. I'm sure it didn't seem that way to the Gunship pilot suddenly seeing fire at 0300 at night.

I’m aware of how much easier all this is to say from the safety of my bedroom than on the ground, it just seems that given the choice between pull back and make sure of the situation and pile in and damn the consequences, pile in seems to be the preferred choice.

Why need any change increase the risk to our troops “dramatically” what if it increased the risk slightly?

Then it would be a good order, hence my use of the word "dramatically". Waiting until the bullets start impacting your vehicle might qualify as dramatically.

Just how many of these air strike multiple death scenarios actually started with “bullets start impacting your vehicle”?

What about the incitement factor of all these civilian deaths doesn’t that in the long term increase the risks to our troops?

I know. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Personally, I already think American Servicemen have taken measures to reduce civilian deaths at the cost of increasing their own personal risks.

Then is the different approach of US and UK troops all UK gov. media spin? Is there really nothing more US troops could do to minimise civilian casualties and future reprisals?

Are you seriously suggesting there was a point when US troops didn’t shoot first and ask questions later?

yes.

When did they do this? When did things change?

Didn’t our piss poor handling of the occupation create the insurgency?

You must be mistaking me from someone who supported my boss when he publically ridiculed General Shinseki's war plan and canned him. The answer to your question is yes, yes it did.

Well we seem to have reached some agreement, you do realise that this seems to contradict your earlier statement that “The reason why we're at this point is because the insurgency created it.”?

As to your rebuttal of my listed reasons for the insurgency/rebellion I don’t seem to have made myself clear. I wasn’t saying any of the actions I listed were unjustified, immoral, stupid or where basically in any way negative (I happen to believe several of them were immoral, unjustified and stupid but that isn’t the point) my point is this:

Imagine for a minute that you are an Iraqi who has been living in Iraq since the late 80s, imagine that you have been somewhat reliant upon saddam’s filtered media. Now look back over everything that has happened to the Iraqi people since the invasion of Kuwait how those actions would impact upon your life and then ask yourself just how fondly you’d think of Americans.

My point was that it was and is simply ridiculous to expect the Iraqi population to like and welcome us when they perceive us (rightly or wrongly) as causing them so much suffering and when our actions once entering the country have been so easy to (mis?)interpret as the actions of an imperial, conquering force interested in little other than Iraq’s oil.

A few of your rebuttals did surprise me a little though:

5. bombed the shit out of Iraq again
6. invaded iraq again

Met with cheering crowds, check.

Are you serious? I’m not going to respond to this until you assure me that this was a serious point.

10. taken and released photos of Iraqis being tortured in Sadams old prison

See above. Though personally, a lot of the (released) photos seem akin to really, really, crappy fraternity intiation practices.

I’m not going to respond to this comment until you assure me in all seriousness that you are not taking the piss and really meant that.

You know, I commented the other day that when I go to my cousin's wedding next month in Kilean (near Ft. Hood) I fully intend to follow the fine Tejano tradition of going outside and shooting my six shooters in the air. Because, you know, it makes an absolute astonishingly amount of sense to fire randomly into the air while Helicopter gunships are flying by.

I thought the people on this board support evolution. If it was indeed a wedding, they should have considered the consequences of firing weapons into the air. I mean, Jesus! It isn't like Helicopters are quiet! Are you telling me it just didn't occur to them what the pilots would think with the increased fighting going on the past few months?

I never said that shooting guns in the air was clever or that I thought it to be a good idea, simply that it is an well established and well known aspect of their culture. The fact is no matter how idiotic the locals’ traditions our troops have to learn about and take notice of them if they are to have any hope of doing the whole hearts and minds thing.

This wedding thing happened in Afghanistan it’s not as if we were totally without warning our troops should be made well aware of this tradition and trained how to respond (hopefully not by calling in air strikes) until we actually treat Iraqis and their culture with some respect (something your last post in obviously not doing) we have NO CHANCE of getting them onside.

[Lonestar]

Well it sounds like you might well have done a significantly better job than the current incumbents, however if neighbouring nations had told you in no uncertain terms that they thought the invasion would be disastrous would you still have gone ahead?

Depends. Which ones? All of Them? Some of them? Have I made a convincing case to France and Germany for even lukewarm support? I think it would have been better if we did the "Bad man needs to go" route, especially as the US Intel agencies were disagreeing with each other on everything with regards to WMD. You don't think some of the reasons why France was being such a dickhead over the Iraq issue (as opposed to their steller support in other avenues on the War on Terror(tm)) Was because they intel that countradicted ours?

If I couldn't any, and I mean any bordering country besides Kuwait on board, then yes, I would call it off. But I think the TPTB did not make a serious effort at sitting down and talking with all the neighbors. If we had approached, say, Iran as a country with an opinion just as important as ours, we might have gained tacit support. But I don't think my Bosses did that.

Just how many of these air strike multiple death scenarios actually started with “bullets start impacting your vehicle”?

I was thinking of the Helo pilot wiaitng until he knew the gunfire was aimed at him (hard at night) or hitting him to fire.

Then is the different approach of US and UK troops all UK gov. media spin? Is there really nothing more US troops could do to minimise civilian casualties and future reprisals?

Sure. Add more troops. What we should have done early on was sat down and talked with the Tribal leaders (like the UK Troops did) instead of dicking around with the INC. Interact with the populace more. Remember my cousin? He often writes that the Iraqis have stated, often, that if we just hoofed it along the sidewalk like a neighborhood cop, instead of driving around in Humvees in full armor with a.50, The Iraqis would be a hell of alot more comfortable. This is something the UK has been doing from Day one, and it works.

When did they do this? When did things change?

I'll get back to you on that.

Well we seem to have reached some agreement, you do realise that this seems to contradict your earlier statement that “The reason why we're at this point is because the insurgency created it.”?

Well, you're right. While I have no doubt there would be some loonies out there taking potshots at Coalition troops regardless of how the warplan went, I think it would have been much better if we ran with General Shinseki's plan.

Are you serious? I’m not going to respond to this until you assure me that this was a serious point.

Sure. Didn't you see that statue tumble? Now, did we have the numbers to follow up and minimize the inevitable looting that followed? No. Why? Well, I think it's because Rummie wanted to use 100k soldiers for the war plan vice the 500k+ General Shinseki recommended. The Joint Chiefs had to fight and scream to get the number up to 250k, including many tens of thousands of UK troops.

And what happend because we were unable to establish security immediately after the collpse of civil authority? The insurgency.

I’m not going to respond to this comment until you assure me in all seriousness that you are not taking the piss and really meant that.

When I went to Texas A&M a Cadet Company there got into some really, really deep shit for hazing. Obviously, no one got killed. But yes, there was nakedness in arkward positions with other naked people. 70+ idiots got their asses kicked out, and the Cadet unit was disbanded.

I never said that shooting guns in the air was clever or that I thought it to be a good idea, simply that it is an well established and well known aspect of their culture. The fact is no matter how idiotic the locals’ traditions our troops have to learn about and take notice of them if they are to have any hope of doing the whole hearts and minds thing.

I think we both agree shooting guns into the air is idiotic. But I think there is an order of difference between, say, knowing the proper greeting rituals and the proper dinner etiqutte(sic) then standing by while somepeople are shooting randomly into the air in the middle of the night. I'm all for making the troops know not to offer their left hand for a handshake.

This wedding thing happened in Afghanistan it’s not as if we were totally without warning our troops should be made well aware of this tradition and trained how to respond (hopefully not by calling in air strikes) until we actually treat Iraqis and their culture with some respect (something your last post in obviously not doing) we have NO CHANCE of getting them onside.

Yeah, but the wedding thing in Afghanistan was from a Jet flying way high up, I'm inclined to think THAT guy was a triggerhappy fuck like the NAG pilot who wasted the Canadian troops. Difference between that and a lowflying gunship.

As for treating their culture with respect, like I said, I'm all for treating their culture with respect. But when it gets really idiotic and stupid; ( What do you do if your a Soldier and one of the locals in town is beating his wife? Could YOU bring yourself to standby and let it happen? Well, those are standing orders for folks there) and especially to the point where it causes a danger to themselves and others, then no, I won't treat those aspects with respect. Sorry Charlie.

[Vympel]

Or someone else lied....which IMO is far more likely.

I don't like this automatic presumption that the Iraqis/press must be lieing. Associated Press said one thing, Coalition says another. The press has proven the Coalition lied/was mistaken before. The classic example being their ridiculous "we killed 54 insurgents!" line of BS- never mind that they said they were attacked by 60 of them, yet somehow the 6 survivors managed to drag away 54 bodies so they couldn't find them, and the local hospitals reported only 8 dead.

[Darth Wong]

Vympel, you're forgetting that US soldiers would never, ever open fire on a target with little or no provocation. It goes totally against their values and their training. It would be no more likely than US soldiers taking over Saddam Hussein's Abu-Ghraib prison and torturing prisoners there.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't like this automatic presumption that the Iraqis/press must be lieing. Associated Press said one thing, Coalition says another. The press has proven the Coalition lied/was mistaken before. The classic example being their ridiculous "we killed 54 insurgents!" line of BS- never mind that they said they were attacked by 60 of them, yet somehow the 6 survivors managed to drag away 54 bodies so they couldn't find them, and the local hospitals reported only 8 dead.

In other words, you're taking the off-the-cuff casualty estimates made by troops in the field, and then presuming that the Coalition is lying. That's good!

[Vympel]

In other words, you're taking the off-the-cuff casualty estimates made by troops in the field, and then presuming that the Coalition is lying. That's good!

In case you don't remember, it wasn't off-the-cuff casualty estimates, it was a huge news story told by the generals, in a (surprise) period where the Coalation hadn't had any successes. The story of the 'battle' made front page news. The press hit the scene. They asked them where the bodies were. Instead of saying "well, they were off-the-cuff estimates", they instead invented this ridiculous anti-math fairy-tale of all the bodies being dragged off by the survivors.

I also refer you to Mike's comments.

[Master of Ossus]

In case you don't remember, it wasn't off-the-cuff casualty estimates, it was a huge news story told by the generals, in a (surprise) period where the Coalation hadn't had any successes. The story of the 'battle' made front page news. The press hit the scene. They asked them where the bodies were. Instead of saying "well, they were off-the-cuff estimates", they instead invented this ridiculous anti-math fairy-tale of all the bodies being dragged off by the survivors.

I also refer you to Mike's comments.

Oh, come now. The same thing's been going on in militaries around the globe for ages. Remember the RAF's estimates of the number of Luftwaffe planes they shot down during the Battle of Britain?

[Vympel]

Oh, come now. The same thing's been going on in militaries around the globe for ages. Remember the RAF's estimates of the number of Luftwaffe planes they shot down during the Battle of Britain?

Yeah, my point is that I will never assume the military- any military, to be telling the 100% truth as a matter of course, either by lie or mistake, they have a vested interest in getting their version of the story across (namely, "we won and we're super duper goody two shoes")- and will go to absurd lengths to do it. See the Vietnam body counts, for example.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Or someone else lied....which IMO is far more likely.

I don't like this automatic presumption that the Iraqis/press must be lieing. Associated Press said one thing, Coalition says another. The press has proven the Coalition lied/was mistaken before. The classic example being their ridiculous "we killed 54 insurgents!" line of BS- never mind that they said they were attacked by 60 of them, yet somehow the 6 survivors managed to drag away 54 bodies so they couldn't find them, and the local hospitals reported only 8 dead.

Automatic presumption? It isn't automatic, I believed this at first till I heard that the video tape showing dead Iraqi children was not even from this attack but another. That tells me that the US isn't the ones lying but the Associated Press is or maybe they were just mistaken and forgot to check the source of the video.

So no I don't believe what I said was automatic presumption. Don't you think you might be presuming that the General was lying or mistaken?

[The Kernel]

UPDATE: AP finds proof of wedding

RAMADI, Iraq - A videotape obtained Sunday by Associated Press Television News captures a wedding party that survivors say was later attacked by U.S. planes early Wednesday, killing up to 45 people. The dead included the cameraman, Yasser Shawkat Abdullah, hired to record the festivities, which ended Tuesday night before the planes struck.

The U.S. military says it is investigating the attack, which took place in the village of Mogr el-Deeb about five miles from the Syrian border, but that all evidence so far indicates the target was a safehouse for foreign fighters.

"There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."

But video that APTN shot a day after the attack shows fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly colored beddings used for celebrations, scattered around the bombed out tent.

The wedding videotape shows a dozen white pickup trucks speeding through the desert escorting the bridal car — decorated with colorful ribbons. The bride wears a Western-style white bridal dress and veil. The camera captures her stepping out of the car but does not show a close-up.

An AP reporter and photographer, who interviewed more than a dozen survivors a day after the bombing, were able to identify many of them on the wedding party video — which runs for several hours.

APTN also traveled to Mogr el-Deeb, 250 miles west of Ramadi, the day after the attack to film what the survivors said was the wedding site. A devastated building and remnants of the tent, pots and pans could be seen, along with bits of what appeared to be the remnants of ordnance, one of which bore the marking "ATU-35," similar to those on U.S. bombs.

A water tanker truck can be seen in both the video shot by APTN and the wedding tape obtained from a cousin of the groom.

The singing and dancing seems to go on forever at the all-male tent set up in the garden of the host, Rikad Nayef, for the wedding of his son, Azhad, and the bride Rutbah Sabah. The men later move to the porch when darkness falls, apparently taking advantage of the cool night weather. Children, mainly boys, sit on their fathers' laps; men smoke an Arab water pipe, finger worry beads and chat with one another. It looks like a typical, gender-segregated tribal desert wedding.

As expected, women are out of sight - but according to survivors, they danced to the music of Hussein al-Ali, a popular Baghdad wedding singer hired for the festivities. Al-Ali was buried in Baghdad on Thursday.

Prominently displayed on the videotape was a stocky man with close-cropped hair playing an electric organ. Another tape, filmed a day later in Ramadi and obtained by APTN, showed the musician lying dead in a burial shroud — his face clearly visible and wearing the same tan shirt as he wore when he performed.

As the musicians played, young men milled about, most dressed in traditional white robes. Young men swayed in tribal dances to the monotonous tones of traditional Arabic music. Two children — a boy and a girl — held hands, dancing and smiling. Women are rarely filmed at such occasions, and they appear only in distant glimpses.

Kimmitt said U.S. troops who swept through the area found rifles, machine guns, foreign passports, bedding, syringes and other items that suggested the site was used by foreigners infiltrating from Syria.

The videotape showed no weapons, although they are common among rural Iraqis.

Kimmitt has denied finding evidence that any children died in the raid although a "handful of women" — perhaps four to six — were "caught up in the engagement."

"They may have died from some of the fire that came from the aircraft," he told reporters Friday.

However, an AP reporter obtained names of at least 10 children who relatives said had died. Bodies of five of them were filmed by APTN when the survivors took them to Ramadi for burial Wednesday. Iraqi officials said at least 13 children were killed.

[The Kernel]

You know this really makes me wonder, who the hell are we supposed to believe? The US Government or the press?

[Plekhanov]

Kimmitt said U.S. troops who swept through the area found rifles, machine guns, foreign passports, bedding, syringes and other items that suggested the site was used by foreigners infiltrating from Syria.

Aside from wondering what’s so damning about bedding or people living near a border possessing passports what do “insurgents” use syringes for? Why does the presence of syringes suggest that these guys are fighters?

[Aaron]

Aside from wondering what’s so damning about bedding or people living near a border possessing passports what do “insurgents” use syringes for? Why does the presence of syringes suggest that these guys are fighters?

I think it's the amount of bedding that they found, something like 300 set's if I'm not mistaken. This leads the US intelligence guru's to believe that it was a stoppever for forgein fighters. As to the syringes, who knows. Maybe their all drug addicts, although I doubt that many fundie Muslims are drug users. At this point I think the USA would say anything to put their side in the "right", especially now when the prison scandel has come to light. Another cluster-fuck like bombing a wedding could really make them look bad.

[Plekhanov]

I think it's the amount of bedding that they found, something like 300 set's if I'm not mistaken.

I hope they never find my mums house then, she's a compulsive buyer of bedding and whilst 300 would be pushing it she could equip a significant number of fighters with some lovely cotton bedding.

[Plekhanov]

Depends. Which ones? All of Them? Some of them? Have I made a convincing case to France and Germany for even lukewarm support? I think it would have been better if we did the "Bad man needs to go" route, especially as the US Intel agencies were disagreeing with each other on everything with regards to WMD. You don't think some of the reasons why France was being such a dickhead over the Iraq issue (as opposed to their steller support in other avenues on the War on Terror(tm)) Was because they intel that countradicted ours?

Just wanting to establish how far this multilateral thing of yours went, on the issue of France and the “War on Terror” they’ve been fighting Islamic nutters for years home and abroad and have in fact for years been accusing the rest of the west (and that includes you USA) of not giving the issue the focus it deserved. On the subject of the international war on terrorism I think you should remember the US’s conspicuous and consistent failure to stop the IRA raising funds in the US. It really does seem to many Europeans that the US only really woke up to the realities of terrorism on 9.11 and it irks us to be lectured about it.

TSure. Add more troops. What we should have done early on was sat down and talked with the Tribal leaders (like the UK Troops did) instead of dicking around with the INC. Interact with the populace more. Remember my cousin? He often writes that the Iraqis have stated, often, that if we just hoofed it along the sidewalk like a neighborhood cop, instead of driving around in Humvees in full armor with a.50, The Iraqis would be a hell of alot more comfortable. This is something the UK has been doing from Day one, and it works.

I suppose it’s somewhat ironic that the troubles in Northern Ireland seem to have equipped UK troops for the occupation whilst the US’s years of comparative stability have left you unprepared. I advise you provoke a violent separatist movement somewhere in the US if you mean to continue your interventionist foreign policy.

Sure. Didn't you see that statue tumble? Now, did we have the numbers to follow up and minimize the inevitable looting that followed? No. Why? Well, I think it's because Rummie wanted to use 100k soldiers for the war plan vice the 500k+ General Shinseki recommended. The Joint Chiefs had to fight and scream to get the number up to 250k, including many tens of thousands of UK troops.

And what happend because we were unable to establish security immediately after the collpse of civil authority? The insurgency.

I agree with your comments on the lack of troops and general handling of the occupation but I don’t think you can interpret a few dramatic clips of a statue being pulled down by US troops whilst a few thousands Iraqis watch and cheer and a repeatedly shown clip of an old guy hitting a portrait of Saddam with a shoe as proof that the Iraqi’s wanted to be occupied.

Locals often see it as politic to greet their new rulers give them flowers and so forth (I’m sure you’ve seen archive footage of crowds of Czech’s “greeting” Hitler) but the footage of “cheering” crowds of Iraqis I’ve seen seems extremely limited leading me to suspect that there may not be all that much footage of happy Iraqis at all. Bear in mind over 1,000,000 Britons (a much greater proportion of our opulation than you saw cheering on the streets of Iraq) marched against the war this in no way means that all or even most Britons opposed the war (even if they do now).

When I went to Texas A&M a Cadet Company there got into some really, really deep shit for hazing. Obviously, no one got killed. But yes, there was nakedness in arkward positions with other naked people. 70+ idiots got their asses kicked out, and the Cadet unit was disbanded.

I was surprised by your comment partially because it closely resembled the much ridiculed Limbaugh hazing comments and because whilst the actions themselves may be in someway be akin to extreme initiation rites I don’t think that this in any way excuses or explains them. The context and atmosphere in which the hazing and abuse took place are so totally different as to make the actual nature of the acts relatively insignificant (though I must say I hope you were never threatened with and bitten by guard dogs and smeared in human excrement).

There are all kinds of activities, which you might voluntarily (or semi voluntarily in the case of your cadet company) involve yourself which would be totally unacceptable if they were simply imposed upon you. Just look at sports, conduct acceptable in the boxing ring is a crime elsewhere likewise for the football (American) or hockey field. It sounds like you had an extremely unpleasant time in the cadets but there was at least some aspect of choice involved and some benefits to completing the rituals and getting inducted into the brotherhood or whatever it was called. This simply isn’t the case in Iraqi prisons so the similarity of the acts involved is immaterial, these were guys snatched off the street in fear of their lives, and you have to interpret what they went through from that perspective.

I think we both agree shooting guns into the air is idiotic. But I think there is an order of difference between, say, knowing the proper greeting rituals and the proper dinner etiqutte(sic) then standing by while somepeople are shooting randomly into the air in the middle of the night. I'm all for making the troops know not to offer their left hand for a handshake.

Yeah, but the wedding thing in Afghanistan was from a Jet flying way high up, I'm inclined to think THAT guy was a triggerhappy fuck like the NAG pilot who wasted the Canadian troops. Difference between that and a lowflying gunship.

As for treating their culture with respect, like I said, I'm all for treating their culture with respect. But when it gets really idiotic and stupid; ( What do you do if your a Soldier and one of the locals in town is beating his wife? Could YOU bring yourself to standby and let it happen? Well, those are standing orders for folks there) and especially to the point where it causes a danger to themselves and others, then no, I won't treat those aspects with respect. Sorry Charlie.

There are numerous things about Iraqi society which piss me off immensely (such as the treatment of women) and others which I just think incredibly dumb (eg. celebratory gunfire) maybe in the long term in a softly, softly cultural imperialist fashion I’d like to show these guys the error of their ways (not that we are really any better as far as domestic violence goes) but in the short term at least I think we should put all our efforts into attainting basic security and trying not to piss them off.

It seems what we have here is someone (me) taking a deliberately detached view based upon best conduct and what’s best for troops and occupation overall and someone with more of a direct feeling of empathy with the troops (you) realising just how difficult that can be on the ground. I hope they can find a way to reconcile these pressure upon the ground more successfully than we are managing on this board.

[Lonestar]

Just wanting to establish how far this multilateral thing of yours went, on the issue of France and the “War on Terror” they’ve been fighting Islamic nutters for years home and abroad and have in fact for years been accusing the rest of the west (and that includes you USA) of not giving the issue the focus it deserved. On the subject of the international war on terrorism I think you should remember the US’s conspicuous and consistent failure to stop the IRA raising funds in the US. It really does seem to many Europeans that the US only really woke up to the realities of terrorism on 9.11 and it irks us to be lectured about it.

Hey buddy, I read between the lines. For instance, If one of our Allies *cough* Spain *cough* could not find it politically expedient to retain troops in Iraq but send more to, say, Afghanistan, To me it's a Hell of a lot more understanding than just an out and out "fuck-you". I'm in the service, and I have my share of coworkerss who don't see things in gray at all, unfortunately.

I suppose it’s somewhat ironic that the troubles in Northern Ireland seem to have equipped UK troops for the occupation whilst the US’s years of comparative stability have left you unprepared. I advise you provoke a violent separatist movement somewhere in the US if you mean to continue your interventionist foreign policy.

I'm sure we'll handle those vile Christian Fundalmentalists eventually. :p

I agree with your comments on the lack of troops and general handling of the occupation but I don’t think you can interpret a few dramatic clips of a statue being pulled down by US troops whilst a few thousands Iraqis watch and cheer and a repeatedly shown clip of an old guy hitting a portrait of Saddam with a shoe as proof that the Iraqi’s wanted to be occupied.

Locals often see it as politic to greet their new rulers give them flowers and so forth (I’m sure you’ve seen archive footage of crowds of Czech’s “greeting” Hitler) but the footage of “cheering” crowds of Iraqis I’ve seen seems extremely limited leading me to suspect that there may not be all that much footage of happy Iraqis at all. Bear in mind over 1,000,000 Britons (a much greater proportion of our opulation than you saw cheering on the streets of Iraq) marched against the war this in no way means that all or even most Britons opposed the war (even if they do now).

Yeah, but weren't those clips of "Sudetenland" germans?

I was surprised by your comment partially because it closely resembled the much ridiculed Limbaugh hazing comments and because whilst the actions themselves may be in someway be akin to extreme initiation rites I don’t think that this in any way excuses or explains them. The context and atmosphere in which the hazing and abuse took place are so totally different as to make the actual nature of the acts relatively insignificant (though I must say I hope you were never threatened with and bitten by guard dogs and smeared in human excrement).

No, I didn't. While I loved the college, and the Cadet company I was in, I was shocked and disgusted when I heard what those would-be marine officers did.

I did learn to hate Ms. Reville, the Mini-Collie whose the mascot of A&M. I hate that Bitch.

There are numerous things about Iraqi society which piss me off immensely (such as the treatment of women) and others which I just think incredibly dumb (eg. celebratory gunfire) maybe in the long term in a softly, softly cultural imperialist fashion I’d like to show these guys the error of their ways (not that we are really any better as far as domestic violence goes) but in the short term at least I think we should put all our efforts into attainting basic security and trying not to piss them off.

It seems what we have here is someone (me) taking a deliberately detached view based upon best conduct and what’s best for troops and occupation overall and someone with more of a direct feeling of empathy with the troops (you) realising just how difficult that can be on the ground. I hope they can find a way to reconcile these pressure upon the ground more successfully than we are managing on this board.

I hope so too.