Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 64

Read the whole article. It goes into more detail.

What has been happening is that the insurgents in Fallujah have been boobytrapping dead bodies, and having fighters get in among the dead and wounded, then attack the Marines when they are vulnerable. They have gotten to the point that they have to be extremely careful about each person they think is dead.

The man in question was among a group of dead fighters. The marine was in the mosque, saw this movement among dead bodies, and reacted the way he had to. There was no way that he knew whether the movement was a fighter bringing up a gun, setting off a bomb, or just what it was. There was movement where there shouldn't have been. After seeing several other marines get killed in similar situations, he reacted instantly.

He did exactly what he had to do. It wasn't an execution. It was a reaction to a very dangerous situation.

I was referring to the entire article as being excellent. Bob Lonsberry is a great commentator, and makes a lot of great points. Read the whole thing. He is explaining what happened, why, and what it means.

Iraq War Post

I just finished reading the article and I was not impressed. He is very bias obviously but I do not think that this guy should be let free. If there is a tape and his actions are controversial, then it should be investigated.

And I think his statement above is the key. The Marine didn't know. You don't shot someone on the head, just because of the possibility that they meant to harm Americans. You need to know what you're doing.

Edited: LDS_forever on 17th Nov, 2004 - 5:39pm

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

Nighthawk, how the enemy is fighting? What about the hundreds of bombs dropped by the U.S. The US is the best equipped army in the world and the enemy is simply using what it has at it's disposal. The US killed without mercy over 1200 combattants and god knows how may civilians, how can we compare.

The point I was making, (in my previous posting) is the execution of unarmed people, will not help de US gain respect in Iraq or for that matter any where in the World. The US broke the rules of the Geneva convention, and that in my book makes the US no better than any other roque country.

The question to be asked, is that we are now aware of 1 US marine murdering an unarmed combattant.. How many more US soldiers have done the same thing????

As for the increase in terrorism, the increase started with the invasion of Iraq. There are more terrorist today in Iraq than ever before

In the end, there is no justification for executing unarmed combattants and absolutely no reason for the US to have invaded Iraq.

Edited: MrB on 17th Nov, 2004 - 6:00pm

Page 64 Iraq War Post

The Geneva Convention is specifically designed to provide for civilized treatment of enemy combatants within a war between uniformed forces. Under the Geneva Conventions, it is illegal for either force to booby trap corpses, for armed combatants to hide among civilians or wounded, or for them to use hospitals and/or ambulances (or churches, synagogues, or mosqes) as combat positions. Yet the opposing forces in Iraq in general and Fallujah in particular completely disregard all of these things. The US does as much as it can to abide by those conventions, but can't follow them. When they are attacked from a mosque, they have no choice but to attack back. When they have been repeatedly attacked by "wounded, unarmed" men, they have to adopt a more aggressive stance.

It wasn't an execution. The marine had to respond to a dangerous situation. He didn't go around shooting every wounded person he saw, but shot an individual who was expected to be dead, but wasn't, who could have been rolling over to shoot the marine. If he took the time to stand back, wait for the guy to roll over or stand up, then determine whether or not the guy was a real threat, he and several other marines (and probably the "journalist") would have been dead or injured. He is in battle! This wasn't behind the lines, in a POW camp, during interrogation, or any other situation. This was actually a battle.

I certainly haven't said that there shouldn't be an investigation. However, the liberals around the world have already judged this marine, and will howl for decades if he isn't sent to the stockade, based on their "armchair quarterback" assessment of what he was up against. The investigation should be to show the world that yes, he was acting appropriately.

I can guarantee, 100%, that if you were in the same situation, in a shooting battle, and you walked into a room where a group of corpses had been gathered, and one of them started moving, you would take action. Especially if you had seen some of your friends killed in exactly the same situation earlier that day. It wasn't premeditated. It was a reaction within an extremely dangerous situation, and it was exactly right. This is warfare - not an episode of "Cops" where there are four or five police officers surrounding a single dangerous man. It isn't a movie. It is a warrior trying to accomplish his mission, and survive it.

As far as the justification for the invasion of Iraq, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of normal Iraqi people who now have lives. Whose children are no longer in prison. Whose wives and daughters are no longer subject to the rape rooms. Who can be comfortable that they won't end up in mass graves.

Yes, there have been deaths. There have been unexcusable deaths. There have been innocent victims of war. But don't place all the blame on the Americans. It isn't US marines and soldiers who are going around kidnapping and beheading innocent people. Nor are they planting bombs in crowded shopping centers. They are fighting a war.

If you don't think that war in Iraq was necessary, what alternative would you have preferred? A couple hundred thousand more dead Iraqis at the hands of the madman? How about if he just continued to bleed his own people dry by subverting all the UN programs, for his own enrichment? How about if he helped one of the terrorist groups set off a nuclear bomb in Toronto, at the same time they did in NYC, Chicago, and Washington, DC? These were, and are, very real scenarios. Perhaps he didn't have a viable nuclear program. He was contributing money to the Pakistani program. Would he have been able to route resources to them, and purchase a couple of bombs from them? Quite possibly.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY?

Iraq War Post

Nighthawk, all of the above did not occur prior to the the US invasion, and yes the US is 100% the blame. Over 100,000 people killed, tortures, and now executions, no water in certain area's, no electricity, no security at all, no peace in sight. How does this make you the good guys

How can you compare a bomb in a shopping center, to thousands of bombs dropped by the US. Fallujah an is totally wiped out . What is the difference and who started the war? As for the rebels not being real soldiers and not falling under the Geneva convention is a very weak argument. Yes terrorist make up part of the resistance, but a great number are freedom fighters, fighting to rid their country of an invading force.

To finish up, what I saw on TV, it was a murder and it's being perceived as such around the world. It's a question of discipline. Secondly to breach the Geneva Convention, which you admit the US is doing raises a fundamental moral question.
And finally I will nerver be convinced that the war in Iraq was called for, and seing how the Iraqis must live today, no way are they better off

Edited: MrB on 17th Nov, 2004 - 8:03pm

Post War Iraq

You're right, all those things didn't happen before the invasion. Instead, Mr. Hussein's henchmen carted little children off to prison, raped women in front of their husbands, children, and parents, murdered literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of their own people (remember the mass graves with over 300,000 buried in them?)

As for 100,000 having been killed since the invasion, how many were killed by the "rebels"? How many of those rebels are actually Iraqis? (Answer - not a very high percentage) They are imported terrorists, maintained by Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

How many thousands of bombs were dropped? Again, not very many. There were some at the beginning of the conflict, precision drops. Is Fallujah really flattened? It doesn't even approximate Berlin in 1945. It is almost entirely habitable.

If the insurgents (again, mostly foreign nationals) are covered by the Geneva Conventions, then doesn't that imply that they must also abide by the Geneva Conventions? They don't even begin to. In fact, they repudiate the entire civilization that created the Conventions.

There's no way you will change my mind. You can argue all you want that the invasion of Iraq was not right, but the fact now is that we are there. What is your answer to the situation now, and what will be the consequences of YOUR choice, if it were implemented?

More of them have electricity than ever before in their lives. There is more potable water available than in the last 3 decades. More schools are now open than ever before in history. People have jobs. People are allowed to access the internet, satellite TV, telephones, and other information sources for the first time ever. There is a thriving entrepreneurial economy going. Real universities are being created. There is food available in the markets. There is foreign investment.

How are their lives worse now than two years ago? Oh, yes. Their government won't rape the women for them anymore. Big difference.

Edited: Nighthawk on 18th Nov, 2004 - 12:54am

Post War Iraq - Page 64

Here is another article about what happened in Fallujah a couple of days ago.

https://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005911
(quote is from the middle of the article)

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 64

No way do I condone the terrorist in Iraq. You are right, they are without a question very vicious people and should be eliminated. However, among the Iraqis fighters, there is a fair % that are Iraqis fighting the occupier of their land, and these people should not be considered has terrorist.

We will never agree on the justification of the invasion of Iraq nor on the conduct of the US, in Iraq.

To answer your question (if I understood it) I don't know what the US should do. The US got it's self in one bad mess and the situation is completely out of control. One thing for sure, as long as the killing continues (both sides) the current situation will just worsen.