US helicopter opened fire on civilian crowd

200

I expect civil war and somehowwhat like a second vietnam for the us..
You know the ppl down there are happy not having Saddam anymore but during the fights there were so many Iraqis killed...
Now they are angry.... That starts somekind of spiral..
Ofcourse the US shouldnt leave now because that would end up in civilwar.
Its a mess but now its there... Could have been avoided with not attacking the country..
And please dont tell me this is all about helping the people..
The US gouvernement isnt that foolish is it?
They want to make some out of it.. They dont care if the poor ppl who become their soldiers die.. Its all about the
Just a matter of time how long the US citizens can take the causulties...

And again: AlienQ would you go to Iraq? Fight for democracy and freedom?

Hey drunky, you forgot to log back in as theking before quoting yourself.

There you go, good work.

Don't worry, everyone believes you're not Pathfinder and bustit.

Have another drink old man.

Hey Fuckhead, I thought you put me on ignore.

Kill them all so they can have Democracy.

You are, and that's the last time I waste a second of my time listening to the rantings of a drunk old lunatic.

My ignore list =

pathfinder
theking
bustit

...all the same, sad old man.

I don't hate you, I hope one day you'll get some help. Until then you're not my problem, so from now on don't bother commenting on my posts because I will never read your bs again.

Also please stop making new nicks to agree with yourself. If you're going to keep doing that email me so I can preemptively put them on ignore.

Thanks.

You just revealed your level of intelligence didn't you? You should look up the word 'among' in the dictionary. Now run along and don't come back till you've finished grade 6.

Wow. This Pathfinder apparently did a number on your brain.

Cool.

But they're so rich in stupidity!

This is what the 3rd shift of International Quarterbacks?

Read the whole thread before sticking your foot in your mouths as usual.

I will address you when you got a better perspective and over 4000 Posts.

Thanks and love...

Bullshit, tens of thousands of Iraqis died so that Iraqi oil could be sold in US Dollars instead of Euros.

I would love to hear you try to explain why this war is being fought. Seriously... please help us understand.

Since when did post count equate to IQ?

you only wish it did

You've proved my point.

I can't help but think that the US has done to itself in Iraq what Bin Laden wanted to do to it in Afghanistan.

A crash-course for those of you who don't know what bin Laden's game is...

bin Laden's overarching goal is the re-unification of the muslim world. Back in the day (around the turn of the last millenium), the moorish caliphate stretched from what are now portugal to india. Moorish society represented the pinnacle of culture, science and trade, and was very tolerant of other religions (jew, christian, muslim and hindi lived together with relative peace). It was to muslims a golden age of enlightenment, and certainly something desirous to return to.

To simplify, various things happened to this empire (as do happen to all empires) and the caliphate degenerated until the 1800/1900s where it was finally conquered and dismantled by european interests (france taking algeria, england in iraq, etc) which for a great deal of time broke the spirit of muslims by keeping them separated and fractuous, playing nationalist interests against religous. Yet every good muslim remembers the good old days when they were on top, and quite a number I suspect still yearn for a return to that golden age.

Enter bin Laden and the Mujahedeen, fighting against the latest incarnation of over 200 years of 'crusades'... but this time it was different, this time the muslim didn't fight valiantly and lose... it fought valiantly AND WON. Against a superpower. Muslims, by means of bin Laden and "the foundation of the jihad" (al-Qaeda al-Jihadi), realized that they were not a permanently conquered people.

Now, say you're a muslim extremist in 1988 with grand plans of ressurecting the caliphate. There's a number of factors in the way of reunification... not the least of which that a number of muslim live in rather secular countries now (iraq, jordan, syria etc), or are controlled by corrupt governments which are beholden to non-muslims (eygpt, saud, UAE etc). So, you start sending some of your most trusted comrades-in-arms these countries, hopefully with the help and backing of local people who agree with your point of view, and forment uprisings or aid resistance groups... like, say, trying to waylay the egyptian head of state while he's driving around ethiopia.

This goes on for a few years and the mujahedeen (now starting to be known tenatively as 'al-Qaeda' after the list of names of the mujahedeen members) doesn't gain a lot of traction. At the same time israel becomes more and more of a thorn in the collective muslim side. bin Laden's no dummy, he knows that the reason egypt, saudi arabia, israel and so on can supress uprisings effeciently is due to massive foreign subsidies by the "far enemy", the US.

So he takes a gamble, sends a few guys over and they make a very public show of force, hoping that the yanks will tuck tail and run. This, of course, didn't happen... but that was anticipated. bin Laden's back-up plan was to bog down american forces in a long scale guerilla war much like they successfully fought with Russia... however, miscalculating americans deep fear of actual combat, he was outmanoevered when the US opted for a tactic of air superiority and subverting northern warlords to do all the dirty work. If it remained there, it could be said today that the afghanistan war was a successful campaign which broke the back of the mujahedeen and quashed the dream of reunification for now.

Except, of course, it DIDN'T remain there. In a move that must have seemed to bin Laden as though Mohammed himself put the peices into place, not one, but TWO massive opportunities presented themselves in Iraq.

One, the brutally effective secular government of Saddam Hussein was overthrown, and Ali Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr have risen to prominence as local heirophants. Both are Ayatollahs, both command a great deal of respect and loyalty amongst iraqis and other muslims, and neither of them are playing ball with the current puppet regime or the americans. With this stroke of unmitigated good fortune, the chances of an islamic revolution in Iraq are high. He must have giggled like a mental patient when he heard about it.

Two, the americans bogged themselves down into the ugly guerilla war that bin Laden was seeking in afghanistan. While not 100% optimal for his purposes, it serves as an outstanding showcase for his message: The west will kill your children and rape your women, they want you all dead, if you don't rise up to defend yourselves you'll be slaves forever and you CAN rise up AND WIN... remember Afghanistan. The message is obviously getting out, and has been rather effective. Additionally, the US has had to commit billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and face growing ostricizism from the rest of the world for its unilateral stance.

Which brings us to today, with the US embedded into a war that will be very difficult to 'win'. The irony of the situation is that removing the secular baathist government has made it far more likely that islamic revolution will win the public's support there than democracy, thus making the whole area even LESS west-friendly, and at high costs of diplomatic capital, treasure and lives.

In short, people should think carefully about what they break. You never know what's going to end up replacing it... and in that part of the world, it's got a habit of being uglier than what was there to begin with.

Totally obessed...the same voices that told you...you own three of the largest casinos on the net and have three degrees...have taken total control of your wee little mind. FYI...I will continue to point out your ignorance and lack of insight to current events and world affairs. Ignore till your hearts content but others will pay attention to your ignorance.

Interesting post...but I do not agree with some of your conclusions. To my thinking the US invasion of Iraq was a forward thinking extention on the war against "terrorism". Out side of the fact that Iraq is strategically located to confront other potential enemy nations in the AO...it is an effort to develop a Democratic Republic in the midst of the mid east and create a "jewel"...if you will...in the mid east...in an effort to change the face of the mid east over the next several decades.

From the beginning I have had doubts that our mission will be successful...because from the beginning I opined that it would take a minimum of a decade and probably several to develop a stable Democracy in Iraq...and if history repeats itself the American people will do what they did during the Vietnam era and take to the streets in mass demanding the withdrawal of our military forces...before the mission is accomplished. I suspect this scenario will ultimately be the case.

I blame the politicians for micro managing our military...much as they did during the Vietnam conflict. If they would simply step aside and allow our military to do their job...as it should be done...in the short run there would be a large number of Iraq's killed...but in the long run...this act would save Iraqi lives...as it would shorten the conflict and a reasonably secure Iraq would be the result. In addition...it would prolong the American people taking to the streets...demanding the withdrawal of our forces...which in turn would provide more time to accomplish the ultimate mission...which is to establish a reasonably stable Democratic Republic in Iraq.

I am a supporter of the effort...but I am becoming more and more frustrated with our politicians micro management of the military. This was a major problem during the Vietnam conflict and is becoming more and more of a problem in the current conflict.

You might be too young to remember this, but this war started in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait - our ally. We kicked their asses all the way back to Iraq. Before we did this, the Iraqis looted the country, killed thousands of innocent people, and raped the women of Kuwait in bulk. On their way out, the Iraqi army set fire to nearly 600 oil wells.

Because we are not war mongers and had no desire to take over Iraq, the UN was kind enough to broker a peace treaty. This same peace treaty was violated within months and a defacto state of war existed for nearly ten years. They fired at our planes, and we bombed their missile sites.

From what I read the heliocopters were fired on from the crowd, which really shouldn't be a suprise being as that Bradley fighting vehicles are armed with some pretty powerful weapons.

If I lived in a warzone and a tank or what not exploded on my street - I sure as hell wouldn't be hanging around. Not to mention that any tank is loaded with ammo that could go off... You know someone's coming back to get it.

Oh, and yes, they did fucking laugh and dance in the streets after 9/11.

Keep in mind Iraq was a sitting duck to...
It was exposed and it was weak and ready to be taken by someone.

Iran and the Turks were going to go in possibly as well or ultimatly break Iraq after all the work America and the UN put into it before the invasion and after Kuwait.

From a strategic stand point it was either this term or the next one to secure Iraq or let it fall wayside to Iranian, Turkish and SYrian interests.

On another note to keep in mind...

If Iran, Syria or the Turks moved in it would be a Horrendously more bloody war with far more deaths, WAY more deaths.

True, but maybe you're to young to remember why Iraq had the equipment and military power to invade Kuwait.

They had the equipment and military power because the Russians supplied the majority of the their military hardware...but the French and Germans also supplied them. The US did not supply any military hardware to Iraq ever...other than a half dozen rotorary wing aircraft (not gun ships) and indirectly supplied some cluster bombs during the Iraq/Iran conflict.

My thoughts are only one possible extension of what may happen based on my personal explorations. I am yet just a dilettante in the analysis of these things... If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Democratic principles are not unknown in the region... I simply don't believe that they wish to have a democracy. I believe that because democracy by its very nature puts faith in decisions affecting people into the hands of men, and those who are rigid adherents to religious precepts are far more apt to put their fate in 'god's hands (or god's personal representatives) than take it into their own. Not that this makes them any lesser in any significant way, to my eyes they're simply more comfortable in a system of that sort for now.

Now, take a muslim boy at a young age and put him into a society with a secular or atheistic focus, chances are he'll be far more accepting of democratic (and more generally, humanist) principles. There's nothing inherent to arabs that they're antidemocratic or 'freedom haters' (which is about as insipid a term as I can conceive of). It seems to me that the way to encourage a democracy to form then is to help the people think more along the lines that you do. That won't happen by killing them... in fact, it's far more likely that they'll reject strenuously every influence, positive AND negative, that you'd bring.

I would further postulate that there is a crisis of democracy currently being played out in the US itself. One of the prime reasons for this crisis is, I believe, the rise of religous extremism and its baleful effects on politics there. Take, for example, Bush's concept that he doesn't need to answer to the population who ostensibly placed him in power because 'he answers to a higher power'. That one comment alone should send chills down the spine of anyone who has studied history, and is aware of the pathos of warrior kings as direct descendants of god.

This is, however, what democracy looks like. There's a large number of people in your country and around the world who do not believe that the ends justify the means... the idea of the concrete deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians for an abstract ideal which may never be fully realized (or for the more concrete ideal of simple plunder and conquest) rankles against many who don't feel they have a 'manifest destiny'. It's not surprising that many of those who protest have rejected an overtly religious lifestyle, although it IS surprising that the more pious aren't protesting more. Christianity in particular is rife with references of pacifism, tolerance and cooperating which is in direct opposition to the basic precepts of nation building ("we had to destroy the village to save it").

because they have 1/5 of the worlds oil supply and they bought it. don't start trying to imply that the US armed Iraq. Russia sold them almost everything they had from SCUDS and mobile launchers to thousands of tanks to SAM systems to AK-47's.

Actually, Iraq had an eclectic collection of arms from countries all over the world, including (it is alleged) from the US via halliburton and other channels, and the UK. War is not an obstacle when there's money to be made... in fact, quite the opposite for many of these companies.

Here's a couple links to that effect, as tin foily as they may seem. You can take them prima facia, or do additional research as you desire:

Full List of Weapons Suppliers to Iraq
An expose by the Mirror (read down a bit)

Well they shuouldnt have been standing there.
Stupid people.

The US and the UK supplied Iraq with plenty of chemicals to gass a few thousand Kurds after which Rumsfeld flew all the way to Iraq to give Saddam a friendly handshake: "Well done, Saddam. Who cares about civilians anyway?"

Sounds like the US and WW2.

Even if the US military was a lot harder in the initial stages, there would still be plenty of insurgents now, perhaps more They wouldn't have all come out of the wood work.

I'm not sure it's possible to win a guerilla war like this.. It reminds me a lot more of the Mujahideen versus the Soviets than Vietnam. No doubt some of the same players too.

That's the sad thing about war, everything is fair and no way you can tell if what you did was wrong or right. sad....

thats a little misleading. the bulk of weapons that compose a military fighting force that they have/had... i.e. planes, tanks, rifles, radar systems, surface to air missile systems, long range offensive missile systems etc etc etc etc were Russian. the fact that Iraq imported flight suits, helmets, chemical weapons suits or whatever, does not make the world complicit in Iraqs endeavors.

regardless, i agree with you somewhat. at the end of the day, its all about money and power and whether you are winning or losing it.

"The heaviest fighting for months erupted in the centre of Baghdad yesterday, only a brief stroll from the office of the prime minister, Ayad Allawi. Witnesses said at least 13 Iraqis were killed and 55 wounded after US helicopters attacked a crowd of unarmed demonstrators dancing round a burning Bradley armoured vehicle."

I have seen the images on the news this morning. That journalist was standing pretty far from the vehicle and looked quite relaxed and then he suddenly got struck. Stains of his blood covered the lens of the camera.

This was in response to your claiming that the American Revolutionary war was a *French* victory.

I can look again, but I'm certian I'm right, that the American colonists did most of the fighting, and Benjamin cited the trouble with persuading the French to help that *they weren't sure if we would win or not.*

You've become pretty Germanized living over there in Germany haven't you?

My sister in law lives in Germany (born here), and they have her heard full of stuff like *the US had Pearl Harbor coming* because we were blocking oil imports to Japan.

and other such inane stuff.

BTW, what happened with the " Operation Iraqi FREEDOM " ... You know, the thing about the Iraqis beggng to be delivered from the evil dictator ????

Is this what is happening, because I don't see it....

These are the foreign *insurgents/terrorists* that are causing all of the mayhem.

The Iraqi people want freedom, but many if not most apparently don't have the balls to stand up to the insurgents.

They have to be willing to fight for themselves.

Years of malnutrition and brain-washing may cause a certain confusion among them as to who is the real enemy.

The Iraqis have been protesting Al-Sadr in Najaf.

That's something.

They're starting to see the potential of democracy.

Many Iraqi policeman have died fighting the insurgents (from Iran? Syria?)

Eh, Al-Sadr IS an Iraqi. His father was tortured and killed by Saddam.

The people living in places like Falluya, Basra, Al-Kut, etc are also Iraqis.

The people tortured in Abu Ghraib were all iraqis as well.

Of course there are foreign fighters in Iraq but only Fox news wants you to believe there are thousands of them. Let's face it most of the resistance against US occupation comes from the Iraqi's themselves and looking at these kind of incidents, torture scandals and the use of WMD in urban areas, that doesn't come as a surprise.

What does it bring you to have the most advanced weaponary in the world if the military leaders are clearly brainless? But then again, also the Bush guy in power is a complete moron.

I'm seeing it. The new Iraqi government is in power and is deciding the future of the country. At the same time you have the entire former Iraqi armed forces armed to the hilt with nothing to do. So they are killing Iraqi policemen who are trying to provide security to those who want it.

I love it when they bomb their own pipeline. It's kind of funny. They claim to be acting in the interests of their country, yet all they do is more damage.

Russia , France, Germany, China, Italy..... and the US


Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin

The Reagan administration's Commerce Dept. approved exports to Iraq's SCUD missile program; it was these exports that allowed the extension of the SCUDs' range so that in 1991 they were able to reach Israel and US bases in Saudi Arabia.

In September 1988, Reagan prevented the Senate from putting sanctions on Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons. The US also voted against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons

The Bush administration that year approved dozens of export licenses for sophisticated dual-use equipment to Iraq's weapons ministry.

In October 1989, international banks cut off all loans to Iraq. The Bush administration responded by issuing National Security Directive 26, which mandated closer links with Iraq, and included a $1 billion loan guarantee.



http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true


From July 18 to August 1, 1990, Bush senior's administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq. The end-users included Saad 16 and the Iraqi ministry of industry and military industrialisation. On August 1, $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices were approved.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm


and it was 60 Hughes

boy, are you being fed a load of crap

Russia burned it's own villages during ww2 to prevent the Germans of having food and shelter...

French resistance bombed their own train tracks and ports to do the same...

Why wouldn't the iraqis bomb the pipelines tp prevent the oil to be taken away ...

Don't beleve that it is going to pay to rebuld Iraq... You are not in a rebuilding stage now, but a destruction one...

The US are bombing cities and villages...

Anyway, if it makes you feel better, the US really helped Iraq and did it only as a good heart nature.

El-Sadr : fought because he saw the OPPORTUNITY to set up a Shiite-controlled government. Iran provided him with money and weapons and foreign fighters, not to mention the Shiite poor in Najaf who also saw this as an opportunity to obtain a post in power.

It was a power grab by Al-Sadr--he took advantage of the popular stigma and buzz word of *occupation* to remove us as an obstacle to his power grab.

Falluja was and is a Sunni stronghold, and Saddam favored them.


That's not realistic. Our military commanders are brainless? This is what some people call Monday-morning quarterbacking.

At worst, we greatly OVER-estimated the difficulties that would be encountered, and the courage of the Iraqi population to seize the chance for freedom.

Lifetime brainwashing is a difficult thing to overcome. This is brainwashing that has occurred over a lifetime, and brainwashing from a short 3-month *CULT* like the Moonies was difficult to overcome.

Abu Ghraib was and is blown way out of proportion.

The New York Times is your newspaper of choice? right?

And, saying Bush is a moron is moronic.

this is a doctor speaking:



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in541815.shtml

Probably another " foreign fighter" ....


BTW, aren't US troops " foreign feighters " ?

It is common knowledge that US companies supplied dual use materials...where in this information is the military hardware...ie...tanks-APC's-planes-artillery-small arms-munitions etc. etc.

Oh, you misunderstand if we think your country's approval is worth anything

Yes, and the Nazis during WWII destroyed quite a few of their Jewish slaves at the last moment when our troops were just miles away on ground.

As well, we destroyed much of Germany , and then with the Marshall Plan helped to rebuild it--not only Germany but England and Japan as well.

We could have simply taken a scorched earth policy