Yeah!!!! Stick it to those mother$%^& and break it off!!!!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by JohnT

Then again, maybe Asimov* was right.

Then again, maybe this is not bias, but about consistent idiocy from the Bush regime. After the fall of the taliban, they went completely gaga within their ideological lala-land.

[JohnT]

Sadly, this pattern took shape long before Bush came into office.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Where?

Local online newspaper, I assume they got it from the wires. Which is why I had an "if correct" there.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by JohnT
Sadly, this pattern took shape long before Bush came into office.

That's not correct, I was grudgingly in favour of the Kosovo war, for example. But Greenspan has always been an idiot, if you mean that.

But go ahead, establish that pattern.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Which is why I had an "if correct" there.

Sorry. I was curious in light of the upward revision in the casualty reports and assumed that you had at least some basis in fact for the post because I haven't seen any basis for the assumption in the stories I've read thus far.

[JohnT]

"But go ahead, establish that pattern."

Not my pattern to establish. I just note trends, not make them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
It's the worthless statement that you seem to be justifying. The men who authorized and carried out the gassing of an entire Kurdish town. They qualify as a worthless piece of ****. A stupid teenager doesn't.

It depends. Teenage fighters and suiciders aren't uncommon in the ME, and the US has had teenage casualties. When I was in my teens, I had a similar age friend whose family had just moved from Beirut. (This was in the mid-70's) At ten years old he'd been a courier in one of the militias, at 12 a weapons and ammo carrier, and at 16 a combat veteran. Get him out of the environment, and luckily, he was fairly well adjusted and a cool kid, but he was certainly capable of killing.

Instead you stick to you straw man examples, hotheaded teenagers and macho testosterone junkies (which I tried to use, hoping you would see the point). Most of the dead are individuals who just didn't understand the rules, or how they worked, or just panicked. Often children are passengers in those cars, and just as often they are casualties. You don't address that issue at all.

Gee, children being used as weapons for propaganda purposes in war? Who would do such a thing?

"didn't understand the rules" is more than a bit disingenuous - the Baath/Hussein regime was totalitarian, and there were checkpoints and access controls to numerous places in Iraq - it's not like the concept is new to anyone, and the operations of US checkpoints are certainly not new either.

And who's to say at this point that every "martyr" has to carry a load of explosives - simply running a checkpoint as an "innocent civilian" - getting killed is getting killed, and if one martyr does it to score a propaganda and psychological victory by blowing up diplomats or Iraqi police or the UN, who's to say the other martyr doesn't do it to score a propaganda victory be deliberately testing a checkpoint?

Once you start seeing the unintended, and unfortunately inevitable, casualties at those checkpoints as a worthless piece of ****, your occupying force is on the way to losing.

When you're in a kill or somebody else will be killed situation, with no pause button, no reload cheat, no chance to hesitate or think it over, and there's no good excuse for running the checkpoint - if people "panic" the normal reactions are backing up, turning around, stopping before the checkpoint, bailing out of the vehicle - not accellerating straight toward the checkpoint and ignoring warning shots.

Fortunely, the American GI's don't see these casualties as you do. That's what makes me proud. They are emotionally torn up, often in tears, as they have tried to mend the broken bodies that they have no choice (see, I still agree with you on how these check points need to be run) in making.

There's a difference between small kids as passengers with no choice in their actions and no possible threat, and the drivers of those vehicles who force the escalation to fire for effect.

I can't remember, somebody took a photo of a GI with one of those kids, I caught the interview. If that GI could talk to you, after holding the mangled kid in his arms, I have a suspicion he wouldn't be quite so, shall we so, reasonable in his disagreement.

Most of these guys have never been under fire, and never fired a shot at a live target before. Again, you distinguish between unavoidable victims, and those whose deliberate actions cause those casualties.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I am sad you are going over there to represent our country.

Don't listen to this jagoff, Oerdin. I'm proud of you and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Here's hoping you help grease some of those sacks of **** and come home in one piece.

i am also proud

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Sorry, I meant are you a combat engineer?

oh, no. i may eventually have an engineering degree tho, and its always nice to see my fellow academics kicking ass

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Thorgal

Why not? US soldiers are so scared... It would not be strange at all.

Actually, it would be extremely strange, because we train them to fire in specific sectors and overwatch each other, and if Americans (or anyone else) are "firing indiscriminately" that's an ineffective defensive posture that renders you very susceptible to unnecessary casualties.

Also, it's typical of dumbass reporters who have no military experience to make inaccurate characterizations of what's happening, even if they see it.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sorry. I was curious in light of the upward revision in the casualty reports and assumed that you had at least some basis in fact for the post because I haven't seen any basis for the assumption in the stories I've read thus far.

Which I haven't seen either, there is no reference to a body count regarding the 54 killed. Oddly enough, the local Iraqi morgue reported 8 dead IIRC, so maybe some bureaucrat in uniform just added it to the 46 estimate.

[Thorgal]

It seems most deads ´attackers´ are not Saddam loyalists, but civilians fighting in self defence when US soldiers began firing ramdom.

From Yahoo News :

Many residents said Saddam loyalists attacked the Americans, but that when U.S. forces began firing at random, many civilians got their guns and joined the fight. Many said residents were bitter about recent U.S. raids in the night.

"Why do they arrest people when they're in their homes?" asked Athir Abdul Salam, a 19-year-old student. "They come at night to arrest people. So what do they expect those people to do?"

"Civilians shot back at the Americans," said 30-year-old Ali Hassan, who was wounded by shrapnel in the battle. "They claim we are terrorists. So OK, we are terrorists. What do they expect when they drive among us?"

Many residents said the Americans opened fire at random when they came under attack, and targeted civilian installations. Six destroyed vehicles sat in front of the hospital, where witnesses said U.S. tanks shelled people dropping off the injured. A kindergarten was damaged, apparently by tank shells. No children were hurt.

"Luckily, we evacuated the children five minutes before we came under attack," said Ibrahim Jassim, a 40-year-old guard at the kindergarten. "Why did they attack randomly? Why did they shoot a kindergarten with tank shells?

And i give much more credibility to many residents, radomly selected by ´dumbass reporters´ and without relation between them, than any US military official saying what somebody in washington has ordered.

[DinoDoc]

Why let facts get in the way of a good theory, eh?

[DanS]

I don't know how to reconcile the body counts. That's a definite question.

And i give much more credibility to many residents, radomly selected by ´dumbass reporters´ and without relation between them, than any US military official saying what somebody in washington has ordered.

I don't. You left out the pro-Saddam demonstration that was going on when the reporters arrived. In this situation, the agendas become pretty thick.

[JohnT]

And i give much more credibility to many residents, radomly selected by ´dumbass reporters´ and without relation between them, than any US military official saying what somebody in washington has ordered.

In short, you give credence to those who support your biases. As do we all.