# US shooting at civilians? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 29, 2003, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884 "2003-04-29T11:01:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/61 "2003-05-01T02:09:41Z")
Well **Magiver** , Produce one well documented instance of “brainwashed arab”, and then we’ll talk. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/62 "2003-05-01T02:35:14Z")
Magiver, Brainwashed or not the fact is they dislike being invaded and occupied. If that is a sign of brainwashing then I think the entire planet is brainwashed. Nobody likes his country invaded and occupied by foreign people. To think a people will like the invader because he brings some material wealth is to not understand the most basic human emotions. People prefer to be independent before all. Or do you think Americans would like to be ruled by Russians if they were each given a new car? Is this because Americans have been brainwashed? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/63 "2003-05-01T02:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > \*\*Well **Magiver** , > > Produce one well documented instance of “brainwashed arab”, and then we’ll talk. \*\* I’m not sure who you’re referring to as “Arab”. that is an ethnic characterization. If you mean Iraqis (who are predominantly Arab) then my original statement stands. Saddam had a Minister of Information. You could ask someone who questioned the truthfulness of the information but you would need a shovel. If you’re referring to Muslims then you have to look at the Taliban. These are religious schools. Students are taught nothing but the Quran and to hate Israel and the United States. I call that brain washing. This has been done extensively in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Algeria etc… Kids are taken at a very early age into this indoctrination. Quote: “The Taleban said their aim was to set up the world’s most pure Islamic state, banning frivolities like television, music and cinema”. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south\_asia/144382.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/144382.stm) Type in Taleban or Taliban and see what you get. You will find a lot of the money for these schools comes from the Muslim requirement of charity. It’s pretty scary when you consider Osama started a lot of this 10 years ago. That is serious planning. And while I’m on the subject of the Muslim religion, try badmouthing a Mullah (be sure to include your address so they can “discuss it” with you). I would certainly call it a complete lack of free speech. That’s pretty close to brainwashing when you can’t utter any discent or even question the wisdom of a cleric. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/64 "2003-05-01T03:19:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Magiver, Brainwashed or not the fact is they dislike being invaded and occupied. If that is a sign of brainwashing then I think the entire planet is brainwashed. Nobody likes his country invaded and occupied by foreign people. To think a people will like the invader because he brings some material wealth is to not understand the most basic human emotions. People prefer to be independent before all. Or do you think Americans would like to be ruled by Russians if they were each given a new car? Is this because Americans have been brainwashed? \*\* The United States has a clear history of defeating her enemies, and then bringing the defeated into the world community. This was a lesson learned in WW-I. We tried to make the Germans pay for the war. It crushed them to the point of WW-II. This is a war. I don’t understand why you don’t under this. If you want to argue about the legitimacy of the war, start another thread. The “feelings” of the Iraqis do not preclude the mission. We didn’t stop to listen to the feelings of the Japanese and they took a serious pasting. We organized a new governement and left (military bases that are there now are by permision). I also think your definition of occupation is misplaced. English words have multiple meanings and you neglect the meaning as it applies in this situation. Occupy: to take possession of and retain control over by force. Occupation: the act of taking or holding possession. The key word in both of these is “possession”. We do not possess Iraq, their wealth is not being taxed, the land is not being sold off. Money is not flowing into the United States in any form. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/65 "2003-05-01T03:41:55Z")
Your definitions do not match the common usage not the dictionary definition. Sorry. Or if I fiond some cites if government officials calling this “occupation” will you tell me they are wrong? \>\> If you want to argue about the legitimacy of the war, start another thread Please show me where I am talking here about the legitimacy of the war. I said Iraqis do not like the American occupation and that is causing problems. You might think they are worng and they should like it but the fact is they don’t like it and the problems are there and that is what this thread is about. the fact is Iraqis are demonstarting daily against the American occupation. What are you gonna do? Kill them? Oh, wait, they are being killed and that is what the thread is about. US winning hearts and minds: “tell me you like me or I kill you”. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/66 "2003-05-01T04:01:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\* > the fact is Iraqis are demonstarting daily against the American occupation. What are you gonna do? Kill them? \*\* Yes, if durring a war, someone shoots at me, I try to kill them. We’re at war, that’s what you do in war. It’s ugly. You can’t shoot at troops and then bitch about someone in your community getting hurt. And I don’t buy the argument about shooting guns in the air. If you’re in a crowd of 100+ angry people and you are discharging an AK47 you are an idiot. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\* > US winning hearts and minds: “tell me you like me or I kill you”. \*\* That’s just weird. Who is saying this? Are soldiers walking up to people and demanding a hug? We are not over there to win their hearts and minds. The soldiers didn’t go to the crowd. The crowd came to the soldiers. We didn’t defeat Japan so we could engage in a love fest. We defeated Japan because we had a national interest in doing so. The Japanese weren’t expected to like it and neither are the Iraqis. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/67 "2003-05-01T04:05:39Z")
I see your solution is to kill more Iraqis and you don’t see that as a problem. Ok, I am not wasting any more time on this. The rest of us think it is a problem. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/68 "2003-05-01T05:25:30Z")
> [@](#): > > We defeated Japan because we had a national interest in doing so. The Japanese weren’t expected to like it and neither are the Iraqis. Tell us again what the US’s “national interest” in Iraq was? On second thought, scratch that. I’ve heard all the lies and distortions about a hundred times too many already. You’re right in one thing though, the Iraqis don’t like your illegal and inmoral occupation. The ones that are left alive that is. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/69 "2003-05-01T07:34:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\*The United States has a clear history of defeating her enemies, and then bringing the defeated into the world community. This was a lesson learned in WW-I. We tried to make the Germans pay for the war. It crushed them to the point of WW-II. \*\* That is about as accurate as saying that the sun is circling around the moon. The ‘pay for the war’ after WWI was largely a French thing, based on not just that war, but that of 1870/71 as well. The contribution by the US to ‘bringing the defeated into the world community’ was merely partial, and to a large part, the US had no involvement in it. (Ever heard of the Elysee Treaties?) Not the least, however, this isn’t the 1940s and 50s, and the failure to comprehend that is a chief factor in the fact that the US has blundered practically every single attempt thereafter. No, the US does NOT have a clear history of defeating her enemies. Where did it do so in Vietnam? Even in Korea, the US birthed a dictatorship whose only virtue in the eyes of the US (and no one else) was that it was non-communist. > [@](#): > > \*\* > This is a war. I don’t understand why you don’t under this. If you want to argue about the legitimacy of the war, start another thread. \*\* The point here is that the world community has a different view than neo-cons as to what a war should look like. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The “feelings” of the Iraqis do not preclude the mission. We didn’t stop to listen to the feelings of the Japanese and they took a serious pasting. We organized a new governement and left (military bases that are there now are by permision). \*\* See above. To draw parallels between Japan and Iraq is a gross statement of ignorance on Iraq. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I also think your definition of occupation is misplaced. English words have multiple meanings and you neglect the meaning as it applies in this situation. > > Occupy: to take possession of and retain control over by force. > > Occupation: the act of taking or holding possession. > \*\* Sorry, but that is Orwellian newspeak. The meaning of occupation is clearly defined in international law, and your mimicking Saddam in his respect for international law is not going to give you more support for your ideas. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The key word in both of these is “possession”. We do not possess Iraq, their wealth is not being taxed, the land is not being sold off. Money is not flowing into the United States in any form. \*\* Oh, really? So what you say is that Halliburton is working for free there? They are NOT being paid with revenue from Iraqi oil? The US did NOT ask to be made the custodian of Iraqi oil revenues instead of the UN? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/70 "2003-05-01T09:32:29Z")
Eye witness to the second shooting: [http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12908278&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=TWO%20KILLED%20IN%20NEW%20IRAQ%20DEMO%20SHOOTING](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12908278&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=TWO%20KILLED%20IN%20NEW%20IRAQ%20DEMO%20SHOOTING) 'IT started when a young boy hurled a sandal at a US jeep - it ended with two Iraqis dead and 16 seriously injured. I watched in horror as American troops opened fire on a crowd of 1,000 unarmed people here yesterday. Many, including children, were cut down by a 20-second burst of automatic gunfire during a demonstration against the killing of 13 protesters at the Al-Kaahd school on Monday. They had been whipped into a frenzy by religious leaders. The crowd were facing down a military compound of tanks and machine-gun posts. The youngster had apparently lobbed his shoe at the jeep - with a M2 heavy machine gun post on the back - as it drove past in a convoy of other vehicles. ‘I counted at least four or five soldiers with binoculars staring at the crowd for weapons but we saw no guns amongst the injured or dropped on the ground.’ When interviewed last night on BBC Radio 5 Live he pointed out that there were bullet holes in the buildings opposite the US machine gun post, but no bullet holes behind the US troups. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/71 "2003-05-01T09:38:00Z")
In passing I also found this: [http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12892681&method=full&siteid=50143](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12892681&method=full&siteid=50143) which is another reason why the average Iraqi will learn to hate the US even if they do not do so already: 'AMERICA was at the centre of a new human rights row last night after four alleged Iraqi thieves were paraded naked in a Baghdad park by US troops. The degraded prisoners had the words "Ali Baba, Haram’’ - “Thief, Unclean” - scrawled in Arabic on their chests. … Group Commander Eric Canaday, of 10th Engineer Corps, is quoted in Dagbladet saying: "I think our job is to keep people out of the park to prevent theft of weapons. "We have started doing several things and I don’t think this is too much.’’’ ---
**Author:** ![lander2k2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@lander2k2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lander2k2)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/72 "2003-05-01T09:59:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sgt. J \* > \*\* > **lander2k2** > > Cite? Even if this is true, does 60% of the Shiite population constitute more than 50% of the Iraqi population? Cite? \*\* I didn’t say “60% of the Shiite population.” I said “the 60% Shiite majority.” The Shiites constitute over 60% of Iraq’s population and therefore make up the majority. [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030422/ts\_usatoday/5089978](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030422/ts_usatoday/5089978) > [@](#): > > \*\*again “inevitably” ?.. Cite? \*\* I will admit that “inevitably” was a poor choice of words. However, it sure does seem to be on the cards. You think that might be a bit of a fly in the ointment if the situation arises that a majority of Iraqis want a religion based sister-state to Iran? You think the Us will settle for that? It seems they might have to choose between instituting a government that is to US liking _or_ institute a supposed real and fair democracy. I really don’t think that Iraqis will willingly vote an American puppet into power. So, my bet is that The US will hold an election and hand-pick the candidates to run. I can just see the headlines now: “IRAQ REALIZES FREEDOM WITH FIRST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.” And many hearts will swell with pride at how America is bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. ---
**Author:** ![lander2k2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@lander2k2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lander2k2)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/73 "2003-05-01T10:43:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > \*\*First of all, understand that a couple of thousand people protesting does not represent “all of Iraq” any more than the hundreds of thousands of people protesting the war here in the States represents all of America. \*\* I think you’re in denial, **msmith537**. Here’s why I think so: You make out like I have said “all of Iraq” has a certain opinion. I realize that it may be easier to argue with some make-believe opinion than with what I’ve actually said, but please don’t delude yourself into thinking that I have this make-believe opinion that you have invented. Also “a couple of thousand” protesters is a gross misrepresentation that may be easier for you to deal with in justifying your views but it doesn’t correspond with the real world. I’m sorry. [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030419/ts\_nm/iraq\_dc\_1606](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030419/ts_nm/iraq_dc_1606) “Tens of thousands” is some multiple of 10,000. It would be generally accepted to be somewhere between 10,000 and 99,000. A “couple of thousand” is generally accepted to be about 2000. Do you understand the difference? And, no, this does not mean that _all_ Iraqis hold the same view as these protesters. But it does indicate that a hell of a lot do. And since the demonstration was from among the Shiite population which constitute over 60% of Iraq’s population, I think you have a significant indicator at hand—that is unless you don’t wish to see what it indicates, in which case it is more convenient to go into denial. > [@](#): > > \*\*Second, whether we have a right to be there or not is irrelevant at this point. We are there now and as the de facto temporary government of Iraq we have a responsibility to make sure that we leave the country in a better condition than we found it. \*\* Are you sure that you don’t wish the issue of America’s very presence to be irrelevant simply because it raises uncomfortable questions? Every single fuck-up that occurs in Iraq, every single clash with protesters, every single American casualty is a direct result of whether or not the US invaded so it is very relevant. I would contest that the entire deal is a no-win situation. The Iraq leader that the US government wants and the Iraqi leader that the Iraqis want is very unlikely to be one and the same. So Bush can stay true to his word and let Iraq put their leader in power or he can continue with his train of bullshit and not give the slightest fuck what the Iraqis want. My bet is on the latter, because they will want some return on their investment. Do you really believe that the US is truly interested in leaving Iraq in better condition? Are you honestly that gullible? Doesn’t the fact that the US government countenanced Saddam’s atrocities for years give you some indication of how much they really give a shit about the poor Iraqis? > [@](#): > > \*\*Explain to me what is “oxymoronic” about imposing a democracy? We are “imposing” the mechanisms for the Iraqis to select their own form of government. Ideally, it will not be a government that, once elected, becomes another dictator for the next 20 years. Some people may buy into the “Squeeky Wheel Gets the Grease Doctrine” that states whoever can make the most noise should rule but I do not. There may in fact be a sizable group of Iraqis who do not want a Islamic fundamentalist government and those people should have a voice as well. If everyone thought the same exact way, there wouldn’t be a need for democracy. > \*\* Here’s some dictionary definitions: oxymoron: a figure of speech in which opposite or contradictory ideas or terms are combined democracy: government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled impose: to force (oneself, one’s presence or will, etc.) on another or others without right or invitation; obtrude To force the population to live according to a system in which they themselves rule…when was the last time you tried to force someone to do what he wanted? Do you need any more help with this? ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/74 "2003-05-01T10:55:51Z")
More accounts [here](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=401718) > [@](#): > > The Americans troops were from the 84th Airborne Division, deployed late last week to stop looting and a roaring local arms trade. They fired at the crowd from Fallujah’s al-Kaat primary and secondary school, a pale-yellow utilitarian concrete building of two storeys and about the length of seven terraced houses. They were shooting from the front of the upper floor and from the roof at people across the road – a distance of several dozen yards. > > According to Lt-Col Eric Nantz, the troops were being shot at and stones had been thrown. They tried to disperse the crowd with loudspeaker warnings but in vain, he said. Under threat, they fired back. > > Yet there are no bullet holes visible at the front of the school building or tell-tale marks of a firefight. The place is unmarked. By contrast, the houses opposite – numbers 5, 7, 9, and 13 – are punctured with machine-gun fire, which tore away lumps of concrete the size of a hand and punched holes as deep as the length of a ballpoint pen. Asked to explain the absence of bullet holes, Lt-Col Nantz said that the Iraqi fire had gone over the soldiers’ heads. We were taken to see two bullet holes in an upper window and some marks on a wall, but they were on another side of the school building. > > There are other troubling questions. Lt-Col Nantz said that the troops had been fired on from a house across the road. Several light machineguns were produced, which the Americans said were found at the scene. If true, this was an Iraqi suicide mission – anyone attacking the post from a fixed position within 40 yards would have had no chance of survival. One way or the other it will be sold to the Iraqi people as a act of US aggression. Not a way to make friends and influence people IMO. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/75 "2003-05-01T11:34:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yojimbo \* > One way or the other it will be sold to the Iraqi people as a act of US aggression. Not a way to make friends and influence people IMO. And it will be sold to the American people as US troops being attacked and defending themselves. Just like Americans will believe whatever they want so will Iraqis believe whatever they want. Some Americans will take the word of their military as gospel even if it contradicts plenty of other evidence. Why would we be surprised when Iraqis believe versions of events which are the contrary? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/76 "2003-05-01T12:11:36Z")
According to BBC news, many US servicemen have been injured in a revenge grenade attack in the same city- rumours suggest it was relatives out for revenge. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/77 "2003-05-01T16:33:32Z")
OK, here is the line I was talking about- from the SJMN, Wed 4-30, pg 15A 3 para from the end: “Other neighbors, however, conceded there had been shots fired into the air, but not at the soldiers”. I serached the MN online- and the article there is considerably shorter, and this paragraph is not there. In todays MN, an Imam came forward and sai they there had beend shot fired at the US soldiers, but those shots did not come from the demonstrators, but from outside agitators. So it appears liek there was a demonstration- which turned into a riot. The rioters began throwing rocks & things at the US soldier- and firing their AK 47’s into the air. Then, some outside agitator took advantage of both sides, and capped off a couple of rounds at our boys. Whereupon they began firing at anyone with a gun in their hands. However, it is the height of stupidity to take an AK 47 to a violent demonstration- and then beging firing it- even into the air. The same action in the USA or just about any civilized country would get you shot just as dead. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/78 "2003-05-01T22:59:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > > * * * > > That is about as accurate as saying that the sun is circling around the moon. The ‘pay for the war’ after WWI was largely a French thing, based on not just that war, but that of 1870/71 as well. The contribution by the US to ‘bringing the defeated into the world community’ was merely partial, and to a large part, the US had no involvement in it. (Ever heard of the Elysee Treaties?)\*\* Oh, sorry, only a partial contribution to the restructuring and rebuilding of Germany. So Where do I send the bill for the Berlin Air Lift? We could use the money to bring back our dead soldiers from France and Germany. By the way, the Berlin Airlift was more complex logistically than landing on the moon. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > > * * * > > Not the least, however, this isn’t the 1940s and 50s, and the failure to comprehend that is a chief factor in the fact that the US has blundered practically every single attempt thereafter. > > No, the US does NOT have a clear history of defeating her enemies. Where did it do so in Vietnam? Even in Korea, the US birthed a dictatorship whose only virtue in the eyes of the US (and no one else) was that it was non-communist. \*\* Lets see, the Vietnam War was a present from France (who ran away), and the Korean War was a present from the UN. Maybe we should have allowed the Russians and the Chinese to take over Asia. I guess it’s OK when we’re Europe’s police dog. The Serbian war was total BS. Kosovo was not a Muslim enclave in the early 70’s. It didn’t exist until Tito carved the area out of Serbia to weaken their political power. He then INVITED Albanian Muslims to hop the fence and make themselves at home. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > Oh, really? So what you say is that Halliburton is working for free there? They are NOT being paid with revenue from Iraqi oil? The US did NOT ask to be made the custodian of Iraqi oil revenues instead of the UN? \*\* Yes, Halliburton will be PAID for their SERVICES from the sale of oil. These are services that could not be contracted for at the end of the war. There is no government to DO the contracting. The Iraqis will eventually get to choose whom they buy their services from. Hopefully they won’t be buying anymore nuclear power plants from France, or bio-weapons equipment from Germany. And yes, the US did NOT ask to be made custodian of Iraqi oil. Why WOULD we, we ARE the custodian’s! Is the UN planning on doing all the hard work ahead? Is France? Is Germany? NO, NO and NO. France is blocking the lifting of Iraqi oil restrictions until there is verification that there aren’t any WMD. Is this the same France that denied the WMD existed? By the way, if it turns out that France and Germany were getting Iraqi oil, against UN orders, from the Syrian pipline then you should soon learn we cut it off last week. It takes real gall for France and Germany to object to the war, demand the US fix the Iraqi government, and then try to get contracts through UN intervention. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/79 "2003-05-01T23:44:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > **Yes, Halliburton will be PAID for their SERVICES from the sale of oil. These are services that could not be contracted for at the end of the war. There is no government to DO the contracting. The Iraqis will eventually get to choose whom they buy their services from.** See, here’s the problem. Suppose the police come and knock down my door and cause substantial damage to my property (there was a hostage taking next door, they needed access to my property, and I wasn’t home), and then they contract with a construction company to repair the damage and garnishee my income to pay the construction co. And I’m supposed to be happy about this arrangement? They broke it; they can bloody well pay to fix it. Why the heck should the Iraqis have to pay to repair the damage that was done to their infrastructure by a foreign government? If Halliburton wins a contract through fair bidding to repair war damages, the money should come from the US taxpayer, not Iraqi oil. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884/80 "2003-05-01T23:59:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\* Is this the same France that denied the WMD existed \*\* France NEVER denied there could be WMD. Its official position was that it had to be proven, and that inspections should be conducted to search for them and eventually destroy them if they were found. I don’t think the French government took any official position about the existence of such weapons. Apart from the official position, I gather from what I read at this time that the french government believed there was some WMD, in limited quantity, and for the most part not usable (not maintened, too old, etc…), and absolutely no nuclear weapons or current programm which could result in their production in the foreseeable future, hence that from this point of view, the Iraki government wasn’t a threat, not even for its neighbors, let alone for Europe or the US. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-shooting-at-civilians/171884.md?page=5)