I agree, and I’ll go one step further: it’s disingenuous to refer to these people as “terrorists”, however much one may dislike them and what they stand for (much as I do).
However,
I disagree. Withdrawal now would be catastrophic, leading to fractures and civil war. Now that we’ve put ourselves in this position, it has to be followed through to a proper end. At the moment it looks like they’re just treading water.
“Officially”, anywhere in Iraq is a combat situation. I presume you
mean they weren’t currently in a shooting match, which is true, but is fairly irrelevant.
Clearly from the posts made by some here, there’s a lot of political machination or “spin” applied. The truth in situations requires a bit of digging, the incident’s proximate cause appears to be that the cameraman was in a location different from where permission was obtained, and most important of all the tank column was from a different unit altogether - they had no idea who this guy was. It was a tragic mistake. To ascribe anything else is just propaganda.
I’m sure withdrawal would lead to one hell of a mess which would likely take years to resolve, but then I suspect it will take years via this route too. My very simple point was that Iraqis would not be attacking US/allied forces if they weren’t there!
Of course we cannot know what the situation would be like right now if intervention had not occurred, or if troops had not been used.
I see what you mean.
But - but - maybe they would anyway - remember, Iraq represented clear and present danger, and those WMD were pointing at the UK, and they could be deployed in 45 minutes! Yes, that’s right! Yes!
:smack:
A Muslim civil war ? I suppose its possible.
Problem is for me, this sounds a little like Tito’s Yugoslavia. As we know, the nation of ‘Iraq’ is a construction of empire, the British Empire. It’s now in reconstruction for the (energy) purposes of, and under the rule of, another empire.
In between, it spent its time as a puppet of the British, a tool of US foreign policy and as a demonised dictatorship.
Strangers to catastrophe they aren’t.
And all this reads to me little so much of Kipling’s ‘white man’s burden’ . . . tell me one thing, if the US left tomorrow, how long would it be before the UN stepped in to ‘nation build’ on an humanitarian basis ?
The US is there for it’s own strategic and geo-political ends. Anything else is facade, imho.
I’m tempted to respond with the typical call for a cite, followed by rolleyes. Instead, I’ll just ask what makes you positive that this is the case.
Every shooting in Iraq is followed by a period of temporary suspension for the soldier involved while the armed forces investigate the incident. Do you have some reason to believe that the US does not conduct an adequate investigation?
Please. Your attempts to paint those fighting on behalf of Iraq’s former regime as noble resisters is insulting to those that Hussein’s regime tortured and killed. If you think the Hussein regime was in any way representative of the will of the people, or that the people currently shooting at American and British soldiers are in any way fighting for the good of the majority in Iraq, then you are terribly mistaken.
I do. But first let me state that I do believe this, like most other incidents, are honest mistakes caused by the circumstances and are not the responsibility of the GIs but of who put them there and created the conditions for these things to happen. Having said that, the investigation of the firing on the Hotel Palestine was a coverup and a farce from the get go and lacks all credibility, as several organizations of reporters and the Ukranian Government have said. The initial reports of the US forces were contradicted immediately by lots of witnesses and it has been nothing but backpedal and change the story ever since. The final report lacks all credibility and is just a coverup of whoever gave the order to fire. The guy in the tank just did as he was ordered but it is clear there was no intention of revealing the truth to the world. The USA is not interested in telling the truth but in covering up.
If you have any evidence that those fighting the occupation forces are fighting for Saddam Hussein (other than the self-serving declarations of the US government) I would like to see them because all the information I have points to the conclusion that the Iraqis hate being occupied. There are incidents and anti-American demonstrations daily and daily Iraqis are being shot. Only the US government with their blinders firmly in place, believe they are welcome in Iraq. They have installed a puppet government which is trying to do the best it can and which is seen as outsiders by the Iraqis. How the Iraqis feel about being occupied is quite evident to me. Now, if you have evidence that the fighters are a few who are trying to reinstate Saddam Hussein and they are hated by the majority of Iraq, well, I’d like to see it.
Age Quod Agis, I don’t seek to speak on behalf of yojimbo, but he’s from Ireland, and therefore is certainly not biased in favour of British soldiers. I suspect he might be referring to the Bloody Sunday enquiry, which is still being conducted, 30 years after an incident where British soldiers shot into a crowd of demonstrators in Derry.
** Age Quod Agis** to be perfectly honest it just am impression I get. There have been many incidents with civilians and journos getting killed. Have any of these soldiers been punished or are all of these incidents “clean kills” or whatever the phrase is. I don’t see the US media been very critical of troops but I do know the UK press are they are like pit bulls when it comes to this shit.
BTW don’t get me wrong here the Brits HAVE covered up many incidents in the northern part of my country 
and let soldiers off after even a court found them guilty. Look up Lee Clegg in goggle sometime for one example.
Again my impression only so I shouldn’t have used the phrasing I did especially in GD.
Well in fairness jjimm it’s the 2nd inquiry (the first being a complete whitewash and it took decade for a real one to be set up.
http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk/
http://www.bloodysundaytrust.org/
Anyhoo enough of this hijack
Yeah. I neglected to mention that. Apologies. But at least there is a second enquiry.
So it’s your opinion that the people shooting American and British soldiers are just everyday Iraqi citizens that hate the occupation? Then where do these everyday Iraqis get grenade launchers and surface to air missiles? From the local convenience mart? And why does the resistance appear strongest in Baathist areas? And why would an Iraqi citizen that’s merely trying to fight off an occupation attack energy and water centers, which hurts the Iraqis more than the Americans or British, and prolongs the occupation rather than shortening it? And if the Iraqis hate occupation so much, then why didn’t they similarly resist against Hussein? Surely, his government wasn’t representative of the people.
If you are honestly interested in who the attackers are, I thought this was a good article on the subject. They break the attackers into 3 groups: “Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters and those angry at living conditions since U.S.-led forces routed the Saddam regime.” The foreign fighters “encompass both anti-American al-Qaida-type characters from Syria and Jordan, among other nations, as well as possible agents provocateurs from Iran, who may be fomenting trouble in Shiite Muslim-dominated southern Iraq.” The last group “is a hodgepodge of common criminals and people frustrated with the lack of services. Saddam released large numbers of prisoners last fall during a general amnesty.” Some estimate that Hussein released thousands of prisoners, including murderers and rapists (that didn’t work for him personally).
Certainly, some of the people taking shots at American and British soldiers owe no allegiance to Saddam, and are motivated by anger towards the American and British presence in Iraq or their inability to immediately fight off resisters and provide ample water, power, and security instantaneously after ousting Saddam’s regime. Fortunately, such small-minded bigots aren’t in charge of American, British, or Iraqi policy.
And thanks for the clarification, yojimbo.
Well, my point in saying that the cameraman knew the risks, is that I don’t really see what everybody is making a big fuss about. Accidents and unfortunate incidents are not all that uncommon, especially in a place like Iraq, where there are numerous violent acts taking place all of the time.
His death is no different than anybody else who is killed over there, a point made by some earlier posters also. Is the life of a journalist worth anymore than the life of anybody else ? I’d think not.
And just because it turns out that it he was fired upon by coalition forces, doesn’t mean that they did not have valid, legiitimate reasons to do so, if they felt he presented an immediate danger. Seems to me, those who should have been alerted of his presence, were not properly conveyed this information. But, I guess this is what an investigation will look into.
Some journalists have died in that past, and some will surely die in the future too, when they report from hostile places.
Hhmm… so if everyone beleives the same you do Daisy Cutter… then GIs there might as well just start shooting everything they feel like ?
That journalist was a few yards away from his car… which does say something about GIs power of observation.
Even if you dont care about the reporter himself... you should be worried about 20 yr olds that shoot anything in sight without hesitation. Those are americans that are suffering and reacting in a violent manner to any "menace".Please point out where I have stated that I do not care for the death of that journalist. In my first reply on this thread, I had already stated that his death was unfortunate.
Of course, according to the article, this is the opinion of White House sources. The article provides no evidence to support this opinion. Given the White House’s recent history of taking liberties with the truth when it comes to Iraq, some are disinclined to believe their take on matters.
sailor asked for evidence the guerrilla attacks are being conducted by Saddam loyalists. The unsupported opinions of unnamed White House sources do not constitute very much evidence. Let’s see real evidence.
I’ll ignore your transparent argument that the conclusions of those who disagree with you is not “evidence.” Your statement is just plain false. For example, here are just two quotes from the article (emphasis added):
It appears the White House isn’t the only one with a “recent history of taking liberties with the truth.”
The idea that only a few Saddam Hussein loyalists are causing all the trouble is just wishful thinking on the part of the US government. The very obvious fact is that there is a very large portion of Iraqis demonstrating daily against the US occupation and it is only natural that many of those are willing to go further. Of course, it is possible that many of those were, indeed, Baathists. So what? They are Iraqis all the same and entitled to join the rest of the iraqis in their defense of their homeland. I cannot see why they should be disqualified. It is the old true Scotsman fallacy.
But, returning to the matter of the reporter killed, I think we are missing the point. The only alternatives are not only (a) he was killed on purpose by a bloodthirsty GI or (b) shit happens and nobody is to blame. There is ©: the death could have been avoided if people higher up in the chain of command had planned better and executed better and therefore the responsibility lies further up the chain of command.
Before the invasion was launched many of us warned that all these things would happen, that thousands of innocent civilians would be killed or maimed, that maintaining public order in Iraq would be a very difficult task, that reconstruction would not be nearly as easy as the Administration made it sound. The administration said no, it would not happen, the Iraqis qould welcome the American liberators and everything would be easy. Well, it’s not quite happening that way, is it?