It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Marines defeat Insurgent attack

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Delataboy - what are those photos meant to prove? There quite clearly were some fighters in Fallujah at the time, what many observers say is that most of them had left (all but the maddest) before the US assualt on the "city" (mostly rubble now).

Also your photos could be from anywhere for all we know. This one quite clearly isn't even in Iraq:


My guess is Sudan.




posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Rich23, there are enormous differences between Vietnam and Iraq, that outdo the parallels that were responsible for the atrocities of the Vietnam War. For one, unlike in Iraq, in Vietnam the U.S. had to go in with its hands tied behind its back. It was not allowed to attack Northern Vietnam for the majority of the war. The Soviet supply lines, the capital of Northern Vietnam, were all left intact. President Johnson himself literally chose which targets to bomb.

Basically, the American military had to fight from Southern Vietnam against an enemy that they could not attack, but that could go back and resupply, then attack again. In the first battle in Vietnam, despite this, the U.S. won. North Vietnam was ready to talk negotiations. The media in the United States made out as if it was a horrid loss and people called for the U.S. to pull out of Vietnam.

As a result of this, the Northern Vietnamese leader of the time decided to hold out, figuring America would pull out anyhow. But it never did. Johnson continually ordered the soldiers to fight without allowing them to attack Northern Vietnam. As a result, thousands of soldiers died horrible deaths.

When Nixon came in as President at the end of the war, he opened up the Soviet supply lines to bombing and bombed the capital of Northern Vietnam. it was shut down in a matter of hours and the Northern Vietnamese gov't was ready to talk negotiations.

What this really means is that Vietnam could have lasted shorter than Gulf War 1. It isn't like the current War in Iraq in which we're fighting a terrorist network.

Nowadays, this cannot happen. The Army realized during the Vietnam War that if an anti-military President was put in office, he could make decisions that would undermind the military and create disastrous results. As a result, the President can no longer make direct decisions such as where to bomb and who to attack. He simply says to win the conflict or war and the generals are the leaders.

When Gulf War 1 came around, the military followed this to the core. They were not going to have any repeat of Vietnam, so the first thing they did was to go through and destroy Saddam's airforce and much of his army capabilities (like tanks and so forth).

The same was done in the current War in Iraq, in which the military took out most of Saddam's military infrastructure.

Are there parallels between the Iraq war and Vietnam? Yes, such as how the Vietnamese had an intelligence network in which the U.S. couldn't figure out who was who since the Northern Vietnamese and Southern Vietnamese looked identical. Similarly, in Iraq, the terrorists have an intelligence network that is hidden amongst the people living in Iraq.

However, these days, thanx to Special Forces, the U.S. also has its own version of this too, since SF soldiers can blend into the culture and surroundings and conduct their own intelligence-gathering.

For the Iraq War to literally "become" another Vietnam, the way these media outlets have liked to claim occasionally, the military would have to have been ordered to attack Iraq WITHOUT taking out any of Saddam's infrastructure or supply lines. If he had no supply lines, supply lines would have to be opened up to the Iraqi military to make it more able to fight, to fully, truly parallel the Vietnam War.

About Jim Massey, here:

By Ron Harris

POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU

11/05/2005

Jimmy Massey former marine staff sergeant says Marines intentionally are killing innocent Iraqi civilians.



WASHINGTON

For more than a year, former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey has been telling anybody who will listen about the atrocities that he and other Marines committed in Iraq.

In scores of newspaper, magazine and broadcast stories, at a Canadian immigration hearing and in numerous speeches across the country, Massey has told how he and other Marines recklessly, sometimes intentionally, killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Among his claims:

Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters.

Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head.

A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery.

Massey's claims have gained him celebrity. Last month, Massey's book, "Kill, Kill, Kill," was released in France. His allegations have been reported in nationwide publications such as Vanity Fair and USA Today, as well as numerous broadcast reports. Earlier this year, he joined the anti-war bus tour of Cindy Sheehan, and he's spoken at Cornell and Syracuse universities, among others.

News organizations worldwide published or broadcast Massey's claims without any corroboration and in most cases without investigation. Outside of the Marines, almost no one has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth.

He wasn't.

Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated - according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.

"Psychopathic killers"

Massey, 34, of Waynesville, N.C., was with the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines based out of Twentynine Palms, Calif. The unit went to the Middle East in January 2003 and participated in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of that year.

Massey was discharged in December 2003, shortly after returning from Iraq due to depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome.

He began turning up in the press and on broadcasts last spring with stories about military atrocities. Massey's primary thrust has been that Marines from his battalion - some of whom, he told a Minneapolis audience, were "psychopathic killers" - recklessly shot and killed Iraqi civilians, sometimes, he said, upon orders from their commanders. During a hearing in Canada, Massey said, "We deliberately gunned down people who were civilians."

The Marine Corps investigated Massey's claims and said they were "unsubstantiated."

From the beginning, Massey misled reporters.

In early interviews, he told how he had lost his job at a furniture store because of his anti-war activities. But when asked about the incident in an interview Oct. 19 with the Post-Dispatch, Massey said he had quit his job but never had felt pressure to leave.

"I left on good terms," he said.

He also backtracked from allegations he made in a May 2004 radio interview and elsewhere that he had seen a tractor-trailer filled with the bodies of Iraqi civilians when Marines entered an Iraqi military prison outside Baghdad. He said the Iraqis had been killed by American artillery.

He told listeners that the scene was so bad "that the plasma from the body and skin was decomposing and literally oozing out of the crevices of the tractor-trailer bed."

He repeated the story in the Post-Dispatch interview. But when told that the newspaper's photographs and eyewitness reports had identified the trailer contents as all men, mostly in uniform, Massey admitted that he had never seen the bodies.

Instead, he said, he received his information from "intelligence reports." When asked if those reports were official documents, he answered, "No, that's what the other Marines told me."

Changing stories

The details of Massey's stories changed repeatedly.

For example, he almost always told his audiences and interviewers of an event he said he'd never forget: Marines in his unit shooting four civilian Iraqis in red Kia automobile.

In some accounts, Massey said Marines fired at the vehicle after it failed to stop at a checkpoint. In another version, he said the Marines stormed the car.

Sometimes he said three of the men were killed immediately while the fourth was wounded and covered in blood; sometimes he said the fourth man was "miraculously unscathed."

Sometimes he said the Marines left the three men on the side of the road to die without medical treatment while the fourth man exclaimed: "Why did you shoot my brother?" In other versions, he said the man made the statement as medical personnel were attempting to treat the three other men, or as the survivor sat near the car, or to Massey personally.

There is no evidence that any of the versions occurred.

In another story that Massey often tells, he and other Marines in his platoon fired upon a group of innocent demonstrators shortly after they arrived in Baghdad. Massey said that the demonstrators were protesting the Marines' presence, holding signs in English and Arabic.

The Marines heard a shot, Massey said, and in panic began firing into the demonstrators.

In some versions, the demonstrators were near a checkpoint. In other versions, they were outside a prison on a road about 200 meters away, or anywhere from 5 to 15 miles from Baghdad International Airport.

Massey told a version of the story before an immigration hearing in December in support of an American soldier trying to flee to Canada. Then, Massey said he and the Marines killed four of the demonstrators. In other interviews, he said the Marines shot at 10 demonstrators and killed all of them but one, whom he let crawl away.

In interviews with more than a dozen Marines and journalists who were in the military complex that morning, none can recall such an incident.

They say that during the first week to two weeks inside Baghdad, they never saw any protesters.

Ron Haviv, an independent photographer embedded with the unit, said he never saw any protesters or demonstrators, with or without signs.

"Basically, the only people who were on the streets in the first week were there to loot," said Haviv, who has covered conflicts across the globe, including the first Gulf War, Haiti, Yugoslavia and Russia.

Lt. Kevin Shea, the commander of Massey's platoon, recalls that on the morning after they arrived, about 20 Iraqis from a nearby community did approach the Marines to ask what was happening. Shea said that he had explained what the Marines were doing and that the Iraqis had gone back to their homes.

Civilians shot

The Marine Corps readily admits that some of its men shot civilians, but not intentionally, they said. The Post-Dispatch reported on the second day of the war that Marines in one battalion had mistakenly shot and killed members of a British-based television network while shooting at Iraqi attackers.

When Marines moved into Baghdad a month later, the Post-Dispatch reported two separate automobile-related incidents in which Marines from Massey's battalion inadvertently shot and wounded 12 civilians. All of the passengers survived after treatment by medical personnel.

In a fourth incident, Maj. Dan Schmitt said, Marines shot "what we believe to be a non-combatant" because when the Marines raised their arms in a signal to stop, the vehicle continued moving quickly at them.

An Iraqi doctor who helped treat the wounded passengers told them that they needed to use another hand signal because they one they were using indicated solidarity, not stop.

But none of the five journalists who covered the battalion said they saw reckless or indiscriminate shooting of civilians by Marines, as Massey has claimed. Nor did any of the Marines or Navy corpsmen who served with Massey and were interviewed for this story.

One of the checkpoint shootings is apparently the basis for one of most poignant recollections claimed by Massey in numerous speeches and interviews: The shooting of a 4-year-old girl in the head.

While touring with Sheehan in Montgomery, Ala., he told of seeing the girl's body. "You can't take it back," he said, according to the local newspaper.

But in the interview with the Post-Dispatch, Massey admitted that he never had seen the girl.

"Lima Company was involved in a shooting at a checkpoint," he said. "My platoon was ordered to another area before the victims were removed from the car. The other Marines told me that a 4-year-old girl had killed."

Girls unharmed

No 4-year-old died in the incident or was even wounded, according to witnesses including a Post-Dispatch photographer at the scene who filed photos of the incident that were published in the newspaper.

Two women and two girls were in the car that the Marines shot when it failed to stop at a checkpoint and continued to approach the Marines at high speed, said Maj. George Schreffler, then the commanding officer of Lima Company. Schreffler was there at the time.

Petty Officer Justin Purviance, who treated them, said the two women were wounded but survived. The girls were unharmed, he said.

In other speeches, Massey has said he personally shot a 6-year-old child. In some versions, the child was a boy; at other times, a girl.

"How is a 6-year-old child with a bullet in his head a terrorist, because that is the youngest I killed," Massey told a Cornell University audience in March. In a speech in April in Springfield, Vt., he said: "That's war: a 6-year-old girl with a bullet hole in her head at an American checkpoint."

In a speech in Syracuse in March, the Post Standard newspaper quoted him as saying, "The reason the Marines teach you discipline . . . is so that you can confront the enemy and kill him. . . . Or so you can put a bullet into a 6-year-old, which is what I did. "

In the interview with the Post-Dispatch, Massey said he never personally had shot a child.

"I meant that's what my unit did," he said.

He could not provide details.

Nor could he name any Marine who could corroborate any of his stories.

"Admitting guilt is a hard thing to do," he said.

Also:


Why did the press swallow Massey's stories?

By Ron Harris

POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU

11/05/2005

WASHINGTON

Media outlets throughout the world have reported Jimmy Massey's claims of war crimes, frequently without ever seeking to verify them.

For instance, no one ever called any of the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's battalion to ask him or her about his claims.

The Associated Press, which serves more than 8,500 newspaper, radio and television stations worldwide, wrote three stories about Massey, including an interview with him in October about his new book.

But none of the AP reporters ever called Ravi Nessman, an Associated Press reporter who was embedded with Massey's unit. Nessman wrote more than 30 stories about the unit from the beginning of the war until April 15, after Baghdad had fallen.

Jack Stokes, a spokesman for the AP, said he didn't know why the reporters didn't talk to Nessman, nor could he explain why the AP ran stories without seeking a response from the Marine Corps. The organization also refused to allow Nessman to be interviewed for this story.

Some media did seek out comment from the Marine Corps and were told that an investigation of Massey's accusations had found them baseless. Still, those news outlets printed Massey's claims without any evidence other than the word of Massey, who had been released from service because of depression and post traumatic stress disorder.

"Why would we have run this?"

That Massey wasn't telling the truth should have become obvious the more he told his stories, said Phillip Dixon, former managing editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and currently chairman of the Howard University Department of Journalism.

Dixon examined dozens of newspaper articles in which Massey told of the atrocities that Marines allegedly committed in Iraq.

"He couldn't keep his story straight," said Dixon, who has also been an editor at The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. "First it was a 4-year-old girl with a bullet hole in her head, then it was a 6-year-old girl."

Editors at some papers look back at the Massey articles and are surprised that they ran them without examining whether the claims were true or without ever asking the Marine Corps about them.

"I'm looking at the story and going, 'Why, why would we have run this without getting another side of the story?'" said Lois Wilson, managing editor of the Star Gazette in Elmira, N.Y.

David Holwerk, editorial page editor for The Sacramento Bee, said he thought the newspaper handled its story, a question and answer interview with Massey, poorly.

"I feel fairly confident that we did not subject this to the rigorous scrutiny that we should have or to which we would subject it today," he said.

Rex Smith, editor of the Albany (N.Y.) Times Union, said he thought the newspaper's story about Massey could have "benefited from some additional reporting." But he didn't necessarily see anything particularly at odds with standard journalism practices.

The paper printed a story in which Massey reportedly told an audience how he and other Marines killed peaceful demonstrators. There was no response from the Marine Corps or any other evidence to back Massey's claims.

Smith said that, unfortunately, that is the nature of the newspaper business.

"You could take any day's newspaper and probably pick out a half dozen or more stories that ought to be subjected to a more rigorous truth test," he said.

"Yes, it would have been much better if we had the other side. But all I'm saying is that this is unfortunately something that happens every day in our newspapers and with practically every story on television."

"The truth suffers"

Michael Parks sees it differently. He is the director of the University of Southern California Annenberg School of Journalism and formerly the editor of the Los Angeles Times. Parks also reviewed stories written about Massey.

"A reporter's obligation is to check the allegation, to seek comment from the organization that's accused," said Parks, a Pulitzer Prize winner who covered the Vietnam War as a reporter for the Baltimore Sun. "They can't let allegations lie on the table, unchecked or unchallenged. When they don't do that, it's a clear disservice to the reader."

In many cases, journalists covered Massey as he was speaking at public gatherings. Some reporters said that because he was making public statements, they didn't feel an obligation to check his claims. Some editors worried they could be accused of covering up his claims if they didn't report on his speech.

Dixon and Parks disagree.

"We're not stenographers, we're journalists," Dixon said. "What separates journalism from other forms of writing is that we practice the craft of verification. By not doing that, that's saying they're abdicating any responsibility from exercising news judgment."

Parks said the journalist's responsibilities when covering someone who makes allegations while speaking in a public forum can be different from those when seeking an interview with an accuser.

"Still, if the person making the allegation has spoken at a public forum, and the audience has heard it, the obligation of the reporter remains to get the other side."

Dixon said: "As a journalist, you want to put accurate information before the public so they can make opinions and decisions based on accurate information. When something like this happens, harm is done, the truth suffers. "

Of course there are many rebuttals of this in favor of Jim Massey. They tend to state essentially that Harris is out just for fame and that Massey is a truth-teller, a true soldier who broke away from his superiors and didn't even think the American press would accept him (I suppose he himself said that one). Like the American press won't accept a soldier saying people are being vehemently killled left and right!? Regardless of whether Harris was out for fame or not, Massey still has shown that he cannot keep a consistent story going and that the media sources who interviewed him did not check up on his story (yeah, they really didn't want to accept him).



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Also your photos could be from anywhere for all we know. This one quite clearly isn't even in Iraq:


My guess is Sudan.


Man do they look Sudanese to you?

www.signonsandiego.com...


Sunni insurgents armed with rocket propelled grenade launchers guard the streets of Fallujah, west of Baghdad.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy

Read my earlier post and the IBC research and you will see that many of those killed in Fallujah *before* the US dumped bombs and phosphorous all over it included a significant number of children without guns dude


Excuse me, but it aint our fault that the insurgents have families living with children not to mention picking a battlefield in a city.


What exactly are those pictures you posted trying to prove? The military are not going to go around taking or releasing pictures of dead women and children..


It proves that the American soldiers were fighting insurgents, not civilians. You think we attacked the city to kill civilians, when it proves all that hard fighting involved with insurgents. We did not lose dozens of Marine and Army lives to children with guns. Women and children were caught in the middle of the battlefield.

[edit on 21-4-2006 by deltaboy]

[edit on 21-4-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Excuse me, but it aint our fault that the insurgents have families living with children not to mention picking a battlefield in a city.


It IS your fault that you chose to attack them with helicopter gunships, phosphorous, AC130 gunships, tanks and so on. It was the US forces that decided to surround, lay seige and eventually pound Fallujah.

And I don't recall anyone except the American forces picking the battlefield.


It proves that the American soldiers were fighting insurgents, not civilians.


No it doesn't. It just shows a bunch of pictures of living/dead guys. They could have been taken anytime/anywhere.


We did not lose dozens of Marine and Army lives to children with guns.


I never said you did. It is merely my point that when you surround and lay seige to a city in a country you have invaded, you are likely to meet with at least some level of resistance. Nevertheless, it does not alter my opinion that the US forces acted in a completely disproportionate way which resulted in many, many innocent people dying.


Women and children were caught in the middle of the battlefield.


They were caught in the middle of their own communities/homes with no way out.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy

It IS your fault that you chose to attack them with helicopter gunships, phosphorous, AC130 gunships, tanks and so on. It was the US forces that decided to surround, lay seige and eventually pound Fallujah.

And I don't recall anyone except the American forces picking the battlefield.


Oooo I guess then that American forces should just bring in non lethal weapons only eh? No tanks, no helos, etc. You complaining that we are fighting with too much force now? Also, it was the insurgents who chose to stay and fight in Fallujah, we go and fight where they are at. Thats how it works.


I never said you did. It is merely my point that when you surround and lay seige to a city in a country you have invaded, you are likely to meet with at least some level of resistance. Nevertheless, it does not alter my opinion that the US forces acted in a completely disproportionate way which resulted in many, many innocent people dying.


Well then how would you fight the insurgents in urban combat?



They were caught in the middle of their own communities/homes with no way out.


We gave the civilian population the time to leave the city. Thats far more humane then anybody else would give in times of war.



[edit on 21-4-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Oooo I guess then that American forces should just bring in non lethal weapons only eh? No tanks, no helos, etc.


No, American forces should not bring ANY weapons in. They should not be in Iraq in the first place.


You complaining that we are fighting with too much force now?


Give the man a biscuit. You seem to be getting the idea now.


Also, it was the insurgents who chose to stay and fight in Fallujah, we go and fight where they are at. Thats how it works.


How did they 'choose' to stay and fight. You make the point in the same post that US forces kindly allowed an opportunity for the 'civilian population' to leave the city. It wasn't really the 'insurgents' choice to 'stay and fight' now was it?


We gave the civilian population the time to leave the city.


As I said, you contradict yourself. It seems from what you say that the 'insurgents' did not really 'choose' to stay and fight.



www.guardian.co.uk...

At the checkpoint leaving Falluja towards Baghdad, women and children have been trying to leave, but in cars driven by men (women don't drive here) so they weren't allowed out. They are not letting men aged 14 to 45 - of "fighting age" - leave the city.


So for 'insurgents' read, 'men of fighting age'.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy

No, American forces should not bring ANY weapons in. They should not be in Iraq in the first place.


Okay now we are just dealing with the point about the moral reasons about invading Iraq and not about how we are fighting the insurgency.



Give the man a biscuit. You seem to be getting the idea now.


You seem to not figure out how wars are fought. Have you ever heard of overwhelming force?


How did they 'choose' to stay and fight. You make the point in the same post that US forces kindly allowed an opportunity for the 'civilian population' to leave the city. It wasn't really the 'insurgents' choice to 'stay and fight' now was it?


Now you are putting the civilian population with the insurgency now together?



As I said, you contradict yourself. It seems from what you say that the 'insurgents' did not really 'choose' to stay and fight.

So for 'insurgents' read, 'men of fighting age'.


I didn't contradict myself. You have seen the pictures and you know why we have to check all men of fighting age, you cannot deny that, not to mention that they don't wear uniforms to tell who is who. Civilians especially women and children are allowed to leave, but the men must be taken and interrogated to see if they are linked with the insurgency.







[edit on 21-4-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
You seem to not figure out how wars are fought. Have you ever heard of overwhelming force?


Yes. I've heard of 'overwhelming force. yada yada.....

Jeez, It's not like the US doesn't like to blow it's own trumpet about being 'all powerful' etc...

BTW, it wasn't a war until you guys made it one. Something about 9/11, or was it the Project for the New American Century? Either way, go into Iraq, smack a few ragheads around to make yourselves feel big and hard. Then blame 'insurgents' for all the bloodshed.


Now you are putting the civilian population with the insurgency now together?


Not really. It was the US forces that decided where the 'battlefield' was going to be.


[...]but the men must be taken and interrogated to see if they are linked with the insurgency.


Oh come on. You may as well put on your jackboots and start goose-stepping around the place. Interrogate the men, how exactly? A bit of torture here, a few summary executions there....

If they're not tooled up how the hell do you expect to reliably find out if the men are insurgents. What if they say 'no Mr American, I am just a family man'. Of course, you'll just let them go then.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Excuse me, the US fought Vietnam with its hands tied behind its back?

The US dropped as much ordnance on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as was dropped in the whole of World War II. It made no formal declaration of war on the last two countries, which made military action against them illegal. After a protracted guerilla war - much like it's facing now - in which most of the population wanted the thuggish US soldiers out of their country - just like now - the US eventually realised defeat and helicoptered itself out of there.

Most of the world cheered when the swaggering US got its clock cleaned by a bunch of dedicated amateurs.

Oh, yeah - another parallel of the war in Vietnam is that it, too, was started on a bogus pretext - the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

As for the military having command of the situation now, this absolutely ignores the mess that Rumsfeld has made of the whole deal from their point of view. You may not remember the arguments that were going on even before the invasion, which Rummy did 'on the cheap' in terms of men and materiel, but I do. I was even, during the short war, finding access to translations of Russian intel briefings to Saddam, which someone was helpfully posting on the net, which detailed US radio chatter and a big row that had political repercussions. I'm not going looking for detailed references on that one, it was too long ago.

On the other hand, can you have missed the stories about the generals coming out against Rummy more recently?

Here's only the latest story about this.


Rumsfeld jokes as generals get angry over GI body count

JIM DEE Daily Ireland USA correspondent

20/04/2006

...In issuing their resignation call last week, the ex-generals have been scathing in their criticism of Rumsfeld. For example, in an opinion piece in Time magazine, retired three-star Marine Corps General Gregory Newbold wrote that “the decision to invade Iraq was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who never had to execute these missions - or bury the results”.
Newbold, formerly the Pentagon’s top operations officer, said that his decision to break his silence had been coloured by his visits to hospitals where wounded US troops are convalescing.
“I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals,” Newbold wrote “The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood.
“We must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it,” he added.


Talking of references, there are suggestions hereabouts about how you present quotations and external sources. If you followed them it would make your posts easier to read and your argument easier to follow. The above is an example of this.


[edit on 22-4-2006 by rich23]


For the Iraq War to literally "become" another Vietnam, the way these media outlets have liked to claim occasionally, the military would have to have been ordered to attack Iraq WITHOUT taking out any of Saddam's infrastructure or supply lines. If he had no supply lines, supply lines would have to be opened up to the Iraqi military to make it more able to fight, to fully, truly parallel the Vietnam War.

Well I remember the US, in its hurry to get to Baghdad, and not having enough troops for the job, thanks to Rummy, finding lots of ammo caches and not securing them through lack of manpower. These then became the first stop for insurgents - or to put it another way, patriots who wanted to kick out the invaders of their country.

As for all that stuff about Jim Massey - we can see pictures of dead children and women all over the place. Someone's killing them. I suppose you must think those naughty Iraqis are doing it themselves and trying to put the blame on the innocent US forces. Good luck. Massey, for me, is more believable than denials of any wrongdoing because we can see the bodies piling up, and before he came along there were plenty of instances of the US shooting civilians. Massey might be evasive and trying to put himself in the best possible light, but then so are the military. And it's more than possible that the word has gone out that none of his ex-colleagues should talk to the press to back up his stories.

And, as I say, we can see the bodies.


[edit on 22-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Ok You got 5ickboy US boms Did hit Iraqi Houses! Happy Now! BTW are you an American? heres the link about he Bombs

Lame link huh?


P.s I feel very offended you calling My dream car "pathetic" it seems like your prefer a Wrickshaw than tricked-out HMMWV



[Mod edit: Link format. Please review this post - Jak]

[edit on 22/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Quote: "there were plenty of instances of the US shooting civilians."

Yeah Right ! i got a friend over there and he aint killin' Civilians, only Mass murderes would do that and i think their leader is YOU!
Civilian casualties are inveitable!
Scenario: You are a Marine AutomaticRifleman in Iraq, your squad's loud firing and the sheer intesity of the firefight panics the civilians. you are fighting in a street wherethere are 2 rows of building/houses on either side. Suddenly while you are Providing Suppressing finre for your squadmates to flank the enemy, civilians run in frotn of you and they get caught i the crossfire. Your SAW Mows them down by accident!

What do you do huh?



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Hey 5ick boy! HAve you ever played a game of paintball for hours andwith at least more than 10 peaople in a small arena? If you telling me that you can fight a war in iraq better than the "civilian killing American Soldiers" then go there and let the "insurgents choose the battlefield"

5ickboy a MOUT Battle is tough ok! you dont know the enmy on this case because they look like the civilians, if you want the American Armed forces in Iraq to become more Friendly and let the Insurgents choose the battlefield or wait on the outskirts for the Insurgents to attack= defensive then that will lead to what? Saddam/SOdumb Hussein would still be at large!

In war to rely on time is a very stupid thing! 1. your tropps will lose morale and motivation over the years 2. supplies might runout 3. the entire purpose of the war is shifted to occupation 4. and waiting for Saddam is very stupid5. the US did wait for Saddam in Desertstorm to leave Kuwait.

Time is of the essence! BBullets are in abundance use them then!



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gembelindo

P.s I feel very offended you calling My dream car "pathetic" it seems like your prefer a Wrickshaw than tricked-out HMMWV


Sorry if I offended you Gembelindo. It was not intentional. It's not the vehicle 'per se' that I found 'pathetic'. In fact had I seen it driving past me on the way to work I would be most impressed. No, my point was really that it does not help the American cause to paint up a Hummer in such a way 'in theatre' (does the spelling give away my location
). It adds to the perception that some have of the Americans acting too 'gung-ho' and unprofessionally. For me personally, I just find it distasteful, especially when so many people are dying over there.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gembelindo
If you telling me that you can fight a war in iraq better than the "civilian killing American Soldiers" then go there and let the "insurgents choose the battlefield"


I would not suggest for a moment that I am better equipped to 'fight a war' than the US forces. I simply do not believe they should have invaded the country in the first place. Then there would be no civilians killed by US forces either accidentally or on purpose.


you dont know the enmy on this case because they look like the civilians,


They all look the same? Why then do I keep getting told that the US forces are only targeting insurgents?



Saddam/SOdumb Hussein would still be at large!


I fought in the first gulf war and it was our own stupidity that let him off the hook the first time round. I remember wondering at the time why the hell we were being pulled out.

Anyway, he was installed, equipped, trained and supported by US/UK for many many years and we didn't seem to be too bothered that he was slaughtering the marsh arabs or Kurds then. And to wring our hands and state what a bad man he was because he gassed civilians in Hallabjah is just too hypocritical for words. It not only appears that the 'gassings between 15-19 March 1988 were carried out using US supplied helicopters, it seems that the US deliberately tried to shift the blame onto Iran to protect their Iraqi 'allies':



www.answers.com...

"The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. According to an article published in the International Herald Tribune by human rights researcher Joost Hiltermann the US intentionally tried to shift the blame for the gassing of Halabja off of Saddam, and declassified State Department document demonstrate that US diplomats received instructions to press this line with United States allies."

"The massacre at Halabja did not raise protests by the international community in March 1988. At the time, it was admitted that the civilians had been killed "collaterally" due to an error in handling the combat gas. Two years later, when the Iran-Iraq War was finished and the Western powers stopped supporting Saddam Hussein, the massacre of Halabja was attributed to the Iraqis."


The current line on Iraq/Saddam being bad, while not in itself untrue, displays a deeply disturbing hypocricy of US/UK governments. It seems he was 'allowed' to be bad and kill his own people when he was in bed with the US, but when he decided not to 'play ball' he suddenly became a monster.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Be careful 5ickboy I now Know Your Location ! I'm an Internet Stalker ahahaha



I get you point but the invasion of Iraq was neccessary to takedown Saddam and his regime. It may sound bogus just to invade Iraq for a bearded guy with an infamous mustache but it does matter because he's been gasing like millions of KURDS!

Its reasonable and why would American Soldiers Kill civilains intentionally?
The Rapings can be explained because: 1. you are young and Horny (sorry for the Vulgarity) 2. You've been there too long, you miss your girlfirend and other reasons can be explained like the torture in Detention camps.
But killing civilians in cold-blood is something that is highlly unlikely under those circumstances but sometimes people are people and sinners are sinners.

A MOUT is something like hell for soldiers, try playing a Cinematic Shooting game like: Ghost Squad, Killing Hostages/ civilians is Inevitable despite the time spent in BOOT Camp.

P.S 5ickboy thx, are you in England?
P.S.S 5ickboy if you're brittish ,did you support your troops?


Heres Something almost Irrelevant with this thread (almost) On the Verge of Being Irrelevant



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Hello? do the insurgents in Iraq not get their weapons through Syria & Iran? and have these areas as safe-havens to coordinate activities..and thats why US Forces in Iraq get hit 70 times a day and lose hundreds of men a month (killed & seriously wounded)..and even if they find weapons caches, the enemy can always import more weapons from Syria & Iran..and the US can not attack those countries and even if they did, they would simply respond by importing more and more sophesticated weapons into Iraq like sophesticated shoulder launched aa missiles..esculation , US did bomb the hell out of N.Vietnam and that just esculated the war and made it more expensive and made for more dead americans..seems to me like Iraq is exactly like Vietnam.


wheelsrcool wrote:
Rich23, there are enormous differences between Vietnam and Iraq, that outdo the parallels that were responsible for the atrocities of the Vietnam War. For one, unlike in Iraq, in Vietnam the U.S. had to go in with its hands tied behind its back. It was not allowed to attack Northern Vietnam for the majority of the war. The Soviet supply lines, the capital of Northern Vietnam, were all left intact. President Johnson himself literally chose which targets to bomb.

Basically, the American military had to fight from Southern Vietnam against an enemy that they could not attack, but that could go back and resupply, then attack again. In the first battle in Vietnam, despite this, the U.S. won. North Vietnam was ready to talk negotiations. The media in the United States made out as if it was a horrid loss and people called for the U.S. to pull out of Vietnam.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gembelindo
Be careful 5ickboy I now Know Your Location ! I'm an Internet Stalker ahahaha


. . . Arrggghh. Run to the hills. fleee....fleeee.



P.S 5ickboy thx, are you in England?


Born and bred mate.


P.S.S 5ickboy if you're brittish ,did you support your troops?


The troop issue is a good question. I don't blame the troops, and being ex-forces myself I am in support of them and do not want to see a single one get hurt. My argument is with the politicians who sent them over there in the first place.

Those of us that are against the military action keep getting fed the line that, "we are where we are" and that we should just "get behind our boys". However, I feel this is a kop-out. I both support our military forces while at the same time holding the view that the politicians have been deceitful about why they entered us into the campaign in the first place. I believe that I can continue to support the troops while at the same time disagreeing with the decision to send them to Iraq.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
5ickboy you are right about the sudden loss of friendship between America,UK and Iraq. In a way U.S,UK weren't fair and shows a sign of Hypocrycy. But in the second Gulf- War the Objective was not to repel Iraqi Forces out of Kuawait and blow them to OBlivion but the Objective here is to remove SAddamn and his regime and to rebuil Iraq Now Iraq is America's Ally but the Insurgency Aint (My choice of words would give a hint of my whereabouts and present location
)
At first i didn't understand why America An Britain did not take down saddam in just one gulf war rather than 2. They had the Oppurtunity because Saddam's army was hostile and America and Britain would retaliate. Besides the gassings were like in 1988 rite so they could have removed him from office in the first gulf war becuase of his murders. While the second gulf war was fought to just detain him. It should have been one gulf war to finish it all!



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I agree, The politicians are tha Murderers, they send Fathers, Borther,s Sons, Uncles to Die on some one else's Backyard ( nation)
The war in Iraq rigght now the effort is being directed to maintain security over a war-torn nation and help rebuild Iraq's infastructure. The progress is slow especially with the Damn Insurgents screwing up their own country's future. The Insurgency is targetting American soldiers cuz ther is no mere Iraqi soldiers that are trained or that haven't joined the Insurgency also because of the fact that iraq wont Unite: Sunnis #es and others. America Has little expirience fighting an insurgency while the Brittish do: darfur, Sierra Leone etc. heres a link for the Unity thing ( open for critticism feel free to complain or compliment)www.wtopnews.com...

Vietnam and Iraq are different but they both have insurgents and both have supplying nations. If the U.S were allowed to storm North Vietnam , they would definitely win the war. North Vietnam is the supplier Iran and syria are suppliers too. Target the core and you end up with "War won"

The U.S wone every single battle in the Vietnam war but they lost the war, includes the Tet Offensive and my favorite, Mai Lai Massacre but they lost the war
weid huh?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join