Bush: If Marines killed civilians, they'll be punished

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman "Screwed either way" has little to do with this incident and much more to do with the entire idea that the overthrow of Saddam and stabilization of a new government in Iraq is, as you say, an illegitimate act.

I've never argued on the basis that it was an illegitimate act. My arguement all along is that it was an incredibly stupid act. A war started in recklessly negligent haste for reasons that did not exist and which we had every reason to know did not exist. A war in which our commander-in-chief was warned was an invitation to an insurgent quagmire, which every lesson in our history warned was an invitation to an insurgent quagmire, which one look at the friggin' map will tell you it was an invitation to an insurgent quagmire, and yet the one thing the Bush League did NOT plan for at all was an insurgent quagmire.

Quote by: Apeman After invading another country, Saddam agreed to terms of a ceasefire that he did not live up to. That in and of itself is grounds for the resumption of hostilities.

Except we now know that Saddan did, in fact, live up to the terms. He had no WMD, no WMD programs and no capacity to start them. The only thing Saddam was guilty of was sticking his tongue out at us, and we now know, from Saddam's own tapes, that Saddam felt trapped between convincing us he had no weapons while leaving Iran uncertain whether he did or not. And for the very reason that George Bush Sr., Brent Scowcroft and James Baker cited after Desert Storm for not completely disarming Iraq... that they needed at least a minimal defense against our mutual enemy, Iran. The very Iran that is now taking advantage of the chaos in Iraq to spread its influence among the Iraqi Shiites.

Quote by: Apeman Agree to disagree on this, as explained above.

How can we be legitimate occupiers when we invaded and occupied a sovereign nation that was threatening no one, least of all us, for clearly stated reasons that didn't exist????

Quote by: bishop I don't understand why fox keeps him (O'Reilly) on the payroll

Because he makes huge wads of cash for Fox by drawing a massive conservative audience. Hell, these days it's the only place they're gonna hear good news, right. :rolleyes:

Quote by: shield Bush asked congress, congress voted and gave the President authorization for the invasion and have never rescinded it and keep funding it, so it is by US law lagal.

Congress voted on it based on information provided to them by the executive branch, the same information used to mislead the American people, and which we now know that they knew - at the time - was either false or questionable.

Once committed, Congress had no choice but to back the Bush League, support our troops and forge ahead. Who knew -- besides those of us here and in Congress who felt the war was an invitation to quagmire from the beginning -- we'd still be buried neck deep in chaos? After all, it certainly wasn't what the Bush League promised.

.

[Boetie]

It looks like a similar incident just occurred in the town of Ishaqi. Eleven civilians forced into a single room bound, blindfolded, and shot in the head execution style. Yes children were shot in the brains by our brave, brave soldiers. :rolleyes:

Then the brave, brave soliders :rolleyes: Tried to destroy the evidence by blowing up the building Isralie style. The Isralies are known to bulldoze or blow up buildings to hide evidence of their massacres of innocent Palenstinians.

The U.S of course is using the Bush Jr style of high denial.

The Iraqi leader claimed earlier that this execution of the innocent by the brave brave U.S soldiers :rolleyes: is a daily occurrence in Iraq.

The horrors of the Abu prison has spilled over to the homes of the innocent people of Iraq. So much for making life better for them. It's getting to look like life was better for them under Saddams rule than under Bush Jr's rule.

[shield772]

My issue is not whether we should be there but whether under US law it is Illegal, I agree that not enough was done in the beginning to verify the intelligence, the administration saw what they wanted to see and stopped looking and talking, and then went in with an incomplete plan as not enough time was spent developing the plan and making contingency plans, but now we are there, we need to get the Iraqi government stable and get out, and we need to get off the backs of US servicemen, I see a trend building towards feelings for US troops similar to the Vietnam war and I do not like it, these men and women are simply doing their jobs, and I would be confident to say it is near impossible to distinguish civilians from insurgents.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: boetie Then the brave, brave soliders Tried to destroy the evidence by blowing up the building Isralie style. The Isralies are known to bulldoze or blow up buildings to hide evidence of their massacres of innocent Palenstinians.

The troops in the Ishaqi incident have been absolved of any wrongdoing. The investigation supported the contention that the Americans were taking fire from the house and called in air support to destroy it. Unfortunately civilians were also in the house.

NPR -- Military Clears U.S. Forces in One Iraq Death Probe

I personally believe the Marines at Haditha are probably guilty, and I wouldn't rule out that other atrocities have occurred. But I think the troops in the Ishaqi incident were simply presented with one of the unteneble options involved in fighting a guerilla war.

.

[Jack]

...presented with one of the unteneble options involved in fighting a guerilla war.

True, that. There's seldom any time during a firefight to debate ethics or weigh a multitude of options. You do what will save your ass the fastest using whatever resources are available to you.

[Scribbler1]

Now the investigation has apparently cleared the soldiers of those killings.LINK

The Military has cleared itself, and while I suppose some people will automatically believe that, that genie is out of the bottle and I suspect even if it IS true not many people will buy it. The Bush administration has consistently lied, covered up and arrogantly defied existing law so this will be a tough sell to all but the most hardcore Bush groupie.

For me, the entire situation would seem to dictate that these things MUST happen. I have a suspicion a lot of soldiers are walking around Iraq thinking "the only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi" by now. Fighting civilians in their own country would do that to a person, IMO.

[dreamer]

The forces of the world are trained then ordered to a job and go and do it period that's there job. There not policeman different job, one follows orders, the other follows laws, we all forget Iraq is lawless, when there is no law we have what we have today B.S.
Dreamer

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart . The troops in the Ishaqi incident have been absolved of any wrongdoing. .

By the US military anyway.

Iraq rejects US probe clearing troops of killings

Iraq vowed on Saturday to press on with its own probe into the deaths of civilians in a U.S. raid on the town of Ishaqi, rejecting the U.S. military's exoneration of its forces.

The US originally said that they killed one male insurgent and two women and two children at Ishaqi. They now admit to up to nine other civilian deaths. So if the story being told is now accurate they killed up to 13 civilians including women and small children in order to kill one insurgent.

I don't know what happened, but the reports of children with bullet wounds to the head still does not tally with the recently updated US version of events.

[Boetie]

Sonart posts: The troops in the Ishaqi incident have been absolved of any wrongdoing

British media have uncovered video footage showing the bloody aftermath of the alleged killings of 11 Iraqis, many women and children...

Residents in the village of Ishaqi say 11 people, including at least five children, were killed in a U.S. raid on the Sunni-dominated area, 80 kilometres north of Baghdad.

The US Military version has it that only 4 people were killed in the Ishaqi incident, the Residents of Ishaqi claims 11, both cannot be right. Whom to believe?

One thing is a fact. It was the US that swarmed down on the house, not the other way around.

[Osborn F Enready]

I can only think back to hearing this....

"If there were leaks, I want to know who it was, and they will be held accountable......"

We know Bush means what he says....... and pigs fly, in helicopters at least.....

[Scribbler1]

The BBC also interviewed an American Marine deserter currently in Canada. The guy said his sargent, whom he said he admired and respected previously, told him if he ever shot a civilian to just put a rifle next to the body and they would just say they were attacked.

Just another similarity to the Vietnam war and a reminder of what happens when people who are trained to fight other soldiers get plopped down in the middle of civilians.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Scrib, and that is what SHOULD make the cost of war, too much to bear unless no options remain.

This "coalition" didn't have intrest in options, or permission of the people. They just had an agenda, and the soldiers now are weathering the storm of that agenda in blood, while the populace remains complacent, and keeps paying taxes, and congress refuses to withold funding, and bring troops home.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I agree Scrib, and that is what SHOULD make the cost of war, too much to bear unless no options remain.

I agree, and it WOULD be too great a cost if the scumbag in the White House gave a shit about the troops he sent there.
Remember his Memorial Day message was to "honor" the dead by "finishing the job" that clueless louse started.

This "coalition" didn't have intrest in options, or permission of the people. They just had an agenda, and the soldiers now are weathering the storm of that agenda in blood, while the populace remains complacent, and keeps paying taxes, and congress refuses to withold funding, and bring troops home. That's my opinion, anyway.

Your opinion is noted and, as it is so often, it is a correct observation.
Personally, I'd like to have everyone who voted for Bush the second time spend one month in Iraq with the soldiers and see what they think of the CinC and his policies then.
Maybe have Bush spend a month there too.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=Sonart].

Except we now know that Saddan did, in fact, live up to the terms. He had no WMD, no WMD programs and no capacity to start them. The only thing Saddam was guilty of was sticking his tongue out at us, and we now know, from Saddam's own tapes, that Saddam felt trapped between convincing us he had no weapons while leaving Iran uncertain whether he did or not. And for the very reason that George Bush Sr., Brent Scowcroft and James Baker cited after Desert Storm for not completely disarming Iraq... that they needed at least a minimal defense against our mutual enemy, Iran. The very Iran that is now taking advantage of the chaos in Iraq to spread its influence among the Iraqi Shiites.

We don't really know that he lived up to the terms. He did have the food for oil program that could have been stopped. I think he had lots of stuff stashed away when it looked like we would invade.
We now know.
He could have told us that. Now you're making him a saint. He agreed to the terms after the Kuwait war. That was his bad as people here like to say, and I hate that phrase. Sticking his tongue out at us was more dangerous than Iran will ever be.

How can we be legitimate occupiers when we invaded and occupied a sovereign nation that was threatening no one, least of all us, for clearly stated reasons that didn't exist????

How did you learn that? How would you have ever known that if we hadn't invaded?

Because he makes huge wads of cash for Fox by drawing a massive conservative audience. Hell, these days it's the only place they're gonna hear good news, right. :rolleyes:

Freedom of the Press. Yes, and I wonder why we have only one such program that has good news. Seems fishy to me.

Congress voted on it based on information provided to them by the executive branch, the same information used to mislead the American people, and which we now know that they knew - at the time - was either false or questionable.

Congress should have investigated it if it seemed false, or questionable. They got what Bush had, nothing more. If it was false it was false from the CIA & FBI. Bush didn't doctor anything.

Once committed, Congress had no choice but to back the Bush League, support our troops and forge ahead. Who knew -- besides those of us here and in Congress who felt the war was an invitation to quagmire from the beginning -- we'd still be buried neck deep in chaos? After all, it certainly wasn't what the Bush League promised.

I think all wars are pretty much quagmires. That's just what they are. Look at Bosnia. We're still over there.

http://www.arng.army.mil/news/public...2&news_id=2566

[RickSp]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I think all wars are pretty much quagmires. That's just what they are. Look at Bosnia. We're still over there.

Wars we have no business being in often turn out to be quagmires. Surprise surprise.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe We don't really know that he lived up to the terms. He did have the food for oil program that could have been stopped. I think he had lots of stuff stashed away when it looked like we would invade.

And where was it? The inspectors said they couldn't find them and Bush even ADMITTED there were no WMD. So what do YOU have that refutes this?

He could have told us that.

Told us what, that he was defenseless when Iran was right next door and would have loved to invade his country? Do you have a CLUE as to how unstable the area was or what the conflict was between Iran and Iraq? Saying you are defenseless in this situation would have been an open invitation to Iran to walk right in.

Now you're making him a saint. He agreed to the terms after the Kuwait war. That was his bad as people here like to say, and I hate that phrase. Sticking his tongue out at us was more dangerous than Iran will ever be.

No one is making him a saint. He was a tyrant, but he was THEIR tyrant and he was NO threat to the US. The inspectors were all over that country and found nothing. Bush had to make it all up to get us to agree to an invasion.
Why don't you SHOW where those statements are wrong.

How did you learn that? How would you have ever known that if we hadn't invaded?

That's the tricky part of a preemptive strike. You had damned well be RIGHT about the threat BEFORE you invade another country. Iraq was no threat. Bush was wrong, period. Why do you still repeat Bush's old lies even after HE has repudiated them?

Freedom of the Press. Yes, and I wonder why we have only one such program that has good news. Seems fishy to me.

News that YOU agree with isn't necessarily right, is it?

Congress should have investigated it if it seemed false, or questionable.

ALL of Congress should be thrown in jail, but that doesn't make Bush right.

They got what Bush had, nothing more.

One of the things Bush had was the CIA denying the yellowcake story and Bush put it back in his speech AFTER it was removed.

If it was false it was false from the CIA & FBI. Bush didn't doctor anything.

Got a link for that? A source of facts? ANYTHING?

I think all wars are pretty much quagmires. That's just what they are. Look at Bosnia. We're still over there.

It would seem almost ANY war waged for anything other than self-defense becomes a quagmire. It looks like Bush put us in a doozy of one.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp Wars we have no business being in often turn out to be quagmires. Surprise surprise.

But not always.

[Matt W]

And that's your only defense, is it? 'Not always'? Not good enough. Try answering some of Scribblers' points and try and tell us why this was your business in the first place.

[shield772]

As a rich and powerful nation (I hesitate to use the term superpower) we have a moral obligation to use our wealth and military might to remove petty despots and cruel dictators, this is my opinion I do not give this opinion with the intent to give the impression that this opinion is shared by the RNC or the reasons this administration use to justify the war in Iraq, they are my opinions and mine alone.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: shield772 As a rich and powerful nation (I hesitate to use the term superpower) we have a moral obligation to use our wealth and military might to remove petty despots and cruel dictators, this is my opinion I do not give this opinion with the intent to give the impression that this opinion is shared by the RNC or the reasons this administration use to justify the war in Iraq, they are my opinions and mine alone.

You know, you could sell that position better if so many Iraqis weren't trying to kill our soldiers LONG after we took Saddam out of the picture. In every way that matters it appears Saddam Hussein was the only thing keeping that country together and with him gone it looks like the nasty little genie is out of the bottle and these people with their long-standing hatreds and political ambitions unrealized when their tyrant was in power can now slaughter each other with impunity.

With all these Iraqi civilian deaths each and every day we need to ask ourselves if we actually did them any favors by taking their tyrant away? I don't think so, judging by the body count. And remember, the accusations of murder levelled at out soldiers can be dismissed by our OWN military til hell freezes over. The Iraqi's aren't going to buy it. If we had credibility problems before, we REALLY have them now!

And only a nation with morals can claim a moral obligation for its actions. "Freeing" these people seems to have been a fallback position in case the invasion went bad, which it did. They just don't WANT us there. What does it take to convince people?