US troops kill 13 Iraqis in Falluja.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....QCL1YKCRBAELCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=2648783

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops shot dead at least 13 Iraqis during an anti-American protest in the town of Falluja overnight, witnesses said on Tuesday, in a clash likely to inflame anger at the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Witnesses and doctors in Falluja, 30 miles west of Baghdad, told Reuters U.S. troops opened fire on people demonstrating against their presence at a school in the town.

Falluja general hospital director Ahmed Ghanim al-Ali said 13 people had been killed and at least 75 wounded. Some local people gave higher estimates.

U.S. military headquarters in Qatar acknowledged troops in Falluja had opened fire on a group of Iraqis, but said they were armed with combat rifles and had shot first.

U.S. officers seeking to restore order in the volatile aftermath of Saddam's fall said 3,000 to 4,000 extra troops and military police would pour into Baghdad within the next 10 days to boost security in the capital.

Major General Glenn Webster, deputy commander of U.S. land forces in Iraq, said the decision to bring in reinforcements was not related to any specific incident but the announcement followed a series of setbacks to U.S. efforts to win popular Iraqi support.

With Saddam Hussein removed from power, the United States said it was pulling nearly all of its military forces out of neighboring Saudi Arabia in a major realignment of its presence in the Gulf.

The shooting in Falluja, and a clash between U.S. forces and Iraqi fighters in the northern city of Mosul on Monday in which six Iraqis were killed, punctured some of the optimism generated by a mass meeting convened by the United States in Baghdad to kickstart the transition to democracy.

FALLUJA BURIES ITS DEAD

"Our soul and our blood we will sacrifice to you martyrs," mourners in Falluja chanted as they buried some of the dead at a cemetery while U.S. helicopters flew overhead.

"It was a peaceful demonstration. They did not have any weapons," said local Sunni Muslim cleric, Kamal Shaker Mahmoud. "They were asking the Americans to leave the school so they could use it."

But a spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command in Qatar said the American troops "came upon a group of Iraqis armed with AK-47s."

"The Iraqis fired on them. The troops returned fire," she said.

The shooting followed a firefight in Mosul in which U.S. forces said they killed six suspected paramilitaries loyal to Saddam, whose 66th birthday was on Monday.

In the heaviest fighting in the country for days, U.S. units opened fire with heavy machineguns and lit up the night sky with red flares before calling in helicopter gunships.

U.S. forces announced they were holding Saddam's veteran oil minister, Amir Muhammed Rasheed, whose wife is bioweapons scientist Rihab Taha -- widely known as Dr Germ.

He was number 47 on a U.S. list of the 55 most wanted members of Saddam's administration and the six of spades in a deck of cards issued to troops hunting former Iraqi leaders.

The United States has now captured 14 of those on the list.

At the Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia, a senior U.S. official traveling with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on a tour of the region said Washington was ending military operations in the kingdom and removing almost all of its forces.

"It was by very mutual agreement," the official said. Only some of the 5,000 U.S. personnel involved in training would remain in Saudi Arabia.

The move effectively ends a relationship dating back to 1991 when the United States used Saudi Arabia as a launch pad for the last Gulf War to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait and then as a base to police a "no-fly" zone over southern Iraq.

TROOPS NO LONGER NEEDED

"When you no longer have Southern Watch, then it's self evident that you no longer need bodies here," the U.S. official said, referring to the "no-fly" operations.

The presence of Western troops in the kingdom -- home to Islam's holiest sites -- has angered many Saudis, already incensed over U.S. support for Israel.

The U.S. presence was among the first grievances aired by Saudi-born Osama bin Laden to justify attacks against the United States. Washington blames bin Laden for the suicide attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in September 2001.

U.S. officers said on Tuesday the military had already moved operations of a key combat air control center from a Saudi airbase to neighboring Qatar.

U.S. officials have declined to say if Rumsfeld intends to visit Iraq itself during his tour, which has already taken him to Qatar -- U.S. headquarters for the war -- and the United Arab Emirates.

U.S. efforts to introduce democracy to Iraq following the ousting of Saddam made progress on Monday when about 250 prominent Iraqis from across the political, ethnic and religious spectrum agreed to hold a national conference in four weeks time to choose an interim government.

"All efforts should be made to hold a national conference within four weeks ... to select a transitional Iraqi government," they said in a statement read out at the end of the nearly 10-hour meeting with U.S. reconstruction chief Jay Garner.

U.S. troops were widely welcomed for overthrowing Saddam but many Iraqis are now anxious for them to go home. Anti-American sentiment was stoked on Saturday when an arms dump exploded in southern Baghdad, killing at least 12 civilians.

Saddam's fate remain a mystery. His sons Qusay and Uday have also not been found, nor have the weapons of mass destruction which the United States said justified the war.

Key former Iraqi officials in U.S. custody, including former Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz, say Iraq has destroyed all its biological and chemical weapons.

President Bush, speaking on Monday in Dearborn, Michigan, said the United States had no intention of imposing its form of government or culture on Iraq and would ensure all Iraqis had a say in the new government.

"Whether you're Sunni or Shia or Kurd or Chaldean or Assyrian or Turkmen or Christian or Jew or Muslim, no matter what your faith, freedom is God's gift to every person in every nation," Bush told an audience that included a large number of Arab and Muslim immigrants to the United States.

 

[verte76]

Ugh. This is really bad news.

 

[STING2]

What the article does not mention is that there were Baath Party members in the crowd and members in the crowd had been chanting slogans for Saddam.

This will be the strategy of opponents of US forces. Use what looks to be a peaceful rally to fire on US troops. US troops will have no choice but to fire back in self defense, increasing the potential for innocent civilian deaths, and mis-leading charges that the USA is murding innocent civilians.

 

[BVS]

Does anyone have any other sources reporting on this incident. Sting, the article mentioned that some people have claimed there were armed individuals, but do you have anything to back up what you just claimed? Just curious...

 

[verte76]

What the article does not mention is that there were Baath Party members in the crowd and members in the crowd had been chanting slogans for Saddam.

This will be the strategy of opponents of US forces. Use what looks to be a peaceful rally to fire on US troops. US troops will have no choice but to fire back in self defense, increasing the potential for innocent civilian deaths, and mis-leading charges that the USA is murding innocent civilians.

Yuck. This is really bad news as well.

 

[cell]

this is where i read about the shootings...

IT WAS THE THIRD reported fatal shooting involving U.S. troops and Iraqi protesters in the past two weeks, underscoring the problems facing soldiers whose training focuses more on combat operations than crowd control.
The incidents, widely reported by Arab news media, have served to fuel growing resentment of the U.S. military presence in Iraq only weeks after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?s regime.
The latest shooting took place about 10:30 p.m. Monday in this town, roughly 30 miles west of Baghdad. The predominantly Sunni Muslim area provided strong support for Saddam?s Baath Party.
Army Col. Arnold Bray of the 82nd Airborne Division said at least seven Iraqis were hit by gunfire, but he could not confirm the reported deaths. The 82nd Airborne has one battalion spread out around Fallujah, and a company of 150 was inside a school that serves as its headquarters when the incident took place, soldiers said.
?There was fire directly over the heads of soldiers on the roof [of the school]. They returned fire in order to protect the lives of our soldiers,? said Lt. Col. Eric Nantz.
Dr. Ahmed Ghanim al-Ali, director of Fallujah General Hospital, said there were 13 dead, including three boys no older than 10. He said his medical crews were shot at when they went to retrieve the wounded, which he said numbered 75 people.

STUDENTS INVOLVED?
The crowd of about 200 demonstrators reportedly was objecting to the presence in Fallujah of troops from the 82nd Airborne?s 1st Battalion, 325 Regiment. Some townspeople, however, said the protest was held by students aged 5 to 20 to ask the soldiers to leave the school where they were staying so classes could resume Tuesday as scheduled.
Soldiers at the scene said many in the crowd had AK-47 assault rifles and were firing into the air ? a common practice at boisterous events.
?We saw three guys on the roof firing into the [school] building,? said Sgt. Nkosi Campbell, pointing at the house across the street from the school. ?Everybody could see the muzzle flashes.?
Saying his troops acted with restraint, he said his men were worried about the rules of engagement ? whether they should open fire.
?They turned around and said, ?Hey, Sergeant, can we shoot??? Campbell said. ?That was when they were already receiving fire.?
Bray said there were infiltrators in the crowd, including some who were armed and on nearby rooftops. ?Which kind of schoolboys carry AK-47s?? Bray asked.

PEACEFUL PROTEST?



But Iraqis interviewed at the hospital insisted it was a peaceful demonstration and that no one was armed or throwing rocks. One wounded 18-year-old man, Aqil Khaleil, said U.S. soldiers opened fire with no warning.
?They waited until we came very close, and then they started shooting,? he said.
Residents said the shooting continued for at least 30 minutes. Edtesam Shamsudeim, 37, who lives nearby, said her 45-year-old brother died in the gunfire. She was shot in the leg; her husband was wounded.
?We were sitting in our house. When the shooting started, my husband tried to close the door to keep the children in, and he was shot,? she said at the hospital, sitting in a chair with a bandaged leg, surrounded by some of her children. Their clothes were stained with bloody handprints.
?Americans are criminals,? she said.

U.S. DEFENDS FORCES UNDER FIRE





? Slide show: Occupied Baghdad




In Qatar, the U.S. Central Command said the U.S. soldiers ?came under fire from Iraqis armed with AK-47s. The unit exercised its inherent right to self-defense and returned fire.? Central Command said it had no confirmed reports of casualties.
?Incidents directed against coalition forces are evidence that despite the significant decrease in active military operations, dangers are still evident. Coalition forces will continue to use the appropriate amount of force to defend themselves against such threats,? the command said.
The unusual nighttime demonstration sprang from evening prayers held earlier, residents said.
The demonstration Monday was the first organized protest against the Americans in Fallujah, although one soldier was slightly injured recently when a flare was fired toward some troops, according to Nantz.
Residents say they had been growing increasingly disturbed by the presence of U.S. forces.
Some in the conservative town were upset that American soldiers were using night-vision goggles and could see into courtyards and onto rooftops, where women often sleep outside in the hot weather, according to one resident, Basheer Abdul Aziz.

TRUCE PACT
Separately, the U.S. Central Command disclosed Tuesday that the coalition reached a cease-fire agreement with an Iraq-based Iranian militant group that has been designated a terrorist organization by the State Department.
The deal signed April 15 with the Iraq-based Mujahedeen Khalq, or People?s Mujahedeen, also known as the MEK, doesn?t require its fighters to surrender to coalition forces ? at least for now, said a military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The deal was first reported Tuesday by The New York Times.
The cease-fire appears to be a way for the United States to increase pressure on Iran, which Washington has accused of meddling in Iraq after the collapse of Saddam?s regime.

The MEK aims to oust Iran?s government and received support from Saddam?s regime. It was added to the State Department?s list of terrorist organizations in 1997 and, according to the Times, is believed responsible for attacks in the 1970s that killed several American military personnel and contractors.
Under this agreement, according to U.S. officials, the MEK agreed not to fire upon or commit hostile acts toward coalition forces, while agreeing not to destroy or damage any government or private property.
However, the MEK reserved the right to self-defense only against groups like the Badr Corps, the Iranian-backed military wing of the Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Underscoring the complications of the unprecedented agreement, the United States at the same time is seeking to draw SCIRI into talks on establishing a transition government in Iraq. After boycotting the first meeting organized by U.S. overseer retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, SCIRI sent a low-level delegation to a meeting held Monday in Baghdad.




Broadband
? How allied troops took the Iraqi capital





OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Meanwhile, the last U.S. soldier listed as missing in the Iraq war was confirmed killed in action, a Pentagon official said Monday. The soldier was identified as Sgt. Edward Anguiano, who was based at Fort Stewart, Ga., the home of the U.S. Army?s 3rd Infantry Division. No further details were available. Relatives had said earlier that he had been found dead. The Pentagon counted 138 dead U.S. service members Tuesday, including one U.S. soldier who was killed by a bus in Baghdad. Of the 138 fatalities, 114 came as a result of hostile action; 24 resulted from non-hostile action. Some 562 troops have been wounded and injured, including a U.S. soldier who was shot and wounded by an unknown attacker in central Baghdad on Tuesday while traveling in a convoy of vehicles, the U.S. military said. The British government said 32 of its soldiers had died in the Iraq war.
Seeking to curtail looting and lawlessness in Baghdad, the U.S. Army said it will deploy up to 4,000 additional military police and infantry soldiers there over the next two weeks.
A top Iraqi Kurdish official ? Barham Salih of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan ? said U.S. forces should remain in Iraq until a democratically elected government is in place in the country.

 

[Dreadsox]

The major failure of this administration, is in not developing a real coalition before starting the war. Without a true multinational coalition, the United States is perceived as an occupier. As an occupier, we, like it or not, are the major target. This is a lose lose situation.

Peace

 

[Klaus]

According to al-Jazeera US troops were killing another 2 (4 wounded) civilists who were part of a crowd of 7000 who were protesting in Falludscha (west of Baghdad) against US troops presence (same reason as the tuesday protests).

Klaus

 

[verte76]

The major failure of this administration, is in not developing a real coalition before starting the war. Without a true multinational coalition, the United States is perceived as an occupier. As an occupier, we, like it or not, are the major target. This is a lose lose situation.

Peace

Good point. I think that's true.

 

[verte76]

According to al-Jazeera US troops were killing another 2 (4 wounded) civilists who were part of a crowd of 7000 who were protesting in Falludscha (west of Baghdad) against US troops presence (same reason as the tuesday protests).

Klaus

Damn. This situation is really frustrating to me.

 

[Marko]

I don't understand how anyone can defend this shooting with an argument that there were Baas party members in the crowd? so what? What about your holy freedom of speach - it doesen't apply to Iraqui people?

they were fireing - so stay out of the way untill you figure out how to isolate those armed protestants from the crowd...

if there are so many people protesting then some governments should concider the fact that they didn't 'free' anyone...

 

[verte76]

I don't consider the Iraqi people "free". They'll have to have their own government to be free, and they don't have this now.

 

[STING2]

Marko,

I don't understand how you could support people that use innocent civilians as a shield to try and kill US soldiers. Baath members were using the crowd as a way to attack US troops.

Easy for you to say "say out of the way". You were not in the soldiers situation. No one was shooting at you. I hope every US soldier responds without hesitation to terrorist that would try to kill them.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that the number of people protesting represent a tiny fraction of the total population. It should also be noted that the previous government in Iraq would have killed every single protestor in a matter of minutes.

US soldiers did the right thing. Terrorist and Baath party members cannot be allowed to think they can use or stage a peaceful protest to attack US soldiers without suffering return fire from US soldiers.


Dreadsox,

What would you have done specifically that would have created a larger coalition than the one the President created? Please don't explain who you would have brought along but how. Please explain how it would have succeeded where the Presidents actions failed. Also, could it not be the fault of the countries themselves for not going along rather than the Bush administration? I think Colin Powel did an excellant job given the circumstances.

 

[Dreadsox]

Sting,

I think, that Pollack's book clearly details the type of coalition that was necessary to make this work. The fact that we won the war was never in doubt, the question is what do we do now. I think it would have been better to have more of a multinational force. I also think, that if Powell and the President had made a convinving case to the world, more countries would have been with us. You and I went around about this before. Not looking to rehash it. It is my opinion.

Peace

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

Well the Bush Administration did get the support of over 40 countries for the operation. Bush Jr. got the support of Jordan, something his father did not get the first time in 1990/1991.

Ken Pollack does not state that any Arab country was needed for the military operation, as in Arab troops. He does state that several of them were important for the USA to conduct military operations from a basing and air space point of view. The USA did not need to base troops in Saudi Arabia for the operation. But it did get support in more secret ways from the Saudi's for the operation. Kuwait and Jordan were on board. Turkey was only 5 votes away from approving the basing of an entire US Armored Division on its territory to launch a strike into Iraq. Turkey has cooperated though in many other ways. No one was expecting much in the way of cooperation from Syria and Iran obviously, and Pollack certainly did not see that as a need either. Except for overt support from Saudi Arabia and the basing of a division in Turkey, the USA got everything it needed from the region which Pollack said was key, rather than European Allies.

Can you explain how Powell and Bush could have made a more convincing case to the rest of the world? If one was not convinced by Powell's speach to the UN in February, there is nothing that would have convinced them. But we have over 40 countries with the USA. If you don't think 40 countries is enough, whats your number?

I think most people were amazed by the speed of the military operation, its success, and the cost of lives that was so low, for coalition troops, Iraqi Civilians, and to a certain degree the Iraqi military.

But don't expect nation building to be done at the same speed. Building a stable democracy in Iraq is going to take years. Its a mistake to judge things simply on the past two weeks. This is going to take some time.

 

[Marko]

Sting,

I don't know how you read it and where you found it in my post, but I don't support those terorists.
On other hand you are openly saying that it's o.k. to ill civilians in order to eliminate few of those terorists. It makes me sick - us government holds no one responisible for all the killed and wounded civilians as they hold it 'colateral damage'.
In my country we had one big operation which lasted 4 days and we freed the third of our country. In that operation 50 civilians were killed - those people who led our forces now have to go to the war crime tribunal! And i have to say that we also fought against terorists (see UN resolutions)... will any of your highest ranking officers anwser for all those killed civilians?

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox,


Can you explain how Powell and Bush could have made a more convincing case to the rest of the world? If one was not convinced by Powell's speach to the UN in February, there is nothing that would have convinced them. But we have over 40 countries with the USA. If you don't think 40 countries is enough, whats your number?

I will again say, that I believe from reading and rereading Pollack, that I feel that this administration did not come close to meeting the conditions that Pollack outlined. You may have a different opinion. Two people can do this.

AS to Powell's speech, I do believe that some of the things he said were discredited, and in fact, proven to be innacurate by the AEIAOOOEIIIASUAS.....I forget the acronym. As a supporter of the war, I was NOT sold by his speech. I had to read outside books to convince myself because this administration has a communication problem in my opinion.

I do not have a number Sting. I stated my opinion. My opinion is that we basically have two nations running the show in Iraq. It does not matter how many have gone on record saying they support us. This phase of the operation would have much more legitimacy if there were a "true" coalition of forces in country at this point in time. As it is, we are "the" target and anytime anything goes wrong, it can be perceived as our fault.

You said the speed of the operation was great. I don't care how fast it went. While I am surprised it went so well, there was never a doubt in my mind that we would win, with or without the world. My point is about this phase. My point was not about the speed of this phase. This is the phase where "TRUE" international support is/was necessary. Now, we are percieved as the "ONE AND ONLY" occupier of Iraq.

 

[BVS]

Dreadsox,
I did not support the war, but I agree with everything you stated here. But I'll go a step further and say that I thought Powells presentation was an embarasement to our government. Many will disagree with me, but I wasn't even convinced that he was convinced.

I don't understand how you could support people that use innocent civilians as a shield to try and kill US soldiers.

Sting you honestly need to watch your leaps of reasoning. No where did Marko present any such thing.

 

[Marko]

BVSuperstar - thanx

 

[STING2]

Marko,

"I don't know how you read it and where you found it in my post, but I don't support those terorists.
On other hand you are openly saying that it's o.k. to ill civilians in order to eliminate few of those terorists. It makes me sick - us government holds no one responisible for all the killed and wounded civilians as they hold it 'colateral damage'.
In my country we had one big operation which lasted 4 days and we freed the third of our country. In that operation 50 civilians were killed - those people who led our forces now have to go to the war crime tribunal! And i have to say that we also fought against terorists (see UN resolutions)... will any of your highest ranking officers anwser for all those killed civilians?"

Colateral damage is an unavoidable fact when terrorist decide to fight against US forces from a large crowd. Your essentially saying that the US soldiers had no right to fire back in self defense. If one is critical of the legitamite self defense of the lives of US soldiers, then it would seem one is borderline supporting what would have happened if the soldiers had not fired back.

A US soldier cannot be held responsible for acting to defend himself and fellow soldiers. These soldiers are alive today because they responded to the terrorist actions. The people that are responsible for the deaths of the innocent civilians are the terrorist.

It makes me sick that anyone would want to hold any US soldier responsible for actions that saved the lives of US soldiers and were against terrorist. The US soldiers did not target any innocent civilians.

The reason that the Croation officers have to go to the wars crimes tribunal is because some feel that there is evidence that they may have committed war crimes. Colateral damage is not a war crime but and unavoidable fact of war. Targeting innocent civilians is a war crime and not colateral damage. Obviously, the Croation officers are on trial because there is evidence that civilians were executed rather than just being the random victim of colateral damage. Realize that there was almost no fighting when the Croations took the other the part of the country that was under Serb Control. Most Serb civilians and Serb military forces had withdrawn from the area prior to the Croation military operation. This makes the deaths of the civilians remaining in the area suspect.

"will any of your highest ranking officers anwser for all those killed civilians?"

NO, for the simple fact that the deaths of any civilians in the incident, do to US fire, were an unavoidable accident given the circumstances. There is not evidence that US forces executed any civilians. Every soldier on the ground in Iraq, including my friends has the right to shoot back in self defense. I sleep better at night knowing my friends are ready to defend themselves and others without hesitation.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"I will again say, that I believe from reading and rereading Pollack, that I feel that this administration did not come close to meeting the conditions that Pollack outlined. You may have a different opinion. Two people can do this."

Could you be more specific and outline what the Bush Administration did not do that was required from Pollacks book before going into Iraq. Its difficult for me to see how you could say the administration was not even close, please be more specific.

Pollack never said there had to be a broad coalition, but that certain countries in the region were a must.


"I do not have a number Sting. I stated my opinion. My opinion is that we basically have two nations running the show in Iraq. It does not matter how many have gone on record saying they support us. This phase of the operation would have much more legitimacy if there were a "true" coalition of forces in country at this point in time. As it is, we are "the" target and anytime anything goes wrong, it can be perceived as our fault."

Could you please define "true Coalition" forces. What is a "True Coalition"? Do you think it would be better to have Arab troops from the bordering countries that have been suspected of having territorial ambitions in Iraq by some, to be operating in the country. Is it not a coalition simply because the French and Germans do not have troops there? Would it really be desirable to have French and German troops there to begin with?


"As it is, we are "the" target and anytime anything goes wrong, it can be perceived as our fault.""

How is that any different from the "area's" where US soldiers are responsible for maintaining peace and security in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan?


"You said the speed of the operation was great. I don't care how fast it went."

I care how fast it went because its the speed of the operation which saved lives!

"This is the phase where "TRUE" international support is/was necessary. Now, we are percieved as the "ONE AND ONLY" occupier of Iraq."

Please define, "TRUE" international support. The United Nations will be involved in the delivery of humanitarian supplies and several other activities. What important countries do not support the economic and political development of Iraq into a democracy that does not threaten its neighbors?

"Now, we are percieved as the "ONE AND ONLY" occupier of Iraq.""

We can't be responsible for everyone's mistaken perception or the fact that many have not picked up on the fact that the British military's current deployment in Iraq is the largest deployment of British troops in decades. Nearly 50,000 British troops, a 1/4 of their entire military, have been involved in the operation.

 

[Marko]

Marko,

Colateral damage is an unavoidable fact when terrorist decide to fight against US forces from a large crowd. Your essentially saying that the US soldiers had no right to fire back in self defense. If one is critical of the legitamite self defense of the lives of US soldiers, then it would seem one is borderline supporting what would have happened if the soldiers had not fired back.


It makes me sick that anyone would want to hold any US soldier responsible for actions that saved the lives of US soldiers and were against terrorist. The US soldiers did not target any innocent civilians.

The reason that the Croation officers have to go to the wars crimes tribunal is because some feel that there is evidence that they may have committed war crimes. Colateral damage is not a war crime but and unavoidable fact of war. Targeting innocent civilians is a war crime and not colateral damage. Obviously, the Croation officers are on trial because there is evidence that civilians were executed rather than just being the random victim of colateral damage. Realize that there was almost no fighting when the Croations took the other the part of the country that was under Serb Control. Most Serb civilians and Serb military forces had withdrawn from the area prior to the Croation military operation. This makes the deaths of the civilians remaining in the area suspect.

"will any of your highest ranking officers anwser for all those killed civilians?"

NO, for the simple fact that the deaths of any civilians in the incident, do to US fire, were an unavoidable accident given the circumstances. There is not evidence that US forces executed any civilians. Every soldier on the ground in Iraq, including my friends has the right to shoot back in self defense. I sleep better at night knowing my friends are ready to defend themselves and others without hesitation.

You are right on some accounts, BUT one of our top officers is accused of using too much artilery during the operation in 1995! Too much artilery? cut the crap - that's what I said. So there are roatian officers accused of for crimes - and it's based on collateral damage! The eventual crimes that maybe happened after the operation are something different and I wasn+t talkn about them - I hope that I'm clearer now...

I have to say that I strongly disagree with you, but I find you a good debater with lousy arguments

And self defence - there are different kinds of self defence. This way you are playing for them - they want you to kill inocent peple and so oyu do... ironic

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,



"Sting you honestly need to watch your leaps of reasoning. No where did Marko present any such thing."

The specific statement may have been over the top. But I have dear friends in Iraq and I am against any statement or idea that would prevent US soldiers from defending themselves like they did in the recent incident. If my friends are faced with a similar situation, I hope they react in the same way. Their lives depend on it.

 

[Klaus]

In Falludscha, the town were the Iraqi at least 15 civilians were shot today there was a terror act against US soldiers.
People threw grenades into a building with US soldiers and shouted something about "revenge for the mertyrs"

is this the begining of a israel/palestine-like scenario?

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

I care how fast it went because its the speed of the operation which saved lives!

Sting, My heart is not in it. I am not debating this again. It will lead to interpretations of resolutions, debates on what a coalition is, ect. I do not have it in me to go around about these things. Things that we went round and round about before the war. You and I have different opinions on this administration and Pollack.


What I will respond to is this, and this is to clarify, the speed of the operation has nothing, nothing at all to dowith what I said in any of my statements. That is why I said I did not care, because it was not relevant towards the points I have made in here. I have expressed my opinions.

Peace

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

If you don't want to explain your opinion thats fine. I was just asking some specific questions.

 

[BVS]

BonoVoxSupastar,



"Sting you honestly need to watch your leaps of reasoning. No where did Marko present any such thing."

The specific statement may have been over the top. But I have dear friends in Iraq and I am against any statement or idea that would prevent US soldiers from defending themselves like they did in the recent incident. If my friends are faced with a similar situation, I hope they react in the same way. Their lives depend on it.

I understand that. I have friends in both Iraq and Afganistan and one dear friend that just got back. So I know what's going on. I know there are some really awful things happening on both sides of the line. I have the same respect and fears that you do for these men and women. But one thing you have not grasped in all of these discussions is that there are occasions where the US has done wrong. But I won't get into any details.

The story at hand has been reported by a few different sources. All have stated that the facts are unclear. I know how you want to see them, and it would be great to know that you are right, but you just don't know. Some say there were stones thrown, some say there weren't. Some say there were armed iraqis some say there weren't. The facts are that no where did they report any US soldier shot and if there was shooting involved it wasn't even clear that the soldiers were being shot at, it could have been shooting in the air. The point is why were children killed? Why were we occupying a school for so long, we had already found our inspections to be unfruitful. The fact is that we don't have all the facts and you can't react as if you do. I know there are situations happening that require our soldiers to defend their lives against those that are upset with the US being there. But I also know there are innocent lives that have suffered from the US soldiers ignorance, impatience, and even just out right hatred towards the people. This is coming from a first hand source...

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,


"But one thing you have not grasped in all of these discussions is that there are occasions where the US has done wrong. But I won't get into any details."

I know that is what you like to think. I do not know what your specifically talking about, but if your talking about the current operation please explain!

The difference between you and me, I think, and I underline think, is that I trust a member of the US military long before I would trust an independent reporter who often have not taken the time to understand, military weapons, military tactics, training, and the reality of combat in an urban setting.


"The point is why were children killed?"

From what I know of urban combat especially when large crowds are present, I would have been surprised if no one was killed. Oh and because no US soldier was shot does not mean they were not being shot at.

"Why were we occupying a school for so long, we had already found our inspections to be unfruitful."

These soldiers may not have been involved in inspections. I 'd like to inform you that there is a lot more than just inspections that US troops are currently working on! The school based on its position in the town may have been the best location for the troops to base themselves. These soldiers have been involved in military operations for the past 6 weeks and its their job to decide where they do their patrols and where they set up a base that is BEST from a tactical point of view based on multiple factors.

"But I also know there are innocent lives that have suffered from the US soldiers ignorance, impatience, and even just out right hatred towards the people. This is coming from a first hand source..."

Oh and what is your first hand source!? Please name the soldier who you claim has shown hatred to the Iraqi people. US soldiers are not ignorant like many others who do not understand their training and tactics and are not currently in their situation. Patience is a word that soldiers in the current operation understand too well unlike some civilians back in the comfortable western world. How often do civilians ever once think what it was like to sit out in the desert for 6 months away from their family and friends, while waiting to go into Iraq. There may be bad apples in every organization, but you will find ignorance and impatience least in the US military.

In any event, I would reserve judgement for someone that has volunteered to potentially give his life for freedom and justice until you can prove that person is beyond any reasonable doubt guilty of that crime.

I'd be interested if you would acknowledge the fact that the reason there were not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians in the war is do to the skill, professionalism, honesty, integrity, and knowledge of the men and women who SERVE are country and are ready to give the ultimate sacrifice.

I respect them and disdain any comment that unfairly or foolishly critizes them or alleges they have done actions that they are not guilty of.

 

[BVS]

I respect them and disdain any comment that unfairly or foolishly critizes them or alleges they have done actions that they are not guilty of.

I agree with you for the most part when it comes to the US soldiers. Like I said I have many of friends that are part of the US military. I have nothing but respect for these men and women.

I spent about 15 minutes writing to further explain what I was talking about earlier, but then decided it wasn't worth it. I'm not here to criticize any of these soldiers. The only thing I will say is that under heavy heat, stress, etc. there have been mistakes made. In the throws of battle, although trained not to, there have been soldiers acting on their own accord.

My problem is not with the soldiers. My problem is that with a pre-imptive strike and the restructuring of a country, Bush's administration has done a poor job dealing with the events that followed the fall of the regime. These were things that should be dealt with better. That's all.

 

[STING2]

"In the throws of battle, although trained not to, there have been soldiers acting on their own accord."

Soldiers are trained to act on their own accord without waiting for orders from leaders not on the scene of battle. This is one reason why US forces are so quick to react on the battlefield and survive and quickly defeat the enemy.

Many Iraqi military units were destroyed in place because they never recieved orders from their leaders to move to avoid being targeted and destroyed. US military destroyed the communication links between Iraqi forces. Since Iraqi forces are not trained to operate independently of their chain of command, it was easier to destroy many of their tank units.