Toronto Escorts

Killing children

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,162356,00.html

Looks like the "insurgents" are getting desperate.

This is especially eerie to me, since I am old enough to remember US forces in Germany.
We used to run up to their trucks, as they drove by, and begged for gum and candy. Since the success rate was 99%, it became quiet a sport to us.

Now those punks are targeting this on purpose? How low can you go?

Let's see how many responses it takes, before this somehow becomes the fault of the USA.
 

happygrump

Once more into the breach
May 21, 2004
820
0
0
Waterloo Region
These kids are completely innocent non-combatants.

While my opinion on the war and GWB are well known, I cannot, in good conscience, saddle the US administration with this outrage of specifically targeting children. Sure, the US forces would have to have known that children would be killed in the bombings and whatnot. But this tactic is beyond the pale.
 

George OTJ

George of the Jungle
Nov 12, 2003
617
0
0
North York
DonQuixote said:
We're supposed to provide security in Iraq.
Ergo, we're responsible for these events.

Don
With all due respect, this is typical of what some people consider fundamently "wrong" with U.S. society and their legal system - the constant blaming of others for their choices, their mistakes. Although you say "we", we know you really mean the US Government and GWB.

The Iraqis have chosen this tactic of killing children - not to kill children or even to kill soldiers. They have chosen this tactic to alienate the US forces from those Iragis who are friendly towards the US prescence.

Although I do agree the US bears some reposibility for restoring public order in Irag, they aren't responsible for the tactics chosen by the enemy commanders. Especially when the tactics have reached this level of evil!
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
langeweile said:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,162356,00.html

Looks like the "insurgents" are getting desperate.

This is especially eerie to me, since I am old enough to remember US forces in Germany.
We used to run up to their trucks, as they drove by, and begged for gum and candy. Since the success rate was 99%, it became quiet a sport to us.

Now those punks are targeting this on purpose? How low can you go?

Let's see how many responses it takes, before this somehow becomes the fault of the USA.
Obviously you have to ask yourself if those kids would still be alive if the Americans hadn't invaded Iraq. IMHO, they probably would still be alive. I know Saddam was a butcher but there is still a very small probablility that he would have killed all those children. So, bottom line, the US invasion and the US mishandling of the situation after they invaded contributed to these deaths and a great many more besides. The insurgents killed the children but the US contributed to the insurgency through sheer ignorance and stupidity.

Immediately following the invasion, it is obvious the US had no alternative plan to secure Iraq properly in case the expected hordes of grateful Iraqis didn't materialize. The US had already destroyed most of Iraq's infrastructure during the bombing. Then they stood around flatfooted while the looters destroyed much of what was left. This lack of planning is what eventually allowed the insurgency to get off the ground. Now it is totally out of control. Whose fault is that?
 

lenharper

Active member
Jan 15, 2004
1,106
0
36
as one who opposed and continues to oppose the attack on Iraq I gotta say listening to the crazies almost makes me want to side with george et al. sure they fucked up, plain and simple, but now the troops are there trying to do their best -- buncha men and women younger than most of us on this board trying to make sense of what is going on around them -- and we have someone accusing them of murdering these kids.

By the way -- Calley was not a hero. He was caught, prosecuted and did time for what was considered a war crime. His government charged and prosecuted him -- he was certainly not lionized as some kind of great hero. to state otherwise is complete revisionism.

also, someone else states that the troops should stay away from children and civilians. the task they are charged with is trying to rebuild the country. How the fuck are they supposed to stay away from the people they now are supposed to help and rebuild the country at the same time.

whether the reasons for invading were specious (and I do beleive they were) or not, how one can blame the US forces (either explicitly -- they killed the kids) or implicitly (they should bury their heads in the sand, stay behind there fortified bunkers and do nothing) is unfair and ignorant in the extreme.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
Jasmin_MA said:
OHH CNN even better........ try listening to reading some reports coming from the other side.....

I don't do drugs thank you very much.....

Its the Americans fault, the bloodshed and loss of life is their fault... If they wouldn't have invaded a country illegally, or if the troops would stay away from children and other civilian targets then they wouldn't be dying.....

But Im sure you believe that Saddam had WMD and that he killed more of his own people then the sanctions ever did.

Your blantant and total ignorance is disgusting...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/07/13/iraq-carbomb050713.html

Oh right let me guess the CBC is part of the conspiracy as well?

you are a prime example why pot should not be legalized. Aside from the obvious brain damage that it causes, it also makes you paranoid..been there done that....don't wanna go back to it..
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
harleycharley said:
as your posts on rove so ably demonstrate......

Instead of shooting from the hip I suggest you read my posts on Rove. Just in case you missed it let me repeat slowly..

If Karl Rove turns up to be guilty as charged, he should resign. If it rises to the level of criminal behaviour he should be put to jail.

However all this should not happen because of a media frenzy, it should happen as a result of the findings of the ongoing investigation.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
DonQuixote said:
We have to take responsibility for the consequences of this occupation.
You are on a slippery slope when you argue the US is not responsible.
We are responsible for the security of the people in Iraq. That is the
direct consequence of being an occupying military.

We have done a dreadful job of securing the country since the very beginning.
The instability and insurgent movement would never have happened had we
sent 250,000 troops to Iraq. The generals in the Pentagon argued before the
invasion that would be the required force. But Rumsfeld dismissed their
advise and we are now living with the consequences of his poor judgment.
Unfortunately, the Iraqis are the ones that are feeling the brunt of his
poor planning.

No, the US is responsible. "You break it, you own it."

Don
Don


If i recall correctly, you are retired US MILLITARY. I suggest you notify the GOVERNMENT you wish to decline any further payments from the mitllitary pension fund. You can even insist your monies be diverted to move-on dot org or more directly to OBL himself.
 

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
DonQuixote said:
We, the American citizens, are responsible for the actions of our government
since they represent us. The death of the innocent is blood on our hands. We comprise
the military, we elect the leaders and we pay for them being there.

It's like saying the German people are not responsible for Hitler. Wrong.
We must hold our leaders responsible. If we don't then we are as culpable as them.
The reason the insurgents [fka guerillas in 'Nam] are able to conduct these attacks
is because the Secretary of Defense devised a failed and ill-planned invasion.
Had we secured the country in the first 60 days after March 17, 2003 none of these
deaths would have occured. We gave the insurgents a window of opportunity and
now we're as bad as Saddam. Are the Iraqi people any better off today than under
Saddam when he was in power? It may very well be that they are worse off.

Don
Don, I do agree with you that the Secretary of Defense devised an ill planned invastion. I do not know the reasoning for their plan, perhaps they under estimated the resistance.... perhaps they expected that once they battle had begun, other countries would come on board... whatever that reasoning, it has obviously not gone smoothly.

While it is admirable for you to feel such responsibility for these children... i believe that your sentiments are misguided...

I may be wrong, but based on your logic, applied to everyday life...

Any citizen would hold their government responsible for the death of their child in a shooting incident because the government did not secure the city.
Furthermore, they would hold the killer blameless for the act...

This logic does not make any sense...
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
Dog Feith, neocon darling, questions Iraq decisions

Official Admits Errors in Iraq
Feith Cites Delay in Transfer of Power, Size of U.S. Force
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; A12


Douglas J. Feith, a top Pentagon official who was deeply involved in planning the Iraq war, said that there were significant missteps in the administration's strategy, including the delayed transfer of power to a new Iraqi government, and that he did not know whether the invading U.S. force was the right size.

In an interview as he concludes his tenure as undersecretary of defense for policy, Feith acknowledged that there were "trade-offs" and "pros and cons" to the Pentagon's plan to use a relatively small invasion force in Iraq, voicing uncertainty about whether that decision was correct. The war's "rolling start" with a streamlined ground force achieved some tactical surprise, he said, potentially averting a longer war and other catastrophes such as the destruction of Iraqi oil fields. But he acknowledged that a small force had drawbacks, and others have criticized the plan for failing to stop widespread looting and insecurity after Saddam Hussein's government fell in April 2003.

"I am not asserting to you that I know that the answer is, we did it right. What I am saying is it's an extremely complex judgment to know whether the course that we chose with its pros and cons was more sensible," Feith said in a 90-minute interview Monday at his Bethesda home.

Feith's resignation was announced in January. His comments are a rare public sign of doubt about Iraq policy by a Pentagon official.

He said mistaken actions and policies in Iraq resulted in frequent "course corrections," pointing to two that he considered significant -- both resulting from an early failure to put Iraqis in charge.

First, the United States missed the opportunity before the war to train enough Kurds and other Iraqi exiles to assist the U.S. military, he said. "That didn't happen in the numbers we had hoped," he said.

A plan to train an estimated 5,000 Iraqi exiles in Hungary produced instead only a few hundred, in part because U.S. military leaders at the Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, were uncomfortable with it. Training Iraqi forces has since emerged as the central thrust of the U.S. exit strategy for Iraq.

Even more important, Feith said, was the reluctance among some U.S. officials to transfer power early on to an Iraqi government and dismantle the U.S. occupation authority, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), headed by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer.

"How would Iraq have been different if we had terminated the CPA in May or June of '03?" and created an Iraqi government, he asked. "Some people said if you do that and it fails, you'll set the country back irretrievably and . . . the only way you could set up a government early on would be to rely unduly on the 'externals,' " he said, referring to Iraqi exiles.

"My views were generally in favor of transferring responsibility to the Iraqis earlier. I thought there were ways of getting the 'internals' involved earlier," he said, speaking of prospective Iraqi leaders inside the country who were not well known to the United States before the invasion.

On troop levels in Iraq, Feith said U.S. military commanders -- not the Pentagon -- determined the flow of and number of forces into the country. "I don't believe there was a single case where the commander asked for forces and didn't get them . . . the commander controlled the forces in the theater," he said.

Senior U.S. Army officers dispute this view, saying the Pentagon cut off the planned influx of nine division-equivalents into Iraq in the war's initial phase.

Feith acknowledged it is difficult to strike a balance between having too few troops to provide security and an overly large occupation force, which he said risked "increasing antagonism, increasing friction, increasing the number of soldiers we had sitting around waiting for intelligence that we didn't have."

"Ultimately, people are going to be able to go back and make judgments week by week" about whether troop levels were adequate, he said. He declined to comment on a possible timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
 

lenharper

Active member
Jan 15, 2004
1,106
0
36
As for your post, please tell us something we don't know the old Rumsfeld vs the Pentagon viz troop strength and size has been common knowledge for the last two years.

and it looks like Rumsfeld was wrong. obviously. but what does this have to do with this particular incident? other than the obvious not enough troops on the ground.

what is your solution? send more troops. as odious as that idea is it is preferrable to shipping them home.
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
lenharper said:
As for your post, please tell us something we don't know the old Rumsfeld vs the Pentagon viz troop strength and size has been common knowledge for the last two years.

and it looks like Rumsfeld was wrong. obviously. but what does this have to do with this particular incident? other than the obvious not enough troops on the ground.

what is your solution? send more troops. as odious as that idea is it is preferrable to shipping them home.
First of all, there are plenty of people who do not believe that Rummy and friends made ANY mistakes. Pointing out the mistakes again and again is a worthwhile endeavour until people agree. In fact, you might look at the propaganda put out by Bushco during the last election cycle to see the absense of an admission of error.

My solution. I suggest that we set a date & we move out. 105 guys in the Iraqi parliament already voted for the US to set a timetable & get out (that's about 40% of the total).

Declare victory and go.

What's your solution? Rummy's 12 year stay in Iraq? More children being killed? More US soldiers coming home as cripples or in body bags?
 
Last edited:

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
TOVisitor said:
First of all, there are plenty of people who do not believe that Rumy and friends made ANY mistakes. Pointing out the mistakes again and again is a worthwhile endeqvour until people agree. In fact, you might look at the propaganda put out by Bushco during the last election cycle to see the absense of an admission of error.

My solution. I suggest that we set a date & we move out. 105 guys in the Iraqi parliament already voted for the US to set a timetable & get out (that's about 40% of the total).

Declare victory and go.

What's your solution? Rummy's 12 year stay in Iraq? More children being killed? More US soldiers coming home as cripples or in body bags?
I do not think that anyone really believes that there were no mistakes made (just remember that what people say and believe are two different things).

With our 20/20 hindsight, we can easily dissect the problem... however, when decision makers make decisions, they rarely have the benefit of hindsight.

Given the decision to enter this war was questionable at best, and the support for it was not very high, cost in dollars and in lives were a HUGE consideration. It seemed to me that the plan was to commit the minimum american troops needed, recruit within Iraq, win the war, receive the adulation of the Iraqis and the world, and then thumb your nose at your detractors...

The fact is that they probably could not have gotten this war thru if they had tried to commit alot more troops and money. If I used the logic of some members of this board, I would then say that it is the fault of the people who opposed the war because they handcuffed the operation at the beginning... The blame game is fruitless (at least for me), so I do not intend to go there.

The solutions is simple:
1. Stay and commit more forces and more money
2. Withdraw and allow the current government to work it out for themselves.

My personal opinion is that they should commit to staying 30 - 60 days. Send in large amounts of ground force clear out as many insurgents as possible and then withdraw completely and allow the Iraqi's to figure out what they are going to do.
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
Iraqi deaths on the rise

July 14, 2005
Data Shows Rising Toll of Iraqis From Insurgency
By SABRINA TAVERNISE


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi civilians and police officers died at a rate of more than 800 a month between August and May, according to figures released in June by the Interior Ministry.

In response to questions from The New York Times, the ministry said that 8,175 Iraqis were killed by insurgents in the 10 months that ended May 31. The ministry did not give detailed figures for the months before August 2004, nor did it provide a breakdown of the figures, which do not include either Iraqi soldiers or civilians killed during American military operations.

While the figures were not broken down month by month, it has been clear since the government of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari took over after the Jan. 30 election that the insurgency is taking an increasing toll, killing Iraqi civilians and security workers at a faster rate.

In June the interior minister, Bayan Jabr, told reporters that insurgents had killed about 12,000 Iraqis since the start of the American occupation - a figure officials have emphasized is approximate - an average monthly toll of about 500.

The issue of civilian deaths in Iraqi has been a delicate one, with some contending that the Bush administration and the Pentagon have deliberately avoided body counts to deprive their critics of a potent argument against the war. Estimates have ranged from the 12,000 offered by Mr. Jabr to as many as 100,000 in a widely reported study last year. The new figures are likely to add to that debate.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/i...=1121313600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

How much worse would it be if Saddam were still in charge? Not much at all.
 

MrLuvr

New member
Oct 20, 2004
605
0
0
Collateral damage.

I wonder how many Iraqi children the American bombs have killed and they have dismissed it as "collateral damage".

I don't see Langvile coming and posting in a froth when that happens.

Is the killing of the children by the insurgents abhorrent? Yes.

Is the killing of the children by Americans abhorrent? Yes.

Americans are killing children based on lies by the Bush government and an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation by a country drunk on it's own power.

Insurgents are killing children as a means to rid their country of illegal invaders. It is a tactic to keep the Americans away from civilans. If it works and is for the greater cause of freeing a country then maybe there is a justification. Maybe by NOT doing so, MORE Iraqi children will be killed by errant American bombs in collateral damage.

Who is more abhorrent in this case?

USA.
 
Toronto Escorts