[kvm_mkdb]

US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death

Mark Franchetti, Nasiriya
The Times
March 30, 2003

THE light was a strange yellowy grey and the wind was coming up, the
beginnings of a sandstorm. The silence felt almost eerie after a night of
shooting so intense it hurt the eardrums and shattered the nerves. My
footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards
the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead.

Some 15 vehicles, including a minivan and a couple of trucks, blocked the
road. They were riddled with bullet holes. Some had caught fire and
turned into piles of black twisted metal. Others were still burning.

Amid the wreckage I counted 12 dead civilians, lying in the road or in
nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town
overnight, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks and
heavy artillery.

Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the
coalition's supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young
American marines with orders to shoot anything that moved.

One man's body was still in flames. It gave out a hissing sound. Tucked
away in his breast pocket, thick wads of banknotes were turning to ashes.
His savings, perhaps.

Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty
orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who
may have been her father. Half his head was missing.

Nearby, in a battered old Volga, peppered with ammunition holes, an Iraqi
woman - perhaps the girl's mother - was dead, slumped in the back seat. A
US Abrams tank nicknamed Ghetto Fabulous drove past the bodies.

This was not the only family who had taken what they thought was a last
chance for safety. A father, baby girl and boy lay in a shallow grave. On
the bridge itself a dead Iraqi civilian lay next to the carcass of a
donkey.

As I walked away, Lieutenant Matt Martin, whose third child, Isabella,
was born while he was on board ship en route to the Gulf, appeared beside
me.

"Did you see all that?" he asked, his eyes filled with tears. "Did you
see that little baby girl? I carried her body and buried it as best I
could but I had no time. It really gets to me to see children being
killed like this, but we had no choice."

Martin's distress was in contrast to the bitter satisfaction of some of
his fellow marines as they surveyed the scene. "The Iraqis are sick
people and we are the chemotherapy," said Corporal Ryan Dupre. "I am
starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi.
No, I won't get hold of one. I'll just kill him."

Only a few days earlier these had still been the bright-eyed small-town
boys with whom I crossed the border at the start of the operation. They
had rolled towards Nasiriya, a strategic city beside the Euphrates, on a
mission to secure a safe supply route for troops on the way to Baghdad.

They had expected a welcome, or at least a swift surrender. Instead they
had found themselves lured into a bloody battle, culminating in the worst
coalition losses of the war - 16 dead, 12 wounded and two missing marines
as well as five dead and 12 missing servicemen from an army convoy - and
the humiliation of having prisoners paraded on Iraqi television.

There are three key bridges at Nasiriya. The feat of Martin, Dupre and
their fellow marines in securing them under heavy fire was compared by
armchair strategists last week to the seizure of the Remagen bridge over
the Rhine, which significantly advanced victory over Germany in the
second world war.

But it was also the turning point when the jovial band of brothers from
America lost all their assumptions about the war and became jittery
aggressors who talked of wanting to "nuke" the place.

None of this was foreseen at Camp Shoup, one of the marines' tent
encampments in northern Kuwait, where officers from the 1st and 2nd
battalions of Task Force Tarawa, the 7,000-strong US Marines brigade,
spent long evenings poring over maps and satellite imagery before the
invasion.

The plan seemed straightforward. The marines would speed unhindered over
the 130 miles of desert up from the Kuwaiti border and approach Nasiriya
from the southeast to secure a bridge over the Euphrates. They would then
drive north through the outskirts of Nasiriya to a second bridge, over
the Inahr al-Furbati canal. Finally, they would turn west and secure the
third bridge, also over the canal. The marines would not enter the city
proper, let alone attempt to take it.

The coalition could then start moving thousands of troops and logistical
support units up highway 7, leading to Baghdad, 225 miles to the north.

There was only one concern: "ambush alley", the road connecting the first
two bridges. But intelligence suggested there would be little or no
fighting as this eastern side of the city was mostly "pro-American".

I was with Alpha company. We reached the outskirts of Nasiriya at about
breakfast time last Sunday. Some marines were disappointed to be carrying
out a mission that seemed a sideshow to the main effort. But in an
ominous sign of things to come, our battalion stopped in its tracks,
three miles outside the city.

Bad news filtered back. Earlier that morning a US Army convoy had been
greeted by a group of Iraqis dressed in civilian clothes, apparently
wanting to surrender. When the American soldiers stopped, the Iraqis
pulled out AK-47s and sprayed the US trucks with gunfire.

Five wounded soldiers were rescued by our convoy, including one who had
been shot four times. The attackers were believed to be members of the
Fedayeen Saddam, a group of 15,000 fighters under the command of Saddam's
psychopathic son Uday.

Blown-up tyres, a pool of blood, spent ammunition and shards of glass
from the bulletridden windscreen marked the spot where the ambush had
taken place. Swiftly, our AAVs (23-ton amphibious assault vehicles) took
up defensive positions. About 100 marines jumped out of their vehicles
and took cover in ditches, pointing their sights at a mud-caked house.
Was it harbouring gunmen? Small groups of marines approached, cautiously,
to search for the enemy. A dozen terrified civilians, mainly women and
children, emerged with their hands raised.

"It's just a bunch of Hajis," said one gunner from his turret, using
their nickname for Arabs. "Friggin' women and children, that's all."

Cobras and Huey attack helicopters began firing missiles at targets on
the edge of the city. Plumes of smoke rose as heavy artillery shook the
ground under our feet.

Heavy machinegun fire echoed across the huge rubbish dump that marks the
entrance to Nasiriya. Suddenly there was return fire from three large oil
tanks at a refinery. The Cobras were called back, and within seconds they
roared above our heads, firing off missiles in clouds of purple tracer
fire.

There were several loud explosions. Flames burst high into the sky from
one of the oil tanks. The marines believed that what opposition there was
had now been crushed. "We are going in, we are going in," shouted one of
the officers.

More than 20 AAVs, several tanks and about 10 Hummers equipped with
roof-mounted, anti-tank missile launchers prepared to move in. Crammed
inside them were some 400 marines. Tension rose as they loaded their guns
and stuck their heads over the side of the AAVs through the open roof,
their M-16 pointed in all directions.

[kvm_mkdb]

As we set off towards the eastern city gate there was no sense of the
mayhem awaiting us down the road. A few locals dressed in rags watched
the awesome spectacle of America's war machine on the move. Nobody waved.

Slowly we approached the first bridge. Fires were raging on either side
of the road; Cobras had destroyed an Iraqi military truck and a T55 tank
positioned inside a dugout. Powerful explosions came from inside the
bowels of the tank as its ammunition and heavy shells were set off by the
fire. With each explosion a thick and perfect ring of black smoke ring
puffed out of the turret.

An Iraqi defence post lay abandoned. Cobras flew over an oasis of palm
trees and deserted brick and mud-caked houses. We charged onto the
bridge, and as we crossed the Euphrates, a large mural of Saddam came
into view. Some marines reached for their disposable cameras.

Suddenly, as we approached ambush alley on the far side of the bridge,
the crackle of AK-47s broke out. Our AAVs began to zigzag to avoid being
hit by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG).

The road widened out to a square, with a mosque and the portrait of
Saddam on the left-hand side. The vehicles wheeled round, took up a
defensive position, back to back, and began taking fire.

Pinned down, the marines fired back with 40mm automatic grenade
launchers, a weapon so powerful it can go through thick brick walls and
kill anyone within a 5-yard range of where the shell lands.

I was in AAV number A304, affectionately nicknamed the Desert Caddy. It
shook as Keith Bernize, the gunner, fired off round after deafening round
at sandbag positions shielding suspected Fedayeen fighters. His steel
ammunition box clanged with the sound of smoking empty shells and
cartridges.

Bernize, who always carries a scan picture of his unborn baby daughter
with him, shot at the targets from behind a turret, peering through
narrow slits of reinforced glass. He shouted at his men to feed him more
ammunition. Four marines, standing at the AAV's four corners,
precariously perched on ammunition boxes, fired off their M-16s.

Their faces covered in sweat, officers shouted commands into field
radios, giving co-ordinates of enemy positions. Some 200 marines, fully
exposed to enemy fire and slowed down by their heavy weapons, bulky
ammunition packs and NBC suits, ran across the road, taking shelter
behind a long brick wall and mounds of earth. A team of snipers appeared,
yards from our vehicle.

The exchange of fire was relentless. We were pinned down for more than
three hours as Iraqis hiding inside houses and a hospital and behind
street corners fired a barrage of ammunition.

Despite the marines' overwhelming firepower, hitting the Iraqis was not
easy. The gunmen were not wearing uniforms and had planned their ambush
well - stockpiling weapons in dozens of houses, between which they moved
freely pretending to be civilians.

"It's a bad situation," said First Sergeant James Thompson, who was
running around with a 9mm pistol in his hand. "We don't know who is
shooting at us. They are even using women as scouts. The women come out
waving at us, or with their hands raised. We freeze, but the next minute
we can see how she is looking at our positions and giving them away to
the fighters hiding behind a street corner. It's very difficult to
distinguish between the fighters and civilians."

Across the square, genuine civilians were running for their lives. Many,
including some children, were gunned down in the crossfire. In a surreal
scene, a father and mother stood out on a balcony with their children in
their arms to give them a better view of the battle raging below. A few
minutes later several US mortar shells landed in front of their house. In
all probability, the family is dead.

The fighting intensified. An Iraqi fighter emerged from behind a wall of
sandbags 500 yards away from our vehicle. Several times he managed to
fire off an RPG at our positions. Bernize and other gunners fired dozens
of rounds at his dugout, punching large holes into a house and lifting
thick clouds of dust.

Captain Mike Brooks, commander of Alpha company, pinned down in front of
the mosque, called in tank support. Armed with only a 9mm pistol, he
jumped out of the back of his AAV with a young marine carrying a field
radio on his back.

Brooks, 34, from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, had been in command of 200
men for just over a year. He joined the marines when he was 19 because he
felt that he was wasting his life. He needed direction, was a bit of a
rebel and was impressed by the sense of pride in the corps.

He is a soft-spoken man, fair but very firm. Brave too: I watched him
sprint in front of enemy positions to brief some of his junior officers
behind a wall. Behind us, two 68-ton Abrams tanks rolled up, crushing the
barrier separating the lanes on the highway.

The earth shook violently as one tank, Desert Knight, stopped in front of
our row of AAVS and fired several 120mm shells into buildings.

A few hundred yards down ambush alley there was carnage. An AAV from
Charlie company was racing back towards the bridge to evacuate some
wounded marines when it was hit by two RPGs. The heavy vehicle shook but
withstood the explosions.

Then the Iraqis fired again. This time the rocket plunged into the
vehicle through the open rooftop. The explosion was deadly, made 10 times
more powerful by the ammunition stored in the back.

The wreckage smouldered in the middle of the road. I jumped out from the
rear hatch of our vehicle, briefly taking cover behind a wall. When I
reached the stricken AAV, the scene was mayhem.

The heavy, thick rear ramp had been blown open. There were pools of blood
and bits of flesh everywhere. A severed leg, still wearing a desert boot,
lay on what was left of the ramp among playing cards, a magazine, cans of
Coke and a small bloodstained teddy bear.

"They are f****** dead, they are dead. Oh my God. Get in there. Get in
there now and pull them out," shouted a gunner in a state verging on
hysterical.

There was panic and confusion as a group of young marines, shouting and
cursing orders at one another, pulled out a maimed body.

Two men struggled to lift the body on a stretcher and into the back of a
Hummer, but it would not fit inside, so the stretcher remained almost
upright, the dead man's leg, partly blown away, dangling in the air.

"We shouldn't be here," said Lieutenant Campbell Kane, 25, who was born
in Northern Ireland. "We can't hold this. They are trying to suck us into
the city and we haven't got enough ass up here to sustain this. We need
more tanks, more helicopters."

[kvm_mkdb]

Closer to the destroyed AAV, another young marine was transfixed with
fear and kept repeating: "Oh my God, I can't believe this. Did you see
his leg? It was blown off. It was blown off."

Two CH-46 helicopters, nicknamed Frogs, landed a few hundred yards away
in the middle of a firefight to take away the dead and wounded.

If at first the marines felt constrained by orders to protect civilians,
by now the battle had become so intense that there was little time for
niceties. Cobra helicopters were ordered to fire at a row of houses
closest to our positions. There were massive explosions but the return
fire barely died down.

Behind us, as many as four AAVs that had driven down along the banks of
the Euphrates were stuck in deep mud and coming under fire.

About 1pm, after three hours of intense fighting, the order was given to
regroup and try to head out of the city in convoy. Several marines who
had lost their vehicles piled into the back of ours.

We raced along ambush alley at full speed, close to a line of houses. "My
driver got hit," said one of the marines who joined us, his face and
uniform caked in mud. "I went to try to help him when he got hit by
another RPG or a mortar. I don't even know how many friends I have lost.
I don't care if they nuke that bloody city now. From one house they were
waving while shooting at us with AKs from the next. It was insane."

There was relief when we finally crossed the second bridge to the
northeast of the city in mid-afternoon. But there was more horror to
come. Beside the smouldering wreckage of another AAV were the bodies of
another four marines, laid out in the mud and covered with camouflage
ponchos. There were body parts everywhere.

One of the dead was Second Lieutenant Fred Pokorney, 31, a marine
artillery officer from Washington state. He was a big guy, whose
ill-fitting uniform was the butt of many jokes. It was supposed to have
been a special day for Pokorney. After 13 years of service, he was to be
promoted to first lieutenant. The men of Charlie company had agreed they
would all shake hands with him to celebrate as soon as they crossed the
second bridge, their mission accomplished.

It didn't happen. Pokorney made it over the second bridge and a few
hundred yards down a highway through dusty flatlands before his vehicle
was ambushed. Pokorney and his men had no chance. Fully loaded with
ammunition, their truck exploded in the middle of the road, its remains
burning for hours. Pokorney was hit in the chest by an RPG.

Another man who died was Fitzgerald Jordan, a staff sergeant from Texas.
I felt numb when I heard this. I had met Jordan 10 days before we moved
into Nasiriya. He was a character, always chewing tobacco and coming up
to pat you on the back. He got me to fetch newspapers for him from Kuwait
City. Later, we shared a bumpy ride across the desert in the back of a
Humvee.

A decorated Gulf war veteran, he used to complain about having to come
back to Iraq. "We should have gone all the way to Baghdad 12 years ago
when we were here and had a real chance of removing Saddam."

Now Pokorney, Jordan and their comrades lay among unspeakable carnage. An
older marine walked by carrying a huge chunk of flesh, so maimed it was
impossible to tell which body part it was. With tears in his eyes and
blood splattered over his flak jacket, he held the remains of his friend
in his arms until someone gave him a poncho to wrap them with.

Frantic medics did what they could to relieve horrific injuries, until
four helicopters landed in the middle of the highway to take the injured
to a military hospital. Each wounded marine had a tag describing his
injury. One had gunshot wounds to the face, another to the chest. Another
simply lay on his side in the sand with a tag reading: "Urgent - surgery,
buttock."

One young marine was assigned the job of keeping the flies at bay. Some
of his comrades, exhausted, covered in blood, dirt and sweat walked
around dazed. There were loud cheers as the sound of the heaviest
artillery yet to pound Nasiriya shook the ground.

Before last week the overwhelming majority of these young men had never
been in combat. Few had even seen a dead body. Now, their faces had
changed. Anger and fear were fuelled by rumours that the bodies of
American soldiers had been dragged through Nasiriya's streets. Some
marines cried in the arms of friends, others sought comfort in the Bible.

Next morning, the men of Alpha company talked about the fighting over
MREs (meals ready to eat). They were jittery now and reacted nervously to
any movement around their dugouts. They suspected that civilian cars,
including taxis, had helped resupply the enemy inside the city. When cars
were spotted speeding along two roads, frantic calls were made over the
radio to get permission to "kill the vehicles". Twenty-four hours earlier
it would almost certainly have been denied: now it was granted.

Immediately, the level of force levelled at civilian vehicles was
overwhelming. Tanks were placed on the road and AAVs lined along one
side. Several taxis were destroyed by helicopter gunships as they drove
down the road.

A lorry filled with sacks of wheat made the fatal mistake of driving
through US lines. The order was given to fire. Several AAVs pounded it
with a barrage of machinegun fire, riddling the windscreen with at least
20 holes. The driver was killed instantly. The lorry swerved off the road
and into a ditch. Rumour spread that the driver had been armed and had
fired at the marines. I walked up to the lorry, but could find no trace
of a weapon.

This was the start of day that claimed many civilian casualties. After
the lorry a truck came down the road. Again the marines fired. Inside,
four men were killed. They had been travelling with some 10 other
civilians, mainly women and children who were evacuated, crying, their
clothes splattered in blood. Hours later a dog belonging to the dead
driver was still by his side.

The marines moved west to take a military barracks and secure their third
objective, the third bridge, which carried a road out of the city.

At the barracks, the marines hung a US flag from a statue of Saddam, but
Lieutenant-Colonel Rick Grabowski, the battalion commander, ordered it
down. He toured barracks. There were stacks of Russian-made ammunition
and hundreds of Iraqi army uniforms, some new, others left behind by
fleeing Iraqi soldiers.

[kvm_mkdb]

One room had a map of Nasiriya, showing its defences and two large
cardboard arrows indicating the US plan of attack to take the two main
bridges. Above the map were several murals praising Saddam. One, which
sickened the Americans, showed two large civilian planes crashing into
tall buildings.

As night fell again there was great tension, the marines fearing an
ambush. Two tanks and three AAVs were placed at the north end of the
third bridge, their guns pointing down towards Nasiriya, and given orders
to shoot at any vehicle that drove towards American positions.

Though civilians on foot passed by safely, the policy was to shoot
anything that moved on wheels. Inevitably, terrified civilians drove at
speed to escape: marines took that speed to be a threat and hit out.
During the night, our teeth on edge, we listened a dozen times as the
AVVs' machineguns opened fire, cutting through cars and trucks like
paper.

Next morning I saw the result of this order - the dead civilians, the
little girl in the orange and gold dress.

Suddenly, some of the young men who had crossed into Iraq with me
reminded me now of their fathers' generation, the trigger-happy grunts of
Vietnam. Covered in the mud from the violent storms, they were drained
and dangerously aggressive.

In the days afterwards, the marines consolidated their position and put a
barrier of trucks across the bridge to stop anyone from driving across,
so there were no more civilian deaths.

They also ruminated on what they had done. Some rationalised it.

"I was shooting down a street when suddenly a woman came out and casually
began to cross the street with a child no older than 10," said Gunnery
Sergeant John Merriman, another Gulf war veteran. "At first I froze on
seeing the civilian woman. She then crossed back again with the child and
went behind a wall. Within less than a minute a guy with an RPG came out
and fired at us from behind the same wall. This happened a second time so
I thought, 'Okay, I get it. Let her come out again'.

She did and this time I took her out with my M-16." Others were less
sanguine.

Mike Brooks was one of the commanders who had given the order to shoot at
civilian vehicles. It weighed on his mind, even though he felt he had no
choice but to do everything to protect his marines from another ambush.

On Friday, making coffee in the dust, he told me he had been writing a
diary, partly for his wife Kelly, a nurse at home in Jacksonville, North
Carolina, with their sons Colin, 6, and four-year-old twins Brian and
Evan.

When he came to jotting down the incident about the two babies getting
killed by his men he couldn't do it. But he said he would tell her when
he got home. I offered to let him call his wife on my satellite phone to
tell her he was okay. He turned down the offer and had me write and send
her an e-mail instead.

He was too emotional. If she heard his voice, he said, she would know
that something was wrong.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...628258,00.html

[Mastrap]

But there was no way we could have solved this issue peacefully. No way at all, I am sure.

[Brien]

WTF, man, just post snippits and a link. Do you know how f***ing long that is?!

[BlackGriffen]

Welcome to Hell.

Who wants to bet that the military is going to start un-embeding journalists soon? The decision to embed was made when they believed there would be a quick surrender and victory. Even though this article felt about as fair and even handed as it could be, I don't see the brass being pleased with the kind of reaction a peice like this is likely to get.

BG

[Face Ache]

FUBAR

But hey, it's pre-emptively solving terrorism.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by brien:
WTF, man, just post snippits and a link. Do you know how f***ing long that is?!

It's a, paid, subscription site. Links won't work.

[Face Ache]

"Cowboys" in the airforce too.

Mind you the Brits took out one of their own tanks.

[engaged]

This sad event will bring back memories from last time around; half our losses in the last Gulf war occured in a single incident when a US plane mistakenly attacked UK troop carriers.

And as Face Ache says, it's not is if the UK Forces aren't immune to it.

[Logic]

Thanks for the article kvm.

I don't really know what to say. We can't blame the soldiers but some seemed to be a little too aggressive and ruthless. But the blame lies with the leaders of the coalition, and the planners of this invasion.

I just hope that as few lives as possible are lost, both Iraqi and coalition lives.

[theolein]

This reminds me very much of the account written about the ambush in Mogadishu in Somalia in 1993. I recommend comparing the article to this one.

Thanks for the story. Although it is gruesome, it's a lot more real than the daily accounts of "major gains" in the media.

[spacefreak]

It's sickening how these Iraqi warriors, encouraged by their government, use their women and children as human shields.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by theolein:
Although it is gruesome, it's a lot more real than the daily accounts of "major gains" in the media.

Yeah, all those "major gains" we hear about are fake. Just propaganda.



And we never hear about any of our losses in the media.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's sickening how these Iraqi warriors, encouraged by their government, use their women and children as human shields.

Yes, it's sickening.

But: We all know that the Coalition strategists expected them all to welcome the forces with open arms, and certainly, it's what we all hoped once the bombing started.

I suppose it's a shock to some that people who are hopelessly outmatched will turn to gruesome and desperate tactics.

It certainly wasn't part of the advertising that sold this war to a naïve public.

-s*

[theolein]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Yeah, all those "major gains" we hear about are fake. Just propaganda.



And we never hear about any of our losses in the media.

Hearing that a city has been "taken" six times before it has been taken, that a "whole Iraqi division" has been captured only to to be retracted, that the "Iraqi shiite population in Basra is revolting" only to be retracted, that "an high level Iraqi officer has been captured" only to be retracted, that "Iraq has fired illegal Scud missiles at Kuwait" only to be retracted, that "a chemical weapons factory has been discovered" only to be retracted, does somehow myke me doubt the original sources of those claims.

What one doesn't hear about in the media very often are first person accounts of the war. What did you expect? Did you expect it to be like Unreal, or Quake III? Where, even though the opponent or you has been defeated that you can still talk about it afterwards? Did you expect the Iraqi's to do the Jesus bit and turn the other cheek? Did you expect your country's soldiers to be above shooting civilians if shot at? Didi you expect everyone in Iraq to accept American hegemony with no resitance? War is awful and sickening. Peple die in horrible ways, often without ever being able to say some final words to their loved ones, and yes that includes Iraqis as well.

The way it looks is as if Iraq is turning into another Somalia. It's too early to really say, but I seriously doubt any invading force can win in a situation where the local population is seriously against the invaders. That is, without resorting to genocide. Genocide will lose the war to those parts of the world that are still supporting this conflict. The war to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world was lost when the first bombs started falling.

The Allies are not even in Baghdad yet, and it has already degenerated into a fight for every centimeter of small towns. And there has not even been any major contact yet between large Allied and Iraqi forces.

I think it is time to end the war, now.

[BkueKanoodle]

Great Jornalism. Yeah, I love how he spends so much time setting the mood instead of providing the facts. Like the fact that the the author just happened to forget to write that this bridge is nasirif is the same one where the iraquis are shooting any covilians trying to flee and using them as a human shield. He if you want to lay their deaths on somebodies feet, lay them at the feet of the iraqi SS, um, I mean feyadeen saddam.

I've come to expect the same propraganda pieces any time I see KVM_MKDB name, so this is nothing new.

[theolein]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
Great Jornalism. Yeah, I love how he spends so much time setting the mood instead of providing the facts. Like the fact that the the author just happened to forget to write that this bridge is nasirif is the same one where the iraquis are shooting any covilians trying to flee and using them as a human shield. He if you want to lay their deaths on somebodies feet, lay them at the feet of the iraqi SS, um, I mean feyadeen saddam.

I've come to expect the same propraganda pieces any time I see KVM_MKDB name, so this is nothing new.

Coming from a poster, who, amongst others of his ilk, has been propgandising the as yet unidentified Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, the supposed liberation of the Iraqi people who don't seem too happy about it, the drawn from science fiction threat to American national security and the better than being at church story about lack of interest in Iraqi oil, I find your post highly ironic to say the least.

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by theolein:
Coming from a poster, who, amongst others of his ilk, has been propgandising the as yet unidentified Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, the supposed liberation of the Iraqi people who don't seem too happy about it, the drawn from science fiction threat to American national security and the better than being at church story about lack of interest in Iraqi oil, I find your post highly ironic to say the least.

I find you an a**hole, but that's besides the point.

I never claimed to be objective, unlike the news media who are supposed to be balanced and objective in their reporting.

In the end, we'll see who is right, but until then you can live in your fairy land hoping that evil doesn't exist, that if you cover your eyes to the inhumanity of the Saddam Hussein regime, and talk in grandiose terms of Diplomacy, then maybe, just maybe you can live with yourself at night when the lights are out and you can fall alseep in your nice warm bed. Meanwhile, in some hole in the ground, a soldier stands watch so you can wake up each day and live your life. He doesn't do it for money, or fame or power, but because he believes in what he is doing. You may not like, but you can't deny it, unless your naive.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:

I've come to expect the same propraganda pieces any time I see KVM_MKDB name, so this is nothing new.

Funny how that works.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by finboy:
Funny how that works.

"The Times" doesn't post anti war propaganda. Trust me on this one, please.

[BkueKanoodle]

Really, then how do you explain inflammatory headlines like these: (with a siuggested, unbiased headline in parenthesis)

Washington hawks face unfriendly fire for 'cheap' war

(defense planners face criticism for war plans)


Why is my country bombing these poor people?

(Reactions to war differs from mainstream opinion)


Fairford's B52s bring death amid the poppies

(US B-52's conduct bombing missions in Iraq)

I'm not a journalist, but the suggested headlines are clear conscise, gives the facts without gibing an opinion and is an example of unbiased reporting. Again, to think otherwise, is naive.

[clarkgoble]

This reminds me very much of the account written about the ambush in Mogadishu in Somalia in 1993. I recommend comparing the article to this one.

Sadaam purportedly passed out copies of Black Hawk Down to his troops as a manual on how to attack the Americans.

While the children are a horrible, sickening tragedy, I find the assumption by many that killing women to be wrong surprising. After all many of our troops are women. There still is a lot of sexism with respect to war.

As someone else mentioned, when you are hopelessly outgunned you will turn to guerilla tactics. This shouldn't be surprising. If Rumsfeld didn't expect it then he was being criminally naive. But then I've always been a Powell guy. The Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld side of the administration always made me nervous.

[BlackGriffen]

Add to the hopes for low casualties et al that this reporter gave that captain time to contact his wife like he wanted to. Cause I'm sure he'd love to have his wife find out the story from a newspaper.

BG

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by theolein:
The way it looks is as if Iraq is turning into another Somalia. It's too early to really say, but I seriously doubt any invading force can win in a situation where the local population is seriously against the invaders.

The whole Mogadishu situation was very depressing, and although it is too early to tell, my fear is that you could be right. I pray you're not, for the benefit of both sides.

kvm_mkdb, thanks for posting the article.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
I find you an a**hole, but that's besides the point.

I never claimed to be objective, unlike the news media who are supposed to be balanced and objective in their reporting.

In the end, we'll see who is right, but until then you can live in your fairy land hoping that evil doesn't exist, that if you cover your eyes to the inhumanity of the Saddam Hussein regime, and talk in grandiose terms of Diplomacy, then maybe, just maybe you can live with yourself at night when the lights are out and you can fall alseep in your nice warm bed. Meanwhile, in some hole in the ground, a soldier stands watch so you can wake up each day and live your life. He doesn't do it for money, or fame or power, but because he believes in what he is doing. You may not like, but you can't deny it, unless your naive.

What a bunch of crap.

[BkueKanoodle]

Great comeback. You can't argue with it, can you?

[shmerek]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
Great comeback. You can't argue with it, can you?

I never said I was arguing just stating an opinion, my opinion.

[itai195]

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
The whole Mogadishu situation was very depressing, and although it is too early to tell, my fear is that you could be right. I pray you're not, for the benefit of both sides.

kvm_mkdb, thanks for posting the article.

Just wait until we actually get to Baghdad... I'm praying that we actually have some sort of reasonable plan to take the city, because if we're facing such stiff resistance from towns along the way then taking a metropolis of 5 million people could turn into an unspeakable disaster...

Very good article btw. I felt it was quite balanced, a view of the war that many of us have not seen. Anyone who thought the desperation tactics of using women and children as shields, or seemingly harmless observers, should take a look at any conflict the Israelis have participated in.

[theolein]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
I find you an a**hole, but that's besides the point.

I never claimed to be objective, unlike the news media who are supposed to be balanced and objective in their reporting.

In the end, we'll see who is right, but until then you can live in your fairy land hoping that evil doesn't exist, that if you cover your eyes to the inhumanity of the Saddam Hussein regime, and talk in grandiose terms of Diplomacy, then maybe, just maybe you can live with yourself at night when the lights are out and you can fall alseep in your nice warm bed. Meanwhile, in some hole in the ground, a soldier stands watch so you can wake up each day and live your life. He doesn't do it for money, or fame or power, but because he believes in what he is doing. You may not like, but you can't deny it, unless your naive.

I don't know if your post was directed at me, because it seems to be a standard school essay written by an 15 year old of some backwater school newspaper, carefully experimenting with big words such as "Diplomacy", "inhumanity" and "terms", spiced with complex phrases such as "cover your eyes", "talk in grandiose terms", "live with yourself" and "he doesn't do it for money, fame or power" for the first time, and groping with words he has discovered in books and the press.

I don't know how old you are, but coming from somone who has never seen war, much less experienced the effects a war has on a country and on one's life, I find your posts next to ludicrous. I grew up in a country at war, did 5 years of compulsory military training in that time, had good friends on both sides of that conflict and lost good friends on both sides of that orgy of hatred and killing and even worked with your air force for one and a half years.

You, my friend, I would dare to say, have no idea what you are talking about when you make statements about who is defending whom. In the isolation of your monocultural world, I would seriously doubt that you have the ability to judge on exactly whose eyes are being covered, as you so proudly put it.

But I'll put it in simpler terms, so that you will be able to understand it this time:

If there is ever any soldier in that dirty cesspit of a war in Iraq, be it Iraqi or American, attempting to quiten his conscience or stregthen his resolve by thinking he is doing it for me, then, for my part, he can pack up his stuff and **** off home.

I'll sleep a lot better at night knowing that some more children will live to lead a meaningful life instead.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
Great Jornalism. Yeah, I love how he spends so much time setting the mood instead of providing the facts. Like the fact that the the author just happened to forget to write that this bridge is nasirif is the same one where the iraquis are shooting any covilians trying to flee and using them as a human shield. He if you want to lay their deaths on somebodies feet, lay them at the feet of the iraqi SS, um, I mean feyadeen saddam.

Two weeks ago when an Israeli bulldozer turned a protester into a carpark I said this:

Originally posted by Face Ache:
I think the bulldozer driver put the onus upon the girl to get out of the way. Once you make that decision you can act as recklessly as you like and it's not your fault if someone gets hurt.

Is it?

Blaming Saddam for the civilian deaths that we cause is the same deal.

We started the war - we own the war, and everything that comes with it. Our* troops are firing upon civilians. The "anti-war" types you deride warned that this would happen.

Welcome to war. Now deal with it.

* When I say "Our troops" I'm being polite. AFAIK us Aussies haven't killed anyone we're not supposed to (yet). But I suppose if the war goes on long enough, we will.

[clarkgoble]

Just wait until we actually get to Baghdad... I'm praying that we actually have some sort of reasonable plan to take the city, because if we're facing such stiff resistance from towns along the way then taking a metropolis of 5 million people could turn into an unspeakable disaster...

I suspect that Rumsfeld's plan involves a lot of SPECWAR operations. The troops will engage the Republican Guard surrounding Bagdad and meanwhile all the Seals, Delta Force, and other groups run around the city targeting leadership. That's been going on for sometime. A lot of reports have some of the explosions being directly set and not done by airial assault.

Whether this is sufficient is an other matter. Winning guerilla wars are difficult. Typically what is left over is difficult to really build a strong nation out of. Look at the aftermath of Spain's guerilla war with Napolean.

The hope is that at a sufficent level of defeat, the surrenders will begin. However clearly neutralizing the southern cities is now more important than it was in the initial attacks.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
"Cowboys" in the airforce too.

Mind you the Brits took out one of their own tanks.

"Get some! Get Some! Get Some! Get Some!
Anyone who runs is V.C., anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined V.C.! [...]
Ain't war hell?!"
(Helicopter door gunner, Full Metal Jacket)

PB.

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[Millennium]

Interesting points made here. But some crucial details appear to have been glossed over.

Look over the numbers of civilians and vehicles again. You'll notice something: not enough civilians. Or, more to the point, fewer civilians then vehicles; there is no way they could have been driving. This was a military convoy, which for some reason had a few civilians among their number.

A great and terrible shame, yes. But also an accident.

[clarkgoble]

While not directly related to the story that started this thread, some information has come out about those women and children who were killed yesterday. Arab TV had an interview with their cleric who said that they were forced into the van by the Iraqi irregulars and their husbands held hostage. Rather intersting interview, if true.

It isn't on the Fox website yet, but was a video off one of the Arab stations (Al Jazeera?) that was widely shown all night.

Here's a link to the story. (Yes I know WorldNet Daily is a conservative news source - but they are just quoting the video)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=31829

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
While not directly related to the story that started this thread, some information has come out about those women and children who were killed yesterday. Arab TV had an interview with their cleric who said that they were forced into the van by the Iraqi irregulars and their husbands held hostage. Rather intersting interview, if true.

It isn't on the Fox website yet, but was a video off one of the Arab stations (Al Jazeera?) that was widely shown all night.

Here's a link to the story. (Yes I know WorldNet Daily is a conservative news source - but they are just quoting the video)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=31829

Absolute bullshit.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...962796085.html

An Iraqi mother in a van fired on by US soldiers says she saw her two young daughters decapitated in the incident that also killed her son and eight other members of her family.

The children's father, who was also in the van, said US soldiers fired on them as they fled towards a checkpoint because they thought a leaflet dropped by US helicopters told them to "be safe", and they believed that meant getting out of their village to Karbala.

Bakhat Hassan - who lost his daughters, aged two and five, his three-year-old son, his parents, two older brothers, their wives and two nieces aged 12 and 15, in the incident - said US soldiers at an earlier checkpoint had waved them through.

As they approached another checkpoint 40km south of Karbala, they waved again at the American soldiers.

"We were thinking these Americans want us to be safe," Hassan said through an Army translator at a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital set up at a vast Army support camp near Najaf.

The soldiers didn't wave back. They fired.

"I saw the heads of my two little girls come off," Hassan's heavily pregnant wife, Lamea, 36, said numbly.

She repeated herself in a flat, even voice: "My girls - I watched their heads come off their bodies. My son is dead."

US officials originally gave the death toll from the incident as seven, but reporters at the scene placed it at 10. And Bakhat Hassan terrible toll was 11 members of his family.

Hassan's father died at the Army hospital later.

US officials said the soldiers at an Army checkpoint who opened fire were following orders not to let vehicles approach checkpoints.

On Saturday, a suicide bomber had killed four US soldiers outside Najaf.

Details emerging from interviews with survivors of yesterday's incident tell a distressing tale of a family fleeing towards what they thought would be safety, tragically misunderstanding instructions.

Hassan's father, in his 60s, wore his best clothes for the trip through the American lines: a pinstriped suit.

"To look American," Hassan said.

An Army report written last night cited "a miscommunication with civilians" as the cause of the incident.

Hassan, his wife and another of his brothers are in intensive care at the MASH unit.

Another brother, sister-in-law and a seven-year-old child were released to bury the dead.

The Shi'ite family of 17 was packed into a 1974 Land Rover, so crowded that Bakhat, 35, was outside on the rear bumper hanging on to the back door.

Everyone else was piled on one another's laps in three sets of seats.

They were fleeing their farm town southeast of Karbala, where US attack helicopters had fired missiles and rockets the day before.

Helicopters also had dropped leaflets on the town: a drawing of a family sitting at a table eating and smiling with a message written in Arabic.

Sergeant 1st Class Stephen Furbush, an Army intelligence analyst, said the message read: "To be safe, stay put."

But Hassan said he and his father thought it just said: "Be safe".

To them, that meant getting away from the helicopters firing rockets and missiles.

His father drove. They planned to go to Karbala. They stopped at an Army checkpoint on the northbound road near Sahara, about 40km south of Karbala, and were told to go on, Hassan said.

But "the Iraqi family misunderstood" what the soldiers were saying, Furbush said.

A few kilometres later, a Bradley Fighting Vehicle came into view. The family waved as it came closer. The soldiers opened fire.

Hassan remembers an Army medic at the scene of the killings speaking Arabic.

"He told us it was a mistake and the soldiers were sorry," Hassan said.

"They believed it was a van of suicide bombers," Furbush said.

Hassan, his wife, his father and a brother were airlifted to the MASH unit.

Three doctors and three nurses worked on the father for four hours but he died despite their efforts.

Today, Hassan and his wife remain at the unit. He has staples in his head. She has a mangled hand and shrapnel in her face and shoulder.

Major Scott McDannold, an anaesthesiologist, said Hassan's brother, lying nearby, wouldn't make it. He is on a respirator with a broken neck.

On March 16, Hassan and his family began to harvest tomatoes, cucumbers, scallions and eggplant. It was a healthy crop, and they expected a good year.

"We had hope," he said. "But then you Americans came to bring us democracy and our hope ended."

Lamea is nine months pregnant.

"It would be better not to have the baby," she said.

"Our lives are over."

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
I find you an a**hole, but that's besides the point.

I never claimed to be objective, unlike the news media who are supposed to be balanced and objective in their reporting.

In the end, we'll see who is right, but until then you can live in your fairy land hoping that evil doesn't exist, that if you cover your eyes to the inhumanity of the Saddam Hussein regime, and talk in grandiose terms of Diplomacy, then maybe, just maybe you can live with yourself at night when the lights are out and you can fall alseep in your nice warm bed. Meanwhile, in some hole in the ground, a soldier stands watch so you can wake up each day and live your life. He doesn't do it for money, or fame or power, but because he believes in what he is doing. You may not like, but you can't deny it, unless your naive.

Well, if you really claim that US Troops are fighting to make this world a better place i ask you: Where were american troops 1998 in Rwanda/Uganda when 2 Million Tutsis were slaughtered? And thats just one example out of many!

I will believe that the soldiers are not doing it for money, fame or power but the US government that sends them is certainly doing it for money and power, maybe even for fame in a historical perspektive.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
Well, if you really claim that US Troops are fighting to make this world a better place i ask you: Where were american troops 1998 in Rwanda/Uganda when 2 Million Tutsis were slaughtered? And thats just one example out of many!

I will believe that the soldiers are not doing it for money, fame or power but the US government that sends them is certainly doing it for money and power, maybe even for fame in a historical perspektive.

You also forget who was in Power in 1998. The Man who got 18 Special forces soldiers killed because he didn't give them the proper Hardware for the Mission.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
Well, if you really claim that US Troops are fighting to make this world a better place i ask you: Where were american troops 1998 in Rwanda/Uganda when 2 Million Tutsis were slaughtered? And thats just one example out of many!

The same place the German troops were and especially the UN. Walking on the other side of the road pretending not to see the bleeding body. We all should be ashamed of our behavior. We all ignored that genocide until it was too late and 800,000 were already hacked to death.

I'm ashamed, aren't you?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by typoon:
You also forget who was in Power in 1998. The Man who got 18 Special forces soldiers killed because he didn't give them the proper Hardware for the Mission.

Yes, but he flew to Rwanda afterwards to apologize. All better now.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The same place the German troops were. Walking on the other side of the road pretending not to see the bleeding body. We all should be ashamed of our behavior. We all ignored that genocide until it was too late and 800,000 were already hacked to death. I'm ashamed, aren't you?

Sure i was ashamed and i never said i didnt blame every western government for not acting but i am not walking around telling everyone how americans are always fighting for freedom and a better world if there are enough examples where they didnt act even though they could have acted. And thats because they didnt gain anything, even though i think thats also the reason why other western government didnt act.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
Sure i was ashamed and i never said i didnt blame every western government for not acting but i am not walking around telling everyone how americans are always fighting for freedom and a better world if there are enough examples where they didnt act even though they could have acted. And thats because they didnt gain anything, even though i think thats also the reason why other western government didnt act.

What I don't understand is why you seem to think it has to be either/or? I thought Europeans were supposed to be the ones who see the shades of gray, and that it is us dumb Americans who see everything in black and white.

Most wars are fought for a variety of reasons. It is very rare that one reason alone is so compelling that war is justified. I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that part of the justification for going to war against Saddam's regime is self-interest. That's been the explicit rationale all along. Why else do you think that there is concern about weapons of mass destruction? It is because of the fear that they could be used. In other words, it is self interest.

But that doesn't eliminate the other explanations. Disposing of a horrible regime will be an objective good. Indirectly, the US expects to benefit from a world with one less tyrant. But the direct benefit will be felt by the Iraqi people.

Is it so difficult to see that these are complementary and overlapping goals? Why does it have to be either/or?

[theolein]

Originally posted by typoon:
You also forget who was in Power in 1998. The Man who got 18 Special forces soldiers killed because he didn't give them the proper Hardware for the Mission.

And that would have been? B-52s carpet bombing Mogadishu? The incidents in Mogadishu were the US special forces were ambushed by Somali clan members and members of the civilain population was not an isolated one. A week or two before that happened, a Pakistani patrol was ambushed and slaughtered to a man. Why that wasn't taken into account I don't know. But it certainly didn't have anything to do with hardware. The operation was badly planned and highly risky, considering that by then everyone knew that the Somali population was not looking at the UN mission as a bunch of friends. The whole mission was also not well coordinated. The various nations troop units were squabbling with one another and accusing one another of various things. The Italians were accused by the US of trading information about UN troop movements to the the Somalis in exchange for safe passage on their patrols.

Bulldozing the city and slaughtering all the civilians there would not exactly have been in line with the UN's mission there, which was to end the war in the first place. Why no one realised that the Somalis clan bonds would be stronger than their looking at the UN mission as peace bringers is also open to question. Before the US mission went awry, there had aleady been a number of incidents, one most notably in a Canadian army camp, where Somalis trying to steal food were tortured to death. News about tha got out to the locals and probably did not exactly so much to improve the UN mission's image amongst them.

I find it both typical and ridiculous that, as usual, for some reason only known by the lunatic fringe amongst this board, that Clinton is once agains blamed for all things that ever went wrong in the USA according to them. No one had had any experience of Somali clan structures by then, and as they are doing today in Iraq they automatically assumed that the Somalis would welcome "democracy". The inability to learn from past mistakes and the tendancy to blame figures who had litle culpibility in those mistakes, seems to be a trend. Thing is, who are you going to blame if the war in Iraq goes tits up and becomes a bloodbath and a massacre.

Oh yes, I forgot, silly of me. France.

The screeching of the far right for every person to take responsibility for their owns lives and actions doesn't seem to apply to themselves.

That person who said that history repeats itself was a very wise person.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The same place the German troops were and especially the UN. Walking on the other side of the road pretending not to see the bleeding body. We all should be ashamed of our behavior. We all ignored that genocide until it was too late and 800,000 were already hacked to death.

I'm ashamed, aren't you?

I think the day you'ld really be ashamed Simey, is the day that God is going to come down from heaven and admit that he didn't actually want the job in the first place.

Your quote about Clinton apologising to the people of Rwanda is quite absurd. The year before the massacres started, in 1993, the US lost 18 soldiers in that mission in Mogadishu in Somalia. I somehow doubt that your country's people would have approved a large (because anything short of large would not have had any chance of working) military mission to Rwanda. If I remember correctly, the images of that dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu were then still very much present in the minds of the American public.

I find it so typical of you to point out that some other country or President (the Germans and Clinton this time instead of the French for a change) is at fault. As if you didn't know, the German constitution (the one that the Americans "helped" them make after World War II) forbade the German military from duty outside Germany's border at that time. The German constitution was ammended to allow German military involvement outside of Germany in the action in Bosnia in 1995, a year later, where the US, UK, France, Holland and others finally did intervene in the NATO sponsored action there to end the genocide taking place by Bosnian Serbs against Bosnian Muslims. Something which gained the US a very favourable image abroad at the time, by the way.

Ironically, very ironically, the French defintely were culpable to a certain extent in Rwanda. The cabal of murky French African politics and business deals, under the Mitterand government was a continuation of business as usual for France's attitude to Africa. The Distinction between Hutu's and Tutsi's only became a buring point in Rwanda and Burundi, when French colonial powers in the previous century empowered the Tutsi to have privileges not accorded to the Hutu, something which simmered away for almost a century. The region was split into Rwanda and Burndi, with the the Hutu being in power in Rwanda, and the Tutsi in Burundi. Tribal animosity and government failures to do anything of substance were turned against the Tutsi in Rwanda by Nazi like propagnada radio broadcasts (Radio "Milles Colines"). The French knew this, did nothing to intervene or stop these actions, and had supplied the Hutu led army with weapons and training in previous years. They would definitely have had the power to do so, but for them, just like for just about every other western nation, Rwanda had no resources worth anything to the west and, because of this was mostly ignored.

It was only after Mitterand had died and after some French journalists started finally doing some investigative journalism into the behind the scenes going ons, that the filthy, diseased and corrupt band of criminals in high office and industry started coming to light in France. This triggered off what has been the biggest round of judicial investigations into corruption between industry and politics in Frances history. These investigations led to the trials of many top managers in French industry and cases aginst many French politicians, including an attempted one against Chirac for accepting bribes while he was Mayor of Paris. It also led to the collapse of Helmut Kohl, the long time Chancellor of Germany, for his complicity in accepting illegal "donations" for his party's finances from the French oil company, TotalFinalElf, in exchange for contracts in Gas stations in eastern Germany. TotalFinalElf is now on trial in France for those and other illegal bribes and payments after years of investigation by the French judiciary.

The next time you'ld like to point fingers about how posters in Europe only see the good side of their countries, please remember this post.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
Well, if you really claim that US Troops are fighting to make this world a better place i ask you: Where were american troops 1998 in Rwanda/Uganda when 2 Million Tutsis were slaughtered? And thats just one example out of many!

I will believe that the soldiers are not doing it for money, fame or power but the US government that sends them is certainly doing it for money and power, maybe even for fame in a historical perspektive.

"The United Nations? In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started.

Bill Clinton refused to act as well, instructing the State Department not to use the word genocide because then the United States would be expected to do something. And President Clinton instructed Madeleine Albright, then our representative to the UN, to block any possible attempts to intervene despite Kofi Annan. Some 800,000 lives could have been saved."


That is why nothing was done in Rwanda.
Below is an interesting Article from a protestor of Vietnam

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php

[clarkgoble]

No one had had any experience of Somali clan structures by then, and as they are doing today in Iraq they automatically assumed that the Somalis would welcome "democracy".

Not really equivalent. For one Iraq was much more stable and much more educated than Somalia. For an other in Somalia we were in with fairly limited goals - capturing a warlord and distributing food aid. Also there was a massive civil war with many sides. In Iraq you basically have only two sides.

Further the Somali situation really was a matter of not having the hardware. The Pakistani did have heavy armor. The general on the ground was being told to find Aristide without the proper equipment because Clinton didn't want to send the message he felt extra equipment would give. Which was fine. But in that case he should have told the general to stop going after Aristide like he was.

The problem really was mission creep, a lack of support, and then not knowing what to do about the humanitarian crisis.

However Somalia was important in that it was the straw that broke the camel's back in the US with respect to George Bush's "New World Order." The somewhat naive view of nation building was never taken the same. Unfortanately that also affected Ruwanda where we could have done something but fear of Somalia (and public opinion) kept us from doing anything. Part of the reason the UN did nothing was pressure from Clinton.

Horrible.

But I honestly think most of Africa has to be considered different from nations like Iraq, Iran or so forth that are more advanced. Some level of stability and education is needed before democracy can really work.

[typoon]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:

Further the Somali situation really was a matter of not having the hardware. The Pakistani did have heavy armor. The general on the ground was being told to find Aristide without the proper equipment because Clinton didn't want to send the message he felt extra equipment would give. Which was fine. But in that case he should have told the general to stop going after Aristide like he was.

The problem really was mission creep, a lack of support, and then not knowing what to do about the humanitarian crisis.

However Somalia was important in that it was the straw that broke the camel's back in the US with respect to George Bush's "New World Order." The somewhat naive view of nation building was never taken the same. Unfortanately that also affected Ruwanda where we could have done something but fear of Somalia (and public opinion) kept us from doing anything. Part of the reason the UN did nothing was pressure from Clinton.

That was the problem Clinton din't want to send a message that the extra equipment would send. It cost the needless death of special forces soldiers. The pressure from Clinton for the reason why the UN didn't do anything was the same reason Clinton didn't want to give the troops the proper equipment to do the job. He Loaths the Military and because he feels that the Military the new World Meals on wheels instead of a fighting force.