[Lerkfish]

this CNN story should be read in its entirety, but a couple of things I thought to comment on...

U.S. officials have suggested that the old, easily counterfeited dinars and U.S. dollars have been used by insurgents to pay bounties for attacks on coalition troops.

Replacing the old dinars -- which feature images of toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein -- is crucial to establishing economic stability in Iraq, U.S. officials have said.

although the real reason is because old dinars are being used as rewards for attacks on coalition forces, as stated earlier in the article. THAT actually makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the bizarre spin that completely changing a country's currency is to promote economic stability....er, right.

"There was -- at least for this period of time -- a concerted effort by the enemy to deliver a significant blow to coalition forces," U.S. Army Col. Frederick Rudesheim said during a news conference in Samarra with other soldiers involved in the operation.

Actually, I'm curious why attempting to hijack new dinars, crucial for economic stability, would have been considered a "significant blow to coalition forces". This goes back the real, versus stated rationale for the new dinars. IF the new dinar currency was to undercut the ability to place bounties on insurgent attacks, THEN foiling that plan would be a blow, yes. But if it was to "establish economic stability", I don't see it as anything other than a simple robbery attempt.


under "other developments":

•_The Iraqi Governing Council has formed a committee to study the process for directly electing delegates to a constitutional convention -- which is aimed at drafting a new Iraqi constitution by March 2005, coalition spokesman Dan Senor said Monday. The council also has established a committee to study the process for writing the transitional law, which will call for regional caucuses to choose a national assembly by the end of May 2004, Senor said. That assembly would, by the end of June 2004 [sic], choose a transitional government to assume control of the country and lead it through the constitutional convention and subsequent direct elections for a new permanent government, to be held by January 2006.

What I find interesting about this timetable is how conveniently it fits in with the American presidential elections.

[Spliffdaddy]

Naturally it would the Americans fault for baiting the theives.

Not the thieves fault for stealing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Naturally it would the Americans fault for baiting the theives.

Not the thieves fault for stealing.

Of course not!

I had read the story before, and I was suprised when I saw Lerk was posting it.

Then I saw that Lerk added his Anti -war-bush take on it and it all makes sense.

Remember Spliff. Bad = Good. Good = Bad

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What doesn't make sense is the bizarre spin that completely changing a country's currency is to promote economic stability....er, right.

That's exactly what was done in 1948 in the allied parts of occupied Germany ("Trizonia"). The Deutsche Mark was rolled out to try to stabilize the economy. It worked, but the Soviets responded by cutting off Berlin, which led to the Berlin Airlift.

If you have runaway inflation, often a new currency is exactly what you need. For example, when I visited Poland in 1994, it was about 22,500 Zlotys to the Dollar. So they created a new Zloty and I think it was about 4 to the Dollar last time I checked.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Naturally it would the Americans fault for baiting the theives.

Not the thieves fault for stealing.

and I said that....where?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's exactly what was done in 1948 in the allied parts of occupied Germany ("Trizonia"). The Deutsche Mark was rolled out to try to stabilize the economy. It worked, but the Soviets responded by cutting off Berlin, which led to the Berlin Airlift.

If you have runaway inflation, often a new currency is exactly what you need. For example, when I visited Poland in 1994, it was about 22,500 Zlotys to the Dollar. So they created a new Zloty and I think it was about 4 to the Dollar last time I checked.

possibly, but my understanding from the article is the primary reason is to undercut the buying power of the insurgents, which is actually a valid reason.
I don't know how it would stabilize anything, though in the present situation.
You're fond of using 1948 examples, but the differences there would be two vastly different types of economies.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and I said that....where?

So you think it WASN'T the Americans fault?





That's your only other option.


Wanna take a step back?

[thunderous_funker]

If only they could protect everything as well as they protected that currency shipment.

Hell, sounds like that convoy had better protection than Wolfowitz did on his last visit.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So you think it WASN'T the Americans fault?





That's your only other option.


Wanna take a step back?

Wanna reply with some content?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
although the real reason is because old dinars are being used as rewards for attacks on coalition forces, as stated earlier in the article. THAT actually makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the bizarre spin that completely changing a country's currency is to promote economic stability....er, right.

The US planned to replace the currency well before the major fighting began. The primary reason given then was that all Iraq's currency was tattooed with Saddam's portraits, or at least that's the understanding that I had.

As for increasing Iraq's economic stability, I'll trust the economists who are working with the government in determining and implementing Iraq's new treasury. They know much more about the topics and issues involved than I do.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You're fond of using 1948 examples, but the differences there would be two vastly different types of economies.

Yes. Germany's in 1948 was far worse. People were literally starving and the "currency" before the D-Mark was mostly cigarettes.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The US planned to replace the currency well before the major fighting began. The primary reason given then was that all Iraq's currency was tattooed with Saddam's portraits, or at least that's the understanding that I had.

As for increasing Iraq's economic stability, I'll trust the economists who are working with the government in determining and implementing Iraq's new treasury. They know much more about the topics and issues involved than I do.

Yes. The government always knows best. Always.

Night night, little camper.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Wanna reply with some content?

You first.

I'll wait.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yes. The government always knows best. Always.

Night night, little camper.

I stated that I trust the economists who are working with the government. Furthermore, you are the one interjecting the word "always" here. I didn't say as much.

Regardless, who would you suggest as an attractive alternative for setting up a new Iraqi treasury?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So you think it WASN'T the Americans fault?





That's your only other option.


Wanna take a step back?

I stated no judgement either way. I just found the spin different from the actual reasons. People merely assumed I had.

If you like, I will NOW give my opinion...which I thought would have been somewhat apparent, when I said earlier that the REAL justification (of preventing bounties for insurgents) was a valid one.


....drumroll....I don't think it was the American's fault.


--- I think it was a hijacking by enemy forces...whether for sheer greed or strategy, it was still a bad thing, and the coalition forces apparently successfully thwarted it.


now, that we have that over with....we can get back to my main point that the stated and actual justifications do not jive. which was the only point I was trying to make

how about next time, you guys respond to what I actually say, instead of what your knee-jerk-colored spectacles tell you?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes. Germany's in 1948 was far worse. People were literally starving and the "currency" before the D-Mark was mostly cigarettes.

that's the currency and supply issues....
I was speaking towards the differences in the character of their overall economies.
Iraq, for example, is largely dependent on one commodity, and expressing that commodity's export as the building blocks of its economy.
Germany's economy in 1948 was based on a much more generalized collectivization of goods and services.
Therefore, a currency retrofitting would be more likely to stabilize its economy since the principle hemmorage was the dissassociation of actual value to currency assignment. Before the 1948 currency exchange, the inflation was asymptotic and approaching ludicrous noncongruency with actual value....3 bags of currency for one loaf of bread, for example.
Completely uncontrollable inflation not tied to anything substantive would be a valid reason to change the currency standard.

But is that what is happening in Iraq? Is that the cause of its economic instability? No, the cause is the destruction and laggardly repair of infrastructure and continued violence. Changing the currency will not address those concerns.

However, the REAL reason, of undercutting the bounty, WOULD be addressed by such a move.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I stated that I trust the economists who are working with the government. Furthermore, you are the one interjecting the word "always" here. I didn't say as much.

Regardless, who would you suggest as an attractive alternative for setting up a new Iraqi treasury?

Ah, so government employees are trustworthy, but not government.

I just can't help noticing when those who rant against the evils of government when it comes to social or domestic issues, emphatically defer all judgement to the all-knowing government when it comes to foreign policy. I just find it humorous.

Back OT:

These are the same economists that oversaw Argentina's economic reformation. The same economists that have helped sub-saharan Africa reach such heights of prosperity over the decades.

Who should we trust? How about "its none of our damn business"? I don't seem to recall the president making any empassioned speeches about how we needed to invade Iraq in order to achieve radical market liberalization and currency stabilization.

If the new Iraqi government wants our opinion on economic matters, they can ask for it. Until then, hands off. Iraq's economy is arguably the least of our worries in the short term.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Who should we trust? How about "its none of our damn business"? I don't seem to recall the president making any empassioned speeches about how we needed to invade Iraq in order to achieve radical market liberalization and currency stabilization.

If the new Iraqi government wants our opinion on economic matters, they can ask for it. Until then, hands off. Iraq's economy is arguably the least of our worries in the short term.

The straightening up of Iraq's treasury is absolutely a critical part of their reconstruction - it's critical in all reconstuctions.

I ask again: who would you suggest as an attractive alternative for setting up Iraq's treasury?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The straightening up of Iraq's treasury is absolutely a critical part of their reconstruction - it's critical in all reconstuctions.

I ask again: who would you suggest as an attractive alternative for setting up Iraq's treasury?

I think he answered you, you just didn't like the answer:

T_F: If the new Iraqi government wants our opinion on economic matters, they can ask for it.

and I have the same answer as well. For liberated people, we sure spend an awful amount of time making decisions for them.

[typoon]

It's about time we started showing some fight. It's also about time the US military showed some might fighting these ambushes.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The straightening up of Iraq's treasury is absolutely a critical part of their reconstruction - it's critical in all reconstuctions.

I ask again: who would you suggest as an attractive alternative for setting up Iraq's treasury?

Not when you're still mired in a guerilla war, it's not.

Oh, but I forgot that the ongoing war is mostly a fiction of the liberal media. Iraq is actually as charming as Rhode Island. Just like Afghanistan.

Swapping Saddam-bills for new ones is certainly an agreeable idea. Completely changing the economic structure is not the job of the occupying power. Once Iraq is secure and has its own government, I'm sure we can advise them all we want. Dictating changes now reeks of exploitation.

Iraqis aren't stupid or backward. They have plenty of smart people that can conduct their own economic reforms in best interests of Iraqis. A bunch of ex-patriots and American appointees making those decisions is hardly what I would call democratic.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Not when you're still mired in a guerilla war, it's not.

Yes, it is still critical. The reconstruction is and has been moving forward, even while we continue to fight off attacks in some areas.

Completely changing the economic structure is not the job of the occupying power. Once Iraq is secure and has its own government, I'm sure we can advise them all we want. Dictating changes now reeks of exploitation.

Iraqis aren't stupid or backward. They have plenty of smart people that can conduct their own economic reforms in best interests of Iraqis. A bunch of ex-patriots and American appointees making those decisions is hardly what I would call democratic.

It is not the entire economic structure that is being set-up, it is their treasury and banking system. Iraq can not afford to wait a year or more before tackling this issue. It is something that is deemed necessary now. And Iraqis are involved.

Suring up a nation's treasury and banking system is more of a task-related process than, say, writing a constitution. If the US was later "asked" by Iraqis to help out in this capacity, the resulting system would not be significantly different than the one being implemented now. The key was getting started ASAP.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It is not the entire economic structure that is being set-up, it is their treasury and banking system. Iraq can not afford to wait a year or more before tackling this issue. It is something that is deemed necessary now. And Iraqis are involved.

Suring up a nation's treasury and banking system is more of a task-related process than, say, writing a constitution. If the US was later "asked" by Iraqis to help out in this capacity, the resulting system would not be significantly different than the one being implemented now. The key was getting started ASAP.

We seem to be talking past each other.

There are, indeed, drastic and sweeping changes to the very foundations of Iraq's economy that are being dictated by Washington and the IMF/World Bank. These goes well beyond any pragmatic concerns over the immediacy of reconstruction or shoring up fragile banking systems or ridden them of bank notes bearing Saddam's image.

Snow has even gone so far to say that in order to achieve the "essential" reforms, Iraq will have to adopt an entirely new system of commercial law covering issues from real estate to intellectual property.

Changing the currency is one thing. Shoring up banks is another. Changing some policies to enable both is yet another. All of which I'm willing to view as important and arguably necessary if not immediately so.

But the reforms go way way way beyond all of that.

[Lerkfish]

Interesting. That certainly seems to fit with the neocon agenda of controlling the infrastructure for the foreseeable future.
Again, you don't have to OWN the oil, you just have to CONTROL the oil.
you don't have to OWN the currency and banking system, you just have to CONTROL it.

or remake it into a more malleable form.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Interesting. That certainly seems to fit with the neocon agenda of controlling the infrastructure for the foreseeable future.
Again, you don't have to OWN the oil, you just have to CONTROL the oil.
you don't have to OWN the currency and banking system, you just have to CONTROL it.

or remake it into a more malleable form.

I don't consider a political or ideological conspiracy, as such. Or rather, simply the intersection of business interests and political ideology.

The IMF/WB are pushing the kinds of reforms that they have advocated all over the world. Why? Because they are good for Multinationals, and what's good for Multinationals is good for everyone. Just ask the people of Argentina. Their business friendly reforms have done wonders.

I mean, no one would lift a finger to help Iraqis unless there was a buck to be made, right? Everyone knows that profit is the only thing that motivates human beings to do anything so these "essential" reforms are necessary to entice Multinationals to spend money in Iraq. Well, not their own money--that would be too risky--but lots of taxpayer money and government secured loans. I mean, the last thing you want to do when you have billions in assets is to be subject to the whims of a market economy. They're capitalists, not gamblers!

No. Its much more sensible to let the government/military set all the rules in your favor and to externalize all the risks and costs. That way, if it all goes Iran 1979 on you, you don't lose much. And if it all goes well, you make a fortune. Win-Win for the Multinationals.

What right thinking American could disagree with that?

[Face Ache]

From the horse's mouth:

A Combat Leader Gives The Inside Skinny Of The Biggest Battle Since The War Ended

The convoy which was attacked while driving through Samara was not a supply convoy as reported, but was carrying large amounts of new Iraqi currency to stock local Iraqi banks and US greenbacks used to pay for goods and services the US forces need to accomplish their missions in Iraq. This convoy was heavily guarded by Abrams Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. It was akin to a huge Brinks Truck delivery.

The reports of 54 enemy killed will sound great on the home front, but the greater story is much more disturbing and needs to be told to the American Public.

When we received the first incoming rounds, all I could think of was how the hell did the Iraqis (most of these attackers being criminals, not insurgents) find out about this shipment? This was not broadcast on the local news, but Iraqi police knew about it. Bing, Bing Bing, You do the math.

Of greater importance in the scale of the attack and the coordination of the two operations. Iraqi Rebel Guerilla Units elements still retain the ability to conduct synchronized operations despite the massive overwhelming firepower "Iron Hammer" offensive this month.

Hack, most of the casualties were civilians, not insurgents or criminals as being reported. During the ambushes the tanks, brads and armored HUMVEES hosed down houses, buildings, and cars while using reflexive fire against the attackers. One of the precepts of "Iron Hammer" is to use an Iron Fist when dealing with the insurgents. As the division spokesman is telling the press, we are responding with overwhelming firepower and are taking the fight to the enemy. The response to these well coordinated ambushes was as a one would expect. The convoy continued to move, shooting at ANY target that appeared to be a threat. RPG fire from a house, the tank destroys the house with main gun fire and hoses the area down with 7.62 and 50cal MG fire. Rifle fire from an alley, the brads fire up the alley and fire up the surrounding buildings with 7.62mm and 25mm HE rounds. This was actually a rolling firefight through the entire town.

The ROE under "Iron Fist" is such that the US soldiers are to consider buildings, homes, cars to be hostile if enemy fire is received from them (regardless of who else is inside. It seems too many of us this is more an act of desperation, rather than a well thought out tactic. We really don't know if we kill anyone, because we don't stick around to find out. Since we armored troops and we are not trained to use counter-insurgency tactics; the logic is to respond to attacks using our superior firepower to kill the rebel insurgents. This is done in many cases knowing that there are people inside these buildings or cars who may not be connected to the insurgents.

The belief in superior firepower as a counter-insurgency tactic is then extended down to the average Iraqi, with the hope that the Iraqis will not support the guerillas and turn them in to coalition forces, knowing we will blow the hell out of their homes or towns if they don't. Of course in too many cases, if the insurgents bait us and goad us into leveling buildings and homes, the people inside will then hate us (even if they did not before) and we have created more recruits for the guerillas.

The Commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Colonel Frederick Rudesheim, said after this battle that "We are going to continue to take the fight to this enemy. This is the most significant contact we have had to date in the city of Samarra. We are going to have to respond accordingly."

This is a great attitude for a combat commander to have when fighting an armored force on force, but Colonel Rudesheim is not trained in Counter-Insurgency and my soldiers are taking the heat. We drive around in convoys, blast the hell out of the area, break down doors and search buildings; but the guerillas continue to attacks us. It does not take a George Patton to see we are using the wrong tactics against these people. We cannot realistically expect that Stability and Support Operations will defeat this insurgency.

As one would expect from using our overwhelming firepower, much of Samarra is fairly well shot up. The tanks and brads rolled over parked cars and fired up buildings where we believed the enemy was. This must be expected considering the field of vision is limited in an armored vehicle and while the crews are protected, they also will use recon by fire to suppress the enemy. Not all the people in this town were hostile, but we did see many people firing from rooftops or alleys that looked like average civilians, not the Feddayeen reported in the press. I even saw Iraqi people throwing stones at us, I told my soldiers to hold their fire unless they could indentfy a real weapon, but I still can't understand why somebody would throw a stone at a tank, in the middle of a firefight.

Since we did not stick around to find out, I am very concerned in the coming days we will find we killed many civilians as well as Iraqi irregular fighters. I would feel great if all the people we killed were all enemy guerrillas, but I can't say that. We are probably turning many Iraqi against us and I am afraid instead of climbing out of the hole, we are digging ourselves in deeper.

FWIW.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
From the horse's mouth:

Where did you find that?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Where did you find that?

I was wondering the same thing. Not doubting it, it sounds about right, just wondering who said it and where this was picked up.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Where did you find that?

My sources are impeccable.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Interesting. That certainly seems to fit with the neocon agenda of controlling the infrastructure for the foreseeable future.
Again, you don't have to OWN the oil, you just have to CONTROL the oil.
you don't have to OWN the currency and banking system, you just have to CONTROL it.

or remake it into a more malleable form.

"Control the coinage and the courts. Let the rabble have the rest..." - Dune, Frank Herbert

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
My sources are impeccable.

But are they unimpeachable?

Seriously, it is meaningless to post something like that unless you tell us where it came from.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Seriously, it is meaningless to post something like that unless you tell us where it came from.

It was emailed to (retired) U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth. It's on his website. As you probably know, a lot of US military types email him from Iraq.

http://www.sftt.org/

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c....3120367225496

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
It was emailed to (retired) U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth. It's on his website. As you probably know, a lot of US military types email him from Iraq.

http://www.sftt.org/

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c....3120367225496

thanks.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
thanks.

Thanks, also.

[Spliffdaddy]

That makes more sense.

It's allegedly an email that an unidentified 'soldier' sent to a retired colonel (well, an author of a book critical of Vietnam) that happens to host a website dedicated to promoting liberal ideology in the military.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*shotdown*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
That makes more sense.

It's allegedly an email that an unidentified 'soldier' sent to a retired colonel (well, an author of a book critical of Vietnam) that happens to host a website dedicated to promoting liberal ideology in the military.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*shotdown*

Hackworth is genuinely liked by the troops and I'm sure that he gets e-mails. I wouldn't dismiss it entirely. Certain aspects of the letter sound "right" to me. For example, if troops receive fire from a building, they certainly are going to shoot back at the building. That is perfectly normal and predictable (and legal).

Also, I have friends who were in the invasion of Panama who described scenes very much like the letter does. The questions the writer raise about tactics also sound genuine to my ears.

On the other hand, even if completely genuine, the writer is limited by his viewpoint just like any other eyewitness. Worse, soldiers aren't free to wander around. Any one individual soldier really has an ants eye view of things. That's something I discovered when I started following a general around. The perspective is vastly different.

So anyway, I wouldn't completely dismiss it out of hand. Nor would I rely on it.

[thunderous_funker]

The NYTimes, Independent/UK, AFP and several others are reporting very similar accounts of the Samarra battle--indescriminate use of overwhelming force, considerable destruction of the town and civilian casualties.

It seems that under fire, the US forces simply lashed out (understandable if regretable) and local civialians took up arms in the ensuing chaos. Locals say that many of the "insurgents" were merely local civilians caught up in the mayhem and not the ambushers. In fact, it might be impossible to tell insurgents from those who were simply caught in the middle.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../59963/1/.html

I can find others if needed. Commondreams was hosting some of the stories but their links seem to be broken at the moment. Damn non-profit sites.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The NYTimes, Independent/UK, AFP and several others are reporting very similar accounts of the Samarra battle--indescriminate use of overwhelming force, considerable destruction of the town and civilian casualties.

It doesn't sound like indiscriminate fire at all. The letter above describes shooting back at building from which the fire was originating. That's not indiscriminate, it is SOP. If you are a soldier and you take fire from a building, you are going to shoot back at the building, and you are goig to shoot to kill. That means you are going to shoot back with something able to penetrate the walls.

I think we have to set forth some brass tacks realities here:

If soldiers come under fire they have the right to return fire. Because those soldiers are better armed and better trained, it is likely to be a one-sided fight. Too bad.

You can avoid being shot at by troops by not shooting at them. Common sense don't shoot at tanks and Bradleys with big cannons mounted on them. They will kill you.

Civilians who take up arms are no longer civilians. They are combatants. Combatants are legitimate targets and can be shot.

Combatants who fire from buildings in which there are civilians endanger those civilians because the soldiers they fire at can and will return fire. That is why taking cover among civilians is forbidden as a war crime.

Deliberately shooting at civilians (with the accent on deliberately) would also be a war crime. But there is no evidence of that. There is evidence that the insurgents deliberately endangered civilians and used them as cover for their military attack on a convoy. They deserved what came to them. Unfortunately, the people who are suffering for their war crimes are innocent Iraqis.

[thunderous_funker]

I think you mistook me. I'm not condeming the soldiers. Far from it. In a guerilla war, you shoot first and ask questions later if you want to live. That's what makes the whole thing so horribly tragic for all concerned.

In the confusion of the fire fight, it appears the troops fired on everything and everyone in answer to the ambush. No doubt they were taking fire from houses or from places they didn't even know. Sounds to me like they just let loose. Again, that's understandable even if its tragic.

So villagers who found themselves in between real insurgents and troops returning fire anywhere and everywhere started shooting too. I'm all for US soldiers defending themselves. If a villagers shoots at you, you shoot back. No question.

But when we start talking about kill counts, it becomes a bit foggy to count dead villagers as "insurgents". They didn't ambush the troops, they got suckered into a firefight and probably were defending their homes and families. Yet another factor that makes guerilla warfare so tragic--the battlefield isn't limited to the people who started the fight.

The way this thing was widely reported was some kind of hooray for the good guys. The more I read about it, it sounds like another hellish day for our troops and another tragic day for regular Iraqis caught between the hammer and the anvil.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think you mistook me. I'm not condeming the soldiers.

Thank you. I'm glad to hear that.

I'm not pointing the finger at you, but I would like, just for once, to hear our news outlets discuss the fact that it is the guerillas who are endangering the civilians by choosing to fight illegally by hiding among non-combatants. I don't expect al-jezeera to do it, but I do expect outlets like the Independent and the New York Times to do so. There is no way for soldiers to tell who is who once people in civilian clothes start shooting at them. That's why these rules about what is legal in war and what is not were created in the first place. It's a shame that only one side gets called to account.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Thank you. I'm glad to hear that.

I'm not pointing the finger at you, but I would like, just for once, to hear our news outlets discuss the fact that it is the guerillas who are endangering the civilians by choosing to fight illegally by hiding among non-combatants. I don't expect al-jezeera to do it, but I do expect outlets like the Independent and the New York Times to do so. There is no way for soldiers to tell who is who once people in civilian clothes start shooting at them. That's why these rules about what is legal in war and what is not were created in the first place. It's a shame that only one side gets called to account.

You might want to read their reports before jumping to that conclusion as well. I don't read any of them as taking the military to task on what happened other than pointing out the tragedy and chaos of the situation.

If they are negative, it is only directed at the early reports that seemed to indicate there was some swift, deadly, and surgical strike against a hotbed of terrorists hiding somewhere. The military's PR attempts are doing more to engender lack of public support for the troops then anything. Its hard not to feel a bit resentful of the kind of misinformation they have been offering concerning this war.

Our troops are in a bad, bad spot and it doesn't help anyone to continue to pretend otherwise simply to protect the politicians who don't want any negativity to detract from their Grand Visions and Pronouncements.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
the early reports that seemed to indicate there was some swift, deadly, and surgical strike against a hotbed of terrorists hiding somewhere.

That's not the reports I heard. I heard that a well-armed convoy was ambushed by a large force and shot its way out with about 18 wounded Americans, and a lot of dead Iraqi insurgents. That seems to have turned out to be pretty accurate.

Maybe this is a training thing, but when I hear "ambush" I picture something quite different from a surgical strike. If you get ambushed the basic drill is to shoot back with everything you have and drive forward, fast. That's probably more or less what they did.

So its possible that people pictured something different from reality. But I don't think that is because of reports.

[swrate]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think you mistook me. I'm not condeming the soldiers. Far from it. In a guerilla war, you shoot first and ask questions later if you want to live. That's what makes the whole thing so horribly tragic for all concerned.

In the confusion of the fire fight, it appears the troops fired on everything and everyone in answer to the ambush. No doubt they were taking fire from houses or from places they didn't even know. Sounds to me like they just let loose. Again, that's understandable even if its tragic.

So villagers who found themselves in between real insurgents and troops returning fire anywhere and everywhere started shooting too. I'm all for US soldiers defending themselves. If a villagers shoots at you, you shoot back. No question.

But when we start talking about kill counts, it becomes a bit foggy to count dead villagers as "insurgents". They didn't ambush the troops, they got suckered into a firefight and probably were defending their homes and families. Yet another factor that makes guerilla warfare so tragic--the battlefield isn't limited to the people who started the fight.

The way this thing was widely reported was some kind of hooray for the good guys. The more I read about it, it sounds like another hellish day for our troops and another tragic day for regular Iraqis caught between the hammer and the anvil.

All Iraqis carry guns, including many woman.
In Baghdad, insecurity is all over.
Paranoia
so Iraqis are ALL "insurgents" placed there accidentally

Samara, the Commander ordered "free fire"

tragic reality. Radical

It happened in Vietnam,
Tiger Force,,,, villages now trying to sue the US

under many army orientated leaders
Napoleon, Hitler,(who bw was planning on building a huge pipeline across ....!) Mobutu...URSS... Russia.. Africa,,,
life and death means nothing much, just surviving.


In Saddam city, panels say, in english, no army no troops allowed...
(Saddam-City in Baghdad is not from the Baath party.)

To enter a village, market, territory around the Masjid is an offense, especially during Ramadan.
I doubt killing civilians that way will get rid of the enemy.

Sure a few integrists will die, but the amount of enemies will grow

respect, international will power, consensus to help a nation find itself should be put together fast, UN, US+all (Iraqis MIddle-East KSA Saudia too) so that Iraq knows the world is behind them.
It would be tragic if Iraq fell back to the Iran stage.

But we are so much in a mess ourselves, Europe, US and and

Integrism:
Many countries have very good Intelligence services, (wonder what its like in KSA) should be shared, useful to fight terrorism.
Bad crimes deserve to be punished.
Someone who fires on the UN is a terrorist.
Someone coming in my house or around it, with a gun, could be imho a terrorist too, so, if I have a gun, I may shoot at him

The problem about sending more workers to rebuild Iraq is the non security guarantees on the ground.
Who is responsible insurance wise of the deaths of UN workers on the ground?
It is not the UN .... they payed more then heavily the price .




.

[AutoJC]

To hell with dinars- use gold buillion instead.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
To hell with dinars- use gold buillion instead.

Why would anyone in their right mind prefer to be paid in soup!?

-s*

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Why would anyone in their right mind prefer to be paid in soup!?

-s*

Because it's easier to swallow than some bullshit, American imposed, 'stable' economy?

[finboy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Naturally it would the Americans fault for baiting the theives.

Not the thieves fault for stealing.

You keep this up and some media dude will offer you a job.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

I just can't help noticing when those who rant against the evils of government when it comes to social or domestic issues, emphatically defer all judgement to the all-knowing government when it comes to foreign policy. I just find it humorous.

That works both ways. IE:

"I just can't help noticing when those who rant against the evils of government when it comes to foreign policy, emphatically defer all judgement to the all-knowing government when it comes to raising taxes, healthcare, welfare, and social issues. I just find it humorous."

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
That works both ways. IE:

"I just can't help noticing when those who rant against the evils of government when it comes to foreign policy, emphatically defer all judgement to the all-knowing government when it comes to raising taxes, healthcare, welfare, and social issues. I just find it humorous."

Sure. I guess I just don't really know anyone who fits that description, though. Do you?

To the point, those who argue that government is too inherently incompetent or corrupt to be trusted on domestic issues often offer such plattitudes as "well i'm sure they know more than we do so who are we to criticize?" when it comes to controversial foreign policy.

While those who feel empowered to criticize the government on foreign policy are usually equally critical about domestic policy. I don't believe I've ever heard an advocate of tax, healthcare or welfare reform say, "well, they know best so who are we to criticize their decisions?" In fact, just the opposite. They often seem to be the ones who believe they know better than the government which is why they presume to offer strong opinions on what the policy should be.

Lefties don't "trust government". They trust people to hold government accountable. In fact, the further Left you go on the political spectrum, the more and more they distrust the government while believing people can do for themselves without any government at all. Some elements of the Far Right share that ideologoy as well.

These ideals, however, have almost no correlation to either major political party.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Sure. I guess I just don't really know anyone who fits that description, though. Do you?

Put it this way, I know a LOT more people on the left who trust the government to be experts on the environment, who were ready to trust a huge Hillarycare scheme taking over our healthcare system, who trust that govt. knows better how to spend people's money than the people themselves do, and who trust the govt. to know more about running all businesses and hiring people, than people who run businesses and hire people- than I know people on the right who trust the govt. emphatically on foreign policy issues.

I notice more often that:
Conservatives tend to trust the government more on matters of things that are actually within the government’s Constitutionally assigned realm of responsibility. IE: Things like national defense & foreign policy.

Liberals I know, tend to have more trust for government in a whole range of issues outside the government’s Constitutionally assigned realm of responsibility. IE: healthcare, education, income redistribution used as a social tool, etc…

To the point, those who argue that government is too inherently incompetent or corrupt to be trusted on domestic issues often offer such plattitudes as "well i'm sure they know more than we do so who are we to criticize?" when it comes to controversial foreign policy.

I honestly don't understand where you're getting this from. All spacefreak said was he trusts economists working for the govt. in setting up Iraq's Treasury, and that he acknowledges that they would know more about doing so than he does.


I don't really see where you jump from a person being quite reasonable in admitting there are people of a specific profession (economists) that know more about a given subject than themselves, to: "Yes. The government always knows best. Always."

Hell, the government probably hires aircraft mechanics to fix Air Force 1. Well gee, I trust an aircraft mechanic hired by the govt. to fix Air Force One a hell of a lot more than I'd trust trying to do it myself! I don't know jack squat about fixing aircraft- that's not exactly my gig! Gee, does my admission of that fact mean I'm saying 'The government always knows best.’?

So maybe the govt. should just hire Hillary to fix Air Force 1- heck, if she can reform an entire nation’s healthcare system with ZERO experience in healthcare, she could probably build a 747 from the ground up, without so much as peeking at a blueprint! But hey, it’s nice to know that all those ‘always critical of government’ souls on the left were yelling: “It’s none of your damned business!” at her, and not going along with a proposed takeover of our healthcare system, hook, line and sinker.

By the way, spacefreak asked you a simple question, which BEGS an *actual* and *realistic* answer:

"...who would you suggest as an attractive alternative for setting up a new Iraqi treasury?"

Lefties don't "trust government". They trust people to hold government accountable.

So I trust in this new era of leftwing ‘holding govt. accountable’ we can get all social programs operating strictly on an OUTCOME based model? So I won’t have to hear the left demonize tax cuts at every turn, play class-envy politics, and from now on focus primarily on ACCOUNTABILTY for wasteful spending of the more than enough amounts of taxes already collected?

If so, this is good news!

In fact, the further Left you go on the political spectrum, the more and more they distrust the government while believing people can do for themselves (snip)

Stopping short of the ‘no govt. at all’ second half of your quote- I’m surprised you’d have to go all that far left to get to the first part! I would think most people, left, right, upside-down, sideways, whatever, would feel that way.

“People can do for themselves.” So will this become the new mantra of the left, along with “Hold government accountable”?

How soon until these are on left-leaning bumper stickers?