[kvm_mkdb]

TIKRIT, Iraq (AP) -- It's payback time for U.S. forces operating in Tikrit, Iraq.
That's where an Army Black Hawk helicopter was apparently shot down by insurgents, killing all six U.S. soldiers aboard.
In retaliation, U.S. troops backed by Bradley fighting vehicles swept through neighborhoods before dawn.
They blasted the houses of suspected insurgents with machine guns and heavy weapons fire.
An American commander said the offensive was meant to remind Tikrit that the military still has teeth and claws and will use them.
U.S. forces also fired mortars and U.S. jets dropped at least three 500-pound bombs around the crash site in an obvious show of force.
The retaliation capped a week in which 32 Americans have been killed, including those aboard the downed Black Hawk.

http://www.news24houston.com/content...asp?ArID=18326

[mr. natural]

"Bring 'em on."

[Zimphire]

Yeah they are just slaughtering us by the thousands a day.

They are outnumbering us on everything!

If there was a war, which there isn't.

They are committing suicide.

Forever. Constantly.

[chris v]

I don't think just blowing things up at random is the answer to the difficulties the military is having. Strafing houses of "suspected" insurgents seems particularly egregious. In what manner did they come to suspect them (I.E. were they informed on by neighbors), and were there families living in these houses? This sort of stuff seems destined to raise and inflame the kind of resentment that leads to further insurgency.

CV

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
"Bring 'em on."

LMAO! Haven't seen that one in a while!

[Troll]

Article 33 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

So, legally, the US is not allowed to punish or intimidate anyone for offences they have not personally committed. The US Army has admitted here that their aim was to intimidate the town. That is a breach of the Convention because it is intimidation of people who have not committed an offence. Unless of course, the whole town participated in the Blackhawk attack. Reminds me of Israel's tactics in destroying olive and fruit tree orchards and demolishing houses to punish the Palestinian Resistance. But let's be honest, the US has shown flagrant disregard for international law, including the Geneva Conventions since Bush came to power, so presenting a legal argument, to the extent that Bush could even understand it, is not going to get us anywhere.

So how about some common sense then? Are they going to weaken the Iraqi Resistance by terrorising and intimidating the civilian population or is that going to make the population more resolute to help the Resistance rid Iraq of its occupiers? If the US has resorted to trying to beat the Resistance by punishing civilians, then I believe that the war is lost. Because you can't beat the civilian population without committing genocide. Israel is learning that; every country that has ever faced a resistance has learned that. If that's what's happening here then Iraq will eventually be freed, but not by the US.

[sanity assassin]

Well, my personal thoughts are that I hope the Iraqis give a good as they get, fair game to me. Sorry for all the poor soldiers involved, on both sides, I hate killing, but to see the US stomp all over another sovereign nation just disgusts me.

[eklipse]

Looks like the resistance is set to gain a few more recruits.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Troll:
If that's what's happening here then Iraq will eventually be freed, but not by the US.

But the US cannot afford to lose The War on Terror.

(They've already made the T-shirts. )

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah they are just slaughtering us by the thousands a day.

They are outnumbering us on everything!

If there was a war, which there isn't.

They are committing suicide.

Forever. Constantly.

???

were you trying to say something coherent?

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
???

were you trying to say something coherent?

He can't answer. His head exploded shortly after he posted that.

[lil'babykitten]

"A show of force"

How pathetic.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
How pathetic.

Yup. A disgraceful show of impotence - like a blind giant stomping his feet.

[amsalpemkcus]

Yay! give em hell!! cant see what else they can do other than respond and wipe the place clean of insurgents. hope the seal tikrit real good and set up a huge garrison in the middle of the town. I believe might is right where there is chaos.

[lil'babykitten]

You know recent developments in Iraq show a cycle of violence similar to what we see in Palestine.

The US invade, and for a while it appears as though it is a walkover. Iraqis start resisting, the US retaliates with even more force. I wonder how far we'll get in to next week before the Iraqis get their revenge.

Stability? what a joke.

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You know recent developments in Iraq show a cycle of violence similar to what we see in Palestine.

The US invade, and for a while it appears as though it is a walkover. Iraqis start resisting, the US retaliates with even more force. I wonder how far we'll get in to next week before the Iraqis get their revenge.

Stability? what a joke.

there was a big article in Time (?) about how things are generally ok over there in the 'sand box'. gotta remember, though, that it doesn't take many folks with kalashnikovs, rpgs, and IEDs (improvised explosive devices) to stir up trouble and take out coalition and american soldiers. and there are enough pissed-off baathists and saddam wankers to cause plenty of trouble.

two things will happen: (1) the US will crush the terrorist resistance before it begings major pullbacks, or (2) the US will make Iraqi forces strong and numerous enough to secure their own country before the US pulls most of the troops out.

[amsalpemkcus]

I think an Iraqi government is possible if you can isolate the North from the rest of the country. The Shia majority in the south is relatively peaceful. Besides, although the Shias have been the majority in Iraq the Sunnis have exploited them consistently over the years. Sunnis have to understand that they can either live in peace without ambitions to grab power if they want to be a part of Iraq or suffer the consequences of abetting violence and terrorism, in which case they can have their Tikrit and live violently ever after. Get my point?

[Spliffdaddy]

Heh


Some of you folks are gonna be miserable for your entire lives unless you learn to deal with your envy of America.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Troll:
So, legally, the US is not allowed to punish or intimidate anyone for offences they have not personally committed. The US Army has admitted here that their aim was to intimidate the town. That is a breach of the Convention because it is intimidation of people who have not committed an offence. Unless of course, the whole town participated in the Blackhawk attack. Reminds me of Israel's tactics in destroying olive and fruit tree orchards and demolishing houses to punish the Palestinian Resistance. But let's be honest, the US has shown flagrant disregard for international law, including the Geneva Conventions since Bush came to power, so presenting a legal argument, to the extent that Bush could even understand it, is not going to get us anywhere.

So how about some common sense then? Are they going to weaken the Iraqi Resistance by terrorising and intimidating the civilian population or is that going to make the population more resolute to help the Resistance rid Iraq of its occupiers? If the US has resorted to trying to beat the Resistance by punishing civilians, then I believe that the war is lost. Because you can't beat the civilian population without committing genocide. Israel is learning that; every country that has ever faced a resistance has learned that. If that's what's happening here then Iraq will eventually be freed, but not by the US.

Technically, nobody is going to call the US in violation... so it doesn't really matter.

[swrate]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Technically, nobody is going to call the US in violation... so it doesn't really matter.

losing one's nerves and killing....

why will nobody call the US in violation?:
:the ones who decided on the target.

wouldn't you call that terrorism? terrorizing populations?


but now, when one loses one's nerves one commits mistakes.
POW's
all should have the right to justice.


so why are violations from some nations admitted, and from other nations condemned?

Is it just because its Tilkrit? Interest of many nations?
la route de l'or noir.

[swrate]

Originally posted by swrate:
losing one's nerves and killing....

why will nobody call the US in violation?:
:the ones who decided on the target.

wouldn't you call that terrorism? terrorizing populations?


but now, when one loses one's nerves one commits mistakes.
POW's
all should have the right to justice.


so why are violations from some nations admitted, and from other nations condemned?

Is it just because its Tilkrit? Interest of many nations?
la route de l'or noir.

addenda: wouldn't the whole bush dam-inistration be in prison if they were in Russia?

[Spliffdaddy]

If you're not gonna have weapons - your words better be powerful enough to protect you.

Too many countries rely on words for their defense. Nothing wrong with that. Words can be powerful things, after all.

A combination of words and weapons seems to be the 'defense of choice' for nearly all countries. The proportion of words to weapons varies widely, however. Words are cheaper than weapons, generally, so it stands to reason that words can be found in greater abundance than weapons.

When you ask, "how can the US get away with that?"

I'll suggest that our decades of sacrifices made in order to build our weapon-based defense, as well as decades of sacrifices made in order to build faith in our words means that we can defend our country and its interests better than most other countries can defend theirs. It was the choice of their government to rely too much on words or too much on weapons - and THAT is the reason they are unable to defend the best interests of their country. In other words, don't blame the US because your country cannot defend itself. We aren't looking out for your best interest - so stop pretending that we are.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
If you're not gonna have weapons - your words better be powerful enough to protect you.

Too many countries rely on words for their defense. Nothing wrong with that. Words can be powerful things, after all.

A combination of words and weapons seems to be the 'defense of choice' for nearly all countries. The proportion of words to weapons varies widely, however. Words are cheaper than weapons, generally, so it stands to reason that words can be found in greater abundance than weapons.

When you ask, "how can the US get away with that?"

I'll suggest that our decades of sacrifices made in order to build our weapon-based defense, as well as decades of sacrifices made in order to build faith in our words means that we can defend our country and its interests better than most other countries can defend theirs. It was the choice of their government to rely too much on words or too much on weapons - and THAT is the reason they are unable to defend the best interests of their country. In other words, don't blame the US because your country cannot defend itself. We aren't looking out for your best interest - so stop pretending that we are.

some nations decide to invest on other things then weapons, investigate
different ways of managing the planet^s natural ressources

but russia, north korea and pakistan have WMD
what are you going to do about that?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We aren't looking out for your best interest.

Precisely. You're only bothered about your interests. You're not 'defending' yourselves either, you are trying to suit your interests at the expense of other people's lives.

The US government likes covering this up too with the humanitarian BS words it chucks out every now and then.

[Spliffdaddy]

EXACTLY.

So why are you complaining about the US only looking out for its own best interest when the other countries should be looking out for their own best interest?

Because we are better able to look out for ourself we should be belittled?

Well. Alright then.

But we'll keep on doing what's in our best interest.

What else do you expect us to do?


If you want to blame somebody, blame the folks that were unprepared to defend their own interests.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
EXACTLY.

So why are you complaining about the US only looking out for its own best interest when the other countries should be looking out for their own best interest?

Because we are better able to look out for ourself we should be belittled?

Well. Alright then.

But we'll keep on doing what's in our best interest.

What else do you expect us to do?

If the US is only doing what is in their best interest then pretty much any other country in the world can only do what's in their interest when they have the bomb. And isn't that exactly what the US accused Iraq of? Trying to acquire (or even already have) weapons of mass destruction.

I don't see the logic in your posts.

[Spliffdaddy]

All the wishing in the world isn't going to change how countries defend their interests. It is simply how the world works. You can get mad about it. You can attempt to change it. You can accept it as fact and live with it. A government's sole purpose in being is to protect the interests of the citizens it governs, and in some cases the interests of the government itself.

If a country is only looking out for its own best interests - it's doing its job. That's the reason it's a country, after all.

It just sounds completely ignorant to say it's the responsibility of the US to look out for the best interest of any other country above that of our own. You can still say it, but now, at least, you're aware of how silly it sounds.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It was the choice of their government to rely too much on words or too much on weapons - and THAT is the reason they are unable to defend the best interests of their country. In other words, don't blame the US because your country cannot defend itself. We aren't looking out for your best interest - so stop pretending that we are.

So any breaking of the Geneva Convention by the US is actually Iraq's fault? Because they didn't have enough weapons to defend themselves?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Developer:
If the US is only doing what is in their best interest then pretty much any other country in the world can only do what's in their interest when they have the bomb. And isn't that exactly what the US accused Iraq of? Trying to acquire (or even already have) weapons of mass destruction.

I don't see the logic in your posts.

EXACTLY.

We are better able to protect our own best interest. Iraq, in an effort to increase its ability to defend its best interests (a noble goal for any country) became a threat (real or perceived) to our best interest.

When your best interest threatens another's best interest - then you may be required to defend your best interest.


There is no single collective best interest. That is the reason for war.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
EXACTLY.

So why are you complaining about the US only looking out for its own best interest when the other countries should be looking out for their own best interest?

Because we are better able to look out for ourself we should be belittled?

Well. Alright then.

But we'll keep on doing what's in our best interest.

What else do you expect us to do?



you are not the only one having interests
wonder, will an agreement be made between the WMD masters?

or is the USA sure to have so much more?

what about the black market?
uranium black market, ever heard about it?

why not respect all the involved nations interests

including proportions?
is it that difficult?

gun powder situation becoming worse.




in reality we know so little about what's really going on.
hope Rome Jerusalem and Jeddah do


in iraq the shia/sunnit/kurdish







If you want to blame somebody, blame the folks that were unprepared to defend their own interests.

if they had defended their interests with a war,
i am not sure it would of changed much.

those folks were defending their interest in a different way; they trusted Blix, the UN,
the agreements
diplomacy
the humanitarian organizations.
they knew Saddam was not a threat out of his country.
they also know about other dictators.

Why did Saddam kill all those people?
Because he was paranoiac he believed they were spies.
(some of them probably were)

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So why are you complaining about the US only looking out for its own best interest when the other countries should be looking out for their own best interest?

Because we are better able to look out for ourself we should be belittled?

Well. Alright then.

But we'll keep on doing what's in our best interest.

What else do you expect us to do?
If you want to blame somebody, blame the folks that were unprepared to defend their own interests.

I'm not really interested in placing blame.

But you have hit the problem right on it's head:looking at the world from one perspective, your own interest. It's flawed for two crucial reasons.
a) It doesn't ever result in any long term gains.
b) It is a major cause of conflict, which means instability for all involved.

At least you have admitted it's about interest, because your government has never done so. it wouldn't ever 'sit' with the public.

Why is it so hard for a government to look beyond selfish interest and not work toward a common goal? -I know why I think they can't, but what about you?

[adamk]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
A government's sole purpose in being is to protect the interests of the citizens it governs, and in some cases the interests of the government itself.

If a country is only looking out for its own best interests - it's doing its job. That's the reason it's a country, after all.

interesting logic...

so, what you could be saying is that saddam, while massacring part of his population, was just doing his job? it was in the interest of his government to prevent any kind of rebellion against his government from taking place by the means he had at his disposal.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
If you want to blame somebody, blame the folks that were unprepared to defend their own interests.

so it could be the kurds fault that many of them are not alive today?

i believe your thinking is highly-flawed. it basically boils down to "every man, woman and child for themselves" if you take your logic to a small enough scale.

i am not trying to infer that you condone saddam's atrocities, but according to your logic, it was perfectly okay.

adam

[Mohammed Atef]

I can't even follow your superfluous, quasi-intellectual infidel ramblings in this thread anymore.

I need to cut my fingernails.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
I can't even follow your superfluous, quasi-intellectual infidel ramblings in this thread anymore.

I need to cut my fingernails.

Intellectual conversation goes over your head, huh?

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Intellectual conversation goes over your head, huh?

hence the use of 'quasi'. Or perhaps Latin is well over your head.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
hence the use of 'quasi'. Or perhaps Latin is well over your head.

It took you over an hour to come up with that?
Pathetic!

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
It took you over an hour to come up with that?
Pathetic!

maybe what's really pathetic is it took you only two minutes to reply.

I don't sit at this terminal all day long, hanging on your every post, just waiting to retort.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by adamk:
interesting logic...

so, what you could be saying is that saddam, while massacring part of his population, was just doing his job? it was in the interest of his government to prevent any kind of rebellion against his government from taking place by the means he had at his disposal.



so it could be the kurds fault that many of them are not alive today?

i believe your thinking is highly-flawed. it basically boils down to "every man, woman and child for themselves" if you take your logic to a small enough scale.

i am not trying to infer that you condone saddam's atrocities, but according to your logic, it was perfectly okay.

adam

Yes, it would be the Kurds fault - to the extent they were liable for their failure to support their own best interest.

Yes, it is the fault of the Iraqis for allowing their government to infringe on the best interest of a stronger country.

Yes, it honestly IS every man for himself.

I'm not in any way suggesting that things are fair in this global war of best interests.

[Developer]

I have no sympathy any more for America.

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by Developer:
I have no sympathy any more for America.

you never had any to begin with. All along you've wished that America would fail at whatever it does, so you can feel better about yourself and your impotent society.

I have no sympathy for back-stabbing 'allies', double-dealing, forked-tongue countries, or their nauseous pacifism.

Looks like there's no love lost between us.

[Spliffdaddy]

If your interests are important to you - defend them. Promote them.

Build alliances with those countries with whom you share common interests.

Western society has their own sets of mutual interests. Sometimes it is advantageous to utilize these alliances for the collective defense of those who share similar interests. Sometimes it's better to fight alone. Sometimes there is no choice to make.

The US puts its own interests above that of all others. In this respect they are no different than any other country.

Getting upset won't change anything except your blood pressure.

[shmerek]

The US as it stands is the greatest hypocrisy spouting off about off about terrorsim while they are no better those "evil doers" they despise. As for Spliff, (I wouldn't know what he was saying if you guys didn't keep quoting the j. ass) promoting one's interests does not give one the right to treat others however you choose and if that is the path you choose don't be surprised when you are the target of terrorism�.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Yes, it would be the Kurds fault - to the extent they were liable for their failure to support their own best interest.

Yes, it is the fault of the Iraqis for allowing their government to infringe on the best interest of a stronger country.

Yes, it honestly IS every man for himself.

I'm not in any way suggesting that things are fair in this global war of best interests.

their own best interests.....

imagine I am
Kurdish or Chechenian or Palestinian,,,or or

well Saddam had more weapons then the shia's,
keeping them under his boots.

do you know why?
long story.



tagged terrorists

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by swrate:
their own best interests.....

imagine I am
Kurdish or Chechenian or Palestinian,,,or or

well Saddam had more weapons then the shia's,
keeping them under his boots.

do you know why?
long story.



tagged terrorists

hombre, nothing you wrote is understandable.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
hombre, nothing you wrote is understandable.

It makes sense, kaffir.

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally posted by shmerek:
The US as it stands is the greatest hypocrisy spouting off about off about terrorsim while they are no better those "evil doers" they despise.

This point of view is a huge load of smelly BS if I have ever seen one!!

[Mohammed Atef]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
It makes sense, kaffir.

no, padre, it doesn't. maybe you can translate it into anglais.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
you never had any to begin with. All along you've wished that America would fail at whatever it does, so you can feel better about yourself and your impotent society.

I have no sympathy for back-stabbing 'allies', double-dealing, forked-tongue countries, or their nauseous pacifism.

Looks like there's no love lost between us.

And I bet those grapes were sour anyhow.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
If your interests are important to you - defend them. Promote them.

I think there's a chunk of logic missing from your argument. I made two points earlier on. 1 that this action is illegal under international law. I took it as a given that people see inherent value in having international law, for the same reason that people see inherent value in having local laws; because anarchy in any social interaction serves no one. 2 that even if the US does consider that it is okay for it to break international law to serve its own interests, this particular kind of action cannot possibly serve its interests. Not only do attacks like this have necessary and undesirable financial and social consequences in the US, but the US needs to turn Iraq into a puppet, or at least have a modicum of control over Iraq. If Iraq becomes ungovernable, the US's interests have not been served. If the population supports a liberation movement that eventually frees Iraq of its occupiers, the US will not have achieved its interests because the US will again be enemy number 1.

So, you can ignore the legal argument if you like. It's a reality that states are required to comply (as American businesses are about to find out iro retaliatory trade barriers by Europe) but even without that, this action shows that the US has lost the plot and is losing the war. So much for Mission Accomplished.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Developer:
So any breaking of the Geneva Convention by the US is actually Iraq's fault? Because they didn't have enough weapons to defend themselves?

Yes, precisely, but when "they" are filming US soldiers in custody, then the Americans are quite capable of whining about obscure provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Jessica Lynch, whinge, whinge, not wearing uniforms, whinge, whinge, terrorists, whinge, improvised explosive device, whinge, whinge.

It's either arrogance or schizophrenia (note: I am talking about the US's policy not Americans!). "We are the most free nation on the planet but we are going to pass the Patriot Act, the DMC Act, we're going to detain people without trial, have state-sponsored executions etc." "The United Nations is irrelevant, but they should be giving us money and sending their troops to Iraq so we can go home." "Globalisation is good for everyone, BUT don't expect us to allow you to sell your stuff here, don't expect us not to use our military and our influence to create neo-colonial trade relationships."

If you can't see that this is going to bite you in the bum. In fact, if you can't see that this attitude has ALREADY bit you in the bum, then you really deserve George Bush.