Good Morning, VietNam

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by tw

Same may be a problem in Iraq. The insurgents and Sunni clerics are saying not to vote. Just recently, the Iraqi tribal leaders also told their people not to vote. How can an election where most voters don't vote be considered a mandate? Voting probably will not happen in 4 of Iraq's 18 proviences. But these 4 proviences are a substantial minority of Iraq's people. The White House forgets to mention that part.

Again how does that election become a mandate for a new Iraqi government? Interesting to see how this all plays out in two weeks.

That is suppose to be a government for 11 months. This temporary government is suppose to write the Constitution. How do they have a mandate when the majority of Iraqis don't even vote for that government?

Well, the new spin is this -

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Unable to deliver on its lofty goal of bringing democracy to Iraq (news - web sites) through the Jan. 30 elections, the Bush administration is pressing a damage-control campaign to lower expectations for the vote.

With fears for a low voter turnout among Sunni Arabs due to a boycott and insurgents' intimidation, the administration no longer touts the elections as a catalyst to spread democracy across the Arab world.

Instead, U.S. officials now emphasize the political process that will follow the vote.

"Clearly, we don't see the election itself as a pivotal point," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told NPR on Friday. "It's the beginning of a process, the process where Iraqis will write a constitution and at the end of the year will actually vote for a permanent government."

Let's see, the plan went from a quick victory, welcomed by cheering Iraqis who quickly establish a democracy during a small occupation by 50,000 or so troops by voting in a US-friendly government, paying for their own reconstruction with oil-revenues from a rebuilt infrastructure which also brings down US energy prices - to this. I can't wait to see how many commentators they're going to have to buy to sell this load of manure.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

You heard it here first folks. %51 of the vote means no accountability for Iraq.

Or Iran?

Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing.

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Lets hope someone is deliberately misleading Mr. Hersh. A reasonable Administration would recognize our overcomittment now, but we are not talking about a reasonable Administration. A few years ago R.W. Bradford wrote a book called The Last Democrat arguing that Clinton would be the last Dem President for a long long time. I don't think Bradford understood the level of stupidity/evil that resides in the GOP.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Griff

Or Iran?

Lets hope someone is deliberately misleading Mr. Hersh. A reasonable Administration would recognize our overcomittment now, but we are not talking about a reasonable Administration. A few years ago R.W. Bradford wrote a book called The Last Democrat arguing that Clinton would be the last Dem President for a long long time. I don't think Bradford understood the level of stupidity/evil that resides in the GOP.

Well, that point was brought up today at the conference. The wars which have faced the most criticism are ones where the burden has been spread among a majority of Americans. Right now, every effort has been made to insulate the American public from the true cost of the war. The debt is being charged to the future and there is no draft.

Any further overextension of our military would require a draft which would be the death knell of the Republican majority.

[tw]

The thread began with these examples:

The old man should have read the bilingual notices that American soldiers tack to their rear bumpers in Iraq: "Keep 50 meters or deadly force will be applied". ... "If anyone gets too close to us we fucking waste them", says a bullish lieutenant. "It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people."

A recent Frontline (on PBS) broadcast followed troops in southern Baghdad. Did you notice the details? Those gunners are telling each other how much 50 caliber rounds they had fired that day. Notice in what is suppose to be a peaceful Iraq, as portrayed in the US press - they fire massive 50 Cal bullets routinely on every mission. Is it no wonder that the Iraqi people agree on one thing - they want the Americans out?

Now we have another example of what is business as usual when the invading and occupying Army calls everyone the enemy:

from the NY Times of 4 Mar 2005 U.S. Forces Fired on Car Carrying Freed Italian Hostage in Iraq
American troops fired on a car rushing Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena to freedom on Friday after a month in captivity, killing the Italian intelligence officer who helped negotiate her release and wounding the reporter.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, an ally of the United States who has kept Italian troops in Iraq despite public opposition at home, demanded an explanation ``for such a serious incident, for which someone must take the responsibility.''

He won't get it. What US troops did to the Italians is SNAFU - just like VietNam.

BBC provides more information: US troops fire at freed hostage

[xoxoxoBruce]

"About 2100 [1800 GMT], a patrol in western Baghdad observed the vehicle speeding towards their checkpoint and attempted to warn the driver to stop by hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots in front of the car," it said in a statement.
"When the driver didn't stop, the soldiers shot into the engine block, which stopped the vehicle, killing one and wounding two others."

The U.S. military said the car was speeding as it approached a coalition checkpoint in western Baghdad at 8:55 p.m. It said soldiers shot into the engine block only after trying to warn the driver to stop by ``hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots.''

The Italians have been there long enough to know the drill and although they were euphoric over the release, warnings certainly should have snapped them back to reality.
Besides...they're swarthy.

[richlevy]

A secret service agent ignored clear warnings including warning shots?

[Undertoad]

No, a driver.

[xoxoxoBruce]

killing the Italian intelligence officer who helped negotiate her release and wounding the reporter in another friendly-fire tragedy at a U.S. checkpoint.

The Americans said two people were wounded, but Berlusconi said there were three -- Sgrena and two intelligence officers. One of the officers was in serious condition with an apparent lung injury, according to the Apcom news agency in Italy.

Ms Sgrena had a minor operation to extract shrapnel from her shoulder and a second agent was reported injured.

I don't think it's clear, from these 2 articles, just who was driving or how many were in the car.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't think it's clear, from these 2 articles, just who was driving or how many were in the car.

Then it gets even more interesting. Sgrena, the wounded journalist, says there was no checkpoint. Military spokesman would not deny it. Who is telling the truth?

Again, the bottom line. Americans are routinely firing weapons in Iraq because Iraq remains that dangerous - as should happen when Bremmer even violated fundamental principles of war defined even in 500 BC. A BBC interview of two female Iraqi doctors at a confernce in Europe said life in Iraq had become worse. Why? Safety. Security. What good is democrary when you cannot even go safely in the street?

American troops routinely fire upon anything they consider a threat - including someone standing at the roadside talking on a cell phone. He might be triggering an explosive device. But again, the local US propaganda downplays how danagerous Iraq still remains and how many Iraqis die only because they might be a terrorist. What happened to Sgrena is normal in Iraq. Even in the south - Basara - are about two violent attacks per day. From the perspective of American troops, everyone is a probably enemy which is why so much 50 calibre rounds are routinely expended - 'into automobile engines' as warning shots.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Again, the bottom line. Americans are routinely firing weapons in Iraq because Iraq remains that dangerous -

American troops routinely fire upon anything they consider a threat -

I was sent this semi-anonymously. It doesn't count the shots you're talking about but it does help understand the big picture.

According to http://www.casualties.org, there have been 88 hostile fire deaths caused by firearms since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. The remainder of coalition deaths has been due to explosives or accidents.

What does this mean? If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in theater during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death rate of 55 per 100,000.

The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

So what that article is saying is that if it weren't for the improvised explosive devices, Iraq is safer than parts of DC? Whoopee.

BTW, that just counts gun deaths. Since troops have body armor and faster access to emergency medical care, their survivability is 10 to 1. This means that those 88 deaths might include 800 wounded.

I doubt that someone shot in DC has access to a medic or is wearing body armor, especially since many states now make it illegal for anyone with a prior felony conviction to possess body armor.

Also, not all of those 160,000 troops are in Iraq or patrolling civilian areas. Many are in supply positions in fortified bases. Being shot at while on a base is pretty rare. Most of those on-base casualties are from mortars or suicide bombers. If all coalition troops had to patrol any part of Iraq, you would see a huge jump in those numbers.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

So as those gunner were discussing how much ammo remained, the one guy said he only had 1/4 of a box of 50 cals left. Since the death rate in Washington is so much higher, then gun dealers in Washington must be selling bullets by the crates and kegs.

The Italian reporter, Sgrena, said a tank opened fire on their vehicle for no reason and with no warning. Her comments are more in line with what has long been reported internationally and consistent film news reports showing that US troops routinely fire weapons even on every convoy. That highway - five miles between the airport and Baghdad - is so unsafe that US government personal have been forbidden to travel it. That threat only due to insurgents. US soliders don't tend to fire on their own vehicles have no problem firing warning shots into a car that poses no threat. With insurgents and Americans firing at civilians, well clearly Washington DC is still more dangerous.

Clearly it must be true ... or another classic example of the effective George Jr propaganda machine.. They also take credit for demonstrations in Lebanaon, citing the Iraqi elections. Clearly international news broadcasters are again wrong. International broadcasters report the Lebanon people were strongly inspired by the Ukraninian Orange Revolution. Obviously domestic propaganda must be right. Washington DC is obviously more deadly. Or just maybe the death rates are higher where 50 calibre bullets are routinely fired at anyone who gets near to or approaches Americans? In one convoy, the gunners had fired most of their ammo - in warning. And managed not to hit anyone because Baghdad is so much safer?

[Undertoad]

A tank?

[Undertoad]

Not enough information on this one yet. There are any number of explanations good and bad for it. But I will say this.

It's her claim that there were 300-400 rounds shot, and her claim that she was targetted. If she was targetted and only one fatal wound was caused, we now have an explanation for tw's too-high expenditures of bullets: US servicemen are horrible shots.

[Troubleshooter]

It's my understanding that that's generally the case no matter what conflict.