U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians

[Happy Monkey]

Sad story.

[jaguar]

There was a detailed writeup and pictures in the Guardian yesterday of this incident which backs this up entirely, when he arrived there were wounded and a burning bradley, soon after the choppers arrived and opened fire on the crowd repeatedly despite the lack of any arms or return fire and continued to do so except when ambulances were collecting the dead and dieing. The US is losing in Iraq, fast. If they think they can bomb slums into submission with airpower they're kidding themselves.

There was a snippet from a father at a funeral from his son I saw the other day, translated as "we want to support the US but how can when they they kill our families and destroy our homes". How can they? The country is a mess, no security, no safety, nothing is any better, every day people are dieing in increasing numbers. The US seems to be slowly pulling back, more and more 'no go zones' controlled by militas and criminals, more use of air power rather than on the ground work.

[Undertoad]

tw, I do believe that both Iraq and Afghanistan are worsening. Newsweek's report this week was pretty bad. The details listed in this massive PDF from the Center for Strategic and International Studies are sobering. We don't know whether this is part of a change in operations as control shifts from the Americans to the Iraqis. But it's not good in any case.

However, I will always refuse to play any sort of "Ooh, I told you so" game with you because:

A) It's uncivil;

B) you would lose, because you have a lot more predictions on the boards and, like mine, 50% of yours are wrong;

C) you refuse to read my posts clearly and continue to unfairly characterize me with whatever stereotype you have of me in your head;

D) it discourages future conjecture, which is kinda what this place is all about.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

However, I will always refuse to play any sort of "Ooh, I told you so" game with you because:

A) It's uncivil; ...

Appreciate why UT might be touchy about games of "I told you so". He parroted the George Jr party line even about aluminum tubes. But this is not a game of "I told you so". This is a discussion about using facts verses ideologoly and political rhetoric (ie how to solve the Iraq mess). Posted a year ago were statements that would become true because they were based upon fundamental principles and historical experience. Principles that George Jr and his neocon supporters denied back then and today.

For example, one blunt, basic, fundamental, irrefutible concept is the smoking gun. Going to war without a smoking gun is wrong and simply stupid. Yet neocons who have perverted 40 years of American foreign policy decided to unitlaterally attack any nation that might, sometime, maybe, in the future, become a threat. The concept is called pre-emption. It is dangerous. It is wrong as proven by history. It is wrong as proven in Iraq.

Again, there is no "I told you so". Accurately predicted by first learning lessons of history is what would happen in Iraq. So much in Iraq is exactly what we should have learned from VietNam.

Returning to the original sentence. I simply demonstrated what happens when one first learns history. These posts were about 1 year ago. Please feel free to demonstrate any positive progress since then in either Iraq or Afghanistan. But please show me, UT, where things got better one year later. Iraq continues to slowly worsen as predicted. Number of insurgents have doubled. Where is a solution? Where is the exit strategy? Where is all this international support? As I predicted, based upon both knowledge and previous experience, we now stew in our own juices. Obvious even one year ago because we attacked without a smoking gun.

Kudos to UT for providing that study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It does what the current administration would not do - because Clinton would do it. The study defines metrics for nation building. Those opposed to nation building must ignore or now fear metrics. Why fear? Because things continue to deteriorate in Iraq as they did one year ago. So instead we deny the numbers. In part because the administration more promotes and therefore believes their own rhetoric.

But again, I can understand how UT is touchy about anything that might be construed as "I told you so". UT believed a lying president rather than conclusions from three national advanced physics labs. Those labs said alumunim tubes were not appropriate for creating weapons grade uranium. Too many did what UT did. Believe a lying politician rather than technical facts. Another lesson here: give credence to the experts and always doubt the politicians. Especially doubt extremists politicians - both left and right wing. Which returns us to today - neocon vulcans still lie about Iraq.

Why will lookout123 and myself not agree? He is desperately seeking reasons to justify missile attacks on civilians. He advocates the policies (lies) of a mental midget president. He therefore has a different perspective. He must ignore why soldiers abandoned vital equipment on Baghdad streets. He must justify missile attacks on civilians. Streets that are suppose to be so safe. He does as UT did with the aluminum tubes. He blindly believes the lying politicians of this George Jr administration. What happens when ideology rather than pragmatism makes decisions.

Yes, the attacks might be a result of cowboy helicopter pilots. However problems don't end there. Same reason why Abu Ghraid was created. George Jr's people cannot get what their agenda predicts. Therefore we must fix problems with more force. They Gitmoized Iraqi prisons. Decision to do so came from within this administration. Same administartion that must now cover up the outing of a CIA agent. Clearly the *correct* information was not being taken from prisoners. Therefore torture, as routinely performed in Guantanamo, was justified. After all, the George Jr administration could not be wrong.

History teaches this. When the top people are driven by ideology and agenda rather than by fundamental principles and real world facts - then hell is justified. It was but another lesson from Vietnam. It was the driving force behind Nazi mentality. It is why we are now in Iraq and why we make no effort to capture bin Laden.

Until we address the problem - until we remove George Jr and his Vulcan extremists - then Iraq will continue to worsen. What America is doing in Iraq now is misguided. It may be too late for America alone to correct the George Jr mistakes. We must concede to obtain international help. Things will only worsen with a mental midget and extremist as president. A missile attack on civilians only because they were nearby a burning Bradley is but another symptom of why Americans are slowly becoming Ugly Americans. Ugly even among the Kurdish. That excellent study discovered by UT notes even in Kurdish sections, American popularity is waning. Why? President George Jr is the problem.

Nation building is required in Iraq. AND we must send at least one single battalion to capture bin Laden. Under George Jr, neither will happen. Instead under George Jr, we will go to war against Iran. Please explain how more wars will solve anything? We need a president who can acutally make his own decisions - about when to get up from a chair in FL to ask critically important questions. Instead some even justify missile attacks on Iraq civilians as if they were Palestinians. How much more extremist or misguided can we become? We would justify anything to support the mental midget president?

Its not about "I told you so". Its about learning the lessons of history. I rather expect some still deny the smoking gun concept. Some still refuse to learn from Vietnam. They advocate pre-emption - and justify missile attacks on civilians.

[DanaC]

Well spoken tw

[Cyber Wolf]

I wonder if Bush would punch a guy down on the street and call it a pre-emptive strike to guarantee his safety because the guy looked like he might try to mug him and looks like someone who might have mugged someone before.

[bluesdave]

TW, I agree 99% (maybe even 100%) with what you say - I was against the war from the start, and I think that Bush has the intelligence of a bacteria (that's probably not fair to bacteria), but what do you suggest the US do now? Continuing with their current policies is only going to continue to degrade the situation, but for the US to pull out of Iraq now would cause it to almost instantly collapse into a state of civil war. This would certainly not be fair to the Iraqi people, and how many innocent civilians would die then?

One possible solution would be for the US to hand over to the UN, but I'm sure the UN does not want the problem, and how many countries would be willing to contribute significant numbers of troops and military equipment to the cause (ie. to replace the US forces)? Very few. It is an absolute disaster, for which no one seems to have an answer. Also, any UN based force would be targeted just like the US troops are being now. What a mess.

[Pi]

I don't think that a UN mission would be a failture. There are always countries like Pakistan or India, wanting to participate in a UN mission. And don't forget that the ROE of Un are stricter than those of the US Army. So there won't be any bloddy helicopter attacks. Or maybe it's gonna be a second Somalia...

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Pi

There are always countries like Pakistan or India, wanting to participate in a UN mission.

That is all well and good, but for a UN mission to have any chance of working it would mean the complete replacement of US troops by UN troops. That is a *lot* of people. They can't afford to leave US troops there because they will continue to be targets. I'm pretty sure that UN troops will be targeted too, at least initially, because the radicals want all outsiders out of the country.

On a related thought - can you imagine Pakistani and Indian troops working peacefully together? That would be something to see!

[jaguar]

It would still be viewed as outsiders - and lets face it, hurting fellow Muslims doesn't tend to stop these people, it would still get attacked. There really isn't much you can do from here, it's as good as finished. They can't stop the attacks, thus can't get the place stable and the continuing attacks are turning more and more people against them. Iraq is descending into civil war anyway - you think the elections in January were ever going to work? The only war the US will get a government it will be happy with is by rigging them anyway. How are they planning in holding elections in the increasing numbers of 'no-go zones' anyway, they're starting to include a fair number of major population centres.

The only thing you can do now is get rid of bush and his cronies that lied to the world to carry out their personal ideologies and sacrificed the lives of over 1000 US troops for the benefit of Israel and their own fat pockets. Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cherny and Feith. Not only have they wrecked havoc on international relations but by extension their actions have spat on the democratic systems of Britain and Australia as well by feeding them blatantly false intelligenge to lie to their populations as well.

[bluesdave]

Jag, I agree with you, but I have some bad news. The bombing in Jakata has given John Howard's election campaign a bit of a lift. People here are more worried now about future terrorism against us, than they are about whether we were lied to re Iraq. I have heard that a similar feeling has developed in the US. What are people thinking in the UK?

[jaguar]

Blair is deeply unpopular for a variety of reasons, I think he'll win but my real hope is the Liberal Democrats take opposition and the torys are relegated to 3rd party status. Blair is desperately trying to win back all the people he gave the finger to over the last 7 years (unions, 'progressive voters', anyone that thinks belisconi is a fuckwit....) with a rash of messages and legislation (like the stupid ban on foxhunting out of nowhere) but it's too late, he has no credability and no trust left.

Fingers crossed Latham can fight back, that's all I can say. He's the first politician in a long time who I've thought really 'got it', from private school funding to Iraq to the FTA. He progressive but managed (unlike Blair) to keep true to a Labour position, his election would be a great thing for the country.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

... but what do you suggest the US do now? Continuing with their current policies is only going to continue to degrade the situation, but for the US to pull out of Iraq now would cause it to almost instantly collapse into a state of civil war. This would certainly not be fair to the Iraqi people, and how many innocent civilians would die then?

Iraq is but a short distance from total anarchy. If total control does break down, then substantial Iraqis might be killed in a civil war. Ironcially a civil war that may or may not result in a democracy. Why? Because the only way to impose a democracy is to have the locals impose it on themselves. Great expense such as massive loss of life may be necessary to prove to themselves that they really wanted that type of government. But the bottom line, only the fools in America think we can impose democracy on another country. Democracy must be earned - just another one of those lessons from history.

Colin Powell - one of the few in this administration that is not an ideologue - said it best. "You break it, then you own it". Well we now own it.

Listen to the BBC world service today. The man on the street does not believe America came to liberate him or to fix his economy. They believe America came only to get Saddam and to steal the oil. Furthermore, they believe (and rightly so) that everything now said by Americans is propaganda or outright lies. In that part, they would be right because this president is lying to everyone about Iraq - then and now. For example, how many foreigners are now kidnapped in Iraq. The US government fears you might realize the number is 220. They want you to believe reliable electricity and water is provided. The US governement fears you might learn that of more than 2000 construction projects, only about 10 are actually in progress. The nation is that unsafe for everyone. The George Jr administration cannot be honest about how bad security has become; worse than the day Rumsfeld said looting does not exist.

Americans have little credibility. If Ayatolla Sistani dies, so does any hope of American involvement. We are that close to losing the entire country. Furthermore, why do the world and UN refuse to cooperate? George Jr puts very stiff conditions on all foreign assistance. They all must do only what America demands. So stiff are these conditions that some in the world believe America wants to control Iraq.

The US even demands money to rebuild Iraq that is more than the entire budget for aid to African nations. This for a nation chock full of oil?

The Iraqi solution starts with America admitting to major mistakes by our government. Then completely passing control of Iraq and US military operations to a world body. Of course this will not happen. Review some 'veins hanging from teeth' responses even in The Cellar. And yet, the only way to rescue a slowly deteriorating situation is to conceded control - in a big and obvious way - to an honest third party power. Yes that means even Russia and China have major voices. Without those two nations fully involved, then the third party will not be honest. That means the US must remain in country and not have a veto power over how things will be accomplished.

We have broken it, in part, because the extremist Vulcans believed nation building is something wrong - something that Clinton does. Made painfully obvious is the purpose of war. To put the conflict back on the negotiation table. Instead we *again* (just like in Desert Storm) threw away a military victory by having no plans - none at all - nada - zippo - for how the peace would be implemented. Again, listen to the BBC today. The man in the Iraqi street most often believes we came to Iraq for the oil. We had no 'after action' plans - none - which is essential to ending a military operation. Again a lesson repeatedly taught by history. That means we cannot fix the country. We must remove the George Jr restrictions so that international assistance - people who would have credibility in Iraq - can start fixing the problem. That means we cannot fix Iraq with George Jr as president.

Getting credible powers into Iraq is not a total solution. But no solution is possible with George Jr in power and without third power cooperation. The problem is solvable now with third power operations - having honest brokers replace Americans and the 7000 mile screwdriver. But if things get worse, then a third power (an international solution) would not even be possible. If Iraq gets substantially worse (and it will if America continues this way), then only civil war will be the solution. One need only learn from the lessons of history. No one can impose democracy on another nation - no matter what Rice and Wolfowitz indoctrinated into George Jr.

[Undertoad]

Zeyad's current entry suggests what's happening. Writing from inside the country and inside the culture:

I have to shed light on something that has been bothering me for quite some time. Events over the last six months or so seem to indicate a developing pattern of the violence in Iraq. Simply put, when there is a surge of violence in the south, it completely ceases in other areas of Iraq, and vice versa. In other words, whenever Sadr takes a rest, Zarqawi comes into action again.

His theory is that the pattern suggests something important:

With this bleak scenario in mind, one can easily interpret the current pattern of violence... Each group wants to survive the occupation to fight for power in the future.

Powers that be in Iraq are counting on the US's lack of resolve to continue to nation-build. So is the Kerry campaign with their plan is to be out in four years. So HP is right, you either cut off your arm (Kerry) or sit there in pain dying slowly (Bush).

[Undertoad]

Oh, on this one:

Appreciate why UT might be touchy about games of "I told you so". -12 paragraphs deleted -

I just want everyone to think about what it says about a man, if he is freely offered the last word... and not only takes it, but shouts it at the top of his lungs.

I had the option of not pointing this out, which is usually my tack; but I know a lot of you scan instead of reading, and I thought you should realize what just happened, as my subtle approach is not always evident to you.