US Helicopter / Civilian Shootings (ca.2007) [Split from News Stories]

[Nappy Hared Azn]

Thank you for proving my point.

Ohandbytheway, I don't think you actually understood my post. I'd explain it, but I really don't give a shit. I mean... a political debate? On an anime forum? Yeah...

P.S. You know what the best part about this is? I ending up using one of my favorite fallacies... the name of which I can't remember. I guess I should have paid better attention in class. Anyway, no matter how well thought out and constructed any rebuttals are, we both lose the argument! I lose for being a hypocrite, and the responder loses for proving my point! I just wish I'd realized this while I was typing that post...

Seeing as how I made a huge fucking fallacy in a post about fallacies and pointless debates... I think I'll STFU now.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Evil Rick

So, your saying that if there's an unarmed woman with a baby and ebihind her it's a guy with a rifle, it's okay to shoot the woman and the baby in order to get the guy of the gun too?

If the soldier believes that the man with the rifle is going to fire upon them, then under most ROE's they'd probably be able to open fire. As disgusting as this is, doing other wise is bassically just encouraging the enemy to use noncombatants even more blatantly as human shields, which will get even more of them killed when you inevitably have to return fire.

Of course a guy with a camera embedded with a group of militants with a camera is probably there far more willingly.

Originally Posted by Evil Rick

We have an important issue here, civilians died under an indiscriminated attack, soldiers were not sure if the guys had weapons and yet, they opened fire to kill. You can hear how they say "C'mon, let me shoot them", they shoot a van without any reason, they hurt kids and they said "That's what they get for bringing kids to the warzone".

The Helicopter crew clearly identified weapons amongst a group that were in close proximity to US ground forces that had reported being under enemy fire for a sustained length of time, that were taking up a position from which they could fire upon the US ground troops. They clearly were sure the group had weapons, which is obvious from the audio logs. By no definition was this an indiscriminate attack.

The van was a much more ambivalent shooting, but it's going to far to say there was not any reason to fire on it. Because while the behavior matches with a random person just trying to help some guys out, it also matches with the Insurgents extraction team recovering their personell. From the air the Apache couldn't make out these details. People are confusing the fact that the Apache should have held fire there because the situation WAS sufficiently ambiguous, and NOT because the situation on the ground was so clearly obvious they should have known not to open up. There's a distinction between opening fire anyway in both circumstances.

Originally Posted by Evil Rick

Now that can be justified by saying "Some of the corpses actually had weapons". And haven't you tough that the army could place those automatic rifles and rocket launchers there to justify the attack?

Without any direct evidence supporting that, is just conjecture. Especially when reviewing the video you can ascertain objects which are not clearly just camera equipment.

The US would have every motivation to report on genuine evidence that validated one of their decisions.

Originally Posted by Evil Rick

Ah, but I'm afraid that they're actually doing that, they put their interests before human live. If not, then what's the reason behind this war? Don't come and tell me it's "The war against terrorism" becase the so calimed nuclear weapons in Iraq were never found, because Bush promiced the end of this after the death of Hussein and it didn't ended. Don't come and tell me "It's to bring peace to these lands" because after almost 10 years of war, peace is everytime more far. I'll tell you the reason behind this war, power, Like every damn war, all behind it it's power. Oil, gold, territory, money. That's what lies behind every damn war and while inocent people die, while young mans and womans are turned into killers like the soldiers in this vid, people like Bush sit in their expensive furniture in a $1,000,000,000.00 valued house, telling to the cameras how "We're doing the best for our nation and the world"

The motivations for invading Iraq were dubious as fuck. Surprise, most of us came to realization years ago. I'm one of those people who thinks we got sucked into a cluster fuck because of the Bush administration fucked around, and kept us stuck in it because they handled the execution incompetently. But the fact that we don't like this situation doesn't justify trivializing something so blatantly vile and inhuman as the Holocaust by making lazy comparisons.

Also, overall philosophical justifications for the war are only marginally related to the issues seen in this video. Particularly soldiers being able to distinguish between insurgents and civilians. Our subjective opinion about whether or not this is a "good war" wouldn't do anything to remove the confusion in this kind of situation that results in civilians being killed.

Originally Posted by Evil Rick

S
And how many bombs had fallen over houses, schools and hospitals in the Iraq territory? How many musulman kids had lost their parents? A limb? Thei houses? Tell me, what's the diference?

The difference as fickle as it may sound, is that the US doesn't want to do this on purpose. How many headlines have you read over the years that said something to the extent of "Insurgents bomb Mosque/voting station/market place"? What do you think their intent was when they did that?

It doesn't give us the kind of moral superiority that the guys jerking off with the flag think it does, but it is there, fickle as it is.

[Jazzrat]

While i wasn't a supporter for the iraq invasion but seeing the video and photo shown, I myself would have assume they were carrying weapons and request to take them out before they shoot at other US soldiers on the ground.

While it's unfortunate that civvies got caught in the conflict but i felt that the soldiers were just doing their duty. Unlike the insurgents, most of the troops weren't purposely targeting civilians.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

While i wasn't a supporter for the iraq invasion but seeing the video and photo shown, I myself would have assume they were carrying weapons and request to take them out before they shoot at other US soldiers on the ground.

While it's unfortunate that civvies got caught in the conflict but i felt that the soldiers were just doing their duty. Unlike the insurgents, most of the troops weren't purposely targeting civilians.

I honestly think that every single Iraq insurgents will claim the bold line but in reverse. ("While it's unfortunate that civvies got caught in the conflict but i felt that the soldiers were just doing their duty. Unlike the Americans, most of the troops weren't purposely targeting civilians")
Or "Since they walked along with the troops carrying weapons, so i will just assume they are the same group and eliminate them anyway"
Or "It was their fault in the first place, staying in the zone of conflict along with the enemies"

If you only allowed to kill if you can confirm a non-civilian status . And to confirm that status, it may cost you your life. Then maybe, your option to kill would be replaced by something more reasonable perhaps?
Seriously how can you eliminate something (terrorism, extremism, violent) if they come from the same source of your action? Saying that reminded me the thought that after all, it could be truth that the war in Iraq has never fought to be ended

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I honestly think that every single Iraq insurgents will claim the bold line but in reverse. ("While it's unfortunate that civvies got caught in the conflict but i felt that the soldiers were just doing their duty. Unlike the Americans, most of the troops weren't purposely targeting civilians")
Or "Since they walked along with the troops carrying weapons, so i will just assume they are the same group and eliminate them anyway"
Or "It was their fault in the first place, staying in the zone of conflict along with the enemies"

I think it's rather fanciful to assert the Insurgency is going by some equivalent mentality to the Americans of wanting to avoid egregious civilian casualties. An insurgent on the ground has VERY good odds of recognizing that a mosque is not filled with American soldiers, so when he rolls a car bomb up to it he and his buddies know exactly what they're doing.

One reason why you got all of the awakening councils, local Iraqi insurgents gravitating towards the US military/Iraqi government, was exactly because the elements of the insurgency operating inside the country that really were launching attack with no genuine concern for Iraqi civilian casualties...such as deliberately targeting civilians.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

If you only allowed to kill if you can confirm a non-civilian status . And to confirm that status, it may cost you your life. Then maybe, your option to kill would be replaced by something more reasonable perhaps?

What exactly are you suggesting here? That after identifying a group equipped with RPG's setting up within visual sight of American troops the gunship was supposed to...hold fire until they fired a bloody rocket? How is that a more reasonable option?

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Seriously how can you eliminate something (terrorism, extremism, violent) if they come from the same source of your action? Saying that reminded me the thought that after all, it could be truth that the war in Iraq has never fought to be ended

I don't think there has been a successful counter insurgency in history that didn't include "kill insurgents" on their agenda. They ussually involved other factors (reconstruction, establishing social stability etc) but it's still a military operation where the opposition must be killed.

[WanderingKnight]

Seriously lolling at the people at the beginning of the thread thinking that rich people join the military.

Seriously, laughing REALLY hard.

Whoever thinks that has absolutely no clue about how the world works, why people enlist into the army, and why the army caters *especially* to the people with the least means of survival (poor people, immigrants, etc), and should go out there and get a reality check ASAP.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Seriously lolling at the people at the beginning of the thread thinking that rich people join the military.

Seriously, laughing REALLY hard.

Whoever thinks that has absolutely no clue about how the world works, why people enlist into the army, and why the army caters *especially* to the people with the least means of survival (poor people, immigrants, etc), and should go out there and get a reality check ASAP.

Well, that's the problem in most countries, where the military is something alien to most citizen and the society in general.
Regardless of it's army being professional or drafted, it's members are essentially disconnected from their society, more so for the cast of those who have been involved in the military for generations.

The Military thus becomes a separate body, with at it's core a military caste, and it's rank filled either:
-with conscripts: all the nations youngsters deemed fit and not rich or influential enough to avoid it, who will spend there a normal life parenthesis of a few years.
-volunteers: more often than not, the (more or less fit) nations youngsters who are economically and socially disadvantaged enough to see an opportunity in the Military.
Essentially, old style cannon fodders and slave warriors.

The key problem here, is that today's "volunteer", due to the politic, social and economic setting, is closer to the classic Red Coat, and a far cry from the the Greek Citizen of Antiquity who armed itself to defend his home. Basically, they are closer to being mercenaries, enticed by material rewards and/or blood (and adventures prospects?); and nothing like a prosperous or not, merchant, craftman or farmer who respond to the call of arms when the land is to be protected.

IIRC, these economic and social symptoms became quite apparent when several European countries such as France or the U.K. professionalized their armies. Aside from rising costs (as you have to make a military career attractive enough, when before it was mostly a collective pain), a severe lowering of recruiting standards was required to fill the ranks, be it on physics, psychic and education.

I allow myself those commentaries, as in my country, our Military, being a Militia, and despite some modernization, is still represented as a reflection of Civil Society, and not something apart.
Elites especially were far from being disconnected, as it was the norm that managers and politician acquired skills and experience as officers; plus all citizen had to start from square one in the military.
Also, for us the Military is not a parenthesis in our young years, but a common experience throughout our twenties and thirties.

Maybe all of this has to do with the fact that our structures were directly inspired from the Roman Republic (down to the Dictator election), when most countries draw more on the Roman Empire.

Hell... now that I realize it, the 3 top players for the past century all have Auxiliaries-like policies or Corps.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I think it's rather fanciful to assert the Insurgency is going by some equivalent mentality to the Americans of wanting to avoid egregious civilian casualties. An insurgent on the ground has VERY good odds of recognizing that a mosque is not filled with American soldiers, so when he rolls a car bomb up to it he and his buddies know exactly what they're doing.

One reason why you got all of the awakening councils, local Iraqi insurgents gravitating towards the US military/Iraqi government, was exactly because the elements of the insurgency operating inside the country that really were launching attack with no genuine concern for Iraqi civilian casualties...such as deliberately targeting civilians.

So you think all insurgent likes to put up random target, throw away their men and materials just so they can act the evil role of the war? Your example is as ignorant as believing every American operation involving busting into random house and kill all men and women inside.

'Launching attack with no genuine concern for Iraqi civilian casualties...such as deliberately targeting civilians' (under the name of suspected terrorists). Sound kind of familiar? I don't know if it's ironic or not, but it won't be hard for you to look into an insurgent's line of thought if you switch their roles. I mean i can do that quite easily here.

What exactly are you suggesting here? That after identifying a group equipped with RPG's setting up within visual sight of American troops the gunship was supposed to...hold fire until they fired a bloody rocket? How is that a more reasonable option?
I don't think there has been a successful counter insurgency in history that didn't include "kill insurgents" on their agenda. They ussually involved other factors (reconstruction, establishing social stability etc) but it's still a military operation where the opposition must be killed.

So killed off innocent people is a better option? Even so were there any US soldiers under risk, or was it another "respond to insurgency attack" again?

If any US soldiers was within the visual sight of that spot, why it take that much time for them to get to the screen later on. Then also why do the "supported insurgents" and reporters walked freely in the middle of the street, some without even weapon(this is not Stalingrad), without any sort of cover , even when a helicopter is right above their head (want to know if the helicopter is out of sight or not, just find the time it take to fly a circle then multiply with average speed for the perimeter). Why even a van with two kids inside even somewhere near the conflict?

Dead people do not talk. But we knows for sure that those alive lied.

This is not a sarcastic comment, but maybe it will be better that the general US public can stay unknowing and hold their belief in their own military justice. You may interests in, but the majority of population won't and it won't help that way anyway. If you can't change, then may as well join them for a relief of mind for this moment

[Nightbat®]

Just an FYI about what kind of people enlist:

Anyone that has a bright future doing something else than dodging bullets

You join the army because:
-You're enamored by it
-You've got no alternative
-The perks that'll enable you to build yourself a better future (education foremost)

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

So you think all insurgent likes to put up random target, throw away their men and materials just so they can act the evil role of the war? Your example is as ignorant as believing every American operation involving busting into random house and kill all men and women inside.

'Launching attack with no genuine concern for Iraqi civilian casualties...such as deliberately targeting civilians' (under the name of suspected terrorists). Sound kind of familiar? I don't know if it's ironic or not, but it won't be hard for you to look into an insurgent's line of thought if you switch their roles. I mean i can do that quite easily here.

Who said it was just meaningless role playing? You do something like this and you're doing this because you have specific objectives you want to accomplish. Allot of it has to do with the fact that the Iraqi Insurgency is divided amongst sectarian lines and people of the wrong sect are often seen as legitimate targets. That's where the awakening councils came in.

And I'll reiterate. There is an ever so slight distinction between civilians being killed because of being misidentified as combatants, and civilians being murdered with full knowledge that they are civilians.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

So killed off innocent people is a better option?

You can't ensure that there will be no mistakes that will get innocent people killed. This is war, these things happen and it is horrible. The only way you can really prevent your soldiers from killing innocent people in combat is to not send them off to war, which is not really an option to the guy in the field. It's a better option, but it's certainly not a good one.

Cause the only other options is to tell the soldiers that guy they're sure is about to kill them with a rocket, that they can't do anything about it until the guy actually blows them up with a rocket.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

If any US soldiers was within the visual sight of that spot, why it take that much time for them to get to the screen later on.

This was commented upon by one of the Apache pilots in the unedited video (not sure about the short edited one). My understanding was that the ground element were under orders to move to a different position first as part of larger maneuvers by the ground force, before they could secure the site where the Apache engaged the targets. It's not like military formations operate in a vacuum and can move around the field as they wish.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Then also why do the "supported insurgents" and reporters walked freely in the middle of the street, some without even weapon(this is not Stalingrad), without any sort of cover

Non professional militants display sloppy non professional behavior in the field. War is allot more boring than Hollywood would have you believe. War is 5% direct combat and 95% inane boredom. While people certainly can naturally stay alert in that 5% of time, a normal person will not maintain alertness after nineteen hours of absolutely nothing life threatening happening. This presents a problem when something life threatening does show up, since you're not alert and much easier to kill.

A significant portion of military training is to instill the mental discipline and focus that lets you stay on top of everything for that 95% of boredom, so you won't be caught off guard for that 5% of combat. Someone who hasn't gone under this kind of intensive military training, will not display that kind of professional discipline in the field.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

even when a helicopter is right above their head (want to know if the helicopter is out of sight or not, just find the time it take to fly a circle then multiply with average speed for the perimeter).

Apache's can engage targets at over 1.5 kilometers away thanks to their electronic optics. The guys on the ground not seeing the Apache is completely normal, as can be attested by any number of Apache guncam videos.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Why even a van with two kids inside even somewhere near the conflict?

Because the battleground is in the middle of a city where millions of people live.

Though I will point out that something along this train of thought colored the Apache crews judgment when assessing what was happening when the Van showed up.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Dead people do not talk. But we knows for sure that those alive lied.

What exactly do we know they lied about specifically? That they identified individuals as hostile then shot at them?

[Autumn Demon]

The American public is so sensitive to American military casualties that the military has to put the lives of its soldiers before the lives of Afghan and Iraqi civilians. The U.S. military should not be used to fight against an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms.

[killer3000ad]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

The American public is so sensitive to American military casualties that the military has to put the lives of its soldiers before the lives of Afghan and Iraqi civilians. The U.S. military should not be used to fight against an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms.

WUT? Oh do tell what should have been done then to combat the insurgents? Ask them to start wearing uniforms?

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

WUT? Oh do tell what should have been done then to combat the insurgents? Ask them to start wearing uniforms?

Here's a good one, not invade them to enrich haliburton.

[killer3000ad]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Here's a good one, not invade them to enrich haliburton.

Here's a better one, not becoming an insurgent. Tonnes of other Iraqis joined the National Guard or police. Many others formed civilian watch groups to guard their communities. You can't certainly say if the US and it's allies did not invade then they wouldn't insurgents. Of course in that case they'd still be under Saddam who'd still be saber-rattling to this day. If one starts the circle-jerk of blame you'd end up one big circle in the end.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

Here's a better one, not becoming an insurgent. Tonnes of other Iraqis joined the National Guard or police. Many others formed civilian watch groups to guard their communities. You can't certainly say if the US and it's allies did not invade then they wouldn't insurgents. Of course in that case they'd still be under Saddam who'd still be saber-rattling to this day. If one starts the circle-jerk of blame you'd end up one big circle in the end.

Wars based on corporate profits open up the U.S. to more harm. Seriously since our invasion of Iraq I haven't felt safer, and at what cost? The killing of their civilians? The Pillaging of their natural resources? Turning their home into a battleground for Al Queda and Americans? Slowly outsourcing our military operations to shitty contractors? Allowing women to be raped by their compatriots and not allowing for justice to take it's course? Dehumanizing people in prisons like Abu Graib?

I could play this game all day, and there has been no benefit from the Iraq war except only money flowing from the Treasury's coffers. I know the military industrial complex loves it, six bombers here, twenty tanks there.

[killer3000ad]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Wars based on corporate profits open up the U.S. to more harm. Seriously since our invasion of Iraq I haven't felt safer, and at what cost? The killing of their civilians? The Pillaging of their natural resources? Turning their home into a battleground for Al Queda and Americans? Slowly outsourcing our military operations to shitty contractors? Allowing women to be raped by their compatriots and not allowing for justice to take it's course? Dehumanizing people in prisons like Abu Graib?

I could play this game all day, and there has been no benefit from the Iraq war except only money flowing from the Treasury's coffers. I know the military industrial complex loves it, six bombers here, twenty tanks there.

*Killing of their civilians-Who kills more Iraqi civilians and for what reason? The insurgents make it a point to target civilians whereas coalition forces generally try to avoid that. Doesn't help that insurgents being insurgents, they don't wear a uniform, and make it a habit to blend in when possible.

*Pillaging of their natural resources-Iraqi oil ministry has a say on deals and they get oil revenues so they are not being pillaged.
Iraq extends deal with Shell
Iraq earns $4.23bn in oil revenues for Feb 2010
China is also the biggest investor of oil and gas in Iraq today.

*Turning their home into a battleground for Al Queda and Americans-Now who's fault is this? The US certainly didn't want al-Qaeda in Iraq, but came they did and fight they wanted to. Al-Qaeda funnelled fighters into Iraq to fight the Coalition, and ultimately to destablize Iraq, contrast with the US who wanted things to be stable so they could withdraw their troops and make money of the oil peacefully. Al Qaeda deliberately sought to forment a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. They killed Shiites to piss them off and invite reprisals against the Sunnis so that the Sunnis would run to Al Qaeda for help. Incidentally, Sunnis who did take an early stand against Al Qaeda were just as easily slaughtered by them. The Sunni tribes ultimately turned and their contribution was pivotal in rooting out Al Qaeda in Iraq. See
Awakening councils/Sons of Iraq

Slowly outsourcing our military operations to shitty contractors-The only military ops outsourced to security contractors(PMCs) were security for diplomats, VIPs, supply trucks etc. Day-to-day combat operations against insurgents were carried out by the militaries of Coalition forces, the Iraqi National Guard and police, plus a bit of help on the side from Concerned Local Citizens (CLC) tired of strangers coming in to their neighbourhoods and setting off car bombs. Did I mention that in the long run, it was found that PMCs actually saved money? Of course there were shitty ones, the result of which groups like Blackwater were thrown out of Iraq.

Allowing women to be raped by their compatriots and not allowing for justice to take it's course-Last I checked, the case involving Jamie Leigh Jones is going to trial in May 2011. So justice MIGHT be served and she will get her day in court. On another note, how do these rape incidents relate to Apaches gunning dubious acting armed individuals? Unless that Apache had an alleged rapist pilot on board, I fail to see any relation with the subject matter at hand. Rape happens all the time even in your own city. So what does this point bring to the table?

Dehumanizing people in prisons like Abu Graib-The people responsible for that were punished and so far there hasn't been a repeat. You could put that down to better control of private cameras if you'd like.

I've always been surprised with the strange crusader-like fervour that conspiracy theorists display on a regular basis. From your posts you seem to be fervently centered on the theory that big corporate business is was the key driving force for the invasion of Iraq. Since that belief has always sounded to me to be just a conspiracy theory, I'd like to see some authoritative evidence to support that belief especially with your comment:

Originally Posted by Nosauz

I know the military industrial complex loves it, six bombers here, twenty tanks there.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

I've always been surprised with the strange crusader-like fervour that conspiracy theorists display on a regular basis. From your posts you seem to be fervently centered on the theory that big corporate business is was the key driving force for the invasion of Iraq. Since that belief has always sounded to me to be just a conspiracy theory, I'd like to see some authoritative evidence to support that belief especially with your comment:

Of course it is. Didn't you see the military decline to order extra transport planes, but congress still authorized the purchases because they generate jobs for people in their district. There is no conspiracy because KBR and Haliburton have been the biggest benefactors of the Iraq War, and the fact that there wasn't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq the idea was to invade was just asinine. The corporate motive is quite prominent because the fake wmd's and faulty intelligence for war were just too convenient and the fact that the Bush administration manipulated the political system to quickly go to war on faulty intelligence is just so convenient. Seriously the no-bid contracts don't help the administrations cause to claim that corporate motives weren't a factor.

Seriously though, those who love the empire will continue to fly their neo-con banners, and you will continue to spin things onto the iraqi's who were forcibly invaded on lies and it's their fault they fight invaders? Seriously... patriotism is only patriostism when it's pro-america.

[killer3000ad]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Of course it is. Didn't you see the military decline to order extra transport planes, but congress still authorized the purchases because they generate jobs for people in their district. There is no conspiracy because KBR and Haliburton have been the biggest benefactors of the Iraq War, and the fact that there wasn't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq the idea was to invade was just asinine. The corporate motive is quite prominent because the fake wmd's and faulty intelligence for war were just too convenient and the fact that the Bush administration manipulated the political system to quickly go to war on faulty intelligence is just so convenient. Seriously the no-bid contracts don't help the administrations cause to claim that corporate motives weren't a factor.

Seriously though, those who love the empire will continue to fly their neo-con banners, and you will continue to spin things onto the iraqi's who were forcibly invaded on lies and it's their fault they fight invaders? Seriously... patriotism is only patriostism when it's pro-america.

Omg this shit is absolute golden BANANAS,

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Didn't you see the military decline to order extra transport planes, but congress still authorized the purchases because they generate jobs for people in their district.

Well those politicians had the right idea, especially in this GFC. Is that so terrible? Keeping the production lines open so that people will have jobs? Also C-17 transport plane != tanks, bombers that you so generously mentioned.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

I know the military industrial complex loves it, six bombers here, twenty tanks there.

The no-bid contracts-With or without the no-bid contracts, foreign companies WOULD and DID go to go to Iraq to do business and rebuild it’s ruined infrastructure, train it’s new army and police, help get the oil pumping and flowing again. Halli/KBR is not the only foreign company doing business in Iraq’s reconstruction. Halli/KBR’s sin here was using their political connections to weasel themselves ahead of the pack to get first dibs. If Halli/KBR didn’t get the contract to supply food to the troops, someone else would have and you’d still be hating on them as well if there were the slightest indication they had political connections.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Seriously though, those who love the empire will continue to fly their neo-con banners, and you will continue to spin things onto the iraqi's who were forcibly invaded on lies and it's their fault they fight invaders? Seriously... patriotism is only patriostism when it's pro-america.

As I noted in an earlier post, plenty of Iraqis joined the National Guard or police and have helped to hunt down those Iraqis you so proudly talk about fighting the ‘invaders’. The Sunnis formed the Sons of Iraq/Anbar Awakening/Awakening Councils to help the coalition forces root out the foreign Al Qaeda in Iraq and the criminal insurgent gangs that were trying to start a Shiite-Sunni civil war.

Once again your jihad-like fanaticism in this matter is puzzling. The fact that you see the USA as some evil empire and fling around the word ‘neo-con’, it’s clear evidence of your political leanings and entrenched predisposed views.

[mg1942]

hate it or love it... but this is still true to this day

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

Omg this shit is absolute golden BANANAS,


Well those politicians had the right idea, especially in this GFC. Is that so terrible? Keeping the production lines open so that people will have jobs? Also C-17 transport plane != tanks, bombers that you so generously mentioned.

The no-bid contracts-With or without the no-bid contracts, foreign companies WOULD and DID go to go to Iraq to do business and rebuild it’s ruined infrastructure, train it’s new army and police, help get the oil pumping and flowing again. Halli/KBR is not the only foreign company doing business in Iraq’s reconstruction. Halli/KBR’s sin here was using their political connections to weasel themselves ahead of the pack to get first dibs. If Halli/KBR didn’t get the contract to supply food to the troops, someone else would have and you’d still be hating on them as well if there were the slightest indication they had political connections.



As I noted in an earlier post, plenty of Iraqis joined the National Guard or police and have helped to hunt down those Iraqis you so proudly talk about fighting the ‘invaders’. The Sunnis formed the Sons of Iraq/Anbar Awakening/Awakening Councils to help the coalition forces root out the foreign Al Qaeda in Iraq and the criminal insurgent gangs that were trying to start a Shiite-Sunni civil war.

Once again your jihad-like fanaticism in this matter is puzzling. The fact that you see the USA as some evil empire and fling around the word ‘neo-con’, it’s clear evidence of your political leanings and entrenched predisposed views.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

America's current position in the world is World Police, America has no money, and yet the only thing "republicans"/neo-cons want lower taxes, less government except when it comes to "national defense" except it's not really national defense but empire building. History has told us that empires will eventually crumble and as a Patriot, I'd rather not have the American way of life to end any time within my lifetime. Although you say other contractors would have taken the work load the fact that they weren't given the chance to compete is the antithesis of the free markets that we supposedly worship. Let's not forget that corporations especially those that have established monopolies continue to abuse their access/power to do shitty jobs and overcharge the government when it comes to government work. Seriously, this isn't 24, and our occupation of Iraq is just cranking out more terrorists. You still don't address the illegal war that is Iraq because it is, and it will be the legacy that will mark Bush even worse than Watergate did to Nixon.

Hey but again it's clear that human lives aren't worth as much to you as they are to me, and let's leave it at that. You clearly don't value the civilian casualties in Iraq because the ends just the means, but that in itself is just a cruel way to comodify human beings. Keep dehumanizing them, too bad you don't have the balls to actually go to war, as you quarterback from the safety of your home. War is something not to be taken lightly yet some people continue to call for it and justify it's damage to those affeceted by it. Also ps blackwater was the face of PMC's till they were kicked out, and the notion that once a problem is recitified that problem is solved doesn't justify the original infraction, because those things did occur, and they still affect that region to this day. Anyway I'm done, because you've made it clear that the military/corporations that support are some shining beacon of freedom when it's clear that is not the case.