|
Does anyone know the real story out of Iraq
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NYCTrancefan |
| I am wondering about this because I keep seeing reports of the U.S. striking insurgents in Fallujah, Al Anbar province, Sadr City, etc. followed by claims of the deaths of tens of insurgents after every attack. Yet on the news, not in America of course, I see pictures of children being brought into hospitals in wheelbarrows and carts covered in blood and bandages. Am I missing something here because I rarely see this on the U.S. news, just the reports of dead insurgents. While insurgents are indeed being killed if my child was killed I would certainly take up arms against those who committed such acts for obvious reasons. Which makes me wonder exactly what the US is now fighting in Iraq, because certainly there are countless people like this who have lost family members, are they insurgents, terrorists, freedom fighters, etc. Who can answer that one and the war has innocent casualties b.s doesn't cut it. We were promised stability, security, freedom and democracy in Iraq, or will that take another year and a half. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Well, the reports from America is that THEY killed insurgents, insurgents that they dont know who they are.. like the claim that they said, where the US supposedly killed about 60 insurgents, but the story coming from the Iraqui hospitals is that, the majority were Childrens, woman, and non arabians... and that's sort of the opposite to what the US military reports.. I think that pictures and images talk a thousand words though. |
|
|
| policerobots |
maybe we should put webcams on every street in iraq to see whats going on....
but honestly im sure theres way too much to report in 24 hours, so well never get to know everything, except the ugliest stories that give Tv networks their ratings. and with the media biases its hard to get clear cut stories. military guys that return from iraq have some good stories maybe u should ask them if u know any. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by policerobots
maybe we should put webcams on every street in iraq to see whats going on....
but honestly im sure theres way too much to report in 24 hours, so well never get to know everything, except the ugliest stories that give Tv networks their ratings. and with the media biases its hard to get clear cut stories. military guys that return from iraq have some good stories maybe u should ask them if u know any. |
YEs, I've got 2 friends in Iraq.. and whatever they tell me, is not pretty.. |
|
|
| sisterbliss |
this isn't pretty either :(
Video on Web Site Shows Beheading of Man
31 minutes ago
By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer
CAIRO, Egypt - A video posted Monday on a Web site showed the beheading of a man identified as American hostage Eugene Armstrong.
The militant group led by Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi claimed responsibility for the slaying and said another hostage � either another American or a Briton held by the group � will be killed in 24 hours unless all Muslim women prisoners are released from U.S. military jails.
"You, sister, rejoice. God's soldiers are coming to get you out of your chains and restore your purity by returning you to your mother and father," said a militant reading a statement in the video.
In Washington, a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Armstrong's body had been recovered, but the official would provide no information about where or when it had been recovered.
The taped beheading appears to be of Armstrong, but the CIA (news - web sites) is still reviewing the tape to be sure, the official said.
The 9-minute tape was posted on a Web site used by Islamic militants after a 48-hour deadline set earlier by the group for the beheading of the three employees of a construction company abducted Thursday in Baghdad � Armstrong, American Jack Hensley and Briton Kenneth Bigley.
The tape showed a man seated on the floor, blindfolded and wearing an orange jumpsuit with his hands bound behind his back.
Five militants dressed in black stood behind the man, four of them armed with assault rifles, with a black Tawhid and Jihad banner on the wall behind them. The militant in the center read out a statement, as the hostage rocked back and forth and side to side where he sat.
After finishing the statement, the militant pulled a knife, rushed to the hostage from behind and cut his throat until the head was severed.
The victim gasped loudly as blood poured from his neck. His killer held up the head at one point, and placed the head on top of the body.
"The fate of the first infidel was cutting off the head before your eyes and ears. You have a 24-hour opportunity. Abide by our demand in full and release all the Muslim women, otherwise the head of the other will follow this one," the speaker said.
He appeared to indicate the hostages would be killed one at a time and did not specify whether Hensley or Bigley would be next.
The voice of the militant sounded like past recordings attributed to al-Zarqawi, whose Tawhid and Jihad group claimed responsibility for kidnapping Armstrong along with another American and a Briton.
The militants had demanded the release of female Iraqi prisoners detained by the U.S. military. The military says it is holding two women as security detainees in Iraq (news - web sites), including Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha, a scientist who became known as "Dr. Germ" for helping Iraq make weapons out of anthrax.
The militant on the video called President Bush (news - web sites) "a dog" and addressed him, saying, "Now, you have people who love death just like you love life. Killing for the sake of God is their best wish, getting to your soldiers and allies are their happiest moments, and cutting the heads of the criminal infidels is implementing the orders of our lord."
Armstrong grew up in Hillsdale, Mich., but left the area around 1990. His brother, Frank, still lives there. Armstrong's work in construction took him around the world; he lived in Thailand with his wife before going to Iraq.
The other American hostage, Jack Hensley, 48, made his home in Marietta, Ga., with his wife Patty and their 13-year-old daughter. Kidnapped with the Americans was Briton Kenneth Bigley, 62. All three worked for Gulf Services Co. of the United Arab Emirates.
(http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...ican_hostage_12)
none of it is. what a mess. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Important note to make.. President Bush does not recognize that there's any deterioration in Iraq, and that there's progress.. mmmm Come on my fellow republicans, why can't he just be honest about it, why does he even have the gusts to reject what the CIA reported on the situation on Iraq. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Don't listen to Bush. Hell, don't even listen to Kerry.
We need ALL ears on Rummy:
| quote: | Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cast it a little differently this week, at a news conference in Missouri. Iraq is making progress, he said. "At some point the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed and we'll have enough of the Iraqi security forces that they can take over responsibility for governing that country," he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/printeditio...POE=click-refer |
I love that man. Every time he speaks you can just envision a few Conservatives cringe. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
A statement like that from Rummy fits in nicely with the Bush administration and the general Iraq "quagmire" I'm waiting for the order to be given to level the whole country to try and solve the insurgent, terrorist, freedom fighter, jihadist (whatever the hell they are called by the Bush admin. these days). That will solve our problems in Iraq based on Rummsie's premise.
We are a nation with a standing army in the middle of the Arab World, our original, primary and central reason for being there has been shown to be facetious at best and woefully innacurate at worse, yet we have a president that seems to be out of touch with reality on the ground in Iraq. There is no security, there is no stability, there is no reconstruction at the rate it should be based on the money allocated, yet progress is being made according to G.W. Bush. All I can do is shake my head and treat the situation in Iraq with a sense of detachment now. |
|
|
| Urbanmessiah |
It's war so of course civilians are going to die. If people think America is targeting randomlly then you live in a dream world. But more civilians are dying then being reported because the American government does not want Americans seeing that.
During Vietnam the media was covering American soliders killing civilians this caused massive outrage. Ever since then the United States has censored media in war zones "it's to violent for people to watch". So more people are dying yes, than the media covers.
As for "insurgents" this word is an American lie. The American are trying to say the fighters are all foreigners, from other arab nations. I'm sorry but that's mostly a lie, most of the isurgents in Iraq are Iqaqi sunni rebels upset with American occupation. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
My first response when reading this was, "What the ?" This goes completely against the rhetoric grain set forth by this Administration.
But 2 things come to mind, if we are to accept Novak's column as true:
1. Bush and his media bitches (yes, that means Novak) are trying to round up those undecided voters who have doubts about Bush's Iraq policy. A real political ploy to these undecided doubters, and there are a lot of 'em (actually the majority of them).
2. It also possibly demonstrates that Bush's rhetoric is completely bull, and that Bush himself quietly acknowledges the failures. It's difficult, even for Bush to hand wave away the recent report by the Intelligence Estimate, which painted a pretty damn grim picture on Iraq.
Whichever the case, Novak continues to amaze me (for better or worse). I still think his ass belongs in jail for contributing in breaking the law with the Plame affair, but nevertheless:
| quote: | Robert D. Novak:
Looks like U.S. troops will be leaving Iraq early next year
By ROBERT D. NOVAK
INSIDE THE Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.
This prospective policy is based on Iraq�s national elections in late January, but not on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement.
Getting out of Iraq would end the neo-conservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The U.S. would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein�s quest for weapons of mass destruction.
The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a Presidential campaign. With six weeks remaining before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal.
Sen. John Kerry�s political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route.
Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the President or President-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.
Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush�s decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his present national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials.
An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.
Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute President to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.
The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state.
Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries � especially Turkey � that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.
This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam Hussein�s police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation-building after the dictator was deposed. U.S. military dead then totaled slightly over 100, while now it has surpassed 1,000.
Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neo-conservative dream. The Bush administration�s drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin�s seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest.
The Kerry campaign, realizing that its only hope is to attack Bush for his Iraq policy, is not equipped to make sober evaluations of Iraq. When I asked a Kerry political aide what his candidate would do in Iraq, he could do no better than repeat the old saw that help is on the way from European troops. Kerry�s foreign policy advisers know there will be no relief from that quarter.
In the Aug. 29 New York Times Magazine, columnist David Brooks wrote an article (�How to Reinvent the GOP�) that is regarded as a neo-con manifesto and not popular with other conservatives.
�We need to strengthen nation states,� wrote Brooks, calling for �a multilateral nation-building apparatus.�
To chastened Bush officials, that sounds like an invitation to repeat Iraq instead of making sure it never happens again.
Robert D. Novak is a Washington political columnist and a commentator on CNN.
http://www.theunionleader.com/artic...l?article=44298 |
|
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Don't listen to Bush. Hell, don't even listen to Kerry.
We need ALL ears on Rummy:
I love that man. Every time he speaks you can just envision a few Conservatives cringe. |
Yeah "We're just gonna keep killing Iraqis till the Iraqis are safe."......... "Ohh and were gonna arm an train some too.... while we kill their brothers...." :nervous:
Seriously though although for obvious reasons the security forces are needed in a place like Iraq the transistion from dictatorship to democracy is near impossible (look at Russia it's slowly progressing back the way, they miss the old strong Russia and hate the corruption). The security force I belive is at points is going to seem more a liabilty than help at some points through corruption and some turn-coating. Which could causea mjor trust problem in the future. Which with the tence nature of the US forces could mean big problems given the media saturation in the country (any Security force Vs. US/UK troops story would get major coverage, tho I'll bet it would be largely censored).
I.e.
1)a few turn-coat iraqi cops kill some american troops a few times.
2)builds a lack of trust perhaps even hate between them.
3)more iraqi cops turn.
goto number 1 again and again if you get my drift
perhaps even have a 4)us troops mistakenly shoot iraqi police.
I know the situation is unlikely but it could happen and if it did.... well Iraqi would be gone... totally gone. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
I.e.
1)a few turn-coat iraqi cops kill some american troops a few times.
2)builds a lack of trust perhaps even hate between them.
3)more iraqi cops turn.
goto number 1 again and again if you get my drift
perhaps even have a 4)us troops mistakenly shoot iraqi police.
I know the situation is unlikely but it could happen and if it did.... well Iraqi would be gone... totally gone. |
They already have, and continue to. Whenever a conflict starts up in some of the Iraqi cities and towns the "Iraqi security forces":conf: usually tends to disappear mysteriously or not so mysteriously. Chalk it up to bad training and discipline and sheer fright of being a collaborator. Most guys I get the feeling take the job for a check, while a few may believe in their task as told to them. |
|
|
|
|
