What's going on in Fallujah? by InevitableBetrayal

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

"One of the world's worst terror dens." What the are you talking about? What is a "terror den?" I've never heard of one of those. Is it anything like a "den of thieves" or a "den of iniquity?" You sound like a fifties pulp fiction writer! It's a made up concept like "war on terror" designed to create the feeling of grandiose importance and the romance of killing. It's both fanciful and dehumanizing.

What is a terror den? a den of terrorists. Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been hanging out in Fallujah and directing the insurgents there? Here's one of his escapades.

Quote:
The beheading of a US civilian by a group with ties to Al-Qaeda was a shocking image from Iraq. The group appears to be hoping that the graphic videotape will fan anger at Washington even as it revolts the public. The video, released ll May 2004, is titled: "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American." The videotape shows 26-year-old Nicholas Berg kneeling on the floor as one of the masked men reads a statement saying he will be killed in response to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghurayb prison. Next, a man puts a large knife under Berg's neck and begins sawing off his victim's head. The killer shouts "God is Great" over Berg's screams. Then, he holds up the severed head to the camera like an executioner.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/zarqawi.htm

Or maybe that's not terrorism to you?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:56 PM

Let's remember that our Marines (that's right, I said "our", meaning yours too!), found this soon-to-be-dead guy in a mosque, where real Islamists would not fight from. If the Marine believed the terrorist (that's right, I said "terrorist". Remember, their leader made a public oath to follow bin Laden, who, last time I heard, is a terrorist!) was faking his own injuries or even death, then, quite simply, you don't take any chances. Walking up to a body that may not really be just a body, what's he to do? Those animals believe that they must take as many of the Marines with them, even if they die in a hail of bullets at close range. When dealing with these fanatics, who are no more than brainwashed serial killers, it's the only way to be sure.

Everyone dies alone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:54 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The slaughter. The rationalization. The heroic remolding of a cowardly act. All so predictable.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:39 PM

Not cowardly, just kill or be killed, especially when dealing with an enemy that doesn't follow the rules of war, and like it or not, believe it or not, there are "rules" to be followed in war, as weird as that sounds.

Everyone dies alone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:46 PM

Predictable? Did you say predictable? Is a car bomb predictable? Is a suicide bomber predictable? Is the slaughtering of a female CARE official predictable? Is the suicide bombing of the U.N. mission predictable???????? I think not!

Everyone dies alone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2004 8:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm curious about your tag "everyone dies alone". It's probably the one thing we agree on. When did you come to that realization?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:10 PM

It's from one of the Firefly episodes, can't remember which. I think it's "Out of Gas".

Everyone dies alone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2004 2:36 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The slaughter. The rationalization. The heroic remolding of a cowardly act. All so predictable.

The hyperbole. The agenda. The rush to judgement with incomplete information. Yep. Predictable all right.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2004 3:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

What's going on in Fallujah? Here's yesterday's briefing.

Quote:
Tomorrow we will continue to work and evaluate the electrical grid. We'll continue to evaluate the water. We have uncovered the Fallujan water plant. It appears that we will be able to get that functioning sometime within the next 48 to 72 hours.

The plant itself is in very good condition, but the water distribution, the pipes that run throughout the town have sustained some damage. But we're doing work-arounds with that, a combination of Navy Seabees, Army engineers, Marine engineers, working, as I mentioned before, with the ministries, the Iraqi ministers.

As far as opening the town, that will be condition based. The town must be secure before we can let the Fallujan people start to move back in. Secure not only means searching each and every house to pick up and eliminate the caches of ordnance, of weapons, of improvised explosive devices that are rigged like booby-traps in many of the houses we've gone into; we also have to ensure before we turn the electric power on that downed lines that may be hot, that may cause harm to either our service members, the Iraqi security forces or the returning Fallujans, have in fact been -- that problem has in fact been corrected.

So it will take some time, but we've already commenced. We've commenced the cleanup operation utilizing mainly our own soldiers and the Iraqi soldiers. Once the environment is secure enough, we already have contracts that are in place that will be awarded. We have started to move humanitarian assistance into the town.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/11/mil-041118-dod
01.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2004 2:01 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey, IB, I understand your anger at what amounts to simple squeemishness about a soldier doing the best he can in an impossible situation. Americans want to approve the war but they don't want to see any of its ugliness (it's prolly from watching all those G.I.Joe cartoons when they were kids where the ememy always jumped out of the tanks before they exploded

). But I think the situation is complicated because a lot of Americans don't really know why we're there. I mean not really. Saddam is out, there are no WMD's, ObL is on the lecture circuit, etc.

What's going on in Fallujah? Well, like you said, we're killing 1,200 people in a week and we're losing how many in that time, 35? That's not a war. Seriously, that's a massacre.

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
In a single week, they killed as many as 1,200 of the enemy and captured 1,000 more. They did this despite forfeiting the element of surprise, so civilians could escape, and while taking precautions to protect Iraqis that no doubt made their own mission more difficult and hazardous. And they did all of this not for personal advantage, and certainly not to get rich, but only out of a sense of duty to their comrades, their mission and their country.

This kind of thing has been going on for thousands of years. An invading army with vastly superior numbers and/or a staggering technological advantage lays waist to an indiginous fighting force. The invaders claim to bring civilization and prosperity to the people. Sure, some folks accept the inevitable and count themselves lucky to be rid of the local tyrant and "support" the "regime change." But others? You've heard the expression "by any means necessary?"

In the old days we refered to the indiginous fighters as "savages" and catalogued their outragiously inhuman practices with shock and dismay--scalping, nailing dead women to trees, boobie trapping corpses. "They don't fight by the rules! They're inhuman monsters!" But can't you see that "by the rules" they'd simply have to roll over and die?

Why are we still over there? Iraq has always been an artificial country, created (correct me if I'm wrong) by the British to suit their own ends. Nothing has EVER held Iraq together as a country except tyrany. Nobody knows that better than the Iraqis. Why should they believe that this time is any different? Think! We're the ones who gave them Saddam Hussein! What are we gonna give them now? What can we give them now? A lot of Iraqis accept our inevitable domination and set their hopes on the "Pax Americana," but with every passing day that dream gets farther and farther away.

What's going on in Fallujah? Colonialism is going on in Fallujah. Why are we still there? I think Kipling sumed it up in "The White Man's Burden." As a country, we have no moral highground left, and the soldier in the field (as usaul) gets the blame.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Edited to add:

The White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2004 3:07 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

I really appreciate the fact that you didn't attack me or insult me. I wish that everyone on this board were willing to discuss things as calmly as you do. My hat's off to you.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
What's going on in Fallujah? Well, like you said, we're killing 1,200 people in a week and we're losing how many in that time, 35? That's not a war. Seriously, that's a massacre.

Merriam Webster online ( http://www.m-w.com/home.htm) defines "massacre" as "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty" (emphasis added).

The insurgents in Fallujah were neither helpless (one weapons cache reportedly contained seventy five thousand pieces of explosives) nor unresisting (Marines died there). Civilians were warned to get out, and by most estimates, 75-80% did. That means that the people there wanted to fight us.

Admittedly, the fact that 35 of us died as compared to 1,600 of them (or about 47-to-1) looks pretty overwhelming. But that can be accounted for by three things: armor (the average soldier has chest and back plates and a helmet; the insurgents have none, thus making them much more vulnerable), training (the average Marine infantryman has several years worth of training; the average insurgent has very little or even none) and weaponry (the U.S. had aircraft, helicopters and tanks, as well as rockets, RPGs, grenades and small arms; the insurgents have only RPGs, small arms and IEDs). Of course we killed so many more of them. They were outmatched. And although that might seem "unfair", the goal of war is to kill them without being killed yourself, so unfair is definitely the way to go.

Now, many on this board are quick to defend the Fallujans as the simple protectors of their home against a ruthless attacker. But remember the reason why we attacked in the first place. Fallujah was home to the architects of the insurgency, and the masterminds of terrorism (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi being the most obvious example, but not the only one). We could argue endlessly over why we are in Iraq. But whatever the reason, neither we nor the Interim Iraqi Government want chaos and violence to rule the country. That is what the insurgents in Fallujah were sowing. Obviously not everyone in Falljuah was a bad guy--that's why we warned the civilians to get out.

And do you know who is there in addition to the Marines? Navy Seabees and Army Engineers. They are there to begin rebuilding the city so that it will be livable for peaceful citizens. And after them 25 million dollars worth of reconstruction aid will flow in, allowing the men of that city to have an occupation other than trying to kill us.

Imperialism? Maybe. But not a massacre. And certainly not ethnic cleansing.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And meanwhile, the military has yet to release an estimate of civilian casulaties. I'll bet we never see one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:46 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And meanwhile, the military has yet to release an estimate of civilian casulaties. I'll bet we never see one.

Given that it's Penatagon policy to let the Iraqi Health Ministry or independent agencies provide those figures, you might win that bet.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 7:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What'a happening in Falujah? Judging by this past April's aborted invasion, whatever is happening is sure to be kept a deep, dark secret. The Falujah Hospital, which offered the only independent and verified casualty reporting in April was occupied this time supposedly because the bridge to the hospital was "littered" IEDs. (I note that the IEDs did not prevent Marines and Iraqi security forces from crossing the bridge to take the hospital). The Iraqi Health Ministry is our sock puppet - previously banned by the USA from tallying and reporting these figures, it now provides data that demonstrably false according to Iraq Body Count (Geezers' prefered site). The Pentagon classifies their own internal reports, and any data derived from non-USA sources is sure to be qualified as "unconfirmed" and "inflated" by USA press:

Quote:
Given that it's Pentagon policy to let the Iraqi Health Ministry or independent agencies provide those figures, you might win that bet.- Geezer

"Iraq's Health Ministry ordered to stop counting civilian dead from war
www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-iraq-civilians_x.htm

After the aborted April invasion, Iraqi Health Ministry (IHM) figures (~260) were ridiculously low-balled, according to the Iraq Body Count (IBC). IBC Press spokesman John Sloboda said "Data recently released to the public by the Iraqi Health Ministry has allowed IBC to resolve a problem we have been struggling with for months: how to reconcile casualty figures reported by local doctors of 800 total dead with a much lower estimate (280 dead) produced in short order by the Iraqi Health Ministry (IHM)... it now appears incontrovertible that the IHM estimate...was acknowledged to be flawed"
www.iraqbodycount.net/details/x360_notes.php)

The bulk of civilian dead (~600) was reported from the Falujah Hospital. Those April 2004 figures from the hospital were written off in US Press as "unconfirmed" and "inflated"- a point the NYTIMES made again this month on Nov 8, 9, and 17- but have been acknowledged to be accurate for months. "Dr. Rafie al-Issawi (head of Falujah hospital has consistently maintained that more than 600 people were killed in the initial U.S. siege of Fallujah in April 2004, a figure that rose to more than 800 as the siege was lifted and people pinned down by the fighting were able to register their families deaths (Knight-Ridder, 5/9/04). More than 300 of the dead, according to al-Issawi, were women and children."
www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/300103.html

Despite Tommy Franks' assertion that "I don't do body counts", the Petangon keeps its own tally, which is classified. "But since 1991, when Colin Powell was head of the joint chiefs of staff, the figures have been kept secret."
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1031-01.htm

--------------------------

What is my point? I note that IHM, Military briefings and USA press are demonstrably untustworthy and that even IBC figures are biased low (per Geezer)

But furthermore, judging by Geezer's insight that totally protecting civilians in these circumstances is "undo-able", and according to April figures (800 total deaths, 300 of them women and children + 500 males age 15-80 "presumed" combatants) if the USA is reporting approx 1200 combatant deaths, we should expect to see civilian deaths in roughly the same number as reported combatants. In other words, if the USA military says it knows of "no civilian deaths" (which was stated in a military briefing) they are lying. If the IHM reports anything less than about 600 civilian deaths, they are probably shading the figures.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 10:50 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Falujah Hospital, which offered the only independent and verified casualty reporting in April was occupied this time supposedly because the bridge to the hospital was "littered" IEDs. (I note that the IEDs did not prevent Marines and Iraqi security forces from crossing the bridge to take the hospital).

As I explained to you in another thread, the Fallujah hospital is on the west bank of the Euphrates river, and the main part of Fallujah is on the east bank. The Marines and Iraqi forces who secured the hospital approached it from the west, and did not have to cross the bridges. The actual move into the city was from the north, and did not use the bridges either.

Assuming that the 600 dead figure from the April attacks is close to correct, there are a couple of things that might reduce civilian casualty totals in the recent operation. First, there were a lot fewer people in town this time around. I've seen estimates of up to 90% evacuated. Second, the major fighting was over sooner.

The International Red Cross is ready to go into the city and provide aid and assess casualties as soon as the insurgents provide them passage. Would you accept their figures?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 11:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Meanwhile, in Falljah:

Quote:
FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - U.S. troops have found close to 20 "atrocity sites" used by insurgents to imprison, torture and kill hostages in Fallujah, a U.S. military officer said Sunday.

Marine Maj. Jim West said that in addition to numerous weapons caches, troops clearing the city after a major U.S.-led offensive had found rooms containing knives and black hoods, "many of them blood-covered."

Briefing reporters at a base outside Fallujah, West said one room had "handprints on the walls and along the sides of the walls ... There was blood covering the entire wall and along the floorboard area."

He said troops had found signs of "torture, murder, very gruesome sights."

"We found numerous houses where people were just chained to a wall for extended periods of time," he added.

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=76114

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"Assuming that the 600 dead figure from the April attacks is close to correc"

No, the figure is 800. Each death has been validated by the IBC, so the the total is correct even if biased low due to under-reporting. Along with the USA press, the military, and the IHM, Geezer like to play with the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:09 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Assuming that the 600 dead figure from the April attacks is close to correct"

No, the figure is 800. Each death has been validated by the IBC, so the the total is correct even if biased low due to under-reporting. Along with the USA press, the military, and the IHM, Geezer like to play with the truth.

That was 600 civilians, since that's what we were talking about (I thought).

Quoting from the IBC link you provided above:

Quote:
Because reporters were barred from entering the city during the April 2004 siege of Falluja, IBC's estimate of 572 - 616 civilians killed during the April 2004 siege of Falluja is based on reported cumulative totals rather than a series of individual reports...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Which was raised after the seige when people merged to report their dead.

"Iraqi civilian casualties mounting
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder."
www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

How many soldiers when surveyed reported killing Iraqi non-combatants? 1%? 5%? 10%?

According to a survey conducted by six metnal health spcialists and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) approximately 28% of Marines and 14% of Infantry reported killing AT LEAST ONE Iraqi non-combatant. This translates to
"an absolute minimum of 13,881 noncombatants since March 2003. And that figure omits all civilian deaths caused by the Air Force and by noncombat Army and Marine forces."
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270332/posts

I hpe I will be able to find the original paper.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:13 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How many soldiers when surveyed reported killing Iraqi non-combatants? 1%? 5%? 10%?

According to a survey conducted by six metnal health spcialists and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) approximately 28% of Marines and 14% of Infantry reported killing AT LEAST ONE Iraqi non-combatant. This translates to
"an absolute minimum of 13,881 noncombatants since March 2003. And that figure omits all civilian deaths caused by the Air Force and by noncombat Army and Marine forces."
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270332/posts

I hope I will be able to find the original paper.

Here it is. Google is your friend.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13?hits=20&where=fullte
xt&andorexactfulltext=and&searchterm=iraq&sortspec=Score%2Bdesc%2BPUBDATE_SORTDATE%2Bdesc&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&searchid=1101088141721_11713&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=nejm

A couple of things about it.

The participants in this survey were in Iraq during the invasion portion of the war, not recently. The percentages given were for soldiers and marines involved in direct combat only, and only during the invasion, not for all US troops in the country. I'd have to say that based on these caveats, the figure of 13,881 might be viewed with some suspicion.

One more thing. The survey question was about "being responsible for the death of a non-combatant" not "killing a non-combatant". Depending on how this was taken by the respondents, it could include being unable to prevent non-combatants from being killed by enemy fire. Remember, this survey concerned post-traumatic stress disorder, not scorekeeping of non-combatant casualties.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:23 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Which was raised after the seige when people merged to report their dead.

"Iraqi civilian casualties mounting
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder."
www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm

But earlier you said the Iraqi Health Ministry was "demonstrably untrustworthy".

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What is my point? I note that IHM, Military briefings and USA press are demonstrably untustworthy

If you trust them now, then you do you believe that only 344 civilians were killed in all of Iraq in April 2004.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

When I have the time, which has been remarkably short these last 3 or 4 months, I make a game of comparing news reports and press releases to each other - nationally, internationally, and over time.

I've found that one can trust governments to minimize admitting the negatives. Official reports and press releases will always be rosier than real life. Negative reports and releases that have to be issued will be made public Friday afternoon (in the US) b/c Saturday news is overlooked. Real information will be classified.

Corporate national 'news' outlets can be expected go along with the government. Even when there are major internal errors, contradictions to their OWN stories and archives, and obvious omissions, mum's the word.

The exception to this internal collusion is when something will unavoidably become known in the near term. Then generally, 'revised' figures, estimates, reports etc will be released to span the gap between the fantasy and the real. When numbers go up from sources that can be considered servile to the ruling interests, it's because there is a leetle problem that could be ready to blow.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 6:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The participants in this survey were in Iraq during the invasion portion of the war, not recently. The percentages given were for soldiers and marines involved in direct combat only, and only during the invasion, not for all US troops in the country. I'd have to say that based on these caveats, the figure of 13,881 might be viewed with some suspicion.

Apparently (I have not had time to look this up) results were adjusted for the amount of actual combat the soldiers experienced, and for months covered by the survey versus the months of occupation.

Quote:
But earlier you said the Iraqi Health Ministry was "demonstrably untrustworthy".

Yes, the IHM is untrustworthy. However, their bias has been low not high, so if the results are low I'm not surprised. What the figures were used for was relative numbers Without being able to examine the data and know its flaws, I don't put too much emphasis on these results. It's just a value against which to check other values. (Hypothesis: Fatalities caused by Coalition/ Iraq security forces are greater than those caused by insurgents. Check it against other reported figures)

My point is not that we are worse than terrorists. It's that we do not live up to OUR ideals and OUR goals. So unlike terrorists, we don't torture and disembowel people and post the results on the interent. (Except in Abu Ghraib and other prison where we killed "a few" prisoners and taken pictures). What we do is kill a significant number of non-combatants and then we hide the numbers- by policy. We do everything in our power to obfuscate, delay, and "disappear" the non-combatant casualties. By burying the information (so to speak) it becomes impossible for the average American to weigh the cost versus the goals: Was it worth killing so many people to eliminate WMD (which didnt' exist)? To topple Saddam?

How many bodies is it worth to "spread democracy"? 1000? 10,000? 1000,000? At what point does killing become counterproductive to installing a democracy? What major groups (like Sunnis) might we be alienating, potentially setting the stage for civil war? Are we moving towards or away from our goals using military occupation? If we face an accelerating or increasing number of civilians deaths, should we change our tactics?

The Pentagon, and even more importantly the Administration, has done everything it can to control the news. I AM NOT TRYING TO SHOW that American soldiers are bad, that the American military is a rapacious slaughtering machine. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the informaiton that we get is tightly controlled at all levels, starting on the ground at Falujah (and elsewhere) extending all the way to the NYTIMES. That is why I keep pointing to the APril and November invasions of Falujah- it provides a case study, not of how many people we've killed, but how that information is "interdicted" by the military, massaged by the press and defended by people who trust what the government says or (worse) believe the government has a right to lie to its citizens. And quite frankly, being lied to by my government- having them manipulate information every single godd*mn step of the way and lie to my face pisses me off no end.

I happen to believe that democracy functions best when we have the information available so that we can make our own individual, independent judgement on what to do next what to expect next. I feel that its' my righ as a citizen to know what my government is doing with my tax money and in my name. Maybe I'm just weird like that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2004 8:19 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Those animals believe that they must take as many of the Marines with them, even if they die in a hail of bullets at close range. When dealing with these fanatics, who are no more than brainwashed serial killers

Those animals!!!!

don't you mean those people ..those human beings...two wrongs don't make a right..lets not forget that those people you talk of are in their own courntry....and we are over in thier courtry killing them...we have no right to be there to kill them there is no reason for it..when you talk about them you talk about yourself ..you call them animals..well we are all amimals..big deal your just as brainwashed and fantical as they are ...think about it!!

Please ...Please..go and join the miltary...go get a 1rst hand look and taste of war let it cover you in its stench go experience it ..and then come back and talk brainwashing and fantics and animals!!

at the very least just think about it when you have to start dehumamizing people by thinking of them as something other then human beings to justify whats going on..thats a sure sign of brainwashing

what makes you think your better or more deserving then any of them

think!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 2:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Rue and Signym.

You have your opinion on the reporting and number of civilian casualties, with which I do not agree. I have my opinion, with which you don't agree. We can go on finding quotes from various sources which appear to support our positions forever. If you want to keep that up, go ahead, and just take it as read that I disagree with you. I've said my say, and don't have anything else to add.

Any opinions on the upcoming Iraqi elections?

Edit: and thanks, HKCavalier, for the wakeup call in the other thread. Point taken.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 3:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If I could trust our government with at least SOME transparency, then my hackles would come down. But right now all I see is secrecy, evasion, manipulation, obfuscation, delay, and proven lying (You know, the kind where internal documents are opposite of public fodder.) on every front, from tabulated election results to Social Security actuarials to the number of dead Iraqi civilians. That part has very little to do with you, Geezer.

I just can't seem to get my hackles down over being lied to. I'm REALLY sorry but I just can't no matter how hard I try. Sorry.

EDITED TO ADD: Geezer, would you split the link that immediately follows "Google is you friend"? That way the text wouldn't run off the page. Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 6:28 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How many soldiers when surveyed reported killing Iraqi non-combatants? 1%? 5%? 10%?

According to a survey conducted by six metnal health spcialists and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) approximately 28% of Marines and 14% of Infantry reported killing AT LEAST ONE Iraqi non-combatant. This translates to
"an absolute minimum of 13,881 noncombatants since March 2003. And that figure omits all civilian deaths caused by the Air Force and by noncombat Army and Marine forces."
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270332/posts

I hpe I will be able to find the original paper.

Just out of curiousity, How many Iraqi insurgents have been polled about killing non-combatants and Iraqi Civilians?

It really seems ridiculous to me to constantly portray the military in such a onesided fashion, while completely ignoring the foreign insurgents and their actions against non-combatants and civilians as if they don't exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 6:49 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Quote:
Those animals believe that they must take as many of the Marines with them, even if they die in a hail of bullets at close range. When dealing with these fanatics, who are no more than brainwashed serial killers

Those animals!!!!

don't you mean those people ..those human beings...two wrongs don't make a right..lets not forget that those people you talk of are in their own courntry....and we are over in thier courtry killing them...we have no right to be there to kill them there is no reason for it..when you talk about them you talk about yourself ..you call them animals..well we are all amimals..big deal your just as brainwashed and fantical as they are ...think about it!!

Please ...Please..go and join the miltary...go get a 1rst hand look and taste of war let it cover you in its stench go experience it ..and then come back and talk brainwashing and fantics and animals!!

at the very least just think about it when you have to start dehumamizing people by thinking of them as something other then human beings to justify whats going on..thats a sure sign of brainwashing

what makes you think your better or more deserving then any of them

think!!

Ugh... A good many (majority) of the insurgents are not from Iraq, but are from other Islamic countries. It is far too easy to simplify a situation, by pretending that it is black and white. The Islamo-fascists look upon Israelis and Westerners as animals and teach such things to their children as soon as they can talk. It makes killing non-muslims that much easier. The same can be said for the Israelis.

Those of us who are not radicals view their actions as barbaric and non-human. If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then it most likely is a duck.

Also, there are many who have joined the military and who are currently putting their lives on the line. Please stop declaring that everyone should join up to see the horrors of war first hand. I doubt very much that that would be a way to change anyones views on what the Insurgent/terrorists are. Quite the contrary, I believe it would prove the point and perhaps enhance it. I understand your feelings and for the most part can sympathize with them in their naivete. Unfortunately the world and war isn't as black and white as you would like to think it is or ever was.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 6:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ConnorFlynn- Apparently my postings have been seen as a diatribe against the American soldier. That's not my point, I support our soldiers evenif I don't support the mission. They're in a tough situtaion and doing the best they can, and I hope and pray that each and every one comes home safe and sane {edited to add} and morally unbent.

But when a general can say that he knows of no civilian fatalities in Falujah, the sheer brass just kind of takes my breath away. (Maybe that's why they're called "brass"?) Why does IBC have to squeegee the truth off Falujah streets? Why do civilian deaths have to be inferred from a stateside mental health survey? The military already has better data than anyone will ever have. What advantage does the military have in classifying civilian death data, when they publicize "insurgent" deaths?

If the military simply came out and said- "Since the invasion, xxx number of women, children and elderly have have been killed"... and their values could be validated (right now, I wouldn't trust the military upper-ups with "The sky is blue" w/o checking first) I might say "You know, for an invasion and resistance of this type, that's not too bad." Or I might say "That's kind of high; I think it's counterproductive to what we're trying to do". Or I might even say "WOW! that's real professional soldiering!"

But what I'm reacting to is the CONSTANT, UNREMITTING SPIN. I feel like a pair of pants in the dryer. After a while, I just want to puke!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 8:11 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ConnorFlynn- Apparently my postings have been seen as a diatribe against the American soldier. That's not my point, I support our soldiers evenif I don't support the mission. They're in a tough situtaion and doing the best they can, and I hope and pray that each and every one comes home safe and sane.

But when a general can say that he knows of no civilian fatalities in Falujah, the sheer brass just kind of takes my breath away. (Maybe that's why they're called "brass"?) Why does IBC have to squeegee the truth off Falujah streets? Why do civilian deaths have to be inferred from a stateside mental health survey? The military already has better data than anyone will ever have. What advantage does the military have in classifying civilian death data, when they publicize "insurgent" deaths?

If the military simply came out and said- "Since the invasion, xxx number of women, children and elderly have have been killed"... and their values could be validated (right now, I wouldn't trust the military upper-ups with "The sky is blue" w/o checking first) I might say "You know, for an invasion and resistance of this type, that's not too bad." Or I might say "That's kind of high; I think it's counterproductive to what we're trying to do". Or I might even say "WOW! that's real professional soldiering!"

But what I'm reacting to is the CONSTANT, UNREMITTING SPIN. I feel like a pair of pants in the dryer. After a while, I just want to puke!

Fair enough. Personally, the media in general spends all its time looking for negative aspects of the war for means of exploitation, to promote news. If I were the "Brass", I also wouldn't make direct accounting in those regards. It's too easy to demonize troops wrongly, regardless of facts or reasoning. Also, I would see it as very difficult to ascertain specific numbers of civilian casualties caused by the Allies, for a number of reasons:

1. Insurgents and Civilians dress the same. Very difficult to determine who's who.

2. Insurgents have been killing any and all civilians that don't support them.

3. Civilians were given an opportunity to flee Fallujah for example, prior to invasion. Therefore the coalition attempted to minimize civilian deaths. It is safe to assume then that those "civilians" that were left, were either sympathizers or were held in Fallujah against their will. Some were freed, some were unfortunately killed. *please don't take that as minimizing their value as human beings.

Personally, I don't see anything that would be considered productive at this juncture, from posting "Actual Civilian Casualty" counts. I would see it as an opportunity to demonize our troops even more as well as obscure the big picture. It would also be considered suspect regardless of factual basis or not, by the looney fringe.

I believe the Coalition is doing its absolute best to minimize innocent deaths.

In regards to spin - I hear you loud and clear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 4:32 PM

Quote:
Those animals!!!!
don't you mean those people ..those human beings...two wrongs don't make a right..lets not forget that those people you talk of are in their own courntry....and we are over in thier courtry killing them...we have no right to be there to kill them there is no reason for it..when you talk about them you talk about yourself ..you call them animals..well we are all amimals..big deal your just as brainwashed and fantical as they are ...think about it!!
Please ...Please..go and join the miltary...go get a 1rst hand look and taste of war let it cover you in its stench go experience it ..and then come back and talk brainwashing and fantics and animals!!
at the very least just think about it when you have to start dehumamizing people by thinking of them as something other then human beings to justify whats going on..thats a sure sign of brainwashing
what makes you think your better or more deserving then any of them
think!!
Quote:

I've had plenty of time to think of them as animals, since September 2001!!!!!!!!!!!! We are, after all, talking about the same kind of "person", hijacking airplanes or shooting from mosques.

Everyone dies alone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:17 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Relief, Medical Supplies Reach Fallujah
Updated: Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 - 6:57 PM

By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS
Associated Press Writer

GENEVA (AP) - The Iraqi Red Crescent carried relief and medical supplies into Fallujah on Monday, the first time an independent organization has visited the embattled Iraqi city since U.S.-led forces invaded two weeks ago, the Red Cross said.

The convoy consisted of ambulances and three trucks loaded with blankets, drinking water and first-aid kits, said Ahmed Rawi, spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad.

http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=255&sid=339328

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 6:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
A good many (majority) of the insurgents are not from Iraq, but are from other Islamic countries.

Less than 2% of captives are foreign. Fallujah's insurgent leadership was local.

Quote:
( http://www.boston.com/dailynews/329/world/Insurgent_held_Fallujah_was_
un:.shtml
By Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press, 11/24/2004 13:56
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) Before the assault on Fallujah, U.S. officials described the city as a den of foreign terrorists, but its top commanders were an electrician and a mosque preacher both natives of the community and now on the run from American forces.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2004 5:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Less than 2% of captives are foreign.

Perhaps because they'd already left?

Quote:
Basra Police Arrest Five Arab Fighters
Updated: Thursday, Nov. 25, 2004 - 9:30 AM

By SAMEER N. YACOUB
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Five Arab foreign fighters who had escaped from Fallujah were arrested near southern Basra, where they were planning to attack coalition bases and police stations, authorities said Thursday.

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=1958

But still probably not a majority. Numbers get inflated by all parties, sort of like the 100,000 additional deaths reported in the Lancet became 100,000 civilian deaths, then 100,000 women and children, then 100,000 women and children killed by the coalition. Truth is the first casualty, on both sides.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2004 9:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

All this was addressed in another post, so I'll just mention a few points here:

The Lancet excluded 2/3 of the violent-death casualties when they calculated the 100,000 figure. Obviously if they had not excluded data from Fallujah, the projection would have been 3 times higher. Let me do the math for you - for a total of 300,000 excess deaths. (1 - 2/3 = 1/3. 1/3 x = 100,000, x = 300,000.)

The 'women and children' calculation excluded ALL males between the ages of 15 and 60. That left a total of 54% of casualties as women and children (and one elderly male). The last time I checked, the term MOST means 'more than half'. MOST casualties (at a minimum) WERE women and children as obvious civilians.

Now, were ALL males age 15-60 insurgents? If they were, the US is in a boatload of trouble in Iraq. If not, then a MINIMUM of 54% of casualties were civilian, and it was probably more.

Nearly all deaths were caused by US forces, through airstrikes, missile, mortar etc attacks, and not by coalition gunshot or street violence.

I hope this clears up any confusion you might have.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2004 1:41 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
All this was addressed in another post, so I'll just mention a few points here:

The Lancet excluded 2/3 of the violent-death casualties when they calculated the 100,000 figure. Obviously if they had not excluded data from Fallujah, the projection would have been 3 times higher. Let me do the math for you - for a total of 300,000 excess deaths. (1 - 2/3 = 1/3. 1/3 x = 100,000, x = 300,000.)

But the authors of the survey exclude Fallujah because they consider it an outlier, causing uncertainty in the results, so your calculation is just that, yours, not theirs.

Quote:
We estimate that there were 98 000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000–194 000) during the post-war period in the 97% of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Falluja. In our Falluja sample, we recorded 53 deaths when only 1·4 were expected under the national pre-war rate. This indicates a point estimate of about 200 000 excess deaths in the 3% of Iraq represented by this cluster. However, the uncertainty in this value is substantial and implies additional deaths above those measured in the rest of the country.

Discussion
This survey indicates that the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably about 100 000 people, and may be much higher.

Based on Table 2 of the report:
Excluding Fallujah, 15% of the additional post-invasion deaths were due to violence. Including Fallujah, 51% of the post-invasion deaths were due to violence. This leaves us with between 15,000 and 51,000 deaths due to violence in all forms. It also shows how the Fallujah figures skew the calculations. This is probably why the authors decided to exclude them.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The 'women and children' calculation excluded ALL males between the ages of 15 and 60. That left a total of 54% of casualties as women and children (and one elderly male). The last time I checked, the term MOST means 'more than half'. MOST casualties (at a minimum) WERE women and children as obvious civilians.

Excluding Fallujah, of the 21 deaths by violence due to all causes in the survey, 8 (38%) were women, children, and the elderly. Including Fallujah, of the 73 violent deaths in the survey, 35 (49%) were women, children, and the elderly. Extrapolating this to the number of violent deaths as a whole, between 5,700 and 25,000 women, children, and elderly died by violence of some sort. Once again, Fallujah seems to cause anomolies. Even the lower figure is too many, and a matter of concern, but even the high figure of 25,000 is not 100,000.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Nearly all deaths were caused by US forces, through airstrikes, missile, mortar etc attacks, and not by coalition gunshot or street violence.

Interestingly enough, the discussion of the relative numbers of civilians killed by coalition forces, and in airstrikes, (page 7 of the report) uses casualty counts that include Fallujah. I'm not sure why these figures would be used after the authors decided that Fallujah figures were not representative. They give no separate non-Fallujah figures, as they do in other places, which makes any analysis impossible.

The Lancet report is here:

http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf

You may have to get a password and login to read it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:02 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Just out of curiousity, How many Iraqi insurgents have been polled about killing non-combatants and Iraqi Civilians?

It really seems ridiculous to me to constantly portray the military in such a onesided fashion, while completely ignoring the foreign insurgents and their actions against non-combatants and civilians as if they don't exist.

But what has that got to do with our miltary...its the trickle down effect,...just like the administration..its passing the buck...and not taking responssiblity for what we do...

you make it sound as if people are against the miltary...its not as simple as that..I think the majority of us know that most of our miltary is a bunch of young ingnorant kids who are following orders..because thats what you do in the miltary you follow orders

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2004 7:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
More Than 2,000 Killed in Fallujah
Updated: Thursday, Nov. 25, 2004 - 10:37 AM

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - More than 2,000 people have been killed so far in the U.S.-Iraqi operation against the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, an Iraqi official said Thursday.

But Qassem Dawoud, the government's national security adviser, gave no breakdown of deaths among U.S. troops, Iraqi forces, insurgents and civilians.

As of Thursday, the death toll was more than 2,085. He also said more than 1,600 people have been arrested, Dawoud told reporters.

U.S. officials had said 54 U.S. soldiers and Marines were killed in the offensive that began Nov. 8. Troops still are fighting small pockets of insurgents holding out in southern parts of the city.

(Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

The debate about WP (white phosphorous) centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party.

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

White phosphorous being used over Falluja

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:21 PM

DREAMTROVE

Okay,

This isn't me leaping in to the frey, this is me taking a pot shot from a vantage point with a crossbow. Call me a coward. I am a coward. Here's something: The dept. of defense has done studies that show that the most cowardly soldiers are ten times as likely to survive in a combat situation as the bravest soldiers. Just something to chew on.

Now here's something else.

We created the mess in fallujah. Part of the random socionaziism of Bush an co.

Here's something more objective:

Okay, we went in and did the evil nazi thing. Now it's done. We have to live with the consequences. We fought this war so badly, that we took something which used to be in the hands of sucky socialists and gave it to Al Qaeda. Even in my book that's not a step up.

Okay, here's something even more objective:

Now that it's done we have to deal with the FACT that these guys posting this right wing dribble have a point. Fallujah is full of terrorists. Al Qaeda has the upper hand and if we don't kick their ass they're going to end up with all of Iraq, and that will mean a whole lot of oil and some serious control in the middle east and one motherlode of cash.

Here's something else, even more objective:

Al Jazeera is the same sort of whore as all of the media. And whore media is the best kind of democracy. Because they say what their pollsters have told them that the people want to here. So here's what Al Jazeera's been saying:

Yay terrorism, kick America's ass, it's all the fault of the jews. Annihilate Israel, etc.

Sure, okay, but that's what all the arab media is saying. Why? Because this is what the people want to hear.

So the problem is much worse than we think.

Here's another thing. Before we went in Osama Bin Laden and Co said to everyone:

America's going to invade and occupy an oil rich muslim nation, and they're going to do it to steal your oil, they'll torture your children and dehumanize you, they'll make war on Islam, they'll make war on Allah.

Or some words very much to that effect.

Then we went in and proved him right, we proved to all of Iraq that Al Qaeda was a god. Now we have to deal with the consequences.

The first order of the day is to take these lying mo$&%^%^&fo&*(^*^s and put them in jail. And I mean both the Clinton and the Bush admin and their backers.

Then we need to deal with the problem at hand, which is stopping Iraq from falling permanently into terrorist hands which would create a giant funding mechanism for Al Qaeda attacks against everyone. Particularly the west.

I don't have a solution to this, but I'm willing to hear ideas. I'm only willing to hear ideas. If you want to make attacks against me because of the above rant, I won't respond. I just get sick of all this partisan posturing that has nothing to do with solutions. Which were I a democrat I might have just engaged in, but you know what I mean.

Regardless of why fallujah is a terrorist haven, ir is now.

I think it had something to do with how we went into fallujah and slaughtered women and children on mass in post election celebration. Anyone who wants to partisanly blame Bush for this, I have this to say:

In the debates when the moderator criticized Kerry for constantly saying that Bush's war strategy was wrong, without once saying what was wrong with it, asked Kerry for an example and he said something to the effect of Oh I would've invaded Fallujah.

Anyway, regardless the mess is there now. Who has a fix?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 20, 2005 12:31 PM