's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

First hand account of Nasiriya.(13 posts)

First hand account of Nasiriya.czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 2:10 PM
". . .it was. . .the turning point when the jovial band of brothers from America lost all their assumptions about the war and became jittery aggressors who talked of wanting to 'nuke' the place."
War is hellmoneyman
Apr 2, 2003 3:24 PM
Change the location to Shiloh, Argonne, Iwo Jima, or countless other places where young men become old in a hurry and I am sure the experiences will be quite similar.

re: First hand account of Nasiriya.Alpedhuez55
Apr 2, 2003 3:51 PM
I guess having four of your fellow soldiers die in a suicide bomb attack will make them more agressive.

It was a sad story. Any civilian death is sad. I guess there was some confusion about the checkpoints since they were waved through one earlier. It is too bad the driver did not stop so they could pass the check point without incident.

If I were in the same situation, not knowing what or who was in the van, I suppose I would have fired as well. They fired upon a van that drove through a military checkpoint during a time of war. Sometimes you have to make an assumption based on someones actions. The driver's action made them look hostile.

Iraq is putting civilians in the middle of battles. They are using hospitals as command centers and firing at US soldiers from Mosques. The US are to great lengths to protect civillians. It has certainly cost wome American lives. War is hell, but fredom is sweet. Hopefully the Iraqis will see that first hand in a few weeks.

Mike Y.
Self-serving rationalizations.czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 4:09 PM
"Iraq is putting civilians in the middle of battles."

Battles that the United States initiated. Why should Iraqi civilians pay the price for risks that the United States elected to take?

Also, I beleive that the events in this article pre-dated the check-point suicide bombing (not 100% sure though).
Self serving rationalizations?Alpedhuez55
Apr 2, 2003 6:08 PM
Iraq is putting civilian in harm's way. That is a fact, not some rationalization.

The Iraqi regime is putting civilians in the middle of battles. Iraq has kidnapped families to make men fight, hide behind hospitals and important religious sites, armed children, continue to fight in civilian clothing and killed civilians and surrendering Iraqis wearing US uniforms. They have killed a lot of their own civilians.

The taxi suicide bombing that killed 4 Americans was on March 29, two days before your posting which looks to be dated March 31. That would only to make soldiers already on edge, even more so.
Yes, self serving rationalizations.czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 6:30 PM
"Iraq is putting civilian in harm's way."

Yes, but harm created by an invasion initiated electively by the United States. These civilians would be alive today if we hadn't invaded, and certainly won't be around tomorrow when they are "liberated". These civilians are being hit by Allied fire which, if the article is to be believed, is being purposefully directed at them because it is less risky for Allied troops to kill them than risk their own lives determinig whether or not they pose a threat. Iraq has also killed a lot of its own civilians, but our assualt on the country is increasing those numbers.

The article originally appeared in the London Times on March 30, and covers events that span at least two days.
Your concern for the killed civilians is admirablepurplepaul
Apr 4, 2003 6:31 PM
but disingenuous. First, their lives are miserable under Saddam, and tens of thousands would be killed and tortured if we hadn't gone back in. Second, there is no way to ask them for their permission because unless they say they're happy with their current circumstances, they'll be killed, perhaps along with their family.

No army in history has gone to such lengths, at its own peril, to safeguard civilians and their beliefs. This war could have been over on the first day with all the fire power we possess. There have been some who question whether it would have been more moral to hit harder, with less concern for civilian casualties, with the expectation that the war would end sooner and, paradoxically, with fewer civilian casualties.

I think we're going about it the right way, with tremendous concern for civilians, but not stupidly so.

As for this being an elective war, Saddam broke the conditions of the cease fire of the first Gulf War. We could have gone in at any time under international law to enforce the conditions that Saddam elected to not honor.

Finally, just ask the Iraqis when this is all over if it was worth it (not that we're doing this just for their benefit, of course).
Won't be able to ask the Iraqis who are dead.czardonic
Apr 7, 2003 10:24 AM
What is disingenuous is the United State's supposed concern for civilians. Where where they after the GW1 when Iraqis tried to rise up and get rid of Saddam? Once again, the US turned its back while Saddam used helicopters to crush the rebellions in the North and South. Where was the United States in the 10 years since, when thousands more were killed and tourtured? (Obviously, the US didn't spend the time building an iron-clad justification for military intervention.)

We could have elected to go in at anytime since the first Gulf War. But we were never compelled to go by some credible threat againt us. Of course, now the Bush administration needs to look like it is doing something against terrorism so that a bunch of chicken$hit Americans can feel safe while they drive their SUV's and cram "Freedom Fries" into their mouths. Not "just" for the Iraqi's benefit, indeed.
But let's ask those who survive.purplepaul
Apr 7, 2003 3:42 PM
I cannot defend many of the things that the US has done, and I don't believe that our primary concern is for anybody but ourselves. But I believe that is true of people in general, and it is how governments must act to survive. It's too bad, but I don't see any alternative.

I, too, feel resentment that some people can't even be bothered to choose more fuel efficient vehicles rather than clamor for more oil. But people make their choices. They do so for their own reasons. Some are selfish, some are ignorant. Others, I just don't know. But shouldn't they be entitled to make their decisions, regardless of how stupid it may seem to you or me? Otherwise, just make a law declaring "this is the best and only way" and have everybody follow.
Wouldn't put too much stock in this articlehycobob
Apr 2, 2003 6:42 PM
One look at the links page and the site loses lots of credibility. I'm not saying it isn't true, but just because it is written doesn't make it so. Especially with the internet. Afterall, CNN reported repeatedly that Geraldo was kicked out of his embedding...untrue.
Reposted. Article originally published in London Times. (nm)czardonic
Apr 2, 2003 6:50 PM
Wouldn't put too much stock in this articlegtx
Apr 2, 2003 9:45 PM
the site is edited by Alexander Cockburn, who is very left, but quite credible.
re: First hand account of Nasiriya.Sintesi
Apr 2, 2003 7:21 PM
Yah they can be aggressive insensitive f**ks. War does that. Some come that way to boot camp. They do fight tho. You should read some first hand WWII accounts. You'll see more of the same.

Are you claiming someone is naive about war? Jeez, these kids are lovable compared to some we've sent abroad.

Of course others remain sensitive and thoughtful.