Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Sound Off
progressive.org — “While on our initial convoy into Iraq in early June 2003, we were given a direct order that if any children or civilians got in front of the vehicles in our convoy, we were not to stop, we were not to slow down, we were to keep driving, ”. U.S. soldiers committing atrocities under direct order.
jurnei- 1206 diggs
- digg it
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -73/+100One thing has become clear: the obliteration of Iraqi society, culture, history, and in the long term, its population is a major goal of the invasion and occupation. USA soldiers are ordered to terrorize the civilians that are left to leave them humiliated and obedient, anyone that steps up to oppose the occupiers is slain. What is being done systematically to Iraq is the same thing that is being done to Palestine ... it is slowly being wiped from the pages of history.
- eternal464, on 03/24/2008, -30/+14this isnt coming from the top nor does it have anything to do with orders. This is disgruntled employees who take matters into their own hands. I support the military as much if not more than most, but it is a job, and when you sign on that line you don't get permission to be an asswhole. Bush does plenty to ***** up our reputation worldwide, but people that make this ***** happen arent any better.
- CryRightardCry, on 03/24/2008, -7/+10You just keep pretending that is true.
The fact is these troops behave as the upper levels behave.
If you think this is just a few "bad apples", you are clueless.
Stop watching Fox. - Ebonsteel, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4Just a couple of thousand bad apples, I guess. No chance the administration orchestrated the sexual torture and dog attacks ... right?
- CryRightardCry, on 03/24/2008, -7/+10You just keep pretending that is true.
- tehxen3, on 03/24/2008, -38/+37Right, and Saddam Hussein did beautiful things to Iraqis and assured their liberty and prosperity.
- PhantomRogue, on 03/24/2008, -16/+30Whether its Saddam or Bush and Cheney... they both ***** over the Iraqi people for the good of their own and their corporations pocketbooks.
- kolobcreek, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3With great value that Iraqis and Muslims Extremists in general have for life or their lives of their children I wouldn't be surprised if they or their children were used as bait to ambush a convoy. The thing that does surprise me is how little is how many people shoot their mouths off with trying to understand why such an order was given.
There will never be peace in the middle east until those people love their children more than they hate their enemies.
- kolobcreek, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3With great value that Iraqis and Muslims Extremists in general have for life or their lives of their children I wouldn't be surprised if they or their children were used as bait to ambush a convoy. The thing that does surprise me is how little is how many people shoot their mouths off with trying to understand why such an order was given.
- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -13/+36it's good thing we put him and power and gave him weapons to use on his own people and the iranians.
- lhbaker, on 03/24/2008, -14/+22For the most part, yeah. He ran a stable government where people didn't explode themselves in crowded places. They had water, electricity, safety, and a world class eductional system where religion wasn't an issue. Saddam was an ass, but he's dead now. So why are we continuing to punish Iraqis for what he did?
- Chompy, on 03/24/2008, -15/+15Sure, and Mussolini made the trains run on time.
- AxeSwinger, on 03/24/2008, -9/+8Thats a common myth not to be believed and besides the point.
- sonofblacula, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4Actually the truth of the statement is irrelevant. I hear Hitler made a great lemon pound cake. He was still the ***** devil, and Saddam Hussein was a sadistic evil piece of ***** as well. He did horrible things to his people, and suppressed their basic freedoms and human rights. Can we all at least agree that the world is a better place without Hussein in it, regardless of America's job in Iraq since?
Also, buried this article. Inaccurate. - chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4"He did horrible things to his people, and suppressed their basic freedoms and human rights"
So does the US military. Your point?
- bsurette, on 03/24/2008, -8/+11"why are we continuing to punish Iraqis for what he did?"
So you thinking leaving immediately would be less of a "punishment"?- lhbaker, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1So now we're just choosing for them?
- smurfsahoy, on 03/24/2008, -7/+20"So you thinking leaving immediately would be less of a "punishment"?"
According the 70+% of Iraqis, yes.- bsurette, on 03/24/2008, -4/+10Well they can certainly put it to a vote.
- NoStoppingUs, on 03/24/2008, -4/+12or the democrats in congress can just stop funding the war. it's really just that simple. tell pelosi to stay home for a couple of weeks and the war will end. you people are so disgruntled with bush, yet the democrats are continuing to fund the war. they're as supportive of this war was bush is.
but i wouldnt want you to actually do anything about the ***** you bitch about. that would require you to get off your lazy asses, and god forbid THAT actually happen. - PleaseJustDie, on 03/24/2008, -0/+8The democrats don't WANT to stop funding the war, if they did they would have made serious attempts to by now. All they've done is made half-assed attempts they knew would fail so they can say "well I tried, oh well time to vote to give the war more money then" instead. The democrats were voted into the congress/senate to end the war like they said they would, they Lied, they were believed, but they Lied. They (the politicians as a whole, democrats and republicans, excluding a small few) have no intention of ending the war and have proven it time and again and will say anything to get elected/re-elected.
- rmcadams, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4World class education for 10% of the countries people... now they are all being educated... educate yourself.
- TheGuruStud, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2I didn't know suicide bombers tearing your face off when you're getting all of that wonderful education after your parents have been killed was so awesome!
- Slizzo, on 03/24/2008, -5/+10agreed completely with rmcadams. As an Iraq vet myself, who was there from 2003-2004 mind you, I was never ordered to run down anyone that got in my vehicle's path.
And since Saddam was a Sunni, who, mind you, are the MINORITY in Iraq, he was always implementing policies that would elevate the Sunnis in the classes within the country and government. He repressed the Shiites who are the majority in Iraq. All the atrocities he committed were on the Shiite sect of the Muslim faith.
I believe that leaving the country would create a vacuum and violence would only increase among the population, not decrease. Without us there the Sunnis and Shiites will be at each other's throats, and with no one there to police the violence (Iraqi police, in my experience, don't do much) it will be willy nilly.- mystcnurse, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5But why is that OUR problem?
- flameboy, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2Because we caused it?
- lhbaker, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1You break it, you buy it.
- specialK16, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2Just what I was going to say. Just read wikipedia's article on Saddam Hussein and you will see that he was a great leader before the Gulf War.
- Chompy, on 03/24/2008, -15/+15Sure, and Mussolini made the trains run on time.
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -9/+26You mean Ronald Reagan's good old buddy Saddam? The guy Ronny took off the list of terrorist nations and armed to the teeth?
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -5/+13Tehren, i was IN Iraq, for 16 months. I TALKED to the Iraqi's who had been there under Saddam. I find it safe to say 60+ percent of the ADULTS I spoke to couldn't read their own language, and spoke Arabic so crudely that our interpreters, even the Iraqi National ones, could hardly understand their speech. THAT'S what you call a world class educational system?
- Mercedes383, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3That sounds like some of the suburbs in Australia that I lived in.
- mystcnurse, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6Sounds a lot like the Southern United States. Again, why is that our problem. Maybe we should "clean up our own backyard" before we start spending all of our money, to the BREAKING point, to fix problems like this in other nations.
- yojiffyskippy, on 03/24/2008, -9/+6The only good thing Saddam did was hiring Baghdad Bob as a press secretary. Evidently he's still around because this propaganda was released by Baghdad Bob from deep inside a bunker in Iraq.
- mystcnurse, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3How is it relevant, what Saddam did?
- PhantomRogue, on 03/24/2008, -16/+30Whether its Saddam or Bush and Cheney... they both ***** over the Iraqi people for the good of their own and their corporations pocketbooks.
- rpetty, on 03/24/2008, -15/+15Get a life or a clue--you decide.
- Picaroon, on 03/24/2008, -35/+27You're a ***** idiot. None of that ***** is true, and you know it. I can't believe the filth I see on Digg these days. It's disgusting.
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -12/+21So stick to the soothing tones you hear on Fox. Think how comfortable you will feel hearing exactly what you want to hear, and being told exactly what to think and what to do. Stick to Fox News.
- Pake, on 03/24/2008, -7/+17You mean just like you stick to propaganda to sooth yourself? This article is complete ***** that is suggestions soldiers aren't human. I don't care for either side, liberal or conservative, because this is the ***** you get when believe their fabrication of stories. Yes, the soldiers aren't suppose to stop if someone runs in front of their vehicle, but they are told to warn the person and try to avoid them. They aren't being told to speed up and run them over like these idiots are leading you to believe. The soldiers are humans and they have their own morals and other than someone with psychological problems, you aren't going to find soldiers who will throw a child up into the area and let them slam to the ground. If you believe this article is even close to reality, I suggest getting off your computer and talking with veterans who will set you straight on the subject.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -3/+7You have to really ask yourself. Who is really behind the *****? and why would they want to liken the US military, who is there to free the Iraqi people, to the terrorists who will strap a bomb to themselves and blow up as many innocent civilians as they can.
- Alpione, on 03/24/2008, -0/+7"Progressive.org" That's should answer your question right there...
- sonofblacula, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3We need to knock the partisanship ***** off. This is vile, base propaganda, just as bad as Fox. Stop letting people push their agendas on you and control you.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/24/2008, -9/+4No, the article doesn't say soldiers are monsters. It says they are ORDERED to commit atrocities. And running over a civilian unnecessarily is an atrocity, even if you warn them for a second or two before impact. But that's not the soldiers' faults, it's the commanders/administration/whoever first issued the order. Whoever said it was the soldiers?
It's a little bit disappointing that the soldiers don't refuse those orders, but meh. Most people in general wouldn't, and theyre not COMPLETELY illogical. Most people would not, however, issue those orders.- samdu, on 03/24/2008, -5/+5Ummm... No. Running over a civilian that's standing in front of your armored convoy in a conflict in which women and children are as likely to be booby traps as not, is simple common sense. And it's not an atrocity.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -3/+10Going out of your way to run down teary-eyed innocent civilians isn't the same as Don't stop this convoy for anything ..
I'm guessing thinkprogress is getting much backing money from Al Qaeda .. crap like this goes way-way beyond not agreeing with thinking that liberating the Iraqi people wasn't a good idea - Mercedes383, on 03/24/2008, -0/+10A popular and effective method to ambush a convoy is to stop the lead vehicle to prevent the others behind it from using speed to evade. Ever since motorised vehicles have been used, it's SOP to have orders to not stop in high risk zones. This is a lesson that was learned the hard way. Taken to the extreme this means not stopping from someone that walks out in front of you. The only reason someone would stop is if they had the capability to repel an ambush.
Is it bad? yes. Is it one of the brutal realities of war? yes. - PleaseJustDie, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3People aren't going "out of their way" to run down civilians, or at least not being ordered too, I'm sure there's the bad apple somewhere that has posted some video on youtube about it, but a handful of people out of the norm shouldn't be what condemns thousands. In an armored convoy they cannot stop because a child runs out in front of the convoy. The reason for it is because in the past they did stop, and what happened? The kid runs up to the convoy screaming for help because someone strapped a bomb to his chest and he not only dies but so does a good dozen of other people. If the people know they are going to get run over if they run out in front of a convoy it will act as a deterrent, granted it will not stop them all, and they could still be bomb laden and damage people, but if 1 or 2 people strapped with a bomb don't run out in front of a convoy because they know they'll be run over than that could have just saved 20 or 30 lives.
War is hell and there is no black and white, its all gray area. Sometimes there is no good solution so what gets chosen is the solution that will most often bring as many of our own soldiers home as possible. - smurfsahoy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Yes, they ARE going out of their way to attack civilians. If they couldn't have stopped the convoy in time in these situations, they wouldn't have needed to make a rules about it. The orders obviously only apply when they could easily have come to a stop.
That makes it a direct attack on the person hit. If that person is not armed visibly, then a direct attack on them is a violation of the Geneva conventions, and is therefore actually a federal felony.
It doesn't matter if Iraqis sometimes use women and children to carry bombs. By that logic, if in any war ever, a single child wields a weapon, then we should be justified just nuking the entire country, because obviously every other citizen is a combatant.
- Jlaugh, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2My cousin told me he had those same orders in Somalia. It would make sense to not stop your convoy for anything in a war zone as you could be putting your soldiers at risk.
- Pake, on 03/24/2008, -7/+17You mean just like you stick to propaganda to sooth yourself? This article is complete ***** that is suggestions soldiers aren't human. I don't care for either side, liberal or conservative, because this is the ***** you get when believe their fabrication of stories. Yes, the soldiers aren't suppose to stop if someone runs in front of their vehicle, but they are told to warn the person and try to avoid them. They aren't being told to speed up and run them over like these idiots are leading you to believe. The soldiers are humans and they have their own morals and other than someone with psychological problems, you aren't going to find soldiers who will throw a child up into the area and let them slam to the ground. If you believe this article is even close to reality, I suggest getting off your computer and talking with veterans who will set you straight on the subject.
- yojiffyskippy, on 03/24/2008, -2/+9Actually some of it probably is true. But it's not systemic. That's typical of propaganda -- taking a partial truth and blowing it out of proportion to support your own biased opinion.
- JointVenture, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4Dont worry about digg, I come just to watch the moonbats fly.
Thats right Im a "right wing conservative"... who just so happens to support NORML, pro choice, agnostic.
Every time post something in a moonbat thread I get called a racist, neocon, fox watcher or a sheep.
Which is pretty funny considering I unlike most here have not committed to ANY candidate.
Whos the real sheeple.
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -12/+21So stick to the soothing tones you hear on Fox. Think how comfortable you will feel hearing exactly what you want to hear, and being told exactly what to think and what to do. Stick to Fox News.
- blorguehad, on 03/24/2008, -9/+20im pretty sure the intentions of the us government are to rip down the country, tear it down to nothing, and than "rebuild" it and say "hey forget about the killing, look we rebuilt your country and installed our puppet as your president, wanna be our 'friend'?" its all about control, whether or not we're there for oil idk but its all about control.
- yojiffyskippy, on 03/24/2008, -11/+6I don't know what is more screwed up; the idea that you propose or you believing it.
- VinceNoir, on 03/24/2008, -3/+14Yeah because we all know that the American military-industrial complex has really always just wanted to spread happiness, sunshine and good times to the entire world just because they're a bunch of really nice guys who love everyone. Sorry, but you lose. If there's money to be made and it involves lots of killing, the military-industrial complex will keep those dollars pumping. It's amazing that no one has lauded America's most successful invention ever: the human blood to dollar conversion system.
- sonofblacula, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Dugg down for common sense and rational thinking.
- sonofblacula, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2Yup, reptilians did it. Here's your tinfoil hat, sir.
- mystcnurse, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1You mean the one that you are wearing, which keeps you from hearing anything other than that which is spewed on Faux News, and would require you to stop and actually use your OWN mind to do some true critical thinking? SO, if you don't believe everything that you hear on Faux - if you don't agree with Bill O on every issue, you must be wearing a "tinfoil hat". Alllllriiiiiigggghhhhty then......
- yojiffyskippy, on 03/24/2008, -11/+6I don't know what is more screwed up; the idea that you propose or you believing it.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -13/+14I'm sure this story and quotes are reliable coming from a group that wants to do anything to diminish Bush and Co reputation.
- yojiffyskippy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7Baghdad Bob wouldn't lie to you.
- an0nym0uz, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4diminish? can the bush admin rep get any lower?
- smurfsahoy, on 03/24/2008, -6/+8Does that mean Mothers Against Drunk Driving shouldn't be trusted either, because they want to do anything to diminish the reputation of drunk drivers?
If the target is actually undeniably corrupt and criminal, then what's the problem with being biased against them?- sonofblacula, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Actually, yes. MADD members shouldn't be allowed on a jury for an offense involving drunk driving. That's a basic premise of our legal system. It is always wrong to go into a situation with a bias by definition. Look up the word.
- CryRightardCry, on 03/24/2008, -7/+7LOL
Man, you rightards have zero ethics and morals.
Yeah *****, it's all about giving Bush a "bad rep" rather than hold him accountable.
Does it ever strike you that your dishonesty and deception really amount to being a traitor to America?
Even if it did you'd manage to rationalize being a scumbag, right?
I don't have anyone on block, but I'm starting to realize some of you are evil because you LIKE to be the scumbag.
I'm thinking that's you.- sonofblacula, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2Because anyone with a brain in their head who questions obvious propaganda pieces is a "rightard", correct? When spring break is over, why don't you go join your high school's debate team and learn to argue properly, Chet.
- skipdog172, on 03/24/2008, -11/+27I'm sorry...I'm against the war but you are stretching it way too far. I can't believe this comment has so many diggs.
- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -11/+6it's actually a well documented technique, shock therapy. the common measures include economic shocks, disappearing people, and torture. we have been a big proponent of it going back to the days when we backed pinochet.
- OC73, on 03/24/2008, -5/+9What a bunch of McBethian BS.
- LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -6/+14welcome to digg.com
- charlietuna, on 03/24/2008, -6/+11OH SHUT UP. There are 1000 real bad reasons for being in Iraq. I don't want to hear made up ones.
- rmcadams, on 03/24/2008, -5/+18As a fellow veteran of the war I can say that a lot of this is fabricated and has been blown way out of proportion...
- rmcadams, on 03/24/2008, -5/+10Go ahead and dig me down for telling the truth...
Yes there are stupid people over there but not all of us did ***** like this... you're reading about bad apples and then digging me down for telling the other side... welcome to digg.- Mercedes383, on 03/24/2008, -2/+5It is rather pathetic. I myself am stridently antiwar and against forceful oppression, but alot of people on Digg are quite precious on these subjects. Many in my family have fought in wars or have been touched by it and one thing that is always apparent when talking to them about it is that some of the realities in war that just have to be accepted are way outside anything normal in everyday life and it is hard to understand for many.
- NoStoppingUs, on 03/24/2008, -2/+6theres no way to tell if you're really a veteran or not, but i'm sure they wont give you the benefit of the doubt since, you know, 99% of digg have so much more first hand experience than those who were actually there..
and thank you.
- rmcadams, on 03/24/2008, -5/+10Go ahead and dig me down for telling the truth...
- toekneebullard, on 03/24/2008, -2/+13The actions of a few do not represent the actions and intentions of the majority. Every soldier is not instructed to throw children to the ground. Every soldier is not instructed to run down children. Every soldier is not instructed to shoot civilians or torture little kids with head games.
Does our military have weak links? Yes. Should our military fix those? Hell yes. Does this mean every person in the military is out to kill innocent people? No.
How can we take this article seriously? Since when are sweeping generalizations considered accurate?- rmcadams, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6Thank you.
- TomDigg77, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4Thats what the Muslim societies have been saying to the west all these years. Anyone in the White House listened?
- charlietuna, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6Sorry to say this, but "Muslim societies" don't have the same stellar record as, say, the Swedes (post Viking of course).
- eternal464, on 03/24/2008, -30/+14this isnt coming from the top nor does it have anything to do with orders. This is disgruntled employees who take matters into their own hands. I support the military as much if not more than most, but it is a job, and when you sign on that line you don't get permission to be an asswhole. Bush does plenty to ***** up our reputation worldwide, but people that make this ***** happen arent any better.
- jurnei, on 03/24/2008, -25/+91If this were clearly presented in the media, folks would be outraged. We're show shielded from this information.
- deepdiggdude, on 03/24/2008, -10/+20Maybe if you put it this way:
3000 dead on 9-11. Bush's response: 4000 dead soldiers at a cost of $750,000,000.00 for each death.- rpetty, on 03/24/2008, -18/+10Iraq was not retribution for 9/11. It was to prevent another 9/11 or worse, regardless of what you believe.
- Coug, on 03/24/2008, -4/+129/11 was incorrect justification for Iraq
- Mercedes383, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6It probably has made it even more likely for another attack similar to 9/11
- rficwizard, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4The war itself has been worse than 9/11.
- LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -9/+2You need to read this:
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/01/29/an-overview-of ... - LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -6/+6Guess you guys cant handle the truth that more soldiers died in Clinton years which were supposedly peaceful?
- PeterODactyl, on 03/24/2008, -3/+5From that same page:
Deaths by Hostile Action (Clinton) = 1
Deaths by Hostile Action (Bush) = 2,596 (not including 2007 and 2008)
- PeterODactyl, on 03/24/2008, -3/+5From that same page:
- DamnLogins, on 03/24/2008, -1/+8How about like this:
"If we had spent the $3,000,000,000,000 dollars researching nuclear fusion, we wouldn't need the oil and 50,000 service personnel wouldn't be dead or injured" - LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -5/+4Yeah we were so going to go into 3 trillion dollars in debt to research nuclear fusion? why? Nuclear power is overrated. They still need gas in france.
- rpetty, on 03/24/2008, -18/+10Iraq was not retribution for 9/11. It was to prevent another 9/11 or worse, regardless of what you believe.
- 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3You could say the same thing about %99.99999 of the other crap out on the internet..? how does that make that true or relevant?
- Picaroon, on 03/24/2008, -7/+10It isn't put into the "real media" because unlike internet blogs, the real media has to back up their sources. They have to have evidence for their claims. Real journalists know that ***** like this is usually not true, exaggerated, or at the very worst could be true but lacks any evidence backing it up.
This is the problem I see all over Digg nowadays. People learn so much that isn't so because they trust all of these blogs and stupid sources of information. If the person writing it isn't a journalist, you should be very, very skeptical--always. Especially when the agenda is this clear.- 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -8/+6sooo true.. quite a few Digg posters want to sell you a load of crap and hand you a slip of proof backing it.
- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -3/+8"the real media has to back up their sources" you mean like they did during the run up to the war? we all know how that worked out with judith miller.
- LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -8/+9This article is bull. No soldier is going to just ignore children and civilians in thier path for no reason. Im sure if there is such a policy it is a safety issue after all dont forget terrorists use handicapped people and children to blow up dozens of innocent Iraqis.
- yojiffyskippy, on 03/24/2008, -4/+9Even the media isn't biased enough to spin something this far left.
- DigDugDigger, on 03/24/2008, -3/+12Enemy forces will often use children and civilians to stop a convoy to setup an ambush. Of course I feel bad for those kids, but as long as those kids are able to stop convoys, they will continue to be used for that purpose.
It's a harsh reality, that no one really enjoys, but that's how it is. If they don't stop, you mourn the death of an Iraqi child. If they do stop, you mourn the deaths of the soldiers in that convoy. It sucks.- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -4/+8"but that's how it is" no, that's how we made it. we didn't have to invade, and we can still leave.
- DigDugDigger, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1I agree. But for now and the near future, this is how it is.
- sonofblacula, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1I disagree. Guerilla tactics like this weren't created by American intervention. They do this ***** to each other as well. Look at the child soldiers in Africa, or the bomb-loaded ambulances in the Shiite districts. Some factions are willing to do whatever it takes to further there agenda (like the writer of this article for example), and you have to be prepared to react.
- LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Iran used these tactics in wars with Iraq. This ***** is normal. If not totally ***** up.
- bananasplit1586, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3I agree with the comments that enemy forces will often use children & civilians for ambush... but if you read the article beyond that caption, its about more than just that. "This is public testimony organized by the Iraq Veterans Against the War about the human consequences of failed U.S. policy in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan." Its about the failings of a combination of policies, not just an opinion of driving a convoy over children - which is tragically a valid order. War is not pretty ppl, wake up. I used to think it was ***** brilliant that stuff like this comes out so it opens people's eyes to alternative issues, but after reading some of the comments i hope it doesn't just make ppl say "***** bush". ***** bush indeed, i'm all for that, but dont get caught up in that and lose the real value of what these soldiers are saying.
- deepdiggdude, on 03/24/2008, -10/+20Maybe if you put it this way:
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -35/+56War crimes. Will President Obama pursue charges?
- GhostyBoy, on 03/24/2008, -5/+32I doubt it.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -10/+16I do too. He's voted to fund the same war crimes repeatedly.
- rpetty, on 03/24/2008, -12/+7what war crimes?
- WNW3, on 03/24/2008, -3/+8seriously?
- thcobbs, on 03/24/2008, -5/+5Yes, seriously.... with evidence that would stand up in a court of law, please.
...... I'm waiting.
- thcobbs, on 03/24/2008, -5/+5Yes, seriously.... with evidence that would stand up in a court of law, please.
- WNW3, on 03/24/2008, -3/+8seriously?
- RuffRidr, on 03/24/2008, -8/+53Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Obama is a Senator. He has his chance RIGHT NOW to pursue that. If he's not going to do it now, I highly doubt he'd do it as President.- br0ck, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7His entire campaign is based on changing Washington politics to fix the whole dysfunctional mutually assured self-destruction that has been the hallmark of the two parties for the last 16 years. He said a year ago about impeachment that, "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction. We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus." Plus, impeachment does absolutely nothing. It is simply a grand jury (the house) telling the court (the senate) to try the case, and the senate requires a 2/3 majority vote to convict (remove someone from office), and that simply is not going to happen in the 50/50 senate. So, impeachment would be a colossal waste our money and the congress's time and effort.
- novaculus, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6The incredible naivete of the Obama supporters is just mind-boggling. Obama's entire campaign is based on Obama becoming president, and he will say anything and do anything to achieve his goal. After he gets in office, his agenda will be to consolidate and expand his political power by rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Anything he does will be in service to those agendas, not to advance the agendas of left wing dreamers.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2As a left winger, I have to say that you don't know ***** about left wingers. I have no intention of supporting a center-right candidate like Obama. He votes to fund the war crimes in Iraq.
- bananasplit1586, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5Its not about left wingers dude, its about him being on the net so many net ppl jump on his bandwagon without reading into the rest of his policies. Not all - but definitely some.
- gypsi, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1maybe learn to exercise your mind rather then be passively indoctrinated by the likes of rush limbaugh and fox news
- DreadPirate, on 03/25/2008, -2/+5Gypsi - as opposed to you, learning from such intellectual lowlights as Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore?
- novaculus, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3chicofaraby- I guess that makes you a full-blown left wing hallucinatory.
- novaculus, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6The incredible naivete of the Obama supporters is just mind-boggling. Obama's entire campaign is based on Obama becoming president, and he will say anything and do anything to achieve his goal. After he gets in office, his agenda will be to consolidate and expand his political power by rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Anything he does will be in service to those agendas, not to advance the agendas of left wing dreamers.
- br0ck, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7His entire campaign is based on changing Washington politics to fix the whole dysfunctional mutually assured self-destruction that has been the hallmark of the two parties for the last 16 years. He said a year ago about impeachment that, "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction. We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus." Plus, impeachment does absolutely nothing. It is simply a grand jury (the house) telling the court (the senate) to try the case, and the senate requires a 2/3 majority vote to convict (remove someone from office), and that simply is not going to happen in the 50/50 senate. So, impeachment would be a colossal waste our money and the congress's time and effort.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/24/2008, -6/+38He voted to put impeachment off the table. And he's a democrat. So, of course not. You're getting another salesman.
- gonegoogling, on 03/24/2008, -8/+19he voted for the patriot act which enables these types of things against even american citizens. so no he won't
- br0ck, on 03/24/2008, -5/+12Actually, Obama acted more than almost anyone in the Senate or the House to combat civil rights issues in the Patriot Act!
Obama voted against the original re-authorization: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
Obama then helped write and co-sponsored the SAFE act which the EFF said would fix the most troublesome of problems with the Patriot Act including roving wiretaps, limit sneak & peek, and numerous other things that you can read about at the EFF site: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/safe_act_analysis.php
Obama joined a senate group to demand fixes to all Patriot act civil rights violations (listed at the following link), and they did fix as many of the problems as they could in a 50-50 senate: http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/060106patr ...
Russ Feingold then proposed a bill to restore more rights. --- "A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes." --- Obama voted to keep it alive for Senate floor debate while Clinton voted to kill it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
Since the House had killed all the fixes, the Republican senators decided to try pushing through a much worse Patriot Act reauthorization which was guaranteed to make it through the House. The Democrats in the Senate decided to try a diluted version of their fixes (which included several of Obama's SAFE provisions) in the form of a hobbled Patriot reauthorization compromise that could make it through the Republican House. Obama then gave an impassioned plea to fix all the problems, but was ultimately forced to go with the hobbled version or the nation would end up with the much worse version with no fixes. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statem ...
More info: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fa ...
- br0ck, on 03/24/2008, -5/+12Actually, Obama acted more than almost anyone in the Senate or the House to combat civil rights issues in the Patriot Act!
- caferrell, on 03/24/2008, -11/+11@chicofaraby, He might. As a Senator if he were to openly question the war to the extent that he demands military tribunals to try war crimes, his career comes to an unnoticed end. As a Presidential candidate, if he questions what the troops have done in our name, he loses the election.
But as President he can do whatever he wants. He will be top dog. Don't be surprised if he goes after the war criminals.- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -4/+16I hope you are correct. I fear you are overly optimistic.
- TrevaLVF, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I'll believe it when I see it.
- rald84, on 03/24/2008, -9/+12Would President Paul?
- TriTech, on 03/24/2008, -3/+11I hope that either Obama or McCain will have the courage to indict Bush and Cheney for crimes against humanity.
- WNW3, on 03/24/2008, -1/+8fat chance, unfortunately.
- bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4McCain? Are you kidding? He's just itching to go start new wars. He's not about to remedy problems from old ones.
- LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -10/+7You need to stop pretending Bush is the only person responsible for Iraq. The senate is the only group that can authorize war spending. They did by a landslide. Their spending was supported by a majority of the population as well. until now. The mistakes of Iraq and the guilt for them has no single person to blame. America is to blame. So if you wish to stand on trial for crimes against humanity go ahead.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -5/+7I blame everyone who had the authority to order US troops onto Iraqi soil in 2003. Because I like to be fair.
- RuffRidr, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Since Lukas was talking about the Senate, remind us again if they voted for the invasion of Iraq. Specifically the Democrats who you so often stand up for. Lay blame on them as well, and then I'll believe that you like to be fair.
- RuffRidr, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2The silence is deafening.
- RuffRidr, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Since Lukas was talking about the Senate, remind us again if they voted for the invasion of Iraq. Specifically the Democrats who you so often stand up for. Lay blame on them as well, and then I'll believe that you like to be fair.
- LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -3/+1I blame everyone who paid for it
- GhostyBoy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3Do you recommend that those against the war stop paying their taxes?
- bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5I blame the people who are profiting off of it.
- sovietamerica, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4Bush and friends lied to Congress and the public to get their war.
- cersad, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Well, Bush was given unilateral authority in the days after 9-11 to act as he saw fit to fight terrorism. He used that authority to draw us into a war only tangentially related. So it kinda is his fault, although congress also deserves blame for rolling over for him.
- nardo510, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1I agree with you.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -5/+7I blame everyone who had the authority to order US troops onto Iraqi soil in 2003. Because I like to be fair.
- synthpop, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2not a chance since under the current political atmosphere that would be considered borderline treason and no country in the world can enforce a trial on the US.
but in the event the dollar were to be ousted as world's reserve currency and the American empire crumble, expect to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz stand trail for war crimes. - TrevaLVF, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Would President Kucinich, or President Gravel, or President Cynthia McKinney? They openly opposed the war in Iraq and they openly condemned the insane and inhumane Bush regime policies of which our troops were forced to carry out.
- GhostyBoy, on 03/24/2008, -5/+32I doubt it.
- rzxc, on 03/24/2008, -18/+46“In the side-car was his seven-to-eight-year-old child. When the man refused to go away, the MP on patrol put him to the ground with a gun to his head and started stripping his vehicle and searching it. They then took the child, picked it up into the air, and threw it full force onto the ground. I didn’t see the child get up.”
Holy *****.- ender7074, on 03/24/2008, -22/+10I believe the word you're looking for is ***** not holy *****.
- malex, on 03/24/2008, -6/+13How can you be so sure?
Do you have specific evidence that the Winter Soldiers are fabricating events, or is this just wishful thinking on your part?- Pake, on 03/24/2008, -9/+4Ask yourself this: Would you throw a child up in the air and let it slam to the ground? No ask yourself whether a soldier is a human being just like yourself. If your answers are no for the first one and yes for the second one, then obviously this is *****.
- malex, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1That's a pretty shallow rationalization. Look up the Stanford Prison Experiment, or read "The Lucifer Effect." Perfectly ordinary people can gradually turn psychopathic when placed in extreme circumstances for long enough. We've seen it in Abu Ghraib, we've seen it the conduct of some Private Contractors, we've seen it in the guy throwing a puppy over a cliff. The whole nation has been turned into a petri dish of crazy.
- Pake, on 03/24/2008, -9/+4Ask yourself this: Would you throw a child up in the air and let it slam to the ground? No ask yourself whether a soldier is a human being just like yourself. If your answers are no for the first one and yes for the second one, then obviously this is *****.
- WNW3, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Based on what?
- Pake, on 03/24/2008, -8/+6Agreed, sounds more like *****. Soldiers aren't animals. They aren't going to toss a kid up and slam them to the ground.
- themonkman, on 03/24/2008, -3/+17You don't know some of the soldiers I served with, apparently. At that point, they don't see these people as humans. After multiple deployments, the mind will see them as animals and they are the reason your stuck in that *****. Haven't you seen the video of that soldier throwing a puppy over a cliff? That's really nothing. You can think what you want to think based off what the news shows you and what other civilians tell you about the troops, but you don't know ***** unless you've been in the sand spilling blood with them. There are a lot of hateful, soulless, tired and broken troops out there. They didn't come to the service that way. The conditions made them what they are, and in some ways encouraged it. Cruelty causes fear. Fear causes obedience. Obedience causes order. This is the way that many commanders are trying to get the insurgency and public to buckle and give in. It's not working. We are just giving them more fodder to breed more terrorists.
- Pake, on 03/24/2008, -4/+6What I'm saying is majority aren't like this and this article is painting the soldiers as animals. I have 8 friends who all served in Iraq and all of them have said that most of the ***** told about them is complete lies. The painting of all soldiers as criminals is just as retarded as people painting all muslims as terrorist.
- Onetrack, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2You had me right up till your last sentence ' more fodder to breed more terrorists '
thats a pack of ***** and you know it, if a foreign nation invaded the US, set up bases and killed 100,000 members of your population, you'd pick up the nearest rock and try to fight them off.
terrorsists indeed..
- sovietamerica, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2they are if they support this occupation.
- themonkman, on 03/24/2008, -3/+17You don't know some of the soldiers I served with, apparently. At that point, they don't see these people as humans. After multiple deployments, the mind will see them as animals and they are the reason your stuck in that *****. Haven't you seen the video of that soldier throwing a puppy over a cliff? That's really nothing. You can think what you want to think based off what the news shows you and what other civilians tell you about the troops, but you don't know ***** unless you've been in the sand spilling blood with them. There are a lot of hateful, soulless, tired and broken troops out there. They didn't come to the service that way. The conditions made them what they are, and in some ways encouraged it. Cruelty causes fear. Fear causes obedience. Obedience causes order. This is the way that many commanders are trying to get the insurgency and public to buckle and give in. It's not working. We are just giving them more fodder to breed more terrorists.
- malex, on 03/24/2008, -6/+13How can you be so sure?
- nekochan, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4my ribs hurt in sympathy when i read that
- vypergts, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2The article isn't working for me, but I'll say that the description reminds me of In The Valley of Elah. If you haven't seen it yet, go check it out.
- toekneebullard, on 03/24/2008, -3/+9Here's my question: That story right there, what does it have to do with the war? Was it wrong? Hell yes it was wrong. Is the military responsible for having a person who would do that out in the field? Yeah, they are! Does that mean that every soldier in the US Army is instructed to pick up kids and throw them to the ground? No, it sure as hell doesn't.
I'm against this war. We went there for stupid reasons, and it's been one problem after another since it started. But when people start painting this picture like the majority of the military is just out to shoot children, I get really ***** offended.- rmcadams, on 03/24/2008, -2/+5Thank god for a drop of sanity... I was in the war and yes SOME people do stupid things but this is not what we were directed to do.
- mdcarso, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2Why are you offended? They are viciously murderous thugs sent to carry out the immoral acts of a corrupt government. I'm just surprised they weren't drinking the blood.
- skinturtle, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2I'm not offended..I'm glad it's getting exposed.
- Locupleto, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2That it happens at all is enough. How many times can it happen and be OK?
- blipblipbeep, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1so be offended. sorry but killing people for any reason is wrong. just wrong. war is wrong because it kills people. war is wrong. hurting people is wrong. wars hurt people. war is wrong. get used to it. greed, money and vendetta create war what about any of those three things is rite, nothing thats what. sorry mate even words r bad enough. so once again sorry. war is wrong tho. peace go with u.
- toekneebullard, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Violence is not in and of itself good or bad. It is the intention behind it.
If I hit a man because I don't like him I am wrong
If I hit a man to prevent him from hurting my family I am right.
It is not the act that is wrong, it's the reason and it's intention.
- toekneebullard, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Violence is not in and of itself good or bad. It is the intention behind it.
- blipblipbeep, on 03/24/2008, -0/+0arrgh
- ender7074, on 03/24/2008, -22/+10I believe the word you're looking for is ***** not holy *****.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -28/+46And yet, these cowards said nothing at the time that these crimes were supposedly committed, instead waiting years later to use them for political purpose. If they were truly concerned about making a difference they should have tried to spot these things that they say they saw. Frankly I doubt any of them happened at all, much like the Beauchamp stories in The New Republic.
- Mathopolis, on 03/24/2008, -14/+9hey ***** off you have no idea what those men go through
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -8/+11orly?
- eddielxix, on 03/24/2008, -10/+12Any idea of what happens to a soldier who blows the whistle on his squad while he is still assigned to it? It would be suicidal.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -7/+11Are you suggesting that they would have him killed? Has something like this happend recently. Outside of Hollywood, I mean.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 03/24/2008, -9/+5You're rather naive.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -1/+9I have a better understanding of how the military works than you.
- a6n28f, on 03/24/2008, -6/+6Pat Tillman?
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8Err, there's a difference between reporting possible war crimes and reading Noam Chomsky.
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -8/+5Thanks, a6n28f, for reminding everyone of the Pat Tillman lies. It helps establish the duplicity of the current regime. And thanks, Bohunka, for reminding everyone to report war crimes AND to read Noam Chomsky.
BTW, remember the Jessica Lynch propaganda? Bohunka, what did you think of that crock of BS from the gvt propaganda mill? - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -3/+8It was the media quoting unnamed sources that made the Jessica Lynch story more than it was, not the military.
- eddielxix, on 03/24/2008, -7/+4I had a friend who couldn't keep up in Seal training due to shin splints, they took him into the surf and held him under until he almost drowned. To scare him into quitting, I am sure, but the guy had the shakes for months. Another friend, a girl in the Air Force, complained to her superiors about a sergeant who made was sexually harassing her, she had anonymous threats and flat tires and crank calls at night, while NO ONE she worked with would talk to her anymore. A gay man in the Navy in Sasebo, Japan was beaten to death in a restroom so bad that he was hard to identify.
All serious consequences to things far less dangerous than murder and torture.
The military is built on units working together and has little tolerance for people who seem disloyal. When morality shifts on its side, and someone steps out to point it out or to blow the whistle, they need to be really sure they are not anywhere near the rest of the group. Even if they wouldn't kill them, life would REALLY suck for them.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 03/24/2008, -9/+5You're rather naive.
- mdcarso, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4yes, they are cowards.
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2And yet, even the most cowardly were brave enough to join the only thing standing between you and the world that would love to tear out that bitter, cowardly little heart of yours.
- mdcarso, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4Iraq never threatened/invaded me or my country (USA), dumbass!
For that matter, neither has the rest of the world! - woodrow8292, on 03/24/2008, -1/+0Yeah your right. Oh wait that whole 9/11 thing I guess that doesn't count as people threating your country. Dumbass
- mdcarso, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4Iraq never threatened/invaded me or my country (USA), dumbass!
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2And yet, even the most cowardly were brave enough to join the only thing standing between you and the world that would love to tear out that bitter, cowardly little heart of yours.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -7/+11Are you suggesting that they would have him killed? Has something like this happend recently. Outside of Hollywood, I mean.
- RC212V, on 03/24/2008, -9/+8Unfortunately the way the military is structured makes it very difficult for subordinates to report wrongdoing through the chain of command. Superiors will often cover for each other and the subordinate may face retribution to which he has no recourse.
Officially soldiers are bound by law to not follow an illegal order. But in practice if you disobey an illegal order you may face punishment or charges of insubordination. If you follow an illegal order and the ***** hits the fan (like in Abu Gharaib) then you will be court martialed for following an illegal order. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.- gunsandammo, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0you just listed a "right" and a "wrong" way to go about things. as you say you are damned either way so why not take the high road?
the end of that article read along the lines of "***** it im just going to beat/maim/kill whatever the ***** i like".
- gunsandammo, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0you just listed a "right" and a "wrong" way to go about things. as you say you are damned either way so why not take the high road?
- an0nym0uz, on 03/24/2008, -7/+6so you guys are trying to justify this atrocities?
- a6n28f, on 03/24/2008, -6/+10Spoken like someone who's never been there or done that. Imagine being a 17 or 18 year old kid deployed to a war zone in a foreign country. The only voice of hope or certainty in your world gives you orders they tell you will keep you alive. You are surrounded by authority you have been indoctrinated not to question and are in fact scared for your like. You are also the absolute lowest of the low - nobody is required to listen to a word you have to say. If the men in your unit dislike you for any reason they will make your life miserable. I would frankly be surprised if any kid would do anything about this. Even if they wanted to, what would you recommend they do? You've clearly never served as Private Snuffy in a forward deployed unit.
Even all that aside, US military history is rife with tales of war atrocities carried out under orders. We know it can happen. I have no idea whether this particular description is accurate, but it is certainly plausible.- nigh7dagger, on 03/24/2008, -3/+717 year olds can't be deployed to war zones.
- mdcarso, on 03/24/2008, -3/+3So, are they dumb, immoral, or cowards? Oh wait, I already know the answer: ALL OF THE ABOVE.
Evil is evil, and patriotism and/or fear is no reason to commit atrocities or not report them -- simple as that.- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4The world must be nice, pink, warm, and cozy with your head that far up your ass.
- mdcarso, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3Unfortunately the world isn't, because of bloodthirsty bastards who revel in war and death -- like you!
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4The world must be nice, pink, warm, and cozy with your head that far up your ass.
- themonkman, on 03/24/2008, -8/+6Bohica, first off you have no idea what it's like fighting and dying among a platoon of men. That's the difference between you and I, because I do. When one or many of those men have been responsible for keeping your ass alive night after night, your not going to report them. They'd have to rape your sister or something intensely personal. Besides, if one of those guys wanted you dead for blowing the whistle on them, it's really not that hard. It's not likely that your going to get fragged, but soldiers don't tell on other soldiers during the period of time that they need to depend on each other to stay alive. Once your outside of the *****, that's when your conscience comes back to haunt you, and that's when people start telling the truth about what happened. Don't believe me? Go get put into some boots and spend 3 months in Iraq. Until then, it's best you at the very least keep an agnostic kind of view on what the truth is about Iraq. I can tell you this though; the media is very gagged on what it will and can say. What you see on your nice little tv isn't even a fraction of the horror. I will go on to say that what the Iraqi's have done to our troops is about just as bad as anything we've done to them. The only difference is that we started it by going somewhere we had no business being.
- eddielxix, on 03/24/2008, -6/+4Best comment in this whole article. Thank you.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -3/+9Quit reliving your vietnam fantasies. No one was 'fragged' at Abu Gharib. No soldiers killed other soldiers because of Mahmudiyah or any other actual criminal act. If you are afraid to talk to your chain of command, you talk to the IG. That's how the system works, you should know that.
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Yeah, and I'll tell you right now, the ONLY reason no-one from Abu Ghraib got 'dealt with' by fellow soldiers is because they were a National Guard unit, and they were gone before any of the rest of there at the time could get our hands on those filthy cowards. They weren't soldiers, and those of us who were, well, we were even more angered than the Iraqis.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5True. I bet it would be more likely that if someone was committing criminal acts and dishonoring their unit and branch of service, that person and not the whistleblower would be more likely to be on the receiving end of some wall to wall counseling.
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Yeah, and I'll tell you right now, the ONLY reason no-one from Abu Ghraib got 'dealt with' by fellow soldiers is because they were a National Guard unit, and they were gone before any of the rest of there at the time could get our hands on those filthy cowards. They weren't soldiers, and those of us who were, well, we were even more angered than the Iraqis.
- W00K13, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1yeah bohica twenty that comment lacks any foresight.
- Mathopolis, on 03/24/2008, -14/+9hey ***** off you have no idea what those men go through
- jollyspaniard, on 03/24/2008, -31/+60If this digg gets popular it will undoubtedly be reported by diggers as inaccurate along with everything else that suggests that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
- LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -19/+17You just suggest you are a dumbass. There are good reasons why you dont stop when children or civilians get in from of convoys. Go watch a few vietnam movies to figure out why. Or better yet read some articles about how terrorists use mentally handicapped people and children to blow up 40 or more innocent civilians.
- eddielxix, on 03/24/2008, -3/+8I agree completely. If you are in a Humvee and someone wants to blow you up, the need only stop you for a few moments to get you in their sights or for them to be sure the IED catches you in full force rather than a second too early or late. The best way to get the moving target to hold still is to put a kid in front of it. A kid they are willing to sacrifice or who is willing to sacrifice themselves.
- SpacePoet, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Ah, the glories of war!!!!!1
- cliffski, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4stay in your own ***** country then.
- LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -2/+2Stay in your own country so people in Iraq wont use children and civilians as weapons. Wow doesnt solve the problem that these terrorists have seriously ***** up minds.
- delafere, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Lukas, since the terrorists were not in Iraq until we invited them to the big bloody tea party there, I submit that you're missing the point again. Par.
- LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Not all terrorists in Iraq are foreign. . SO I submit that ***** up people were already there. Add to the fact that these tactics are fairly normal in the middle east, look at Iran and Iraq conflict, and you see there really isnt any way to pretty up the mental capacity for violence of some of the people from the region. And yes people who use children and cripples as bombs are terrorsts.
- delafere, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Now you're playing the popular, "let's define everyone as terrorists, from insurgents, to actual terrorists, to people that are insane from living in poverty and war zones, to people that are tired of being shot up at US Contractor checkpoints" game.
I suggest you should avoid measuring other people's mental capacities for pretty much anything.
Using children and cripples to hide an IED is a political attack. Using children and cripples as fodder for an oil war could be construed as a political aim as well. Both suck, as does your standard screed. - LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1I ended my comment with "anyone who uses children and cripples as bombs are terrorists. As of yet not 1 digg user has presented any factual could hold up in court proof that this war is about oil. Democrats cry foul that Bush isn't in a court right now. I cry thank god for a court that doesn't use guesses and biased opinion pieces as "proof" The fact that I have a different opinion tends to offend you all. Yet when I ask for proof for any of your wild claims all I get are opinion pieces and biased crap that would never survive in a courtroom.
- delafere, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Lukas, that has to be the weakest redirect I've seen in months. Fail.
You think oil isn't what the middle east wars are about? - LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -3/+1ONE WORD DELEFARE PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF
- LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1P.S not really necessary to digg me down since I already know who is doing it. Also note the amazing fact that in all the discussions we have ever had I did not use the - digg option. Unlike most diggers I don't feel that - diggs should be used as a tool to stifle opinion.. no matter how wrong I think it is. The only times I use - digg is when opinion turns into hate speech or comments your grandmother wouldn't want to hear.
- delafere, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Mmmm... let see. European colonization and control of the middle east coincides with... um, the discovery of oil in the middle east. Hmm... subjugation of the middle eastern peoples under non-democratically elected governments in favor of dictators and royals because they make better business partners began, um... that would be WWI. Everyone wanted control of the middle eastern oilfields in WW2, in the Cold War, in the post Cold War, in the American Dominance era... but now we're interested in "freedom."
Don't be a brown shirt AND a pansy "pics or it didn't happen" sea-lawyer, Lukas. You won't last long, and people will ONLY laugh at you. - delafere, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Digg what you want. I don't care. I'll do the same. Your other opinions are similarly unconvincing to me, so why would I care what standard you hold for digging whatever? Much of what you write verges on hate speech in its policy implications at the very least... astounding that you would draw that line.
- LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -3/+1Delafere I wish I could take you seriously but your comments just aren't mature enough for me. Calling me a nazi, saying pics or it didnt happen, which by the way is a common request on digg.com, just makes me think that really discussion is pointless. Your mind is made up and so is mine. As of yet there is no hard evidence. So my mind wont change. You seem happy with conjecture. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.
- delafere, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Lukas, boy, I called you a "blinded follower" and told YOU not to say "pics or it didn't happen."
History is *not* conjecture, and the obvious fact that all evidence and willingness to find evidence is bottlenecked in the Oval Office (and Cheney's) is not some bizarre negative proof that nothing untoward has happened.
That said, I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree with you, and I'm willing to do it on a nearly constant basis, because I disagree with your right-wing follower positions. I don't intend to leave it unchallenged. - LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1good
- Yatata, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1it's only slightly about oil. It's more about the industrial military complex Eisenhower warned us about. War is a lucrative industry for a certain morally depraved portion of the population. War profiteers such as Haliburton (for which Cheneys wife is a CEO, Cheney an ex-CEO *wink wink* - minor conflict of interest and ethical oversight there... probably some interesting conversations floated over the pillow during a few of their sexless nights)
whatever you think, definitely watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3405669348 ... - delafere, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1So some extent, agreed. I was using oil as a shorthand/cypher for all the other reasons various industrial/financial complexes want that war, or any war. However, historically the oil itself was needed as a lever to win other wars, and now it is a lever to maintain global dominance, without regard to moral implications and without taking into account any of the dozens of "higher roads" we could take that would maintain our position in the world without compromising everything we supposedly stand for. Also, oil was our initial interest in participating in the subjugation of the sovereign people of the middle eastern countries.
- jaxcs, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1You want a smoking gun and that is unlikely ever to appear. I may as well ask that you provide definitive proof, admissible in a court of law, that oil was never a reason for war.
- delafere, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Lukas, that has to be the weakest redirect I've seen in months. Fail.
- LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -18/+9This guy is being dugg up and I am getting dugg down for pointing out that terrorists in Iraq value life so little and will use even children and handicapped people for violence? pathetic. Digg.com has reached a new low.
- bsurette, on 03/24/2008, -8/+5I'm already searching for a less idiotic alternative site. But I think link-junkies are fairly self-selecting, so that might be a challenge.
- thh204, on 03/24/2008, -3/+1if you find one, can you either send it to me?
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -5/+10You could stop posting here....
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -8/+11It's just that you're an idiot and an apologist. Digg really has nothing to do with it.
- bsurette, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6Yes. Any fool knows that Digg is widely reflective of society at large.
- bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4It reflects reality more than anything you'll see on the MSM.
- bsurette, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6Yes. Any fool knows that Digg is widely reflective of society at large.
- jggr, on 03/24/2008, -5/+7I can't speak for the rest, but I believe that soldiers are there to put themselves in harms way. We stop for children not because there's no danger to ourselves, but that it's the RIGHT THING TO DO!! We have to think about more than our soldier's lives. Unless we're no better, then by all means, run over kids to your heart's content. Just don't be surprised when me and others like me decide to try and stop you.
- thh204, on 03/24/2008, -5/+3Thank God you aren't a General or else half of our Army would have already been blown up.
- nigh7dagger, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2I'd rather not have the death toll for US soldiers get to 5000, so I don't want them to stop for kids.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Iraqis do not undervalue life. They've lost something like 1,000,000 people, versus our 4,000. If they can lose one child in exchange for a lot of Americans, that's a good payoff for somebody that perceives themselves at war with us.
Perhaps Americans just have an illogical kind of math, where we are willing to sacrifice who knows how many soldiers for a child, even if all those soldiers have children of their own who suffer as a result. - SpacePoet, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2And here we are again blind to the reasons why you only go to war when absolutely necessary. Here we are trying to help these people yet running their children to do it. Freedom at the end of a gun, lovely...........
- Yatata, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1lucas, it has less to do with Digg as a website so much as your own apparent lack of intellectual honesty and aversion to facts and fact-based investigation. I for one am glad that your intolerant perspective is in the minority, hopefully it is a dying world-view - one that has been responsible for furthering the proliferation of state-sanctioned terrorism throughout the world and hiding inconvenient information from it's distracted citizens. I hope that somehow someday somebody or something will get through to you that the lines you have been fed are extremely misguided and uninformed. as many people on here have shown you, we're open to having a fair and honest debate, but when your responses hold no credible citations, link to sources that are blatantly bias (the US military services website for pro-war propaganda regarding recruitment levels, for one) and show an open mindedness equivalent to a 6 year old with his fingers in his ears screaming "lalalalalalalala!!!" you shouldn't be surprised when your opinions by their own intellectual ‘d-evolution’ get dugg down. It's not the fault of the website, or the diggers, or the gad damn latte sipping liberals like myself (see pic), but rather it's the fault of your own self imposed mantra of "right is right and damn the consequences" which is quickly followed by "lalalalalalala!!!".
all this isn't to say that I've never been persuaded into adopting any "conservative" ideologies, I think there are occasional values to both sides of the coin; but to earn that kind of adoption you first need to argue convincingly and with substance, and by the looks of your posts you've done neither.
now you can run off to a strictly "conservative" discussion site in the hopes of getting more love, but considering the breadth and depth of diggers here (hey, I'm talking to you aren't I?), expect to be bored. and unenlightened. and craving some real argument. Because after all, here at Digg, you’re not arguing “the liberals”, you’re arguing the educated :) So unless intellectual stagnation appeals to you... hmmm on second thought you'll fit right in ;)
on behalf of anyone who's ever argued with you only to feel their life force slowly drain out their feet...
BYE LUCAS!! BON VOYAGE!!! DON'T WRITE!!!
- bsurette, on 03/24/2008, -8/+5I'm already searching for a less idiotic alternative site. But I think link-junkies are fairly self-selecting, so that might be a challenge.
- aajjcckk, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6Folks, ignore the other replies from LukasSmith. He's young, inexperienced, naive, and completely blind to any and all criticisms of Bush, the GOP, the Iraq war and anything else that right-minded people would object to. I've seen him on Digg before, and beginning to wonder if he's a paid shill.
On a separate note, who exactly marks Digg stories as "Innaccurate"? This is rubbish. There's so much corruption going on on Digg by the powers that be and their agents, it's just not funny. You can see by the comments most people support this story. Honestly, Digg is NOT user generated news with all the shills crawling out of the woodwork and corrupting things.- LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Wow because old people have sooo made this country better. Isnt that one of the arguments for Obama? getting rid of the old timers and having a fresh young thing? Old timers vote for Hillary by the way. Old timers also make up a large part of republican support. So from your own point of view Old timers must be out of their minds. The stories on digg.com are User manipulated news. Ill give you an example of the bull that digg.com users creat. Say Bush says God bless America. Digg user links to the article and has title Bush, religious fanatic. Tottally scewed, totally biased, totally normal on digg.com. And no Im not a paid shill. In fact I think Iraq isnt the most brilliant war and the reasonings for it arent that great. But I at least recognize that there is plenty of blame to go around. Congress and the American people are getting too much of a free pass. I blame this on liberal media. But just go ahead and be a sheep.
- Yatata, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1ooo!!! oooo!!! lucas i AGREE with you on something!!! the american people and their corrupt media (keyword CORRUPT / corporately controlled / unregulated by an ethical journalism committee - not 'liberal' although i get your point, FOX news is plenty neo con and are the worst perpetrators of regurgitated cultural vomit) citizens and journalists DO have to take responsibility!!! they are totally complicit!!!
*sniff* lucas.... have we just had.... a moment? ..... *bite lip*
- Yatata, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1ooo!!! oooo!!! lucas i AGREE with you on something!!! the american people and their corrupt media (keyword CORRUPT / corporately controlled / unregulated by an ethical journalism committee - not 'liberal' although i get your point, FOX news is plenty neo con and are the worst perpetrators of regurgitated cultural vomit) citizens and journalists DO have to take responsibility!!! they are totally complicit!!!
- LukasSmith, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Wow because old people have sooo made this country better. Isnt that one of the arguments for Obama? getting rid of the old timers and having a fresh young thing? Old timers vote for Hillary by the way. Old timers also make up a large part of republican support. So from your own point of view Old timers must be out of their minds. The stories on digg.com are User manipulated news. Ill give you an example of the bull that digg.com users creat. Say Bush says God bless America. Digg user links to the article and has title Bush, religious fanatic. Tottally scewed, totally biased, totally normal on digg.com. And no Im not a paid shill. In fact I think Iraq isnt the most brilliant war and the reasonings for it arent that great. But I at least recognize that there is plenty of blame to go around. Congress and the American people are getting too much of a free pass. I blame this on liberal media. But just go ahead and be a sheep.
- EdDiggEd, on 03/24/2008, -0/+0So is there any effort at Digg to fix this 'inaccurate' exploit?
Perhaps simply links to rebuttals would be required at least?
- LukasSmith, on 03/24/2008, -19/+17You just suggest you are a dumbass. There are good reasons why you dont stop when children or civilians get in from of convoys. Go watch a few vietnam movies to figure out why. Or better yet read some articles about how terrorists use mentally handicapped people and children to blow up 40 or more innocent civilians.
- huangweiqiu, on 03/24/2008, -30/+6The are 6.5 billion ppl in the world
1. 1.3 billion chinese
2. 1.1 billion indian
3. 1.1 billion black in africa
4. 1.1 billion muslem
5. 0.4 billion Slovdom in east Euo
6. 0.7 billion white in west Euo and US
7. 0.8 billion others.
So who is your friends, white?
you invaded and invading all other ppl.
think about your future, your offspring, if you don't change your behavior!- ElAssoWipo, on 03/24/2008, -3/+5There were 300,000 Romans in Rome. There were 1,000,000 people living in Rome.
Guess who was on top?- kingofinternet, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6We all know how that turned out.
- slvrbullet87, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5pretty ***** good for 500 years
- HoratioHellpop, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3and race had nothing to do with the fall of the roman empire.
- kingofinternet, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6We all know how that turned out.
- khail250, on 03/24/2008, -0/+10i have no idea what you are even trying to say!??!!
- PURPLEDRINK, on 03/24/2008, -6/+4which is pretty much the case with every other idiot who comes to digg attempting to change others opinions.
- bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2After looking through your profile and comment history, all I can say is.....
"Pot, meet kettle."- PURPLEDRINK, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1this used to be a site where people told retarded jokes in comment spam. now its youtube comments meets political discourse.
- bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2After looking through your profile and comment history, all I can say is.....
- SpacePoet, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2I think that was a warning.
- huangweiqiu, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2yes,this was warning! If US still being as wold police in order to invade other country and intervene other county's internal affairs,US may be pull off by world people! I say world people ,not ***** terrorists!
- bjornski, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Can I have a hit of that?
- grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2dugg for 'wold police'...America! ***** Yeah!!
- huangweiqiu, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2yes,this was warning! If US still being as wold police in order to invade other country and intervene other county's internal affairs,US may be pull off by world people! I say world people ,not ***** terrorists!
- PURPLEDRINK, on 03/24/2008, -6/+4which is pretty much the case with every other idiot who comes to digg attempting to change others opinions.
- tehxen3, on 03/24/2008, -4/+8Shouldn't you be more worried about non-existence of liberty and freedom in your own country?
China has been ravaged by decades of socialism and tyranny under the communist party yet you spend time criticizing other nations. - catdawg555, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0alright huangweiquiu bring it on you freakin punk caucasins rule the earth btw india hate's china and the muslim world so go do your math jack ass
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/24/2008, -3/+5There were 300,000 Romans in Rome. There were 1,000,000 people living in Rome.
- jerger23, on 03/24/2008, -17/+32Hicks (and any of his counterparts participating in these activities) should be thrown in jail, not praised for his "coming clean" or whatever this article is sold as. I've never witnessed this type of misconduct and it's obnoxious to present this as an accurate portrayal of the American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan in general. Soldiers are overseas doing the right thing every day, finding ways to make life better for people whom have not been given a fighting chance at living the lifestyle most Americans take for granted. The rare (and questionable) stories of atrocities in Iraq should not be used to denigrate those great Americans.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -15/+13" finding ways to make life better for people"
Is that what it's called when you murder an entire family at a checkpoint?- jerger23, on 03/24/2008, -7/+11Just like the article, you point to an isolated incident where the only facts you have come from the media, not from first-hand experience. Armchair refereeing from another continent always works well. How many Iraqis have you helped in your lifetime? Contrary to popular belief, complaining about the activities of the U.S. government or military doesn't constitute helping Iraqis.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -6/+11"an isolated incident"
Well, that is simply wrong. Here is an article from 2006:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The number of Iraqi civilian deaths at American checkpoints and in encounters with U.S. convoys has fallen sharply, from as many as eight a week a year ago to one a week last month, the U.S. military reported Thursday.
http://www.kxmb.com/t/iraq/17404.asp
A rate of eight deaths a week is not "isolated" and even at a lower rate it is still murder. And frankly, your silly little argument that I either have to support the illegal invasion of Iraq or physically go to Iraq to "help Iraqis" is the kind of stupid dualism that right wing nuts can't seem to overcome. It's your problem, not mine. I can oppose the criminal US invasion without ever encountering an Iraqi national. Obviously. - jerger23, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5Sorry, the link you posted to "Bismark, North Dakota's best news source" didn't open, so I couldn't actually read the story, though I'm sure it was well researched and had plenty of supporting documentation that provided an accurate count of casualties at these checkpoints. I'm also sure it addressed all of the conditions that might lead to civilian deaths at checkpoints, such as accelerating rather than slowing when coming up to a marked checkpoint. And I very seriously doubt it covers the actions of the medics and other soldiers who work hard to help those Iraqis who are wounded or killed in these tragic circumstances.
Leave Iraq out of it, then. How many people have you helped, besides yourself? - UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5Yeah, but what are YOU supposed to do when there's a car driving towards your checkpoint, under a full rate of speed, and they will not stop not slow down, even with you translator bellowing for them to stop through a megaphone? Do you let them run the checkpoint because they 'might not' have a bomb in the trunk? Or do you stop them at all cost because they might? And remember, the guys who've saved your ass more times than you can count are sleeping not all that far behind your guard point...
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7That's not a choice that needs to be made. Get US troops out of Iraq and the Iraqis can drive where they will. The US troops are the problem. The Iraqis live there.
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -2/+6A whole hell of a lot of the insurgents aren't even Iraqi! It's been shown that a significant portion of the insurgents are outside agents, because guess what happens if they succeed in getting us to leave? Iraq becomes a power vacuum. Guess what happens to a vacuum surrounded by that many greedy governments?
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2100% of US troops aren't Iraqi. Did you have a point?
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2Yeah, if we leave, it's not like the Iraqis are going to get there country back. It's gonna to either be thoroughly annexed, leading to the wholesale slaughter of the Kurdish people(also Iraq-natives), or become an even more horrible cesspool of mindless violence.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -3/+3Because only Americans can successfully rule in Iraq? That is simply absurd.
Again, the Iraqis live there, the US military is the problem.
- Chunken, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2The problem is that it's not an isolated incident. The vet's that I've talked to tell similar stories. There are videos on the internet that show things like this happening. I've seen once video showing Americans opening fire at civilians and laughing and celebrating when they kill some. These are not isolated incidents, this goes on every day in Iraq. It's time to bring the troops home.
- jerger23, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3How do you know it goes on every day in Iraq? How many vets have you talked to that are telling these stories, because none of the vets I've talked to have told me these stories. What kind of vets are you hanging out with that they're participating in these acts, or at least not reporting it to the Inspector General (if they're afraid of recourse from their 'battle buddies')? Which video did you see that showed American soldiers firing at civilians and laughing? Who filmed it?
- jerger23, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3I've only once seen an Iraqi mistreated; it was in a manner much less barbaric than any being described here and the soldier guilty was dealt with promptly. I also saw only one incident of an innocent Iraqi civilian accidentally injured at a "checkpoint", and he was promptly and respectfully treated.
You would make the soldiers into mindless barbarians, when in fact they're generally quite the contrary. As with any segment of the population, you're going to have your mixed up kids or your true nutcases out there who do the wrong thing, but in general, the soldiers I know just want to do the right thing. Stop judging by what you read coming out of the left and go out and talk to military personnel who know what it's like to have dinner with an Iraqi family and find out what they're feeling.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -6/+11"an isolated incident"
- jerger23, on 03/24/2008, -7/+11Just like the article, you point to an isolated incident where the only facts you have come from the media, not from first-hand experience. Armchair refereeing from another continent always works well. How many Iraqis have you helped in your lifetime? Contrary to popular belief, complaining about the activities of the U.S. government or military doesn't constitute helping Iraqis.
- WNW3, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Video evidence?
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3Murdered journalists and destroyed cameras?
- mdcarso, on 03/24/2008, -8/+3***** the military! If this is what they are doing, I hope more die!
- aadyss, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Show us the way mdcarso. You first cupcake!!!!!
- SpacePoet, on 03/24/2008, -6/+1Oh, so you've never seen it, so that settles it, it doesn't happen, thanks for the insight, soldier.
- Ultra99, on 03/24/2008, -3/+1A little ignorant for the internet, aren't you? ;)
- jerger23, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3Prefer ground truth to listening to stories.
- blipblipbeep, on 03/24/2008, -2/+0so be offended. sorry but killing people for any reason is wrong. just wrong. war is wrong because it kills people. war is wrong. hurting people is wrong. wars hurt people. war is wrong. get used to it. greed, money and vendetta create war what about any of those three things is rite, nothing thats what. sorry mate even words r bad enough. so once again sorry. war is wrong tho. peace go with u.
- aadyss, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0it's the people who kill that allows you to live. Sorry for that but that's the way it is.
- blipblipbeep, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0lol so i was gonna die before we went to irak. rofl. more chance of it now i reckon or is that just what they want me to believe. i dont know, u know with all this propaganda flying around and all. oh and aadyss i am truly afraid that if it came down ti it that u would try to kill me rather than try to resolve any problems we may have. this may happen and u would win as i would let u kill me. but have u herd of the term "those who live bt the sword die by the sword" a saying maybe, but the depth of these words r dark. try to find them. it goes a lot deeper than gold leaf and bound words i tell u. but that is for u to find out have fun and good luck.
- aadyss, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0it's the people who kill that allows you to live. Sorry for that but that's the way it is.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -15/+13" finding ways to make life better for people"
- smacksaw, on 03/24/2008, -5/+18I think it's interesting that soldiers are put into a situation where they have no tools and are told they must be paranoid to fight for their lives. Really, isn't that Psychology 101? That's why this sort of thing happens.
- wtfmate112, on 03/24/2008, -10/+28Excellent article about what an actual soldier faces in Iraq.
- PURPLEDRINK, on 03/24/2008, -8/+35Ha, brace for innacurate flag spam.
- Tgg161, on 03/24/2008, -1/+7And there it is.
- jlee2081, on 03/24/2008, -18/+32destroying lives
beating the defenseless
slamming children into the ground
bombing packed housing complexes
The atrocities in this articles are sickening, but sadly not shocking- aadyss, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0Ya, when I was in Vietnam acting like a John Kerry Ghengis Khan it was a blast? People like you were living their comfortable and safe lives making up stupid lies like that about me all of the time. Of course, being in combat most every day "armed helicopters" I never saw anything like that and please don't say we may not have had the opportunities. You cupcakes are really like a cupcake. Clueless with no value.
- kuppoppo, on 03/24/2008, -39/+29How about don't run in front of a ***** convoy
- Chebsi, on 03/24/2008, -11/+33How about don't run a convoy in my country?
- ender7074, on 03/24/2008, -19/+7How about clean up your country enough that convoys are not required.
- gabulldawg79, on 03/24/2008, -5/+19How bout mind your own business. Iraq didn't attack our country. There was no Al Queda in Iraq before the invasion. How bout we clean up our corrupt backyard before worrying about what is going on in another country half way around the world that not only did nothing to us but one we helped create in the first place. Who put Saddam in power? America.
- kuppoppo, on 03/24/2008, -9/+4Uh, everyone knows Iraqis don't have computers.
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -3/+7The U.S. military (Halliburton's minions) rations electricity at a very low rate to the victims of the occupation so real Iraqis can't blog about what's being done to them.
- nigh7dagger, on 03/24/2008, -4/+1Yes, because barely literate goat herders would certainly want to blog about things. Not that they all are, but a good majority can't even speak their own language.
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -2/+5Well, when we were there, we installed a complete computer lab in three of the high schools in our area, in addition to setting them up with a contractor to provide Internet, AND a generator to provide power to the school during brown- and black- outs. Unfortunately, three months after we came home, Iraqi looters broke in and vandalized and looted two of the three labs..
- Chebsi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1If were you, I'd be heart broken.
- SpacePoet, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2As I would if my country was invaded and my parents were dead and I needed to survive.
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -3/+7The U.S. military (Halliburton's minions) rations electricity at a very low rate to the victims of the occupation so real Iraqis can't blog about what's being done to them.
- ender7074, on 03/24/2008, -19/+7How about clean up your country enough that convoys are not required.
- tehxen3, on 03/24/2008, -18/+8Smartest thing I've heard so far.
- lhbaker, on 03/24/2008, -8/+10You should run in front of one right now.
- SniperGX1, on 03/24/2008, -7/+12They use women and children to step in front of convoys so they will stop. Once stopped they shoot at them with RPGs. Same thing with "stalled" vehicles, or slow moving vehicles. When your in a war, you do what you need to do to survive.
- tdawson2012, on 03/24/2008, -6/+15Easy enough to say when its not your brother, or mother, or friend dying. America has so successfully dehumanized Arabs that no one even talks about the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, only the 4000 soldiers sacrificed for profit.
Their lives are in danger because they invaded another country, its not a child's responsibility to ensure the safety of an invader.- HoratioHellpop, on 03/24/2008, -5/+1WTF? Their "lives are in danger" because the Arabic men put NO VALUE on the lives of women and children. Haven't you read your Koran?
- smurfsahoy, on 03/24/2008, -6/+2"WTF? Their "lives are in danger" because the Arabic men put NO VALUE on the lives of women and children. Haven't you read your Koran?"
Child dies, therefore stopping that convoy from supplying a group of soldiers who were potentially about to bomb a crowded apartment complex. Child's death saves many children's lives. That is NOT placing no value on the child's life. No matter how valuable any child's life is, such a tradeoff would be worth it for the Iraqis- HoratioHellpop, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2//Child dies, therefore stopping that convoy from supplying a group of soldiers who were potentially about to bomb a crowded apartment complex// Right, because most missions for US forces are directed at killing helpless civilians. My, what a retard you are. And nice dodge on the real meaning of Muslim scripture, btw.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Well if you had read the article, you would see what I am referring to. It doesn't matter if it's a minority of US missions. Iraqis whose family members are getting killed don't know that. You think the US military informs them of all the other supply trips, etc.? No... they notice the ones where people die. So their reaction is more logical by the numbers than what somebody like you thinks, not in the action.
- laserblazer, on 03/24/2008, -5/+11If you must commit atrocities to survive, chances are you're the bad guys.
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7Thanks for agreeing that the insurgents are bad guys. :p
Or do you think they don't commit even more atrocities than any soldier?
- UberMagus, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7Thanks for agreeing that the insurgents are bad guys. :p
- sovietamerica, on 03/24/2008, -5/+6not really a war as much as it is occupation
- akent22, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3I would agree with you if it weren't for the mention of soldiers baiting CHILDREN by throwing food and then swerving toward them as they run for it. Somehow I don't see how hungry children desperate for scraps thrown on the ground could be seen as a threat large enough to justify running them over. If the need is survival I would suggest continuing forward as swiftly as possible rather than driving maniacally in an effort to take out a handful of kids.
- SpacePoet, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3THIS IS NOT A WAR, IT'S AN OCCUPATION! Thank you George Bush for giving America another Viet Nam, we sure miss these engagements...
- cliffski, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1dont ***** start wars then.
- tdawson2012, on 03/24/2008, -6/+15Easy enough to say when its not your brother, or mother, or friend dying. America has so successfully dehumanized Arabs that no one even talks about the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, only the 4000 soldiers sacrificed for profit.
- FluffyWolf, on 03/24/2008, -4/+9Could you translate that into Arabic? Ideally in a way understandable to a 7 year old child 100 yards ahead of the convoy driving in 50 mph. I don't think kids in my neighborhood know that rule and a don't think Iraqi kids knew that rule in 2003 (but I'm sure they know that rule by now).
- samdu, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3I'd hazard to guess that the kids in your neighborhood know to get out of moving traffic.
- nigh7dagger, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1Or maybe they want to kill Americans.
- an0nym0uz, on 03/24/2008, -7/+17***** that, this war is illegal and everyone knows it, and if you don't, you're clearly lying to yourself.
- markgl, on 03/24/2008, -9/+6no it isn't.
- rex84, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4yes it is.
- markgl, on 03/25/2008, -3/+1no, it wasn't. learn the facts man.
- rex84, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4yes it is.
- loki49152, on 03/24/2008, -7/+3an0nym0uz:
Is the voice in your head telling you to believe these things Elvis, or an alien?- rex84, on 03/24/2008, -2/+5The US Constitution is telling him it's illegal.
- cybrguy, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4I would argue that the war is unconstitutional, which imo is far more severe than illegal. Bush took the rights of congress upon himself and decided he wanted to finish Saddam off. He then used 9/11 as a tool to get support for the war even though no such support would have been possible otherwise. Cheney and Bush have done far too much harm.
- samdu, on 03/24/2008, -2/+7Bush didn't TAKE the rights of Congress. Congress was too chicken ***** to make a decision and handed him the power to invade. If Congress had done its job, we might not have been in this mess. But they didn't. And now we are.
- kawigamog, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2That was the "chicken *****" republican controlled congress at the time, wasn't it? Not that the democrats aren't chicken ***** or corrupt or whatever, just that the congress which authorized force in Iraq were mainly right wing republicans kow towing to thier republican leader.
- markgl, on 03/24/2008, -9/+6no it isn't.
- mdcarso, on 03/24/2008, -4/+6How about not being a vile, knuckle-dragging murderer behind the wheel!
- Chebsi, on 03/24/2008, -11/+33How about don't run a convoy in my country?
- readerz, on 03/24/2008, -10/+13How about someone run your family down with there convoy let alone for something that's not even there fault! It's a goverment's war not an innocent civilians war!
- raybury, on 03/24/2008, -5/+5What government are we fighting? The terrorists use -- surprise -- unethical means, like taking advantage of our desire not to run over children to blow us up, along with the children.
- an0nym0uz, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8in Iraq, we are the terrorists
- nigh7dagger, on 03/24/2008, -5/+2Did you come up with that yourself or did MoveOn.org help you?
- offspring06, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1How true.
- an0nym0uz, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8in Iraq, we are the terrorists
- Locnar, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3WAR CLAIMS LIVES.. PERIOD!... I am not a supporter of this war.. name me a war were civilians were spared.. on either side... Plus your not there!! Your not having to live in fear of a a kid with TNT strapped to them trying to blow up you and your friends...
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS... GET THEM THE ***** HOME SO THEY ARE NOT PUT IN THESE SITUATIONS!!
AND YES... LETS GO AFTER THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE>>> CHENEY, BUSH, RUMSFIELD
- raybury, on 03/24/2008, -5/+5What government are we fighting? The terrorists use -- surprise -- unethical means, like taking advantage of our desire not to run over children to blow us up, along with the children.
- visionviper, on 03/24/2008, -16/+58Do keep in mind that insurgents will and have used children to stop convoys and then ambush the soldiers. That is why they are told not to stop even if a little girl is in the middle of the streets. Do you think the soldiers want to kill these children?
- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -12/+23do keep in mind there was no insurgency until we invaded. there was no wmds either. nor was al-queda in iraq. we created the insurgency by getting rid of the iraqi army. the only people with training and weapons, and we toss them aside. we shouldn't be there.
- huszar02, on 03/24/2008, -9/+10Are you serious? It doesn't matter whether we shouldn't be there - the soldiers are there now. And yes, the same thing happened to my grandfather in Vietnam. They would arm children with grenades in baskets of fruit and walk them up to soldiers and then detonated the baskets.
99% of soldiers are quite normal people, not psychopaths.- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -4/+15We were wrong in Vietnam, too. Remember?
- nigh7dagger, on 03/24/2008, -6/+4Yes, stopping communism was wrong. Especially since we went there for the oil. Oh, wait.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -3/+8"stopping communism was wrong"
What are you talking about? The US didn't "stop communism." We only murdered several million Vietnamese. Vietnam won, got it's own government the way the Vietnamese wanted it and they live in peace and prosperity now. As in Iraq, the USA was the problem.
- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -2/+12"the soldiers are there now" so bring them back now.
- yellowcakewalk, on 03/24/2008, -4/+15"Doesn't matter we shouldn't be there"? Ouch. Yes it does matter that we shouldn't be there. It matters a lot.
- chicofaraby, on 03/24/2008, -4/+15We were wrong in Vietnam, too. Remember?
- lostarchitect, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3true, but i don't hold that against the individual soldiers. they still need to protect themselves.
- nigh7dagger,
- huszar02, on 03/24/2008, -9/+10Are you serious? It doesn't matter whether we shouldn't be there - the soldiers are there now. And yes, the same thing happened to my grandfather in Vietnam. They would arm children with grenades in baskets of fruit and walk them up to soldiers and then detonated the baskets.
- pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -12/+23do keep in mind there was no insurgency until we invaded. there was no wmds either. nor was al-queda in iraq. we created the insurgency by getting rid of the iraqi army. the only people with training and weapons, and we toss them aside. we shouldn't be there.