A few days ago the US blasted a place they insisted was a smuglers, terrorists, weapon traffickers nest - in brief, a bad guy's place. Now others, Iraqis, insist the US blew up a wedding party, obliterating an entire village in bombings that took a few hours.

CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.main/
Al Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9133A091-4BD1-418C-B205-79E0B9B9BD06.htm
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-21-wedding-iraq_x.htm

The key US problem today is credibility, that is, the lack thereof. When the cases of Abu Ghraib were 'isolated incidents' why then the deafening whispering of ex-military types about a pentagon approval? When the wedding party was a blunder and screw-up, wouldn't the US claim it was about a legitimate target? All the Iraqis the US shot at checkpoints - were they suspect insurgents and not civilians that came in the way of panicked troops told to expect car bombers?

And besides, the possibility that US troops shot first and asked later, the sort of preventive/ preemtive/ imaginary approach the Bush administration has also chosen for its armed foreign policy isn't that far off. Better safe than sorry.
Like that: Shootings from the village, maybe joy-gunning, and a US officer who said to himself "no streetfighting please, let's rather call in an airstrike ..." Just a thought.

And then blaming the victim is always an easy excuse - then you don't have to adress own shortcomings like lack of cultural knowledge, bad intel, poor leadership etc. Hey, they should have known that shooting where US tropps are around is a safe way to get killed by them. So a US ally, the iraqi police, had to learn the hard way - when they fought insurgents - seemingly for US troops any dark skinned person with AK-47 is an enemy.
It's an easy way to get around that silly little obstacle "lack of cultural knowledge". Feel a little disoriented after having been flewn in from a Virginia trailer park to an alien country and an alien culture with dark skinned people and an alien language? They could have been sent to Mars and it couldn't have been more alien.
Same for the checkpoint shootings. US troops yelled "STOP" and put up signs in english - in a country that speaks arab and where quite a lot of people can't read at all - not even their own language. And the US expect them to understand signs in english. Sure thing. And of course, the Iraqis who don't understand and don't stop and get killed are to blame :rolleyes: Yeah, crazy idea to move at all in a country that has the questionable privilege to host US troops who have a nervous triggerfinger because they aren't as welcome as they feel they deserve :rolleyes: Seriously, try to hear someone yelling at you from some 200 metres away, in a foreign language, while you're sitting in your car trying to stay on course on the miserable road ... but nevermind. US troops don't blunder and kill civillians, they have success: They kill suspect insurgents/ VC - and truly: they sure thought these people were the enemy when they 'lit'em up real good'. Ain't language great?

But then, since when has being stupid been accepted as an excuse in the real world?

The point is that actually the US military can tell whatever they want, why should anyone believe them? And after Abu Ghraib I cannot understand people still giving Rummy & Crew the benefit of doubt.
Remember? WMD intel shaky? I bet the president knows secret stuff we don't know! No sources for the intel? That must be to protect the brave people operating inside Iraq under great peril to gather them! Bleh. That are just a few of the lines I got to hear during the buildup for the war in Iraq.
Giving the benefit of doubt got till now some 800 US troops killed not to mention an undisclosed number of Iraqis, estimated to be somewhere in between 20.000 and 50.000 - the US don't do a bodycount for Iraqis, because it is bad for the mood in the US to have such numbers at hand.

Wer einmal lügt dem glaubt man nicht,
und wenn er auch die Wahrheit spricht... it's as simple as that, once known as a liar, your credibility is lost.

[ May 24, 2004, 14:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

And now for a completely different side of the story (http://www.dod.mil/news/May2004/n05222004_200405221.html)

Of course why should anyone believe the U.S. military at this point. After all they had some soldiers make prisoners perform a naked pyramid. Everything they say must be suspect now, nothing like the honorable and peace loving people of Iraq.

Well TGS, some people are compulsive liars.

Take the civilian pentagon leadership. Faced with the demand to hand congress the Taguba report the pentagon did so and handed over 2.000 pages, but, oops, forgot due to a 'computer glitch' to add the remaining 4.000 pages. Yes, pure accident (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4124045,00.html).

So, with this administration caution and doubt is a good advice. That means, DoD briefs aren't always exactly right in what they say. Not exactly right ... that's the spirit! Yes, OF COURSE Senate got the Taguba report, just not all of it :lol: :lol: :lol: so technically we complied. :spin: :roll: And yes, the reluctance of the DoD crew to inform even those they have to - like the Senate - implies a lack of honesty that results in a lack of credibility. This administration only hands out info when it can't be avoided, and when it can't be avoided they first try to withhold a part, as demonstrated above. Under their guidance, you can expect that rule to extend to the military as well.

You can expect a lot of the stuff going on in Iraq to remain unprosecuted unless it hits the press. When it isn't reported, nothing happens. Just listen to that ex-marine here, recently returned from Iraq (http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html).

When you have to nearly beat an administration to make them tell you things you start to wonder about all the other things they don't tell you about.

Another report about the wedding:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040523/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack

[ May 24, 2004, 16:03: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

:yot: I find it kinda weird that the former us-marine sgt. refers to cluster bombs, as ICBM's, which as far as I know stands for Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. And as far as I can see, the correct name would be CBU (Cluster Bomb Units). It just takes some credibility away from him, unless ther really are some cluster bombs called ICBM.

How about that ICBM = Individual Cluster Bomb Munitions?

That is, a CBU, a Cluster Bomb Unit like the british Hunting Bl.755 or the US type CBU-59 Rockeye, or bomblet artillery missiles, rockets and shells, carry a large number of small submunitions - or bomblets, in US terminology a BLU, a Bomb Launched Unit. This graphic of the CBU-59/B should explain what I mean (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/cbu-59b.gif) .

So when that Marine sais "individual" cluster bomb munitions he probably means not the whole cannister, say the CBU-59/B but very likely a single, "individual" (as opposed to "collective" when stored in the cannister) small bomblet like the BLU-77/B - the way you encounter bomblets as UXO, UneXploded Ordnance, in the field.

As the dud rate of bomblets is pretty high, it is likely the mud movers have adopted an acronym of their own for the sort of stuff they regularly encounter, just to shorten language up. It may well be a term only used in his unit, but it isn't an indicator for credibility.
Just as :yot: but maybe worth a thought ...

When you have to nearly beat an administration to make them tell you things you start to wonder about all the other things they don't tell you about.
You can't be speaking of the Bush administration?
You mean to say that they would keep information for the public? That they would ever conduct matters in secrecy? That they would not tell us the truth? Or provide accurate information to the media and the public? Ohhh, I believe everything Shrub tells us to be the God's Gospel Truth. Don't cha know? Shrub gets advice from a higher power :angel:

:shake: :shake: :shake: :shake: -- And that would be Halliburton, Exxon, Texaco, Pfizer, AT&T....

Edit: I was going to post this link as a thread of its own. But decided just to add it onto this thread, which had the basic premise of the usual "they screwed-it-up in Iraq" rant anyway.

So how is it that our own very Ragusa might be impersonating a Marine general? Or is Ragusa in reality General Zinni? Does the general really play D&D computer games also? It may not be word-for-word, but the underlying message is very similar. Some of you may have a tough time with Zinni because he can't be accused of being one of those worthless "Europeans bashing America." Happy reading.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. “I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the responsibility,” he says.


[ May 26, 2004, 03:27: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Perhaps next time when they have something to celebrate, it would be wiser to blow out candles or something. Even if it was a legitimate wedding, which i sincerely doubt, one can hardly blame patrolling aircraft or helicopters to react to surface to air shootings. What were they supposed to do ? Wait until they get hit ?

Someone should inform these people NOT to shoot into the air when the USAF is patrolling the skies. I recall a similar incident in Afghanistan two years ago. Besides the fact that it's a stupid way to express your emotions, it's also dangerous for your neighbours who live a couple of blocks away. Bullets have the nasty habit to come down again you know. :rolleyes:

Pac-man, ... Even if it was a legitimate wedding, which i sincerely doubt ...You mean ... an illegitimate wedding??! :shake:

And then, before you decide to pave a village, the thought that there could be civilians in it isn't ... err ... that far fetched. It actually suggests to have a peek first, like with a drone or ... gasp ... binoculars ... or scouts. Instead the US army offered a "we believed them to be enemies" as an attempt of a justification. Swell, like: " :roll: We didn't knew for sure, but better safe than sorry, and even if they were just having a wedding, considering our approach I bet we pre-emptively exterminated some resistance-to-be, he-he :spin: "

Well, faith-based intelligence was the fundamental mistake that brought the US into Iraq in first place.

In a conflict, claimed to be about "liberation" and "freedom", the last dupe should by now have understood that blowing up civvies - the subjects of the effort - is first of all not only wrong but second - from the utilitaristic point of view probably more relevant for Rummy & Crew - it is self-defeating and results in a bad press.

Iirc Arabs celebrate joy for just about two or three centuries by firing weapons, probably for longer than the US exists as a country, they consider a rifle like the AK-47 also as poor man's instant firework * ... so, quite simple, when the US don't take that into account they lack "cultural awareness".
IMO the normal US troops don't understand the culture and I guess they don't really care because for them any Arab with a gun is considered hostile anyway, so they shoot first and ask later - the shooting of iraqi police by US troops hint on exactly that attitude being prevalent.
And as US troops seem to have the somewhat unnatural attitude for a guest to expect their host to adopt to them :rolleyes: - they screw up - wondering how come they are ... unwelcome in Iraq.

* Thnking back to my army time, I remember our squad having fun on the firing range - by pouring down tracer rounds on an illuminated target half a mile away at night ... the idea that ... :eek: ... fireworks could be used to celebrate :eek: now really isn't ... new ... more like ... a few centuries old ... :rolleyes: I well remember that in some arab countries the new milennium was celebrated with flak fring tracer rounds, and how about the British Royal Artillery firing their guns in the park to greet the queen with a salute? Or warships greeting when entering a harbor? What about rifle salute at a military funeral? Nevermind :rolleyes:

[ May 29, 2004, 21:19: Message edited by: Ragusa ]