Four U.s. Civilians Killed In Iraq

[desdemona]

Can anyone really anticipate a day in Iraq when americans would not be targeted? Can anyone actually believe things will be different when the new government is in place? Is there some logic I'm missing? There is a deep seated hatred in this country for the US and I don't see how this occupation is doing any good for us or them! Is it even possible to have an Islamic democracy? I thought those 2 terms were were antagonistic to each other. If someone has read anything that can enlighten me please post a link.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/31/...main/index.html

[Kooperman]

There's not much light at the end of this tunnel, des. Logic never entered into the picture when this revenge invasion was made. The Bush administration antagonized and alienated many, many countries who ordinarily would have helped us on such a venture ( with the WMD threat touted by the Bush White House). That left primarily the USA and Great Britain to supply the large portion of the manpower needed for this job. They had to know we would take Saddam down, perhaps not as easily as we did, but it seemed they never planned for any type post battle reorganization or policing. They vainly assumed people would start pouring out of their houses or holes praising the armies who made them free again. They never planned on how utilities would be restored, who would keep the peace, who would be in charge in each city. It was, and still is, a recipe for death.

[method77]

very true koop...

[DudeAsInCool]

Saddam is gone... The world should move in to help stablize the country and our men and women troops should come home

[method77]

easy to say but VERY hard to do. Three groups of people that hate each other should manage to live together in peace. I don't see that happening....

My thought is that Kurds will have their own country really soon.

[MxRob]

It seems that everyone forgets what a tyrant he was. I feel that todays assault on the 2 vehicles was only the catalyst for whats to come. I mean dragging and dismembering a charred human then hanging them up in town for display is just insane.........:sick:

These Saddam loyalists have no morals it scares me to think about our future presence there. It is more than time to pull out of Iraq but I know we have a lot of rebuilding to do there.

Edited April 1, 2004 by MxRob

[Kooperman]

You're right, MX...we're locked into our situation now. There's no way we can pull out now for political reasons (election). That would be an act of selfishness beyond compare considering what a mess Iraq is now. We're going to have a significant presence there for years.

[desdemona]

ok, let me ask you this.............don't you think there should be retribution for those barbaric acts of violence against american civilians, whatever happened to the US policy of protecting it's citizens, especially those engaged in activity on behalf of the US? immoral? I hate to say it, but these people behave like animals!

Right now I don't think the world views us as the strongest govt in the world, even though I was against invading Iraq I don't think we should tolerate violence against us, we're still at war there.

[DudeAsInCool]

ok, let me ask you this.............don't you think there should be retribution for those barbaric acts of violence against american civilians...?

Absolutely - the perpetrators are not human... (is this the same group that George Bush, Sr abandoned when Saddam attacked them--or another faction)

[Bombardier]

We're going to have a significant presence there for years.

Indeed we will.

We had a significant presence in Japan and Germany helping rebuild themselves after World War II, and to some extent we're still in those countries.

[Kooperman]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Mired in a Mirage

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: April 4, 2004

WASHINGTON

All White Houses spin and lots of presidents stray into fiction.

Johnson on Vietnam. Nixon on Watergate. Bill Clinton trying to squeeze through silly semantic loopholes on his sex life. And when Ronald Reagan made statements that turned black into white — trees caused pollution or welfare queens drove Caddys — his aides said that authenticity was irrelevant because the Gipper was sharing "parables" or "notions," reflecting larger truths as he saw them.

. By holding back documents, officials, information, images and the sight of returning military coffins, by twisting and exaggerating facts to fit story lines, by demonizing anyone who disagrees with its version of reality, this administration strives to create an optical delusion.

There was always something of the boy in the bubble about George W. Bush, cosseted from the vicissitudes of life, from Vietnam to business failure, by his famous name.

In the front yard of the Kennebunkport estate, he blithely announced his run for president knowing virtually nothing about foreign affairs, confident that Poppy would surround him with the protective flank of his own Desert Storm war council.

But now Mr. Bush is trying to pull America and Iraq into his bubble.

In briefings delivered in the bubble of their own security bunkers, Paul Bremer and military officials continue to insist that democracy and stability are taking root in Iraq. The occupation administrator travels Iraq surrounded by armed guards while attacks get scarier, culminating in last week's bestial block party in Falluja.

American commanders in Iraq have claimed the violence is primarily the work of outsiders, Islamic terrorists with at least loose links to Al Qaeda. They said, as The Times's John Burns wrote, that "the worst of the `Saddamist' insurgency was over, its power blunted by a wide American offensive that followed the former dictator's capture."

The administration does not want to admit the extent of anti-American hatred among Iraqis. And even if some of the perpetrators are outsiders, they could never succeed without the active help of Iraqis.

Just as they once conjured a mirage of a Saddam sharing lethal weapons with Osama, now the president and vice president make the disingenuous claim that Al Qaeda is on the run and that many of its capos are behind bars. Meanwhile, counterterrorism experts say terrorism has become hydra-headed, and one told Newsweek that the spawned heads have perpetrated more major terror attacks in the 30 months since 9/11 than in the 30 months before. Experts agree that the nature of the threat has shifted, with more than a dozen regional militant Islamic groups reflecting growing strength.

Senator Bob Graham compared the new, decentralized Al Qaeda to a blob of mercury that "you slam your fist into and it suddenly bursts into a hundred small pieces."

Mr. Bush also likes to brag that the Taliban is no longer in power. But the Taliban roots are deep. At least a third of Afghanistan is still so dicey that voters there cannot be registered, and the Kabul government has postponed June elections.

The president did not want to mar the gay mood of his fund-raiser here Wednesday night, so he did not mention the ghoulish slam dance in Falluja. As The Times's David Sanger wrote, "In the Bush campaign, casualties are something to be alluded to obliquely, if at all." In the Bush alternative universe of eternal sunshine, where the environment is not toxic and Medicare is not a budget buster, body bags and funerals just muddy the picture.

Bush strategists say that good or bad Iraq news is still good for Mr. Bush; they think scenes of desecration will simply remind voters of his steely presidential resolve.

The Bushies are busy putting a retroactive glow on their terrorism efforts, asserting that their plan was more muscular and "comprehensive" than Mr. Clinton's. To support that Panglossian view, they held back a load of Clinton documents on terrorism from the 9/11 commission.

If we can't take a cold, hard look at reality, how can we protect ourselves from terrorists? And how can we rescue Iraq from chaos? Now we're told the military is preparing an "overwhelming" retaliation to the carnage in Falluja. You can hear the clammy blast from the past: We're going to destroy that village to save it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/opinion/04DOWD.html?th

[Wolfie]

We had a significant presence in Japan and Germany helping rebuild themselves after World War II, and to some extent we're still in those countries.

The political and cultural tension was a lot less in those situations than it is in the middle east. After the formal surrender of the Emperor of Japan (who had deity status among the regular population), the rest of Japan followed suit so there was hardly any resistance to the American occupation. Also Japan was on it way to westernization even before the war started so the cultural clash wasn't too intense.

In Germany this type of clash was even less (being judeo-Christian culture) and only a small minority were the defenders of the Nazi regime. Most people (even if they did not actively resist when the Nazis were in power) weren't too sorry to see them go. Again guerrilla actions of werewolf groups were very sporadic and few. Also the fact that the Germans (those in the west) were scared shit-less (with very good reasons) of the Stalin's Red Army parked over the border brought further support for western allies.

However, the Middle East is a completely different story. The cultural and religious clash between the east and west creates a good deal obstacles in maintaining good relations with the general Muslim public (not the westernized muslins). For example, for American or British soldiers to go in someone's house to search for weapons or dissidents (even if they have very good reasons for the search) is very offensive in Muslim culture. In particular the case of searching women and their rooms by male soldiers. This might not be done intentionally but it does promote in the least case scenario satisfaction and at most hatred among a certain segment of the population. I am sure the military is trying its best to be sensitive to these cultural issues but its very difficult to police every combatant in every situation since the soldiers and the populace come from cultures that are extreme opposites.

The other problem with any American presence in the Middle East (both after and before the war in Iraq) has been America's relations with Israel. Most muslin countries populations in the Middle East fall in within a spectrum of extreme hatred (Iran, Syria, Lebanon) to polite tolerance (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt) concerning Israel. America's traditional supportive police toward most actions committed by Israel creates a atmosphere of mistrust (at the least) and hatred (at the most) among middle eastern muslin populations.

The regular muslin populace's political views are also highly influenced by religious authorities (the mullahs and imams). Most these guys see Israel as an invader of muslin holy lands ever since 1948. Every time the U.S. vetoes a vote in the U.N. security council in support of Israel these dudes raise anti-American awareness among the people of their parishes (not the right word but you get my point). Killing of the Ha-mas leader quite recently is a great example how even indirect (Bush did not support it but he did not condemn it either) support of Israel's action gets the U.S. in hot water in the Middle East. As far as the extreme religious factions are concerned every action committed by the U.S. is part of a vast conspiracy (spanning back to the creation of Israel) to undermine Islam in the middle east. A lot of these people don't have access to various news sources (and points of view) as the more westernized countries do. Imagine if our only source of news was the conservative right like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. Our view of world would be alot more slanted than it is now. Also the Imams and Mullahs are considered religious leaders which are close to infallible among the less educated and modern part of the population. Their political views are looked upon the same way as their religious ones with almost complete acceptance. Real terrorists use this climate to recruit followers.

Now none of these points justifies any act of terrorism, but they do create a population very vulnerable to seduction by terrorist groups like Al-Queda and Ha-mas. Propaganda coupled with a few choices verses from the Koran can be very influential in bringing impressionable young people in the fold of terrorist groups.

Sorry to be so verbose but my point is that this endeavor for the U.S. is completely different from any occupation that American troops have experienced up to now. The Bush administration had no realistic plan in dealing with an occupation of muslin country in the middle east. The Russian experienced in Afghanistan should have given them a clue but I am not too surprised since administration has the forethought of a baked potato (no offense to our own lovely Potato on this forums) when came to jumping into this war.

Edited April 4, 2004 by Wolfie

[Kooperman]

Bottom line at home is that the Bush Administration has a choice of the rock or the hard place. If they withdraw it will leave a political morass in Iraq and bring shame on the President. If they stay they continue to have soldiers picked off a few at a time, or to consider a horrible possibility, in large numbers due to a larger scale attack involving more sophisticated means of death. Either way this is quicksand for the US and Great Britain.

[Wolfie]

Elsewhere Sunday, supporters of an anti-U.S. Shiite Muslim cleric waged violent demonstrations in four Iraqi cities, punctuated by a gun battle at the Spanish garrison near this Shiite holy city that killed at least 20 people, including two coalition soldiers

The ironic part is that the Shiites are neither foreign Al-Queda fighters or Saddam loyalist which the defenders of administration nomally attributes the violent resistance in Iraq to. They were also the most persecuted group (along with Kurds in the north) by Saddam's regime so they had everything to gain from Saddam's downfall. Also the one of main majority religious faction in the country and would generated a good deal votes whenever they start elections over there.

Three words to describe the situation over there:

Big F**king Mess.

Edited April 4, 2004 by Wolfie

[Kooperman]

amen.

[Kooperman]

04 Apr 2004 17:27:21 GMT

More US troops may be needed in Iraq

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

WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) - The United States may need to bolster its troop presence in Iraq and extend the deadline for transfer to Iraqi rule, amid an insurgency that could lead to civil war, a leading Republican lawmaker said on Sunday.

"It may be that we do need more troops ... because I think we have to have security (in Iraq)," U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican and head of the Senate foreign relations committee, said on ABC television's "This Week."

Last week, four U.S. contractors were murdered and mutilated in Falluja, with cheering Iraqis parading the charred bodies through the streets and stringing up two of them for public view.

On Sunday, Spanish-led troops and Iraqi police fought a 3-hour gun battle with Shi'ite militiamen near Najaf that left almost two dozen Iraqis and four Salvadoran soldiers dead.

Lugar said he is worried that when the U.S.-led coalition turns over sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30, the new government will be unable to deal with the violence.

"They're at a point in which clearly they can't control the situation," he said. "You have the militia that has not been disarmed, and if in fact the worst situation comes, the militia begin to fight each other, that is, civil war."

Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright also said more U.S. troops were probably needed in Iraq, and the Bush administration should get other countries to contribute more forces.

"There has been, from the very beginning, a mistake in military planning, where the original forces that went in were potentially not sufficient," said Albright, appearing on the same program.

"So there has been a complete mismatch between the military and the political planning in Iraq," she said.

Lugar said he supported a proposal from Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the foreign relations panel, that calls for U.S. President George W. Bush to convene a summit with European leaders -- including those who opposed the war -- and repair the U.S.-European alliance.

"He (Bush) should tell them that none of us can afford failure in Iraq," Biden wrote in a editorial in the Sunday edition of The Washington Post.

Biden's plan would also have the president seek a U.N. Security Council resolution to create a high commissioner who would be in charge of handling's Iraq's political transition, similar to U.N. arrangements in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N04331833.htm

[DudeAsInCool]

What you forget Wolfie is that once a democracy is installed, it will be all better

[Wolfie]

What you forget Wolfie is that once a democracy is installed, it will be all better  

Dude, if you can say that with straight face, there is high paid job waiting for you as the White House Press Sectretary, lol. :P

Edited April 4, 2004 by Wolfie

[DudeAsInCool]

Dude, if you can say that with straight face, there is high paid job waiting for you as the White House Press Sectretary, lol. :P

Pass

[Shawn]

The ironic part is that the Shiites are neither foreign Al-Queda fighters or Saddam loyalist which the defenders of administration nomally attributes the violent resistance in Iraq to. They were also the most persecuted group (along with Kurds in the north) by Saddam's regime so they had everything to gain from Saddam's downfall. Also the one of main majority religious faction in the country and would generated a good deal votes whenever they start elections over there.

Three words to describe the situation over there:

Big F**king Mess.

Good point about who was involved in the fighting.

I think the administration is just getting to see the fallacy involved in having no long term plan.

[Kooperman]

10 TROOPS KILLED ON SUNDAY

Apr 4, 6:07 PM (ET)

By KHALID MOHAMMED

NAJAF, Iraq (AP) - Supporters of an anti-American cleric rioted in four Iraqi cities Sunday, killing eight U.S. troops and one Salvadoran soldier in the worst unrest since the spasm of looting and arson immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. military on Sunday reported two Marines were killed in a separate "enemy action" in Anbar province, raising the toll of American service members killed in Iraq to at least 610.

The rioters were supporters of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. They were angry over Saturday's arrest on murder charges of one of al-Sadr's aides, Mustafa al-Yacoubi, and the closure of a pro-al-Sadr newspaper.

For the rest of the article click here:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040404/D81O8E581.html

[slum_goddess]

What you forget Wolfie is that once a democracy is installed, it will be all better 

the other night i'm watching BBC-world news & i hear 'it wouldn't have been possible under saddam hussein.' this self-satisfied statement came over footage of young iraqis in amerikan cars doing whirleys and burning rubber up & down streets.

wow...what a treat.