Comments on: How Technology Won Sadr City Battle
Add a Comment
- Quote: "Again, I recommend speaking to a professional in the mental health field. Your delusions of repression, malevolent and monstrous entities in our Armed Forces, the need to "punish" the oil industry, conspiracies to drive up the price of oil, and so on indicate some very serious issues that may cause you to be a danger to yourself or others."
Bush is Big Oil, and he sees the oil-producing nations as his business competitors. He used our military to knock out these competitors, and send pump prices sky-high. (At the moment, gas prices are lower, only to try to save McCaine.) And these oil people betray the American people, and ally themselves to Israel instead. Not only is Israel situated in a strategic location for cutting off the supply of Mideast oil (increasing the value of US domestic oil), but Israel also kicks back money; the politicians vote $$$ billions of OUR money into Israel, and Israel kicks it back to them. No wonder that in the recent VP debate, Palin gushed over how much she LOVED Israel. - Reply to this comment
- Before I leave this forum, I happened to be skimming the subsequent forum postings regarding 60 Minutes'' "How Technology Won Sadr City Battle" piece and although I didn''t see much that was actually on topic, I DID see someone talking about the Geneva Conventions which is a subject that I am MORE than intimately familiar with. In point of fact, I happen to have a copy of FM 27-10, %u201CThe Law of Land Warfare%u201D, which contains the doctrine and stipulations that are found in the Hague and Geneva Conventions right in front of me to reference, so I guess we%u2019re all in for a big %u2018ol treat.
In Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 25 which is entitled %u201CEnemy Status of Civilians%u201D %u2013 and I will summarize to keep this short %u2013 %u201C%u2026one of the consequences of the existence of a condition of war between two States is that every national of the one State becomes an enemy of every national of the other. However, it is a generally recognized rule of international law that civilians must not be made the OBJECT of attack directed EXCLUSIVELY against them.%u201D It has never been the intention, as far as I am aware, of the United States to make an enemy of the people of Iraq. However, so long as certain people of Iraq harbor and aid those that inhibit our mission in Iraq, there will sadly be casualties. I pray that everyone who reads this is clever enough to discern between "casualties of war" and "unconscionable killing of civilians". But maybe not. - Reply to this comment
- I would like to apologize for the "Post-Script" being in near the front of my comment. This reflects a typing error I made during its composition.
Again, I''m sorry. I guess everyone makes mistakes, eh? - Reply to this comment
- First, I would like to congratulate you, 60 Minutes, for presenting a story to the American public that showcases the US troop''s achievements rather than painting them as criminals and/or villains as so many others are wont to do.
Post-Script: Officers should learn to keep their mouths shut as well.
However, there is a fine line that you must walk when it comes to presenting these troops laudable accomplishments.
I know it makes for a fairly dry story, but in the future please remember: It is actually COUNTER-productive to tell the "enemy" what it is that the "good guys" are doing with any level of detail. It is absolutely NOT a good idea to discuss what capabilities the U.S. troops have nor is it very smart to broadcast the fact that we were able to achieve victory because the insurgent radicals did ... insert tactical strategy here. I am almost certain that the internet - along with any 60 Minute broadcasts that are uploaded to it - can be, and this may come as a shock, viewed by anyone, anywhere in the world if they have a modem.
Again, I truly thank you for showing the men and women of the United States military in such a positive light. Next time, for their sakes, do it while understanding the need for Operational Security for future engagements. The story may not be as exciting but at least you may be able to save the lives of those men and women that appear on your show. - Reply to this comment
- jmkyoga: I''m sorry that you are ill. How you''ve dragged health care into this debate is unclear, but I presume it is as a distraction, as your other points are completely without merit.
Referring to militias who are seeking to destabilize the elected government of their own country under the leadership of a religio-political faction leader in legitimizing terms while concurrently denouncing American veterans as "wannabe chest thumping heroes" is insane and demonstrates a lack of reasoning ability and a preconceived ill-will towards the forces of our own country.
Your strident anti-American rhetoric, along with the even more ridiculous rhetoric of "America 1st," sounds to me like the delusional ramblings of some schizophrenics I have had contact with in the past, imagining vast conspiracies, attributing good intentions to organized criminals and attributing unimaginable evils to those who are clearly recognized as positive leaders on our part.
Again, I recommend speaking to a professional in the mental health field. Your delusions of repression, malevolent and monstrous entities in our Armed Forces, the need to "punish" the oil industry, conspiracies to drive up the price of oil, and so on indicate some very serious issues that may cause you to be a danger to yourself or others.
Good luck. - Reply to this comment
- High tech drones murdering 700 men fiercely defending their people, while we destroy their home city, and turn it into a large open air prison. Stinks of Israel.
War supporters think that our intervention in Iraq was to gain more oil for the benefit of the US public; the true object was to shut the oil supply down, and drive our pump prices sky-high.
Odierno and Hort are claiming that the fancy high-tech gizmos were effective in fighting urban guerilla warfare, which contradicts the conventional wisdom. The elaborate wall, mass-murder and oppression of the impoverished citizens of Sadr city may have eliminated the bombings of the Green Zone, but the loss of life was huge. They admit to killing 700 of the active fighters, but how many civilians also were killed?
And, Sadr City is Shia; the government which we support in Iraq depends heavily on Shia support. Did Odiorno win the battle only to lose the war?
Add that this stupid and unnecessary war is costing us $1B/day (at the very least). The war is sinking our economy, and accomplishing nothing.
Instead of the nationalizing the banks, we should at least temporarily nationalize our oil industry. Not that socialism is the answer, but the oil industry,
its beneficiaries and its executives need to be punished. - Reply to this comment
- Health Care in the U.S.A.? That''s only for the privilged elites, or those punching their ticket by government fiat. For the rest of us civilians with pre-existing conditions: in my case cancer and musculo-skeletal pain issues, obtaining health care of quality and with continuity is almost a budgetary impossibility: declare bankruptcy and sell the house. Maybe with Obama''s health care plan, those issues will be resolved, once we U.S. citizens and red-blooded Americans cast our vote defund the diastrous Iraq War to pay for it.
Sorry, all of you wannabe chest-beating heroes. - Reply to this comment
- Geneva Conventions Protocol II sets forth lengthy criteria distinguishing combatant from non-combatant. Armies of national resistence may be privilged by Protocol II, since having fancy uniforms, heavily armored vehicles, and millon dollar aircraft might be prohibitive for the budget.
Civilians providing food, clothing, and shelter to a resistence army''s irregular combatants are provided further protections in Protocol II not found in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Sanctioning the unconscionable killing of civilians by an invading army or in colonial or neo-colonial wars (WW II, Vietnam, Algeria, etc.) was the apparent goal of the ratification of Protocol II.
Iraqi resistence combatants who do not dress in regular uniforms or who use camoflauge do not commit perfidy, and Iraqi civilians who provide Iraqi resistence combatants food, clothing, or shelter may NOT be targeted as combatants. Although under the Bush-Cheney-Petraeus anti-terrorist doctrine (as stipulated in the U.S. written Iraqi constitution), any and all violations of what the U.S. military defines as the Rule of Law in Iraq, could be cause for summary execution.
Does AfghanVet believe the U.S. is REALLY not after Iraqi Oil? That he is NOT supporting the establishment of a U.S. counterinsurgency client state? - Reply to this comment
- Uh huh.
Nice words, again delusional and propagandistic. Like I said; not unintelligent, but not living in reality, either. Good vocabulary meets thinking disorder.
Again; were you there? Do you have evidence that any application of firepower was not proportionate? Have you ever been shot at to give you an idea of what a proportionate response is? Are there any criminal penalties, in your mind to a)hiding amongst and thereby endangering civilians and b)fighting as an un-uniformed fighter (hint: the Geneva Conventions did.)
You quote Conventions without regard to actual application, you proclaim criminality with no evidence other than your own suspicions, and you make personal accusations of criminal wrongdoing by two men whom you do not know and have no evidence against.
Take the aluminum foil out of your hat and get a referral. This type of behavior, directed against anyone in your home town, would have you in court and then in doctors offices getting treatment. - Reply to this comment
- I''m all for Command Responsibility: Lock up Bush, Cheney, Franks, Sanchez, Casey, Petraeus, Odierno. Let the grunts of the hook, for the most part.
Yoga, my friend (to paraphrase John McCain), concerns nonharming, a concept inimical to an invading army:-) - Reply to this comment
