[inthebox]

Wow, pretty shocking.

Questions though:

What about the raw unedited video?

The opening intro - leading, you know, what the agenda is - so I'm thinking this is propaganda from the get go.

Could they have just shown the video without the editing? Without the labels?

Is the camera magnified? How much? Did the soldiers in the helicopters have less, the same, or better magnification? At the 4 min mark - to my untrained civilian eyes, a long cylinder of any type can be a potential rpg.

The people in the van - did they not see the helicopter circling overhead? Why did they not wave white flags or signal that they were civilians?

Clearly some of the voices were "cowboyish" but there was a protocol as to when to engage.

Regarding the injured children - there is no mention of how far or how long it would take to get to the local hospital versus the military hospital. The shortest time to the most capable hospital is medically the best - but no information was given - other than the presumption that the military hospital was better. In addition, we don't know the status at the military hospital. Were they full? Were all personel required for an emergency trauma available or were all the doctors and nurses already busy?

Not being in the military, not having been in combat or facing enemy fire, not knowing what the soldiers went through in the past hour or day or week or month or how long they had been on patrol, it would not be right for me to Monday morning quarterback their actions.

I'm shocked, heart broken for the lost lives here and the injuries to the children. War - just tragic.



G&P

[Catsmine]

The opening intro - leading, you know, what the agenda is - so I'm thinking this is propaganda from the get go.

Could they have just shown the video without the editing? Without the labels?
G&P

These were the first questions in my mind as well.

As to the leak itself - Wikileaks got quite a scoop, kudos to them. The leakers need their clearance yanked and reassignment to someplace where they can't do any harm, say the sewage treatment plant at Ft. Hood. Pending charges being filed.

[excon]

The leakers need their clearance yanked and reassignment to someplace where they can't do any harm, say the sewage treatment plant at Ft. Hood. Pending charges being filed.

Hello Cats:

Now, I don't know about you, but I want to know what the government is doing in my name. I believe in secret stuff. I still have my clearance. But, keeping stuff secret because you don't want the enemy to know your tactics, is one thing. Keeping stuff secret because you don't want your own people to know what you're doing, is something else.

I think the leakers should be given a medal.

excon

[tomder55]

I can't imagine how WWII would've been fought in the age of video and the internet .

[Synnen]

I can't imagine how WWII would've been fought in the age of video and the internet .

It would have been over sooner, because we (the rest of the world) would have gotten involved in stopping the Nazi atrocities sooner--probably because of a journalist getting us information.

[tomder55]

Look up the NY Slimes and what the Sulzberger family knew about the Holocaust . Look up the Spanish American war and the role the press played in that imperial grab.

[Synnen]

Frankly, I trust the press more than I trust our politicians.

I'd rather have the press showing us what military is doing in a war military, than our politicians hiding how much money they personally are making from a war, and politicians lying to us about why we're at war to begin with.

PS--if we WON the war, why are we still there? And if we WON the war, what did we GAIN from the billions of dollars we spent over there? I mean, I still can't take knitting needles or a lighter on a plane--so, we didn't win "safety". The price of oil didn't drop, so we didn't win natural resources. We didn't stop terrorism, so we didn't win world support. What, exactly, did we WIN?

[tomder55]

All the war objectives have been met therefore it is won. WE deposed the previous regime ;a regime that still waged war against us even as the US and the Brits were the sole enforcers of UN resolutions . A regime that still retained it's capacity to quicky reconstitute it's CBW program,and had proven a willingness to use them

We have helped the Iraqi people build a functional democracy and a government increasingly gaining the capablity of defending itself against internal and external threat. The US troops are not involved in any real counterinsurgency there but are there by a joint defense agreement ( status of forces agreement );as we have with many countries on the planet, between us and the freely elected government of Iraq .

These were the goals of the war and they have been achieved . Whether there is a future financial benefit ( I thought the opponents of the war did not like the idea of going to war for oil) that remains to be seen .It will depend on if the free Iraqi people want a mutually beneficial economic arrangement .

From a strictly strategic perspective we have a presence in the "cradle of civilization" in the heart of the ummah and on the border with the next big threat of the region .

As for the internal security... no one said the Iraq war would end the threat of the jihadists. Yesterday it was a Qatar diplomat who tested our airline security responses.

[Synnen]

So... we went to war in Iraq to overthrow their government and put in a new government we like better?

And this is something you don't want journalists in on?

[excon]

Hello Synn:

You're asking some pretty good questions... You go, girl.

excon

[tomder55]

Like this was a secret ?

I would remind you that the Bush adm made a case for regime change for the most part of a year before the Iraq war resolution ,and yes I consider it quite an achievement that the Iraqis decided now in more than a couple elections to chose a representative government .(no we did not "put in a new government" . The Iraqis freely chose the nature and structure of their government )

The resolution itself was passed a bipartisan overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress ( 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate ) . 72% of Americans supported the war at the onset.

I also approve the fact that the US crushed the Nazi's in Germany and paved the way for democracy there.I also approve the fact that the US crushed the Japanese Empire and helped them on the path to democracy .

BTW .didn't you just say the world should've moved quicker to end the German atrocities ? I think you did . Why wasn't it imperitive the world act to stop Saddam's genocides ?

[Catsmine]

I think the leakers should be given a medal.

excon

For violating the oaths they took or for breaking their employment agreements?

[Synnen]

BTW .didn't you just say the world should've moved quicker to end the German atrocities ? I think you did . Why wasn't it imperitive the world act to stop Saddam's genocides ?

I was part of the 28% that saw the whole thing as the WRONG thing to so. Some terrorists from Al Kaida attack us, they're out of Afghanistan, but we should go attack IRAQ? Oooohh... that makes soooo much sense.

And if it was just about Saddam's atrocities, why didn't we get involved until AFTER 9-11? Hmmm?

Oh, and SPEAKING of 9-11, do you really think that 72% of the public would have wanted us to attack Iraq (again, NOT the country that attacked us on our own soil) if it had not been for JOURNALISTS covering the 9-11 attacks? I doubt it, personally.

PS--the WORLD didn't stop Saddam's atrocities. The United States did. Know what that says to me? That says that the U.S. always pushes its own agenda on the world, not that it tries to "improve" the world. We went against the United Nations on it, for pity's sake. Yeah, that sounds like something a world leader should do--go against the very organization set up to help keep peace in the world because it wanted revenge and oil.

Oh--but we wouldn't have heard about THAT except that journalists covered it, either.

[speechlesstx]

One other reminder here, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - which Clinton endorsed and signed - "Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

[inthebox]

Genocide? US policy?

What happened in Rwanda? Now happening in Darfur?


G&P

[Catsmine]

We went against the United Nations on it

We went against France and Germany's wishes. We led 39 other countries in enforcing the UN Resolutions, and the journalists tried very hard to downplay THAT.

[tomder55]

Thanks Cats there are some historical inaccuracies in #33 that
I will address later .That is one less I have to do.

[tomder55]

OK then

And if it was just about Saddam's atrocities, why didn't we get involved until AFTER 9-11? Hmmm?

The truth is that the United States did in fact enforce "no fly zones" ,that together covered more than 62% of Iraqi territory, to prevent Saddam from using air power ;as he had done previously ,to mass murder Kurds and Shia populations.In that decade our planes enforcing the safe "no fly"zones were repeatedly fired on by Iraqi air defenses .Us and British planes repeatedly had to challenge Iraqi military jets flying in the restricted zones.

Also under Bill Clinton Iraq was extensively bombed .(I guess it's not a war unless troops are on the ground ) In an operation called "Desert Fox" Clinton waged an intensive 4 day bombing campaign against multiple targets in Iraq. Why did he ? Well because Saddam was violating UN Sanctions . Why did we invade in 2003 ;because Saddam was violating UN Sanctions.

As Steve correctly points out a joint resolution of Congress in the 1990s declared the official policy of the US government was Iraq regime change.

Oh, and SPEAKING of 9-11, do you really think that 72% of the public would have wanted us to attack Iraq (again, NOT the country that attacked us on our own soil) if it had not been for JOURNALISTS covering the 9-11 attacks? I doubt it, personally.

Not quite sure what this means. There was nobody who made a case for the Iraq war because we were directly attacked by Iraq on 9-11.

I take you back to President Bush's 2002 SOTU Address

Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

He said I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

President Bush made it clear that the US would no longer accept Saddam's deceptions .President Bush would later make the same case to the UN .The UN responded by giving Saddam a final chance to come clean (Resolution 1441).

Late Jan 2003 ;UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reported to the UN that

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

It was only then ,a year after the SOTU address that Bush decided to pull the trigger.But even before the events of 2002 -3 Saddam had 12 years and 15 resolutions since the conclusion of the Gulf War to comply to the demands of the international community .

We now know that he was emboldened to continued defiance by the very nations in the UN who were the biggest opponents to the Iraq war .He was running a multi-billion bribery scam that went to the top of the UN leadership itself. Perhaps if the UN had stood steadfast in support of the sanctions then Saddam would've been compelled to come clean without the need to go to war against him.

But because of the Oil for Food regime ,support for the sanctions were crumbling and the US and England were left to themselves to enforce them . The US had an army and a fleet dedicated to enforce UN rules for a decade . No one complained about the expense of that .

Yeah, that sounds like something a world leader should do--go against the very organization set up to help keep peace in the world because it wanted revenge and oil.

As stated above it is apparent that it was the nations opposed to the war that had a vested economic benefit in keeping the status quo .They were the ones who were guilty of blood for oil .Iraqi children were being denied food and medicine that Iraqi oil sales were supposed to fund.Instead it went into the pockets of European leaders and UN kleptocrats .As Cats correctly points out it was the US that lead a broad international coalition to defeat Saddam.

Now I'll ask it again. If it would've been the right thing to preemptively attack Germany to prevent the Holocaust then why wasn't it equally the right thing to prevent Saddam's genocides ?