I. Am. Fucking. Sobbing.

[yodermon]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3012

Sorry if this is a repost. Sorry i'm posting more than 4 grafs.
So fucking goddam sorry.

"We were out of breath when we got to the gun-truck nearest to the black civilian truck. There were four Iraqis walking towards us from the black truck. They were carrying a body, a small boy no more than 3 years old. His head was cocked at the wrong angle and there was blood. So much blood. The Iraqi men were crying and asking me WHY?

"Someone behind me started screaming for a medic. It was the young soldier who had fired. He screamed for a medic until he was hoarse. A medic came just to tell us what we already knew: The boy was dead.

"I stood there looking at that little child, someone's child just like mine, and seeing how red the clean white shirt of the man holding the boy was turning. Then I realized I was speaking to them, speaking in a voice that sounded so very far away. I heard my voice telling them how sorry we were. My mouth was saying this but all my mind could focus on was the hole in the child's head. The white shirt covered in bright red blood. I couldn't stop looking even as I kept telling them how sorry we were.

"I can still see it all to this day. There were no weapons found and we accomplished nothing besides killing a child. I stayed as long as I could, talking to the man holding the child. I couldn't leave because I needed to know who they were. I wanted to remember. The man was the child's uncle, minding him for his father who had gone to the market. They were carpenters and what the soldier who had fired on the truck had seen was one of the Iraqi men standing in the truck bed, holding a piece of wood.

"Before I left I saw the young soldier who had killed the boy. His eyes were unfocused and he was just standing there, staring off into the distance. My hand went to my canteen and I took a drink of water. That soldier looked so lost, so I offered him a drink. In a hoarse voice he quietly thanked me.

"Later that day we were filling out reports about what we had witnessed. The captain who had led the raid was angry: 'Well, this is just great! Now we have to go give that family bags of money to shut them up ... '

"A family had just lost their beautiful baby boy, and this man is worried about having to pay for a family's grief and sorrow.

"To this day I still think about that raid, that family, that boy. I wonder if they are attacking us now. I would be. If someone took the life of my son or my daughter nothing other than my own death would stop me from killing them. I still cry when the memory hits me. And I cry when I think of how very far away I am from my family. I am not there, just like the boy's father wasn't there. I have served my time. I have my nightmares. I have enough blood on my hands. Just let me be a father, a husband, a daddy again.

:cry:

[uppityperson]

1. War does not just hurt those killed and their friends/families

it hurts everyone involved.

[jojo54]

2. Holy smokes yodermon

Now the monitor is all fuzzy. I have to imagine there are many, many soldiers there in Iraq who are thinking to themselves, "What am I doing here, besides killing innocent people?"

Wow, that story was tough to take.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Ahh, yes...

The human toll. We hear so little about the human toll for all these brilliant Bush/Cheney/Rove governance, both here and abroad.

[paula777]

4. Really almost too sad for words.

[gratuitous]

5. "Just let me be a daddy again"

Sorry, soldier. This cup shall not pass from you until you have drunk to the dregs. It was brewed up for you long ago by a bunch of men who don't give a tin shit about you, your humanity, your life, your conscience, or anything else about you. They only care about their own self aggrandizement and their own power and privilege, so drink deeply.

And when you're done, think. What can possibly hurt a man who cares only about his own power and privilege?

[Straight Shooter]

6. "his eyes were unfocused, ... staring off into the distance."

That soldier will experience that for the rest of his life, it will catch him unawares, he will be forever staring into whatever private visions of hell will appear to him.

I hate this g'damn war, and those who brought us into it with their PACK OF LIES.

[Xipe Totec]

8. The faraway look of one who has lost his soul

and knows it.

I grieve for the Iraqi boy and his family, but I also grieve for that soldier and for the loss of his innocence.

[WePurrsevere]

56. As do I n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

62. We used to call it the Thousand Yard Stare.

Once you see that look you won't forget it.

[Daphne08]

67. I know it, too. I used to see that look on my daddy's face.

He had been in some of the worst battles of World War II.

As I was growing up, he would go into very, very dark moods and remain far removed from us for days at a time.

It's a long story and I've gone into it before here at DU, so I won't again, but his life did not end happily... and my family remains devastated to this day.

As my grandmother (his mother) told me, he was never the same man after the war.

I feel for the family of that child, too. I cannot imagine losing one of my children that way.

I hate war. It's just that simple.

[Chan790]

68. The sheer fact that he'll live with it forever...

is enough of a war crime IMO for grounds to charge BushCo. Imagine having to live with killing a child...now imagine that you were put in that position because somebody lied to get his way and line his pockets. Sick. If I wasn't an atheist, I'd hope the whole lot of these GOPper bastards rot in hell.

[0rganism]

7. Check out this film if you have a chance

http://www.insideiraqthemovie.com/

Mike Shiley, the filmmaker, travels across Iraq, interviewing the locals and "embedding" with the troops.

[DistressedAmerican]

9. Very Sad!

[dxstone]

46. NICE work, DA!

Love the gif especially, but both are great!
d

[Mandate My Ass]

10. How tragic

"To this day I still think about that raid, that family, that boy. I wonder if they are attacking us now. I would be. If someone took the life of my son or my daughter nothing other than my own death would stop me from killing them."

It chills me to think about what will come of all of this unendurable pain and sorrow on both sides. After reading this, if I hear one more person say "We can't leave until Iraq is stabilized" or "We have to fight the terrorists there so we don't fight them here" I will truly snap.

We are the destabilizing influence, the terrorists are 3-year-old boys and, as this man points out, the future "insurgents" and "Ba'athist holdouts" will be his grieving family.

Bring them home, now.

[northzax]

21. righton! let the Iraqis kill each other in a civil war!

not our problem, right?

oh, you think the 'freedom fighters' walking into banks on pension check day and blowing themselves up will be content until they rule the country? Sure they will. you keep thinking that.

[Selatius]

24. People like you were using the same argument to stay in Vietnam

[Mandate My Ass]

26. LOL. Yes, us killing them is much better

than them killing each other.

What a load of crap.

[northzax]

31. you know, that's the argument that racist cops make

when they don't want to enter a black gang infested neighborhood. "why bother, they're just going to kill each other anyway, why should I risk my life?"

I am certain you didn't mean it that way, but that's sure what it sounds like.

[Mandate My Ass]

40. Yeah, and I'm sure you didn't want to make the white man's

burden argument about pacifying Iraq either, but dang, that's what it sounded like.

[northzax]

42. no, I just believe in finishing what you start

we removed the security, we need to replace it. seems fair to me, don't you think?

[donco6]

54. There is no "finishing".

It's futile - a myth. "Git 'er done!" - what a bunch of hogwash.

[northzax]

73. well, what to say to such pseudo-southern eloquence?

ahm more mixed up than a basket of puppies on a ferris wheel!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

55. so when do you sign up?

:)

[northzax]

72. As soon as the President of the United States

asks for people to join the military to fight the war. If the government tells me they don't need any more soldiers, then why would I sign up?

I mean I'd get a nice desk job, they're not so desperate as to send someone with a surgically reconstructed back and shoulder into combat. But they might pay for the knee replacement I need, hmm, interesting...

[SlavesandBulldozers]

95. you mean the government called you and said they don't need more troops?

or you called them up and they said, "Naaaah. No thanks, we're booked solid - 'preciate the call though!"

[northzax]

30. if you think there is a comparison

then you should consider reading some history. The situation is completly differnt. Oh yes, it is. I'm sorry if that disturbs you, I know how easy it is to scream VIETNAM and have everyone run to your side, or the other side. But they are not the same if you have any idea of what is going on. So read some books, talk to some people who know both South East Asia and the Euphrates Valley region. Ask serious questions, and you will be equalliy sickened by what this administration has gotten us into, but not think there is an easy solution. Life ain't simple or easy.

and the reason people argued we couldn't leave Vietnam, of course, was that the Soviets would have gained an inch of ground. It was called containment. I suggest you read Kennan's X-article in Foreign Affairs (1947, I think) that lays the groundwork for you.

There is no opposing empire that we are fighting by proxy in Iraq, need not fear that our principal adversary will gain an inch if we leave, hell, we'd actually be better off, for a while, if we did leave. But decapitating a country and then abandoning it to chaose has a habit of turning around and biting you in the ass. Rather than pull all our soldiers out, we need to pour more in, to demonstrate we really can maintain some order. And we need to clean up our act. but hey, I could be wrong, maybe you're right, the active terrorists in Iraq targeting civilian populations will just go away as soon as we do, for the first time in roughly 1200 years, the Sunnis and the Shiites will get along with eachother without a strong government presence to keep the peace.

How about a little concern for the place we fucked up, instead of simply selfish concern for Americans. How many Iraqis will die in the civil unrest that is percolating under our watch? Can the current government hold the lid on the pot? or don't you care?

I do feel for anyone who is traumatized by commiting acts of war. but newsflash, every single person in Iraq volunteered for the military. Every single one. Uncle sam pays them a salary, and a soldier's job is, somewhat shockingly, to kill people. That's what they do. It's bad luck that you got in at this time, and bad luck that the civilans running the show are inept. War's a bitch, let's not have any more.

[tabasco]

35. If you think the Iraqis will settle for a government that we ...

impose upon them, you are the one who needs to read history.

Your condescending attitude only displays your own ignorance.

Reference to an article from 1947 is simply stupefying, considering the HISTORY which has transpired since then.

[northzax]

39. the article written in 1947

you have read it, haven't you? it's the seminal work in US post-war foreign policy, it outlined everything that was to come later. That article explains why, 38 years later, the US was paying Saddam Hussein to fight Iran. But I guess it's not really relevant, huh?

I notice people like to cite the Declaration of Independence, that was written what, 230 years ago? tons of changes since then, does it no longer apply? How about, say, Freud? still apply? Aristotle? Seneca? Jesus? Moses? More? Jefferson? Washington? Lincoln? any of their words still apply today? many changes since they died, guess it doesn't apply any more.

oh, and it's worth noting that the X-article was cited as a reference to Vietnam, not Iraq. but why split hairs when you have a nice anger going?

[Selatius]

36. Oh, I do have concern for the Iraqis

The resistance, I fear, is now primarily fueled by the presence of the US itself. Those 100,000 dead Iraqis now probably generated an untold number of people who aim to kill troops and Iraqi National Guardsmen because we blew away members of their family or dropped a bomb on them from 10,000 feet.

While it is true that we fucked over Iraq big time, I fear staying in Iraq will only make it worse, not make it better. You think Zarqawi or Al Qaeda gives a damn about civilian casualties? Hell no. Al Qaeda wouldn't be operating in Iraq in the first place if it weren't for the presence of US troops.

You say we need to pour more troops in. Okay, how many do you want? Gen. Shinseki said we needed "several hundred thousand" on the ground to properly police the country, and this was before the war even started and before all those Iraqis died, and this was before he was forced to take early retirement.

So what's your figure? 250,000 troops? 500,000 troops? 600,000 troops? Where are we going to get that kind of manpower? You think the international community is going to volunteer to go in there with us? You think France or Germany or Japan are willing to send over thousands of their own to Iraq?

As far as Vietnam goes, I do agree it was a different beast, but as someone who was born to South Vietnamese parents, I can tell you a great number of Vietnamese turned against the US not because they believed in authoritarian socialism or the USSR but because it killed people they loved.

Vietnam was as much a civil war as it was a proxy war of the Cold War. The Vietnamese were simply screwed over by both sides, used as pawns by the superpowers and colonial masters for their own purposes. If it wasn't the Chinese, it was the Russians. If it wasn't the Russians, it was the French, and if it wasn't the French, it was the Americans.

[northzax]

41. interesting reply, thank you,

my comments follow in tezt:

The resistance, I fear, is now primarily fueled by the presence of the US itself. Those 100,000 dead Iraqis now probably generated an untold number of people who aim to kill troops and Iraqi National Guardsmen because we blew away members of their family or dropped a bomb on them from 10,000 feet. Certainly. But how much of the violence, against iraqis, is not 'resistance' but religious terrorism? it's tough to get someone to blow themselves up unless religious extremism is in play. you think those religious extremists are simply going to stop?

While it is true that we fucked over Iraq big time, I fear staying in Iraq will only make it worse, not make it better. You think Zarqawi or Al Qaeda gives a damn about civilian casualties? Hell no. Al Qaeda wouldn't be operating in Iraq in the first place if it weren't for the presence of US troops. I disagree (not with the first part, of course they don't care about killing people, they're terrorists, it's kinda their raison d'etre) AQ and AlZaq would not be operating in Iraq if there was still a strongman in charge, they didn't operate in Iraq because they couldnt, and didn't care to, there were other, easier targets. Terrorism in a Police State is not easy. But we removed the stabalising influence, now we're the only opportunity, but we need to stop fucking it up.

You say we need to pour more troops in. Okay, how many do you want? Gen. Shinseki said we needed "several hundred thousand" on the ground to properly police the country, and this was before the war even started and before all those Iraqis died, and this was before he was forced to take early retirement.

So what's your figure? 250,000 troops? 500,000 troops? 600,000 troops? Where are we going to get that kind of manpower? You think the international community is going to volunteer to go in there with us? You think France or Germany or Japan are willing to send over thousands of their own to Iraq? you'd rather cut and run? I'd say 500,000. We could get then in three months, if the President came on TV in front of the Nation and said "your country needs you, we all need to pull together and sacrifice to make this work. Mistakes have been made," followed by a three year plan to put huge numbers of troops on the ground while the NIA is trained, the beaurocracy is established, and money is pumped into the economy.

As far as Vietnam goes, I do agree it was a different beast, but as someone who was born to South Vietnamese parents, I can tell you a great number of Vietnamese turned against the US not because they believed in authoritarian socialism or the USSR but because it killed people they loved.

Vietnam was as much a civil war as it was a proxy war of the Cold War. The Vietnamese were simply screwed over by both sides, used as pawns by the superpowers and colonial masters for their own purposes. If it wasn't the Chinese, it was the Russians. If it wasn't the Russians, it was the French, and if it wasn't the French, it was the Americans. true that, the difference is that there was a strong government ready to step in and take over the country. Once the US left, the south collapsed in a very short time and the strong North Vietnamese government was able to unify the country. that does not exist in Iraq. That is my concern. Honestly, if the South and North had been equally matched, they'd still be fighting (see: Sudan.)

[Frederik]

49. What good do you see US troops possibly doing

in Iraq? They can't secure the friggin' piece of road from Baghdad to the airport. They can't now, and they won't be able to one year from now. There will NEVER be a normalization and stabilization of Iraq as long as it is still occupied. The 500,000 troops you envisage simply don't exist and won't ever exist.

According to Dahr Jamail, who has spent more time in Iraq, outside of Hotel Palestine, than any other US journalist, says that at least 80% of Iraqis - Shiites and Sunnis alike - support the insurgency. This number is not going to go down. They don't want the US there, with the exception of a few politicians who are dependent on the US to protect their positions.

Iraq is not going to be a big happy family as soon as American and British forces leave, but it sure isn't going to be one as long as it's occupied either. I agree that some sort of a government must be in place first which includes the Sunnis to a larger extent than the present one does. I'm sure it would be much easier (though by no means easy) to establish one if the occupiers gave a promise to withdraw completely once one was in place. Waiting for a stable and peaceful Iraq before withdrawal means having to find oneself, 30 years from now, in the same position as the Israelis in Gaza and the West Bank.

[bobbieinok]

52. no one is going to sign up now...W talking about 'sacrifice' would be a

total joke

you make some points to think about, but the way things are now there's no way US could get enuff troops in Iraq.......bushco fouled things up so bad they really cannot get us out or improve things (not that they want to, but even if they did want to get out I honestly don't see how)

[northzax]

74. I don't agree with you there, actually

If the President uses the bully pulpit to ask for sacrifice, and demonstrates that sacrifices are across the board, he'll get it. If he goes to the People and says, "look, folks, we're in trouble, we need this." and seriously addresses the country, he'll get it. But people have to believe that it's important. And right now, the Administration does not make any of us think that the sacrifices the military and military families are making is important enough to pay attention to. that is a crying shame, and the single greatest indictment of this President, as a human being, that I can imagine.

[UpInArms]

84. then send in the Bush twins and all their cousins first..... eom

[Selatius]

58. Are you suggesting a military draft?

Or some sort of redoubling of recruitment efforts? Regardless, do you think Bush is going to go in front of the nation and admit such huge mistakes? I don't think Bush is that kind of guy.

Certainly. But how much of the violence, against iraqis, is not 'resistance' but religious terrorism? it's tough to get someone to blow themselves up unless religious extremism is in play. you think those religious extremists are simply going to stop?

If you ask me, most of the people fighting US troops at this point are simple Iraqis who want revenge for a perceived wrong such as the loss of loved ones. Previous studies have pointed out the majority of people the US is fighting on the ground now are not foreign fighters but Iraqis, and most of Saddam's goons are now in prison or dead. It would seem sensible to believe that given the number of civilian casualties inflicted by the US bombing campaign, which still goes on, that they would be the largest group, not extremist religious militants.

Groups such as Zarqawi's and Al Qaeda have no compunction of utilizing a heavy dose of suicide bombing to kill Iraqi National Guardsmen and US troops and any other enemy such as Shi'ite clerics, even if it means innocent civilians getting in the way. If you asked me, it's these religious militants, foreign fighters, and Al Qaeda terror agents who are behind the bulk of the suicide bombings. Just because they keep using suicide bombings as a tactic doesn't mean they exist in large numbers. It only takes one person to walk with a bomb strapped to his chest, not an army.

you'd rather cut and run? I'd say 500,000. We could get then in three months, if the President came on TV in front of the Nation and said "your country needs you, we all need to pull together and sacrifice to make this work. Mistakes have been made," followed by a three year plan to put huge numbers of troops on the ground while the NIA is trained, the beaurocracy is established, and money is pumped into the economy.

The recruitment effort right now is faltering. People know what's up about war, and fewer and fewer people are willing to enlist. We've been on the ground for 2+ years now and have suffered 1700+ dead and roughly 20,000 wounded and evacuated. Half of those are crippled for life now, and you think Americans are going to go through another 3 years, at least, of Iraq? And you also think Bush would do such a thing?

I can envision the US population enduring far more casualties and far more pain if it were an issue of self-preservation of the nation, but I don't think they would view sacrificing for the Iraq War the same way they viewed sacrificing to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan where millions of people volunteered and where hundreds of thousands of them died, especially after the original reason for the war today turned out to be a mistake that cost the lives of countless people on both sides.

[northzax]

77. I agree with you that Bush is not the right man for the task

much to our collective loss. However, I have more faith in the people of the US, I suppose, to listen when the President calls us to serve, which he has never done. The recruitment effort is failing because this administration doesn't think that sacrifice is important or honorable. They are the ones spitting on military familiessss, by disregarding the deaths and pain of their loved ones, by minimising the sacrifice. it would take a better man than he to admit his mistakes, and lead the country forward.

As for inter-iraqi violence, I would argue that soldiers are legitimite targets of 'insurrection' or 'freedom fighters' local police officers? not so much. pensioners waiting in line at a bank? pretty much no. If, as everyone keeps saying, the goal is to drive out the Americans, then they can target US troops (which they do with painful regularity) but there are, by a factor of twenty, more iraqi civilians killed in these attacks than US Citizens. How is that reconcilable with the idea of 'freedom fighting?' Some collateral damage is acceptable, morally and ethically, but the deliberate targeting of civilian locations? that's terrorism, by any definition.

[Selatius]

94. But your solution is still a non-starter specifically because of Bush

I just don't think Americans, after looking at this war, are as willing, even with the right president, to go out and die for a cause many now see as a lie. This war in Iraq will probably be forever associated with Bush and all the misery he stands for, and I don't think many in the middle, especially on the left, are willing to die for that. With things such as the Downing Street Memo hitting the wires, I just don't see people as willing to do it.

I think the American people are still very strong. There is strength there, but I've only seen that strength exerted when it was truly an issue of survival such as World War 2 or the Great Depression. I didn't see it in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, or the current Iraq War. People rally when it becomes necessary to survival, but not by choice.

I don't see any way you could compell more Americans than the ones who are currently enlisting today to begin enlisting because this war is starting to look like a mistake, and the polls are beginning to show it. Even if Bush went on national television and said mistakes were made and that we need to redouble our efforts, the fact that he confirmed the major mistakes could easily backfire in the opposite direction and lead Americans to begin pulling away from the war, not rallying.

It's just not realistic because 1) Bush won't admit mistakes, and 2) it seems more and more likely, especially as more Americans turn against the war, the only way you can sustain an occupation force of 500,000 over several years is to compell people to serve, through national conscription.

As John Kerry said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

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

As far as fighting in Iraq goes, anyone who is even seen as being collaborators with the US occupying forces have been and continue to be targeted. Police officers, especially the ones in Baghdad have been targeted almost as much as national guardsmen and US troops.

I'm not saying I would condone such attacks, but the resistance in Iraq is a multi-faceted conglomerate. Globalsecurity.org lists at least 35 separate resistance organizations of all kinds of stripes. There may actually be more. Some of them are nationalist partisans fighting for a country free from foreign domination. Some are Shia, and some are Sunni. Then you have religious militants trying to install their own brand of religion, and then you have Al Qaeda in Iraq and the foreign fighters, and then you have the Ba'athist holdouts and ex-Fedayeen.

Of all those groups, which seem most likely to not care about innocent civilians dying?

[Inland]

66. Lots of really, really bad assertions, easily disposed of.

1. A "little bit of concern" for Iraqis doesn't mean that we should be sacrificing a billion a week of OUR money and 1700 lives of OUR soldiers and tens of thousands of wounded and maimed, even assuming, which we shouldn't, that we are doing any good.

Sorry, the US isn't a charitable organization. Frankly, I don't get this idea that our military is to defend OTHER people, and our tax dollars to support OTHER people. Unlike the Americans being killed today in Iraq, I don't have a compact with Iraqis. No Iraqi and I have joined to provide for the common defense and welfare. And if the US were the equivalent of the Red Cross, our sacrifices would be better spent somewhere it could do some good. Or is Iraq the only other charity case out there?

2. Whether we are in fact doing any good is raised by your noting, properly, that we have 160,000 people in country whose job it is to kill people. The fact that the US can't decide whether to sacrifice for Iraqis or kill them is part of the problem.

3. It isn't just a soldier's bad luck that the civilians in charge are inept, if you want them to remain in that situation. Here you are, acknowleding ineptitude, which makes it really unlikely that any good will come of it, and then abandoning the soldiers to it by refusing to ask that the doomed mission end. Soldiers don't volunteer for abandonment or incompetence; they are willing to sacrifice all for their country, and your end of the deal is to take care they aren't wasted.

How about owing them something rather than accepting it as a soldier's lot to be misled by his leaders and abandoned by us at home. Or is the outside possibility of some good in Iraq worth the betrayal of your own countrymen who did nothing but volunteer to give their lives in the defense of HIS OWN country?

[northzax]

78. I await the disposal crew, but in the meantime...

Sorry, the US isn't a charitable organization. Frankly, I don't get this idea that our military is to defend OTHER people, and our tax dollars to support OTHER people. Unlike the Americans being killed today in Iraq, I don't have a compact with Iraqis. No Iraqi and I have joined to provide for the common defense and welfare. And if the US were the equivalent of the Red Cross, our sacrifices would be better spent somewhere it could do some good. Or is Iraq the only other charity case out there?

As I recall, we invaded the country and toppled the existing government, which was keeping order quite nicely. This was an egregious error. But it's done, and we assumed the responsiblity to serve as the de facto Iraqi government until a reasonable replacement can develop. We owe it to them, and we are failing miserably at this obligation.

[Inland]

83. "Assumed the responsibility"..... "until a reasonable replacement"

At least you admit that you are placing the responsibility on America to do something that benefits, not itself, but Iraqis. It IS a charitable institution, or at least, one that is doing penitence by making sure that it pays huge for the invasion.

But in the same paragraph, you admit that we aren't doing a penitence at all. Of course we aren't: we are running the place in a manner to keep our own soldiers and our oil safe, not Iraqis.

This suggestion that all we don't have to withdraw but simply change the entire purpose of our occupation to an act of self sacrifice--and increasing the sacrifice to national conscription and $2billion a week---is a call for pigs to fly. Since it's never going to happen, the prescence of an occupying force guarantees more pain for the US and the Iraqis.

And the fact that doubling our commitment may be no better than joining Iraq in a suicide pact means the sacrifice shouldn't be made.

It's a failure, and the fact that it's America's fault doesn't make it any less a failure or require that we fail more miserably and at a greater cost to the US if not Iraq. I'm not going to make another US soldier wear Bush's hair shirt.

[northzax]

86. I don't agree with your characterisation

of a 'charitable institution' but I understand your point. (and, by the way, it's pleasant to have a discussion that doesn't involve insults, thank you)

It's not charity to assume responsiblity to one's past mistakes. And, whether we like it or not, we (if you're a US citizen, which I am assuming in the 'we') are responsible for the actions of our government. We inherited with shitstorm from the incompetant assholes we elected king, and the only way the US can continue to have anything remotely resembling credibility is to do something about it. We obviously disagree on what that should be, which is ok.

I think that we do have a responsiblity to actually do the shit we said we were going to do when we invaded Iraq. that the purpose of the occupation should be the one we claimed it was when we started this whoe mess. Nothing would make me respect my fellow american more than that.

By the way, I actually believe that there are certain things, like the Constitution and a pledge of honor, that ARE suicide pacts, but that's another story (and I admit it makes me a little old-fashioned)

[Old and In the Way]

57. Amen.

Support the troops! Keep them there....forever. If the patriotic RW had their druthers we'd still be fighting the Yellow Menace and propping up dominoes. Since they had Viet Nam shut down prematurely, the war mongers and war profiteers now have Iraq to exploit.

Some people never learn....

[northzax]

81. excuse me?

you're not actually calling me a wingnut, are you? and did you bother to read the parts about why this was completely unlike vietnam? or did the little rubber hammer hit your patellar just a little too hard?

[Junkdrawer]

45. ..and every day we stay, it will be that much worse when we leave...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

[rman]

75. You don't know there will be civil war

The ones claiming that there will be are the ones who started this war based on lies.

We do know for sure that many innocent people die due to US milirary presence there.

If there is a problem with leaving, then it was created by the US.

Even if there would be civil war in Iraq when the US leaves, how much worse can that be than what is going on there now?

I'd say the current cure for civil war is worse then the illness.

Isn't it rather likely that different factions in Iraq are more united rather then more divided due to their common enemy that is the US?

[Vladimir]

76. 75% of attacks by insurgents in Iraq

are against coalition forces, so for most Iraqi freedom fighters the issue seems to indeed be our presence there.

troops. home. now.

[northzax]

79. citation please?

I'd like to see that analysis, cause it's completely different that what I hear.

thanks.

[Vladimir]

80. Enjoy

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7670

[northzax]

82. thanks. it's an interesting methodology

and your extrapolation is that if we subtract the attacks against US troops as being part of a legitimate insurgency, then we're left with about 1,000 attacks on non-military targets (through October of last year, which includes most of the time that there were almost no attacks on civilian targets, since those basically started in june of 04)

There's this funny thing, though. almost all the attacks on military targets simply wound someone, almost all the attacks on civilian targets kill in double digits. Which is worse?

[Vladimir]

85. Well if you look at the other chart in the article

it seems fairly clear that this percentage figure is not a statistical anomaly. Of course civilian targets lead to more deaths, and there is no question that this is tragic. But the point of looking at the number of attacks is that it only takes a very small minority of nutcases to kill a lot of civilians, but it takes a large number of people to carry out a large number of attacks. This is why I say that the majoirty of Iraq's resistance is engaged in a war of national liberation from us, the occupying powers.

[northzax]

87. that's reasonable

and I like the term 'nutcases' although I think you're giving squirrels a bad name...I also refer you to the source line for this data, and remind you that you are citing information publically released by the Department of Defense and the DIA, which certainly have a dog in this fight, and not the best tradition of being fully honest. So Ii'm a little skeptical.

[Vladimir]

89. But what would the Department of Defence gain

from presenting Iraqi fighters as mainly attacking coalition forces? If anything, you'd suspect the statistics of being cooked the other way around, but since it correlates with the NGO report I cited first, it seems to me that the statistics are as reliable as any coming out of Iraq - and unless we choose not to have an opinion, we need to pick some material source for our opinion. I think these are as good as any, although it is certainly a shame that they have not been more widely debated and studied. Obviously, if I see a similar study reaching different conclusion, I will be compelled to give it some thought.

[northzax]

90. well, I would suppose

that if all the attacks are on Americans, then it gives the illusion that there is peace and happiness for everyone else? The NGO report cited the same DoD stats, I think. All stats coming out of Iraq are banged up, no question, I take everything like I take my margaritas, on the rocks with a large sprinkling of salt on the rim.

[Vladimir]

91. Well the NGO report

calls these "A rough NGO Coordinating Committee on Iraq estimate of targets and casualties for the from September 2004 to October 2004", but I can't find that they source the DOD data.

As for the DOD angle - maybe, but the line coming out of Washington is always how the insurgency is out to kill Iraqis, stir up a civil war, and fight the emerging Iraqi democracy etc. So I'd think they would be interested in highlighting the attacks on civilians - but you are 100% correct to suspect any data coming out of Iraq. Other than Iraq Body Count, which has a buletproof methodology for setting a lower limit on excess civilian casualties, there isn't much there that's non-debatable.

[northzax]

92. and if there was nothing to debate

what would we all do with our lives?

thanks for the info, I hadn't seen it.

[Qanisqineq]

11. I just feel sick to my stomach

Not from the blood and gore, but from the thousands of people killed and wounded both physically and mentally. It is always sad to read about the number of dead on both sides. But to read about someone's experience, what they say and how they felt -- it makes it so much more real.

[Ganja Ninja]

12. I'm so sick of seeing the feel good stories the MSM keeps ...

pushing on us. You know the kind. The son or father, daughter or mother coming home or about to leave. How they are sacrificing for our country. Or the wounded vet in rehabilitation that just wants to get back and help his buddies. Or the honored dead and how they died for our freedom because they love our country more than life itself.

If only people could see the real cost. The senseless killing of the innocent. The mental anguish and guilt that will haunt our vets for the rest of their lives and the grief on both sides of the conflict. If only they gave a damn about something other than the good old US of A.

Is that being unpatriotic?

[dchill]

16. unpatriotic? Yes...

if Fox News is patriotic, then just to be the opposite...

[kliljedahl]

13. And how many "Insurgent / Terrorists" were created

by just that one incident? Not to mention the number of people who hate us or hate us even more. Multiply that by the number we've killed & we're in a heap O' shit.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[FreedomAngel82]

14. It's truly sad

:cry: The poor man. I feel so bad for him and all the other soliders with psychological problems. *sigh* :(

[dchill]

15. Mistakes are made ...

Horrible, unforgivable mistakes.

[malmapus]

33. Yeah, decision makers have it so easy

Its the grunts that have to carry the burdens of this shit for the rest of their lives. Its sad when stuff like this happens and horrible, I feel for the soldiers too who were there at that incident as well as the others who are in that shithole.

[dchill]

50. I agree totally.

Every member of congress who abrogated their Constitutional responsibility by voting to give Bush the authority to commit this crime have this boy's blood on their hands - and the blood of thousands and thousands of others.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mandate My Ass]

19. I totally agree war is butchery

But the soldiers are being asked to do an impossible job without the skills necessary to accomplish it. They are also under orders. They are probably extremely frightened most of the time.

Why would we want them here? They're our sons and daughters.

I blame the leaders not the soldiers.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

28. What a shitty thing to say.

Shame on you.

[Selatius]

29. Those soldiers are as much victims of the machine as those Iraqis are

Many of these guys signed up to get a better education or to try to climb out of poverty, not to blow away people who remind them of their own families back home.

It's in the fine print when you sign on the dotted line; I agree, but most people don't sign up for the killing. Ultimately, it's up to the government to determine when the killing starts and when it ends.

The machine victimized us all. For instance, I'm sure you know why recruiters like to go after the poorest first, don't you? Because the system left them down there in the dumps, and now it offers them "a way out." They take it, and then they get used, again.

[NYPagan]

44. Nope, the just following orders schtick doesn't work.

Every single one of them are jsut as culpable as the leaders who give the orders, they are human beings for goddesses sake, they know right from wrong, when they choose wrong, then it is as much their fault as the fat industrialist sending the orders.

I don't support the war, and I don't suppor the butchers who are waging the war. Anything else would be hypocritical.

[Selatius]

61. So what do you call returning soldiers from Iraq?

Are you going to call them murderers? Will you heap as much scorn and contempt upon them as the masters of war in the Pentagon and the White House? You gonna tell that soldier in the article who mistakenly blew away a boy that he deserves all that misery he will carry for the rest of his life for signing on the dotted line?

These guys are coming home with mental anguish if they aren't coming home with shattered bodies or coming home dead, and they need help regardless if you approve of what they did in Iraq. Blaming them won't heal the wounds inflicted by war. They need help, and if you call yourself a human being, then you should offer them help, not your judgment.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. Sounds like a typical comment coming from someone that doesn't....

...have a clue what our troops are going through on a daily basis.

Yes, they are volunteers, but they never dreamed they would be illegally sent to a place by the Government they had always wanted to serve.

Lots of WWII, Korean, Vietnam, and Desert Storm vets are living in the States right now...would you like to send them back to their former combat zones, too?

Here's a suggestion for you...go find a few vets from the wars mentioned above and talk with them about their experiences. Ask them questions about the worst things they saw and how they felt about them. You just might learn something of value.

[BeHereNow]

18. Well, now that Wes Clark is signed to Fox

I am CERTAIN we will hear about these stories.
NOT.
Going to cry now.
BHN

[yodermon]

20. please explain? thx

on edit: never mind, got it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1553707

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. You don't know that...why post it?

[BeHereNow]

51. What have you heard lately from Clark?

Exactly WHERE is his four star statement
on recent events?
Exactly HOW MANY MFSO or IVAW events
has he displayed solidarity with?
A leopard does not change its spots
in my experience of living.

A brief research essay into his corporate
connections/investments give me reason to question
just exactly WHOSE interest he is beholden to.

I question everthing- if you do not, that is fine.
Clark has some rather questionable connections
in my mind.
Sorry if that upsets you to the point that you feel the
need to snipe at my every post saying so.
I SERIOUSLY doubt we will ever hear Clark say
ANYTHING of event changing significance
while working at Fox.
You might want to look up some of
his "analysis" on other news programs
as we were fraudulently led to war
before you get your hopes up for some
actual truth telling from our four star friend.
BHN

[Selatius]

22. Those people are now resistance fighters.

How many of you, if you watched your kids get blown away by an occupational army, would, after burying your kids 6 feet under, seriously contemplate picking up a gun in rage???

[SeanQ]

25. :(

:cry: :cry:

[redqueen]

27. Holy God...

what the hell are the supporters of this occupation thinking?!

:grr:

:cry:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. We heard these stories almost every day coming out of Vietnam....

...and we heard the stories first-hand from vets when they came home. They, too, had that 1000 yard stare, and sometimes they cried when they recounted what they had seen.

We tried like Hell to warn the idiots that pushed for this illegal invasion that this kind of situation would eventually develop. But no...they were war-bound whether they had a reason or not.

Eventually, the dancers will have to pay the fiddler, and the bill-collector is getting closer every day.

[bvar22]

37. That child's body, blood and all,

and 1000 more should be delivered to the White House addressed to:

George Bush* and the Republicans
White House
Washington, DC
USA

[Tsiyu]

43. This is the waste of war

The waste of it, while Bush* and his pals make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ off that little boy's death, make $$$$$$$$$$$ through the suffering of the military who must do *'s grim bidding.

Bush doesn't care about that tiny human life. No Republican I have spoken with so far gives a damn about that little life. Funny, some of our soldiers do:

"I stayed as long as I could, talking to the man holding the child. I couldn't leave because I needed to know who they were. I wanted to remember. The man was the child's uncle, minding him for his father who had gone to the market. They were carpenters and what the soldier who had fired on the truck had seen was one of the Iraqi men standing in the truck bed, holding a piece of wood."

Little Iraqi boys' lives mean nothing, do they, today? Not to our press, our president, our own countrymen.

We are not good people...not anymore.

[dxstone]

47. Kick-nom-so sad... n/t

[KnowerOfLogic]

48. Oh well, shit happens. Quit your whining, you pinko liberal. sarcasm, nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. I know. It's surreal to think that this is going on "in our names"

Well, not in MY name Rummy, Dummy, and Dick!!!!

I hope Jesus comes down here and gives you all what-for!

[Bouncy Ball]

59. Dear God

Please forgive us. I didn't do this, I didn't support it, I have opposed it from the beginning, but my country's government is killing innocent people.

And killing and killing and killing and killing.

Oh the humanity. Three years old. And just one of many.

The sobbing smilie just seems....inadequate right now.

[Tinoire]

60. This war just hurts and hurts and hurts. How many are we destroying?

How many dead children?
How many poisoned rivers?
How many deformed children from the depleted uranium?
How many destroyed homes?
How many orphans?
How many destroyed soldiers?

How much hate, recriminations and guilt?

To those Bush-collaborators who think it was worth it, I hope these things begin to haunt you and that remorse slowly tortures you to madness because you have committed unforgivable crimes in the name of the American people.

[Zorbuddha]

93. Yeah, but the bomb industry is booming.

Blood for economic prosperity, it is the engine of captilalism.

[mandyky]

63. My eyes burned for hours

after reading and sobbing with you about this one!

[driver8]

64. Wow...powerful and moving. I have a three year old daughter

and the images I have in my head right now are devastating. If this were my child, I would stop at nothing to kill those responsible.

Gee...now why do the insurgents hate us again?

[Lindsey]

65. Heartbreaking n/t

[GeorgeGist]

69. Thanks George

for making Father's Day so memorable. POS that you are.

[OrlandoGator]

70. "For every Iraqi we kill, we create three terrorists."

When are people going to realize this?

[OrlandoGator]

71. n/t

[Supersedeas]

88. but the war is such hard werk for the chickenhawks & the chickenhawk

contributors