Atrocities in Fallujah and Elsewhere

Update:
Iraq Vietnam: 5810
Iraq Mogadishu: 961
Iraq quagmire: still 286

It actualy does compare to Mogadishu, and Blackfive is right. It reveals something about the media that their memory skips that year on the way to 1970.

Just an FYI: in Chicago, it was either the "Red Eye" or the "Red Streak" (tabloids put out by the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times that are utterly indistinguishable) that had this as today's headline, in big bold letters:

"America's Graveyard"

No bias there, nope, none at all. Jerkasses.

We are reluctant to kill. Because we are good. But doing justice requires that we be resolute.

After Falluja, Bush said we would "stay the course". Fine. But that is not enough.

Bremer today said we would bring the perps of the atrocity in Falluja to justice.

He said this as if the perps were ONLY those who threw the hand-grenades.

But the perps include those who celebrate and shelter the perps.

This is a fact.

The celebrants are part an INTEGRAL of the act - because the act's intent is terror, and not tactical.

And those who shelter the perps - before of after attacks - are aiding and abetting a criminal conspiracy.

Each and every member of a conspiracy is guilty of the worst crimes committed by any the conspirators.

This is a universal feature of conspiracy law.

Therefore, we must ignore the Left when they bemoan and bewail "collective punishment" as un-just.

We MUST punish the perps with extreme prejudice - and also all those who celebrate or shelter the perps.

We should announce this as our policy, and the next time there is a post-attack celebration,
we must kill the celebrants as they celebrate. Then we must identify the dead and destroy their family's property - since their family had failed to notify us about the fact that their family member was involved in terror -- making them defacto parts of the conspiracy.

Destroying their homes is not "blind rage" or "collective punishment"; it would reduce the ability of that family to shelter other terrorists, and will reduce the amount of terror.

These measures would do more than merely send the right message. It would ultimately defeat the enemy.

Fallujah is reality. Those who support the occupation in Iraq don't want REALITY to make it to our television screens.

They want ONLY photos and images of smiling school kids and happy Iraqis in the markets and coffee-houses saying things like "Bush number 1! Bush is great. He got rid of that bastard Saddam."

REALITY is that, according to polls, a significant minority of Iraqis think what happened in fallujah is "acceptable,"

Depending on the sample, it could be anywhere from a few MILLION people, to hundreds of thousands,

Either way, to classify the insurgency as a bunch of "dead-enders," and "foreign fighters" who either want to restore Saddam to power, or to manitain a holy war against the U.S. is flatly dishonest.

Is their hatred of the United States fair? Definitely not. Our military forces are trying to make things better, and develop a rapport with the Iraqis. And, to a great extent are succeeding with a majority of the population.

But, this is not going as well as we've been told. And, fair or not, the insurgency is gaining potency and effectiveness.

To point out REALITY is somehow "unpatriotic."

Well, as outraged as I am by how our citizens were treated in Fallujah yesterday, acting like the Israelis and fometing more backlash and eye for an eye violence is not going to solve the problem. Get the perpetrators, if you can. But collective punishment will just breed more hatred.

We are installing a bunch of crooks and criminals as the new "government" of Iraq. At least until such time as the Kurds throw up their hands in disgust and secede...and the Shia's take over.

God knows what will happen then. Maybe we will be caught in the middle of a civil war? maybe we'll have gotten the hell out of there by then.

Who knows?

What's important is determining how to make this situation work out in the best possible way for the Iraqi people and for U.S. interests.

I am absolutely confident THAT will not occur with George W. Bush in the White House for another four years.

And, thank God, so are an increasing majority of the American people.

"We should announce this as our policy, and the next time there is a post-attack celebration,
we must kill the celebrants as they celebrate. Then we must identify the dead and destroy their family's property - since their family had failed to notify us about the fact that their family member was involved in terror -- making them defacto parts of the conspiracy.

Destroying their homes is not "blind rage" or "collective punishment"; it would reduce the ability of that family to shelter other terrorists, and will reduce the amount of terror.

These measures would do more than merely send the right message. It would ultimately defeat the enemy."

Spoken like a true Nazi. Jumping around and celebrating the killing of our citizens, while morally repulsive, is NOT a criminal act that necessitates a death sentence, you cretin.

I can guarantee you that mistreatment of dead bodies in that fashion is a violation of Islamic law, and probably outraged a great many Iraqis as well.

Your "solution" to the problem will only make things much worse, and will be asking our troops to committ atrocities they should not be a party to.

If you feel so strongly about it, no one is stopping you from VOLUNTEERING to work as a "civilian contractor" in Iraq. Then, if you want to shoot people, you can suffer the appropriate consequences.

You seem pretty bright, which is why I am surprised at this bogus partisan spin. Do you really think there's some evil intent in the phrase "If we try to avoid showing pictures of bodies, if we make it too clean, then maybe we make it too easy to go to war again."

It seems pretty clear this guy is saying we can't sanitize war images to give people a true impression of what it's like. If the press does that, it will be too easy to go to war again. That doesn't mean this war is bad or Bush is evil. His statement is an honest statement from a neutral newsman grappling with his job, which is being a filter and deciding whether to show awful photos of dead Americans.

Your other translations of the other quotes show you put the blinders on. One or two quotes pulled from a day's worth of coverage that reference Vietnam and the impact of the day (from that always partisan FORMER WAR COLLEGE prof!) shouldn't surprise anyone. They're all fair analyses. Something tells me it wasn't the only opinion out there yesterday.

What do you really object to? Bias or diverse ones and neural reporting that include things that hurt your cause?

Hesiod,
I am not saying I agree with the killing all celebrants idea. Your comments, though, suggest you are still thinking in terms of law enforcement. Iraq is a war zone. Our forces are being engaged by the enemy. We do not have to prove "crimes" to take action. The law enforcement view is the failed policy of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush pre-Sept 11. That cannot be the focus now.
Glib acccusations that someone is a "Nazi" by acting like Israel suggest a certain bias, too.
I do not believe we can just obliterate the scene of such an attack. I am surprised, though, that we have civilians driving through Fallujah with no military escort. Perhaps the situation has not been as bad there I had thought. I would like some military security, so that if there is an attack, our soldiers can aggressively clear the area and prevent scenes like yesterday's. If thereis resistance or firing from those celebrating, then they should be killed. But in Fallujah we need to be iron-fisted and strong.
I bet we will seem some surge patrolling with large forces in that town. We cannot have these animalistic actions go one with no repercussions.

I seriously doubt the media ever second guesses their decision to not show the jumpers on 9/11. They can't have it both ways.

You seem bright:

Iraq Vietnam Google score now: 5850

Nice try.

Yes, this post includes a hat tip to John Kerry and a curiosity how liberal talk radio will handle the story. There's a right wing warmonger bias if ever I heard one.

The photos and video provide all the "evidence" the Kurds should need - when we let them Police Fallujah. The only involvement the US should have in this s**thole is to seal it off from the rest of Iraq. We need to immediately suspend ANY rebuilding of infrastructure there.

The Pakistanis have it right. The Muslim way is to go after the TOWN, when they let criminals walk in their midst. Time to drop "New Testiment" rules of engagement and adopt indigenous ones. While we're at it, time to prosecute the scum we already have in detention.

I have a different take from all the above on this: what do the other Iraqis suggest we do? Consider that most of what was done was done to dead bodies, about which some religions don't care at all. However, I suspect that Islam is not such a religion. Therefore the people of Fallujah must have been practicing some pre-Islamic animist rite to gain potency from the remains of the fallen. Since these people used to be Muslim, they have clearly become apostates, and of the worst kind, since Islam is particularly harsh on the pre-existing animist religions. So shouldn't they all be stoned?

As to the press,and folks like Hesiod, let me do their thing - the part that Mills left out is that those of us who do exert ourselves will always have these hangers on.

Google score? Is that French for bad information?

I hope, dear God, you take that as a seriously as an ESPN Instant Poll.

I note that among the Iraq Vietnam connections is a World Cup Asia roundup. LOL

Plus, is it an evidence of bias that there have been 5,000 mentions of Iraq and Vietnam considering the volume on Google news, the amount of time Google measures, and World Cup Asia is in full swing?

ruprecht,
you nailed it!

You seem pretty bright, which is why I am surprised at this bogus partisan spin. Do you really think there's some evil intent in the phrase "If we try to avoid showing pictures of bodies, if we make it too clean, then maybe we make it too easy to go to war again."

Who said there was evil intent? Greyhawk merely asked you to read the statement again. My interpretation is that Mr. Sievers statement reflects the school of journalism being developed since the 1970's that wishes no longer to write about the story but to influence the story. It is very obvious from this statement that Mr. Sievers belongs firmly in this school and knows in which direction he would like to influence the story.

To this day, the media refuses to show pictures of Americans diving from the top floors of the World Trade Center, certainly because those photos would remind people why we needed to go to war.

Speaking of media bias in the L.A. Times article. Looking at this morning's L.A. Times newspaper (hardcopy, not web), the big, bold headline is "Iraqi Mob Kills 4 Americans". This is blatantly false -- a downright lie. It should read "Iraqi Ambush Kills 4 Americans" with subheading of "Mob Mutilates Bodies". A quick look at the NY Times shows they did write that.

Here's the times article of the web:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq1apr01,1,7300126.story?coll=la-headlines-world

Tounge boy: I don't think the print media, let along the media overall, have every thought they don't influence decisions. It's been happening since the Federalist Papers. I'm glad the media considers the impact of their actions. The commentator is asking: If we hold things back, do we create a sanitized image?

I would pull all coalition personnel out of Fallujah. Surround it at a strategic ( safe) distance, and then bomb it until there was not one stone laying atop another.

First visit. Great site, one of the best on the web and much better than mine. Terrific. Reality really is that the Sunnis in the "Triangle" were very well off under Saddam and now they are at the bottom looking up. Of course they hate us. We changed the game. I have a longstandding opinion that we should have trained Iraqis to do this a long time ago. Exactly a year ago I published what I thought was going to be the sad outcome of this "War" and I am sadly being proved correct.
My pessimistic essay is HERE if you are interested. Again, this is a great site. Just great.

Tim: I'm very tempted to agree- after all, it worked for Syria at Hama.

REALITY is that, according to polls, a significant minority of Iraqis think what happened in fallujah is "acceptable,"

"Significant minority"?

Is that like "jumbo shrimp", "thoughtful liberal" or "temporary goverment program"?

Please.

The VAST MAJORITY (over 70%) are happy we are there, say their lives are better because we are there, and don't want us to leave until the job is done. All your whining does is give our enemies more reason to try and kill us, i.e. if we get enough of them, they will pull out.

Sorry, this isn't Mogadishu, and Clinton isn't President.

Hesiod,

"Fallujah is reality. Those who support the occupation in Iraq don't want REALITY to make it to our television screens."

Scientific polls consistently show that a majority of Iraqis want the US to stay for now. An ABC News poll shown on TV last night concluded that Iraqis favoring an immediate pullout hovered around 71% in Fallujah and 17% in the rest of Iraq, so I would hardly characterize "Fallujah" as representative. Why do those who do not support the occupation of Iraq consistently spin reality the other way?

Of course, the larger question is who do you want to win: the people who are there toppling dictators and now providing clean water, new roads, food and schools; or people who commit murder in broad daylight and tear up corpses like packs of hungry animals?

The reason why the media so consistently links Iraq with Vietnam is not only to discourage those who would bring democracy to Iraq, but to bring all of the maggots out of the woodwork, like you Hesiod, and encourage them to join in the war of words to undermine our troops and bring them home before the job is done. In Vietnam, it was to the service of Communists who subsequently murdered many thousands of their countrymen as untold more suffered in re-education camps. In Iraq, it is to the service of Fallujan patrons of Saddam Hussein, who are upset at Americans primarily because they have been removed from a position of power oppressing their fellow Iraqis.

Go ahead and side with them, Hesiod. Join with the murderers and the (former) oppressors in Iraq. March in antiwar rallies with your fellow Classics majors, and eat the anti-US bromides put on your plate for you by members of the tenured class, paid for by the US taxpayer. And above all bask in the light of revisionist pablum fed to us by the media analogizing Iraq with Vietnam.

It won't work this time, after 9/11. We're kicking ass and taking names.

Have a nice day.

Well put, Buzz.

The media has always played a role in influencing political decisions, heck, historically newspapers were ALWAYS closely aligned with this or that political party, what's changed in the last fifty years is the media's attempt to convince people that they don't and are bias free. They've been wildly successful at fooling some people.

"I am not saying I agree with the killing all celebrants idea. Your comments, though, suggest you are still thinking in terms of law enforcement. Iraq is a war zone. Our forces are being engaged by the enemy. We do not have to prove "crimes" to take action. The law enforcement view is the failed policy of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush pre-Sept 11. That cannot be the focus now."

That's not what I menat. I'm not suggesting we go out and get warrants, and try to make arrests like we do here in the Unired States. I'm talking about punishing those RESPONSIBLE ofr the attacks with force, if necessary, commensurate with tehir crimes. And, if those who mistreated the dead deserve punishment, DEATH isn't it. They should be apprehended and charged under Sharia law for violating the dead.

"Glib acccusations that someone is a "Nazi" by acting like Israel suggest a certain bias, too."

No. I was referring to the "kill em all" mentality expressed. The collective punishment in the fom of VIOLENCE. Israeli collective punishment generally amounts to border closures (which are acceptable), and bulldozing peoples homes into the dust (which isn't).

"I do not believe we can just obliterate the scene of such an attack. I am surprised, though, that we have civilians driving through Fallujah with no military escort. Perhaps the situation has not been as bad there I had thought."

Or it's even worse. There are reports (from news sites OUTSIDE the U.S. of course, that say things are so bad in Fallujah that we dare not send in forces lest we incite a mass uprising there.

That's why there was no quick response to the attacks. And, violence there was at a reduced level because we removed all of our troops.

"I would like some military security, so that if there is an attack, our soldiers can aggressively clear the area and prevent scenes like yesterday's."

That would be great. Too bad we have an adinistration that screwed things up from the beginning, and we are now trapped in an escalating scale of violence.

"If thereis resistance or firing from those celebrating, then they should be killed. But in Fallujah we need to be iron-fisted and strong."

'Cause that's the only thing these people understand, right? If this had been handled right from the beginning, I think we'd be in a different place right now.

"I bet we will seem some surge patrolling with large forces in that town. We cannot have these animalistic actions go one with no repercussions."

Maybe. And I bet we see more attacks on our troops and deaths.

"Scientific polls consistently show that a majority of Iraqis want the US to stay for now."

Which I pointed out. But, a significant minority do. And a smaller, yet significant minority (abetween 10-17%) say it's "acceptable" to attack U.S. or coalition forces. Iraq is a country of 25 million people.

Do the math and you'll realize that this is a hell of a lot bigger problem than we've been lead to believe.

"Why do those who do not support the occupation of Iraq consistently spin reality the other way?"

I'm not. I accurately charactierized opinion in Iraq. You choose to ignore that a couple of million Iraqis think violence against voalition forces is "acceptable" That's a hell of a lot more than just Fallujah.

"The VAST MAJORITY (over 70%) are happy we are there, say their lives are better because we are there, and don't want us to leave until the job is done. All your whining does is give our enemies more reason to try and kill us, i.e. if we get enough of them, they will pull out."

A nice little straw man bullshit argument. Especially because:

A) I never said we should pull out.

B) John Kerry never said we should pull out.

C) If we do pull out prematurely, it will be because Goerge W. Bush is a fucking chickenshit who's more interested in saving his own electoral ass than fixing the mess he created.

So, my advice is to shut the ever lovin' hell up. If you want Iraq to be done right, get the incompetnet idiot currently in the White House the hell out of there.

"The reason why the media so consistently links Iraq with Vietnam is not only to discourage those who would bring democracy to Iraq, but to bring all of the maggots out of the woodwork, like you Hesiod, and encourage them to join in the war of words to undermine our troops and bring them home before the job is done. In Vietnam, it was to the service of Communists who subsequently murdered many thousands of their countrymen as untold more suffered in re-education camps. In Iraq, it is to the service of Fallujan patrons of Saddam Hussein, who are upset at Americans primarily because they have been removed from a position of power oppressing their fellow Iraqis."

More unadulterated bullshit.

It sounds to me that you folks are more worried that Karl Rove and George W. Bush will cut and run like the chickenshits they truly are -- if people like me and the news media report the FACTS about Iraq instead of blowing sunshine up the public's skirt. [Namely, 2 million Iraqis think it's OK to attack our troops].

John Kerry certainly never advocated an early pull out. I cetainly never advocated one.

So, your claim that this is going to cause us to cut and run is more an admission that you know Buhs is a spineless piece of crap easily susceptible to pressure.

I agree.

So, kick him out of office and solve the problem.

As for undermining the troops -- How are we doing that? I want to put our troops in the best possible position to succeed, with the minimum number of casulaties. That means getting rid of the incompetnet morons in the Bush adminsitration who put them into a no-win situation.

Period.

It only "undermines" our troops when assholes like you LIE to them about what people like me want and intend. In other words, you are more concerned with saving Dubyah's incompetent ass than in doing what's in the best interests of our troops and our country. And, you'll exploit our troops to that end. Wgho cares how many of them die in a fucked up plan for "reconstructing" Iraq? hey...it's a small price to pay to get Bush re-elected.

You make me physically ill. Please, please let REAL patriots who care about this country run things. If you want to jack off to your Bush in a flight-suit poster, be my guest. Just let the adults and sane people run this country.

"Go ahead and side with them, Hesiod. Join with the murderers and the (former) oppressors in Iraq. March in antiwar rallies with your fellow Classics majors, and eat the anti-US bromides put on your plate for you by members of the tenured class, paid for by the US taxpayer. And above all bask in the light of revisionist pablum fed to us by the media analogizing Iraq with Vietnam."

ROTFLMAO!!!

What the fuck does that mean, exactly?

I'm not sdiing with the attackers of our troops. YOU are, you piece of shit. You empower them by propping up the incompetent boobs who put our troops in that situation in the first place.

If it were up to me, we'd have Saddam Hussein bottled up in a nice little container, while we swept Al Qaeda cells off the face of the Earth.

Sure, it would be too bad for the Iraqi people. But I care more about U.S. interests, not Iraqi interests. Excuse me for being a patriot.

Intead, be got Boob Bush sending our best special forces off lookng for Saddam and the Deck of Death instead of getting the assholes who actually attacked us on 9/11.

"Sorry, this isn't Mogadishu..."

It's worse.

"and Clinton isn't President . . ."

A tragedy.

Hesiod,
What exactly is your big plan to fix Iraq? You say, "get the incompetents out" but I don't see a solution proposed. Other than to try people under Shari'a law, which is not, by the way, the law of Iraq. Never has been. Under the Iraqi Constitution, the Koran is a guidepost for law, but is not the law itself. So you want to impose Shari'a law? Like the Taliban?
I tried to respond to your first post with some equanimity. By the tone of your other posts, though, you do not seem logical or even-tempered. Waste of time.
BTW, I just learned from people in Iraq that the civilian vehicles do not use military escort, instead relying on speed as security. The company that employed the civilians killed in Fallujah has a number of former special ops soldiers and seals, so the people know what they are doing. This incident shows that terrorists only need one lucky hit to cause tremendous damage and to try to shape the public debate.
Fortunately, the current administration will not pull out as a result of these attacks. FWIW, Hesiod, I do not fear the administration losing nerve and demanding a pull-out. I do fear that the public will lose some nerve if there are Tet-like attacks. If the US left, and the UN took over, it woudl be terrible for the Iraqi people. The UN has already cut and run once, after refusing US assistance to secure its building. Putting the UN peacekeepers in charge would not help. Just look at the recent violence in Kosovo in the immediate vicinity of UN peacekeepers.

Isn't it interesting that the people who don't want to show footage of planes crashing into the World Trade Center, or people jumping from those buildings, are the same ones who really want to show these pictures from Iraq.

Call me insensitive, but I keep the WTC photos proudly posted on my site as a remembrance. I have two sons over there, and I want the one in Baghdad to drive his squad up to Fallujah and take out a few of the miscreants.

What our media seem to want is a weak US who runs for UN cover and help. Recall all the dire predictions of what was to happen to our forces in Iraq? When those predictions didn't come true, they fed us a steady diet of 'bad news from Iraq'. It seemed any news that showed progress being made in Iraq was either not reported or relegated to the back pages. Our media wanted to convince us how wrong we had been not to listen to them (the media). I think they would have been very happy if we had been defeated.

The thugs that supported Saddam's reign of terror in Iraq aren't happy that we removed them from power. They want revenge and are taking it. Will their latest actions against the coalition cause the US public to want revenge or will the US public want to leave as soon as possible?

I think the US public will want revenge. The post-9/11 world is different and we all know it is. We can't run and hide. I don't see any less resolve today than I did last week. Actually, based on conversations I've had I see an increase in resolve to stay and get the job done.

But ... patience does wear thin. We all know we're fighting in Iraq with the proverbial 'one hand tied behind our backs'. That can change. If there is a change in public attitude, it will be to become more aggressive and allow our bombs to rid us of people who drag our citizens through their streets.

I hear more people calling for our forces to level the area where this latest atrocity happend than I do calling for us to leave.

They don't fear us enough yet. We need to change that.

Hesiod,

After Desert One and Mogadishu, this strikes me as a big "so what." This is what barbarians do. We just keep on keeping on and run down the bastards that did this.

Understand that what is going on is the Arab Sunni of Iraq are “negotiating” their ultimate fate.

They will be reconciled with their reduced status in a Democratic Iraq, or when America leaves Iraq, they are going to be ethnically cleansed from Iraq by the Shia and Kurds.

So I am fairly sanguine as to the final outcome. We are going to win in Iraq and those who were part of the "death swarm" are dead men walking. Either we will kill them or they will be killed in the ethnic cleansing they brought upon themselves.

Either outcome will serve America’s interests.

Hesiod: "You empower them by propping up the incompetent boobs who put our troops in that situation in the first place."

Bullshit. They are empowered only by a failure of our will. They are empowered by our troops no more than criminals are empowered by police. Your mind is seriously twisted. Remember this, Turkey barred us from our planned front which would have seriously decimated the anti-American elements in the triangle..including Fallujah! We couldn't deal with it then, unfortunately we have to deal with it now.

Hesiod: "If it were up to me, we'd have Saddam Hussein bottled up in a nice little container, while we swept Al Qaeda cells off the face of the Earth."

Luckily it was not up to you. You took a snapshot of the box in 2002 and assume the box was intact and going to last forever. We ARE wiping Al Qaeda cells off the face of the Earth. In Afghanistan, the territories, the Phillippines, Yemen, Pakistan, Horn of Africa, Europe, Britain, the U.S., while forcing THEIR attention on Iraq instead of our heartland. Bush's brilliance is simply beyond your comprehension.

Hesiod: "Sure, it would be too bad for the Iraqi people. But I care more about U.S. interests, not Iraqi interests. Excuse me for being a patriot."

Iraqi interests ARE U.S. interests. There are short-term interests and long-term interests. We can go for both, you know.

Hesiod: "Intead, be got Boob Bush sending our best special forces off lookng for Saddam and the Deck of Death instead of getting the assholes who actually attacked us on 9/11."

The assholes who actually attacked us on 9/11 died on 9/11. Pushing into the territories before the consequences of Iraq (which led to Khan and assassination attempts on Musharraf and his 180) may have caused a war with nuclear Pakistan. Lovely.

"They don't fear us enough yet. We need to change that."

Actually, I am with the opinion that Fallujah is an anti-US bastion that doesn't reflect the will of the rest of the country. If we make them "fear" us and level the place (aka act like Saddam) then the rest of Iraq will look like Fallujah and not the other way around.

Good governance gets results, not heavy-handed crackdowns.

"When those predictions didn't come true, they fed us a steady diet of 'bad news from Iraq'. It seemed any news that showed progress being made in Iraq was either not reported or relegated to the back pages."

I can only think this is from a person that doesn't read newspapers. I see "positive" stories all the time.

Hesiod,

If Hesiod really believes that Bush is going to pull out of Iraq any time soon, then Hesiod needs to find himself a new dealer, because he's on a pretty bad acid trip.

It also must take some bad acid for Hesiod to mourn the fact that Clinton isn't in office. That's Clinton, who really did cut and run when our troops were attacked in Somalia. Likwise for his belief, that Hanoi John Kerry is LESS likely to pull out prematurely.

Yo! Hes! Chill, dude! Get a grip!

Okay now. That's better.

What the newsfolk think they're doing by showing or not showing or sneaking in a quick peek or laying on a lazy slow pan over our late fellow citizens' earthly remains is not the story here. It's what Americans, one-by-one, think that counts. From where I sit, I don't think hardly any of us are switching sides on this here war from watching some bad folks be bad last Sunday.

An' let's not make too much outa surveys about what's "acceptable." That question might have pulled higher than 17% in Germany in 1946. Didn't mean Germans were potshooting GIs left and right. Doesn't mean "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqis are itching to put themselves in our gunsights now, either. It's a long reach from schadenfreude to picking up a gun. I didn't lose any sleep when Dahmer got shanked in the joint. Didn't mean I'd be lining up to do the deed.

Hey now, we're all real patriots here, Hes, regardless of Middle East travel plans or lack thereof. Let's face it, most of us would constitute net hindrances to the war effort no matter how gung ho. It takes a long time to train a soldier 'cause it's compl'cated work. Takes brains and brawn. Speakin' personally, I'm seriously deficient in the latter. On the other hand, I can think of some gym rats I wouldn't want put in charge of any mechanism more lethal than a Stairmaster if you get me. Don't pick on me for exercising the sound judgement not to go where I've got no business being and I won't wonder out loud why you're still here instead of crushed under the wheels of a troop train or some such damn thing. Deal?

Now about that "competence" and "adults" stuff... Jeez, where to start?

Hes, one thing I learned when I grew up was - sometimes there isn't a way where nobody gets hurt. Pretending there is and calling people names is just not how adults face these things, okay? You do the best you can for your side, but you DO NOT stop just because the other side gets in a lick sometimes. That's why wars are nasty. Not just the bad guys die.

Taking casualties is not the same as being incompetent. If that was true, FDR would be the most incompetent president in American history and Lincoln would run him a close second. Sometimes, you just aren't going to see the punch coming. Sometimes, even when you can see it coming - like Lincoln - there may be no way to block it harmlessly. Competence is bracing for what can't be avoided, shakin' it off and making sure, as best you can, that you don't get hit or surprised that way again.

Sometimes there isn't any way to be absolutely sure it won't happen again. In that case, you grit your teeth and wade in anyway because the only way to minimize risk is minimize the bad guys, so to speak. You do NOT suddenly start weighing whether it would hurt more to be hit or to lose. If you haven't thought that out already, it's way too late now. That's how adults do things.

Mr. Bush is an adult, Hes, and he's competent.

War is inherently messy. The Iraq War is noteworthy mainly for being hugely less messy than most. But soldiers die, that's true. Hell, soldiers die just practicing. Four Marines dead in a copter crash has happened before in Iraq and will probably happen again. But it also happened at Camp Pendleton not two weeks ago. And it wasn't exactly the first time. Nobody wants to die. But you won't find anybody in any of the armed forces who'd rather be a training statistic than a KIA. Either one's an honorable death. But I can't blame the troops for thinking the way they do.

But enough of the Ann Landers act. If you could take Bush's job tomorrow, what would you do different? Why would that be better?

"Sorry, this isn't Mogadishu..."

It's worse.

Only if the sitting President has no balls...

"and Clinton isn't President . . ."

A tragedy.

Hardly.

Every time the liberal hand-wringers go on the air crying about bringing our troops home, these terrorist bastards will gain momentum. They know they can't beat our military (no one ever has been able to), so they will make this a battle of wills. Sadly, national will to fight is the place where we have been sorely lacking in recent decades. The "squeaky wheels" often win out in the national debate. Let's hope our national will doesn't falter now. We have a lot more than just our pride at stake here.

"Actually, I am with the opinion that Fallujah is an anti-US bastion that doesn't reflect the will of the rest of the country. If we make them "fear" us and level the place (aka act like Saddam) then the rest of Iraq will look like Fallujah and not the other way around."

It is not only an anti-US bastion, it's where the majority of Saddam's supporters are. People who once were in power while Saddam&Sons terrorized the rest of the country. People there got rich while Saddam&Sons were in power. They hate the US because we cut off the power and money they enjoyed while their countrymen/women were being tortured.

It *IS* unlike the rest of Iraq in the sense that most of the rest of Iraq were victims while the people here were in power. I can't see too much sympathy for former collaboraters.

We could fence off Fallujah, do a thorough search for any/all weapons, and then let armed Iraqis who suffered under Saddam into this area ... I bet the rest of the country would love us. We could allow the Iraqis to get their own revenge, plus reduce the population of Saddam's collaborators. We don't actually have to do the levelling. We can allow the Iraqis, who want to, do it. I bet we wouldn't have any problems getting volunteers.

"I can only think this is from a person that doesn't read newspapers. I see "positive" stories all the time."

I don't know what world you live in, but in my world the BBC, Guardian, NY Times, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, etc. all are all considered valid media outlets. If I depended solely on these organizations for news about Iraq, I'd think we were losing.

It's actually not 'positive' stories I'm looking for. Just balanced reporting that seems to be missing from our media. Our media want us to be good sheep and just believe what they want to tell us. Thing is, they don't tell us everything. They just tell us what backs up their own world view.

Iraq Vietnam: 5910

The World Cup preliminaries must be really heating up.

"If I depended solely on these organizations for news about Iraq, I'd think we were losing."

Yeah, that crazy single-minded NY Times. They ran a column about morality from their lefty-friends at the Heritage Foundation today.

Today's Iraq news was all about the attack (should it be on something else). But yesterday they really went negative! They ran a 1,300 word article about how Iraqi museums are back on track (no! not stability!). But there was a 340-word AP story on soldiers being killed! Where's the balance!

I'm not saying the press is perfect, but let's end the knee-jerking and accept the "bad" with the "good." Too many people mistake critical articles with bias. It's not the same.

You seem bright:

There are examples of virtually every network in America in the linked story noting that they choose to play the videos in order to sway public opinion against the war in Iraq. They are apologizing for doing it, but saying "hey, we've got to get this message out". The message is exactly what the murderers want Americans to hear.

Terrorists desire that response, its why they do what they do.

And yes, most media outlets balance their coverage with a few opposing views. But what you have above is not an unsupported screed claiming the media has an agenda, it's a report on an LA Times piece admitting that the media has an agenda, - for you to come along and say otherwise is blatently stupid.

They're apologizing for showing the pictures by explaining their bias. And they expect people to reply "Well then, it's okay".

Those same networks won't show WTC footage because they might anger people.

Personally I say play the all videos to show what sort of animals we're dealing with.

Whether the media is being the puppet of killers
or whether they're using the horror to advance their own agenda doesn't matter; results are the same and teh behavior is reprehensible.

And either way, as their cheerleader on this thread, you are a tool and a buffoon.

I'm glad they've shown those pictures, it makes me so proud to know we're there.

The barbarians are at the gate and we're the only ones fighting.

God Bless America.

Hesiod:
I've read some of your posts before and you make me ill.

You simply can't handle a CiC who actually demands results. Not just blah, blah, blah like your vaunted Clintonistas. Real, measurable results. You know, like a CEO. Dumbass!

You are easily one of the most asshatted fuckwits out there. Keep those blinders on, sonny!

This is NOT a deficiency of American policy, this is desperation of groups that realize their time is over ( kinda like the Democrats). Test our will? This way? You have no idea what a barrel of whoopass you just opened up. This President understands. This President gets it. Just stand back and watch. Especially you, Hesiod. Stand waaaaaaaaaaaay back, because you wouldn't want to be besmirched with the tawdry reality of what we are up against. Maybe you could get some UN diplomats to have herbal tea with local leaders to 'persuade' them to give these people up.

People like you are always outstanding on Monday mornings, but never play. Too scared.

Excuse me, must retch now!

Isn't it AMAZING that the major networks refused to show the "jumpers" on 9-11 and thereafter due to their feigned "concern" about feelings of the relatives of the dead and the effect that video would have on children seeing it.

Isn't it AMAZING that the major networks refuse to show any video of the WTC or Pentagon since 9-11 due their fears that it might "upset" the survivors.

Apparently they have none of the same concerns for the victims, survivors or relatives of the people who died in Falluja. Why? Because they can use them as TOOLS to advance their agenda.

Hypocrisy and BIAS-the major media is soaking in it! And they (in their arrogance) think we do not see them for who and what they are.

I am thouroghly disgusted by them.

But I can take heart that I am not alone, judging by the recent circulation/ratings numbers. I can take heart in the fact that on the average more people watch the Cartoon Network then CNN on an hourly basis and that my local weekly shopper paper has a larger circulation the Al-Guardian.

100% of Nazis wanted the US to leave Europe.

Tough shit.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Yeah, right...where was JSM when the bill of rights got systematically trashed? He didn't do shit, just like ya'll didn't.

Proving everyone will claim bias no matter what anyone does, papers got complaints whether they ran the photos or not.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=63452

"Yeah, right...where was JSM when the bill of rights got systematically trashed? He didn't do shit, just like ya'll didn't."
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/milljs.htm
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
If JSM had done something after 9/11/01, my respect for him would have increased immeasurably.

Smacking Fallujah down would cause very small ripples in the greater Iraqi pond.

Remember that 3/4 of the Iraqi people have never seen an American, but they do recall that Baathists oppressed them for 30 years. And what city was a stronghold for Baathists?

As my Kuwaiti daughter-in-law reminded me today...Arabs are clannish, tribal, and backward...Arab men can only show courage against women, bound prisoners, and the dead. Squashing Fallujah would not bother the wider Iraqi street at all, as Arabs hate anyone not of their immediate family.

The only disagreement would come from Al-Jazeera, sunni mullahs, and the Bush==Whatever crowd. In other words, nothing meaningful. We could get away with grinding Fallujah to bedrock if we wished to, we really could.

"Of course, the larger question is who do you want to win: the people who are there toppling dictators and now providing clean water, new roads, food and schools; or people who commit murder in broad daylight and tear up corpses like packs of hungry animals?"

The only reason there wasn't clean water is due to a US lead embargo against Iraq which both Bush and Clinton supported.

Iraq is partly in the shape it is in due to the ignorance and arrogance of the US Administration, and it due time they clean up that mess. Really, who are the 'barbarians' in this picture?

"The only reason there wasn't clean water is due to a US lead embargo against Iraq which both Bush and Clinton supported."

Pure crapola. Under the sanctions, Iraq earned plenty of money to buy things like water purification equipment. It's just that the money was spent elsewhere, or simply vanished thanks to the usual UN corruption.

Lots of people are now claiming that we didn't need to go to war against Iraq because sanctions were working. One of the things that they forget is that the whiny left was doing its best to undermine those sanctions on humanitarian grounds.

"usual UN corruption"

If you'd sit your snout up from the trough of ready-to-process news that the Neocons serve fresh to you daily, you might be able to come up with an original thought.

Just repeat everything in "Trason", verbatim. You know the truth, now, son.

Idiot.

(Editors note: edited for foul language. Spelling errors and other difficulties with literacy and coherence are from the original)

I really had to do a comparison of what the #2 editor at the WaPo website put out with that of the actual standards and ethics of the WaPo. How far the WaPo has wandered since its founding to now going beyond reporting to a fully adversarial role promulgated by one of its chief editors. I don't believe its founder would even *recognize* what it puts forth these days...