Iraq Descends into Chaos

by redjade Wed Nov 19, 2003 14:36

Further proof that irony is dead:

'illegal border crossing'???!!

'' "U.S. forces from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment prevented an illegal border crossing by a group of six suspected foreign fighters at the Syrian border Sunday evening," the Coalition Press Information Center said. "The group was attempting to flee Iraq into Syria." ''

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/18/sprj.irq.main/index.html

by redjade Wed Nov 19, 2003 14:26

Published November 18, 2003

Army destroys guerrillas' homes
Three soldiers die in separate incidents in Iraq; U.S. forces hit dozens of targets.

http://www.news-leader.com/today/1118-Armydestro-218928.html

By Jeff Wilkinson
Knight Ridder

Tikrit, Iraq — In a tactic reminiscent of Israeli crackdowns in the West Bank and Gaza, the U.S. military has begun destroying the homes of suspected guerrilla fighters in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, evacuating women and children, then leveling their houses with heavy weaponry.
At least 15 homes have been destroyed in Tikrit as part of what has been dubbed Operation Ivy Cyclone II, including four leveled on Sunday by tanks and Apache helicopters that allegedly belonged to suspects in the Nov. 7 downing of a Black Hawk helicopter that killed six Americans.

Family members at one of the houses, in the village of al Haweda, said they were given five minutes to evacuate before soldiers opened fire.

by redjade Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:20

Photo Blogging from Iraq

Through the lens of a soldier.
http://www.pbase.com/sms/iraq

by redjade Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:20

Photo Blogging from Iraq

Through the lens of a soldier.
http://www.pbase.com/sms/iraq

by redjade Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:59

Accounting for the Invisible Casualties of War Shouldn't Be a Matter of Politics
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL, NY TIMES

Published: November 14, 2003

''As the toll nears 400, the casualties remain largely invisible. Apart from a flurry of ceremonies on Veterans Day, this White House has done everything it can to keep Mr. Bush away from the families of the dead, at least when there might be a camera around.

The wounded, thousands of them, are even more carefully screened from the public. And the Pentagon has continued its ban on media coverage of the return of flag-draped coffins to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, denying the dead soldiers and their loved ones even that simple public recognition of sacrifice. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained rather lamely that the ban had been in place since 1991 — when another President Bush wanted to avoid the juxtaposition of his face and words with pictures of soldiers' coffins.

Some Republicans say it would take up too much of the president's time to attend military funerals or meet the coffins returning from Iraq. "They're coming back continually," the conservative commentator Bay Buchanan said on CNN on Tuesday. "The president cannot be flying up there every single week."

But someone of rank from the White House could and should be at each and every military funeral. Ideally, Mr. Bush would shake the hand of someone who loved every person who dies in uniform — a small demand on his time in a war in which the casualties are still relatively small. And he has more than enough advisers, cabinet secretaries and other officials so attending funerals should not be such an inconvenience.

The White House talks about preserving the privacy and dignity of the families of the war dead. But if this was really about the families, the president or Vice President Dick Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be handing flags to widows and mothers in the time-honored way. And if protecting the privacy of Americans who are suffering was such a priority, the White House wouldn't call in the cameras to watch Mr. Bush embracing victims of every hurricane, earthquake or suburban California wildfire.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/opinion/14FRI4.html
username: salon
password: tabletalk

by redjade Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:43

APME requests Pentagon halt harassment of media in Iraq
Nov. 12, 2003

To Mr. Larry Di Rita
Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, The Pentagon

Dear Mr. Di Rita:

We are writing to protest actions being taken by U.S. troops that appear intended to discourage journalists from covering the continued military action in Iraq. During the past three months, journalists have been harassed, have had their lives endangered and have had digital camera disks, videotape and other equipment confiscated.

These actions are unacceptable and contrary to the Pentagon's own guidelines distributed to troops in the field. The effect has been to deprive the American public of crucial images from Iraq in newspapers, broadcast stations and online news operations. Because of these actions, it is more difficult to distribute vital, timely information about ongoing developments.

The Associated Press Managing Editors, an association of editors at AP's more than 1,700 member newspapers in the United States and Canada, requests that the Department of Defense immediately take the steps to end such confrontations and to allow journalists to fully cover a story of vital interest to U.S. citizens, servicemen and -women and their families, and the world community at large.

We join the leaders of news offices in Washington in asking for your assurance that troops and officers in the field have been told that they cannot confiscate journalistic tools or otherwise harass journalists.

Sincerely,

Stuart Wilk
President, Associated Press Managing Editors
Vice President/Managing Editor, The Dallas Morning News

- - - - -
more info

http://www.apme.com/news/iraqjournos.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/13/media_protest_treatment_in_iraq/

by Righteous Pragmatist. Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:21

Your not looking at the bigger picture.
The U.S. have total military advantage over the Iraqi resistance.
The wounded injured and disable veterans or the dead U.S. soldiers are a microscopic group subtracted from the 150000 U.S. personnel who are available to fight the continuing conflict in Iraq.
You lot are concerned about the dead and the wounded but that matters little.
The people making the decisions about the conduct of the war are Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, Gen. Rameriez etc. They fact is they are not as conerned about 350 dead as you are.
Why?
Because they are so SMALL and they would remain in charge of Iraq EVEN if 10000 Americans were already dead.
maggots in food, veteran families threatened etc. will have no baring on the fact that U.S. forces are in control in Iraq.

by Phuq Hedd Tue Nov 11, 2003 18:49

Again on Democracy Now!, a man that worked on the bin Laden dossier says that the "Bush administration is dishonoring ... veterans ... current international notions of peace and justice ..".

He is protesting today because it is Veterans Day -- a day on which the administration is still trying to hide the truth about the troops from the public, he is protesting outside the Walter Reed Veterans Hospital to show support for the GIs that are returning, recuperating or dead.

American troops are being underfed and neglected despite all the rhetoric from the Bush administration.

On a personal note I know of at least one person that was "let go" from the Veteran's Administration due to budget cuts. That person was looking after Vietnam Vets as best he could. They were mostly homeless people begging on the streets of a large city -- no taking care of the troops there.

by Phuq Hedd Tue Nov 11, 2003 18:35

Democracy Now! on November 11th carries some interviews with families of US soldiers that tragically lost their lives in the occupation of Iraq. It draws attention to the White House's attempt to hide the returning bodies instead of honouring the war dead, of maggots in food for the serving troops, of attacks on soldiers whose wives have been known to protest against the war, of threats of courts martial against soldiers that have expressed disaproval of Rumsfeld.

Listen to it.

by Righteous Pragmatist Tue Nov 11, 2003 17:03

I read your addition about Halliburton.
Sure. The U.S. as well as invading to remove the tyrant Saddam and replace him with a leader or leadership friendly to their interests are of course going to explore Iraq to exploit its natural resources. The whole world France, Russia, U.S., Japan, China, India and other nations all need oil from whereever it is available. Iraq has a lot of oil so of course they are going to want it.
Whether that is moral or not is not what i was actually talking about.
Neither is the living conditions of Iraqis or their future prospects or the affairs as they stood in the past.
What i am talking about is the reality of the military situation.
The point is that the major fighting March- May where heavy armour, airpower and infantry were facing the still viable Iraqi military machine were an overwhelming success for U.S. and British forces. "Coalition" forces used mobile armoured units consisting of ultra modern tanks and troop carriers whereas the Iraqis used Soviet Era weapons dating from the 1980's. Coalition forces had absolute air superiority whereas Iraq never sent a single missile or plane into the sky to meet the F-18's or Torandoes.
Iraqi infantry in static defensive lines were no match from naplam, B-52's, Apaches, 105 and 155mm artillery and follow up waves of troops in kevlar armed with M-16's.
In short they were smashed to pieces and the survivors literally threw away their uniforms and ran in terror.

Presently a few thousand Iraqis remain with Islamic fundementalist from abroad conducting a hopeless struggle against numerically superior forces numbering voer 150,000.
They fight bravely and fight well but are too dispersed to create enough trouble.
They have wounded and injured a few thousand U.S. personel and killed a few hundred in sporadic attacks.
To truely erradicate U.S. Forces they will have to kill thousands upon thousands in the next few months by not just maintaining but increasing their attacks by a vast degree. They simply do not have the manpower, resources, weapons and supply routes to do this. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and other Arab countries scared shitless by American superiority do not have the will to contnue the fight for very long and will not dare launch another 911 for fear of being deposed like Saddam was with or without his involvement in attacks against America

by redjade Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:46

the viet nam comparison is often made not for the numbers dead and wounded but for the 'quagmire' that Iraq has obviously become.

what's wrong with US strategy in Iraq? oh boy! where to start!?

start with this
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1107-09.htm

Selling off Iraq's assets to foreigners is not only illegal but also a sure fire way of making iraqis not support the aims of the US.

If Ireland invaded the USA and immediately privatised Social Security, sold off its national forests to oil interests and gave contracts to friendly Irish corporations, some Americans might object to this and think it was a colonial occupation.

Just might lead to that impression :-)

by Righteous Pragmatist Mon Nov 10, 2003 20:00

In Vietnam the U.S. Military lost approximately 58,000 personel dead over the period 1958-1975. 58,000 troops was only a tiny fraction of the millions of Americans who actually fought in the war.
More than 3 million Vietnamese died and their country was destroyed. They remain a Third World country which is an example of the farce of planned economies and dictatorship and evidence of the good job done by America.
America eventually defeated the Soviet Union and Communism as a world wide counter to Liberal Deomocratic Capitalism. America now has a population exceeding 250 million and is the economic power house of the world economy. It is a liberal deomcractic miracle.
Even though America pulled out of Indo-China, failing to keep Vietnam free of barbaric communist dictatorship ( which persists to the present) ultimately the mission was a success in other areas. Soviet Russian and Chinese efforts to use Vietnam as a means to expand their power world wide were a failure and exhausted military resources vital to conquest worldwide.

Let us now look at the Iraq conflict.
U.S. military deaths number about 350 since March 20 when the invasion of Iraq commenced!
The Iraqi Army was annihilated in 1991 and again in 2003 by a whirlwind war. Uday and Qusay Hussein are dead. Saddam is either on the run trapped like a rat or else a charred corpse.
Those who are planting bombs and launching attacks on Americans can only mount scatter gun attacks picking off a G.I. here a G.I. there.
To remove the American force they will have to kill 150000 American troops armed with the greatest technology any army had ever possessed. They have absolute air superiority, absolute superiority in numbers and absolute surperiority of will.
The anti-war movement fantasised about a crushing U.S. defeat in the smimmering Iraqi deserts just as they predicted a defeat in the fearsome Afghan winter.
They now fantasise about a supposed military catastrophy in Iraqi when the facts show that there clearly is none.
350 deaths? Like a bee sting on the backside of an elephant.
Just remember that the U.S. lost a awesome 500,000 in WW2 and still won the war.
Compared to that conflict the Iraq troubles are merely a pillow fight!
If the Left wants to find something wrong with American military strategy in Iraq show please show us some evidence of disaster.
I don't see any!

by redjade Mon Nov 10, 2003 02:53

''But today's military doesn't even use the words "body bags" � a term in common usage during the Vietnam War, when 58,000 Americans died.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon began calling them "human remains pouches" and it now refers to them as "transfer tubes." ''

Pentagon keeps dead out of sight - Toronto Star

by redjade Mon Nov 10, 2003 00:34

Maher Arar complete statement to media
Tuesday, November 04, 2003

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=46cd9a7e-bd89-4d6d-8312-b98107e60828

'' This continued on and off for eight hours.

Then a man from the INS came in and told me they wanted me to volunteer to go to Syria. I said no way.

I said I wanted to go home to Canada or sent back to Switzerland. He said to me ‘you are a special interest.’ They asked me to sign a form. They would not let me read it, but I just signed it. I was exhausted and confused and disoriented.

I had not slept or eaten since I was in the plane. At about six in the evening they brought me some cold McDonalds meal to eat.

This was the first food I had eaten since the last meal I had on the plane. At about eight o’clock they put all the shackles and chains back on, and put me in a van, and drove me to a prison.

I later learned this was the Metropolitan Detention Centre. They would not tell me what was happening, or where I was going.

They strip searched me. It was humiliating. They put me in an orange suit, and took me to a doctor, where they made me sign forms, and gave me a vaccination.

I asked what it was, and they would not tell me. My arm was red for almost two weeks from that.

They took me to a cell. I had never seen a prison before in my life, and I was terrified. I asked again for a phone call and a lawyer. They just ignored me. ''

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=46cd9a7e-bd89-4d6d-8312-b98107e60828

by redjade Mon Nov 10, 2003 00:06

''From my perspective, the Iraqi resistance has taken a page from a sophisticated insurgency playbook in their confrontations with the American-led coalition.

The insurgents' strategy could have been crafted by Sun Tzu, the Chinese military tactician, who more than 2,500 years ago wrote, in "The Art of War," that the highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's strategy.

So it was probably no accident that as American forces approached Baghdad, expecting tough street fighting, the bulk of the Iraqi forces melted away. The American troops, forced to shift strategy on the run, have been bedeviled by the consequences of those early chaotic days ever since.

Next, according to Sun Tzu, you attack his alliances.

This, again, is what the Iraqi insurgents did. ''

read more at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/weekinreview/09BEAR.html?pagewanted=print&position=
username: salon
password: tabletalk

by Milt Bearden, a 30-year veteran in the C.I.A.'s Directorate of Operations, served as senior manager for clandestine operations. He is the co-author with James Risen of "The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the C.I.A.'s Final Showdown with the K.G.B."

by redjade Sat Nov 08, 2003 11:31

Iraq is Not America's to Sell
International law is Unequivocal - Paul Bremer's Economic Reforms are Illegal

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1107-09.htm

by Naomi Klein

''The only way out for the administration is to make sure that Iraq's next government is anything but sovereign. It must be pliant enough to ratify the CPA's illegal laws, which will then be celebrated as the happy marriage of free markets and free people. Once that happens, it will be too late: the contracts will be locked in, the deals done and the occupation of Iraq permanent.

Which is why anti-war forces must use this fast-closing window to demand that the next Iraqi government be free from the shackles of these reforms. It's too late to stop the war, but it's not too late to deny Iraq's invaders the myriad economic prizes they went to war to collect in the first place.

It's not too late to cancel the contracts and ditch the deals.''

more at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1107-09.htm

Naomi's website:
http://www.nologo.org

Coalition Provisional Authority
http://www.cpa-iraq.org

VP Dick Cheney's Old Company
http://www.halliburton.com

by redjade Fri Nov 07, 2003 16:36

Hearts and Mines: Images from Northern Iraq, 11-05-2003
Kevin Sites - Iraq Blog
http://www.kevinsites.net/2003_11_02_archive.html#106805034923758842

'' Many of the men we see tonight are doing a version of the same thing, smoking -- shaking their heads.

"I looked around town today," one lieutenant told me, "I was hoping to find someone doing something bad, somebody I could hurt -- but there wasn't one. Just people that needed my help."

It¡¯s just that kind of mission whiplash that has confused and demoralized so many troops in Iraq. Soldiers are ordered to go on a night patrols or raids--where danger can lurk at every corner or behind every door -- and life and death decisions have to be made within the hair-fraction of time it takes to pull the trigger on M4 assault weapon ¨C then the next day they're told to monitor the selection of a new local mayor or to rebuild a school.

"It¡¯s not that they don't want to win hearts and minds," says 1st Battalion commander Lt. Col. Christopher Pease. "If you told my guys the way to get home faster was to sweep every street in Iraq -- they¡¯d be out there with brooms 24 hours a day until the place sparkled. But it's not necessarily what were trained to do." ''

by the wolfman Tue Nov 04, 2003 19:19

Maybe next time the Iraqis will get Wolfowitz ...

by redjade Tue Nov 04, 2003 16:37

But America never saw Lt.-Col. Buehring's arrival, days after a rocket from a homemade launcher ended his life at age 40 in Baghdad's heavily fortified Rasheed Hotel last Monday.

Americans have never seen any of the other 359 bodies returning from Iraq. Nor do they see the wounded cramming the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington or soldiers who say they are being treated inhumanely awaiting medical treatment at Fort Stewart, Ga.

In order to continue to sell an increasingly unpopular Iraqi invasion to the American people, President George W. Bush's administration sweeps the messy parts of war — the grieving families, the flag-draped coffins, the soldiers who have lost limbs — into a far corner of the nation's attic.

No television cameras are allowed at Dover.

Bush does not attend the funerals of soldiers who gave their lives in his war on terrorism.

Buehring of Winter Springs, Fla., described as "a great American" by his commanding officer, had two sons, 12 and 9, was active in the Boy Scouts and his church and had served his country for 18 years.

No government official has said a word publicly about him.

more at:
Toronto Star
http://tinyurl.com/tlwb

by redjade Sun Nov 02, 2003 03:10

'Why should we hear about body bags and deaths
and how many, what day it's gonna happen?
It's not relevant. So why should I waste my
beautiful mind on something like that?'
- Barbara Bush

by j.p. morgan Fri Oct 31, 2003 23:12

Interesting new book about US (or Wall Street to be more precise) nation-building in Panama a century ago:

"One hundred years before the Iraqi invasion, on November 3, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt sent warships and invaded the Isthmus of Panama to seize the former province from Colombia. Nearly paralleling George W. Bush's war proclamation, Roosevelt cited Bogota's cruelty towards Panamanians and the latter's desire for independence as the justification for war, even though his critics knew that he was unabashedly pursuing America's manifest destiny to control the most important commercial and military route in the world, just as America may today be securing a stable supply of the oil in the Middle East for generations."

http://www.fourwallseightwindows.com/bookespino2.html

by Fintan Lane Fri Oct 31, 2003 22:58

Well done. It's wonderful to see that American anti-war activists continue to be extremely active. Great demos in Washington and San Franciso last week!

by Deirdre - Pitstop Ploughshares Fri Oct 31, 2003 22:51 !

...for the solidarity and support, it is much appreciated as is your endless goodwill towards us.

by William, Seattle, USA Fri Oct 31, 2003 17:32

Hello

A solidarity vigil will start at 7:00 PM on Sunday, November 2 and will go to 5:30 AM on Monday, November 3 at St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Seattle, Washington USA.

The Office for the Dead will be recited for all US dead (their names and numbers are known for the most part) and for the Iraqi dead (their names are not known for the most part, and their numbers vary from 6000 to 8000 civilians, no one really knows).

William
Seattle, USA

by FEIC - Derry Fri Oct 31, 2003 17:28

FEIC MONTHLY VIGIL

act in solidarity with the Pitstop Ploughshares Five....
....remember the dead of Iraq

5.00 pm Saturday 1 November 2003,
Raytheon, Buncrana Road

FEIC's November Vigil at Raytheon will be an act of solidarity with the Pitstop Ploughshares Five, whose next court hearing will be in Dublin on Monday Nov 3rd. We will also carry out a ritual 'oblation' at the site, in a symbolic act of cleansing and memory of the blood shed in Iraq and all other wars by weapons of mass destruction, manufactured by arms companies like Raytheon.

As it will be dark, please bring candles, lights, torches etc. If you want to take part in the oblation, please bring water, wine, oil, etc.

by jams Thu Oct 30, 2003 16:54

I love this pathetic argument that pulling the occupiers from Iraq would be the worse thing that could be done. This same rubbish is the argument that prolonged brutal colonial occupation of hundreds of countries occupied by Britain (eg. Ireland, India , half the world) France (Algeria) Belgium (Congo) and the US(Vietnam, the other half of the world)to give a few examples, which is down right racist and implies that whitey knows best for the savages who cant be trusted to run their own country the way they see fit.

"Brits out" is still relevant today. Modern day brit/us colonial imperialism is no different to latter day efforts, shame that any Irish person can support the likes of it given our history.

by redjade Thu Oct 30, 2003 14:53

Sick soldiers wait for treatment
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031029-020609-6750r

FORT KNOX, Ky., Oct. 29 (UPI) -- More than 400 sick and injured soldiers, including some who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, are stuck at Fort Knox, waiting weeks and sometimes months for medical treatment, a score of soldiers said in interviews.

The delays appear to have demolished morale -- many said they had lost faith in the Army and would not serve again -- and could jeopardize some soldiers' health, the soldiers said.

....

"I joined to serve my country," said Cpl. Waymond Boyd, 34. He served in Iraq with the National Guard's 1175 Transportation Company. He has been in medical hold since the end of July.

"It doesn't make any sense to go over there and risk your life and come back to this," Boyd said. "It ain't fair and it ain't right. I used to be patriotic." He has served the military for 15 years.

....

A UPI photographer working on this story without first having cleared his presence with base public affairs officials was detained for several hours for questioning Tuesday and then released. He was told he would need an Army escort for any further visits to the base. He returned to the base accompanied by an Army escort on Wednesday.

This reporter also was admonished that he had to be accompanied by an Army public affairs escort when on base. The interviews had been conducted without the presence of an escort.'

by redjade Thu Oct 30, 2003 13:56

More on how the US media has not told the stories of sick & wounded US soldiers.

---
The muted reaction to poor treatment of wounded US servicemen
http://lincolnplawg.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_lincolnplawg_archive.html#106696256266774927
( from UPI )

''Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors.

The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments. One document shown to UPI states that no more doctor appointments are available from Oct. 14 through Nov. 11 -- Veterans Day.''

by reality checker Wed Oct 29, 2003 23:23

Concerning alleged "Iraqi imperialism" during the first Gulf war:
"The American war against Iraq that began in 1990-91 was not motivated by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Indeed, On July 25, 1990, Saddam Hussein had asked April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, if the U.S. had a position on Iraq's longstanding claim to Kuwait. Glaspie replied that: "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Glaspie assured Hussein that the U.S. would not intervene militarily if Iraq invaded Kuwait. On August 1, Iraq did invade Kuwait and the U.S. responded with uncompromising opposition. In its effort to demonize Iraq, the first Bush administration accused Saddam Hussein of using poison gas against his own people. However, the U.S. had provided both the raw materials and the plans for Iraq's chemical and biological weapons rograms, presumably with the expectation that Iraq would use them against Iran.
Saddam Hussein was a key American ally at the time, and the U.S. did not object when he used poison gas against Iran and allegedly did the same against the Kurds. The U.S. had encouraged Iraq to attack Iran, and provided weapons to both sides to sustain the Iran-Iraq war. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but that was also very clear when the U.S. government was arming and encouraging him.

Source:
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/013103_bush_regime.htm

See also:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mickeyz03132003.html
for a more detailed account of the Hussein-Glaspie dialogue that preceded the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait ....

PS: Anybody know how "democracy" is progressing in Kuwait since its "liberation" by Allied forces ... does the Emir still have his chattel-slaves ?

by redjade Wed Oct 29, 2003 20:27

From the Wall Street Journal (not a left wing rag):
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106737808452447200,00.html?mod=todays%255Fus%255Fpageone%255Fhs
(subscription required)
http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2003_10_26_philcarter_archive.html#106744479064836129
(sampling of text)
'' While attention focuses on the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq -- 115 by enemy fire since Mr. Bush announced the end of major combat on May 1 -- the military doesn't generally publicize the more-frequent incidents in which soldiers are wounded. According to a tally kept by the U.S. Central Command, as of 7 p.m. on Oct. 27, the U.S. military had sustained a total of 1,737 nonlethal casualties from hostile action in Iraq, including 1,186 since May 1.

....

Advances in medical care and bulletproof vests allow more soldiers to survive the kind of injuries that would have killed them in past conflicts. But the recent switch by Iraqi insurgents to powerful roadside bombs as their main offensive weapon has raised the number and severity of wounds even for those with high-tech protection. These bombs are usually rigged artillery shells that, hidden in vegetable crates, bicycle baskets or simple debris, can be detonated close to their target and shower it with shrapnel.

"Since May, the number and the rate of casualties has increased," says Col. Doug Liening, commander of the 21st Combat Support Hospital, which also operates a facility in the northern city of Mosul. "People in the United States do not appreciate what's going on here." In peacetime, the 21st Combat Support Hospital is based at Fort Hood, Texas, as are many of its personnel currently in Balad, [Iraq]. ''

- - - - -

and then there are the Iraqis...
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

another study of civilian deaths in Iraq...
Counting the human cost

Total war dead (Iraq)
Between 10,800 and 15,100, with a midpoint of 12,950

Combatants killed (Iraq)
Between 7,600 and 10,800, with a midpoint of 9,200

Noncombatants killed (Iraq)
Between 3,200 and 4,300, with a midpoint of 3,750

War dead (Baghdad)
Between 4,376 and 5,726, with a midpoint of 5,051

Combatants killed (Baghdad)
Between 2,224 and 3,531, with a midpoint of 2,878

Noncombatants killed (Baghdad)
Between 1,990 and 2,357, with a midpoint of 2,174

· Source: Project on Defense Alternatives research
http://www.comw.org/pda
also http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1029-01.htm

also read....
Hearts and Minds:
Post-war Civilian Deaths in Baghdad Caused by U.S. Forces
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/

- - - - -

and the band played on....

by Phuq Hedd Wed Oct 29, 2003 18:01

Two more US soldiers died bringing the post-ceasefire deaths of US servicemen to 116. The number of US troops killed _during_ the "official" conflict period was 115.

by ec Wed Oct 29, 2003 13:54

“Honestly, it’s a little tougher than I thought it was going to be,” Lott said. In a sign of frustration, he offered an unorthodox military solution: “If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You’re dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out.”

by Cabhog Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:16

There was a real and bona-fide case of imperialism in the first gulf war. Unfortunately it was Iraqi imperialism in trying to invade and annex Kuwait. The Un actions in 91, unlike possibliy the current actions, can not really be classed as imperialist (whose empire exactly Syrian? French? Egyptian? US? Uk? )

by Ciaron - Anzus Plowshares Wed Oct 29, 2003 07:58

During the first Gulf War our crew ended up being the longest serving civilian resisters, clocking in 13 months jail time for nonviolently putting a B-52 out of action.

Meanwhile some 300+ members of the U.S. military were court martialled for there nonviolent resistance to the killing spree. They received sentences of 6 months to 6 years. Many of these military resister answered the call of the peace movement not to kill for imperialism.

By the time they came to pay for the consequence of their courageous response the peace movement had largely evaporated and abandoned them. This should not happen again!

Serious nonvioilent resistance will spring from within the military. Civilians who oppose this war should be doing nonviolent resistance to it OR generating solidarity with those inside and outside the military who are.

by Bunjubar - Er, let's pass on that! Wed Oct 29, 2003 03:23

That's like saying the United Kngdom is in chaos because of a few bombs in London or Ulster. Most of the unrest is focused on an area NW of Baghad and in Baghdad itself. The south, the north, the east are all stable and peaceful. There's just a hornet's nest in Saddam's home base.

by redjade Wed Oct 29, 2003 02:54

George Bush:

Reporter: Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?

THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops.

The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/10/28/131955/73

----

Here we see George W Bush blaming 'the impression' that the war 'is over' on the sailors of the USS Lincoln.

Is this all that this gutless unprincipled draft-dodger has to offer these men and women in the military?! It is rather pathetic, actually.

Want to know more about what's happening these days for the US Soldiers?

read this:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1025-06.htm

and this:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1017-06.htm

then read what Rumsfeld says when he isn't showing off in front of the cameras:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-01.htm

I do not think there has ever been a time when the anti-war/peace movement in the US has been so closely (informally) allied with the average grunt on the ground during wartime. This is still an emerging politics within the US and it may not last, but this is a unique moment.

People ask me why ex-Gen Wesley Clark could be so popular and 'anti-war' - it is because Americans would like someone as president who understands war and its consequences, at the very least.

Many Americans would say that if there must be a 'War on Terror' then so be it - but George W has shown himself to be not up to the task.

This is not a position that I would defend (I am anti-war, period.) but this is a growing sentiment that could rock American politics in the months ahead.

Can the Democrats use it to their advantage and win in the 2004 election? Maybe, but i do not know.

by Ciaron - Pit Stop Ploughshares Wed Oct 29, 2003 01:48

For vigils in

*Melbourne Oct 31st. Compromise International Football Match Australia (AFL) Vs Ireland (GAA)....Pete (ABC)

*Derry Nov 1st Raytheon....Contact FEIC

Nov 3rd.

*London Irish Embassy 12 noon- 3-pm Contact Scott 01727 760 953

*New York City Irish Consul ...Contact Carmen 212 254 1640
-Irish band "Kila" are hoping to do a support gig on Sunday Nov. 2nd. at Mary House NYC CW Ph. Carmen for more info)

*Washington DC Irish Embassy ....Ph. Art (DCCW) 202 882 9649

*Shannon Airport: Contact Ed


*Galway Top Oil...Contact

*Sydney Irish Consul ...Contact Philip

*Paris Irish Embassy...Contact Stefan

*Harewood AFB (New Zealand) ...Contact Moana


If you wish to be connected to these local contacts or can commit to a vigil (solo or with friends) email us on pitstopploughshares@hotmail.com

by David Wed Oct 29, 2003 00:00

The problem in the middle east and africa and pretty much everywhere there is struggle is that no balance can never be reached as long as power structures are remotely propped up with cash and weapons from far away. The so called stability that will emerge in iraq under a US occupation is only economic stability aimed at protecting western contracts. There will never be any kind of social equilibrium while this alien power is thrust upon them.
Whatever happens there is going to be violence and death and pain in the middle east, It is horrific but I don't think anybody could believe that it is avoidable at least in the short term. If the Western military and economic powers pulled out completely then whatever struggle that results will be to create some kind of social balance in the region. I don't think that apart from emergeny no strings attached humanitarian aid, any western corporate influence will be a good idea in the long run...
That's just a very basic outline of what i think should happen, there are very complicated circumstances attached.. especially regarding the existance already of the weapons and resources previously supplied to the war lords and factions previously favoured by the west. these would have to be dealt with somehow. (and not by simply giving the un armed people weapons to defend themselves with)

by Drbinoche Tue Oct 28, 2003 22:50

But it wasn't just Westerners killed in the blasts. I believe while the original few blasts in the last months had taken out soldiers, the subsequent are mainly killing Iraqis. I mean today they set off a bomb near a school. hat can't be good for support from the locals.

The Iraqis are now caught between the 'murderous' Us/Uk forces and the murderous Terrorist groups. So who loses the most here. Certainly not the Americans or the British. They could simply stay in their compounds and send out Iraqi Police to do the patrolling. The terrorists are able to move fairly easily. But the general public of Baghdad and Fallujah are now being caught in daily bombings.

As for the UN sanctions. I will admit they were mistakes. They were not effective and were not monitored enough to ensure that what they should have been targeting was being targeted. But that is still hardly a reason to take it out on the UN now. Whats that saying the Anti-war movement love repeating, 'An eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind!'

In this scenario, no one should be getting sympathy, coz people should not be wasting their energy on sympathy they should be spending it on sorting this whole chaotic mess out. I don't have the answers, Ill openly admit it, but I will also admit that withdrawal of the Occupation forces right now will do ten times more damage than it will do good.

by mr. bunker Tue Oct 28, 2003 21:34

Yes, I believe the late lamented Adolf Hitler ranted and raved like that as his thousand year Reich collapsed about his ears .....

And as for anyone with sons and daughters out in Iraq (I assume Drbinoche means NON-IRAQIS with sons and daughters serving in the UKUSA occupation forces):
Too bad you couldn't do more for your kids ... tough shit that they ended up putting their lives on the line for the evil megalomanical plans of corrupt plutocrats like the Bush family ......(especially the present draft-dodging generation thereof) .........

by David Tue Oct 28, 2003 20:54

UN sanctions have killed around a million iraqis in the last 12 years. This is the fault of the US/K
This is a reason for the attacks, If madeline albright can state half a million dead children under 5 years old is an acceptable loss than she has no right to condenm Iraqis as terrorists for killing 40 westerners.

Of course indiscriminate killing is always wrong, but these people have their backs against the wall, they are not the aggressors and simply calling them terrorists and shaking our heads is ignoring all the important issues.

The war in Iraq isn't over, dozens of Iraqi civillians are dying every week as a direct result of US military operations and thousands more will die from cancer and injuries as a direct result of the invasion.
If we're talking numbers or innocent losses of life, if we're dividing our sympathy then on a sheer statistical basis, the Iraqi people deserve the lions share.

by Drbinoche Tue Oct 28, 2003 20:32

I find that picture a little bit offensive. I mean it would certainly be offensive to someone whose son or daughter was over in Iraq at the moment.

Also I doubt if its fair to say that its the US/UK fault that people are bombing the UN headquarters and the Red Cross buildings. I mean, while I can understand that the US/UK presence is definitely antagonistic, it does not absolve the murderers and terrorists who are attacking the NGOs of their crimes. I do not know how some Iraqis can still think that these attacks are worthwhile or beneficial. Essentially these attackers are preventing essential aid from reaching them. Much needed Aid and it is acknowledged that the amount of aid needs to be increased, now whether or not the US/Uk forces are being honest on how much is being let through, if someone starts fucking with the amount that IS getting through then they are equally as much to blame for troubles as the Occupying forces!!!