You're crazy, Lurch. All Iraqis hate us. He wasn't playing with them, he was torturing them.
/sarcasm

Wait a sec....you mean to tell me that the US may not be the Evil Empire that the media/sift/world makes us out to be?

(with sarcasim): This is clearly photo shopped. It's all a lie, things are going terrible over there. Just look at this carnage.

...so that's what water boarding is!

Yeah. Ha ha ha. You funny boys.

650,000+ Iraqi civilians are dead.

Over a million had to flee their homes with little more than the clothes on their backs, and now they're living in refugee camps.

But one of our soldiers plays with an Iraqi kid, and it's all better.

You're a bunch of real swells.

When did anyone say it was all better over there? What's that? Never?
We only said that US troops aren't monsters like some would claim. ::COUGH::fade::COUGH::

Oh, and let's not forget that your statistic is always cited to make it seem like we killed them. Collateral damage is almost nil for all of our attacks. Most of those casualties were inflicted by the suicide bombers.

forget about a statistic, then, if it doesn't suit your understanding.

if you want to simply talk about what 'we' did, how about the egregious collateral impact on the iraqi economy and environment? the historic and cultural losses from opportunistic ethnic cleansings and museum lootings?

depleted uranium?

no jobs? educational opportunities? water?

More then a "nil" percent will die of cancer from unacceptable living conditions.

And playing with kids is a good thing, instead of teasing them with water. No doubt. FOr reaLS.

Oh cry me a river of Iraqi blood.

Am so tired of this nonsense that the US military forces are great and we should cheer them as they bomb, shoot and house search through their way to democracy in Iraq. The use of military force should reflect a failure of all other means, but that was not the case in Iraq, its a cowboy misadventure paid by the lives of Iraqi civilians and US force casualties.

Yes individually the US military is comprised of sons, daughters, mothers and fathers and am sure most of them are great humans beings (even though a minority has committed war crimes) and I would love to have beer with them. But ultimately they are an apparatus of death being a military force, representing an occupational force in Iraq. Thoughts of democracy, bringing peace, playing with Iraqis flies out the window the moment someone starts shooting at you, the military is composed of individuals who serve but one purpose at the end of the date. Force elimination.

If you were ordered to fire your howitzer at a Fallujah because terrorists were hauled up in there, would you stop and think about civilian casualties? Or would you just fix deflection and firing quadrant and shoot? Shrapnel doesn't differentiate between civilians and enemy combatants. Your statement about no collateral damage flies in the face of those killed through artillery bombardment, air force strikes and those who get killed through suicide bombers that were not there before the war.

The criticism is not leveled at the troops here, but at the commander in chief who decides to send them into a war zone with a false premise, unprepared for post invasion reconciliation and inadequately trained for basically being a occupational force. You've been handed a political reconciliation (WMD prior to that) mission that has no real way of being won through military means, and your paying for it in blood of young Americans and Iraqis.

that marine could have shot that kids dad. oh happy times

Well said Farhad!

Yeah, well, the marines I met in the service tend to be assholes. I was able to befriend a lot of them, but still... the old myth of Navy and The Marines hating each other is the total truth (Special note: The Marines were a Department of the Navy. No wonder they hated us. That's like a 16 year old uneducated and underfunded son hating his overly educated and well financed father.). I remember getting sick of taxiing those lazy bastards around. And, talk about a bunch of whiny ass babies when they got seasick. Whoa-hoo! Holy fucking ass babies! Those guys moan like a bunch of late third trimester abortions (Ouch. Too soon?). Just saying.

Farhad:
Yes, I would have set deflection and fixed quadrant.
When I was there, 95% of our fire missions were canceled because there were civillians in the area. Most of those times, the grunts that we were supporting were put into more danger because they could not get the fire support they needed, all so that we would not risk hitting civillians.

And since when did people get cancer from living in a shitty house?

"Collateral damage is almost nil for all of our attacks."

If you are so blind that you can't see that it is our very presence in Iraq which was the ultimate cause of those deaths, there's nothing in the world anyone can say to wake you up to reality.

Furthermore, your claims aside, our "democracy loving" military figures that it's okay to kill about 30 civilians in order to kill one "bad guy."

What's disgusting is that you and the other conservative nimrods above act as if this one display of humanism proves that all of the other documented war crimes were either meaningless or nonexistent.

"And since when did people get cancer from living in a shitty house?"

That's seems to be a rather insensative statement. Facts show that we can expect the rates of cancer to increase due to the use of depleted uranium just as it has before. Their "shitty" living conditions are a direct result of our sanctions and then going in there and blowing up their world.

It is wonderful that some of the military take time to play with the Iraqi children. But how will that child feel tomorrow when some indiscriminate fire or faulty intelligence maimes or takes the life of his mother, his sister, his brother? The child is happy now, but the longer the troops remain the greater the chance that the boy will begin to hate them.

Enjoy the video for what it is, not as a chance to mock people who don't believe what you believe.

rougy, where the hell did you pull the 650,000+ number, and I mean besides your ass. Hell back in June 2006 it reached 50,000. But lets tag another 600,000 for good measure. do your research.

So what is your view then of how to handle the current situation? Immediate withdrawal? Would all the lives lost in un-checked sectarian violence and the creation of a new theocracy be excusable because now the horrible Americans are gone? Arguements labeling converatives aside, since I've found that not all liberals or conservatives really agree on this, what really is your view on how this can be remedied? I personally see it like this. We have already entered the country and destabilized the place. Sectarian violence that was kept mostly bottled up by a brutal regime is now spilling out. Not only are we now fighting local terrorist cells, but people from neighboring regions as well. Iraq is now the place to be if you want to take a shot at America. Leaving immediately will stop the US military from being directly involved any further in causing casualties, but what will happen to their newly forming government? I think, given the current circumstances, another like Saddam or Pol Pot taking the reins is highly likely. I don't really care if they decide on keeping a democracy modeled after ours or not, just as long as they don't get another guy that's going to harbor and fund the people that like to convince others to detonate themselves for Allah. I've seen the current state of their army first hand and they sure as hell will get rolled over by a determined extremist force bent on taking over. I think that there are merits to leaving, but there are also consequences. Just as there are merits to staying as well as consequences. There will be death either way. There is no magical pill that cures all the ills set in motion. There are no pleasant solutions in war. I'm interested in hearing peoples opinions on this. One thing I want to clear up though. I'm not defending the initial decision to go to war or even the way it's currently being handled, so don't bother with complaining about Bush and all that tired nonsense. I couldn't care less about the spineless twit. I do, however, support staying in some capacity until they are capable of defending their own borders and stopping internal conflict.

I, personally, think that we are, in the current situation, with the current plan in place, stuck. It is as you said, Lurch, we can't stay, but we can't leave.

I think at this point, the only way to make any sort of exit without dropping the ball and letting a whole lot of people die in the process, is to turn over the situation to some sort of third party power... I know you will all laugh at me and call me crazy, but I'm going to just toss this out here and say that, for lack of a better solution, security in Iraq should be turned over to a third party, which, for lack of anyone else, would have to be the UN. This would also give its fledgling democracy room to function and empower itself (the Blackwater debacle, I think is highly illustrative of its inability to function with any sort of authority under the current situation, and so, I think the first step to remedying these problems would be to give the Iraqi government room to function on its own, without constant US intervention).

Politically, this will also look a lot better to the people of Iraq if the security forces on the ground are UN sanctioned peacekeepers, and the government does not seem to be so run by the residents of the 'Emerald City'. The US will undoubtedly still participate, but if it was operating under the aegis of the UN (fancy that) then it would be less of a conquering occupier. Likely, hopefully, homegrown dissent would drop, and the remaining international terrorist types who have moved in just to pick a bone with the US can be more effectively flushed out and eliminated.

I know this would be a terribly unpopular course of action seeing as how we as a country would basically have to admit that we made a mistake, and we would undoubtedly have to do a bunch of international ass kissing, but I seriously think that it is high time we admitted that we are in over our heads, and need some assistance to make things right. Probably, it will take not only a new administration to do this, but a massive shift in public thinking, so I'm not going to hold my breath over this.

"And since when did people get cancer from living in a shitty house?"

I, also agree that this is rather insensitive. One has to realize that the overall impact of continued war on a population will be reflected not only in cancer rates (thanks bunker busters!), but also in nutrition, infant mortality (there actually has been an incredible increase in birth defects among Iraqi newborns in the last 4 years- thanks again bunker busters!), childhood disease management, adult life span, and chronic illness. All these problems are exacerbated by long term military action in a region... not to mention the other results of disrupted normalcy, like a decrease in education standards and literacy, both of which are important for the 'spread of democracy'.

The effects of a war for the people who live on the battlefield are long term, your tour of duty may be over and now you are back here in the good old US of A where things are all happy and healthy, but for the Iraqis you left behind, they will be dealing with what you helped create for decades to come.

I'm not saying these things to be mean MGR, I just think you need to realize the broader picture of your actions in Iraq.

@raven: No offense taken.
@raven and twiddles:
I never meant that to be insensitive, but more of a "how-does-living-in-a-bad-house-give-you-cancer" sort of way. Unless I missed something (I'm not big on aircraft ordinance) but I thought a bunker buster was steel and explosives. How does that give you cancer?
Also, since when were the living conditions great before we got there?

The only depleted uranium in use that I know of is in the large-caliber Gatling guns that don't really see much use. And rougy, I never said our presence isn't what caused those deaths. But once again, thanks for the personal attacks. Those always make a mature conversation so much fun.

Are you kidding? Remains of toxic bullets litter Iraq (By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor )

"...Ms. Hamid's stand is just four paces away from a burnt-out Iraqi tank, destroyed by - and contaminated with - controversial American depleted-uranium (DU) bullets. Local children play "throughout the day" on the tank, Hamid says, and on another one across the road."

"No one has warned [Ms. Hamid] to keep the toxic and radioactive dust off her produce. The children haven't been told not to play with the radioactive debris. They gather around as a Geiger counter carried by a visiting reporter starts singing when it nears a DU bullet fragment no bigger than a pencil eraser. It registers nearly 1,000 times normal background radiation levels on the digital readout."

Gorgon, it didn't come from his ass, it came from a report that made quite a lot of news. True or not... a lot of fucking people have died...for what? Oil if you ask me, but resource wars are nothing new in the world, USA can do what they want as the worlds only super power, I am sure there will be no positive effects from an illegal war in the world. Geneva Convention was drafted by a bunch of old fogies after wars in the 20th century, what do they know?


Nobody has mentioned the refugee crisis either, but I understand most people are fatigued from the war, maybe it will end someday? It's only been near five years now.

Twiddles is right, its not just the bunker busters (which are also built using depleted uranium- makes for a bigger bang apparently), but all sorts of other smaller arms use DU as well. Frankly, you should be educating yourself on this MGR, if only out of concern for your own safety, chances are you were exposed to some of it during your service... and who the fuck knows what else, if history and experience have taught us anything is that in the quest to kill and maim efficiently the US army has been very adept at exposing both the enemy and its own soldiers to a plethora of nasty things... I mean, crap, how many older veterans do I know that are just now exhibiting symptoms of agent orange exposure? Or those of that in between generation that have Gulf War syndrome due to exposure to an as yet undisclosed substance? Too freaking many is the answer... too freakin' many.

And Twiddles is also right in that the assumption that Iraq was shit before we rolled in is completely ridiculous... things may have been relatively crappy in 2003 (see stats below), but you have to realize that our campaign against the stability of that country has been ongoing since the first Gulf War, and it has had a direct effect on the population, and undoubtedly accounts for much of the resentment of the Iraqi population towards their American 'liberators'. If it helps you to understand this, I'll shoot some statistics your way, these are all, by the way, directly from Phebe Marr's The Modern History of Iraq, in which she details the impact of US sanctions on Iraq:

"Oil production dropped 85% between 1990 and 1991 and began to increase again only after sanctions relief in 1997... Iraq's per capita income, which had stood at just over $2,000 in 1989 before the Gulf War, had fallen to $609 by 1992... Before the war, good imports were estimated to be about 70% of Iraq's consumption. These were now drastically reduced. Famine was avoided by an effective rationing system, but calorie intake fell from an average of 3,000 calories a day to about 2,250, most of these provided through a ration 'basket' provided by the government.... By 1995 the UN secretary general noted that living conditions had become precarious for an estimated 4 million people. The Food and Agriculture Organization claimed that child mortality had risen fivefold.... The damage to the education system was also severe... one report claimed that of the 250 primary schools in the center and south of the country, over 80% were in poor or critical condition. Credible figures show that the literacy rate, which reached 67% in 1980, fell to about 57% in 2001..." And I could go on, there is lots more where that came from, and I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in Iraq.

But my point is We did that. One can argue that it was punishment on an evil dictator for daring to invade poor helpless Kuwait, and our continued sanctions on that country were meant to cripple him militarily as well as economically, in the hope that his people would rise up and overthrow him. However, that obviously did not happen, for a number of reasons, the primary one being that he was insanely good at keeping the population repressed and too afraid to step out of line. In the end, we may have removed him from being a regional power but we encouraged him to turn on his own people and increase his stranglehold upon them.

I was against the sanctions back in the 90s and I still think that they were one of the worst crimes against humanity that our nation has ever managed to get away with. I think it is of ultimate importance that our generation, (MGR- I'm not that much older than you), recognize now what we did, that we, as a country, completely fucked up another country (and arguably an entire region), so that when we are in charge, we do not repeat these same mistakes again and again.

Cute kids. Cute vid.

And the 650000 number is more than a year old. I wonder how many it is now. Think about it. Anyone of those people in this video, the soldier, the boys, the cameraman, may be dead now. And all because of this war.

Is that child terrorist holding up a lighter ? Must be for making bombs, SHOOT HIM DOWN, or BOMB HIM, then KILL HIS WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY IN A NIGHT RAID AND RAPE HIS SISTER.

Good thing we have permanent bases in Iraq now, that way we can love ALL the iraqi children Forever ! Without our kind-hearted soldiers, these kids might not even be in a war ! And that would mean no arm swinging. Sure kills this rosy picture !

/needs to sleep
//even Nazis had momments of humanism, doesn't mean he won't go KILL SHIT.

I'm grateful to raven for raising the issue of the sanctions regime:

Cool war:
Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction

Joy Gordon


* * *

In searching for evidence of the potential danger posed by Iraq, the Bush Administration need have looked no further than the well-kept record of U.S. manipulation of the sanctions program since 1991. If any international act in the last decade is sure to generate enduring bitterness toward the United States, it is the epidemic suffering needlessly visited on Iraqis via U.S. fiat inside the United Nations Security Council. Within that body, the United States has consistently thwarted Iraq from satisfying its most basic humanitarian needs, using sanctions as nothing less than a deadly weapon, and, despite recent reforms, continuing to do so. Invoking security concerns—including those not corroborated by U.N. weapons inspectors—U.S. policymakers have effectively turned a program of international governance into a legitimized act of mass slaughter.

Since the U.N. adopted economic sanctions in 1945, in its charter, as a means of maintaining global order, it has used them fourteen times (twelve times since 1990). But only those sanctions imposed on Iraq have been comprehensive, meaning that virtually every aspect of the country's imports and exports is controlled, which is particularly damaging to a country recovering from war. Since the program began, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions—almost three times as many as the number of Japanese killed during the U.S. atomic bomb attacks.

News of such Iraqi fatalities has been well documented (by the United Nations, among others), though underreported by the media. What has remained invisible, however, is any documentation of how and by whom such a death toll has been justified for so long. How was the danger of goods entering Iraq assessed, and how was it weighed, if at all, against the mounting collateral damage? As an academic who studies the ethics of international relations, I was curious. It was easy to discover that for the last ten years a vast number of lengthy holds had been placed on billions of dollars' worth of what seemed unobjectionable—and very much needed—imports to Iraq. But I soon learned that all U.N. records that could answer my questions were kept from public scrutiny.

Read the entire article here: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384

Viva la Godwin!
/sarcasm

That was some good info, Raven. I never claimed to know how much DU is actually used there, so that was informative to me as well. But what I just can't seem to get across is that I do not agree with the war any more than anyone else. It's like Lurch said, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. There isn't a magical cure-all, so what do we do?
I agreed with why we went there. Most Americans did. After all, Saddam = Al Q = nuclear threat back in 2003. Now we realize that was all a bunch of bullshit, but it's too late. The country is more than fucked up, but if we just leave, they are going to hate us for making a mess and leaving them to clean it up. If we stay, the war continues and they still pay.
And I know that Iraq wasn't a complete shit hole before we rolled in, but it wasn't exactly a paradise what with a murderous dictator and all.
All that aside, and in all seriousness, will someone please connect a few dots for me? I keep hearing this Iraq war=oil for bush thing, but here's what I don't get:
I never saw any oil pumps, refineries, or ships labled "Bush oil co." How are we there for oil when it's almost $100 a barrel? I would think that had we been there to take their oil, it would have gotten a bit cheaper.

Please, all I'm looking for is some facts -not just heresay- but proven facts that say Bush is profiting from us being there for oil.

In the end, it would just be nice if the US would just mind it's own fucking business for once and only go somewhere if asked. Heaven forbid we save a few trillion dollars and a couple hundred thousand lives.

Also, it's funny how fast the topic changed from a guy playing with kids to the effects of war. Gotta love it.

"Please, all I'm looking for is some facts -not just heresay- but proven facts that say Bush is profiting from us being there for oil."

Who really knows if he's got concealed accounts somewhere, or if any politician is able to siphon kickbacks and hide the money without scrutiny. What is known is that because of your war kazillions of public dollars are flowing unimpeded to private corporations.

"Also, it's funny how fast the topic changed from a guy playing with kids to the effects of war. Gotta love it."

As Martha Stewart likes to say, it's a good thing. The discussion has moved from the trivial to the non-trivial.

gunrock, you make it sound like you were shooting at a professional army of a sovereign nation.

the line between "civilian" and "combatant" gets a bit blurred when you rape someone's country illegally and force the population into the arms of greedy warlords and/or fucked up hospitals and/or towns with no utilities or jobs.

oh, and OIL. ffs. until you are posted to some other fucked up nation WITHOUT abundant natural resources in it, i will assume the connection is not coincidental.

About the oil, the profiteering off this resource likely has not begun, as you have to realize that a protracted war for occupation was never the initial plan of the administration. Records, memoirs of retired military personnel and white house staffers indicate that the initial plans for the invasion of Iraq actually did anticipate a rosy arrival where we would be hailed as liberators and paraded through the street... there were never any contingencies for an insurgency or massive sectarian violence, let alone any sort of semblance of a Phase IV plan for keeping order post war (the administration's biggest failing).

The plan had been to turn things over almost immediately to Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress... unfortunately they did not realize until it was way to late that Chalabi is a sneaky crook (duh, how they did not know this is beyond me, guy embezzled millions from two of the banks he founded) and was talking to the Iranians behind our backs... the deal though, was that once installed as the new leader of Iraq, Chalabi would guarantee oil sales to both the US and Israel, along with officially recognizing the state of Israel (the cliff notes version of the neocon agenda could, literally, read= 'we heart oil & israel'; always keep those two points in mind when viewing American policy in the Middle East).

So, to answer your question straight on, its not that the administration needs to bring in their own tankers, etc, and pump the oil themselves, all they need is a friendly government that is willing to show preference to America over Russia, China, or any of the other world powers. Lots of money can be made in sales, distribution, providing equipment and expertise... much as Big American Oil currently does with Saudi Arabia.

But Mink is right, the evidence is the sheer fact that we are even there in the first place. Because Iraq had no WMDs, no links to al-Qaeda (am really sorry for you that you bought into that, btw, it was a crap argument, and in the end our distraction in Iraq has only given them breathing room and a whole new front to fight in), and there are dozens of other countries around the world with evil dictators that could use a liberal dose of democracy but will we ever bother to invade them? Hell no.

Also, if you look at the battle plans for the opening invasion in 2003, its quite plain that seizing and consolidating the Rumeila oil fields in Southern Iraq were of top priority... also, in the looting that ensued after the conquest the only Baath Ministry facilities that were guarded by the US were, surprise, the Ministry of Oil. I think all these things make it pretty clear that the reason we are there is for oil and oil alone.

MGR: "Also, it's funny how fast the topic changed from a guy playing with kids to the effects of war. Gotta love it."

Uh, you changed the topic on the very first comment of this video with your sarcasm. Ever since then, whenever someone calls you on the current topic du jour, you change the topic again. Now we are on to the oil thing again. And how many times have you brought that up in other war threads? You need to understand that most people do not care that "[You] do not agree with the war any more than anyone else". Although some of your comments make that debatable, I think we can concede you are sincere. In this thread no one impeached you for that. But it has nothing to do with cancer rates, deplorable living conditions, depleted uranium or whether Iraqis hate the United States.

Murderous dictator aside, they were a fairly wealthy nation (with huge oil reserves). Even those that did have a rough time of it had much better services than now. You can't compare how they lived to the standard of living you were used to in the US. There were a number of statitcs quoted to you, articles to read. If you aren't wrong then say they aren't accurate and find your own statistics to back up your position.
-sigh-

Murderous dictator aside, before the first Gulf War and brutally inhumane sanctions regime, (even after having fought the long and devastating Iran-Iraq war), Iraq was still a modern basically secular society with high rates of literacy, low infant mortality, good health care and education, and a high standard of living.

How much did that new US embassy cost again? Nobody's going anywhere unless USians make it happen.

Raven- Thanks for that great info, it explains a lot (for the statement)
Twiddle - all I meant is that it's funny how fast it can change. Nothing more.

What's disgusting is that you and the other conservative nimrods
"You're a bunch of real swells"
"egregious collateral impact on the Iraqi economy and environment"
"that marine could have shot that kids dad. oh happy times"
"when you rape someone's country illegally"

*inflamatoy public masturbation
me too man, just sayin'!!.....(watch it twiddles, you and MINK play some online game together er summpin')

Maturbation, because calling the guilty guilty, in a forum like this is ad- nauseum clap-trap, ineffectual......how do we change the bullshit, in our own circle, then the world, is worth blabbin' about...no one has answers, and so it goes.....

No one for president

choggie for president.

downvote the propaganda

How is this propaganda?

Because it doesn't fall into line with pre-conceived notions of soldier/marine barbarity I suppose. I plan on air dropping leaflets next.

Anybody who has paid attention knows that number, Herr Gorgon.

And that was over a year ago - not that you care.

It says a lot about you, to name your personality after a puppet who was so offensive, so vulgar, that his character was written out of the Muppet cast after about a half-dozen scenes.

You have chosen to preserve a vulgar thing, because it is funny to you, at the expense of others.

Once again, you resort to personal attacks. The only reason I'm replying is to once again direct you and everyone else to this video which *you* voted for and *you* supported in the comments section:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Babblings-Law

"In this state of affairs here in America, Godwin's law seems like a pretty cheesy way to shut people up."

Then you compare people who disagree with you to the nazi party almost in the same breath. "Herr Gorgon." Classy... real classy. Practice what you preach.

We can all agree that the situation is fucked up. I doubt those soldiers want to be there and I'm sure those kids have had to endure things we can't even dream of. What is great about the video is that it shows an ounce of joy despite everything. Be happy for that moment they had.

This video might be *dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by legacy0100.