Rampant Stupidity in Iraq?

Sometimes it really makes you wonder...

Iraqi's are now pissed off at the US Army for firing on a crowd of "celebrators" on Saddam's birthday and killing a bunch of "civilians". The US Army says their troops were fired on first.

Let's lay down the scenerio:

The US military went to Iraq to, among other things, remove Saddam from power.

The Military was on high alert because they were expecting an attack from Saddam's supporters on his birthday.

So what do the people do on Saddam's birthday?

They leave their homes, form large crowds in the streets, bring guns, and start firing them in the presence of a large invading military force.

Does this strike anyone else as one of the most downright stupid things they could have done?

Yeah, kind of like driving full speed toward a U.S. controlled checkpoint, and refusing to stop even after warning shots are fired. Stand by -- more stupidity to follow.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some terrorist suicide person snuck in and intentionally took shots at our troops just to get our troops to fire in self-defense, and then claim we fired on unarmed civilians. It makes our troops look bad, gets the Iraqi people upset, that is their goal after all.

[ QUOTE ]
ewick said:
Yeah, kind of like driving full speed toward a U.S. controlled checkpoint, and refusing to stop even after warning shots are fired. Stand by -- more stupidity to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only the U.S army doesn't always fire warning shots.

I agree the situation is difficult, but it would appear that more planning would have helped...demonstrations such as this are not unheard of in peace keeping operations after all. In this particular situation/tragedy it is impossible to tell exactly what happened, just a shame that civilians had to suffer.
Law and order in general however, appears to have been badly prepared for by the coalition.

Hum...ewick, did you just reply? I thought you did, but then I refreshed the screen and you hadn't!! Am I cracking up and merrily replying to my own posts now?! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif OR is that some kind of software glitch?

kev1-1,

***yeah, I did, but accidentally hit enter before I finished***

That's correct. They don't always fire warning shots. I don't know what current policy is over there, but normally, warning shots are NEVER authorized.

In any event, common sense dictates that if one or more people are pointing a crew-served weapon in your direction, you should probably do whatever it takes to make yourself look like less of a threat.

Demonstrations aren't the problem. The problem involves putting blame where it belongs. Are coalition forces responsible for the looting that took place in and around Baghdad? No. The Iraqi civilians responsible for the looting were never forced by coalition forces to behave that way. However, coalition forces make great scapegoats.

We go over there and remove Saddam Hussein, and we're heroes. We give them drinking water, and we're heroes. We give them food, medical attention, and more freedom than they've ever had, and we're heroes.

We put a bullet hole into a mosque, which is being used by non-military personnell as a firebase, and we're monsters. We return fire into a group of armed civilians, and we're monsters. We drop a bomb into a residential area being used by guerilla forces, and we're monsters.

Not every bad thing that happens in Iraq is the fault of coalition forces, period.

"more planning would have helped"

Huh? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

You've got a group of demonstrators in an occupied country who gather in large numbers in the streets with firearms on a day that the invading force is on alert for attacks. Planning on the part of the PEOPLE would have helped - perhaps not bringing GUNS??? But planning on the part of the military? Puh-leeeeze. There is, for all intents and purposes, no way to throw the blame back on the "coalition" military forces.

Let's reverse the roles.

Hypothetical: The US has been invaded by the Iraq army to remove an oppressive leadership. It's the 4th of July - Independence Day - a day where ANY invading force in the US would be on edge. Large numbers of people gather in the streets and start firing off fireworks in the close vicinity of the invading military.

If I were in such a crowd of idiots, I would fully EXPECT to get shot at by the military! That's just stupid, plain and simple.

Its one thing to win a war, it is totally another thing to win the peace. Particularly with people who weren't very fond of us to start with. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

Dan

Makes you wonder why we even try to help sometimes... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

It seems like no matter what we do, the US is wrong. We try to help people under opression--We're listed as opressors outselves, taking advantage of the situation.

We decide to stand back and do nothing--We're accused of tolerating a dictator and somehow helping him.


If people think we're the bad guys, time to start acting like it.
Martial law--nobody on the streets past sundown on punishment of death. No threats or actions aganinst US troops, no stealing....all with a punishment of death.

Yes, we will continue to use this school as a headquarters. No, we will continue to stay in your town/city/country untill we decide it's time to leave. Yes, you can have control of your country, but not untill we say so. No, you cannot say you are the representitive of your town/city without a majority backing. No, I will not move my APC off your streetcorner.

I hate to sound like this, as I'm a laid back individual, but I'm pissed at the world right now as I just got done watching the news. My world and that of many military families, is turned upside down right now and may stay that way for some time. All so we can help these ungratefull #*&!s get their country together.

If these people would act like civilized human beings and use a little common sense, the US would leave them alone.
You're in a war zone, ACT LIKE IT!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twak.gif

I think the idea of acting like "non-occupiers" is dangerous and is only going to get our troops into more trouble.

Forgive me for being blunt, but we HAVE to occupy Iraq, 1) for security, 2) for weeding out the most wanted, 3) for political and infrastructural rebuilding, and 4) for searching weapons. The idea that we're not occupying sends a mixed message to the Iraqis that they can request the US to leave... US troops are NOT going to leave anytime soon.

You have to remember that most of these so called "demonstrators" are former fetayeen fighters or republican guards who are in civilian garb. The fact they have AKs still flying around shows you they are there for terroristic purposes and to destabalize the region before a new government's set in place.

Iraqis who ask us to police them, but then want us to leave, and then want us to turn on their water and power, but then want us to leave, and then want us to find Hussein, but then want us to leave... You get the idea. You can't have both. Most of the people and demonstrators you see purposely hogging the media for airtime have every intention of making sure the US loses the credibility war and the humanitarian war.

It's no wonder this riot is happening in a city that supports Hussein and is full of Sunnis who've benefited under him during his rule...

Lets consider for a moment...if the objective of the war was humanitarian then that is a fine and noble thing. However, if this was the case...
1)Hospitals would have been protected (the oil ministry was).
2)Martial law should have been declared and the U.S should have been prepared for peace keeping. If you remove the law enforcement and government capability then you have an obligation under international law to ensure the safety, and access to medicines/food/water etc of the populace.
3) U.S soldiers would not be seen repeatedly stating that they were NOT peace keepers and it wasn't their problem..see point 2.
4) The museums would have been protected, as the cultural heritage of Iraq.
5) Reconstruction contracts should go to Iraqi companies. The contract for the ports operation should go to Iraqi not U.S companies (even then there has been no competition for contracts within the U.S)
6) U.S forces should have adapted there flawed peacekeeping methods from earlier conflicts i.e Somalia.
7) Rumsfield should not been ruling out certain forms of government...while calling for democracy?!?!

I could go on, but to put it simply whether you agree/disagree/don't care about this war. It cannot be argued that it was launched on humanitarian grounds. Political...maybe?; economic...maybe?; security...maybe? BUT NOT HUMANITARIAN. Therefore the U.S AND the UK are an occupying force with international legal obligations.

Ok, Ok. Just a quick one. A major military force moves into a country that has absolutely no infrastructure at all. The major military force removes the dictatorship which was responsible for that lack of infrastructure. Now, is the major military force required by international law to provide the infrastructure that was missing in the first place?

While clearly the Sadam government was as evil and corrupt as they come...there was an infrastructure in Iraq. There was running water and electricity, there was a functioning police force, there was a functioning (if stretched) health surface. Iraq has one of the highest concentrations of educated middle-class people anywhere in the middle east. Your view of an Iraq with no infrastructure prior to this war is wrong. I am no expert on international law, but I would imagine that international obligations are consistent. If Iraq previously had no police force for example, this would not remove the obligation of the occupier to enforce the rule of law and order, and guarantee safe access to and from hospitals.

[ QUOTE ]
BUT NOT HUMANITARIAN

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so apparently we haven't stopped him from killing another 1.5 million of his own people? If that isn't humanitarian, then what is?

I won't argue that the war was easier then the military thought, and that WE weren't prepared to be a governing force in Iraq, but if we were a police force, I would think we would be thought of as even more aggressive then we already are. Things are moving in the right direction, this doesn't happen over night.

I didn't say Iraq had no infrastructure. I created a hypothetical scenario for instructional purposes. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Now, on to the law and order issue. Law and order existed in pre-war Iraq in the form of oppression. People behaved, or they or their families were killed. Simple, and effective. The civilian population never really got to exhibit self-discipline, because they never had the chance. Now they've got the chance, but don't know what to do with it. It's going to take time for Iraqis to understand how to police themselves and assist with the rebuilding of their country, instead of continued aggression toward the forces who are there to help.

Occupation will begin when the war is officially over. Until then, it's still a war. And wars take place in hostile environments. And Iraq is still a hostile environment. And I wouldn't expect any coalition forces to let their guard down just because Iraqis aren't happy with their healthcare plan.

Relatively, more humanitarian aid has been delivered to that region during a time of war than during any other war ever fought. It's amazing how much progress has been made in such a short time frame. And the Iraqis still aren't happy.

One more scenario:
The United States is invaded so that a dictatorship can be replaced. American civilian gang member #1 opens fire on platoon of invading forces. Who's at fault?

[ QUOTE ]
The museums would have been protected, as the cultural heritage of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the Iraqi's looted their own museums. And that's our fault? Once again they were demonstrating rampant stupidity...

[ QUOTE ]
Reconstruction contracts should go to Iraqi companies. The contract for the ports operation should go to Iraqi not U.S companies (even then there has been no competition for contracts within the U.S)

[/ QUOTE ]

And so the "wealthy" American taxpayers can foot the bill for this war all by themselves, eh? No money to pump back into the American economy for the Billions of dollars spent to fund the war. Nice. Real nice.

Personally I think we (and the UK) should receive an equivalent amount of oil as was spent on the war at fair market value. Like that'll ever happen..... Or perhaps get the oil at 1/2 price until the war debt is paid off - that way money would still be flowing into Iraq.

Or give France and Germany a bill for 1/4 of the war each, now that they have all-of-a-sudden decided to support the regime change. Anyone else notice that??? They decided to support the war AFTER the money and manpower was spent by the UK and the US. "Oh, we think it's a good idea now that we don't have to spend any of our money or get involved in any nastyness."

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so apparently we haven't stopped him from killing another 1.5 million of his own people? If that isn't humanitarian, then what is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying that the removal of Sadam is not a welcome event. I am saying that the war was fought for reasons other than humanitarian ones. If Iraq was not located where it is, with oil, with suspected WMD then the U.S and UK would not be there. Regardless of what Sadam did to his people. Lets not forget that when Sadam was gassing people before Rumsfield was over there doing business! So while the removal of Sadam is a good thing, his humanitarian crimes were NOT the reason for the war. Thus this should not be used as a justification for any problems now ocuring.

No matter what form the law took in the past, the US and UK have an OBLIGATION to provide law now. You cannot blame the people of Iraq entirely for the looting. If you removed the law enforcement agency's from the UK OR the USA, there are more than enough people prepared to go out and loot just the same. You cannot remove the law and wash your hands of the consequences, morally or legally.

The hypothetical situation /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif clearly if fired on first the invading force has the right to return fire. IMHO the ROE should allow for lethal force even if some one simply aims their weapon at you. This is a hostile act. However, in the case which started this thread no one knows who fired first.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the Iraqi's looted their own museums. And that's our fault? Once again they were demonstrating rampant stupidity...

[/ QUOTE ]

Same issue as before per law enforcement. Equally, the history of Iraq is that of civilisation and not simply of Iraq. The U.S had an obligation to both the Iraqi people and the world to preserve this.

[ QUOTE ]
And so the "wealthy" American taxpayers can foot the bill for this war all by themselves, eh? No money to pump back into the American economy for the Billions of dollars spent to fund the war. Nice. Real nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as much as I don't like the idea of my taxes being spent any more than you do! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif I would have to say that the U.S and UK governments undertook this war on their own behalf, outside of UN approval, and thus it seems unjust to demand repayment for these actions.

"No matter what form the law took in the past, the US and UK have an OBLIGATION to provide law now."

By that logic, US and UK forces should also provide jobs for previously unemployed Iraqis. And homes for the previouisly homeless. And...

"You cannot blame the people of Iraq for the looting."

Thats right. And we can't blame people for murder if they're on prescription medication, or if they had a bad childhood, or if they have an IQ below 70.

Answer me this: If I put a $100 bill on the table in front of you, and I tell you not to take it, and you still take it, whose fault is it? Should I trust your judgment and give you the opportunity to prove yourself, or should I hold you at gunpoint indefinitely in order to guarantee that the $100 bill is not taken?

[ QUOTE ]
the U.S and UK governments undertook this war on their own behalf, outside of UN approval

[/ QUOTE ]

And therfore on their own behalf, outside of UN approval, they are going to make sure US/UK companies have first shot at the contracts for rebuilding the nation to help offset the costs of the war. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif

[ QUOTE ]
By that logic, US and UK forces should also provide jobs for previously unemployed Iraqis. And homes for the previouisly homeless. And...

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not strictly true. International law obliges the US/UK/AUS to provide security, safety and aid. I don't know of any law which demands the requirements you stated!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Actually, just like you, I clicked the wrong button to early!! I edited my post to say you can not blame the people entirely for the looting. Obviously they must bare some responcibility. As would I if I stole your $100! However, if you placed a $100 dollars in front of me and I had been deprived for years and as of today I KNEW that there would be no repurcusions for my action...! I KNOW that I still wouldn't take your money...but you would be foolish to assume that you did not deed to provide security for your money infront of millions of others! Sadly, this is human nature!