Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Just Go: Iraqis' Views of the American Occupation of their Country

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:46 AM
Original message
Just Go: Iraqis' Views of the American Occupation of their Country
Edited on Sat Jun-16-07 08:27 AM by Time for change
Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? Well take our chances just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go. An unknown Iraqi girl, proposing a solution to the American occupation of Iraq


Can you imagine what the reaction of the American people would be to viewing an interview with the above quoted Iraqi girl on a major news network? Many millions would be rightfully shocked and enraged about our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.

Many other millions, militarists who fancy themselves as patriots, would be enraged, not at our occupation of Iraq but at the fact that a major news network dared to air an interview with someone with such a scathingly negative opinion of the American occupation. They would accuse the news network of painting a grossly unfair picture of the American occupation (as they would accuse me for writing this). They would argue that the coverage was unbalanced because it didnt give equal time to the other side. Some would even accuse the news network of treason for making their country look bad.

My own opinion of the matter is that frequent coverage of this sort, while provoking a wide range of opinions in different directions, would soon put an end to the war, as the bulk of American opinion would so strongly oppose it that our politicians on both sides of the isle would be forced to withhold further funding and demand an end to the war.

But would frequent coverage of this sort be fair and balanced, or would it be biased, as many would claim? Lets consider a few things:

Some basic facts

An epidemiological study showed that since the 2003 invasion of Iraq there have been approximately 655,000 excess Iraqi deaths over a period of a little more than three years that is, deaths that are due to the invasion and subsequent occupation. Over 600 thousand of those deaths have been violent deaths, amounting to about 500 violent deaths per day. The death rate has been increasing over time, as the occupation has progressed.

According to the United Nations, approximately two million Iraqis have fled their country since the start of the invasion, and the number of external refugees is currently increasing by about 50 thousand per month. In addition, there have been almost two million internally displaced Iraqis since the start of the war.

Iraqs infrastructure has been devastated. For example, despite U.S. promises to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, by October 2006 Iraqis in Baghdad were receiving an average of only 2.4 hours of electricity per day. The Iraqi healthcare system is crumbling. And according to a UN/World Bank report, water and sewage treatment has deteriorated by 50%.

Such are the results of George W. Bushs efforts to spread democracy to Iraq, advanced as a major reason for the war and the occupation after it turned out that the dire warnings of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction were a pack of lies.


Why all the collateral damage?

A recent report by a coalition of non-governmental groups called the Global Policy Forum shed a lot of light on some of the reasons for the tragedies that so many Iraqis have suffered under the U.S. occupation. The report explains that U.S. forces:

have held a large number of Iraqi citizens in 'security detention' without charge or trial, in direct violation of international law. No Iraqi is safe from arbitrary arrest and the number of prisoners has risen greatly since 2003 (when the US-led war began)

U.S. military commanders have established permissive rules of engagement, allowing troops to use deadly force against virtually any perceived threat. As a consequence, the US and its allies regularly kill Iraqi civilians at checkpoints and during military operations, on the basis of the merest suspicionabusing and torturing large numbers of Iraqi prisoners torture increasingly takes place in Iraqi prisons, apparently with US awareness and complicityIn addition to combat deaths, coalition forces have killed many Iraqi civilians.

The United States has established broad legal immunity in Iraq for its forces, for private security personnel, for foreign military and civilian contractors, and even for the oil companies doing business in Iraq

Under the control or influence of U.S. authorities, public funds in Iraq have been drained by massive corruption and stolen oil, leaving the country unable to provide basic services and incapable of rebuilding. Billion of dollars have disappeared.

Not that this report should come as a big surprise. U.S. forces have long used aerial bombing in Iraq, despite the additional civilian deaths that it entails; they use chemical weapons against civilian populations; and, they have repeatedly ferociously attacked population centers, with numerous attendant civilian casualties. One might have thought that following the revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib the Bush administration might have taken steps to avoid more of the same. But instead it blamed the whole scandal on a few bad apples, failed to prosecute any high level officials, and demonstrated much more interest in justifying more torture than in preventing it.


How do most Iraqis feel about our occupation of their country?

Since Americans are told over and over and over again that a primary purpose of their countrys presence in Iraq is to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, few Americans are aware of the overwhelming desire by most Iraqis for the U.S. occupation of their country to end. A World Opinion Poll of Iraqis taken in September of 2006 makes that quite clear:

71% of Iraqis want us to leave within a year, 20% want us to leave within two years, and only 9% want U.S. troops to be reduced as the security situation improves; only 21% feel that the U.S. military is a stabilizing force in Iraq, compared to 78% who believe that the U.S. military is provoking more conflict than it is preventing; and 61% believe that if U.S. led forces were to leave in the next six months, day to day security for ordinary Iraqis would increase, compared to only 34 % who believe that it would decrease.

But the most shocking part of the poll is that 61% of Iraqis not only disapprove of our presence in their country, but they actually approve of the violent attacks on U.S. led forces. No wonder our forces face such tremendous opposition and violence in Iraq. And let us be clear about this: These are not terrorists these are ordinary Iraqis who deeply resent the imperialistic occupation of their country by a foreign power.


U.S. imperialism

It should be clear to all Americans that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is an imperialistic occupation NOT an occupation designed to bring to the Iraqi people the benefits of democracy and freedom, as we are so often told. The fact that we occupy Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people clearly demonstrates that as that is virtually the definition of imperialism. The flurry of no-bid contracts for Bush administration cronies and the lack of effective administrative oversight of those contracts speak volumes of the Bush administrations imperialistic intentions. Our insistence on making arrangements for the distribution of oil in Iraq that will benefit American oil companies constitutes additional confirmation of those intentions. And the imperial foundations of our war against and occupation of Iraq is made all the more obvious by our construction of 14 military bases in that country.

In recent years many American commentators have claimed that U.S. imperialism is a blessing that should be openly embraced not only by the American people but by the people of those nations who are the subjects of our imperialism, since we bring to them the benefits of our freedom, democracy, civilization, economic prosperity, or Christianity. But imperialistic nations have always said that about the countries that they subjugate. Yet, as Chalmers Johnson points out in Nemesis The Last Days of the American Republic:

With rare exceptions, the countries that the various imperialisms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries exploited and colonized remain poor, disease- and crime-ridden, and at the mercy of a rigged international trading system that Anglo-American propagandists assure us is rapidly globalizing to everyones advantage. But the very same representatives of the club of rich countries who go around the world hectoring the poor to open up their markets to free trade put up roadblocks when those countries ask the rich to dismantle their own barriers to free trade

In any event, it should be obvious to anyone who is aware of what is transpiring in Iraq today that our imperialistic adventures there are providing no benefits to the Iraqi people nor were they meant to. Our politicians blabber on and whine and complain about how the Iraqis are not cooperating with what we want them to do. Well, why the hell should they? And why the hell doesnt our corporate news media ever ask that question?


Just Go

Thus, it should be obvious that the unknown Iraqi girl whom I quoted in the introduction to this post is not unrepresentative of the Iraqi people in general with respect to her intense hostility to and hatred of the American occupation of her country. Nor are her reasons difficult to understand. It would be a great service to the people of our country if our corporate news media would discuss what she and others like her have to say about George Bushs efforts to spread democracy to her country:

People are seething with anger Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life. Everyone knew this was happening in Abu Ghraib and other places American and British politicians have the audacity to come on television with words like, "True the people in Abu Ghraib are criminals, but" Everyone here in Iraq knows that there are thousands of innocent people detained In the New Iraq, it's "guilty until proven innocent

There was a time when people here felt sorry for the troops That time has passed We burn with shame and anger and frustration at not being able to do something. Now that the world knows that the torture has been going on since the very beginning, do people finally understand what happened in Fallujah?

And through all this, Bush gives his repulsive speeches. He makes an appearance on Arabic TV channels looking sheepish and attempting to look sincere, babbling on about how this 'incident' wasn't representative of the American people or even the army, regardless of the fact that it's been going on for so long But when the bodies were dragged through the streets of Fallujah, the American troops took it upon themselves to punish the whole city Bush Your credibility was gone the moment you stepped into Iraq and couldn't find the WMD....

So are the atrocities being committed in Abu Ghraib really not characteristic of the American army? What about the atrocities committed by Americans in Guantanamo? And Afghanistan? It seems that torture and humiliation are common techniques used in countries blessed with the American presence

We heard stories since the very beginning of the occupation about prisoners being made to sit for several hours on their knees being deprived of sleep for days at a time by being splashed with cold water or kicked or slapped about the rape, the degradations, the emotional and physical torture and there were moments when I actually wanted to believe that what we heard was exaggerated. I realize now that it was only a small fragment of the truth.

Why is no one condemning this? I don't understand the 'shock' Americans claim to feel at the lurid pictures. You've seen the troops break down doors and terrify women and children curse, scream, push, pull and throw people to the ground with a boot over their head. You've seen troops shoot civilians in cold blood. You've seen them bomb cities and towns. You've seen them burn cars and humans using tanks and helicopters. Is this latest debacle so very shocking or appalling?

The Americans and British are saying that they are 'insurgents' but people from Najaf are claiming that innocent civilians are being killed on a daily basis.

I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? Well take our chances just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.


A solution offered by the Global Policy Forum

The Global Policy Forum that I referenced above ends its report with a few recommendations that our politicians would be wise to heed:

 End the coalition mandate at the earliest opportunity and plan for a stable transition in Iraq.
 Respect international law.
 Complete and speedy withdrawal of the coalition with no residual forces or bases and with no conditions.
 Speedily release all security detainees who have not been charged with a crime.
 A UN peacekeeping force clearly distinct from the coalition {should} assist with the transition by monitoring the ceasefire, strengthening local police forces and the judicial system and organizing fully-credible elections.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. Glad you plugged Chalmers Johnson's book.
Reading his trilogy of books (from Blowback to Nemesis) can give people an oversight that they don't currently have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Chalmers Johnson's trilogy
I read the the second book of his trilogy (The Sorrows of Empire) and I'm in the process of reading his third. All three provide a prescient warning to the American people that they damn well better get back to cooperating with the international community under the umbrella of international law, and give up their dreams of world wide empire if they want to avoid being destroyed.

I talk about his books in some detail in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. Big kick! And thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. I am daily sickened and enraged. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. Fuck George Bush and all the enablers
This genocide must be stopped. I weep for that Iraqi girl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. George W. Bush is by far the worst pResident we've ever had
He's also ripped up our Constitution like no other pResident we've ever had.

I am very upset that our new Democratic Congress hasn't initiated impeachment proceedings after all this time. If they won't even comply with subpoenas, what other legitimate choice does Congress have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
5. K&R!!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
6. Only problem with this I see is that the Iraqis will never trust the UN
After not condemning the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq the UN has become the enemy of any Iraqi who has had a family member or friend killed or maimed.

Any American would feel the same way in the same position. Its human nature.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but that is the truth.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Certainly the UN deserves a lot of criticism for their failure to condemn U.S. actions
However, I think that if the the U.S. withdrew its forces and the UN embarked on a peacekeeping mission and made it obvious that:

1. they had no interest in steeling Iraqi resources.

2. they were interested only in keeping the peace, NOT in killing Iraqis

3. they had no interest in a permanent occupation of the country

4. conformed to international law, especially with regard to detention of prisoners

I believe in that case the Iraqis would be much more accepting of a UN peace keeping mission than they are of the US occupation. How much more accepting is hard to say.

Even as it is now, there is at least some ambivalence about the U.S. military presence, as many Iraqis recognize the need for a security force to keep the peace and provide security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Saying that the UN deserves a lot of criticism is an understatement
Edited on Sat Jun-16-07 12:40 PM by NNN0LHI
The UN has been complicit with the countries who have illegally invaded and continue to occupy the once sovereign country know as Iraq.

Iraqis know this. No amount of promises are going to convince them of anything different.

They realize that they will never be free again with an occupation force in their country. Doesn't make a hill of beans to the Iraqis who the occupiers are. UN. US. UK. They are all one in the same to most Iraqis at this stage. I promise.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R.
Just go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. ...
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamahaingttta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. This once great nation of ours...
...is one fucked up, sick and twisted piece of shit of a country right now. If China and Russia were to get together and nuke everything from the Sierra Nevada to the Allegheny's, from the Platte river the the Rio Grande, I think much of the world would believe that justice was done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
13. One important thing I didn't discuss in my OP was the demographic differences in the polls
There was a vast difference between the Sunnis and the Kurds, with the Sunnis having a much more heavily negative opinion of the U.S. occupation, and the Shias in between the two extremes. Among Sunnis, 92% approved of the attacks against U.S. forces, compared to only 15% among the Kurds.

My guess is that those who were less eager for the withdrawal of U.S. forces were those who weren't as heavily exposed to them -- perhaps those who lived in remote areas where not a lot of fighting took place. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
16. K & R !!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
17. Another outstanding post TFC
Will we, or must we, wait until 2009 to do the right thing? Damn, the political will moves too slowly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Thank you BushDespiser -- Like you, I feel a great need for our Congress to proceed
to get rid of by far the worst pResident in our history. I believe that they not only have it in their authority to do so, but I believe it is their duty to do so.

There is still time, but it is running short. I'm very much afraid that failure to proceed with this will set a terrible precedent that will be very difficult to reverse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
18. excellent - thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. We do not use chemical weapons..........
Parroting Al Qaeda talking points is disturbing......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Really?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/17/151...

Amy Goodman explains:

But the Pentagon was caught in a lie after it was revealed that an official Army publication called Field Artillery magazine had disclosed that the Army had in fact used white phosphorus as a weapon.

And in response to the partial correction by the Pentagon, which claimed that although they used white phosphorus against "enemy combatants", they did not use it against civilians:

The correction is not complete, because the Pentagon said that they used white phosphorus as a weapon, but not on civilians. And unfortunately we got really hundreds of pictures of people that seemed to be killed by white phosphorus.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. LOL ok sparky
believe what you want........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Need more proof?
US used white phosphorus in Iraq (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah (The Independent)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article...

US defends use of phosphorus bombs in Fallujah(ABC News)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1508598.ht...

Fallujah: Where is the Outrage. The Story the Mainstream Media won't tell you (Globalresearch.ca)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1...

I could give you more links, including the use of napalm as well.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Again believe what you want
Edited on Sun Jun-17-07 07:27 AM by sanskritwarrior
......Thanks...... :patriot:

But if you want to call White Phosphorous a Chemical weapon, please do so......But don't let members of the US Army Chemical Corps hurt your feelings when they laugh at you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Oh, the army doesn't "call" white phosphorous a chemical weapon
Edited on Sun Jun-17-07 07:47 AM by Time for change
From the same link that I gave you above, in case you didn't read it:

LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It's not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal. We use them primarily as obscurants, for smoke screens or for target marking in some cases. However, it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants.

BBC REPORTER: Can you confirm, then, that it was used as an offensive weapon against enemy troops during the siege of Fallujah?

LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: Yes. It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.

BBC REPORTER: There are suggestions here that if used in that way, an incendiary weapon such as white phosphorus would be against the various conventions governing the use of weapons during war. You disagree?

LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: Cite the conventions.

BBC REPORTER: The Chemical Weapons Convention.

LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: Okay. Does it list white phosphorus as a chemical?

BBC REPORTER: No, it doesn't. But it says a chemical weapon can be any chemical which, through its chemical action, on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm.

LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: But this isn't -- we're talking white phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Pentagon spokesperson, Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable, being interviewed on the BBC. The Pentagon has defended its use of white phosphorus by claiming it's not a chemical weapon and that it was only used against Iraqi insurgents, not civilians. However, even this would have been illegal according to the Army's own rules of combat. In 1999 the Army published a handbook that read, quote, "It's against the law of land warfare to employ W.P. against personnel targets." An Iraqi human rights team has reportedly gone into Fallujah to investigate the use of white phosphorus as a weapon by U.S. forces. To discuss this controversy, we're joined by two guests...

MAURIZIO TORREALTA: Well, first of all, I want to say that any time any institution corrects itself, I think, is a great event. And I would like to see many more institutions that are able to admit their mistakes. Then, the correction is not complete, because the Pentagon said that they used white phosphorus as a weapon, but not on civilians. And unfortunately we got really hundreds of pictures of people that seemed to be killed by white phosphorus. And I think an investigation, a United Nation investigation, on that could really finally say the last word about how much has been used against civilian people...


JUAN GONZALEZ: George Monbiot, I'd like to ask you, the Pentagon is trying to split hairs in terms of how it defines chemical weapons; your perspective on their attempt to get through their own contradictions on this?

GEORGE MONBIOT: The Chemical Weapons Convention could not be clearer. There are two kinds of chemicals listed under it: One is the scheduled chemicals, such as phosgene and mustard gas and VX gas which cannot be used under any circumstances; then there is all other toxic chemicals which may be used for purposes which do not depend on the use of their toxic properties. However, the moment you use one of those other chemicals for its toxic properties against human beings, you are in breach of the convention. And what we saw very clearly from that extract in Field Artillery magazine was that they were firing these munitions directly at the combatants in Fallujah in order to exert the toxic effects of those munitions upon those combatants to flush them out so they could then be killed. In doing so, the U.S. Army was acting in direct contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It committed a war crime.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play an excerpt from the RAI TV documentary, Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre. This part features an interview with Mohamad Tareq Al Deraji, a biologist from Fallujah who heads the Fallujah Center for Human Rights.

NARRATOR: Mohamad opens his PC and shows us images of a victim in Fallujah, a woman lying on the side, clothes intact, hiding a scorched body, a veil covering like a shroud a face melted by the heat.

MOHAMAD TAREQ AL DERAJI: In al-Askeri, I hear some witnesses say, Heres some bodies heres killing by the -- a man died from the burns.

REPORTER: In what state did you find the dead?

MOHAMAD TAREQ AL DERAJI: Different type. Children, women, younger youth, older men. All different form of people. But many from them has killing and the dead, inside the chicken room or cooking room, some from them when he . There is some witnesses. He say when American attack some places, the big shower?


And they call Bush's license to his industrial friends to pollute our air the "Clear Skies Act". I guess that proves that its good for our air, right?

I really hope the army doesn't laugh at me for calling white phosphorous a chemical weapon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Whatever you say man
I don't argue with zealots......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. You DO argue with us. You just don't provide any evidence to back up your assertions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Relax sir or maam
you want to believe we used Chemical weapons in Iraq, that's cool. Don't get bent out of shape if someone that has been to Iraq disagrees........I'm ceding the field of battle to you, so you can relax......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. and having been there
you know every detail of what is or is not being done?

I support your contention that we do not officially endorse use of chemical weapons as a matter of course. I cannot cite any specific evidence that there have been overt violations of the policy. I also suspect that there have been arguable encroachments. But quibbling over whether a given instance of use of something is/is not "chemical weapons" and determining based on the hair-splitting that therefore everything is either black or white is what the hell is wrong with the public discourse in this country.

It that vein, I tend to side with your position that efforts to find a way to slam the US by combing through data and selective semantics are just propagandistic crap.

Your comment about having been there, though, annoys me. That, in and of itself, does not make you any more a bearer of the truth, the whole truth, than any other opinionated so-and-so. It demeans the argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Agreed
I am not all knowing all seeing..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As Chemical Weapon
To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they arent technically chemical weapons.

~snip

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. <>

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.


http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. Great links
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Why the hell do we have anthrax and mustard gas then? n/t
Edited on Sun Jun-17-07 02:35 AM by BushDespiser12
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #25
37. According to this we have destroyed about half of

our chemical weapons and almost all of our bio weapons.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #20
36. Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees is not using chemical weapons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

The New York Times, in a report on January 12, 2005,{8} reported testimony suggesting that the following events had taken place at Abu Ghraib:

Urinating on detainees

Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly

Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton

Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees

Sodomization of detainees with a baton

Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. The road to empire
is paved with failed republics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
live love laugh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
23. I got yet another stupid email about wearing red for troops on Fridays
this week. I wondered as I read this, how it can be dumbed down to something like red-tshirts to make it palatable to idiots who continue to support the war and warriors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
26. what we need:
journalism.

uncensored by the military and the establishment.

if the truth were exposed this thing would be over; it never would have happened.




there are plenty of pictures comparable to this available from Iraq, but they don't get seen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. Absulutely -- Even if this administration had committed no other crimes, it should be impeached
for abrogating our first amendment rights alone.

They do everything in their power (which is considerable) to pravent Americans from hearing and seeing the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
28. Kick, Rec, Bookmarked
A real treasure trove. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
40. Yes. Pretty common knowledge.
Now why the fuck can't we do something about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC