The blackest hearts: War crimes in Iraq

Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
edited July 2010 in A Moving Train
pretty sick fucks. i'm glad they are all in jail and the one who killed everyone will never get out.

although, what do we expect to happen when we send young kids into a violent war and occupation like this and then pretty much leave them stranded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju ... diers-iraq


The blackest hearts: War crimes in Iraq
In March 2006, four US soldiers, strung out after months in the deadly battleground south of Baghdad, hatched a plan: to carry out one of the worst war crimes ever committed in Iraq

rape-and-murder-in-iraq-006.jpg
Scene of the crime: A neighbour returns to the house where he found the still-smoking body of 14-year-old Abeer, along with those of her parents and younger sister. Photograph: AP Photo/Ali al-Mahmouri

On 12 March 2006, Abu Muhammad heard a knock on his door. He lived in a village just outside Yusufiyah, 20 miles south of Baghdad, and warily he headed towards the window – since the invasion, you never knew who it might be. It was a neighbour of his cousin and her husband, who lived in a nearby hamlet. "You must come," the man said. "Something has happened at your cousin's house, something terrible."

Pulling into the driveway, Abu Muhammad saw his cousin's 11- and nine-year-old boys wailing. They had just returned home from school. Smoke was billowing from one of the windows.

Abu Muhammad circled the house, looking in the windows. His cousin Fakhriah, her husband Qassim and their six-year-old daughter Hadeel had all been shot. Their daughter Abeer, 14, was naked from the waist down. Her body was still smoking; her entire upper torso had been scorched, much of it burnt down to ash. Her chest and face were gone.

"Come," Abu Muhammad said to the boys. "Come with me." He dropped them with his wife and drove to a nearby traffic control point, TCP1.

Staff Sergeant Chaz Allen was in charge of TCP1 that day. He sent Sergeant Tony Yribe to check it out. At just 22, Yribe looked like an action hero and was on his second tour in Iraq. As usual, he noted, there were not enough men to mount a proper patrol. Ideally, they shouldn't be manoeuvring with less than a squad, nine or 10 men. But that almost never happened. Here in the so-called Triangle of Death, three-, four- and five-man patrols were standard. Allen told him to pick up two men on his way, from TCP2. "And be sure to bring a camera. Battalion is going to want pictures."

It was late afternoon. 1st Platoon, Bravo Company, and all of 1st Battalion of the 502nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, had been in theatre for nearly six months. The same to go. It felt like an eternity – with an eternity yet to come.

Yribe arrived at TCP2. Specialist Paul Cortez and Private First Class Jesse Spielman were ready to go. At 23, Cortez was acting squad leader, a job many thought beyond him. He had a reputation as an immature loudmouth with a nasty streak, and he was in charge of a motley group of six soldiers down at TCP2, some of whom had been on their own at this spartan, unfortified outpost for 12 days straight. They were pretty ragged and strung out.

Specialist James Barker, 23, was next in seniority, a soldier renowned for being a smart aleck and mischief-maker. Spielman, 21, was quiet and unassuming; Private First Class Steven Green, also 21, never stopped talking.

Some Iraqi army soldiers were already at the house. It was grisly. Yribe started taking pictures and directed the other soldiers to look for evidence, but Cortez started dry heaving. He looked green and pale, and was drenched with sweat.

"Jesus, just go outside," Yribe told Cortez. Spielman was cool and efficient, but the burnt girl's remains were so disgusting they just left her where she was. As the men moved a mattress, something small and green skittered across the ground. It was a spent shotgun shell. That's odd, Yribe thought, Iraqis don't really use shotguns.

In mid-2006, three years after the toppling of Saddam's regime, the 330 square mile region south of Baghdad that encompassed the Triangle of Death had become one of the deadliest locales in the country. It was a battleground of the incipient civil war between Sunnis and Shias, and a way station for terrorists of every allegiance, ferrying men, weapons and money into the capital.

Just two years later, the region had been effectively pacified, patrolled by 30,000 men (including Iraqi forces) who experienced about two attacks a week. Back then, however, it was occupied by just 1,000 US soldiers, who coped with more than 100 attacks each week against them and Iraqi civilians. With far fewer troops and resources than they needed, the 1-502nd Infantry Regiment – a light battalion of around 700 men – was flung out there with orders, essentially, to save the day. During their year-long deployment, 21 men were killed, with scores more wounded badly enough to be evacuated home. Seven of those who died came from the same group of around 35 men: 1st Platoon.

In December 2005, Staff Sergeant Travis Nelson and Sergeant Kenith Casica of 1st Platoon were shot dead at TCP2 by a lone Iraqi who had given them information in the past. "That's when things started to turn," says Staff Sergeant Chris Payne, leader of 1st Platoon's 2nd Squad. A few days later, two more men of 1st Platoon were killed by an IED (improvised explosive device).

The feeling that death was certain was becoming pervasive in 1st Platoon, and spreading like a panic. More and more men started to believe they simply weren't going home. Some say drinking was becoming fairly common. There were plenty of interpreters who were happy to procure bottles of whiskey or gin, or even pills or hash, for any soldier who wanted them.

Green was reacting particularly badly. He had always been a loudmouth, racist and misogynist. An evaluation form filled out by the Combat Stress team around that time is a horror show of ailments and dysfunctions. Green told them he was a victim of mental and physical childhood abuse by his mother and brother, he was an adolescent drug and alcohol abuser, and had been arrested several times. Now, he said, he was having suicidal and homicidal thoughts. One entry states, "Interests: None other than killing Iraqis."

By this point, extreme hatred of Iraqis had become common in the platoon and was openly discussed. They became more aggressive: suspects were beaten, house searches got more violent, drinking became more open and was not limited to the ranks. The men were at a far lower ebb than even those meant to monitor them realised.

During patrols, Green often volunteered to kill. "I was always saying, 'Any time you all are ready, you all are the ones in charge of me. Any time you all say the word, 'Go', it's on," he recalled.

Just after 4pm on 5 March, 21-year-old Specialist Ethan Biggers was shot in the head. He had been the entire company's little brother; he and his fiancee were expecting their first child.

On 12 March, Green was pulling pre-dawn guard in the gun truck at TCP2. He'd been up for 18 hours. "When I'm on guard next time," he told Cortez and Barker, "I'm going to waste a bunch of dudes in a car. And we'll just say they were running the TCP."

"Don't do that!" Cortez said. "Don't do it while I'm here. I'm supposed to be running this shit."

Barker agreed. "I've got a better idea," he said. "We've all killed Hadjis, but I've been here twice and I still never fucked one of these bitches."

Cortez's interest was piqued. They talked about it semi-seriously, as they did other things throughout the rest of the morning.

Barker had already picked the target. There was a house, not far away, where there was only one male and three females during the day – a husband, wife and two daughters. One was young, but the other was pretty hot, at least for a Hadji chick. Witnesses were a problem, though; they knew they couldn't leave anyone alive. Barker asked Green if he was willing to take care of that, even if women and kids were involved. "Absolutely," Green said. "It don't make any difference to me."

They refined their plan and, over several hours, went back and forth on whether or not to do it. Barker was pushing hard, and Green was game, but finally Cortez said, "No, fuck it, this is crazy. Fuck this. There is no way we are doing this shit."

At around noon, with a new wave of boredom taking hold, the three of them, with Spielman, sat down outside to play Uno and drink whiskey. The men got drunker and drunker, and eventually Cortez declared, "Fuck it, we are going to do this." He outlined the mission and divvied up the duty assignments just like a legitimate patrol. He and Barker would take the girl, Green would kill the rest of the family, Spielman would pull guard and 18-year-old Private First Class Bryan Howard, a recent arrival, would stay back and man the radio.

Spielman, who had not heard of the plan until then, did not bat an eye. "I'd be down with that."

Cortez went out to the truck to check on Private Seth Scheller, who was the only one on guard. Scheller was also new.

Cortez briefed Howard. He said they knew of an Iraqi girl who lived nearby, and they were going to go and fuck her. To Howard, it was the most insane thing he'd ever heard. He didn't believe it, nor that they were leaving him and Scheller alone. Cortez gave him the radio and told him to call if any patrols or Humvees came through. The men, armed and disguised, headed out the back of the TCP.

Qassim Hamzah Rashid al-Janabi was not from the Yusufiyah area. After the 1991 Gulf war, when UN sanctions made life even tougher, he and his wife Fakhriah had moved to be closer to her family and to look for work. A daughter, Abeer, was born in August 1991; soon after came two sons, Muhammad and Ahmed, and another daughter, Hadeel.

When the US invaded, local people were hopeful, but soon the area began to fall apart from neglect and violence. The locals felt persecuted. The US patrols were brutish. Qassim's brother-in-law was gunned down in cold blood by the Americans in Iskandariyah in early 2005, said his sister. Other family members got hauled off to jail for no reason, with no indication of when they'd come home.

Fakhriah was particularly worried about Abeer. Now 14, her fragile beauty was attracting a lot of unwanted attention. Soldiers would give her the thumbs up and say, "Very good, very nice." By early March, the harassment was getting so bad that Abu Muhammad told the family to leave Abeer with him; there were more people at his house and it was less secluded. But Abeer stayed there only one night, on 9 or 10 March. With his protection, Qassim assured Abu Muhammad, they'd be fine.

Sneaking up on the house, the soldiers corralled the whole family into the bedroom. After they had recovered the family's AK-47 and Green had confirmed it was locked and loaded, Barker and Cortez left, yanking Abeer behind them. Spielman set up guard in the doorway between the foyer and living room, while Cortez shoved Abeer into the living room, pushed her down, and Barker pinned her outstretched arms down with his knees.

In the bedroom, Green was losing control of his prisoners. The woman made a run for the door. Green shot her once in the back and she fell to the floor. The man became unhinged. Green turned his own AK on him and pulled the trigger. It jammed. Panicking, as the man advanced on him, Green switched to his shotgun. The first shot blasted the top of the man's head off. Then Green turned to the little girl, who was running for a corner. This time the AK worked. He raised the rifle and shot Hadeel in the back of the head. She fell to the ground.

Spielman came in, saw the carnage and was furious. Green explained the AK had jammed and Spielman began searching for shotgun casings.

As Green was executing the family, Cortez finished raping Abeer and switched positions with Barker. Green came out of the bedroom and announced to Barker and Cortez, "They're all dead. I killed them all." Cortez held Abeer down and Green raped her. Then Cortez pushed a pillow over her face, still pinning her arms with his knees. Green grabbed the AK, pointed the gun at the pillow, and fired one shot, killing Abeer.

The men were becoming extremely frenzied and agitated now. Barker brought a kerosene lamp he had found in the kitchen and dumped the contents on Abeer. Spielman handed a lighter to either Barker or Cortez, who lit the flame. Spielman went to the bedroom and found some blankets to throw on the body to stoke the fire.

The four men ran back the way they had come. When they arrived at the TCP, they were out of breath, manic, animated. They began talking rapid-fire about how great that was, how well done. They all agreed that was awesome, that was cool.

Several hours later, Yribe was still mulling over what he had seen. You don't see a lot of girls that little murdered in Iraq, he thought to himself. And the burning of the other girl's body – that was strange, too: burning was a huge desecration. Then there was the shotgun shell. The shotgun is almost exclusively an American weapon.

As Yribe approached TCP2 to drop off Spielman and Cortez, Green was waiting in the street. He pulled Yribe aside. "I did that shit," he said.

"What?" Yribe said.

"I killed them," Green repeated. Barker was standing next to Green, but didn't say a word.

Caught off guard, Yribe dismissed it as more of Green's crazy talk. It was insane. How could a scrawny guy slip away from a TCP by himself in the middle of the day and rape and murder a family? But Green kept insisting. Yribe told him to shut up, he didn't have time for his bullshit right now.

The next day, Cortez went to Yribe in tears. He said he was so shaken up by what he had seen in the house, he needed to go to Combat Stress.

While Yribe covered for Cortez, he found Green. He'd been thinking over what Green had told him the day before and it was bothering him. "Now," he demanded, "tell me everything, every detail."

Green started to talk. Again, Barker was there and, again, he did not say a word. The thing that really convinced Yribe was not what Green was saying but how he was saying it. Ordinarily, Green was manic and boastful. Right now, however, Green was serious, sober, matter-of-fact.

When Green was finished, Yribe told him, "I am done with you. You are dead to me. You get yourself out of this army, or I will get you out myself."

Yribe decided not to say anything and, as there were no witnesses, the bodies had been removed so quickly and so many soldiers had tramped over the house, there was no usable physical evidence beyond a few AK-47 shell casings. Without conclusive evidence, it was instantly a cold case, like tens of thousands of murders in Iraq that year.

On 20 March, Green went to Combat Stress and, over a few days, was diagnosed with a pre-existing antisocial personality disorder, a condition marked by indifference to the suffering of others, habitual lying and disregard for the safety of self or others. The diagnosis carried immediate expulsion from the army. Back in the US, on 16 May, he was honourably discharged and returned to society.

On 16 June, three more of 1st Platoon's men – Private First Class Thomas Tucker, Specialist David Babineau and Private First Class Kristian Menchaca were attacked on guard. Babineau was killed, the others captured. Three days later they were found, murdered, burnt and mutilated. When Yribe heard, he lost it. "It drives me crazy," he said to Private First Class Justin Watt, "that all the good men die and the shitbag murderers like Green are home eating hamburgers."

"Murderers?" Watt asked.

Yribe told Watt about the day at the checkpoint and how Green had confessed to him. Watt couldn't believe what he was hearing, and didn't believe Green could have acted alone. "Just forget I said anything," Yribe said. But Watt couldn't forget. He began obsessively mulling it over.

Around lunchtime on 19 June, Watt ran into Howard and Private First Class Justin Cross. As they were talking, Watt remembered both guys had been a part of the group at TCP2 that day back in March. They discussed all the messed-up stuff they had seen, and Watt brought up the girl who got burnt. Convinced Watt knew the whole story, Howard filled in many of the missing pieces.

That night, Watt recounted it all to Yribe, but again he said he didn't see what good was going to come from digging it up. For a while, Watt did try to forget. But he kept coming back to the father. He imagined the powerlessness, the impotence, of having armed men break into your house and there being nothing you could do to protect your family. Watt ran it over in his mind again and again. He resolved that he couldn't just let this pass.

On 23 June, Watt spoke to his immediate superiors. Over the next two days, the matter reached the highest levels. The soldiers involved were interviewed and, with varying degrees of vehemence and evasiveness, each claimed to have no knowledge of the crime. But over the next five days, and over multiple interrogation sessions, Barker, Cortez and Spielman all broke down and confessed, corroborating Howard's narrative, though each resisted fully implicating himself.

The US army paid the Janabi family $30,000 for the murders of Qassim, Fakhriah, Abeer and Hadeel. Nine months into a year-long deployment, 1st Platoon's war was effectively over.

Back in the US, Green was arrested by the FBI. The crime was making news, and al-Qaida was exploiting the outrage for maximum propaganda. On 10 July, the Mujahideen Shura Council issued a five-minute video showing the mutilated corpses of Tucker and Menchaca. Its audio includes clips of Osama bin Laden's and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's speeches, as well as the message that the video was being presented as "revenge for our sister who was dishonoured by a soldier of the same brigade".

Although there was virtually no usable forensic evidence, the army's cases against Barker and Cortez were particularly strong, based on their confessions, and both offered to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit rape and murder and other charges if the army agreed not to pursue the death penalty. The army accepted, and sentenced Barker and Cortez to 90 years and 100 years at the military's maximum security prison. They will be eligible for parole in 20 and 10 years respectively.

In March 2007, Howard pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice and being an accessory after the fact. He was sentenced to 27 months in prison, and was released on parole after 17.

Spielman's lawyers claimed he did not know where the rogue patrol was going on 12 March and, once at the house, was too surprised and scared to do anything about it. A military panel did not believe these claims of innocence, found him guilty of all charges and sentenced him to life in prison. His sentence was later reduced to 90 years; he, too, will be eligible for parole after 10 years.

Because Green had been discharged, his case proved to be much more complicated. The Justice Department announced it was pursuing the death penalty, making him the first former service member ever to face the possibility of execution in a civilian court for his conduct during war. His defence team twice offered to have him plead guilty if the government would take the death penalty off the table; twice the Justice Department declined. To this day, his defence attorney maintains that this was a politically motivated appeasement to the Iraqi government and public opinion. His attorneys also tried several times to have Green reinducted into the army and tried by court martial. The army declined the offers.

After ruling out an insanity defence, Green's attorneys decided their best hope was to focus on the horrible conditions under which Bravo worked, Green's abysmal upbringing, the leadership failures that plagued every level of the 1-502nd and the warning signs of his murderous obsessions that his superiors routinely ignored. During several dramatic weeks of testimony, the defence ran a trial within a trial against the army's negligence in allowing the atrocity to happen, while prosecutors emphasised the heinousness of Green's behaviour.

The jury of nine women and three men found Green guilty of all counts of conspiracy, rape and murder, but hung, six against six, on the issue of whether to sentence him to death, triggering an automatic sentence of life in prison without parole.

Relatives of the murdered family, including Abu Muhammad, had testified during the trial, and afterwards were allowed to address the court. Abu Muhammad spoke last, praising his slain family members and criticising the jury's reluctance to execute Green. He concluded by turning to Green and saying, "Abeer will follow you and chase you in your nightmares. May God damn you."

Then Green was given the opportunity to make his first public statement. He addressed the family, saying, "I am truly sorry for what I did in Iraq and for the pain my actions, and the actions of my co-defendants, have caused you and your family… I helped to destroy a family and end the lives of four fellow human beings, and I wish that I could take that back, but I cannot… I know if I live one more year or 50 more years that they will be years that Fakhriah, Qassim, Abeer and Hadeel won't have. And even though I did not learn their names until long after their deaths, they are never far from my mind… I know I have done evil, and I fear the wrath of the Lord will come upon me. But I hope you and your family at least can find some comfort in God's justice."

Green is currently serving five consecutive life sentences with no possibility of parole.

• This is an edited extract from Black Hearts: One Platoon's Descent Into Madness In Iraq's Triangle Of Death, by Jim Frederick, published on 6 August by Macmillan at £12.99. To order a copy for £9.99 (including UK p&p), go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0330 333 6846.
don't compete; coexist

what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    this is but the true face of war and of a society that has no compassion and respect for basic human life ... all these stories fall at the feet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield et al ... those guys should never see freedom for the rest of their lives ...
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Please add Obama to that list, he promised to end it immediately and has not done so.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    unsung wrote:
    Please add Obama to that list, he promised to end it immediately and has not done so.

    i'm not a fan of Obama but this is the military industrial complex at work ... i'm pretty sure Obama isn't profiting from this war like the 3 I mentioned ...
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Well he has the power to end it, like he promised to when he was running for the office. So he is either a big fucking liar like just about every other politician, or he is still in it because of the same reasons. Somebody is still cleaning up, and if he isn't he knows who is, and that makes him just as guilty.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    unsung wrote:
    Well he has the power to end it, like he promised to when he was running for the office. So he is either a big fucking liar like just about every other politician, or he is still in it because of the same reasons. Somebody is still cleaning up, and if he isn't he knows who is, and that makes him just as guilty.

    he does not actually have the power to end it ... he is controlled by the same powerful groups that control washington now ... he is probably a liar like every other politician but there's a huge difference between being controlled by the military industrial complex and serving and profiting from it ...

    again - i'm not a supporter of obama but your comparison isn't fair whatsoever ... sending kids to a war to create mass suffering for a sovereign nation based on lies and profiteering does not come anywhere close to not having the balls to stand up to these corporations and pull out ...
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    unsung wrote:
    Please add Obama to that list, he promised to end it immediately and has not done so.
    agreed.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    You love the ole' well that guy is not any better comments when it comes to Obama. The Dems have been saying they would get us out of Iraq since Bush's 2nd term and John Kerry... Obama has very little to do with the overall situation there until just recently where he's set some type of withdrawal plan. We can talk about escalation in Afganistan, but in terms of Iraq, he picked up dirty dishes, not set the table...
    unsung wrote:
    Please add Obama to that list, he promised to end it immediately and has not done so.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    unsung wrote:
    Well he has the power to end it, like he promised to when he was running for the office. So he is either a big fucking liar like just about every other politician, or he is still in it because of the same reasons. Somebody is still cleaning up, and if he isn't he knows who is, and that makes him just as guilty.
    ...
    How?
    It's a simple question... How do you propose to send our guys home... without placing them at risk?
    Remember, it's not just the personel... what about all of the vehicles and weapons... should we leave them over there? Who do you send out first... the combat soldiers or their support personel? Do you really believe that Iraq is a safe enough place to leave without a threat to our retreat?
    The point is... it is extremely difficult to get out of a military occupation... unless you really don't give a shit if your guys die or not. We should have hasd this understanding when we went in... it is very easy to start a war (we've seen enough proof that any idiot can start a war)... very difficult to end one.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • SmellymanSmellyman Asia Posts: 4,524
    and now the chickenhawks want to go to Iran.

    How many wars has the US been in since WWII? How many were necassary?
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Smellyman wrote:
    and now the chickenhawks want to go to Iran.

    How many wars has the US been in since WWII? How many were necassary?
    i would hope that we as a population are not gullible enough to fall for a "necessary war" for the third time in nine years....if we are, then we deserve to be bankrupted and weakened and bogged down in the middle east for the next 20 years...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    i would hope that we as a population are not gullible enough to fall for a "necessary war" for the third time in nine years....if we are, then we deserve to be bankrupted and weakened and bogged down in the middle east for the next 20 years...

    the question is not whether you'd fall for it ... the question is what have and are you gonna do about it when they do!? ...

    having said that - i think the next wave of wars will be done the ole fashioned way ... covert ops, supplying arms and money to militants so, i don't think you'll see a full escalation with US troops elsewhere ...
  • TriumphantAngelTriumphantAngel Posts: 1,760
    polaris_x wrote:
    i would hope that we as a population are not gullible enough to fall for a "necessary war" for the third time in nine years....if we are, then we deserve to be bankrupted and weakened and bogged down in the middle east for the next 20 years...

    the question is not whether you'd fall for it ... the question is what have and are you gonna do about it when they do!? ...
    the UN will never sanction an attack on Iran, but then again when has the US ever given a shit or asked permission before invading another country.

    the US will do what Netanyahu influences them to do. the fact that Obama hasn't loudly and publically told Netanyahu to go away after his comment, "America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction" shows who pulls the strings. Obama is his puppet.

    Obama needs to keep his nose out of Iran. we are not as great or as powerful as he thinks. there is no honor in being the worlds biggest fool. we already have quite enough people who hate us thanks to our current and past Governments repulsive foreign policies.

    we don't need anymore thanks.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I disagree - the US has it's own interests in the Middle East... mainly oil, and in some sense to maintain a status quo or some type of relative stabilization in the area so that things don't go too far off the handle or Iran doesn't begin to incite others. Many of these interests have always been a leveraging point for the US to remain loyal and stand by Israel...that's a discussion in it's own right, but my point is that the US is not simply Israel's puppet as you claim, more so, US is there for it's interests of which some include and allow for Israel to act upon it's behalf or in certain circumstances back them for support. Not frequently, but there have been times where the US of late has scolded Israel for it's forceful and harmful reactions to others. Yes it is only a scolding, but it does show our intent is not solely to let them dictate our will or follow solely because it's in there belief to carry out action. More so than not, in my opinion, most of our support of Israel in that region spurs from our own interests being sought combined with finding a counterbalance to pan-arabism/fundamentalism/anti-americanism. Certainly not condoning it, but I think it's more of a realistic picture than solely that of puppet and master.
    the US will do what Netanyahu influences them to do. the fact that Obama hasn't loudly and publically told Netanyahu to go away after his comment, "America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction" shows who pulls the strings. Obama is his puppet.

    Obama needs to keep his nose out of Iran. we are not as great or as powerful as he thinks. there is no honor in being the worlds biggest fool. we already have quite enough people who hate us thanks to our current and past Governments repulsive foreign policies.

    we don't need anymore thanks.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • TriumphantAngelTriumphantAngel Posts: 1,760
    do you think Iran has just as much right to have access to nucleur weapons as Israel and the U.S?
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Absolutely, it is hypocritical to say otherwise, but at the same point from a foreign policy standpoint, we want to minimize the spread or possible use of such weapons, especially from nations that we deem as dangerous in some fashion. The goal should be to minimize nuclear arsenals (ourselves included) and raise treaties so it's an across the board agenda for all to follow and participate in. Unfortunately, US government doesn't play by those rules, we basically say since we are the authority in charge and can wield the power, we try and deem who can and can't do what in the world. But even with all that stated, I don't thing any of us actually want Iran or others to have nuclear weapon access correct? But how we go about doing that creates backlash and resentment by many.
    do you think Iran has just as much right to have access to nucleur weapons as Israel and the U.S?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • TriumphantAngelTriumphantAngel Posts: 1,760
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Absolutely, it is hypocritical to say otherwise, but at the same point from a foreign policy standpoint, we want to minimize the spread or possible use of such weapons, especially from nations that we deem as dangerous in some fashion. The goal should be to minimize nuclear arsenals (ourselves included) and raise treaties so it's an across the board agenda for all to follow and participate in. Unfortunately, US government doesn't play by those rules, we basically say since we are the authority in charge and can wield the power, we try and deem who can and can't do what in the world. But even with all that stated, I don't thing any of us actually want Iran or others to have nuclear weapon access correct? But how we go about doing that creates backlash and resentment by many.
    do you think Iran has just as much right to have access to nucleur weapons as Israel and the U.S?
    so Iran is deemed ''dangerous" because that's what they WANT us to believe. Ahmadinejad is no threat to us, he's all talk no action. It's so fucking hypocrital, the world has gone mad and i'm just so tired of people atttempting to defend our actions all of the time. we should be ashamed of ourselves.

    personally i don't like the fact that anyone has wmd, but who the hell are we to dictate to the rest of the world as to who can or cannot have them. and let's not forget there is only one country who has EVER used them.

    you have the only country that has EVER used WMD (U.S.), supporting a country that we all know has WMD'S - Israel). that same country that has used them (U.S.), is STILL over in Iraq blowing their country and people to pieces because they THOUGHT they had WMD. STILL none have been found.

    how can any rational person not see how wrong that is? how can anyone try to justify a U.S. policy that kills where WMD don't exist, and yet turns a blind eye and unconditionally supports Israel and provides them with billions of dollars in foreign aid each year, where they obviously do?

    it's insane.

    there is NOTHING fair about this world anymore. our leaders have absolutely no integrity at all. it's so fucked up.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I agree, lots of it has to do with regional balance and that doesn't mean "fair", it solely means what's good for our interests and well being through them. And your right in everything you say, but nothing in the world is ever fair nor has it ever been or will be. No matter the empire through histories past, it was all the same simply different ruling groups using different hypocritical ways to control and maintain their power.
    so Iran is deemed ''dangerous" because that's what they WANT us to believe. Ahmadinejad is no threat to us, he's all talk no action. It's so fucking hypocrital, the world has gone mad and i'm just so tired of people atttempting to defend our actions all of the time. we should be ashamed of ourselves.

    personally i don't like the fact that anyone has wmd, but who the hell are we to dictate to the rest of the world as to who can or cannot have them. and let's not forget there is only one country who has EVER used them.

    you have the only country that has EVER used WMD (U.S.), supporting a country that we all know has WMD'S - Israel). that same country that has used them (U.S.), is STILL over in Iraq blowing their country and people to pieces because they THOUGHT they had WMD. STILL none have been found.

    how can any rational person not see how wrong that is? how can anyone try to justify a U.S. policy that kills where WMD don't exist, and yet turns a blind eye and unconditionally supports Israel and provides them with billions of dollars in foreign aid each year, where they obviously do?

    it's insane.

    there is NOTHING fair about this world anymore. our leaders have absolutely no integrity at all. it's so fucked up.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    FiveB247x wrote:
    I disagree - the US has it's own interests in the Middle East... mainly oil, and in some sense to maintain a status quo or some type of relative stabilization in the area so that things don't go too far off the handle or Iran doesn't begin to incite others. Many of these interests have always been a leveraging point for the US to remain loyal and stand by Israel...that's a discussion in it's own right, but my point is that the US is not simply Israel's puppet as you claim, more so, US is there for it's interests of which some include and allow for Israel to act upon it's behalf or in certain circumstances back them for support. Not frequently, but there have been times where the US of late has scolded Israel for it's forceful and harmful reactions to others. Yes it is only a scolding, but it does show our intent is not solely to let them dictate our will or follow solely because it's in there belief to carry out action. More so than not, in my opinion, most of our support of Israel in that region spurs from our own interests being sought combined with finding a counterbalance to pan-arabism/fundamentalism/anti-americanism. Certainly not condoning it, but I think it's more of a realistic picture than solely that of puppet and master.
    impossible. the US's interests in the region, including oil, would be so much easier to deal with if they did not support Israel unconditionally. their ties to the arab countries and the arab people would be far stronger, and in general, so many of the problems the US deals with regarding islam, muslims, islamic fundamentalism, etc, would almost vanish. that's actually the truth, the only people who don't want Americans discovering this are zionists.

    i'm not saying netanyahu controls US actions or that the US is an Israeli puppet. in fact, the only reason I think Israel has not attacked Iran yet is because I don't the US has given them the green light for that yet (though considering Israel's aggressive behavior and rash thinking, they may just do it anyway). there are obviously a large number of factors that go into why the US supports Israel even though it's counter to our interests, but one thing that stood out for me is where you said that the US scolded Israel as of late... amazing how the media works! Obama says settlements should freeze temporarily, then gets told to shut the fuck up by Netanyahu and backs off... and all of a sudden Americans think the US has scolded Israel! the US doesn't "scold" Israel, "stroke" is more like it.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Absolutely, it is hypocritical to say otherwise, but at the same point from a foreign policy standpoint, we want to minimize the spread or possible use of such weapons, especially from nations that we deem as dangerous in some fashion. The goal should be to minimize nuclear arsenals (ourselves included) and raise treaties so it's an across the board agenda for all to follow and participate in. Unfortunately, US government doesn't play by those rules, we basically say since we are the authority in charge and can wield the power, we try and deem who can and can't do what in the world. But even with all that stated, I don't thing any of us actually want Iran or others to have nuclear weapon access correct? But how we go about doing that creates backlash and resentment by many.
    well, wouldn't you agree that Iran getting nuclear weapons would actually make the region somewhat more peaceful since it would create a more balance of power considering both Israel and Iran would have nuclear weapons and neither would want to provoke the other?
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    No not at all. The less nations that have the weapons, the more likely they won't be used. Not saying those that currently have them are "responsible" or something, but the escalation and spread will only over time guarantee the use of them by one nation. Then you also add in some of these nations that do have them, that they would willing sell them or trade information about them or their nations/society aren't the most stable and it certainly adds for a volatile problem. Weapons growth (technology & spread) will only escalate war and conflict not reduce their use.
    _outlaw wrote:
    well, wouldn't you agree that Iran getting nuclear weapons would actually make the region somewhat more peaceful since it would create a more balance of power considering both Israel and Iran would have nuclear weapons and neither would want to provoke the other?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Cosmo wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    Well he has the power to end it, like he promised to when he was running for the office. So he is either a big fucking liar like just about every other politician, or he is still in it because of the same reasons. Somebody is still cleaning up, and if he isn't he knows who is, and that makes him just as guilty.
    ...
    How?
    It's a simple question... How do you propose to send our guys home... without placing them at risk?
    Remember, it's not just the personel... what about all of the vehicles and weapons... should we leave them over there? Who do you send out first... the combat soldiers or their support personel? Do you really believe that Iraq is a safe enough place to leave without a threat to our retreat?
    The point is... it is extremely difficult to get out of a military occupation... unless you really don't give a shit if your guys die or not. We should have hasd this understanding when we went in... it is very easy to start a war (we've seen enough proof that any idiot can start a war)... very difficult to end one.

    This typically ego-centric attitude doesn’t fly with me – you guys started this mess. Yet your post seems to put more value on the life of an American SOLDIER than an Iraqi CIVILIAN. I don’t want to see Americans die, but if our choices are to stick around and keep killing and terrorizing both militants AND innocent civilians alike, or to pull out and take casualties in doing so….. I think the ‘right’ decision is obvious. Saying “unless you really don't give a shit if your guys die or not” sounds like a ‘for us or against us’, black and white Bushism…it’s a blanket attempt to silence US dissent, and is disrespectful to the innocent Iraqi victims of war (esp in light of the thread topic :( )
    And who gives a fuck about your shiny killing toys. Blow ‘em up and order new ones. That should appease your MICMasters.
    Your common-sense posts are usually a breath of fresh air around here, but the common sense in this post (minimizing unnecessary deaths) should apply to all people involved in the conflict, not just the US military, esp given the fact that the US should not be there at all. If it were a truly ‘just’ war (possible? an oxymoron IMO), with a definable enemy, it would be different.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    polaris_x wrote:
    he does not actually have the power to end it ... he is controlled by the same powerful groups that control washington now ... he is probably a liar like every other politician but there's a huge difference between being controlled by the military industrial complex and serving and profiting from it ...

    again - i'm not a supporter of obama but your comparison isn't fair whatsoever ... sending kids to a war to create mass suffering for a sovereign nation based on lies and profiteering does not come anywhere close to not having the balls to stand up to these corporations and pull out ...

    I agree with your second paragraph, but completely disagree with the bolded line in the first one. If he’s controlled by them, he’s serving them…semantics. And he is profiting from it simply by not standing up to them. He knows he likely will not win a second term without their backing, he knows he will limit his post-presidency career options by opposing, he knows he will damage his position as a power broker if he opposes them….. he might not be profiting as directly or arrogantly as Cheney did with his Haliburton options, but to say he is not profiting from his guilty silence is far from the truth IMO. Still, he shouldn’t be grouped with Bush and Cheney. Most of Obama’s corrupt ties are in the banking world, less oil/defense. Thing is….the banks love both industries. If he’s beholden to them, he’s not much better…
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    I agree with your second paragraph, but completely disagree with the bolded line in the first one. If he’s controlled by them, he’s serving them…semantics. And he is profiting from it simply by not standing up to them. He knows he likely will not win a second term without their backing, he knows he will limit his post-presidency career options by opposing, he knows he will damage his position as a power broker if he opposes them….. he might not be profiting as directly or arrogantly as Cheney did with his Haliburton options, but to say he is not profiting from his guilty silence is far from the truth IMO. Still, he shouldn’t be grouped with Bush and Cheney. Most of Obama’s corrupt ties are in the banking world, less oil/defense. Thing is….the banks love both industries. If he’s beholden to them, he’s not much better…

    i would also say this is semantics ... again - i don't see obama as a righteous politician by any stretch so if you feel like his unwillingness to stand up to the defence companies is "profiting" then so be it ... my primary point still stands that bush, cheney and rummy should be serving multiple life sentences ... and that if they were running any other country in this world ... they'd probably been attacked and sent to the hague ...
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    polaris_x wrote:
    I agree with your second paragraph, but completely disagree with the bolded line in the first one. If he’s controlled by them, he’s serving them…semantics. And he is profiting from it simply by not standing up to them. He knows he likely will not win a second term without their backing, he knows he will limit his post-presidency career options by opposing, he knows he will damage his position as a power broker if he opposes them….. he might not be profiting as directly or arrogantly as Cheney did with his Haliburton options, but to say he is not profiting from his guilty silence is far from the truth IMO. Still, he shouldn’t be grouped with Bush and Cheney. Most of Obama’s corrupt ties are in the banking world, less oil/defense. Thing is….the banks love both industries. If he’s beholden to them, he’s not much better…

    i would also say this is semantics ... again - i don't see obama as a righteous politician by any stretch so if you feel like his unwillingness to stand up to the defence companies is "profiting" then so be it ... my primary point still stands that bush, cheney and rummy should be serving multiple life sentences ... and that if they were running any other country in this world ... they'd probably been attacked and sent to the hague ...
    agreed. Well...'cept for the fact that they wouldn't go to the Hague...they'd be hung as part of a media spectacle ;)
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Cosmo wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    Well he has the power to end it, like he promised to when he was running for the office. So he is either a big fucking liar like just about every other politician, or he is still in it because of the same reasons. Somebody is still cleaning up, and if he isn't he knows who is, and that makes him just as guilty.
    ...
    How?
    It's a simple question... How do you propose to send our guys home... without placing them at risk?
    Remember, it's not just the personel... what about all of the vehicles and weapons... should we leave them over there? Who do you send out first... the combat soldiers or their support personel? Do you really believe that Iraq is a safe enough place to leave without a threat to our retreat?
    The point is... it is extremely difficult to get out of a military occupation... unless you really don't give a shit if your guys die or not. We should have hasd this understanding when we went in... it is very easy to start a war (we've seen enough proof that any idiot can start a war)... very difficult to end one.

    This typically ego-centric attitude doesn’t fly with me – you guys started this mess. Yet your post seems to put more value on the life of an American SOLDIER than an Iraqi CIVILIAN. I don’t want to see Americans die, but if our choices are to stick around and keep killing and terrorizing both militants AND innocent civilians alike, or to pull out and take casualties in doing so….. I think the ‘right’ decision is obvious. Saying “unless you really don't give a shit if your guys die or not” sounds like a ‘for us or against us’, black and white Bushism…it’s a blanket attempt to silence US dissent, and is disrespectful to the innocent Iraqi victims of war (esp in light of the thread topic :( )
    And who gives a fuck about your shiny killing toys. Blow ‘em up and order new ones. That should appease your MICMasters.
    Your common-sense posts are usually a breath of fresh air around here, but the common sense in this post (minimizing unnecessary deaths) should apply to all people involved in the conflict, not just the US military, esp given the fact that the US should not be there at all. If it were a truly ‘just’ war (possible? an oxymoron IMO), with a definable enemy, it would be different.
    ...
    I believe you are missing the point I am trying to make. I am taking about withdrawing American troops from occupied Iraq... I'm not talking about evacuating Iraqi citizens from Iraq... why did you think we would want to move the Iraqi civilians to the U.S? My point is... it takes time to get out of a military occupation and does not happen overnight.
    I just want someone to explain to me the logistics involved in order to get our troops out of a hostile environment and how long that process would take. You cannot just put everyone on a plane an fly out today. You need to work out a schedule to ship out the hardware and move out the personel. And because there are still hostilities between American Troops and people living in the region, the withdrawal will need some sort of security. Do you take out the combat troops and leave the support personel vulnerable... or do you take out the support personel and leave the combat troops with no support?
    As for your suggestion of blowing up our war toys... where? In Iraq? Blow up the stockplied Depleted Uranium ordinances over there... because it will take too long to dispense with them over here? How about we just push all of the Abrahams and HMMWVs into the Tigeris River... you know... to save time? I'm saying it takes TIME to get out of an occupation. Sure, we can leave all of the weaponry there.. in tact. I'm pretty sure the Sunni/Shi'ite thing will resolve itself, once we are gone and niether would even think of using our left behind weaponry against each other... right? Or just blow the shit up and let them clean up the mess... is that what you are suggesting?
    Look how long it took to get out of Viet Nam. It took from 1970 to 1974. And we left a lot of our hardware and munitions there... that ended in accidental deaths of their people and polluted their land.
    I just want someone, maybe yourself or Unsung... who wants the U.S. out of Iraq today... to explain to me, HOW that is supposed to happen.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    unsung wrote:
    Well he has the power to end it, like he promised to when he was running for the office. So he is either a big fucking liar like just about every other politician, or he is still in it because of the same reasons. Somebody is still cleaning up, and if he isn't he knows who is, and that makes him just as guilty.
    ...
    From 28February2010:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews
    ...
    As of 21July2010:
    "With 40 days to reach the milestone of 50,000 troops, there are still 70,000 American troops in Iraq. Odierno is confident that troop reduction will be met in time."
    source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/0 ... arget.html
    ...
    There were about 160,000 troops in Iraq in 2008, last of the Bush years... now there are 70,000... and by the end of the month, 50,000.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    I believe you are missing the point I am trying to make. I am taking about withdrawing American troops from occupied Iraq... I'm not talking about evacuating Iraqi citizens from Iraq... why did you think we would want to move the Iraqi civilians to the U.S? My point is... it takes time to get out of a military occupation and does not happen overnight.
    I just want someone to explain to me the logistics involved in order to get our troops out of a hostile environment and how long that process would take. You cannot just put everyone on a plane an fly out today. You need to work out a schedule to ship out the hardware and move out the personel. And because there are still hostilities between American Troops and people living in the region, the withdrawal will need some sort of security. Do you take out the combat troops and leave the support personel vulnerable... or do you take out the support personel and leave the combat troops with no support?
    As for your suggestion of blowing up our war toys... where? In Iraq? Blow up the stockplied Depleted Uranium ordinances over there... because it will take too long to dispense with them over here? How about we just push all of the Abrahams and HMMWVs into the Tigeris River... you know... to save time? I'm saying it takes TIME to get out of an occupation. Sure, we can leave all of the weaponry there.. in tact. I'm pretty sure the Sunni/Shi'ite thing will resolve itself, once we are gone and niether would even think of using our left behind weaponry against each other... right? Or just blow the shit up and let them clean up the mess... is that what you are suggesting?
    Look how long it took to get out of Viet Nam. It took from 1970 to 1974. And we left a lot of our hardware and munitions there... that ended in accidental deaths of their people and polluted their land.
    I just want someone, maybe yourself or Unsung... who wants the U.S. out of Iraq today... to explain to me, HOW that is supposed to happen.
    I'm not talking about evacuating Iraqi citizens from Iraq...not sure how you got that from my post...? Probably poor writing on my part.
    Your last post in this thread is definitely encouraging. I wasn't aware of how many troops had been withdrawn. Of course, if they were just moved to the other war, it's kinda moot...
    The point I was trying to make is that the priority should be stopping the loss of life on both sides...the cost of preventing American deaths should not be Iraqi death.


    As for the logistics of withdrawal...I realize it's complex and difficult...but let's not use it as a reason to stall.

    How about we hire some iraqi’s to clean it up the mess and let them profit from their own misery? I'm betting US contractors take care of that right now.
    Round up the DU munitions and bring it home, sure. Let KBR keep that contract. I’m sure they’d be glad to get you the labour needed to do so quickly. Of course I don’t think you should leave weaponry behind. But….you will likely end up arming one side after you leave anyway, so why not just sell it to them now?

    (yes, I’m being facetious – trying to say that this shouldn’t be the priority either – this aspect is mostly about $; lives should be more important).

    Aaaaand....I don’t align myself with unsung, nor any American political party or movement. I just want the war to end asap. I’m not some libertarian ideologue. Just a naive hippy, apparently ;)
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    so Iran is deemed ''dangerous" because that's what they WANT us to believe. Ahmadinejad is no threat to us, he's all talk no action. It's so fucking hypocrital, the world has gone mad and i'm just so tired of people atttempting to defend our actions all of the time. we should be ashamed of ourselves.

    personally i don't like the fact that anyone has wmd, but who the hell are we to dictate to the rest of the world as to who can or cannot have them. and let's not forget there is only one country who has EVER used them.

    you have the only country that has EVER used WMD (U.S.), supporting a country that we all know has WMD'S - Israel). that same country that has used them (U.S.), is STILL over in Iraq blowing their country and people to pieces because they THOUGHT they had WMD. STILL none have been found.

    how can any rational person not see how wrong that is? how can anyone try to justify a U.S. policy that kills where WMD don't exist, and yet turns a blind eye and unconditionally supports Israel and provides them with billions of dollars in foreign aid each year, where they obviously do?

    it's insane.

    there is NOTHING fair about this world anymore. our leaders have absolutely no integrity at all. it's so fucked up.

    it absolutely is.


    Thing is our leaders are their leaders.....the landowners and company owners and managers and capitalists...they call the shots, and they don't give a fuck.


    The United States was founded on angst that you are expressing in this post....it opposed idiocracy, idiocy, fucking aristocracy, goddamn leaders making decisions that benefit only them...and then turned around and did the same exact goddamn thing. A few hundred years after it started it is no different. IT is empire.

    Which gives me hope. Empires fall. We can do our part by spotlighting its absurdity, refusing to participate in the madness when the time comes, general strikes mass movements, popular protests....

    Eventually mankind will stop making the mistakes its always made; that is social progress. And social progress comes behind 10,000 or 10,000,000 people marching in the streets, refusing to run the country for THEM.


    Social progress happens, unfortunately its like geography. But it WILL happen.
Sign In or Register to comment.