wedding bombed

[low_delta]

You've heard about this Iraqi wedding that was bombed by American aircraft? 45 people killed. Lots of women and children.

The military is investigating. So far they're saying that there was no evidence of a wedding. Associated Press Television News has video to prove otherwise, but apparently they're not sharing it with the military. Damn liberal news media.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040523/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_5

I love where the general says, "bad people have celebrations too." In other words, I don't care what they were doiong, they were terrorists.

Comments

[dwivian]

Maybe they were terrorists?

It's unfortuntate when the strike came, if it WAS a wedding (in the middle of the desert, at 3 AM), but if the group were terrorists, then you have to give a little ground.

The problem is, of course, that nobody wants to pick the middle ground of 'bad guys have celebrations' except that general. One side says "anyone shooting guns into the air at night are bad" which denies middle eastern celebration custom, and the other side says "any gathering of people must be okay regardless of motive" which denies the problem of training insurgents.

It's an ugly game, and I wish we weren't in it, but now that we are, we have to work to help Iraq bring peace to itself. Sometimes that means being the police, and sometimes police make mistakes. Why is it that nobody ever goes up to a cop and says "good job! I didn't get assaulted, beaten, stabbed, robbed, or killed today!" but we're more than willing to slam them for their errors? Because we expect perfection, and that's a hard standard to live up to for anyone.

A statistic you might not know -- 75% of all active duty police officer deaths are by suicide. We're also getting high numbers among the active duty military, and our reserves are drawn rather strongly from our police forces. These people are under significant stress to do the right thing the right way every time all the time. Even when they catch their own (like with the torture and humiliation problem, which was NOT broken by the press but discovered and addressed by military police as early as January) they catch hell for not being perfect.

Perfection is the goal, though, because every failure is not a failure of one soldier, but of America, and the Coalition Forces. I'm very glad I am not there, because I'm just a man and wouldn't survive that stress.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Let's say it was a best-case scenario for the U.S. Let's say the intel was correct - it *was* a terrorist safe-house, and they were the victims of bad timing in attacking while there was a wedding there... why are we there, again?

[dwivian]

Because a federal law signed by Clinton said we had to seize the opportunity to force regime change in Iraq.

Now, why we had such a stupid law on the books.... well, Clinton was absolutely convinced Iraq had WMDs, and an unstable leader...

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

"a federal law signed by Clinton "

I'm not familiar with that one.

[dwivian]

Yup. Clinton signed a law that required that the Federal Government develop a plan for regime change in Iraq. The motivation for the law was Saddam's continued flouting of UN resolutions and the hokey-pokey shuffle the inspectors were playing.

It's The Iraq Liberation Act, and was signed into force 31 October 1998.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Never heard that. Thanks. But why is this important right now?

[dwivian]

Opportunity.

With the groundswell of interest by the American people, and the (eventually) established links between those in Iraq and Al Queda, it was possible to get a movement started that was going to mire us just as badly as the Balkan and Serbian conflicts did, without having too much public resistance. And, since intel said WMDs were there (and we know they WERE, since we were the source of them), the risk of uncontrolled regime change from within placed American interests at grave risk.

Just as the collapse of the Soviet Union has put tons of nuclear material on the "where the hell is it" list, so would a collapse of Iraq have placed Sarin and mustard gas on a similar list. Only by managing the change could we figure out where it all went. Strangely enough that didn't work, either, but it was a fantastic idea....

It's about oil not WMD!

[cherie.livejournal.com]

Your comment stating this has no connection to us going into Iraq unilaterally and on false premises. Clinton was simply implementing what we do all over the world - fund rebel militias against governments we don't like. HE (Clinton) did not sign a regime change order that included us blazing into Baghdad unilaterally on the way in,and telling all our longstanding allies to go fuck themselves. Very contrasting difference between what Clinton did and what Bush has done and YOU know that. Too bad you can't be honest about it. And now that the occupation has turned sour and an albatross around the illegitimate 'boy kings' neck, now just like the last 4 years when it all turns to shit - you try to blame it on Clinton. News flash! Clinton has not been president for 4 years.

Re: It's about oil not WMD!

[dwivian]

I'll go slow. Clinton signed an order, Public Law 105-235, on 14 October 1998 to fund rebel militias. This is materially different from Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338), signed 31 October 1998, which says:It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.The Act, which also funds resistance, provides direct military aid to the rebels, too.

The order that had us moving in a Coalition force (it was never unilateral, despite the best attempts by propagandists) with several of our long-standing allies not been violating the Food-For-Oil program (eg: France, Germany, and Russia) came from the United Nations Security Council. It is worth note that Russia, China, and France had partial opposition to this resolution, stating that they didn't like that it seemed to authorize action without subsequent votes, and they wanted to be 'seized' to the idea that a new vote would be taken, though not required.

It is my opinion that GWB did a very foolish thing by having our representative bring this up for vote again, as it gave the ambiguity that you still feel from the international community. Once it was the mind of security council countries to take action, they had all the authority they needed pre-existing, and shouldn't have confused things. That act, alone, has lead to most of the remaining issues between the Coalition forces, the UN, and those that were profiting from illegal trade with Iraq during the embargos.

So, I *KNOW* that Clinton signed an order authored by Lott to set the policy of our government to support a regime change in Iraq, which included the establishment of plans for moving the country to a democracy. Clinton had one of those plans in force before he left office. Bush created a similar plan upon his arrival. When he saw a way to get two things done with one military action, Bush took advantage and fulfilled the policy statement, UN resolution, and looked to make a major change for the peace of the world.

What he forgot is that Bravado is a significant part of middle eastern culture, and Hussein was either being lied to by his staff, or was lying himself in order to inflate the danger of Iraq, to prevent incursion from Iran or Saudi Arabia after two significant failures of their forces (Iran/Iraq war, Kuwait annexation). We walked all over their military, and ended the proper war months ago, without finding weapons we sold Iraq years ago, and without finding systems for creating new weapons that had been identified by UN intelligence and US intelligence acting under Clinton and Bush (Clinton, Lott, Lieberman, and others were firmly convinced Iraq had WMDs from that information).

I don't believe that the occupation has turned sour. I have friends from Iraq that tell me they have more water, consistent power, and better conditions than they have had in years. Bagdhad is not quite back, yet, because it was under almost martial law and people are being a little overly exuberant with new freedoms, but the police there are getting a handle on things as time goes forward. I see the change in government happening on 30 June, just as Bush says it will, and that the Iraq Defense Minister will need us, as he says, for months not years. More soldiers have died in the United States this year than have died in Iraq, and many of the reported deaths in Iraq are standard accidents (man fell off roof while on guard duty, man drowned in pool, etc).

The situation in Iraq is ugly, but it was going to BE ugly no matter what - regime change always is. It's much better than it could have been, and for that I am thankful.

I am not blaming anything on Clinton -- just pointing out that it has been a standing policy of our country to see Hussein out of power since Clinton was president. This is not just GWB's deal.

No, Clinton hasn't been president for four years. What of it? Nothing new, but if you like flashing people, go for it.

Oh, and this isn't much about oil, as the position of the new government is to honor old contracts, of which the US had almost none. We'll see how that changes as Iraq reintegrates into OPEC.

Re: It's about oil not WMD!

[cherie.livejournal.com]

According to the State Dept. We haven't built one power plant, road, hospital, school, bridge, sanitation facility or any number of infrastructures.

Everything they're talking about doing are all renovation projects-check out the State Dept. site. I think renovation is a euphemism for rebuilding structures we bombed the hell out of.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/30820.htm

Re: It's about oil not WMD!

[dwivian]

Accordingn to the State Department, we have renovated lots of power plants, roads, hospitals, schools, bridges, sanitation facilities, and other infrastructures.

THere is NOTHING that says new facilitites haven't been built. In fact, that link indicates that 900 new schools have been built of an anticipated 4500 new facilities over four years. And, new teachers are being trained to fill those schools. This is part of the infrastructure.

No, nothing at that link explicitly says "we have added X new power plants" or "Y miles of new roads have been paved", but a common phrase is pertinent here -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that power levels are better now than before the war infers that either the plants have been upgraded, or there are more of them. Either way, Iraq is getting better and better day by day.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/contracts/pdf/iirii_rfp031002attach11.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/part3.html

[sirreal13.livejournal.com]

"bad people have celebrations too."

I immediately thought of the Republican Convention when I heard this line.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Ha!