At 02:51 AM 4/3/03 -0800, Sarad AV wrote: ...
When a vehicle tries to flee at high speed-how can they be suicide bombers.A suicide bomber will go slow,stop at the check post and see that he can kill as many people as possible. where was the logic in killing these civilians-and this report was confirmed by allied soldiers.
I suspect the thing that happened here was that the soldiers were on edge, having been warned to be on the lookout for suicide bombers. When something fast and potentially scary happened (like the driver of an oncoming van saw people shooting at it, and sped up to get away), they interpreted it as an attack, and fired on the van. And while these guys probably aren't all that well-trained for distinguishing car bombers from terrified civilians, they're really very good at hitting what they shoot at.
For those who read this-the hate is growing,all over the world.
Perhaps. I think it's pretty clear that US and UK soldiers have been trying to minimize civilian casualties. Again, if we wanted Baghdad to be a pile of smoking rubble, it would be by now. Who would stop us?
The decision point was when we decided to invade Iraq. Suicide bombings, sniper attacks, starving refugees, civilians caught in crossfires, mistargeted bombs that kill bystanders, and probably eventual terrorist attacks here in the US are all outcomes that I think most of us on this list saw as likely. It appears that the Administration here in the US didn't see any of these as likely, which is probably one good argument for finding someone else for those jobs. (At least, their official statements when the war began were very much about expecting the Iraqi people to rise up and throw off their oppressors, because they knew we were on the way, and greet our troops with candy and flowers. If they didn't think something like this was going to happen, the certainly set themselves up for some embarassing questions and doubts to be raised later.)
And we're still in the war part, which is where we have the biggest advantages. I cringe at the thought of what the occupation is going to look like. It doesn't take very damned many suicide bombers, snipers, etc., to make an occupation like we're undertaking in Iraq *very* expensive. And like all guerilla warfare, it will be at least as hard on bystanders as on the soldiers. Maybe I'm wrong--I hope so--but I expect occupying Iraq to be a very bloody and expensive project. (On the upside, maybe some of the companies who have been given sweetheart deals for the reconstruction of Iraq, apparently based on their connections with the Administration, will lose a bunch of money on this.)
The weird thing is that it would honestly be better for almost everyone if the Iraqis just gave up at this point, including essentially every Iraqi who's not heavily involved in the Baath party. But there doesn't seem to be much chance of that. (And to be honest, if someone were invading the US, I doubt this kind of reasoning would appeal much to me.)
Sarath.
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
