And we wonder why the Iraqis don't like us...

[TK-8252]

 

Check out that video. Pretty ****ing insane. And this is actually how soldiers are *SUPPOSED* to drive in Iraq... to minimize the risk of being ambushed when stuck in traffic.

 

It seems that the soldiers have little to no respect for Iraqi lives and property, if they think that ramming cars and causing wrecks is okay.

[Alkonium]

Wow. And people somehow are able to question my cynicism about the US. I am shocked. Well, not really.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I don't really have a problem with it. American soldiers are basically the police force in Iraq; you get the hell out of the way when you see a police cruiser or ambulance coming, why should a U.S. Army Humvee be treated differently?

 

In that video when the Humvee hits the car in front of it, it doesn't look like it does a hell of a lot of damage anyway, and with the greater amount of danger facing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, I think they are perfectly justified in getting the people who ignore their horn out of their way by hitting the car in front of them like that.

 

If it goes further, however, and they do cause wrecks like you said (which I didn't see in the video you posted), then yeah, I think they'd be in the wrong.

[Rogue15]

what if they were evacuating a casualty?

[Grey Master]

Joyriding is good, but not like this.

I think the soldiers have to drive more carefuly, if only to make the people feel a little more safe.

[Windu Chi]

It seems that the soldiers have little to no respect for Iraqi lives and property, if they think that ramming cars and causing wrecks is okay.

 

Ah come on, TK those soldiers can't trust no civilians there most of the country is a huge killzone.

Everyone is suspected of being a enemy by the soldiers I bet; children and women.

If I was patrolling that place I wouldn't trust nothing that walks upright and only have two legs.

So, they should drive slowly in traffic and respect the traffic laws and what?

End up dead by a ambush or a IED on the road.

The best thing for everyone is to get them the hell out of there.

The war is lost there I believe, the place is just a butcher's nest; death squads, disguise genocide cause by sectarian violence, etc, etc and etc.

But of course that is the easy thing to say, leave.

The war look's like a revenge war, the soldiers kill insurgents, the family members of the insurgents become insurgents over and over again until no one is left.

Plenty of civilians are leaving(who can leave) and a lot have already left.

The government officials are corrupt and out for their own personal needs, I don't see no solution there.

Just will have to wait and see how much gallons of blood Bush, his administration and people who still support that war is willing to waste, before they give up.

I think the death toll is going to reach 10,000 millitary fatalities over the coming years, before they get that in their thick heads.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Joyriding is good, but not like this.

Yeah I know I'd love to cruise down the streets of Baghdad in a convertible with the top down so I can holla at all the one-legged bitchez. Like in that LL Cool J song. But in a war zone.

[Spider AL]

I don't really have a problem with it. American soldiers are basically the police force in Iraq; you get the hell out of the way when you see a police cruiser or ambulance coming, why should a U.S. Army Humvee be treated differently?

Because they're not "the police force", they're an illegally occupying force. A malevolent force, as far as the Iraqis are concerned.

 

We get out of the way of the police on the roads in our own countries because they have a social remit to act in the interests of the society they are sanctioned by. But perhaps you're forgetting that a policeman that smashes into someone... at least in my OWN nation... is often deemed to be just as responsible for causing an accident as a member of the public would be. We usually get out of the way of the police, but the police are supposed to drive safely, just in case we don't get out of the way.

 

Add to this the fact that your average US humvee driving fast in Iraq isn't driving fast so that it can get to the scene of a crime more quickly, it isn't driving fast because it's pursuing evil criminals... it's driving fast because the US personnel within want to protect their own backsides.

 

The Iraqis don't want the US nor the UK in Iraq, the US/UK have certainly done the people no good in Iraq, and therefore any damage they cause is merely another count on the massive list of crimes contained within the larger war-crime that they are guilty of.

 

Anyway, this clip is fairly mild. I presume you've all seen the footage of US mercenaries shooting at random bystanders on the road to Baghdad? If not, it can be produced, no doubt.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I knew about this already, from Riverbend's blog. She reports they also fire machine guns in the air to get people to move out of their way.

 

what if they were evacuating a casualty?

Isn't that what this contraption called an ambulance is for?

 

I was going to suggest the Humvees use sirens and those fancy spinning blue light thingies, but then I remembered that seeing as to how the Coalition uses plywood for armour, I doubt they can afford them.

 

But perhaps you're forgetting that a policeman that smashes into someone... at least in my OWN nation... is often deemed to be just as responsible for causing an accident as a member of the public would be. We usually get out of the way of the police, but the police are supposed to drive safely, just in case we don't get out of the way.

Right. Even in a really bad emergency with lives at stake, you don't see fire apparatuses ram other vehicles out of the way, even though they're certainly capable of doing so.

[TK-8252]

American soldiers are basically the police force in Iraq;

 

Except they're not. They're an occupying military that has become nothing but a pain in the ass for the average Iraqi. Someone getting a fresh new dent in their car is just another reminder for them that they're occupied.

 

you get the hell out of the way when you see a police cruiser or ambulance coming, why should a U.S. Army Humvee be treated differently?

 

Maybe some people don't know that you're SUPPOSED to pull over for a Humvee? It's not like it has lights and sirens on it. Besides, cops, firetrucks, and ambulances STILL don't have the right to bump cars, with or without a siren.

 

In that video when the Humvee hits the car in front of it, it doesn't look like it does a hell of a lot of damage anyway, and with the greater amount of danger facing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, I think they are perfectly justified in getting the people who ignore their horn out of their way by hitting the car in front of them like that.

 

A lot of the people they hit look like they had no where to get out of the way. They're stuck in traffic FFS. It looks like they're ramming cars because they have no care for the property of the Iraqis, and think that since they're trying to save their own lives, that it's okay to piss off other people in the process.

 

Just think... every person in these bumped cars now might look the other way if they see an IED being planted... how the HELL are we EVER going to win hearts and minds like this??

[Totenkopf]

Except they're not. They're an occupying military that has become nothing but a pain in the ass for the average Iraqi. Someone getting a fresh new dent in their car is just another reminder for them that they're occupied. Maybe some people don't know that you're SUPPOSED to pull over for a Humvee? It's not like it has lights and sirens on it. Besides, cops, firetrucks, and ambulances STILL don't have the right to bump cars, with or without a siren. A lot of the people they hit look like they had no where to get out of the way. They're stuck in traffic FFS. It looks like they're ramming cars because they have no care for the property of the Iraqis, and think that since they're trying to save their own lives, that it's okay to piss off other people in the process. Just think... every person in these bumped cars now might look the other way if they see an IED being planted... how the HELL are we EVER going to win hearts and minds like this??

 

Hmm.....a potential rpg up the tailpipe or a slightly pissed off Iraqi (who you claim doesn't like you anyway)? Nothing to lose. Also, they are effectively the equivalent of the police under the current circumstances, "occupiers" or not. Besides, after almost 4 years, no one in Iraq doesn't essentially know that you get out of the way of a military vehicle in what is still pretty much a wartime situation. It takes a lot more than a few bumped cars to solidify such attitudes. On top of which, the people who are planting IEDs and blowing up people with car bombs are killing many more civilians than soldiers. If those people turn the other way upon seeing an IED planted somewhere, they are probably already the enemy or are potentially signing their own death warrants. Explosives don't discriminate.

[TK-8252]

Hmm.....a potential rpg up the tailpipe or a slightly pissed off Iraqi (who you claim doesn't like you anyway)? Nothing to lose. Also, they are effectively the equivalent of the police under the current circumstances, "occupiers" or not. Besides, after almost 4 years, no one in Iraq doesn't essentially know that you get out of the way of a military vehicle in what is still pretty much a wartime situation. It takes a lot more than a few bumped cars to solidify such attitudes. On top of which, the people who are planting IEDs and blowing up people with car bombs are killing many more civilians than soldiers. If those people turn the other way upon seeing an IED planted somewhere, they are probably already the enemy or are potentially signing their own death warrants. Explosives don't discriminate.

 

So even if all of these things were true (which they're not) - how does all of this still justify damaging someone's personal property (fixing a car isn't cheap, you know - and these people probably don't have the money to fix them)? Even an ambulance on the way to a life-threatening accident doesn't have the right to bump your car. And they KNOW that someone may die if they don't get there in a hurry. The difference is that a paramedic, or a fireman, or a cop will usually have respect for people's property, and will usually have respect for the law. The soldiers in Iraq, at least THESE soldiers, seem to think that the law does not apply to them... that there is no such thing as "hit-and-run" to them.

[Totenkopf]

What specifically are you talking about being untrue?

[TK-8252]

What specifically are you talking about being untrue?

 

Well, to start with, you're saying that there is nothing to lose by doing this. Wrong. The Iraqis have something to lose... the quality of their car. And, America has something to lose... the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, which is something that we were SUPPOSED to win over in this whole thing, remember?

 

And you say the soldiers are like a police force. Usually, a police force has some kind of legal establishment for their duties. There is no international authorization for American troops to be in Iraq, especially against the will of the Iraqi people. I really don't think that Americans would appreciate it if Chinese soldiers came over to American cities and started bumping our shiny new Escalades and F-150's while we're sitting in traffic until we pay off our debt to them.

 

Lastly, you say that the people were bumped because they wouldn't get out of the way. Now, I don't know if you've ever driven in traffic before, but sometimes there is no way to get out of the way.

[Totenkopf]

First off, the guys in the HMV have "nothing to lose" under the scenario as I described it. The guys in the HMV are not the Iraqis. I was referring to them specifically.

 

Second, this is not like Okinawa. The US military forces in Iraq are combatants, not a tripwire force in a peacetime setting. Second, the will of the Iraqi people is not some monolithic anti-US/Coalition block. Some want us there and others do not. However, maybe we can find the time to send UN troops in to replace the US/GB et al and try to stabilize Iraq, that is if we can pull them away from the brothels they're running, when they're not cannabalizing the local population or cowering in their bunkers and looking the other way.

 

Third, your Chinese scenario is almost too absurd to respond to, but I will anyway. It is totally irrelevant how much "debt" we owe the PRC. They run a huge trade surplus with the US and don't yet have the alternative markets to dump their goods in yet. As a result, trying to come over here to "occupy" us till we pay said debt would be financially counterproductive for them.

 

However, your description of the incident in the video is a bit overblown. They tapped the cars in front of them, none crashed nor looked damaged (to the extent you appear to be suggesting). Furthermore, most of the vehicles they tapped found a way to get out of the way. Also, there was no high speed traffic. It also seems obvious from the video that the soldiers figured out they had to shift tactics due to the nature of the traffic situation.

 

As to the whole UN thing, so what. All that matters currently is the essentially bilateral (and somewhat symbiotic) relationship between the Coalition forces and the current government. The UN can go hang itself. It is incapable of acting due to the fact that it only takes 1 veto from any 1 of 5 countries to hamstring it from doing anything remotely productive anywhere. Words without actions are meaningless in the end. It was only the absence of one of the veto members that even allowed the UN to sanction the defense of SK. Otherwise you'd no doubt be bitching today that the inevitable US involvement in Korea would have been an imperialist aggression against the good people of NK.

[TK-8252]

First off, the guys in the HMV have "nothing to lose" under the scenario as I described it. The guys in the HMV are not the Iraqis. I was referring to them specifically.

 

Maybe not this trip. Maybe they won't be so lucky next time. Maybe next time, one of these drivers will be armed, and won't be so pleased with the fresh new dent in their car.

 

Second, this is not like Okinawa. The US military forces in Iraq are combatants, not a tripwire force in a peacetime setting.

 

Usually in a war zone, people aren't sitting in rush hour traffic in the middle of it. If this was truely a combat situation, the streets would be deserted. There is no combat going on in this video. Only a wreckless soldier driving like he owns Iraq.

 

Second, the will of the Iraqi people is not some monolithic anti-US/Coalition block.

 

What is this "Coalition" of which you speak? You mean us and Britain? Hardly a coalition. Besides, the British are on their way out. We'll be the only ones left.

 

Some want us there and others do not.

 

Eh... no one in Iraq wants us there. Except maybe the people in the Iraqi government who stand to gain from America bleeding for their government, which would be overthrown in a day if it weren't for our occupation.

 

However, your description of the incident in the video is a bit overblown. They tapped the cars in front of them, none crashed nor looked damaged (to the extent you appear to be suggesting). Furthermore, most of the vehicles they tapped found a way to get out of the way. Also, there was no high speed traffic. It also seems obvious from the video that the soldiers figured out they had to shift tactics due to the nature of the traffic situation.

 

Yes, damage is done. It doesn't matter how hard they were hit - trust me, I was just in a fender-bender a few weeks ago. I rear-ended a Honda Civic going about only 10-15 mph... yet our bumpers are both sagging.

 

It is incapable of acting due to the fact that it only takes 1 veto from any 1 of 5 countries to hamstring it from doing anything remotely productive anywhere.

 

Yeah, and usually that one veto is from the U.S.

 

Otherwise you'd no doubt be bitching today that the inevitable US involvement in Korea would have been an imperialist aggression against the good people of NK.

 

Heh... inevitable. Like somehow it's crucial to the continuation of the United States of America that South Korea is defended from North Korea.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Maybe not this trip. Maybe they won't be so lucky next time. Maybe next time, one of these drivers will be armed, and won't be so pleased with the fresh new dent in their car.

Yeah it sucks that the soldiers don't have assault rifles.

 

Usually in a war zone, people aren't sitting in rush hour traffic in the middle of it. If this was truely a combat situation, the streets would be deserted. There is no combat going on in this video. Only a wreckless soldier driving like he owns Iraq.

What. First off, for most of the video there's no traffic, just a lot of people double parked. Secondly, how would you know that if it was "truely" a combat situation, there would be no cars on the road? Lastly, it could have turned into a combat situation at any time.

 

Eh... no one in Iraq wants us there. Except maybe the people in the Iraqi government who stand to gain from America bleeding for their government, which would be overthrown in a day if it weren't for our occupation.

Actually, a very small number of Iraqis is in favor of the U.S. occupation.

 

Yes, damage is done. It doesn't matter how hard they were hit - trust me, I was just in a fender-bender a few weeks ago. I rear-ended a Honda Civic going about only 10-15 mph... yet our bumpers are both sagging.

The Humvee probably hit it at a slower speed. The cars being hit were moving, which detracts from the force of the impact.

 

Lastly, you say that the people were bumped because they wouldn't get out of the way. Now, I don't know if you've ever driven in traffic before, but sometimes there is no way to get out of the way.

I hit rush hour traffic here in Boston every morning and every afternoon - you find a way to pull to one side. And no matter what kind of anecdotes either of us come up with, the people in that video had plenty of opportunity to slow down and get to the side.

 

And, America has something to lose... the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, which is something that we were SUPPOSED to win over in this whole thing, remember?

I hope you're being sarcastic, because that ain't gonna happen.

[Spider AL]

Second, this is not like Okinawa. The US military forces in Iraq are combatants, not a tripwire force in a peacetime setting. Second, the will of the Iraqi people is not some monolithic anti-US/Coalition block. Some want us there and others do not. However, maybe we can find the time to send UN troops in to replace the US/GB et al and try to stabilize Iraq, that is if we can pull them away from the brothels they're running, when they're not cannabalizing the local population or cowering in their bunkers and looking the other way.

Bahaha... This is simply rabid neoconservatism at its most ridiculous.

 

First, as you well know (because I have made you aware of it on more than one occasion) the vast majority of the Iraqi people don't want the US/UK occupying Iraq. I have in the past produced (and can produce again) polls taken by our own governments that clearly show this. End of story. And if you don't want the will of the Iraqi people to be obeyed... then you are opposed to democracy in Iraq. Equally end of story.

 

Secondly, the US and UK created the mess in Iraq over the course of decades. It is not up to the rest of the world to fix our mess. So your laughable tirade simultaneously insulting the UN nations and suggesting that they need to pop over to Iraq and help you out... it's not only vulgar, it's nonsensical.

 

-

 

What. First off, for most of the video there's no traffic, just a lot of people double parked. Secondly, how would you know that if it was "truely" a combat situation, there would be no cars on the road? Lastly, it could have turned into a combat situation at any time.

You don't seem to be getting the idea: Bumping people's cars (and what looked like a bus) off the road is not safe. All the pedestrians they avoided with a narrow margin... (and subsequently insulted,) they were not safe. If the US forces were really there for the benefit of the Iraqi people, they wouldn't run around endangering them wantonly.

 

And of course, as has been stated before: this driving "technique" is merely for the US soldiers' benefit. But here's the chaser, here it is: An illegally occupying military force does not have the right to safeguard its soldiers at the expense of the safety of the civilian population.

 

The fact that you can even CONSIDER excusing this behaviour absolutely boggles the mind.

 

Suppose an occupying force took up residence in the US, a force that most of the US populace wanted GONE. Would you then excuse them if they rushed around running American cars off the road, damaging property and endangering the people? Of course you wouldn't.

 

Have some objective morality, why don't you.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Suppose an occupying force took up residence in the US, a force that most of the US populace wanted GONE. Would you then excuse them if they rushed around running American cars off the road, damaging property and endangering the people? Of course you wouldn't.

Or how about this: What about those ambulances, fire apparatuses and police cars most of us do want in our countries. Would it be OK if those rear-ended you?

 

No? Then think about how you'd feel if it was some illegal occupying force you did not like in the first place.

 

And if you think that movie was bad, wait 'til you see how these guys teach people not to sit peacefully next to the road without understanding English.

 

What is upsetting about the movie is not what they do, it's the comments that condone the behavior. But then again, seeing as to how the Army-worshippers are so in awe of their land and Army that they allow torture at Guantanamo...

[Spider AL]

Hey Eagle, that link seems to go straight back to the original humvee clip...

 

Anyway, here's another interesting news clip, where US soldiers comment on what they've been told to do to the Iraqis, and an ex SAS gent criticises US policy in Iraq... which is laughable really, considering the amoral uses the SAS have been put to by the UK in the past.

 

 

Here's one of UK soldiers beating up defenceless children who dared to throw rocks at the impenetrable base!

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U8EYRoxKjpI

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Hey Eagle, that link seems to go straight back to the original humvee clip...

Fixed.

[Totenkopf]

Bahaha... This is simply rabid neoconservatism at its most ridiculous.

Secondly, the US and UK created the mess in Iraq over the course of decades. It is not up to the rest of the world to fix our mess. So your laughable tirade simultaneously insulting the UN nations and suggesting that they need to pop over to Iraq and help you out... it's not only vulgar, it's nonsensical.

 

Get off your stump for a minute. I was clearly being sarcastic about the effectiveness of the UN. If you were half as perceptive as you'd have people believe, you'd have picked that up. Frankly, the UN has less business being there than anyone else. They didn't lift a finger to alleviate the Iraqi's of SH (afterall, you only need one veto from US/GB/France/Russia/PRC to get in the way). Furthermore, if it's ONLY/primarily the US/GB (as you assert)that are responsible for the mess that became Iraq, then it was their moral responsibility to fix it. That you even think the UN should have any say in anything at this point gives me cause to question your fabled sense of morality and logic. You're not only being nonsensical, but foolish as well.

[TK-8252]

They didn't lift a finger to alleviate the Iraqi's of SH

 

Uh... and why would they want to do such a thing? Saddam Hussein kept the Iraqis in line, and he was not an Islamic fundamentalist like the ones we have in power now.

[Totenkopf]

Heh... inevitable. Like somehow it's crucial to the continuation of the United States of America that South Korea is defended from North Korea.

 

Using your logic, we should have just left Europe at the end of WW2, not confronted the USSR over West Berlin, and walked away from Japan after the signing of the surrender. I mean, none of it was necessary to defend the territorial integrity of the US itself.

 

The UN did nothing in Iraq b/c it wasn't seen as necessary by ANY of the real powers for geopolitical and economic reasons. How Saddam controlled his population was a nonissue. Suggesting that the UN "allowed" SH to stay in power b/c he kept a lid on the local population is just silly.

[Spider AL]

Get off your stump for a minute. I was clearly being sarcastic about the effectiveness of the UN. If you were half as perceptive as you'd have people believe, you'd have picked that up.

Sarcasm is classically ironic in nature. So if you're trying to claim that your anti-UN insults were ironic, I have to say "rubbish". Because you've made it quite clear both in this thread and in past threads that you have nothing but contempt for the institution of the United Nations, Tot. Your vulgar insults directed at the UN are just that, direct insults completely in line with your previously and currently demonstrated attitude towards the UN and its effectiveness as an institution. No irony there.

 

However, there is another, more contemporary definition of "sarcasm", that is "harsh or bitter derision". Insulting mockery, in other words. And if that's the sense you're trying to use when you claim "sarcasm" on your part, I agree totally. It was bitter, derisive, neo-con nonsense. And yes, I did pick up on that, quite obviously so from my response.

 

Frankly, the UN has less business being there than anyone else. They didn't lift a finger to alleviate the Iraqi's of SH (afterall, you only need one veto from US/GB/France/Russia/PRC to get in the way).

You say that the UN "has no business in Iraq" because they didn't "stop Saddam Hussein". What a warped perspective.

 

The truth is that the non US/UK countries have no obligation to go into Iraq, because they didn't cause the problem. The US and UK did cause the problem, by supporting and funding Saddam, then excusing Saddam's war crimes, then decimating the country with over a decade of war, bombing and sanctions which starved and killed the Iraqi people and effectively prevented Saddam from being overthrown by them...

 

As for your implication that the US and UK have some business being in Iraq... lol. The only business we have in Iraq is the oil business. Nothing excusable or altruistic.

 

Furthermore, if it's ONLY/primarily the US/GB (as you assert)that are responsible for the mess that became Iraq, then it was their moral responsibility to fix it.

Exactly! But instead of fixing it, we made it even worse!

 

The problem was: Iraq was a decimated country (decimated by us) with a self-serving dictatorial regime in power (supported for years by us).

 

So how could we have fixed it? Well we could have lifted sanctions and re-invigorated the Iraqi people, so that they would no longer have to depend on Saddam's regime. They would no doubt have eventually overthrown him, as other popular movements have overthrown US/UK backed dictators in other nations. We could have sent many more diplomatic missions and observers into the country, and funded peaceful democratic organisations within Iraq!

 

Instead... We illegally invaded the country for spurious reasons, destroyed the infrastructure, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and commited sundry war-crimes in the process! Torture, beatings, illegal imprisonment, show-trials, election-rigging... you name it.

 

So yeah, we have a moral obligation to fix our own mess. Did we try to fix it? Nope. Are we fixing it now? Nope. Will we try to fix it in the future? Not if people like yourself are listened to by the masses, mate.

 

As previously established, your statements indicate that you oppose democracy in Iraq, you oppose the exercising of international law merely because the US and other powerful nations are capable of circumventing it, and you excuse any and all minor war-crimes committed by our troops in Iraq, just as you excuse the most grevious crime of all: Going to war in the first place. For shame, sir.

 

That you even think the UN should have any say in anything at this point gives me cause to question your fabled sense of morality and logic. You're not only being nonsensical, but foolish as well.

Irrelevant nonsense. As stated ad infinitum, international bodies are the only bodies that even APPROACH the state of having moral authority on the international stage. Your idea that the UN should NOT be involved in anything, is the only UN-related nonsense around here.