• Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net

Iraqi Liberation

School, embassy's and hospitals are being raided freely and they already were in terrible shape. One in Baghdad has been completely looted clean down to medical equipment and hospital beds while allied troops stood and watched, while they as "occupation force" have a duty to maintain law and order until a new goverment is in place :angry2:.
One of western doctors there commented on how several terrified Iraqi's questioned him on why the only building being heavily defended against the looters was the ministry of oil. "Was this war about us or was is just to get our oil?" they asked him.
The cheering in Kirkuk that was freed by Kurds just yesterday turned into looting almost instantly and armed militia of looting civilians threaten the roads and hamper humanitarian aid that is badly needed.
That's the current image of "liberated Iraq" I'm getting.
 
Originally posted by Jan
Not worth commenting on conker :mad: Maybe in China you are not seeing the news :confused2

Maybe you shouldn't be commenting Jan. :rolleyes: In China, I get access to American (pro-war) and Chinese (anti-war) media sources, as well as others from other countries, whereas you are getting pure Australian coverage of the situation. Not to sound arrogant or anything, but I think I'm better informed than you are on the situation.
 
hahahahahahaha, you are so funny. I get news from all over, where do you think we get our news sources? There are no embedded Australian journalists in the coalition.
 
Our Marines are not cops. They dont enforce law. Now when the army moves in, and the marines move out...the army will then enforce law.

Marines: These guys go in and take over.
Army: these guys go in and occupy for any extended times.
Navy: these guys provide air support, and defend the waters.
Air Force: These guys sit back doing nothing, and crap their pants if they get shot at :D (Navy has more planes than the Air Force)

Anyway...right now the marines are far more concerned over snipers and left over paramilitary than they are looters. Besides, like so many things there, a great many stores were owned by Saddam anyway. They are looting a dead man.....sorry, a dead (or exiled) tyrant. So go ahead. Talk about the looting and how it's wrong. Please, let me see you defend Saddam's businesses :D
 
We get CNN and BBC news here and we don't have to pay for it. >=P

They have taken over channel nine and channel seven over here. Channel ten has their own reporters and such.

Webdude - Here I was thinking Aircraft Carriers hosted airforce so they could move around alot easier without having to return to the USA to re-fuel.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jan
hahahahahahaha, you are so funny. I get news from all over, where do you think we get our news sources? There are no embedded Australian journalists in the coalition.
I doubt your media gets any information from anti-war countries like France and China. More likely, the Australian media gets information from America and England, and I think it is well known that these media sources have a low degree of impartiality. In actuality, China has done a decent job of covering both sides of the war -- better than America or England has.

Anybody who thinks Saddam Hussein lived in luxury for the past decade or so is mistaken. He doesn't even have a permanent home. He stays in different houses just about every night, and he rarely goes out. He's a paranoid leader. Anyone who would like to live the "luxurious" life that he has lived is welcome to do so. He has been fed, but then again, so have most Baghdadians through his food program.

The looting confirms my belief that you can't give Iraqi people democracy. The Chinese people, when they heard about democracy, thought they were free to do whatever they wanted. The Iraqis share the same attitude. These people just don't "get" democracy, and the Western people need to realize that.
 
Originally posted by Webdude
Besides, like so many things there, a great many stores were owned by Saddam anyway. They are looting a dead man.....sorry, a dead (or exiled) tyrant. So go ahead. Talk about the looting and how it's wrong. Please, let me see you defend Saddam's businesses :D
How very considerate of you to think it's perfectly alright to loot and disable hospitals :rolleyes:
Too bad it's in breach of the Geneva convention to let them continue doing it and international aid organisations can't move into Iraq until it calms down:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories

ARTICLE 55

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

#Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state

Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
 
Last edited:
Would you rather have us shoot the looters? Those people were so repressed that they probably think this is their only time to get supplies and equipment to help them survive. We're also in the middle of a transition from governments here. The Marines are a combat force designed to eliminate the enemy. Until peace keeping troops can be in place or until there is an Iraqi police force that follows actual law and order crimes will happen.

There is little that can be done there unless you want us to use swift and forceful action against them. In which case I have little doubt that you would be criticizing us for using to severe of action and comparing us to Saddam's prior cruelty.

We'll continue to provide humanitarian aid and we'll bring in more medical supplies to replace what was taken. The coalition is commited to helping innocent civilians and even countries that opposed the war are commited to providing UN humanitarian aid.

Would you rather not have gone to war and let these people suffer under Saddam's leadership because some people choose to loot and vandalize? It's unfortunate it happened no doubt about it but it really doesn't change anything in the big picture of things.

Some people will simply never be pleased and they'll look for anything and everything to try and say this was all in error. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again time will prove our motives to be accurate and sincere. The Iraqi people will be better off as a result of our actions and the world will be safer. If in time that isn’t the case then I’ll be one of the first ones criticizing the coalition. I highly doubt that day will arrive but we’ll see.
 
Some people will simply never be pleased and they'll look for anything and everything to try and say this was all in error. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again time will prove our motives to be accurate and sincere. The Iraqi people will be better off as a result of our actions and the world will be safer. If in time that isn’t the case then I’ll be one of the first ones criticizing the coalition. I highly doubt that day will arrive but we’ll see.
I wasn't talking about shooting them and not starting the war in the first place is an entire different discussion.
The ones looting are still civilians, in most cases they're not armed "troops". Posting a handful of armed soldiers around the clock in front of the hospitals would have been enough to keep the looters at bay.
 
and get them killed.... do you realize the war is still on? You dont leave a "handful" of troops alone in a war zone.
 
Originally posted by Todd
Those people were so repressed that they probably think this is their only time to get supplies and equipment to help them survive.

I don't know where you people are getting your information, but Saddam managed to feed almost all of the people in the cities. The current humanitarian crisis, especially in the area of food and water, has been caused by the war. According to BBC, Saddam managed to feed 16 million people, who otherwise would not have access to food or water, through his many programs. That's 2/3 of the Iraqi population. I would like to see the United States or any future democratic government in Iraq take on this situation. :devious2:
 
Originally posted by venomx
and get them killed.... do you realize the war is still on? You dont leave a "handful" of troops alone in a war zone.
Right.. I forgot. You can guard the ministry of oil but you can't guard hospitals because that might actually save civilian lives and who care about those :rolleyes:
 
im surprised that most ppl seem to think that by taking down these statues they have won the war, saddam is still out there somewhere, and even if he has been thrown from power, all we did was take him from a horrible dictator to a very pissed off terrorist.

the toppling of that saddam statue you saw on tv was a staged media event made to sway the opinion of ppl, if you ask me. and those pictures and coverage worked, they repeated them over and over on CNN and the like.

check out this article

Published on Thursday, April 10, 2003 by the Times/UK

Iraqis' Relief Tinged with Sadness at US 'Conquest'
by Stephen Farrell in Baghdad

FOR the first time in his adult life, Kamal Ahmed, a 40-year-old Iraqi journalist, was able to express his true feelings yesterday about Saddam Hussein’s regime — a regime under which he has worked for years.

He uttered words to a foreigner that he would never have dared to utter before: relief that Saddam’s control was finally at an end. But like so many Iraqis, he also felt deep sadness at seeing Americans on the streets of a country he loves.

And even though “The Man” was patently gone, “Kamal” remained far too fearful to use his real name.

“It was when I saw the looting of the government ministries that I knew everything had changed, and particularly when they toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein in Paradise Square,” he said. “It is not over yet, but the system is finished because there are no police on the streets, no intelligence service and no army, and that means there is no control in Baghdad.

“For my entire life I, like everyone else, has had to watch what I said all the time. You couldn’t say anything bad about The Big Man. You trusted no-one except your family. If you did not talk about The Man you were safe. You could say bad things about ministers, and you were OK. You could say bad things about officials, that was OK. But not about The Man.

“There were many things I did not like about the regime. We often asked the Ministry of Information for satellite dishes, to watch international television channels, but The Big Man refused.

“He said it was not good because our children would see bad things. That was not the real reason. He knew most of the people would use the dishes and not watch Iraqi TV. They would not see him. So he allowed only limited cable TV with 14 channels of films, sport and entertainment, but no news.

“Another thing that made life difficult was that no one could leave the country except the very wealthy, until the last few months when he changed everything.

“He controlled everything through family ties. It was the President’s relatives who worked in the embassies, in sensitive positions, and as the most senior journalists.

“There were some good things, however. Free education for the people, free healthcare, and he gave every family food every month under the oil-for-food program. It was not enough, but it was better than nothing.

“Even before the war began I knew the system was finished. It was an unfair war between the two greatest countries in the world, America and Britain, and Iraq.

“We are a small country that has suffered from sanctions for more than 12 years, so even if there were any people who loved or liked The Man they would not support him because they hate war and he has led us into three wars.

“But yesterday, when I saw the looting of the ministries and the official buildings, the teardrops stopped at the corner of my eyes. When I saw our people stealing and the Americans laughing.

“They say they want a new Iraq, but if they mean that they should use these buildings, not watch people looting them in front of their eyes and stealing everything. This is only the beginning.

“I do not believe this country has weapons of mass destruction. The UN inspectors found nothing for four months and were just a pretext to justify a war President Bush wanted to wage.

“In my opinion they did not come for the President or weapons of mass destruction. They came here to rule the world from Iraq. Why Iraq? Because Iraq is the only country that refused everything the Americans said. This is not to defend President Saddam Hussein but it is the reality. It is a new world.

“I am very sad for my country. Very sad for Baghdad. To see the Americans inside it is very difficult for me. Because they invaded my country.”

Kamal’s words are interrupted by the noise of explosions and artillery outside. He grimaces and points out of the window.

“What does that mean? That means it is not finished. There are still many people fighting. Not because of the regime. Because they love their country.”

Copyright 2003 Times Newspapers Ltd.
 
Originally posted by Todd
Would you rather have us shoot the looters?
One Iraqi thought that would stop it.
"The Americans have disappointed us all. This country will never be operational for at least a year or two," said Abbas Reda, 51, an engineer and father of five.

"I've seen nothing new since Saddam's fall," he said. "All that we have seen is looting. The Americans are responsible. One round from their guns and all the looting would have stopped."
Iraqis expressed increasing frustration over the lawlessness that has gripped the capital since the arrival of US troops and the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Looters ransacked government buildings, hospitals and schools, and the National Museum, taking or destroying many of the country's archaeological treasures.

A museum employee arrived overnight to find the administrative offices trashed by looters. The only thing she could salvage was a telephone book-sized volume.

She refused to give her name. With tears, she said, "It is all the fault of the Americans. This is Iraq's civilisation. And it's all gone now."

An elderly museum guard said hundreds of looters attacked on Friday and carried away artifacts on pushcarts and wheelbarrows.

The two-storey museum's marble staircase was chipped, suggesting looters might have dragged heavier items down on pushcarts or slabs of wood.

Glass display cases were shattered and broken pieces of ancient pottery and statues were scattered everywhere.

The National Museum held artifacts from thousands of years of history in the Tigris-Euphrates basin, widely held to be the site of the world's earliest civilisations.

Before the war, the museum closed its doors and secretly placed the most precious artifacts in storage, but the metal storeroom doors were smashed and everything was taken.

"This is the property of this nation and is the treasure of 7,000 years of civilisation," said museum employee Ali Mahmoud. "What does this country think it is doing?"

Source
 
If they were so concerned about the looting.....and you should think about this because this is what Americans would do.....they should have formed their own little groups to defend against the looting. The Marines would not have stopped that either.

We didnt go in there to defend civilians from civilians. We went in to take out the regime. Once the Army goes in, those are the guys that regain civilian peace and stop the looters.

Some of you also seem to look down your noses at the situation. If your country was invaded and defeated, you would see looters and criminals wrecking your town too. It happens everywhere, everytime. You yourself could very well get caught up into being a looter. Personally, I would grab myself a few tv's, a few monitors....no take that back, a few 72 inch plasma monitors. Then I would go loot Red Lobster or something :D

Oh yeah, let me add something else. Let's assume you were in the position to order the Marines to stop looters. Would you have them shoot them, or arrest them? If arrest, where would you hold them? If you did find a place big enough to hold all them, who would be the judge and prosecutor? How would you keep records of who did what? How would you enforce the guilty sentence?...... There is currently not a justice system there right now. It's in a period where the only law is moral judgement. Oh, maybe you could fire shots in the air and scare them off. I'm sure it wouldnt take them long to realize the air shots are merely empty threats and that the Marines cant really stop them without actually shooting them. ................ You seem to just have all the answers from your couch, dont you?
 
Last edited:
well, some countries have more right to own WMD than others, that's the truth of a fact. It's like saying "Why should police have guns when criminals are not allowed to?"

Also, I saw a documentary on SBS (Australian TV station) last night, Saddam has put in 10 million dolars during the 80's to develop a nuclear weapon testing program. They have been trying to concentrate uranium (whatever that means)/

Furthermore, after the 1st Gulf War, they were moving trucks away from sites that were going to be inspected by inspectors.

I think it is previous obvious that they were developing something that they did not want UN to find out.
 
Originally posted by conkermaniac
I doubt your media gets any information from anti-war countries like France and China. More likely, the Australian media gets information from America and England, and I think it is well known that these media sources have a low degree of impartiality. In actuality, China has done a decent job of covering both sides of the war -- better than America or England has.

Just wanting to briefly defend the integrity of the Australian Media. In Australia we are capable of getting a large variety of media from every country without censorship or interdiction. Our television channels are more than capable of choosing appropriate media sources and are frequently well respected internationally for their handling of issues.

While we were briefly given CNN and BBC feeds on free-to-air television at the start of the “war against Iraq”, they were quickly replaced with our own reporters re-broadcasting stories of Interest from International media (although on the commercial networks this was typically restricted to CNN, CBS and the BBC) we were also given the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)'s distinctively Australian outlook on world events, with no corporate sponsorship or government intervention. Combined with SBS's world views and analysis with news feeds from various International sources outside American, Britain and other "western" societies.

We were also one of the only countries to rebroadcast Al Jazeera's reports on free-to-air public access television and the ABC even included a documentary about Qatar's media powerhouse and those who influence it, just as they can be found producing similar ones on American and British media.

Yet we were also provided with direct feeds from Pay TV of both "western" CNN, BBC World, CNBC (MSNBC) and Sky News Australia with extra "international" feeds from Al Jazeera, ART, Antenna, RAI and LBC channels.

Our newspaper media was also represented with newspaper journalists in Baghdad during much of the conflict and reporting back to Australian television regularly. As if to further separate the Australian media from American media the ABC's Mediawatch program picking up on the less than human media and often questioning against the American government.

Personally I think Australian media is strongly independent of either America or China or any other country for that matter and it can represent and report back to the Australian public with an Australian viewpoint. I find it too simplistic to deny it's own information fetching and media analysis capabilities, as you wouldn't hear such feedback in many other countries.
 
Originally posted by allanh
well, some countries have more right to own WMD than others, that's the truth of a fact. It's like saying "Why should police have guns when criminals are not allowed to?"

Who said that police everywhere should have guns? In some places, the police are so corrupt that they use their guns to propogate crime, not stop it. For example, the government of China does not give guns to the police because they know very well the things that the police can do even without guns.
 
Originally posted by Webdude


Oh yeah, let me add something else. Let's assume you were in the position to order the Marines to stop looters. Would you have them shoot them, or arrest them? If arrest, where would you hold them? If you did find a place big enough to hold all them, who would be the judge and prosecutor? How would you keep records of who did what? How would you enforce the guilty sentence?...... There is currently not a justice system there right now. It's in a period where the only law is moral judgement. Oh, maybe you could fire shots in the air and scare them off. I'm sure it wouldnt take them long to realize the air shots are merely empty threats and that the Marines cant really stop them without actually shooting them. ................ You seem to just have all the answers from your couch, dont you?

Threaten them and shoot them if they don't comply. I would support such an action, and I do not see it as violating human rights in any way.
 
Back
Top