The All New Bush Bashing Thread

[Stevieboy]

Time for a poll

Who has the best avatar Membrane or Chonabot

I vote chonabot

[chonabot]

Getting the 2 together in an S&M avatar could work....

[Guest IT Manager]

No images are not working. Hmmmm.

[kwiz117]

So Kwiz, IT, whoever:

Question 1) What would be so horrible if they did end up with a democratic form of government?

Question 2) Why do you think Iraqis won't or don't want a democracy?

Membrane, this is my answer to your questions.

Question 1) What would be so horrible if they did end up with a democratic form of government?

If they end up with a democratic form of a Government, it will be good for all of us. I do not beleive it will happen.

For them to have Democracy:

1. Your Country should pull out from the undemocratic invading of Iraq first. Then, allow them to select the leader and the government of their wish.

2. US should not select the leaders for the Governing Council. If it is a Temporary Governing Council as per the definition of Bush, then that Temporary Governing Council should not get any right or power to draft a constitution to Iraq, as it will not represent the wish of the people of Iraq and also it will have undue Influence of US.

Until your country fulfill above two criterias, I do not even imagine that your Country or any other country can even think of establishing Democracy in Iraq, as the foundation for Democracy is not right.

You and all Bush Supporters can think “What–If” questions framed to suit your own definitions of Democracy. But how come an Invading Force and a Temporary Selected US Governing Council headed by a US Officer can draft a Constitution for Iraqi’s to show the light of Democracy?

Appreciate if you can answer this question as we are now heading this discussion towards introducing democrasy to Iraq’s.

Question 2) Why do you think Iraqis won't or don't want a democracy?

I’m not sure whether Iraq’s like to have Democracy or not? It is up to them to decide and remember, for Iraqi’s to vote for a Constitution, it is not going to be easy. They will not have any understanding of Democracy.

But if I answer your question in a different way;

I do not think Democracy will work in a country like Iraq. Reason is very simple. It is a Muslim Country and the Democracy and the principles they practice in Islam are contradicting to Democracy we talk in our Countries.

You and I can argue on principles of Islam and that they are brained washed by extremism etc. It will be just another discussion. Islamic people have strong believes and it is hard to change their believes and fundamentals. I will not write examples for this as you know the way they practice Islam in Iraq, other Middle East and Islamic Countries.

If you put up a Constitution to make Iraq a Democratic Nation and if all people in Iraq practice the Islamic Fundamentals that they are aware of, then it can not work.

...............................................

Let me ask you another question?

Do you really believe your President? If your Answer is Yes, then can you tell me is it simply because you believe that he is your President and you should back him up for every action he take ? or you really analyze the facts and then think individually based on facts and then back your president.

Let me tell you my stand about my President in my Country. I voted for her, and then also voted to the Prime Minister’s Government later coz I realized that the President I voted has lied and made false promises to come to power. Most of the actions that she has taken, I consider as immature, power hungry and also selfish.

If I were to tell you about the Dangers of having a too much Democratic Constitution, I can write pages and pages. Have to find more time now to type this Thaivisa.com as my Wife is always laughing at all of us for wasting time. She think playing an online Yahoo game is better than this.

Also she asked me whether I will get any present from Thaivisa after win this debate on Bush Bashing thread.

[Guest IT Manager]

Reflecting momentarily on Kwiz's input, I have a question to help me judge a situation differently, if not better.

Is Malaysia an Islamic Democracy?

If so, the view I put earlier increases in validity. It is democratic in name and in operation, however it is essentially an Islamic State with one leader who makes the rules irrespective of the wishes of the people and the views of The High Court, who are spreadeagled face down in front of their PM. At least that is my reading of reports one sees coming out of there regarding perversion of justice etc.

This does not make it wrong. Doesn't China hold elections, albeit one party? Is that not also a democracy of sorts?

My view from page one, was that whether Iraq becomes a democracy, of whatever flavour, is (or should be) in the hands of the people themselves. As Kwiz says, that doesn't currently appear to be the situation.

Both Kwiz and I throughout this have stayed away as far as possible from bashing Bush, though I admit to having said some things which in a Nationalistic fervour, an American may take exception to. This saddens me, as I suspect it does Kwiz, simply because there seems to be no questioning of the values applied to the issues surrounding the invasion, as opposed to liberation, of Iraq.

I for one look forward to hearing a justification of the changes as they are released or instigated, depends on your point of view, upon the Iraqis. So far no justification for anything which changed after Mr Bush decided, in company with Lap Dogs, Blair and Howard, to invade a sovereign country without having at least the semblence of Authority, which would have been provided by the New York (Toothless) Tiger, saying OK.

[kwiz117]

Is Malaysia an Islamic Democracy?

If so, the view I put earlier increases in validity. It is democratic in name and in operation, however it is essentially an Islamic State with one leader who makes the rules irrespective of the wishes of the people and the views of The High Court, who are spreadeagled face down in front of their PM. At least that is my reading of reports one sees coming out of there regarding perversion of justice etc.

This does not make it wrong. Doesn't China hold elections, albeit one party? Is that not also a democracy of sorts?

Good examples IT,

Another very good example that came recently is from my own Country. “Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka”. The Definition we got from the Constitution drafted under British Influence. No complains..

Let’s forget about Islam for a moment. We are a Buddhist Country, moderately low extremism in Believes but Religious and a Country that opened the economy way ahead of all other Asian Counterparts.

A Democratically appointed President was able to sack key Government Ministers and uphold the Parliament, which is the “Throne of Democracy” in a legal way from the Constitution.

Now is this Democracy?

...........................

Do you think US always support Democracy and encourage Democracy?

Pakistan. Mr Musharaf became the leader by making a military rule in Pakistan and by putting the Democratically elected leader away and then went and addressed the United Nations General Assembly and even became the right hand of the Bush in Asia.

Now, is this the way US respect Democracy?

Saudi Arabia. Do they practice Democracy? They also a one big friend of US.

.............................................

Coming back to the IT’s example of Dr. Mahatir Mohomad and his Democratic Dictatorship of 25 Yrs.

Holding the position and controlling all these extreme Islamic fanatics, I think he played a very big role in Asia.

If I refer to the contents of one speech he made recently, he admitted the threat of Islamic Extremists in his Country when one BBC Correspondent question him.

Then he went on explaining the importance of handling them in a different manner and in a mature way coz killing them will make more fuel into an already violent fire.

Think..If you have a kid and for some reason he can not be controlled and do not listen to what you say..Are you going to kill him or are you going to keep on trying various other ways to make him a better person.

Sometimes, outsiders will realize that it is not going to work. But as a Father, I am sure that you will keep on try everything you can.

This is how we think in Asia. The culture, religion and believes are so much integrated to the countries identity. So whenever some threat comes from an outside force, they are willing to sacrifice their lives and suicide whether they are from a Democratic country or not.

That is the best way that I can explain how I think the mind of Iraqi’s work at this moment of time and more likely in the future.

“The future is Bright..but this time, it may be not orange”.

[Axel]

I am always suspicious with a country that has to put "Democratic" in their name.

Democratic Republic of the Congo, German Democratic Republic (used to be the communist part) to name just two.

Democracy is something you cannot instruct, neither can you bring it on the wings of an F15, as Mr. Putin advised not so long ago. It has to grow within the country and the country's people have to believe in it.

Japan today is democratic. The development was different. Gen. McArthur made a very wise decision, not to dethrone the emperor in 1945 but leave him as head of state. By doing so he overcome the situation of not kowing the local mentality.

This lead to a 'soft' introduction of democracy whereby the elder leaders accepted it, not by heart just by mouth, because the emperor accepted it. In their thinking, I heard this so often "America win the war, they have democrazy (sic) so must be strong, we make democracy too". The following generations, many of them US-educated, accepted the true meaning.

In Germany, Hitler was at the same time fighting, not only with the whole world but was as well at war with the own people. In the closing days the Germans were running away from the "peace and freedom" offered by the Russians. As many as could ended up in the American and British areas. Perhaps thinking it was the easier enemy. The governing bodies created until 1949 have been chosen by the occupation forces who in turn understood the mentality. Many stationed in Germany at that time even had German origin and spoke the language.

Again, the following generation, admiring the USA, accepted a democratic system and looked as well for education in the States.

In the Iraq, I am not so sure if either will work. The present occupation forces, I daresay, have no feeling for the population. Hardly can speak any of the languages, or can distinguish between the various 'tribes' opposing each other.

So neither of the above examples can work, Iraq has no leading figure like the 'Tenno' in Japan nor do the present occupants understand the mentality as they did in the German example.

So who to establish as head to lead to democracy? I am very pessimistic and dare say it will not work. If the USA withdraws by middle of next year and we see a Democratic Republic of Iraq I would be very much afraid.

[SoCal]

Hello my third world, american hating, friends,

So sorry to leave you like that. Bet you thought I ran away from your rantings, but fact is that it was only business.

My thanks to Membrane, Rolling Stone, and Tomy, who at least kept you from looking silly slapping each others backs, complementing each others' nonsense.

Fact is there are too many replies for me to go back several pages and address properly.

So if you felt abandoned, have unfulfilled rantings, etc:

I am locked and loaded, let the games begin,

So Cal

[chonabot]

Hello my third world, american hating, friends,

So sorry to leave you like that. Bet you thought I ran away from your rantings, but fact is that it was only business.

My thanks to Membrane, Rolling Stone, and Tomy, who at least kept you from looking silly slapping each others backs, complementing each others' nonsense.

Fact is there are too many replies for me to go back several pages and address properly.

So if you felt abandoned, have unfulfilled rantings, etc:

I am locked and loaded, let the games begin,

So Cal

Personally I'm fed up to the back teeth of the USA vs Brits , World vs USA arguments. It's hard enough with every other ######er trying to blow us up or fly planes into buildings.

Really , what is the point ?

No one will agree that their country/countrymen are inferior to another, it will only end up in threats and name calling , just ask Mr Vietnam/DaveYo/myself and countless others.

[SoCal]

Chonabot, Hello? Who started this thread? Did you bother to look at the title?

Frankly my good man, I will stand up for myself whenever, and as much as I want.

That is until the good Doc slaps my hand.

I think it would be useful for you to go back to my first reply on this thread. It is okay for these knuckleheads to answer reason with blah, blah, blah. It is okay for these guys to name call, and point fingers. It is okay for them to sow the seeds of hate.

I defy you to go anywhere on this site, and show me where I have said something negative about another country, that wasn't some kind of a retort to these morons, and recent at that.

You want to point fingers at plachon, bitterfly, and the sort, then by all means, but do not start with me, when I am merely defending myself.

I for one am against any bashing of countries on this site. Hello, this is supposed to be about Thailand. I think this is why we all came here. You want to fight that war, then I am on your side, otherwise, get out of my way.

[chonabot]

Go knock yourself out Socal , I'm sure someone will join in.

Enjoy.

[kwiz117]

Hello my third world, american hating, friends,

So sorry to leave you like that. Bet you thought I ran away from your rantings, but fact is that it was only business.

My thanks to Membrane, Rolling Stone, and Tomy, who at least kept you from looking silly slapping each others backs, complementing each others' nonsense.

Fact is there are too many replies for me to go back several pages and address properly.

So if you felt abandoned, have unfulfilled rantings, etc:

I am locked and loaded, let the games begin,

So Cal

Socal

Hello my 1st World.. Amrican friend..!!!

My thanks also goes to Membrane, Rolling Stone, and Tomy, who had different views but joined in this forum to discuss with facts rather than just shouting insane.

Looking forward to hear your facts and specially why you got so much irritated by this thread.

I agree with you for one thing. The Topic of this thread may give somewhat a wrong impression. But look, the contents of it is totally different.

"It is like WMD in Iraq". It is just a name to make more members join to this thread!!

If you do not like this topic, then simply help your President to widraw from Iraq.

By the way, he is getting a very worm welcome in UK even before he steps in. What do you think about it?

[plachon]

If you do not like this topic, then simply help your President to widraw from Iraq.

By the way, he is getting a very worm welcome in UK even before he steps in. What do you think about it?

Hmmmm, I'd second that first sentence Kwiz. But, personally, I always find maggots are a more effective WBE (Weapon of Bush Eradication) than worms. Some prime wriggling maggots, mixed in groundbait ball, put in a whopper-dropper catapult and fired at a high trajectory over the heads of the massed constabulary would do the trick nicely. Let's see if anyone can bung a tomato that far.

[SoCal]

Kwiz, 1) What makes you think I have any say in what my president does? If he listened to me, we would not be there. 2) It's our mess, best we tidy it up a bit first, before we let it loose, don't you think?

I have no idea what a worm welcome (inside Sri Lankan/British joke) is, but take it that it is less than a warm welcome. Kwiz, fact is that I am growing quite accustomed to people hating my President, hating my country, and sadly even hating myself. I will not be surprised to see them burning Bush in effigy, nor even my countries flag.

You know, I can't think of a time in my life that the US has demonstrated by burning another's flag?

I guess there in lies the difference between you and me.

[kwiz117]

I will not be surprised to see them burning Bush in effigy, nor even my countries flag.

You know, I can't think of a time in my life that the US has demonstrated by burning another's flag?

I guess there in lies the difference between you and me.

This is the best one you said so far Socal..

Yes, me too. I have never seen you guys in US burning a flag of another Country.

Instead, I have seen US burning innocent civilians alive from your hi-tech “precision Guided” Missiles directly and sometimes indirectly by supporting some other nations like Israel to do that job for you.

So I agreed with what you said..Now tell me..Do you agree with me?

Burning flags or invading another country and burning innocent people..? What do you prefer?

Your Answer to the above question will allow me to decide whether it is worth to have a discussion with you on this subject or not.

Do you guys really scared of WMD after you first used it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to burn “few innocent civilians” to protect the "Majority of us"?

Your media and your president highlighted that Chemical Ali who burned so many Kurdish people from Chemical Weapons as Barbarian and Sadam as Evil. Is this means, the same applies to your Govt. as well? Or we have to forget about your side coz you are the super power and just blame the Animals like Chemical Ali, Sadam, Bin Laden for killing innocent people.

Tell me, what do you think without meddling with words or changing tracks.

[Butterfly]

1) Iraq is the new battlefront for Al-Quaea and other terrorists groups to fight the U.S.  All the fighting in Iraq is not strong-minded Iraqis resisting America.  I'm sure some of it Saddam loyalists, but I'm also certain a lot of it is Al-Quaea and others coming in from Syria, etc.  So, just because you see "resistance" there, don't automatically be fooled into thinking it's ALL of Iraq fighting back "the Great Satan".

I don't know, are you actually there to make such a bold statement ? nobody knows and that's a fact. And even if it was true, it only came a reality because of Bush "ego trip" invasion. He created it, he should deal with it.

Nothing wrong with an Islamic State also. But they will probably stop selling the oil to Bush and his friends, and that can't happen. See, it the war was just about removing Saddam with nothing in return, I could have supported that war because of its "morality". But this is not the case. It has been suspicious since the beginning, not only with the "false" pretense to go to war, but also with the timing. Americans can be fooled because they are "naive" and incurious about the world, but the rest of us can see the "reality" of it. We have been through such colonial conflicts in the past and we already know how it ends. The US will pull out and surrender to the terrorist demands (actually they already did, by leaving Rhyad in SA).

I hope the US will not drop the Iraqis like they did in the first Gulf War. The Bush administration wanted their little war, they must deal with the consequences until the end, even if it means staying as an "occupying power" for 10 more years costing billions of dollars to US tax payers while taking hits from the resistance and terrorists. US Service men should be used as "battle" shields. It's their job.

[Butterfly]

Have you noticed how the US propaganda machine is telling us how the US is kicking ass on the terrorists, cells destroy, prisoners taken, assets froze, caves destroyed, Taliban wiped out?

Then on the other hand whenever a bomb goes off somewhere in the world, it's suspected to be Al Qaeda?

The enemy is at the same time too weak and too strong.

Reminds one of Charles Dickens, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

What images don't work on this forum?

"War is peace"

"Losing is winning"

"Ignorance is freedom"

"Bring them on"

- Brought to you by the GOP

[Bob Chittie]

I think the following sums things up well. Even if the Iraqi people by way of their new found 'freedom', democratically elect a government which in turn tells the occupying force to leave, the US isn't going anywhere... So much for all the hype about freedom and democracy in Iraq...

http://www.commondreams.org/scottie.htm

Scottie & Me

(formerly known as Ari & I)

White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan

Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:15 PM

by Russell Mokhiber

Mokhiber: Scott, Ambassador (Paul) Bremer said yesterday that U.S. troops will remain on the ground in Iraq even after the government is elected there. What if the (Iraqi) government asks the U.S. to get out. Would we get out?

Scott McClellan: I don't think that is the case. The governing council themselves said that they would expect that they would remain - that we would remain as invited guests -

Mokhiber: But let's say they ask us to leave -

Scott McClellan: The coalition forces, the security of Iraq is a very high priority. And we will continue to have discussions with the governing council as we move forward, and we will continue to have discussions with the new interim government once it is in place - about security matters.

Mokhiber: But the question is - let's say they elect a theocracy, against your wishes. And the theocracy says - like in Iran - get out. Will we get out?

Scott McClellan: Again, we will continue to have discussions with the new interim government -

Mokhiber: What if they don't want discussions? What if they just want us to get out?

Scott McClellan: The Iraqi people have indicated in a number of different ways, if you look at polls, if you look at the governing council representatives, that they want us to say until the job is finished. And part of that job is making sure that we have a secure environment for the Iraqi people. And we still have important obligations that will need to be fulfilled. That includes the security side, that includes the reconstruction side. There are an enormous amount of resources going into Iraq from the international community. All of us have a stake in seeing a peaceful and free Iraq come about. It is important to transforming the Middle East. The Middle East has been a volatile region. It has been a breeding ground for terrorism, and bringing about a free, peaceful, democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will help transform that region for the better, bring about a safer and better world.

[plachon]

I think the following sums things up well. Even if the Iraqi people by way of their new found 'freedom', democratically elect a government which in turn tells the occupying force to leave, the US isn't going anywhere... So much for all the hype about freedom and democracy in Iraq...

http://www.commondreams.org/scottie.htm

Scottie & Me

(formerly known as Ari & I)

White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan

Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:15 PM

by Russell Mokhiber

Mokhiber: Scott, Ambassador (Paul) Bremer said yesterday that U.S. troops will remain on the ground in Iraq even after the government is elected there. What if the (Iraqi) government asks the U.S. to get out. Would we get out?

Scott McClellan: I don't think that is the case. The governing council themselves said that they would expect that they would remain - that we would remain as invited guests -

Mokhiber: But let's say they ask us to leave -

Scott McClellan: The coalition forces, the security of Iraq is a very high priority. And we will continue to have discussions with the governing council as we move forward, and we will continue to have discussions with the new interim government once it is in place - about security matters.

Mokhiber: But the question is - let's say they elect a theocracy, against your wishes. And the theocracy says - like in Iran - get out. Will we get out?

Scott McClellan: Again, we will continue to have discussions with the new interim government -

Mokhiber: What if they don't want discussions? What if they just want us to get out?

Scott McClellan: The Iraqi people have indicated in a number of different ways, if you look at polls, if you look at the governing council representatives, that they want us to say until the job is finished. And part of that job is making sure that we have a secure environment for the Iraqi people. And we still have important obligations that will need to be fulfilled. That includes the security side, that includes the reconstruction side. There are an enormous amount of resources going into Iraq from the international community. All of us have a stake in seeing a peaceful and free Iraq come about. It is important to transforming the Middle East. The Middle East has been a volatile region. It has been a breeding ground for terrorism, and bringing about a free, peaceful, democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will help transform that region for the better, bring about a safer and better world.

When you put a worm on a hook, boy, does he wriggle. Maybe this is why "President" Bush deserves a "worm" welcome in UK? I feel confident the guy will not be as cossetted and shielded from reality as when he was in LOS a few weeks ago. Feel sorry for QEII, though having him as a house guest in Buck Pal.

[SoCal]

Kwiz, wow, I have to gain your respect? That's a tall order.

Flags or people-which do I prefer? Neither. As far as the "smart" weapons, their purpose is to minimize civilian casualty, and without a doubt they do that. If we did not care about civilian casualty in Iraq, this could all end quite quickly.

Honestly Kwiz, in so many ways I see a world of limitless possibility, yet the equation seems to be balanced by a world of sorrow. If you truly care about such ignoble concepts, then why don't you become a force for good in this life, than someone who answers the problems with more hate/blame/finger pointing?

[kwiz117]

Kwiz, wow, I have to gain your respect? That's a tall order.

Flags or people-which do I prefer? Neither. As far as the "smart" weapons, their purpose is to minimize civilian casualty, and without a doubt they do that. If we did not care about civilian casualty in Iraq, this could all end quite quickly.

Honestly Kwiz, in so many ways I see a world of limitless possibility, yet the equation seems to be balanced by a world of sorrow. If you truly care about such ignoble concepts, then why don't you become a force for good in this life, than someone who answers the problems with more hate/blame/finger pointing?

Socal, you are different than all of others who Supported Bush in this forum..

You said, you do not like to see Burning Flags and Burning Innocent people both. [You are thinking of “Have the cake and eat the cake both”..?]

Remember one thing.. Burning Flags or even writing like this in this forum against Bush are REACTIONS to your Presidents ACTIONS.

Now do not change the theory and say that ‘Sadam had WMD or Sadam helped Osama to blast Twin Towers so that your President decided to go and Invade Iraq to kill him’.

It is simply not true. You invaded Iraq and minimized the civilian deaths to 5000 odd people by putting Precision Guided Missiles all missing the Target of Sadam and Osama. That is the truth.

Just accept it now.

[kwiz117]

Mokhiber: Scott, Ambassador (Paul) Bremer said yesterday that U.S. troops will remain on the ground in Iraq even after the government is elected there. What if the (Iraqi) government asks the U.S. to get out. Would we get out?

Scott McClellan: I don't think that is the case. The governing council themselves said that they would expect that they would remain - that we would remain as invited guests -

Mokhiber: But let's say they ask us to leave -

Scott McClellan: The coalition forces, the security of Iraq is a very high priority. And we will continue to have discussions with the governing council as we move forward, and we will continue to have discussions with the new interim government once it is in place - about security matters.

Mokhiber: But the question is - let's say they elect a theocracy, against your wishes. And the theocracy says - like in Iran - get out. Will we get out?

Scott McClellan: Again, we will continue to have discussions with the new interim government -

Mokhiber: What if they don't want discussions? What if they just want us to get out?

Scott McClellan: The Iraqi people have indicated in a number of different ways, if you look at polls, if you look at the governing council representatives, that they want us to say until the job is finished.

JOKE OF THE DAY.. [Only understand by people who have some common sense]

[Bob Chittie]

The mayor of London has declared that Bush is the greatest threat to life on the planet. All the avid Bush supporters will no doubt declare Livingstone irrelevant. ('Who cares if they don't like us. <deleted>#k them'.) That argument would go over a little better if it was me, Bob, who had made this statement. But come on guys. When even the mayor of London is disgusted with Bush, maybe, just maybe GWB is leading the country and the world in the wrong direction.

Published on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 by the lndependent/UK

Livingstone Says Bush is 'Greatest Threat to Life on Planet'

Article here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1118-01.htm

[Butterfly]

Actually I think we are lucky that he is such an idiot. He is also a sociopath like Hitler, but unlike Hitler and other evil characters, he lacks the intelligence and the genius of an inspired leader. He could do more damages but he is so stupid that his "inspired" acts don't go too far and don't carry anything. Like everything in his life, his presidency is a failure.

one-term, like his father

[Butterfly]

Meanwhile in wonderland ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq: Civilian Deaths Need U.S. Investigation

Report Tallies Civilian Toll in Baghdad

(New York, October 21, 2003) The U.S. military is failing to conduct proper investigations into civilian deaths resulting from the excessive or indiscriminate use of force in Baghdad, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report released today.

The 56-page report, Hearts and Minds: Post-War Civilian Casualties in Baghdad by U.S. Forces, confirms twenty deaths in the Iraqi capital alone between May 1 and September 30. In total, Human Rights Watch collected credible reports of 94 civilian deaths in Baghdad, involving questionable legal circumstances that warrant investigation. This number does not include civilians wounded by U.S. troops. The precise number of Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. soldiers since the end of major military operations is unknown, and the U.S. military told Human Rights Watch that it keeps no statistics on civilian deaths.

“It’s a tragedy that U.S. soldiers have killed so many civilians in Baghdad,” said Joe Stork, acting executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “But it’s really incredible that the U.S. military does not even count these deaths. Any time U.S. forces kill an Iraqi civilian in questionable circumstances, they should investigate the incident.”

Thus far, the military says it has concluded only five investigations above the division level, ordered by the deputy commanding general, into alleged unlawful deaths. Of these, soldiers were found to have operated “within the rules of engagement” in four cases. In the fifth case, a helicopter pilot and his commander face disciplinary action for trying to tear down a Shi`a banner in Sadr City in Baghdad, an incident that provoked a violent clash with demonstrators on August 13.

Human Rights Watch conducted its own investigation of two of these five cases, and found evidence to suggest that soldiers had used excessive force, including shooting a person who had his hands in the air and beating a detainee.

In some cases, U.S. forces faced a real threat, which gave them the right to respond with force. But that response was sometimes disproportionate or indiscriminate, harming civilians or putting them at risk.

“The cases we documented in this report reveal a pattern of over-aggressive tactics, excessive shooting in residential areas and hasty reliance on lethal force,” Stork said.

In compiling its report, Human Rights Watch conducted more than 60 interviews and gathered information from five sources: Iraqi witnesses and family members of victims, police records from all the police stations in Baghdad, local and international human rights groups, media accounts, and the U.S. military.

The Human Rights Watch report categorizes civilian deaths in Baghdad since May 1 in three basic groups: during raids, at checkpoints, and after ambushes on convoys. In all three circumstances, soldiers often quickly resorted to the use of lethal force. Their fire was not always directed at the intended target, or proportionate to the threat.

On the evening of August 7, 2003, U.S. soldiers from the Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment of the 1st Armored Division conducted a weapons search in the Tunis district of Baghdad’s al-Slaikh neighborhood. According to residents, troops blocked the main street at two points with armored vehicles as soldiers went through homes and shops. One checkpoint was established on the corner of Bilal Habashi Street and Street 5.

Around 9:15 p.m., a transformer blew on one of the electrical poles nearby. The electricity in the immediate area was out, although it is not clear whether this was because of the blown transformer or whether the lights had been out before the explosion. Two cars drove down Bilal Habashi Street, apparently unaware of the checkpoint. The first car with three young men approached the checkpoint at a high speed, music blaring. Soldiers yelled at the driver to stop and fired warning shots, a witness said, but when the car passed the checkpoint, the soldiers opened fire. Two men survived but the driver, Saif Ra`ad `AliSa`id al-`Azawi, was killed. Behind him, a car with six members of the al-Kawwaz family was fired upon without warning before it reached the checkpoint. The father and three children were killed

On another checkpoint incident

The driver of that car was Muhanad `Imad Ghazal Ibrahim al-Ruba`i, seventeen years old. He told Human Rights Watch that he was driving with his younger brother Zaid, fourteen, and their cousin Fahd Ahmad, sixteen, to pick up food rations. U.S. soldiers were blocking the road with bricks and told him to turn around, so he took another street to the main road which seemed open. He asked some young Iraqi men if the road was clear and they said it was, as long as Muhanad drove slowly and stopped when ordered.

According to an eywitness, Muhanad drove his Toyota to a side street on the right side of the alley. He drove slowly as instructed. The side street was open, there were no soldiers there or even a checkpoint. As soon as the car reached the intersection where the side street connects to the alley, there was intensive shooting at the car which led to the death of all the passengers. I think there were either three or four passengers. I saw an old woman with gray hair opening the door of the car. She started walking towards the soldiers for a few meters and then she collapsed. She was covered with blood.

According to Muhanad "They brought the two wounded to the pick-up. One was an old woman with gray hair and another was a young man. When they brought the lady she started asking about her sons and she was screaming in pain. There was blood all over her body, her body was full of blood. She begged them for some water but one of the soldiers started hitting her in the stomach and she kept quiet. After that a soldier came and sat with us in the back of the pick-up."

“Iraq is clearly a hostile environment for U.S. troops,” said Stork. “But that does not absolve the military from its legal obligations to use force in a restrained and proportionate manner – and only when necessary.”

Part of the problem is the deployment of combat troops, such as the 82nd Airborne Division and the 1st Armored Division, for essentially law enforcement tasks. Many of these soldiers fought their way into Iraq and were then asked to switch from acting as warriors to serving as policemen who must control crowds, pursue thieves and root out insurgents. For these policing tasks they are not properly trained, equipped or psychologically prepared.

In some cases, U.S. soldiers have behaved with unnecessary rudeness toward Iraqi civilians. Human Rights Watch strongly recommended that U.S. forces desist from the practice of putting their feet on the heads of Iraqis whom they have detained face-down on the ground. In Iraqi culture, the use of feet against another person is highly insulting and offensive.

U.S. military officials told Human Rights Watch they were providing extra training for U.S. forces. Human Rights Watch researchers met many U.S. military personnel who dealt respectfully with Iraqis and were working hard to train Iraqi police, guard facilities and pursue criminals. Some of these soldiers expressed frustration at the behavior of their colleagues.

“It takes a while to get the Rambo stuff out,” one officer told Human Rights Watch.

In the meantime, the lack of timely and high-level investigations into many questionable incidents has created an atmosphere of impunity.

“Soldiers must know they will be held accountable for the improper use of force,” Stork said. “Right now, soldiers feel they can pull the trigger without coming under review.”

The Human Rights Watch report proposed concrete ways to reduce civilian deaths in Iraq. Checkpoints should be better marked with signs in Arabic and lights, and interpreters should accompany all raids. The military’s rules of engagement are not made public due to security concerns, but Iraqi civilians have a right to know how they are expected to behave at checkpoints and during raids. Coalition forces should make such information available through the local media, Human Rights Watch urged.

Most importantly, U.S. military authorities should investigate all credible allegations of unlawful killings by coalition soldiers, and punish soldiers and commanders found to have used or tolerated the use of excessive or indiscriminate force

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/iraq102103.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/12.htm

Case Studies

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/5.htm#_Toc54183737