Wow! The looney left media strikes again.

KillerWatermelon · Apr 16, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>To expect the marines to win a war and at the same time some how stop looting in a city the size of Baghdad is just not possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. As we liberated cities on the way to Baghdad, we could have then sent in other troops to maintain some control. For example, MP's and Engineers could have been sent into Basra after the Brits were done. Yes, there was still some fighting going on, but our troops could have handled that. To say our troops had other things to do is just a cop-out. The solution is simple—use more troops.

We could have at least protected the hospitals and government buildings that contained valuable intelligence.

And this is not a left/right issue IMO. There are very solid reasons for being quick about maintaining order. I outlined some in my post above, but obviously some just don’t care to listen to reason. The loss of intelligence alone is a big screw-up.

No, we could have prevented this, but we did not. We are Americans and we could have done much better. George Bush said we would do it and we are only now starting. The plan was flawed.

e15n8c6 · Apr 16, 2003

Not very surprising, but only Clinton lied, remember! Expect things to catch up to W as the hangover from the war euphoria settles in. For me, this is the most pessimistic political time in about thirty years. I just hope my instincts are wrong this time.
Good luck to all for the rest of time.

radiofreecostarica · Apr 16, 2003

To say our troops had other things to do is just a cop-out.

I agree KM...especially when they number some 250,000 men and women.

Guest · Apr 16, 2003

This is what GW said

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq.

This is what he was thinking

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to secure and protect the wells of the liberated Iraqi oilfields.

Sad but true

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

25 to life because you couldn't controll your anger

Guest · Apr 16, 2003

KW,
You watch too much TV. I go back to the 1991 riot in LA, which lasted 4 days and left 55 dead. The only way to stop a large scale riot like that would have been to start shooting people. There are millions of people in Baghdad and they would have had to start shooting people to put the crowds down. Then the looney left would be saying the marines shot people over petty theft.

Baghdad had 40,000 police officer before the war started and then over night they were all gone. If the police in New York city were to go on strike I suspect the looting in NY would make the Baghdad looting look like a day at the park.

radiofreecostarica · Apr 16, 2003

again with LA...

At least pick an incident of looting that came about due to the lawlessness that follows a WAR.

Baghdad had 40,000 police officer before the war started and then over night they were all gone.

And this lends further credence to the what KM was saying, that the military should have stepped up.

[This message was edited by radiofreecostarica on 04-16-03 at 05:02 PM.]

Guest · Apr 16, 2003

RFC,
Do you think the marines could pull some type of magic different than what happened in LA. It's impossible to contain millions of people without serious force. The US did the right thing and stayed out of the way or many would have been killed.

Ok, the same thing happened in Italy.

radiofreecostarica · Apr 16, 2003

come on Out..
millions would imply that the ENTIRE city is looting, and this is simply not true.

Guest · Apr 16, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by radiofreecostarica:
come on Out..
millions would imply that the ENTIRE city is looting, and this is simply not true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>come on radio...YOU'RE implying that a if only a "small" number of looters would have been killed by the marines, that would have been acceptable. Quite a change from someone who has been shouting from the rooftops about the loss of innocent life from day one of this war. You and your Frenchie friends would have had a freakin' feild day with the shooting of looters.

Guest · Apr 16, 2003

RFC,
I grant you that. How ever many that were looting, the other people could riot and force the marines to use force and then you end up in a far worse situation.

If the LAPD couldn't stop the 1991 LA riot with trained police in place. What makes you think the marines could without shooting?people.

About 4 or 5 years ago 2 men robbed a bank in hollywood and 200 police officers had a shoot out with these 2 men for hours before the bank robbers were killed. Things are a bit more difficult in real life. I know TV makes these type of things seem easy, they're not.

radiofreecostarica · Apr 16, 2003

Out,

The reason I pulled out your quote is not what you imagine as I would never advocate the murder of a person for something as "misdemeanor" as looting. But, numbers of looters DO matter when it comes to the US military's ability and/or effort to control such unrest.

radiofreecostarica · Apr 16, 2003

I know TV makes these type of things seem easy,

One thing more: You shouldn't imply that some of us have nothing better to do than sit in front of a television all day.

I don't think anyone here does that, much less gets the majority of their info. from the tele...

Guest · Apr 16, 2003

RFC,
When it became clear to the Iraqi people the US soldiers were not going to shoot them for theft there's not much that could be done.

The marines do not have rubber bullets and I don't they have much training in crowd control. Things could have gotten real ugly and the left would be whining if an Iraqi was shot dead for theft.

radiofreecostarica · Apr 16, 2003

Are you sure it would be the left?

...last time i checked the Arab world wasn't the "left".

Guest · Apr 16, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by outandup:
RFC,
When it became clear to the Iraqi people the US soldiers were not going to shoot them for theft there's not much that could be done.

The marines do not have rubber bullets and I don't think they have much training in crowd control. Things could have gotten real ugly and the left would be whining if an Iraqi was shot dead for theft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

radiofreecostarica · Apr 16, 2003

Please explain why only the left would whine if the US were to commit war crimes?

In the long run, certain atrocities are counterproductive and only serve to exacerbate the problem of terrorism: The harsher the US deals with its enemies, the angrier some might become.
The Geneva Convention still stands-- thankfully-- even for the USA.

Guest · Apr 16, 2003

RFC,
If the marines tried to police the looters the crowds would have become unrulely and the marines would have ended up using deadly force to control the crowds. The US choose not to get involved in a job they knew they couldn't perform without shooting people. I think they made the right decision. End of story.