A day at the zoo!

sovtek

...for the young, dumb and full of....

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0922-03.htm

bonkey

While it should be pointed out that this was an individual (or small group) and shouldnt be taken as being in any way representative of the US and/or their activities in Iraq, I think the US reaction to such events would be more telling.

What has happened to these soldiers? Have the US army issued an apology or convened a formal investigation?

If you may think that this would be over-reaction (after all, although endangered, it was "just" an animal), I would point out that these are presumably soldiers who have been out supposedly "bringing peace" to the Iraqis. It only takes one or two acts of such stupidity to set any plan for peace back irreperably, and the next such event may involve innocent people rather than innocent animals.

The last thing the US needs to do right now is appear in any way dismissive or unconcerned about this - at least in my opinion.

jc

therecklessone

Next on the list of recreational activites for bored GIs is a Buffalo Soldiers style tank rampage through the streets of Baghdad. Should be gas.:eek:

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey


It only takes one or two acts of such stupidity to set any plan for peace back irreperably, and the next such event may involve innocent people rather than innocent animals.

The last thing the US needs to do right now is appear in any way dismissive or unconcerned about this - at least in my opinion.

jc

They already appear that way. The two bombings of marketplaces during the "war" that killed many innocents was called an "accident" and then was infered that it was an Iraqi air-defense missile (despite the 6' whole in the ground and Raytheon serial # found at the scene).
I read (can't remember source, sorry) that an average 5-15 civilians are killed per day. Typical scenario is people around the vicenity of ambushes and the US troops start shooting in every direction. Another is civilians in cars being given conflicting commands at checkpoints and then spooking troops into shooting them. While this hasn't been reported on lately, one wonders if it's because it's not happening any more or if it's just not "interesting" anymore.

bloggs

Scumbags, i hope they drive over a landmine! :mad:

sovtek

Originally posted by bloggs
Scumbags, i hope they drive over a landmine! :mad:

Part of me screams that but I have to say this.
I really do not think that American soldiers being killed is a good thing.
I have friends that have been/are in the military. I would never wish what's happening on anyone.
Unfortunetly I have to reconcile this with the sincere hope that the Bush regime is unsuccessful in it's obvious attempt at projecting its empire.
I lay all deaths (all parties considered and in no order of importance...British, American, Iraqi) at the hands of the Bush regime.
The reckless stupidity by the above mentioned soldier left me baffled and speechless.

gandalf

Bloggs I agree with sovtek there is nothing gained from wishing harm to young men and women who mostly are in the armed forces to get a free university education after serving as they are to poor to afford it otherwise. The blame for the chaos in Iraq and the damage to the UN falls squarely at the feet of the Neo-Con Bush Puppet Masters in Washington.

As for the incident at that Zoo, its a disgrace but then again this is happening to Iraqi civilians everyday as well.

I hope to god the democrats can get behind a strong candidate to win the next US presidential election so their is a regime change that will actually help world peace.

Gandalf.

SCULLY

Originally posted by sovtek
I lay all deaths (all parties considered and in no order of importance...British, American, Iraqi) at the hands of the Bush regime.

Surely Tony Blair has to have a large amount of blame apportioned to him also??

It is quite scary when people (myself included btw) get angry about this type of story but get conditioned to hearing/reading stories about civilian deaths every day.

sovtek

While this hasn't been reported on lately, one wonders if it's because it's not happening any more or if it's just not "interesting" anymore.

Evidentally, as I suspected, it still is

sovtek

Originally posted by SCULLY
Surely Tony Blair has to have a large amount of blame apportioned to him also??

I agree. On the other hand Downing Street rarely ever really disagrees with Washington. Why? I'm not exactly sure. I don't think Tony fully realized this before becoming PM.

It is quite scary when people (myself included btw) get angry about this type of story but get conditioned to hearing/reading stories about civilian deaths every day.

Sadly there is very little one can do to stop it anytime soon. I've signed up to a website that calls for Bush's impeachment as well one that wants a Kalifornia style recall. Surprisingly (or maybe not) the impeachment petition got around 100,000 sigs. I'm also makin g sure that I register to vote while I'm in the States next month. When I left in 2000 I didn't know how to vote overseas and by the time I did it was too late.
Then there's that anti-war rally posted elsewhere in this forum.
Any better ideas? I'd love to hear them.

Floater

Originally posted by sovtek
...for the young, dumb and full of....

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0922-03.htm

'A bare majority — 51 percent — think U.S. casualties in Iraq are “unfortunate but acceptable.” '

Does the Great American Public include the Bengali tigers (and similar) incidents in its assessment of "unfortunate but acceptable"?

Floater


Americans still back war in Iraq, says poll

By Corydon Ireland
Staff Writer


(September 27, 2003) — A national online poll by Rochester-based Harris Interactive this week shows that a clear majority of Americans — 55 percent — believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Most polled also think it’s likely that U.S. troops will be there for two years or more. The poll also says:

A bare majority — 51 percent — think U.S. casualties in Iraq are “unfortunate but acceptable.”

Forty-six percent of those polled are not confident that U.S. policy in Iraq will succeed. Only 27 percent are confident; 27 percent are not sure.

Fifty percent favor handing over control of Iraq to the United Nations; 28 percent oppose a U.N. takeover.

As conditions worsen in Iraq, pollsters said it’s good news for Bush that opinions are not more negative. A downward trend in support of Bush’s Iraq policies has been “relatively modest” since July, Harris said.

Tom Proietti, professor of communication at Monroe Community College, said this poll is in line with others regarding Bush’s stand on Iraq. “If I were in the West Wing of the White House,” Proietti said, “I’d be getting a little nervous, and adjusting policy.”

He said that might include finding new angles to receive U.N. assistance.

The poll, which surveyed more than 2,300 adults from Sept. 16 to 23, has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/0927KK1U3IU_poll27_news.shtml