Aussie 'left for dead by Americans' Thursday Jul 19 00:23 AEST ninemsn
An Australian private security operator was left for dead by American forces after he was seriously wounded during an ambush in southern Iraq.
The US refused to provide a helicopter to evacuate the wounded man after being told he was Australian, News Limited reports.
The Queensland man, who suffered severe leg and abdominal injuries, was delivered to Basra air base by a British road convoy more than seven hours after the attack.
The June 25 attack near the town of Al Zubair, 15km southwest of Basra, was carried out by at least six gunmen and involved roadside bombs, small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.
Two Toyota Landcruisers were destroyed in the attack.
Three of the man's Iraqi colleagues, including an Iraqi interpreter, died in the attack.
The security operator underwent surgery at a British military hospital and was later evacuated out of Iraq.
He remains in the region in a serious but stable condition.
Iraqis declare Baghdad snow a sign of hope Posted 32 minutes ago
Snow has fallen in Baghdad for the first time in memory, and delighted residents are declaring it an omen of peace.
. . . . . . . .
Snow does not have anything close to the powers that can bring changes for good to Iraq. People need to change their hearts and views to violence for true peace. Snow is just a pretty event covering a nasty social situation at this time. Spring and summer are not far off . . neither is the return to violence.
If over the course of the next few years Iraq becomes a peaceful, stable, democratic country, will those initially opposed to the war be happy with the outcome for the Iraqi's? Will this be better in your opinion than their previous situation.
It all certainly is looking good for the allies, and even the media is slowly putting a more positive spin on their reports.
I have been kicked around like a Mexican pinata for supporting the war in Iraq. And to be honest it makes me very proud to see all the hard work, blood, sweat and tears is starting to pay off for the soldiers on the ground and the governments who stayed the course. Success is achieved by making tough decisions, not popular ones.
If over the course of the next few years Iraq becomes a peaceful, stable, democratic country, will those initially opposed to the war be happy with the outcome for the Iraqi's? Will this be better in your opinion than their previous situation.
That's really looking at the glass half full isn't it. If stability does somehow miraculouly come to Iraq was invading Iraq the right answer - NO. It is never the right answer to invade another country unless that country is committing MASS genocide against it's own people or has begun invading another country. The estimated body count from the war - 88,000 over 5 years, and almost 4000 allied soldiers. Without looking at Saddam's body count which is obviously far worse than this figure, do you see it as justifiable to go into the 10 (conservative guess) or more countries that are as bad or worse than Iraq and do the same job?
Without looking at Saddam's body count which is obviously far worse than this figure, do you see it as justifiable to go into the 10 (conservative guess) or more countries that are as bad or worse than Iraq and do the same job?
No damned way is it justifiable because the US, Britain and/or Australia are NOT the boss/es of the entire world.
unless that country is committing MASS genocide against it's own people or has begun invading another country.
What about the gassing of thousands of Kurds. Surely that counts as genocide. Oh, and they invaded Kuwait, were beaten and then signed a peace treaty which they broke.
Lets just go over that again. We have
Genocide and we have an invasion, which were both orgy's of violence, pillaging and death.
Quoted from x452
The estimated body count from the war - 88,000 over 5 years, and almost 4000 allied soldiers. Without looking at Saddam's body count which is obviously far worse than this figure,
At least there is hope now. What do you get with Saddam? More of the same forever. I cant believe that anyone would seriously say they would be best served by living under Saddam's deathly reign.
Quoted from x452
do you see it as justifiable to go into the 10 (conservative guess) or more countries that are as bad or worse than Iraq and do the same job?
Depends if they pose a real threat. Apart from that the answer is Yes. If certain factions in Iran keep on acting like they are then they will be shown the gates of hell as well. I saw a special on Iran last year and it showed me that there is a good race of people yearning for freedom. The story was about the first Iranian heavy metal rock band, and they had been arrested for crimes against god, which is punishable by death. Their crime, by the way was the hardcore, heavy metal music. They seemed like normal people like you and me, and i found it sad they lived under such a twisted, hateful regime. Maybe we should try sneak them out and bring them to this years big day out
On the flip side I believe a country like North Korea can be handled diplomatically.
Just on what you say was an illegal invasion of Iraq, may I make a couple of points.
I would have gone in after they broke 20 something of the UN's own resolutions which they were to gutless to back up. This was provocation enough. Writing a letter telling them how naughty they have been doesn't work with fanatics.
I never would have said I was going in for WMD's even though he did his best job to convince everybody he had them. Even the French thought they had them, they just opposed going into Iraq.
There will be peace and democracy in Iraq whether everyone likes it or not. Its happening already.
What about the gassing of thousands of Kurds. Surely that counts as genocide. Oh, and they invaded Kuwait, were beaten and then signed a peace treaty which they broke.
Lets just go over that again. We have
Genocide and we have an invasion, which were both orgy's of violence, pillaging and death.
We did respond when Iraq invaded Kuwait, remember the Gulf War? The current invasion wasn't in response to the gassing of kurds which was 20 years ago, if the U.S. responded back then with international (not a rag tag C.O.W.) support it would have been different. This invasion was based on the lie of WMD's, the international community opposed it and we knew America's reasons were not pure.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
At least there is hope now. What do you get with Saddam? More of the same forever. I cant believe that anyone would seriously say they would be best served by living under Saddam's deathly reign.
Perhaps not. But under Saddam, if you were not a Kurd or a handful of other minorities, you could actually life a comfortable life as long as you didn't oppose his regime. At one point, people (including women) were free to get an education and make a living. Before the sanctions, they had food and water and electricity. Now I'm not saying this was great, but the cost of the war has been 88,000 lives and infrastructure destroyed so people do not have food, water or electricity and children don't have schools to go to. Not to mention the threat of violence on the streets.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
Depends if they pose a real threat. Apart from that the answer is Yes. If certain factions in Iran keep on acting like they are then they will be shown the gates of hell as well.
Cowboy syndrome: the belief that you can ride in uninvited, kick some arse and solve the world's problems, often leaving a bigger mess behind. Example: America.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
I would have gone in after they broke 20 something of the UN's own resolutions which they were to gutless to back up. This was provocation enough. Writing a letter telling them how naughty they have been doesn't work with fanatics.
Israel have broken more than 20 U.N. resolutions, I bet you're not in favour of invading them. It's America's double standards and hidden and not-so-hidden agendas that concern us.
Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One
What would happen to a chat site if there were no moderators? . . . . Now apply your answer to every dictator and hate filled regime around the world if left to their own devices.
The key word is moderators, plural. There's not one moderator who makes up the rules as he goes along. And I imagine the rules are agreed upon by all moderators. This is why the U.N. was setup, although largely ineffective due to bureaucracy, incompetence and U.S. domination/interference, it was created so no one country could assume the position of boss of the world like the U.S. have.
Now apply your answer to every dictator and hate filled regime around the world if left to their own devices.
In MY lifetime I can remember seeing and living through dictators, despots and the like in the names of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Qadhafi, Milosovich, Musharef and many more I cannot name at the moment. Western countries including Australia and the USA sat back and did nothing. Pol Pot, IMHO is the worst of these genocidal homicidal maniac dictators. The West did nothing. Did the west sit on their hands in that case, in such recent times, because Cambodia held nothing of gain for them? Either you go into (read: Invade) every country that is ruled by a dictator and save the innocent people of that country or we don't go into any country. Why should the West (read: US, UK and Australia) be allowed to pick and choose? Is the UN helping fix these problems or adding to them. Can the UN be trusted. I don't know enough about World Politics to make an educated post on the subject. So my questions are perfectly innocent and I would like an educated answer, if anyone can help.
Israel have broken more than 20 U.N. resolutions, I bet you're not in favour of invading them. It's America's double standards and hidden and not-so-hidden agendas that concern us.
So you think the Israeli's are the same as Saddam.
Quoted from x452
Cowboy syndrome: the belief that you can ride in uninvited, kick some arse and solve the world's problems, often leaving a bigger mess behind. Example: America.
Err, no, but if thats how you feel. Give me America anyday rather than Saddam or Ahmadinejad.
This post contains attachments; to download them you must login.
So you think the Israeli's are the same as Saddam.
Perhaps not to you or me but I'm sure that innocent family that was gunned down on a family outing at the beach or the many innocent Palestianians kidnapped/tortured/killed by the Israelis would think so.
Perhaps not. But under Saddam, if you were not a Kurd or a handful of other minorities, you could actually life a comfortable life as long as you didn't oppose his regime. At one point, people (including women) were free to get an education and make a living. Before the sanctions, they had food and water and electricity. Now I'm not saying this was great, but the cost of the war has been 88,000 lives and infrastructure destroyed so people do not have food, water or electricity and children don't have schools to go to. Not to mention the threat of violence on the streets.
And if you are one of those minorities you just have to live with it, until you can't? And even if you were thought to oppose Sadam you were put to death SLOWLY, possibly family members were as well.
"To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained. " The Doctor
'Chemical Ali' hanged By Middle East Correspondent Anne Barker
Ali Hassan al-Majid, or Chemical Ali, has been hanged for his role in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi Kurds. (AFP)
Ali Hassan al Majid was better known as 'Chemical Ali' for his role in the gassing of at least 5,000 Kurds in the northern city of Halabja in March 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war.
Many of the victims died in their own homes as a cocktail of cyanide, mustard gas and other poisons seeped into every building. Three-quarters of those killed were civilians.
Majid's execution was announced shortly after suicide bombers struck the Iraqi capital in a coordinated attack, staging three car bombings aimed at well-known hotels in the city that killed more than 30 people and injured at least 70 more.
Majid, a close cousin of Saddam Hussein, had been sentenced to death three times before, but each time his lawyers managed to delay his execution. The execution was finally carried out a week after his fourth death sentence was handed down.
He was first sentenced to hang for another campaign against Kurds a few months before the gas attack.
Then, in 1991, he put down a Shiite uprising in southern Iraq with similar brutality.
He was condemned again for the murders of dozens more Shiites in Baghdad and Najaf in 1999.
After last week's sentence, his response in court was simply "Thanks to God".
After the verdict, relatives of many of his victims celebrated at Halabja.
But one woman, Freshta Raper, who lost 21 family members at Halabja, believes even execution was too good for 'Chemical Ali'. (I tend to agree with her...)
"For me [he should] stay in a jail and rot in a jail for the rest of his life, every single day to be reminded of the atrocity he caused and the damage he caused," she said.
Meanwhile, it is unclear who was to blame or who was targeted in the series of car bombings to rock Baghdad.
Authorities have long predicted a rise in violence in the lead-up to Iraq's elections in March as insurgents try to destabilise the current regime.
Others speculate the attacks may be linked to Majid's execution and a recent decision to ban members of Saddam Hussein's former Baathist party from standing for election.
One independent MP, Mahmoud Othman, says that decision may have further "negative" repercussions.
Whoever is to blame, it seems increasingly likely there will be more violence as the election draws near.
Logged
