You are hereBlogs / Ralph Lopez's blog / U.S. Soldiers Shooting Random Vehicles in Iraq

U.S. Soldiers Shooting Random Vehicles in Iraq


By Ralph Lopez - Posted on 19 August 2010

Once again, as many soldiers who have turned against the occupation have stated, these are not isolated nor even unexpected events.  This is the nature of a brutal military occupation in which the enemy is the entire populace and the goal is control of resources or to maintain geopolitical fragmentation of a state.  

Outspoken Iraq veteran Ethan McCord says of another incident caught on video, of an Apache helicopter attack in 2007 on a wounded man and those trying to help him, words that are applicable to the entire occupation (I refuse to call this a war.  A war has two sides with armies facing each other who have roughly the same firepower.  This is a slaughter.)

McCord says:

"Instead of people being upset at a few soldiers in a video who were doing what they were trained to do, I think people need to be more upset at the system that trained these soldiers. They are doing exactly what the Army wants them to do."

Part of the brainwashing in the Army which teaches the dehumanization of an occupied population are words sung in basic training as you run or march:

we went to the market where all the hadji shop,
pulled out our machetes and we began to chop,

we went to the playground where all the hadji play,
pulled out our machine guns and we began to spray,

we went to the mosque where all the hadji pray,
threw in a hand grenade, and blew them all away.

Now as Obama draws down what is being called the "rebranded occupation" to the 50,000-troop permanent American presence, bolstered by what Jeremy Scahill calls the "coming surge" in private security contractors, we have the power, the many who worked for him and had high hopes, to demand the country be given back fully to the Iraqis.  We might not like the geopolitical outcome (a Shiite government leaning towards Iran) but it will tell the world we have renounced Bush foreign policy and are ready to make amends.  Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) has called for prosecution of Bush administration officials for "conspiring to manipulate intelligence in order to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

IVAW alleges that Bush administration officials conspired to create the perception that Saddam Hussein presented an imminent threat to the United States in order to bypass an uncooperative U.N. Security Council and secure a congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq.  The growing body of evidence, including testimony from British officials in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry, indicates that Bush officials could be charged with criminal offenses against the United States and violations of international law for making false claims to national self-defense.

Seumus Milne of the UK Guardian writes:

The horrific cost of the war to the Iraqi people...and the continuing fear and misery of daily life make a mockery of claims that the US surge of 2007 "worked" and that Iraq has come good after all.

It's not only the hundreds of thousands of dead and 4 million refugees. After seven years of US (and British) occupation, tens of thousands are still tortured and imprisoned without trial, health and education has dramatically deteriorated, the position of women has gone horrifically backwards, trade unions are effectively banned, Baghdad is divided by 1,500 checkpoints and blast walls, electricity supplies have all but broken down and people pay with their lives for speaking out.

Please sign the Open Letter to the Iraqi People, authored by former soldiers in Iraq, and work to demand from your congressman that this country be given back to its people. The letter reads in part:

"We did unto you what we would not want done to us. More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny...."

Do not hate the soldiers in this video.  Pity them.  We have all played a part in this.  Like the soldiers who have stepped forward to renounce their actions, we can still step forward too.  In The Kiterunner (recommended) the narrator is told in a mysterious message from his past, "There is a way to be good again."

FORWARD THIS TO YOUR CONGRESS MEMBERS

ROLLCALL OF JULY VOTE TO CONTINUE FUNDING FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN OCCUPATIONS ("YEA" MEANS THEY VOTED FOR MORE WAR)

FREE PFC. BRADLEY MANNING

 


Tags

Once again, as many soldiers who have turned against the occupation have stated, these are not isolated nor even unexpected events. This is the nature of a brutal military occupation in which the enemy is the entire populace and the goal is control of resources or to maintain geopolitical fragmentation of a state.

That's well stated.

Outspoken Iraq veteran Ethan McCord says of another incident caught on video, of an Apache helicopter attack in 2007 on a wounded man and those trying to help him, words that are applicable to the entire occupation (I refuse to call this a war. A war has two sides with armies facing each other who have roughly the same firepower. This is a slaughter.)

I disagree and agree at the same time. It's a slaughter; no doubt about it. But, and ideally, a war has two sides willing to fight against each other. It's nothing to idealize, but people fussy with what and what does not constitute war might be happy only when two armies or military forces are at war against each other. That's for people who can only imagine war happening in one way. In reality, however, one side usually is the aggressor, while the other side doesn't want war or military aggression and oppression, did nothing to justify war, and has no or insufficient means to oppose. The aggressed population often lacks the means to be able to wage (defensive) war against the aggressor. The aggressed population usually lacks the means for defense when it's the U.S. that's waging war (always of aggression).

What that makes is a one-sided war, and such wars probably will always contain slaughters.

Some people need a defensive side that fights or for Congress to declare war, before being able to agree that there is war. Some Americans said that the war on Iraq ended around June 2003, treating the occupation as if it's not war; but it is war, or else the U.S. wouldn't be occupying the country. The fact of occupying the country is an act of war. The fact that the U.S. highly dominates Iraqi politics is an act of war. The fact that the U.S. installed a puppet regime and maintains a puppet govt in Iraq is an act of war. The war did not cease; it continues.

And war can be waged against defenseless and relatively defenseless people. That's my opinion, but it's also backed by reality. The U.S. has this for unofficial, officially unstated M.O.

What's going on right now with the Obama administration against Gulf of Mexico coast residents and fishermen, as well as Americans in general, is war; but if we treat war as requiring two opposing sides with both sides fighting, then this situation in the U.S. would not be war. It is a war though. It's war on Americans (and the enviornment) and is the highest level racketeering that can occur, nationally. The federal and some state govts are complicit (and more or worse). And "War is a Racket"; USMC Major General Smedley D. Butler.

The same is true of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the Congo, f.e. But these are different kinds of war. There's more than only one kind of war. War can be purely economic, too. We don't have theatrical war in the DRC, while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are theatre wars; but we still have around 10mn genocidied people in the DRC over the past decade or so and it's always to profit western corporations (and consumers). It's real war against the Congolese, but it isn't a theatre kind of war.

We can treat war, the definition, narrowly, but we can also think of it in its broader terms, and the latter is what we should do; because it is what's happening. With respect to Iran we have political war and there's some potential for the criminals and hypocrites to escalate this to military war, strikes. There is war on the poor of Central or Latin America and John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", wrote about this. While he probably didn't call it "war on the poor" or "war on the population", it nevertheless is what he essentially describes of the ways of the US elites who employed and paid him to try to corrupt governments of Latin America, which, when "successful", would and will end up with a consequence that effectively is economic war on the populations.

What's going on against Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Congo, and many other countries and peoples are wars; all of aggression and against relatively defenseless people. The wars could hardly be worse if Congress declared them officially.

What's going on is war for global dominance and this does require war on Americans, and Congress is not likely going to declare any wars. They're all criminal and for racket! But the mere act of deliberately trying to deceive us is an act of war against us; by our so-called elected political representatives. It is war, but we don't have the means needed to stop this aggression and the associated lies. We don't have an army or military, but war really is waged against us; like it or not.

"War is a Racket" - former USMC Major General Smedley D. Butler. Perhaps most people would not consider a racket war, but war nevertheless is a racket.

And racket wars have [slaughters]. Since when does the U.S. not slaughter? It's what most of U.S. history, official and unofficial, consists of; from the very start of the U.S., as well as before the U.S. became the USA. It's what "School of the Americas", renamed WHINSEC, is about. It's how U.S. troops are trained and/or commanded. It sometimes is how U.S. law enforcement acts towards unarmed, but non-white citizens; like the Black American in NY who was unarmed, tried to flee, and was shot around 43 times several years ago; unless it was back in the 1990s.

That the U.S. committing slaughters in wars is happening again is to be condemned, but it is no surprise. It'd be a surprise if the U.S. was not doing this. It's traditional U.S. and west. Consider the slaughters committed in Haiti after the U.S., France and Canada act of war there Feb. 29th, 2004, when they committed an act of war of aggression by invading and forcing the removal of the democratically elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Real slaughters happened there and it was entirely the fault of these three foreign govts and the murderous criminals they put in power there. They wittingly freed cold-blooded murderers and rapists from prison and put them in power. Consider the roughly 10 million genocided Congolese over the past decade or so, and the brutality with which military forces from Canada and Belgium cold-bloodedly murdered the great Congolese MP Patrice Lumumba. Consider Option Salvador, that bloody nightmare due to the U.S. There are many other examples to consider, of course including U.S. history against American Indians, and Canadian history against Canadian Indians, f.e.

Western elites love to slaughter and they rarely or else never slaughter anyone like themselves. They prefer to slaughter innocent and defenseless, as well as relatively defenseless people. It's not what most troops want to do, but the elites know that this really is what they command. They're stupid, dumb, savage, et cetera animals, they're psychopaths; but they know they lead war on humanity while trying to deceive us into believing that the wars are justified and that we have real democracies. Of course such criminals constantly lie; they don't really have a choice, if they are to pursue their agendas or goals, which they evidently don't plan on giving up.

This criminality and war on humanity (and democracy) needs to be stopped! It isn't an ethically fought war, it isn't a "just war", but it's war; hellbent and hellish war. When Bush Jr said the U.S. was going to bring peace, justice and democracy to Iraq, I posted that it was a lie and that what the U.S. was going to bring to Iraq is hell. When he said the U.S. was going to liberate Iraqis, I posted saying sure, liberating them from [life]; iow, murdering them and destroying their country. And Saddam Hussein said that the war would be like opening the gates of Hell over Iraq. We evidently were in agreement. It's hellbent and hellish war.

Hellbent and hellish war will have slaughters. And there've been many. F.e., remember the wedding celebrations in Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. bombed. Slaughters!

Now the government and BP are slaughtering the Gulf of Mexico. These people never tire of slaughtering. They will slaughter anything that's good or innocent. Heh, it's "sport". Life just couldn't be fun without slaughtering and destroying.

They can't achieve global dominance without slaughtering innocent people. They're psychopaths and won't give up.

There's nothing new about that, but it needs to be stopped.

This is the nature of a brutal military occupation in which the enemy is the entire populace and the goal is control of resources or to maintain geopolitical fragmentation of a state.

Not "or". Instead, "and/or", or "both". Who says it's only for one or the other of the above two reasons; what's the evidence? There is none. Instead, try and/or or simply both. That is, the goal may be "control of resources" and/or "to maintain geopolitical fragmentation of a state", and both are likely. But "likely" is an understatement.

The present wars are for both control of rich energy resources [and] global dominance. The elites can't achieve the latter without the former, and can't really achieve the former without also achieving the latter. And the elites clearly enough want and aim for both.

We're not talking about junior level racketeers. We're talking about the most elite and powerful ones. They do control the superpower on this planet.

Do not hate the soldiers in this video. Pity them. We have all played a part in this. Like the soldiers who have stepped forward to renounce their actions, we can still step forward too. In The Kiterunner (recommended) the narrator is told in a mysterious message from his past, "There is a way to be good again."

It's time to speak individually. I agree with pitying the soldiers in the video. They are certainly and clearly pitiful specimens; and they unfortunately reflect "American" culture or society. However, while Americans "can still step forward" to denounce the war on Iraq and the crimes of the Bush Jr-Cheney administration, we did [not] all play "a part in this". Well, actually, we all or many of us did, but the parts differed.

Some of us were totally opposed to the war on Iraq the second we learned that the U.S. was considering recourse to war on the country. I didn't need to wait for Congress to authorize, conditionally, recourse to war in order to be opposed to the whole idea of this recourse to war. The same was true in 1999 with the war (of aggression) on Kosovo, Yugoslavia. I didn't need any help at all to be opposed to the thought of war on that country the second I learned of it being talked about in the White House and Congress; I was dead set against it the second I learned of talk of it. And I was dead set against the threat of war on Afghanistan. I posted my views online, so yes, I played a part in all of this; but not a supportive part.

As for the U.S. being "good again". That's dreaming. How about being good for [once] in U.S. history, because the U.S. has been hellbent from the start? It's not in official history books, but it is real U.S. history.

Not FDR, not JFK, not RFK were [good]. They did some good things or had some good plans, and JFK was planning on doing some very important things; but they certainly weren't saints. JFK and RFK had ties with the "mob", mafia, while they gave the mafia in Florida and Louisiana a hard time with the drug trade. The mafia up north was okay, but not the drug trafficking mafia of Fla. and La. FDR liked fascists, such as Mussolini, f.e. Whoever the President of the U.S. was during the Spanish Civil War made it illegal for Americans to go to Spain to help the population there try to stop the extreme fascist General Franco, who was supported by the governments of the U.S., Italy, Nazi Germany, and the Vatican; as well as Jesuits in Spain. Stephen Lendman wrote about that a few years ago and said that the Lincoln Brigade (if recalling the name correctly) in the U.S. nevertheless went to Spain to try to help defeat Franco, but the government in the U.S. had made such acts illegal; because the government of the U.S. is not good and has awfully little history of ever having been good.

The U.S. continues genocide against American Indians. It's not evident when going to American Indian reservations with casinos, perhaps, but the mere fact that the treaties still go dishonored and that the American Indians are forced to be on reservations, large concentration camps, is a real illustration that the U.S. is not good and really never has been. But there are many other examples, nationally and internationally, of the U.S. definitely not being good.

Even petite Canada is [not] good. On a lesser scale internationally, but Ca is very criminal, rogue, imperialist, colonialist, and so on. If petite Ca can be so bad, and it is, then don't expect the U.S. to be good, either.

Disney would try to have us believe otherwise, but I'm not a fan. Fantasy, total-fiction stories are one thing, but I'd never trust Disney about important realities of real U.S. history. I don't trust the History Channel either, because it provides propaganda of deception, lies and distortions.

Speaking individually is as primordial as individual conscience is. We should not act as if we are one person, one body, because we most definitely are not. And soldiers should not be totally whitewashed. However, commanders are the most guilty bunch and they should be prosecuted. If we got that, then we'd finally have a good day; besides nice weather. Yet, when soldiers commit blatant crimes, then they should not be let totally off of the hook. The only time I'd accept to do that is when the soldiers really are too PTSD'd to be able to act within law, and when they dissent. The second a soldier dissents against criminal orders, I will be glad to support the soldier, morally. I have no means for supporting them materially. And whenever a soldier is seriously PTSD'd, then I can't really hold them responsible for their crimes. Commanders are a wholly different category of people and need to be held to account.

Otherwise, soldiers learn that their first oath is to the Constitution and they must be held to this. If they're too dumb to understand what this means, then they should be fired from the military and could go flip hamburgers at McD's, instead. Only idiots and immature people get brainwashed with military training. The military is no place for little kiddies. When I enlisted at age 18 I had a [conscience] and I expect the same from all other enlistees, but also realize that that's a pipe dream. U.S. culture is not good soil for people to become sufficiently mature. Mature people still make mistakes and if a soldier is mature and mistakenly, instead of wittingly, follows criminal orders, then there's definitely room for forgiveness and it should be granted. But when soldiers know the orders they follow are wrong, then their duty is to dissent. It's their duty, legally and morally.

I got out early on good conduct discharge. Honorable discharge required more "service" time. And the choice of getting out was primarly due to hypocrite officers. I could not serve under hypocrites, because they're people who cannot be trusted. The roles needed to be reversed. They needed to be sub. to me. I did not have a high school diploma, having been a freelance delinquant, but conscience is something I didn't lack; not much anyway.

Real conscience is not a common quality in the U.S. And schools don't and won't teach [conscience]. Plenty of schools graduate psychopaths and sociopaths.

The USA good? It'd be a good turn for the country to take. We may witness or experience such a turn of US history with the November elections; maybe. It'd be surprising, but maybe we'll finally have a good surprise happen. I hope that this year's elections will be really productive, in a good way. We and the rest of humanity need good elections in the U.S., which needs to stop electing gangsters and likes.

But the Obama administration also needs to be prosecuted; instead of only Bush Jr, et alia.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:





















The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.