Raed In The Middle: New U.S. Scandle, New Dahmer Buffet

I notice in the http://www.undermars.com/gallery34.html site there are also pictures of U.S. and British tanks that have been blown up. Under these are captions that say "Busted".

This is not to excuse the insensitive captioning that I saw on the http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/1036870.htm blog.

But there is more to be gleaned at the http://www.undermars.com/ site which is the site that the soldiers are posting to than just gallows humor, bloodthirstiness or murderous callousness. In fact, I saw little of it, though I've no doubt that the mparent blog is pulling from it.

My first thought looking through the pictures on the undermars sight was, 'My God those guys are young.'

The name itself tells something "under mars" these are the warriors that comprise war. Our government put them there.

I do not support war. I don't think U.S. soldiers are any worse or any better than any other soldiers in any other army. Soldiers kill. That is why for every waking second that I fought to keep us out war, and fought to keep Bush out of a second term so that he could not lead us into further wars.

The best way to support our troops is to bring them home.

Notice the tasteless caption next to the picture on the military site...
http://www.undermars.com/gallery53.html

Is anyone inside? The Army doesnt care.
http://www.undermars.com/gallery50.html

an example of how poorly our military is trained. it starts in basic , instead of calling them the enimy, its racial slurs of religious slurs, main reason i was put out was i would not worship the way my company commander wanted me to. that problem runs all the way up to the white house. ("if your an athiest i don't consider you a citizen")

Karl, you were chaptered out for your poor writing skills. The only type of worship forbidden is satanism.
As for the pictures, well that's what it looks like. Notice that the sight is mainly of troops hanging out and the gory stuff is not the main theme. One other thing, I know that some of the dead guys got that way from their IEDs going off prematurely, as they set them. I think that's kind of funny.
One other thing, while you work up your righteous indignation. The majority of Iraqis killed, have been by other Iraqis.

BAGHDAD - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis, most of them civilians, as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder.

According to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5, when the ministry began compiling the data, until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. An additional 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.

Although most of the dead are believed to be civilians, the data include an unknown number of police and Iraqi national guardsmen. Many Iraqi deaths, especially of insurgents, are never reported, so the actual number of Iraqis killed in fighting could be significantly higher.

During the same period, 432 American soldiers were killed.

Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. airstrikes intended for insurgents also were killing large numbers of civilians. Some say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the American-backed interim government.

That suggests that more-aggressive U.S. military operations, which the Bush administration has said are being planned to clear the way for nationwide elections scheduled for January, could backfire and strengthen the insurgency.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/09/1696401.php

see also:
In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the dead
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/12/1708364.php
Fallujah Refugees Tell of Life and Death in the Kill Zone
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1268

Seeing what US soliders are capable in Iraq makes me really worried about how they will act when they get back. Once a redneck has tasted blood there is no going back. As soliders addicted to killing and mutilating dead bodies come home, expect the murder rate to rise as it did in the late 70s. Aside from the random shooting sprees by mentally ill veterans and armed robberies by those who come home and can't find jobs, there are also bound to be McVey types who try to apply what they learned in Iraq for crazed causes back home. All we can hope for is that as many US marines die as possible over there so we dont have to deal with them back here.

Wow. I see that you already know everything. You know that we are going into the 2nd year of operations in Iraq and the 4th year for Afghanistan. My daughter goes in June to Iraq as a medic. I may return to teach Iraqi Police. My last tour was protecting folks that disarmed bombs and destroyed stockpiles of weapons. All noble causes.
What have you done?
BTW do you consider Filipinos to be rednecks?

Joel:

I'd suggest you read up on the history of American foreign policy. A good place to start would be the Spanish-American War, with special attention given to the American actions in the Philippines. From there, look into US policy in Central America/Caribbean (starting in the early 20th) and the Mid East, particularly after World War 2. Until then, spare us the sanctimonious crap, por favor.

Hey Smedley Butler was my hero. Actually Raymond Magsaysay. Maybe Juan Flavier for doing all the things that folks here claim to want to do.
Define sanctimonious, does it only apply if I don't ridicule folks. The previous writer was having his rant on service members. I just think it's funny that in this multiethnic, diversity celebrating paradise, if I'm not in lockstep with your viewpoint I must be brainwashed or broken in some way.

I know about all the things that have been done in the name of the US. I make no excuse for it, but killing people is not unique to Americans. So why this hatred of fellow Americans? I read what's written here and just don't understand why people here say the ugly things they say. I won't pretend that there are not criminals in the military. The military represents the society it comes from. When the Abu gharib story came out, some soldiers wanted to see those responsible put away, while others thought they did not go far enough. And this was from people stationed in Iraq. A lot of us believe the lower ranking EMs took the fall. Just like in civilian society, those without money take the full hit.
Hey got in my own rant.

<<The military represents the society it comes from...>>

That's a truism while also a cliche and an evasion.

You know how many times I've heard APOLOGISTS say "oh, yea, the military is made up of good and bad and some in between..." Try a thought experiment: What would YOU think if someone blandly said *that* about the Soviet Red Army in the face of criticism of, say, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Would you say, "Yea, that's true, I guess human nature ultimately is the culprit"?.....I don't think so.

I don't have any sympathy for the scum-bags who tortured Iraqi's in Abu Ghraib (and all the other torture chambers your compatriots operate in Iraq), but the real issue is that this policy came from the highest levels of government--ie: Rumsfeld, Bush, etc--all the way down. THAT'S THE ISSUE: Torture as a systematic feature of American policy in Iraq (and Afghanistan--and all the other client states whose militaries the US arms, and in many cases trains and oversees).

You mention (US Major General) Smedley Butler as your hero. I, honestly, have my doubts that that's the case. But, in any event, he was clear that the crimes commited by US foreign policy weren't simply the product of "bad apples" or somehow anomoulous, but instead SYSTEMIC. Here's what he said:

"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

<<The military represents the society it comes from...>>

That's a truism while also a cliche and an evasion.

You know how many times I've heard APOLOGISTS say "oh, yea, the military is made up of good and bad and some in between..." Try a
thought experiment: What would YOU think if someone blandly said *that* about the Soviet Red Army in the face of criticism of, say,
the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Would you say, "Yea, that's true, I guess human nature ultimately is the culprit"?.....I don't think so.

I don't have any sympathy for the scum-bags who tortured Iraqi's in Abu Ghraib (and all the other torture chambers your compatriots operate
in Iraq), but the real issue is that this policy came from the highest levels of government--ie: Rumsfeld, Bush, etc--all the way down. THAT'S THE
ISSUE: Torture as a systematic feature of American policy in Iraq (and Afghanistan--and all the other client states whose militaries the US
arms, and in many cases trains and oversees).

You mention (US Major General) Smedley Butler as your hero. I, honestly, have my doubts that that's the case. But, in any event,
he was clear that the crimes commited by US foreign policy weren't simply the product of "bad apples" or somehow anomoulous, but
instead SYSTEMIC. Here's what he said:

"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the
Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period, I spent most of
my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession, I never had a thought
of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This
is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping
of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916.
In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given
Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Okay, so we agree on that. Mr Butler became unpopular after his retirement. He felt that everything he had done in the Americas was wrong.
Getting back to the original point.
At the top of this page people are expressing their outrage and disgust at pics posted by soldiers of dead combatants. I would not have done that(taken pictures). But When the Somalis dragged the bodies of CW Durant's crew through the street of Mogadishu or the crowd in Fallujah strung up the bodies of the Blackwater team last year, what was said here? How about the beheadings? If it's not right, it's not right.

"When the Somalis dragged the bodies of CW Durant's crew through the street of Mogadishu or the crowd in Fallujah strung up the bodies of the Blackwater team last year, what was said here? How about the beheadings? If it's not right, it's not right."

If you are saying there is a moral equivalence, then I would agree. But, my tax money is going to pay for one set of attrocities and not another. One set of attrocities are (with the notable exception of Abu Ghraib) touted as a great victory for freedom by most of the US media wheras the others are seen as mindless acts of terrorists. Falluja was celebrated almost universally by ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR, NBC.... yet it was a leveling of a city that turned against the US as the result of the gunning down of a peaceful protest in 2003 (before that there wasnt much unrest) and in both the sheer destructioin, the seperation of women and children from men and then declaring a city of 200,000+ a free fire zone, it was probably the worst war crime comitted by the US since VIet Nam. On an individual level, is there a moral equivalence between the solider who was just let off the hook for shooting an unconcious prisoner on the floor of a Falluja mosque with those who hung the bodies of US security officers froma bridge? yes, but with the imballance of power, the sheer size of the US attrocities, and the motivation for the actions on a nonpersonal level (fighting for indpendence vs fighting for US economic interests) its not comparable.

How do your tax dollars pay for a private website? Or are you referring to the act of taking pictures? Or just the fact that your taxes go for the war or pay the salaries of the soldiers doing the killing?

Falluja was trouble spot from the beginning. It was always part of the Sunni Triangle, full of folks that used to be the boss/overlord and now are not. When the 82nd was there in 2003 they had problems. It was minimal due to their attitude in dealing with the locals. As for peaceful protest, define peaceful.
The marines switched out with the 82nd, brought a differant way of doing things and things went downhill. They were very aware of opinion and tried to do as little damage as possible, even stopping short of leveling the place in April.

As for the Iraqi shot in the Mosque, he was not in custody, he was not restrained. He was wounded from an earlier firefight, and the corpsman with that unit bandaged him up and moved on, but he was no more a prisoner than you are now. The man that pulled the trigger was in a place where people were doing their best to kill him, and the other guy moved at the wrong time.
As for big ideas like fighting for corporate America, dude, you really never have talked to any soldiers have you?
I hesitate to bring this up, but I never saw anything you could call an atrocity in my AO. I don't doubt that some happen, they always do. I guess I wonder what it is you expect from your soldiers?
The freedom fighters in Iraq, whose freedom are they fighting for? The majority of the population are being bombed and murdered by them more than US forces. Supporting the insurgents there is like supporting a white terrorist group in it's campaign to overthrow the South African govt. Not the same? How? Both governments were elected, both have long suppresed minorities finally exercising power.

In earlier posts you (Joel) presented yourself as someone who opposed the war. Now, you're parroting lies the war's arch-supporters tell ad nauseaum.

Fallujah wasn't the Saddam-bastion you're suggesting it was. Indeed, Hussein was never able to impose his rule firmly in Fallujah; his attempts to put-in-place clerics subordinate to the Baathists never found success there. While Hussein built mosques and attempted to more-closely identify himself with Islam in the '90s to sure-up his power, the Baath were a secular formation and understood as such by Iraqi's, and in particular, pious Iraqi Muslims. Fallujah, on the other-hand, was the center of an extremely-conservative brand of Sunni fundamentalism.

Let's remember that after last-April's so-called stand-off (which included American snipers killing civilians with abandon...i know because i have friends who were there and helped pull corpses out of the streets) the Americans placed Baathists in power of Fallujah. What happened to them? They got pushed aside in no time, because, well, there wasn't a lot of support for the US' former-allies there!

But back to your characterization of the military operations in Fallujah last April. You first write that the 82nd "were very aware of opinion and tried to do as little damage as possible, even stopping short of leveling the place in April." Take a look at what you wrote there, Joel, and then ask yourself why America is so hated. Your idea of doing "little damage" is "stopping short of leveling the place." Jesus Fucking Christ--is that your idea of Christian generosity?!?

I guess, at least, it puts into perspective your claim that you've never seen any atrocities commited by the Americans....

It's time to take your head out of your ass, Joel.

In earlier posts you (Joel) presented yourself as someone who opposed the war. Now, you're parroting lies the war's arch-supporters tell
ad nauseaum.

Fallujah wasn't the Saddam-bastion you're suggesting it was. Indeed, Hussein was never able to impose his rule firmly in Fallujah; his
attempts to put-in-place clerics subordinate to the Baathists never found success there. While Hussein built mosques and attempted to more-closely
identify himself with Islam in the '90s to sure-up his power, the Baath were a secular formation and understood as such by Iraqi's, and in
particular, pious Iraqi Muslims. Fallujah, on the other-hand, was the center of an extremely-conservative brand of Sunni fundamentalism.

Let's remember that after last-April's so-called stand-off (which included American snipers killing civilians with abandon...i
know because i have friends who were there and helped pull corpses out of the streets) the Americans placed Baathists in power of Fallujah.
What happened to them? They got pushed aside in no time, because, well, there wasn't a lot of support for the US' former-allies there!

But back to your characterization of the military operations in Fallujah last April. You first write that the 82nd "were very aware of opinion
and tried to do as little damage as possible, even stopping short of leveling the place in April." Take a look at what you wrote there, Joel,
and then ask yourself why America is so hated. Your idea of doing "little damage" is "stopping short of leveling the place." Jesus Fucking
Christ--is that your idea of Christian generosity?!?

I guess, at least, it puts into perspective your claim that you've never seen any atrocities commited by the Americans....

It's time to take your head out of your ass, Joel.

Joel poo-poos talk of corporate control of Iraq and lauds the "democracy" that the US has imposed on it.

Santimonious Americans like Joel may not have any particular interest in distinguishing between democratic forms and democratic
content, but that doesn't mean there is no reason to discern a difference.

One of the most important tools used by the Bush Administration to ensure continued US economic and political control of
Iraq are the 100 Orders enacted by L. Paul Bremer when he headed the Coalition Provisional Authority. Bremer ensured implementation of
these orders—some of the most important of which I list below—by filling every Ministry with US-appointed authorities with five-year terms: In other words,
way after Iraq was to heralded as a great exemplar of democracy by gas-bags like Friedman!

Bremer seemed to understand the benefits of the 100 Orders when he commented that “you set up these things and they begin to develop a
certain life and momentum on their own – and it's harder to reverse course.”

(Of course, we should add the world’s largest American embassy—based in Baghdad--to the list of “things” that are hard “to reverse course”
once they’ve been “set-up”.)

Here’s a sampling of the most important Orders which give the lie to the claim that the Americans have handed power to the Iraqi people (This
list was gathered from an article by Antonia Juhasz, of Foreign Policy in Focus.):

Order #39 allows for the following: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi
businesses; (3) "national treatment" of foreign firms; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership
licenses. Thus, it allows the U.S. corporations operating in Iraq to own every business, do all of the work, and send all of their money home. Nothing
needs to be reinvested locally to service the Iraqi economy, no Iraqi need be hired, no public services need be guaranteed, and workers'
rights can easily be ignored. And corporations can take out their investments at any time.

Order #40 privatizes the banking sector overnight by allowing foreign banks to enter the Iraqi market and to purchase up to 50 percent of
raqi banks.

Order #49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40 percent to a flat rate of 15 percent. The income tax rate is also capped at 15 percent.

Order #12 enacted on June 7, 2003 and renewed on February 24, 2004, suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and
similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and all other trade restrictions that may apply to such goods.

Order #17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq 's laws. Even if they do injure a third party
by killing someone or causing environmental damage such as dumping toxic chemicals or poisoning drinking water, the injured third party can
not turn to the Iraqi legal system, rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts under U.S. laws.

Order #77 established the Board of Supreme Audit and named its president and his two deputies. The Board oversees inspectors
in every Ministry with wide-ranging authority to review government contracts, audit classified programs, and prescribe regulations and procedures.

Order #57 created and appointed an inspector within every Iraqi Ministry with five-year terms who can perform audits, write policies,
and have full access to all offices, materials, and employees of the Ministries.

Then there are the approximately 200 mostly U.S. and other international advisers who will remain embedded as consultants in every
Iraqi Ministry well after the official occupation has ended.

Clearly, the Bremer Orders fundamentally altered Iraq's existing laws. For this reason, the Bremer Orders are also illegal. Transformation
of an occupied country's laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the
United States), and the U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned
Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law."

America's exploiter class thanks you and your daughter for your sacrifices Joel!

You really should spend some time there. Link up with an NGO and see first hand. Don't take any persons view as gospel until you see it for yourself.

Bremer is gone, the CPA is gone, and Sistani could be the president if he wanted. Alawi is trying to hang in there, but he's not Shiite enough.

The Kurds are biding their time and seeing if they finally get their own country, without having to fight off a Turkish invasion.

Am I dodging the facts you presented? Not really. Every written agreement, proclamation or rule means nothing if not enforced. If they make up new rules, who's to stop them? And the rules are ignored in that country every day. The biggest challenge is finding an honest leader that's not bent on genocide. As for which unit was where and who did what, I won't bother to correct you. Don't think it matters to you.

You said your friend was pulling bodies out of the street in falluja. Then your friend must be a local, probably sunni. Gosh, why would anyone tell you a falsehood? Go see for yourself.
As for true pornography, I have an album full of happy iraqis. Guys I worked with. Some were guards, some laborers. All making $10 a day or less and happy to be making something to provide for their families. And family is the most important thing there. Cousins, uncles, brothers would all be on the same job. Most of those people are dead now. Nov. of 2004 an ambush of 2 busloads of workers(Tikrit area) took most of them out.
All of this is personal to me, more than some slogan or passing whim. I really and truly don't agree with all that's happened. That's why it's not easy to choose the path to take

I’d be curious to know why you think the US invaded Iraq.

These are the three *major* reasons as far as I'm concerned:

1) To ensure that Iraqi oil is traded in the dollar, and not the Euro as it was for the two years prior to the invasion. This has already been
implemented without the 'democratic consent' of the Iraqi people you care for so deeply. Bush signed an executive order to that effect
within a week of the "fall" of Baghdad.

2) To install forward military bases in Iraq. This is in the works as we speak.

3) To "win" contracts for American companies in a post-Hussein world. The 100 Orders, more than anything, lay the basis for exactly
that. (It’s interesting to note that the current finance minister, Abdel Mahdi, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq--one of the main parties that comprised Sistani’s Shi’ite
List--told the National Press Club in Washington on December 22, with US undersecretary of state Larson at his side, that a new oil
law would privatize Iraq's oil industry, and allow investment in both downstream and "maybe even upstream" operations. It’s equally *telling* to note
that Sistani’s List candidates never *ran* on a platform calling for handing control of Iraq’s oil over to foreign investors. Why didn’t they? Well,
because they wouldn’t have been elected if they had!)
$$$$$$$$$$$

You say that laws aren’t enforceable and that the new Iraqi authorities can always twist them around. To that: First, I would say that a
good portion of the US’ plans have already been set in motion; as Bremer said, it’s “hard to change reverse course” in mid-stream. Second,
I would say that the Iraqi’s who will take “power” will be required to rely on the US military power for protection, and therefore disposed
to do as is “expected” of them. Third, I would say, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK American troops are in Iraq for? To dispense soccer balls
to street kids? To think that the new government will be allowed to do whatever it wants so long as Iraq is occupied shows how naïve you
are. (Do you think the Lebanese government can do whatever it likes as long as it’s occupied by Syria?!?!?!)
$$$$$$$$$$$

As far as “Kurdistan” coming into effect, I’ll say this.:The US has sold-out the Kurds before and will be sell them out again. They’re looked upon
by US planners like bosses look upon scabs during a strike. They’ll be used (as shock troops among other things) and then cast-aside. Besides,
the main Kurdish political parties are corrupt as shit….
$$$$$$$$$$

My friend who was in Fallujah is an American and not a muslim.
***************
As far as your photo album is concerned: I’m sure there are former Soviet Afghan vets who have similar picture books. I’m not impressed.

WOW!!!! as many Marines as can OR SHOULD DIE?????? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU? These are still our Brothers and Sisters