Wikileaks video of combat in Iraq

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes...they did:

Oh ya the Stuka, that thing was bad ass. Though I doubt it is a precise as modern weapons.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh ya the Stuka, that thing was bad ass. Though I doubt it is a precise as modern weapons.

True, but it was plenty effective in its day.

[xul]

And in doing that we agreed to the mission, at the time it did not have an end date....NATO has not put an end date on it....

I think you are mistaken on this. Canada did agree to participate(actually Canada was doing its obligation as a NATO member) the mission and NATO didn't set an end date of it at the beginning. But when America started a new war in Iraq for its own interest regardless the opposition of other members of NATO, it made things different. If you review the history, you will find Japan didn't join the war which Germany launched on Soviet though Japan had a treaty with Germany because Hitler didn't inform Japanese first. And nobody, neither historians nor lawyers would agree that Japan's ground then was a betrayal to Germany. France quitted from NATO several times just for "the freedom of action for its own interests". So it was America which set Canada free from the war in Afghanistan. If American is not a superpower and the leader of the gang, I bet it have already been kicked out of NATO just for such kind of naughty doing.

Edited April 13, 2010 by xul

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think you are mistaken on this. Canada did agree to participate(actually Canada was doing its obligation as a NATO member) the mission and the NATO didn't set an end date of it at the beginning. But when America started a new war in Iraq for its own interest regardless the opposition of other members of NATO, it made things different. If you review the history, you will find Japan didn't join the war which Germany launched on Soviet tought Japan had a treaty with Germany because Hitler didn't inform Japanese first. And nobody, neither historians nor lawyers would agree that Japan's ground then was a betrayal to Germany. So it was America which set Canada free from the war in Afghanistan.

Japan didn't go to war with Russia just like we didn't go to war with Iraq but Japan did continue it's orginal war. For your example to work Japan would have had not fought America as well and ended it's treaty with Germany.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So it was America which set Canada free from the war in Afghanistan. If American is not a superpower and the leader of the gang, I bet it have already been kicked out of NATO just for such kind of naughty doing.

No...the US has no capacity to relieve Canada of its NATO and UN obligations. The US could have started a dozen more wars and it would not change Canada's charter responsibilites.

[xul]

But what if your goal is simply to annihilate a specific threat?

Bush's goal is to annihilate a set of current, future and possible threats to America(AQ of course at the foremost position of the list, then followed by Arabian Kings, Russia, China, Japan and European Union IMO)via the Iraq War which was an effort to control the oil threshold of the Middle East. Since nowadays American can not act like the old colonists, I mean annihilating locals and shipping "civilized" immigrants instead. So the strategy of Bush's war is to occupy the country, democratize the system and "civilize" its people, then supposing the locals will show great gratitude to their liberator and will become American allies or cooperators in the area.

[xul]

Japan didn't go to war with Russia just like we didn't go to war with Iraq but Japan did continue it's orginal war. For your example to work Japan would have had not fought America as well and ended it's treaty with Germany.

Japan fought American for itself not for German. The Axis only exists on paper since the members never coordinated their war plans and actions. I belive that Canaidan government and other countries's governments had sought advice from lawyers to make sure their decisions were legal. They didn't speak the real reason out just for it looked like a condemnation to America.

[bloodyminded]

So the strategy of Bush's war is to occupy the country, democratize the system and "civilize" its people, then supposing the locals will show great gratitude to their liberator and will become American allies or cooperators in the area.

"...our children will sing great songs about us years from now." --Richard Perle.

What a dink.

[Army Guy]

You are right, but you still should identify who are your enemy and who are civilians first. When you occupy an "enemy's" city, your mission will shift into some kind of police business and you should realize that the city is no longer "enemy's" but your. That means the civilians of the "enemy" country who are now under your rule should be treated as the same as your countrymen who live in Canada. Have you ever heard German air-bombed "insurgents" regardless the casualty of civilian in Paris after they occupied the city in WW2 just becasue some German soldiers were attacked by French resistants in the area?

The Iraqi army was defeat very earily in the War, This conflict had turned from defeating an uniformed enemy to a civil war in which Iraqi civilians armed themselfs and openily attacked US and coalition forces....IT was them the "Iraqi civilians" that set the tone of this conflict....And it will remain them until they they lay down their arms and start taking a less violent approach to thier problems...

As for the indentifing your enemy first....ANY civilian who picks up any wpn is classified as a combatant, regardless of his intentions....Not for the time he has the wpn in his pocesion but for the duration of the conflict....Meaning he could be arrested at a later date, and charged as a combatant or locked up until the end of the conflict....

Being classified as a combatant means your a legimate military target, it's spelled out very clearly in the Genva conventions....Which means you can be engaged with any wpns sys available to those forces...

Hanging out with a military target, or insurgent, just being there makes you complict in the insurgents actions....I mean really WTF where the unarmed guys doing there in the first place....can anyone explain that...they went out to watch their buddies kill some Americans....or they where there to assist in some fashion....either way they are dead now for thier stupity and we want to pin the blame on some gung ho attack helo crew....give me a break....

When Canadians go out hunting why is it they don't dress like deer, why do they where wear bright orange hats and jackets....when you step out into an active battlefield you don't bring out you RPG and AKM assault rifle out unless you mean to use it....or you run a very high risk of dieing....

These men where not killed in retaliation for some other event...they where killed because they broke the rules that protected them in the first place. And became combatants the second they openily carried arms on a battlefield....The reporters where a tragic mistake, and although they keep thier media classification they where in the wrong spot at the wrong time....had they taken some precautions they might be alive today....

[M.Dancer]

weaponds? visable? Do you have fat fingers?

ps - fat fingers? "repeation"?

They think alike, they sound alike they even even post alike...

[Army Guy]

But you have to understand the untenable position thus involved for anyone with a principled opposition to this or that war. The opposition is to political foreign policy. We can't say "support the troops," by shutting our mouths and supporting a foreign policy we do not agree with.

That is unprincipled.

And anyone who says "why don't you support the troops?", to a person with a principled opposition to policy...well, that person is insisting that there should be no debate, that opposing your country's policies is just plain wrong.

And I have no patience for that "argument," as it is dishonest. And it's a coward's argument , automatically.

NO what is unprincipled is objecting to that foreign policy through a poll, or verbally, knowing that is how our government recieves much of it's info and how they set policy and make decisions.... but not carrying it through by demanding our troops home...."because you do not support this conflict".....

But what has happen is the majority will Agree we don't support it, however they won't finish the job....be it their to lazy, or don't give a rats ass....I'm wondering if a mass protest was held on the lawns of parliment would it not become Canada's next stand PULL our troops out...which is really what i'm reffing to as a half ass job...

So in reality what we have is a war nobody likes, no addtional funding going thru to support this war, which is really what the troops need or could benifit from....which is setting back our soldiers efforts....which are stuck in the middle no support, no funding, and left to fight a war, and produce results because that is what we expect them to do....

That in my mind is dishonest, and cowardly....for a soldier it's all about black and white Pick a fuking side and have the conviction to carry it out....after all it was our Nation that sent us here....don't like us there then get us the fuk out...if your not willing to do that then we should all learn to shut up come poll time....or just be honest i don't like the war but i'm to busy to take any direct action....because it is not that important....

I believe in this mission, and i took direct action by sticking my hand up 3 times to volunteer to fight .....Show me your direct action, and conviction to this mission....either that or give us the funding and support needed to produce results.....

[Handsome Rob]

That in my mind is dishonest, and cowardly....for a soldier it's all about black and white Pick a fuking side and have the conviction to carry it out....after all it was our Nation that sent us here....don't like us there then get us the fuk out...if your not willing to do that then we should all learn to shut up come poll time....or just be honest i don't like the war but i'm to busy to take any direct action....because it is not that important....

I believe in this mission, and i took direct action by sticking my hand up 3 times to volunteer to fight .....Show me your direct action, and conviction to this mission....either that or give us the funding and support needed to produce results.....

I don't support Iraq or Afghanistan, never did. Never protested or stood in support of anything, however in this point, I completely agree.

If troops are going to be deployed in a combat zone, they should receive every reasonable assistance to stay alive, regardless of political circumstance.

I really think this is starting to change under Harper, with the new Herc's & such, but you can probably shed better light on that. From the outside, it appears to have been a really bad 30 years.

[Army Guy]

I don't support Iraq or Afghanistan, never did. Never protested or stood in support of anything, however in this point, I completely agree.

If troops are going to be deployed in a combat zone, they should receive every reasonable assistance to stay alive, regardless of political circumstance.

I really think this is starting to change under Harper, with the new Herc's & such, but you can probably shed better light on that. From the outside, it appears to have been a really bad 30 years.

If don't mind me asking Why not protest or stand in support of anything ? is it because your to busy, or is it that the issue is not important enough ? or some other reason...

Things are changing and new equipment is arriving....but the question should be "are we really going to change things or just patch things up alittle and hope for the best"....because we have a long way to go...

[bloodyminded]

NO what is unprincipled is objecting to that foreign policy through a poll, or verbally, knowing that is how our government recieves much of it's info and how they set policy and make decisions.... but not carrying it through by demanding our troops home...."because you do not support this conflict".....

But what has happen is the majority will Agree we don't support it, however they won't finish the job....be it their to lazy, or don't give a rats ass....I'm wondering if a mass protest was held on the lawns of parliment would it not become Canada's next stand PULL our troops out...which is really what i'm reffing to as a half ass job...

So in reality what we have is a war nobody likes, no addtional funding going thru to support this war, which is really what the troops need or could benifit from....which is setting back our soldiers efforts....which are stuck in the middle no support, no funding, and left to fight a war, and produce results because that is what we expect them to do....

That in my mind is dishonest, and cowardly....for a soldier it's all about black and white Pick a fuking side and have the conviction to carry it out....after all it was our Nation that sent us here....don't like us there then get us the fuk out...if your not willing to do that then we should all learn to shut up come poll time....or just be honest i don't like the war but i'm to busy to take any direct action....because it is not that important....

I believe in this mission, and i took direct action by sticking my hand up 3 times to volunteer to fight .....Show me your direct action, and conviction to this mission....either that or give us the funding and support needed to produce results.....

I have protested, so your mean-spirited and sanctimonious argument falls flat on its unreflective little ass, now, doesn't it?

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Handsome Rob]

If don't mind me asking Why not protest or stand in support of anything ? is it because your to busy, or is it that the issue is not important enough ? or some other reason...

I don't believe that standing somewhere holding a sign offers a shred of influence anywhere. Protesting is becoming archaic via rapid fire internet and handheld communications. Opinions are swayed in seconds electronically.

That being said, I don't not support the war enough to actually speak out against it, nor support enough to put a ribbon on my car. Ultimate fence sitter.

Don't like all the people dying, especially in Iraq, don't like that my friend came home in a box from Afghanistan, but in reality, if I was going to get that upset over these things surely I would have gone insane by now from the est. 40,000 people that die of starvation every day. Surely North American resource consumption has killed far more innocent civilians than our armed forces ever will.

In that sense, we are all hypocrites.

[Army Guy]

I have protested, so your mean-spirited and sanctimonious argument falls flat on its unreflective little ass, now, doesn't it?

Your one of the few that have then, bloodyminded. and despite our differences in opinions i respect you for that.

As for being mean and sanctimonious, i don't think so as i was holding the majority of Canadians to task...those who have put our nations soldiers here in the middle of all this....and will not finish the job they have started ...The same Nation that continuely hold us to task for our wrong doings on the battle field.

Put yourself in my shoes just for a second..Those opinions that where offered in polls or surveys influence our nations decision makers...Not just in funding or new equipment purchases but everything that reflects on the mission...and it's not making our job any easier....No conflict has been won with the support of the people at home....that basic fact should be known by everyone....

And while all this is happening those again'st the mission have stopped, taking action....leaving everything status quo for now....like they are happy with the results...and yet with no support ,we are still over in Afghan fighting a conflict with one hand tied behind our back....and we can not understand WHY ? if the mission is so unpopular that the Majority that say they support the troops would leave us hanging .....Why not slay the beast by pushing our government into action....finish the Job...

I wonder if the roles where reversed the conflict was support at home but soldiers where just sitting on thier ruck sacks unwilling to finish the job what kind of uproar we would hear....

[GostHacked]

Army Guy

I don't buy the 'not supporting the war is not supporting the troops'. There are many of us who never wanted to send you over there in the first place. I don't support the war in Afghanistan and never really had. It's a lost cause before we even start. How long has this region been like this? Decades? Centuries? The powerful Soviets could not do the job to pacify the area, what makes you think this will be any better?

Karzai already has contempt for the forces that are trying to help him. The government is weak and corrupt, and the Taliban still roams the country without much of a problem.

I don't want to dash your spirits/dreams, I know it sounds like it. Do you see a difference though? Between supporting the troops and not supporting the mission? I guess I failed in my support of the troops because I never wanted you there in the first place.

[Army Guy]

Army Guy

I don't buy the 'not supporting the war is not supporting the troops'. There are many of us who never wanted to send you over there in the first place. I don't support the war in Afghanistan and never really had. It's a lost cause before we even start. How long has this region been like this? Decades? Centuries? The powerful Soviets could not do the job to pacify the area, what makes you think this will be any better?

Karzai already has contempt for the forces that are trying to help him. The government is weak and corrupt, and the Taliban still roams the country without much of a problem.

I don't want to dash your spirits/dreams, I know it sounds like it. Do you see a difference though? Between supporting the troops and not supporting the mission? I guess I failed in my support of the troops because I never wanted you there in the first place.

I do see the difference between the two, and i understand the dynamics of the whole concept of loving the players but hating the game...But my piont is this, in todays world being electronic and instance access to all and our policitcal leaders being slaves to polls and surveys....we must be careful on how we express our opinions, because they do have consquences...we know these facts ...that the majority of Canadians do not support the mission....and most have said that in one poll or another....My question would be to you what would you rate a large funding commitment getting pass parliment today fom say CDA , military or other governmental agency in Afghan right now,and would you agree that it could or would have a effect on the mission....

My other problem is this ...knowily making it more difficult on our soldiers to get alot of things done that require extra funding or commitment from parliment ....Why would those nay sayers not go the extra inch and press our government into bringing the troops home....ending the whole mission ...why leave it half done....ending the entire problem ? i would think it would be the end objective, unless it was not...

A soldiers opinion is that funding has been curtailed to a large degree, thats what they wanted and got...but our soldiers are still where ? We can not understand thier level of commitment, we are also assuming that the level of commitment includes "US" the soldiers....but it does not seem so....from thier actions....

hence why the questioning of the entire support the troop question....how can we really support the troops and hate the mission at the same time....in which i'm guess the ultimate solution would be get us out of the entire war ...troops and all.....which would solve everyones problems....

But saying you support us , and then severely slowing the decssion making process down which does have an effect of troop safety, and our lives....All of which may be a by product of your orginal intentions and just in my imagination....I hope i clarified that....

I also want to make very clear, that getting the troops out and us deploying back early is not my end state, i still very much believe in our Afghan mission, and think it is very winnable...my problem lies in trying to understand the postion of the majority of Canadians.

[GostHacked]

My other problem is this ...knowily making it more difficult on our soldiers to get alot of things done that require extra funding or commitment from parliment ....Why would those nay sayers not go the extra inch and press our government into bringing the troops home....ending the whole mission ...why leave it half done....ending the entire problem ? i would think it would be the end objective, unless it was not...

Simply because we are not vocal enough about it to make a difference. If we did gather on The Hill to protest the war and to bring them home, I doubt our government would listen anyways. If they had listened, you might be home right now. When the troops are brought home late 2011, the job will still only be half done, my prediction is it will always be half done.

A soldiers opinion is that funding has been curtailed to a large degree, thats what they wanted and got...but our soldiers are still where ? We can not understand thier level of commitment, we are also assuming that the level of commitment includes "US" the soldiers....but it does not seem so....from thier actions....

If our government truly believed in the mission, and supported you, you would have the tools needed to get the job done. Not just a fancy photo-op with a governmental official here and there. Is it a problem that our government simply can't afford the equipment? What is the failure here, and how does the average citizen have a play or say in this? Why don't we have the equipment and infrastructure in place to simply transport you there? Our military has been neglected for quite some time, money was not invested, or money was wasted (Sea Kings!!)

You can get moral support all you need from both the people who do and those who don't support the war, but want to support you. Moral support is not going to buy you the equipment needed to finish the job.

But saying you support us , and then severely slowing the decision making process down which does have an effect of troop safety, and our lives....All of which may be a by product of your original intentions and just in my imagination....I hope i clarified that....

I don't think us civilians have much of a say in this process. Once the decision was made to go to war, it would be up to the government to supply you with the tools/equipment you need to get the job done. I can do what many US families did, send body armor to the troops, because the military did not supply them. I could afford to send body armor, but you need more than that. You need vehicles that can protect you when out on patrol. If the US with the big military budget can't supply it's troops properly, how the hell is our Canadian government with the budget we have, going to properly outfit you.

It could be the real reason you are not supported to the degree you like is ... money, the lack of it.

I also want to make very clear, that getting the troops out and us deploying back early is not my end state, i still very much believe in our Afghan mission, and think it is very winnable...my problem lies in trying to understand the postion of the majority of Canadians.

I think I've made my personal position clear on it. I don't speak for everyone.

Edited April 14, 2010 by GostHacked

[M.Dancer]

A good interview by |Colbert with the editor of wikilinks

What I learned is wikilinks is not an unbiased provider of info..they have an agenda

The video was edited...and only 10% of the viewers watched the unedited version.

Oh...and the editor is an asshat.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Displayblog.aspx?bpid=d639883b-2685-428b-bb20-32018fed6973

[Guest TrueMetis]

Oh...and the editor is an asshat.

No he is much more than an asshat.

[Handsome Rob]

Japan didn't go to war with Russia just like we didn't go to war with Iraq.

In what sense? The Chief Of Defense Staff of the Canadian armed forces deployed on Iraqi Freedom.

Governor General of Canada; Media release. Jan 24, 2006."Major Gen Natynczyk is recognized for his outstanding leadership and professionalism while deployed as Deputy Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. From January 2004 to January 2005, Major Gen Natynczyk led the Corps' 10 separate brigades, consisting of more than 35,000 soldiers stationed throughout the Iraq Theatre of Operations. He also oversaw planning and execution of all Corps level combat support and combat service support operations. His pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations resulted in a tremendous contribution by the Multi-National Corps to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and has brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada."

BTW - This should pretty much seal the deal as to the quality and "unbiased nature" of the WikiLeaks video:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/

(Apologies for FoxNews, it's a quote)

Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks became "unsure" about the weapons. He claimed the RPG could have been a camera tripod, so editors decided not to point it out.

"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area."

[Guest TrueMetis]

In what sense? The Chief Of Defense Staff of the Canadian armed forces deployed on Iraqi Freedom.

Governor General of Canada; Media release. Jan 24, 2006."Major Gen Natynczyk is recognized for his outstanding leadership and professionalism while deployed as Deputy Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. From January 2004 to January 2005, Major Gen Natynczyk led the Corps' 10 separate brigades, consisting of more than 35,000 soldiers stationed throughout the Iraq Theatre of Operations. He also oversaw planning and execution of all Corps level combat support and combat service support operations. His pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations resulted in a tremendous contribution by the Multi-National Corps to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and has brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada."

How many of those troops were Canadian? Canada did not declare war on Iraq and had some 40-50 troops in actual combat and only a few hundred in other positions. That is not a war.

Edited April 15, 2010 by TrueMetis

[bush_cheney2004]

How many of those troops were Canadian? Canada did not declare war on Iraq and had some 40-50 troops in actual combat and only a few hundred in other positions. That is not a war.

The US/UK also did not "declare war on Iraq". But it was still a war.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The US/UK also did not "declare war on Iraq". But it was still a war.

Don't give me that crap the U.S. and UK declared war on Iraq in all but name.