<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would just follow my instincts and run away. Better than going to jail for 2-5 years.
You can not expect from someone to risk his life for things he does not like <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that would be called cowardice.
You can't expect someone to risk his life for things he does not like? What about the hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq right now? I bet every single one of them wishes that they were home, and didn't have to take part in this occupation.
This man put other people at risk by his own cowardice. I would see him punished. The man shouldn't be shot in the face. But he must face justice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We are thinking along the same lines here, although maybe using different approaches. It is true that Saddam is to blame for the suffering of Iraqis under the embargo, but one must also remember that even after it was evident that the sanctions didn't effect Saddam and his confidantes in any way, they were not lifted, mostly because of continued efforts by the US and Great Britain to undermine any attempt to do so. A short while ago, there was a vote in the Security Council to lift the sanctions once and for all. This time both the US and GB supported the motion, while some of those who supported it before, turned against it. The reason behind this was that lifting the sanctions now would in fact imply that the UN supports the invasion led by the United States, which is clearly a signal they do not want to give. Ultimately, the blame for the plight of the common Iraqi rests both on the shoulders of Saddam and his cohorts, and the nations who backed his rise to power. Much like the blame for the current situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaire) rests still atleast partly on the ex-President Mobutu Sese Seko and his foreign backers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I'd agree with you there, though I seriously doubt the Americans and British would persue a continuation of the embargo if they honestly believed it wasnt damaging any attempts by Saddam to re-arm.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and on a side note, the uranium offer seems to have been completely fictious. It is true, that given the possibility to do so, Saddam would most likely have had the budget to buy weapons-grade plutonium. However, no such opportunity presented itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was under the impression that the claim Saddam had accepted uranium pre-war was false, but the post-war discovery that he had been offered, but turned down uranium was true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It must also be noted that most of the troops participating in combat, about 500,000, came from the US, while troops from other coalition countries amounted to about 160,000. (Although the information about the exact troop strenght is a bit sketchy: another source states US troops strenght at over 527,000 and the rest of the coalition at over 205,000.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup - I was wrong. I had read the 500,000/160,000 numbers before, but thought it was the Middle Eastern states that had provided the half million.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->February 26th-27th 1991 Situation: Iraqi troops are withdrawing from Kuwait in compliance with a UN resolution. This also had something to do with the fact that the Allied ground campaign had begun two days prior. Locations: A highway leading from Mutlaa, Kuwait to Basra, Iraq. A coastal highway leading from Kuwait to Iraq. Events: The US forces locate the retreating army columns which are miles long. The entire length of the coastal highway, 60 miles, is spattered here and there with Iraqi armor and light vehicles retreating towards southern Iraq. From somewhere above, a command is given to halt these columns. The result is an unnecessary massacre worthy of a war crime status. The retreating columns which are suspected to have contained also civilian elements are immobilized by destroying the vehicles in the front and rear ends. After that the air force, which really distinguishes itself here by using B-52s to bomb vehicle columns, is sent in to finish the job. The result is tens of thousands dead. The bodies and the wreckage were there for months, and journalists and photographers visiting the site noted that some of the bodies were placed and charred in a way that suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus and other incendiary compounds outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The precise death toll is unknown, partly due to the army's determined denial of anything like this ever occurring.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you source that for me please - you seem very confident on the specifics of the USAF, yet say that no one was charged relating to it, that strikes me as strange. I've read a lot of anti-war propaganda, and I would be surprised if they'd overlooked this juicy piece.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The date: March 2nd 1991. Description of American massacreing retreating Iraqi's<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again for this I'd love the source. That is not to say I am insinuating you made all this up - I'd just like to know if it came from the "Socialist Worker" or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->. I may be a neo-con, but I'm still interested in any mistakes or massacres perpetrated by American forces.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Killswitch should realize, that during Saddam's years as the President of Iraq (1979-2003) that would come to about 2,3 million people. Even if this account would take in the casualties caused by the two Persian Gulf wars and the Iran-Iraq war (which lasted for 8 years), this count seems a tad high (the estimated casualties range from 500,000 to 1 million dead in the Iran-Iraq war). Comparing to that, the rate of civilian mortalities as 100,000 per year seems unbelievable, especially since some reports rate that during the decade of sanctions, about 400,000 to half a million civilian deaths could be directly or indirectly related to them. Considering that Saddam wasn't at war with anyone during those years, it seems unlikely that he could front the second half a million dead to get to the expected one million-in-a-decade figure. Please do note that I'm not making excuses for Saddam, a violent little ****, here. I just am trying to instill some sense of proportion. Someone do please correct me if I am wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I still believe that deaths caused by embargos can be nocked up to Saddams personal score. Finding accurate reports on google about Saddams death toll is next to impossible - everyone is taking stabs in the dark, and are similiarly unsure of just how many died as a result of war or brutality. I personally would be a little suprised at 2.4 million people, but 1.2 million would seem well within his means to me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 1 2004, 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004, 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004+ 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004 @ 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I'd agree with you there, though I seriously doubt the Americans and British would persue a continuation of the embargo if they honestly believed it wasnt damaging any attempts by Saddam to re-arm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rearm with what? Obsolete T60-series (or even perhaps the odd T-72) tanks and proven-useless Scud missiles just to be pounded into hash by the american military constantly enforcing the no-fly zones and camped <i>en masse</i> just on the other side of the border? Remember that the peace treaty forced Iraq to comply to the "no rockets with effective range of over 150km" rule. It is true that the best ones they built during the trade embargo surpassed the limit by some ten kilometers, but still, was a general embargo necessary for that result? I'd say that Blix's (and his predecessor's whose name escapes me at the moment) weapons inspectors were making things hard enough on that front, because it is extremely hard to pursue the development of large missiles or biological/chemical agents (which are extremely volatile and require constant monitoring even in storage) when a UN inspection team is constantly breathing down on your neck. Also, one must remember that the quality of US intelligence on Iraq has been extremely low for a very long time, why else would they have tried to bribe the UN inspectors into reporting directly to CIA? Wouldn't that mean that even if Saddam would have been developing WMDs, the CIA would have been blissfully ignorant until given a press release.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004+ 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004 @ 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was under the impression that the claim Saddam had accepted uranium pre-war was false, but the post-war discovery that he had been offered, but turned down uranium was true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any reliable sources on this (ie. non-CIA information releases)?
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004+ 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004 @ 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you source that for me please - you seem very confident on the specifics of the USAF, yet say that no one was charged relating to it, that strikes me as strange. I've read a lot of anti-war propaganda, and I would be surprised if they'd overlooked this juicy piece. --- Again for this I'd love the source. That is not to say I am insinuating you made all this up - I'd just like to know if it came from the "Socialist Worker" or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->. I may be a neo-con, but I'm still interested in any mistakes or massacres perpetrated by American forces. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sources? Happy to oblige to a perfectly reasonable request.
First we have BBC, who have a nice picture but very little content. Also, their death toll of the Iraqi soldiers in total seems way too low when compared to other sources. <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/ground_war.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd.../ground_war.stm</a>
Next up, CBC with a video clip and a short story: <a href='http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-593-3127/conflict_war/gulf_war/clip15#' target='_blank'>http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-593-3127/c...ulf_war/clip15#</a>
Then, here's a War Crimes report by Ramsey Clark and others: <a href='http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm' target='_blank'>http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm</a> Quite a long read.
And about the McCaffrey incident with Division Hammurabi:
A memo to Robert L. Bartley, Wall Street Journal editor: <a href='http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/05-24-00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/05-24-00.html</a>
The New York Times: <a href='http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/irqrep.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/irqrep.htm</a>
Also try to locate Seymour Hersh's lenghty investigative report into the matter. Also, see these pages for more info on Hersh, so as to not seem too one-sided: <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37860-2004May18.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May18.html</a>
This one's somewhat harsher: <a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comstock200405200943.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/coms...00405200943.asp</a> [edit]Isn't National Review a NeoCon paper? That would explain the tone of the article somewhat.[/edit]
One must still remember that McCaffrey can mouth off as much as he wants to, since the military has cleared him of all possible charges. The attack is seen as a honourable affair, though even his seconds in command have voiced doubts and objections over it. The actual truth of the events may never see the light of day, but as a military manouver, it was excessive.
I'm sorry I was not able to locate the article I used as the base for the times of day I quoted. I will keep looking for it and hope to present it to you as soon as possible.
Comments
You can not expect from someone to risk his life for things he does not like <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that would be called cowardice.
You can't expect someone to risk his life for things he does not like? What about the hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq right now? I bet every single one of them wishes that they were home, and didn't have to take part in this occupation.
This man put other people at risk by his own cowardice. I would see him punished. The man shouldn't be shot in the face. But he must face justice.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I'd agree with you there, though I seriously doubt the Americans and British would persue a continuation of the embargo if they honestly believed it wasnt damaging any attempts by Saddam to re-arm.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and on a side note, the uranium offer seems to have been completely fictious. It is true, that given the possibility to do so, Saddam would most likely have had the budget to buy weapons-grade plutonium. However, no such opportunity presented itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was under the impression that the claim Saddam had accepted uranium pre-war was false, but the post-war discovery that he had been offered, but turned down uranium was true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It must also be noted that most of the troops participating in combat, about 500,000, came from the US, while troops from other coalition countries amounted to about 160,000. (Although the information about the exact troop strenght is a bit sketchy: another source states US troops strenght at over 527,000 and the rest of the coalition at over 205,000.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup - I was wrong. I had read the 500,000/160,000 numbers before, but thought it was the Middle Eastern states that had provided the half million.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->February 26th-27th 1991
Situation: Iraqi troops are withdrawing from Kuwait in compliance with a UN resolution. This also had something to do with the fact that the Allied ground campaign had begun two days prior.
Locations: A highway leading from Mutlaa, Kuwait to Basra, Iraq. A coastal highway leading from Kuwait to Iraq.
Events: The US forces locate the retreating army columns which are miles long. The entire length of the coastal highway, 60 miles, is spattered here and there with Iraqi armor and light vehicles retreating towards southern Iraq. From somewhere above, a command is given to halt these columns. The result is an unnecessary massacre worthy of a war crime status. The retreating columns which are suspected to have contained also civilian elements are immobilized by destroying the vehicles in the front and rear ends. After that the air force, which really distinguishes itself here by using B-52s to bomb vehicle columns, is sent in to finish the job. The result is tens of thousands dead. The bodies and the wreckage were there for months, and journalists and photographers visiting the site noted that some of the bodies were placed and charred in a way that suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus and other incendiary compounds outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The precise death toll is unknown, partly due to the army's determined denial of anything like this ever occurring.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you source that for me please - you seem very confident on the specifics of the USAF, yet say that no one was charged relating to it, that strikes me as strange. I've read a lot of anti-war propaganda, and I would be surprised if they'd overlooked this juicy piece.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The date: March 2nd 1991. Description of American massacreing retreating Iraqi's<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again for this I'd love the source. That is not to say I am insinuating you made all this up - I'd just like to know if it came from the "Socialist Worker" or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->. I may be a neo-con, but I'm still interested in any mistakes or massacres perpetrated by American forces.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Killswitch should realize, that during Saddam's years as the President of Iraq (1979-2003) that would come to about 2,3 million people. Even if this account would take in the casualties caused by the two Persian Gulf wars and the Iran-Iraq war (which lasted for 8 years), this count seems a tad high (the estimated casualties range from 500,000 to 1 million dead in the Iran-Iraq war). Comparing to that, the rate of civilian mortalities as 100,000 per year seems unbelievable, especially since some reports rate that during the decade of sanctions, about 400,000 to half a million civilian deaths could be directly or indirectly related to them. Considering that Saddam wasn't at war with anyone during those years, it seems unlikely that he could front the second half a million dead to get to the expected one million-in-a-decade figure. Please do note that I'm not making excuses for Saddam, a violent little ****, here. I just am trying to instill some sense of proportion. Someone do please correct me if I am wrong.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I still believe that deaths caused by embargos can be nocked up to Saddams personal score. Finding accurate reports on google about Saddams death toll is next to impossible - everyone is taking stabs in the dark, and are similiarly unsure of just how many died as a result of war or brutality. I personally would be a little suprised at 2.4 million people, but 1.2 million would seem well within his means to me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004+ 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004 @ 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I'd agree with you there, though I seriously doubt the Americans and British would persue a continuation of the embargo if they honestly believed it wasnt damaging any attempts by Saddam to re-arm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rearm with what? Obsolete T60-series (or even perhaps the odd T-72) tanks and proven-useless Scud missiles just to be pounded into hash by the american military constantly enforcing the no-fly zones and camped <i>en masse</i> just on the other side of the border? Remember that the peace treaty forced Iraq to comply to the "no rockets with effective range of over 150km" rule. It is true that the best ones they built during the trade embargo surpassed the limit by some ten kilometers, but still, was a general embargo necessary for that result? I'd say that Blix's (and his predecessor's whose name escapes me at the moment) weapons inspectors were making things hard enough on that front, because it is extremely hard to pursue the development of large missiles or biological/chemical agents (which are extremely volatile and require constant monitoring even in storage) when a UN inspection team is constantly breathing down on your neck. Also, one must remember that the quality of US intelligence on Iraq has been extremely low for a very long time, why else would they have tried to bribe the UN inspectors into reporting directly to CIA? Wouldn't that mean that even if Saddam would have been developing WMDs, the CIA would have been blissfully ignorant until given a press release.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004+ 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004 @ 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was under the impression that the claim Saddam had accepted uranium pre-war was false, but the post-war discovery that he had been offered, but turned down uranium was true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any reliable sources on this (ie. non-CIA information releases)?
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004+ 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 1 2004 @ 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you source that for me please - you seem very confident on the specifics of the USAF, yet say that no one was charged relating to it, that strikes me as strange. I've read a lot of anti-war propaganda, and I would be surprised if they'd overlooked this juicy piece.
---
Again for this I'd love the source. That is not to say I am insinuating you made all this up - I'd just like to know if it came from the "Socialist Worker" or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->. I may be a neo-con, but I'm still interested in any mistakes or massacres perpetrated by American forces. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sources? Happy to oblige to a perfectly reasonable request.
First we have BBC, who have a nice picture but very little content. Also, their death toll of the Iraqi soldiers in total seems way too low when compared to other sources.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/ground_war.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd.../ground_war.stm</a>
Next up, CBC with a video clip and a short story:
<a href='http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-593-3127/conflict_war/gulf_war/clip15#' target='_blank'>http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-593-3127/c...ulf_war/clip15#</a>
Then, here's a War Crimes report by Ramsey Clark and others:
<a href='http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm' target='_blank'>http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm</a>
Quite a long read.
And about the McCaffrey incident with Division Hammurabi:
ABC News interviews:
<a href='http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq000515.html' target='_blank'>http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/D...iraq000515.html</a>
A memo to Robert L. Bartley, Wall Street Journal editor:
<a href='http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/05-24-00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/05-24-00.html</a>
The New York Times:
<a href='http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/irqrep.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/irqrep.htm</a>
Also try to locate Seymour Hersh's lenghty investigative report into the matter. Also, see these pages for more info on Hersh, so as to not seem too one-sided: <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37860-2004May18.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May18.html</a>
This one's somewhat harsher:
<a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comstock200405200943.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/coms...00405200943.asp</a>
[edit]Isn't National Review a NeoCon paper? That would explain the tone of the article somewhat.[/edit]
One must still remember that McCaffrey can mouth off as much as he wants to, since the military has cleared him of all possible charges. The attack is seen as a honourable affair, though even his seconds in command have voiced doubts and objections over it. The actual truth of the events may never see the light of day, but as a military manouver, it was excessive.
I'm sorry I was not able to locate the article I used as the base for the times of day I quoted. I will keep looking for it and hope to present it to you as soon as possible.