Iran cannot be bullied like Iraq

Pravda.ru: Iran does not need America's carrots and is not afraid of its sticks

"Obama said that he wanted bigger carrots and bigger sticks not to let Iran build a nuclear weapon. The United States will therefore use tougher sanctions against the nation to change Iran’s behavior, he added."

Seems the bully has picked on the wrong Middle Eastern Islamic Republic! (And I guess that means the White House won't be getting Ahmadinejad's lunch money either.)



(Images: A little bit of propaganda. Above, in Tehran, 'Down with USA and Israel'. Below, (well it's actually an anti-McCain poster) one of McCain's less tactful PR moments, captured for posterity.)

Iraq was starved and bombed for ten years prior to its invasion. The sanctions had the worst effect - they were designed to starve the people into rebellion against Saddam, but only resulted in famine in what was one of the Arabic world's richest regions. Then the government co-operated with UN weapons inspection programs, but what good did that do? They wound up getting invaded anyway.

Whether the removal of Saddam was morally correct, pragmatically correct, or within the jurisdiction of the Coalition, is a whole other thing. But the precedent has been set: 'co-operating' with the powers that be is seen as something that will be taken advantage of, rather than something that can be productive.

Or in short, the war in Iraq has given Iran good reason not to trust the US.

What is the plan in Afghanistan?

The messages surrounding the Afghan war seem mixed to say the least.


(Image: Explosive sniffer dog overlooking Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Credit to Carl Montgomery for the photo.)

Washington Post: US Officials Offer Dismal Review of War in Afghanistan


They call it a challenge 'much tougher than Iraq'. Well what did you expect! You know Afghanistan's tribal/xenophobic history. They just don't like foreigners, and will drag the fight on until you leave. Simple.

"Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires," he said. "We cannot take that history lightly." - General Petraeus, head of US Command.

Exactly - which is why it would be best to leave sooner rather than later. The economies of the ISAF countries, especially the US, cannot afford the war to drag on. I have some sympathy for the military commanders in Afghanistan - like ex-CIA man Ray McGovern, they probably realise they are stuck in an unwinnable war.


(Image: the road to Bamiyan, Aghnainstan. An example of the difficult terrain our forces have to fight in.)

(Image: Ukrainian war memorial to their dead in the 1980s Afghan War. That conflict lasted ten years, and played a part in the collapse of the Soviet Union.)

Meanwhile...Afghanistan's Karzai Offers Peace to 'Friendly Taliban' (VOANews)

A good idea to try and 'divide and conquer' the Taliban. But, history shows the Afghan mountain-dwellers tend to stand united against foreigners; the only time they are divided is when they go back to fighting each other once the outsiders are dispatched.

All of this set against the background of Obama's Afghan-Pakistani surge policy...I am not convinced as to the purposes and merits of the Afghan campaign.

But hey, the CIA probably loves the other 'surge'; opium production since the invasion has increased to 93% of world production in 2007. The Taliban outlawed opium cultivation, and in 2001 the output was 91% lower than in 2000. But since their ousting, production has soared. (Am I suggesting the lovely people in the US Federal government would deal drugs? No. I'm telling you.)

Anyways, squeal all you want about 'getting behind the cause' or some such, the war is unwinnable and should be ended ASAP.

The Grand Chessboard War Continues

"Kyrgyzstan To Shut Key US Base":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7868586.stm

(Image: Ready for takeoff at the US Air Force base in Kyrgyzstan.)

"Kyrgyzstan's president has said his government is closing a key US air base on its territory.
Kurmanbek Bakiyev made the announcement in Moscow, where he was promised more than $2bn (£1.4bn) in aid by Russia. "

Looks like someone just defected to the Soviet Union!

After the US-NATO backed Georgian invasion of Ossetia, the diplomatic quasi-war between the US and Russia persists. The 90s were notable for the encirclement of Russia; but the 00s have seen a Russian fightback of sorts, culminating in the Russian military response to Georgia's aggression.

As an aside, the Western media coverage of this conflict, compared to the hard fact that Georgia struck first, was what ultimately caused me to realise that even the BBC was not a reliable news source. Thanks, globalist firestarters, for helping wake me up!

The closure will also affect US operations in Afghanistan.

But the real blow is to the American neo-con geopolitical objectives.

Gaza-Israel: Conflict in Review

It's back to normal, whatever that means, for Gaza and Israel. The burial of the dead and the recovery of the wounded can go on in Gaza City, without the same risk of being the next innocent victim of the F16s. In Sderot, there will probably be no such let-up, and the sirens will continue to sound.


(Image: Sderot, after a rocket impact - nobody injured, but you try telling these folks it's not something to be bothered about...)

(Image: On the other hand, this is in Gaza. Obviously, there was a Hamas rocket set up on the roof...right? The dead women and children were stupid to let Hamas use their buliding, and that was why they were killed, right? Some Israel apologists really think like that too - shameful.)

The ceasefire has come in this conflict, just in time for OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA...and it will all be forgotten. Well, not by the Gazans, or the residents of Sderot, of course. Hamas fired six rockets, allegedly, after the ceasefire. What a surprise - as if the operations would halt rocket fire; they don't work as we've seen before with the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war.


(Image: This conflict revealed the true nature of the incoming Obama administration - more Neo-Con hawks willing to support Israel unconditionally. The man is 'Change' like the USA Patriot Act was 'Change'.)

SOLUTIONS to the frankly childish situation we have:

1st...Israel must BACK THE HELL OFF of Gaza and Palestine. That does not just mean militarily. They have to get out of their settlements they have built illicitly in what is now designated Palestine.

2nd...The criminal and inflammatory trade restrictions and blockades MUST STOP. Gaza has been turned into an even more empoverished area than when Israel first invaded it. Stopping 'terrrorism' is not reason enough to seal off a neighbour, especially from the sea.

3rd...If Hamas continues to fire rockets on places like the beseiged Sderot, Israel or a UN, NATO etc. security force (the possibility of which should be discussed) should respond on a specific, individual basis. In other words, not waiting ten years to get all riled up then roll in the tanks. That was stupid. Instead, individual air strikes on REAL militant targets and not UN schools, which should be recorded and shown to the UN, the media etc. for utmost transparency.

The above three measures will restore Israel's 'good guy' image PROPERLY to the rest of the world (in other words, not through lies, but through truth and actions).

4th...The existence and validity of the state of Israel needs to be discussed. It is not anti-Semitic to do so, nor is it 'what the terrorists want'. Israel was a nation founded on military expansion, and it is doing what it has always done - fight, and talk about the Holocaust to make people feel guilty. What we now have is an 'apartheid' situation as described by UN officials, where racial segregation occurs, freedom of movement and opportunity for peaceful co-existence do not.

In the long term, do we go down the route of 'more segregation' and have the current two-state borders? Or one Palestine, in which Jews and Muslims could form a democratic government? The last seems far-fetched or optimistic, but so did the possibility of devolution in Northern Ireland - and look how far that has come in two decades!

Of course, we will go down neither, continue to worship Israel, and another conflict will erupt in two more years' time that the Western powers could have prevented.


(Image: Let's not be harsh on the individuals in the IDF, but the Israeli government? Hell yes, they do seem to think like this!)

We need to take down the myths surrounding this conflict. So, in review:

- Israel broke the ceasefire FIRST, killing 6 Gazans on November 4, the day of the US Presidential Election.

-Hamas responded with a resumption of the rocket fire which had essentially stopped during the ceasefire. Note here, the absence of significant rocket attacks until Israel's Election Night incursion. Followed up by a return to early 2008 levels of intensity.

- Israel used White Phosphorous, and regardless of the supposed way in which it was used, it burned people (ever seen We Were Soldiers?) For more info on the effects of WP Oh, and Israel used WP in Lebanon too = serial war criminals

- Proportionality: 10 Israeli soldiers, 3 civilians killed since the end of the truce. On the Gazan side, a minimum of 765 dead civilians and according to the IDF a minimum of 400 dead Hamas militants. Take those figures not quite at face value though, nobody will ever know the exact number of Gaza's dead.

- Israel has lied on several occasions that have not been discussed sufficiently. 1. An early air strike 2. Actually about 10 things at MPAC UK 3. 'They lie about everything!'

- Media have not been biased against Israel, because of the proportionality of their retaliation and their status as a vastly stronger military power Israel should have more responsibility than their neighbours. BTW more people die in road accidents in Israel than die from rockets.

- US media in particular has been biased in favour of Israel, citing their self-defence as justification for every war crime committed.

- People complaining about lack of coverage of Sderot and rocket attacks earlier, need to stop whining. The truth is that it isn't a big story in the eyes of corporate media. US and coalition troops were being killed regularly in Iraq in 2007, but reporting in US media (and UK media, imo) was almost non-existent. Does that mean the media was biased against their own troops? Naaaaaah.


Never forget the humanity, loss, persecution, subjugation, humiliation, and stealth genocide of the people of Gaza.

So Sick Of 'Anti-Semitism'

That's right, it seems anti-Semitism is rife among the populace, and it's a growing problem.

In fact, use of the word is so common among Israeli supporters I am concerned for their psychological wellbeing.



(Images: Nazi and anti-Semitic hatred in literature, above, the memory of which is part of the mental justification for Israeli actions and the hatred of Islam seen centre and below. Real anti-Semitism is largely confined to history! But ask any Israel apologist and they will tell you it is everywhere...)

I had to write about this, because I just read someone today, claiming to be an Israeli, who had said that Gaza should be destroyed, and that 'only Jews and Christians...not Muslims' should exist.

They also mentioned that Israel had apparently killed a high-ranking member of Hamas today (well I guess if you bomb enough civilians, one of them is bound to be Hamas). They said Israel was fighting 'terrorists'. (Israel at war with itself???)

Anyways, someone else told them to stop the 'Zionist propaganda'. And they were met with the question 'Do you hate Jews?' What can I say, the Orwellian doublethink propaganda is evident.

You can hate Muslims (a high member of the Israeli government suggested nuking Gaza and compared it to the situation with Japan in WWII). That is fine. But you dare suggest Israel is lying, and oh boy are you a Holocaust denier!

By 'doublethink' Orwell meant to believe two mutually exclusive things to be true at the same time. The finest example today is "One World Government doesn't exist...Internationalism is good and needed to fight climate change and bring peace".

Hatred is evil, yet hatred is simultaneously justified. It just depends on who you hate. Can't the pro-Israel 'Bomb Gaza!' morons understand this logical flaw?

"...creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish" - Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Note that he never said 'wipe Israel off the map' during his 'World Without Zionism' speech because there is no Persian word for Israel, nor is there an expression meaning to 'wipe from the map'. Oops! I guess the Zionist media just got something lost in translation...

"Jews are overrunning the Earth. They want to kill us, and we must fight them. They are vermin and they sneak into a country and attempt to take over it in stealth. The solution is to get rid of them all".

Thankfully, nobody said that. But replace 'Jews' with 'Muslims' and you've summarised the view of the mainstream right-wing in the West.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Israel perpetuates genocide and we try to justify it. How disgusting. Oh, and that UN school they bombed, killing 30 children? They have admitted no Hamas were inside, let alone firing from there.

You Spelt Genocide Wrong

Actually, Israel, the way I'm reading it, the letters seem to spell 'incursion'. Maybe it's just me...

Yes, it's been two weeks since the air bombardments began, and with over 1000 'martyred' (which means 80,000 virgins, right?), you would think that the politicians might give a damn.


(Image: I had to do it, didn't I? I had to include a photograph that forces us Westerners to confront our own dehumanisations towards the Arabic world. Turns out, they are really people like us! Who knew! I thought they all wore balaclavas and grunted 'Allah Akbaar' through gritted teeth! Maybe some slight sarcasm included here, by the way.)

Instead, they call for 'peace', and the need for Hamas to stop firing rockets. Great. Because that was what kicked it all off, right? Well, to believe that would be to ignore thirty years of Israeli occupation and subjugation of Gaza, and the obvious conflict of interest for the Israeli government with the forthcoming elections.

The governing party is likely to lose, so here comes their version of the US 'October Surprise'! They've been under rocket fire for years but they suddenly get angry now? Coincidence? Methinks not.

Now, that's not to say it isn't justified to want revenge when your area comes under rocket fire. Of course it is reasonable to defend yourself.

But yet again, Israel doesn't get self-defence. They pursue what they have always pursued; expansionism. Right from the day Israel was created it has been expanding by force. (though not entirely unjustified at first, as it was too small to defend itself.) This expansion ended after the Yom Kippur war in 1973, when for a time Israel took the entire Sinai desert from Egypt.

The perception by some in the West, that Israel is the little guy surrounded by enemies, is outdated and/or a lie. There was a time when Israel had to fight for its existence, but that time has long been buried in the annals of history. For the last thirty years at least, there has been no serious threat to Israel. In fact, due in part to the multi-billion dollar US military aid it receives, Israel has one of the strongest armed forces in the world. And a bloated, over-influential military industrial complex.

(Images: top and middle both from the recent pro-Gaza rally in London; bottom is from the Seattle branch of Jewish Voices for Peace. Yet more proof that anti-Semitism because of Israel's actions is just plain wrong and ignorant.)

The real Israel of today is more of a Goliath than the David it was when it began. It is the schoolyard bully who dumps misery on all those around it, and then has the gall to tell the teacher that 'he hit me first!'

The economic sanctions lorded over the Gazans, along with the blockades, is an atrocity and an act of occupation. The ramming of Cynthia McKinney's boat is a war crime. Who else could attempt to sink a civilian relief vessel and get away with it?

Understand that I do not believe any of this justifies firing rockets at civilians. Hamas' actions were disproportionate. (also, did you know Israel created Hamas?)

But Israel's response has been disproportionate in the extreme.

If we don't get to the roots of the conflict, we will not solve it. And in doing so we must appreciate Israel's long-term aim in Gaza. Which is, to rid the area of Palestinians by making their lives exponentially more uncomfortable. This involves blockades, trade embargos, causing food shortages, lack of basic medical care, and anger among the people, who protest by throwing rocks and in return get shot and gassed.

Israel's actions are tantamount to ethnic cleansing by stealth.

Australian-Palestinian Hero:



Deaths Total Comparison:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

Palestinians Waving White Flags Shot In The Back:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7828536.stm

Israel Using Depleted Uranium?

I disapprove of Israel's actions in Gaza for three reasons:

- It's disproportionate. Many times more Gazans have been killed in a few days than Israelis killed in a decade.

- It's a humanitarian crisis, and Israel isn't helping themselves: this will radicalise another generation of Palestinians into being committed to resisting Israel, and they know it.

- Israel fails to acknowledge their part in provoking this bloodbath: they have laid siege to Gaza (by proxy, through roadblocks, trade restrictions etc) for decades. Why do people keep fighting Israel? It's not just hatred of Israel or hatred of Jews.

(Image: There ya go! It's not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel.)

People forget that Palestine was once an entirely Arab country, with a Jewish minority, and that people were forcibly moved or killed in the process of forming Israel. That doesn't mean I am anti-Israel; overall, it's for the best historically that the Jews get their own homeland to avoid the centuries of persecution they did receive, culminating in the Holocaust; however, punishing the innocent Palestinians by taking most of their land hardly set a good precedent for the aggressive military rulers of Israel. The reality is that the long-term aim of Israel's activity in Palestine is to force the Arabs to leave, by making their life as miserable as possible.

(Image: Ain't no Katyusha could have done this. Dead Hamas Police Officers in Gaza.)

Press TV is reporting that traces of depleted uranium have been found by Norwegian medics, in some of the bodies of the wounded in Gaza. It's 'alpha-radiation' is highly dangerous when it is extremely close to human tissue.

Now, bear in mind Press TV is Iranian, and would have motive to report a negative story about Israel. However, since Western media is so anti-Palestine (they refuse to acknowledge Israel's blockade/siege of Gaza, and its part in starting the conflict), I don't trust that DU hasn't been used, just because they aren't reporting it.

Excellent Guardian article on the humanity of Gazan civilians

Arab-Israeli Conflict: Round 352

So, here we go again...

Just in case you've been in hibernation for the last couple of days, Israel is now conducting retaliatory air strikes and is (or will be) making land incursions into Gaza.

The given reason for such operations is the continuous rocket bombardment from positions inside Gaza inflicted on Israeli settlements, which has been going on for quite some time, but apparently it has now pished Israel off enough for military retaliation policy to be viewed by Israeli authorities as acceptable.

You can go back and forth all day long about the morality of the Palestinians and Israelis and their actions. In my opinion, trying to justify one or the others' actions through history is pointless and unacheivable.

(Image: an example of Israeli barriers, built with the purpose of preventing people from moving between Jewish and Arab settlements. These have benefited Israeils by helping to protect them from guerilla or suicide attacks, but they have also caused the problem of civilians, humanitarian groups etc. being unable to access Arab settlements. Some civilians and militants living in Gaza have resorted to using tunnels to get under these fortifications. Now, as part of their bombing campaign, Israeli jets have bombed these tunnel networks, not all of which are used by militants.)

But purely from a pragmatic standpoint, there remains one question about this Israeli activity that has not been addressed: And Then What?

OK, so you have bombed 'strategic interests' in Gaza. Then What? Land incursion, probably, as anything else would seem weak-willed, following the air bombardment. Then What? You're left with the same problem you have had all along, IDF soldiers in Palestinian territory, vulnerable to guerilla and suicide warfare, and condemned internationally for conducting a foreign occupation.



(Image: an Israeli checkpoint in Palestine. This is apparently during a peaceful Palestinian demonstration. Read more about the good Palestinian people who want the Israeli occupation to end here. Excerpt: "...for the first time in a very long while, the military did not atatck us. After the mass violence last week, the popular committe of Bil'in had a new plan. They decided to have a mourning march, carrying a large black flag and in silence. It was nice because no one was hurt, and for the first time we left the site in a unified march, not in a scattered flee for safety. There were no soldiers chasing us through the olive groves shooting unarmed children in the back. No beatings...")

As we learned from the Israeli-Lebanon conflict in 2006, ground incursions are not successful in terms of stopping the rockets from being fired, the very justification for the war in the first place. (And history views that conflict as a success for Hezbollah.)

Then What? How long do you stay? How do you avoid the appearance of defeat when you withdraw, given that rocket attacks will probably continue?

The morality debate can go on forever, but when it comes to reality, Hamas has Israel by the proverbial 'short hairs', and those continuing to suffer as a result will be Israeli and Palestinian civilians.

Civilian Casualties and Taliban Recruitment in Afghanistan

Much has been made of the bombing of wedding ceremonies and villages in Afghanistan. However, the stories in the media have been rather distant and impersonal. So I was surprised to find this video, originally from The Guardian (UK newspaper), on The Real News.

It is good that we see a human face of those who would be our enemy, because it prevents the general ignorance that those who support the Taliban are fanatics or clueless about what is best for them.

Misguided? Maybe. And it's fairly obvious that the Taliban is not a group seeking to improve Afghans' living standards or rights. But many, if not most, Taliban volunteers are making a conscious decision with their own interests in mind. They are driven by the same fear and hatred of foreigners that has kept Afghanistan an unoccupiable tribal region for centuries, as well as the desire for revenge.

Also, nobody wants to be a collaborator to the 'filthy Western dogs' - for which the Taliban routinely carry out executions - especially if ISAF and the Afghan government is losing the war.

(Image: the proposed surge in Afghanistan may be decisive as the war enters its eighth year.)

[source]

Will the 'surge' change things? In the sense that ISAF forces will have a sufficient number of troops to expand their influence and not be stuck in isolated outposts, maybe it will. I don't hold any really high hopes for anything more than this personally, though, with the exception of more names to be inscribed into stone; after all, as the video I posted previously points out, the surge in Iraq wasn't the main cause of improvements there.

On a related note...
Christmas greetings from British Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Their concern with their local sports teams back home rather than staying alive is worrying :)
Come home safe, lads.

Depleted Uranium putting Our Soldiers at risk.

Simple as that. How can you say otherwise?

Depleted uranium is "The byproduct of [nuclear] enrichment...Military uses include defensive armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles." (Wikipedia, Depleted Uranium)

I've got to be honest, I had no idea as to the scale and timeframe of DU usage in combat. It apparently dates as far back as the late 1970s, when there was a need for high-density ordnance materials. There are possible alternatives, such as tungsten; however, DU is used because it is cheaper and a convenient solution to part of the nuclear waste storage problem.

I suppose it is the Agent Orange of our time.

I warn you, the video includes effects of DU that ain't pretty.


Ironic, don't you think, that the only uranium in Iraq was used by us? No WMDs...unless you are upholding Freedom and Democracy.

Use of DU is against every law and convention relating to warfare. The most imoprtant thing is the damage done to babies. According to the Wikipedia article, Gulf War Veterans are 50% more likely to give birth to/father a deformed child.

Right now, the use of DU is putting brave soldiers, and the health of their future children at stake, not to mention countless indigenous civilians, in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are exposed to a cancer-causing, gene-pool muddling toxin only in the name of governments' convenience.

There is an organisation called International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons. The name says it all, and I couldn't agree more.

End the Clash of Civilisations!

This video speaks to me because this is exactly what I've been saying for years. Our political leaders, and those in the Middle East Theocracies, have put helmets on our heads and hatred in our hearts. And it's up to us, the people of the world, to say 'no' to the divisionism and the hatred flowing from those in power.



'Avaaz' means 'voice' or 'song' in several languages including Hindi and Urdu.

Their website is www.avaaz.org. I have added a link for this to my blog's link list.

Funny and Dangerous RPG Accidents

The mishaps of using rocket-propelled grenades. Some are funny, while others are just downright dangerous. Here are my favourites courtesy of the internets.

A little field excercise with a new French anti-tank launcher. What could possibly go wrong?



An Afghan soldier (I think) being trained by Americans gets to have a go with an RPG...



American Marine with an AT-4; well at least the shot was on target...



Iraqis during Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Worst place to be when RPGs are fired?

So, Did the Surge really work?

The Real News interviewed Ray McGovern, a veteran security advisor to the US, about Iraq, Afghanistan and Obama.


I don't want to pass judgement too much on this; rather, just see what he has to say and make up your own mind.

The idea that the surge worked is a mainstream view that has been accepted by both parties in the US. Whether they were right to do so, and whether surge-type operations are a success, is vitally important right now as the new Obama administration plans for an escalation of the Afghan conflict.

As McGovern points out (and no matter how frequently the comparisons have been mentioned in the last seven years), Afghanistan could be 'Obama's Vietnam'.

I believe that the resilience of the Taliban as an enemy, combined with the problems with terrain in some areas of the country, as well as the enemy's safe haven in Waziristan, means that comparisons with the US-Indochina conflict are not overblown or sensationalist, and that, if escalation fails, it will be the biggest US disaster since Vietnam. Bigger than Iraq.

CNN doesn't cover entirety of KBR story

Whereas every internet report gives the full details of the most recent KBR lawsuit and its allegations (see previous post for links), CNN has fallen short in my opinion.

Their coverage of this story focuses only on the allegations of chemical exposure.

Not to say this isn't the worst offence - it is expected to cause cancer in some of the soldiers in later life - and that this is awful.

CNN's report, however, failed to mention the ice which had been transported in mortuary trucks, or the open-air burn pit where medical waste was dumped and dogs ran around with human limbs.

(Photo: Nothing against the soldier here, he's just doing his job, but how much longer are we going to continue this pointless war?)

Why? If you give them the benefit of the doubt, you could say that it was because these elements of the story were a bit graphic for the audience, and the report covers the central allegation.

I'm not going to, though. CNN has a duty to report the full story, especially when it comes to mistreatment of its' own country's troops by corporate corner-cutters.

Also, and most importantly, I got the impression that the details of the secondary allegations, such as the dog running around holding a limb, or the shrapnel in the food, were the most repugnant.

To quote 'Flags Of Our Fathers', "One photo can win or lose a war." Not that there were any photos of these incidents to speak of. But the point is that it's the detail that counts. The details of this story are disgusting enough to potentially turn another few percentiles of the populus against privatised military/the Iraq War, but CNN didn't show them to the people.

To me, the details are more disgusting because KBR has no excuse. With the chemical contamination, they could claim they didn't know. Or that, when the nosebleeds started (CNN didn't mention this either), they were in denial. The open pit of waste and the gory ice, however, were both obvious and preventable problems.


However, to the person who pays little attention to the news (the people who, I would estimate, form two-thirds of public opinion), it's not the preventability of the events which would light a fire under them.

It's the simple, gross, gory imagery that penetrate the average Joe's thick political skin; that is why images win or lose wars. They provide a low-investment way to learn about the war, for people not prepared to invest further or pay attention. Not because they're stupid, or ignorant; just because they choose not to take interest.

That is why the photo of the napalmed girl running down a road is one of the memorable images of Vietnam. Children before her and after her had been napalmed too, but did people 'back home' care about that (even if they knew)? No, they just remember being forced to confront the reality via a photo.

(Photo: The horrors of war. The photographer, Kim Phuc, won a Pulitzer Prize for this iconic image)

It would be misleading to say people should base their opinion on an entire war because of small details. But lots of people always have, and lots of people always will, and that shouldn't in any way affect reporting of the details by supposedly reputable news sources.

This is just one example of Iraq reporting lacking details. I thought the coverage of, particularly, Fallujah in 2004 was abysmal. I only found out it all started with four hanged PMCs followed by retaliatory American aggression last month. A whole city provoked, deserted and laid to waste for the actions of a few guerillas - not really 'counter-insurgency' in my opinion.


(Photo: Hanged private contractors, Fallujah. Am I responsible for not knowing the context of the Fallujah battles?; also, how many people know the full context and detail of this bloody confrontation, in which over 100 Americans were killed and over 600 wounded?)

By failing to force the populus to confront the reality of the Iraq War, the mainstream media has both failed in its job to report what people need to know, and helped the US govt retain some support for the war.

Oh, and the Army Times covered all the details (that one surprised me). The ironic thing is, at the top of the page when I was reading this, there was an Army Strong recruitment advert. Props to them for reporting the details when the motive to water it down was there.

I thought PMC stories couldn't get any worse...

But it seems they have. It's one thing to have lethal faulty wiring, or large-scale corruption, or have some employees who commit war crimes.

But for some reason, this particular story got to me the most.

(Photo: I feel this is symbolic of the coalition soldiers' struggle in Iraq. Who is the enemy?)

I can believe the chemical-polluted water given to over 200 American soldiers, sickening though that is. I'm not surprised that the food gave some people salmonella; and, even though I drew a blank as to how it got there, I'm not surprised there was shrapnel in the food. It's the kind of corner-cutting and bad service you'd expect from a company unaccountable to any kind of law.

What did leave me shocked, horrified and struggling at first to believe it, was the allegations of re-using the ice on which corpses, some of which may have been dead US soldiers, had been stored. It was served as water to the troops.

I wonder how much money that saved KBR. Really. These people talk about how they support the troops. They don't care about the troops, as if that wasn't already obvious. This is potentially emotionally traumatising as well as disgusting. Drinking little bits, maybe, of your buddy who was killed last week. But hey, if the bottom line is happy, KBR are happy.

Thankfully the Iraqi government recently declared legal accountability for the PMCs, because I guarantee you Cheney/Bush wouldn't have done it in a million years, especially with Cheney's Halliburton connection (anyone wanna impeach?) The PMCs don't seem so keen on work in Iraq now.

So instead, these lovely people are looking into contracts in fighting Somali piracy. And if the Indian Navy destroyed a civilian boat thinking it was a pirate vessel, just imagine what these loose cannons could do.