Washington is more dangerous than Baghdad, says Rumsfeld

Sparks

From here:

An American army medic was killed today when renegade Iraqis fired a rocket propelled grenade at his ambulance which was on a mercy mission near Baghdad.
But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the Iraqi capital has less violent crime than Washington.
“You’ve got to remember that if Washington were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month,” Rumsfeld said. “There’s going to be violence in a big city.”

Sometimes you have to wonder what's going on in that man's head. Especially since it's only been a few years since Washington DC had one of the world's worst murder rates anywhere in the world...

Capt'n Midnight

BBC poll last night

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Wow, wonder how many RPG attacks there were in DC last year? :P

Rummy's great isn't he...

vorbis

I'd normally support rumsfeld but that was a dumb statement. Considering rocket attacks as street crime is a bit outlandish.

Capt'n Midnight

There used to be regular rocket attacks up the north,
and it the states people are killed every day by attacks with assult rifles and other military hardware

AFAIK you can't get fully automatic weapons - you have to pull the trigger each time or get them mod'd - but apart from that they are standard GI kit... pipe bombs are also used a lot

Ironic when they talk about national security and terrorists - most US citizens get killed by each other and the US military kills more people world wide on average than terrorists ever did... (remember panama) - also US intervention is usually on dodgy legal grounds - and why are they so afraid of being held accountable for war crimes ???

growler

I find it incredible that iraqi's who aren't falling over with joy at their liberation are "renegades" or "terrorists" , surely in the absence of a UN resolution for war the people / armed forces of an occupied country , even in the absence of a (visible) formal leadership structure, are entitled under international law to use force to resist the occupation of their land by a hostile foreign force ?

Would an Iraqi caught in possession of weapons now not be a POW under the Geneva convention ? or was the declaration by Bush that the war was over a turning point between legitimate resistance and being a renegade / terrorist ?

In fairness now folks, I think he may have been talking about murder rates in Washington with the local weapon of choice, and not an RPG.
Murder rates in a certain part of our own island up untill the GFA were kind of high also, using more than just hand guns.Murder is murder, no matter where , who or how it's carried out.
You are still talking about unlawfull deaths.
mm

Originally posted by growler
Would an Iraqi caught in possession of weapons now not be a POW under the Geneva convention ? or was the declaration by Bush that the war was over a turning point between legitimate resistance and being a renegade / terrorist ?

On that note, I saw a report on the BBC the other day, which stated that ordinary Iraqi's are allowed have guns at the moment for their own protection.
So theres an awful lot of potential for mahem.
mm

shotamoose

Originally posted by Man
On that note, I saw a report on the BBC the other day, which stated that ordinary Iraqi's are allowed have guns at the moment for their own protection.
So theres an awful lot of potential for mahem.
mm

You can buy guns and even hand grenades fairly cheaply in markets in Baghdad and other cities, apparently. Which is nice.

growler

didn't the americans offer a firearms amnesty to iraqis , which has now passed ? As far as I know you'll be locked up if found carrying a weapon in public now (strangely enough , you wouldn't if you lived in the US)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030601/80/e19z2.html

though you can keep your AK at home for personal use which is fair enough given the total lack of law and order bit of a catch 22 for the US administration that.

Hobbes

Iraqi's are only allowed 2 firearms per household at the moment (by US decree). Think it's one pistol, one rifle.

Sparks

On a further note growler, the war in Iraq is not offically over. Were it over, the US would be legally obligated to release all POWs and a few other actions that they don't want to do.

growler

didn't the US declare the war over ?
or is there a more formal declaration required or a formal surrender by the Iraqis ?

if the was isn't over then how can they describe an attack on Iraqi military as being an attack against a terrorist camp , i know it's semantics but it seems as though everyone is a terrorist now according to the US which means they don't have to follow the Geneva convention and could create a new status of prisoner like the unlawful combatant nonsense they invented in Afghanistan.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by growler
didn't the US declare the war over ?
or is there a more formal declaration required or a formal surrender by the Iraqis ?

Now that u mention it.. No.
Bush declared: "The end to major fighting operations in iraq over"..

shotamoose

Originally posted by growler
didn't the US declare the war over ?

Didn't they not declare war?

shotamoose

Originally posted by growler
didn't the americans offer a firearms amnesty to iraqis , which has now passed ? As far as I know you'll be locked up if found carrying a weapon in public now (strangely enough , you wouldn't if you lived in the US)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030601/80/e19z2.html

though you can keep your AK at home for personal use which is fair enough given the total lack of law and order bit of a catch 22 for the US administration that.

They had an amnesty alright, but I don't think it was an particularly succesful one. People just aren't waving their guns around in the street anymore.

Typedef

Originally posted by Hobbes
Iraqi's are only allowed 2 firearms per household at the moment (by US decree). Think it's one pistol, one rifle.

A clear violation of Iraqi's right to bear arms to defend themselves.....

even if they don't get used when it comes to war.

*ahem*

Sparks

Originally posted by growler
or is there a more formal declaration required or a formal surrender by the Iraqis ?

It's required to formally say "the war is over".
A surrender is not required. Besides, who exactly has the authority to sign off on one for the Iraqis right now?

if the was isn't over then how can they describe an attack on Iraqi military as being an attack against a terrorist camp , i know it's semantics but it seems as though everyone is a terrorist now according to the US which means they don't have to follow the Geneva convention and could create a new status of prisoner like the unlawful combatant nonsense they invented in Afghanistan. [/B]

If I were in a nasty mood, I'd call for you to be given a cookie.