The report that changed my mind about the war

daveg

I heard a report from (I think) an Irish reporter returning from Baghdad. His name was Kevin "something". Sorry for being vague but I missed the start of the report.

Anyway he is returning from Baghdad and spent about 20 mins talking about his experiences, things he had seen and his view on the war. His points are below....

Firstly this war is about oil. Not about WMD or freeing the Iraqi people - but oil.

The US and UK are freely using cluster bombs which are illegal (as per the Geneva convention).

The loss of civilian life in Iraq is HUGE and is not being reported by the western media. We are given as blinkered a view from the west as the Arab’s are from the middle east. He says the US and UK should be tried for war crimes esp. with the bombing of a Baghdad restaurant yesterday to try to assainate S.H. - they dropped 4 huge bombs (MOAB I think) in a residential area. He described seeing a father looking into a 50 foot crater which was where his house was - his entire family dead.

I wish I could put down more precisely what he said but he has changed my mind from "sitting on the fence" not sure if this war should have happened to being against it and seeing what a complete cvnt George Bush is (thought that before actually).

Did anyone else hear the report ? If so please add to this thread.

gandalf

Didn't see the report but if you read www.arabnews.com they have numerous articles about the civilians deaths in Iraq.

Yes I thought the same thing about that bombing yesterday. They used 4 2000lb bombs called "Bunker busters" on a restuarant! which took out a "number" of houses as well.

The most sickening thing was the comments of a woman US Spokesman in Washington that "she was not going to lose sleep over whether Saddam is alive or dead". That after murdering a mans family, pathetic.

Robert Fisk was interviewed on the Last Word and he mentioned the same attack and the result on the local people. My admiration for this man has skyrocketed with his objective and factual coverage of the results of the Anglo American invasion forces actions in Baghdad.

Gandalf.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Shinji

Indeed - when MOABs are deployed, you'll know about it. Their claim to fame is that they have the destructive capability of a small A-bomb without the radioactive fallout.

(Of course since the US is happily covering Iraq in depleted uranium at the moment anyway...)


Using bunker busters and cluster bombs in built up civilian areas just proves that the United States of America has not learned any more lessons on the value of human life since Vietnam; since Hiroshima; since Dresden.

daveg

Robert Fisk was interviewed on the Last Word and he mentioned the same attack and the result on the local people. My admiration for this man has skyrocketed with his objective and factual coverage of the results of the Anglo American invasion forces actions in Baghdad.

Thats Him Gandalf and thats the report I was on about. Good man for clearing that up for me. As I said that report has changed my view on the war.`Twas indeed an excellent and consice report.

gandalf

Now watch it Dave the IDF brigade on here will denounce Fisk as a propagandaist for the Palestinians.

Check out www.independent.co.uk where you'll find loads of articles by the man.

Gandalf.

TBH, i'm not suprised any more about how the US acts in war, and what they use. The US have shown to be very selective in their application of the Geneva Convention, and the guidelines concerning acceptable weapons. Simply put, there are no rules that apply to them.

DadaKopf

This is exactly why I'm wary of reports by Western media about the unfortunate, but minimal loss of civilian life. In the same way I prefer to watch the late night round-up and analysis rather than the daily rushes, I'm still holding many of judgements for when the real evidence as to how dirty this war really is.

When I argue with people about the war, the issue of minimal civilian (and military) deaths always comes up and one point against me, say my pro-war friends is the sparcity of civilian deaths. All I can honestly reply is that I don't know if it's true or not, I'll wait a few years until it can be properly determined either way.

My suspicions that it's bloodier than they say it is are more informed by the US' past behaviour: the last Gulf War (burying troops alive etc.); Panama where they shot and bombed 1000 innocent civilians; Vietnam with their scorched earth policy and Agent Orange; and, indeed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were vastly disproportionate to Japanese atrocities and actions and hurt civilians more than military.

Why should now be any different?

sam

Indeed - when MOABs are deployed, you'll know about it. Their claim to fame is that they have the destructive capability of a small A-bomb without the radioactive fallout.

yeah when moab's are used you will know about it in terms of casualties, but theres an order of a few magnitudes of difference between the power released in a moab, compared to atomic weapons - moab is around 10,000 kg (22,000 lbs) , the smallest nukes availiable right now are around 1,000,000 kg

Originally posted by DadaKopf

My suspicions that it's bloodier than they say it is are more informed by the US' past behaviour: the last Gulf War (burying troops alive etc.); Panama where they shot and bombed 1000 innocent civilians; Vietnam with their scorched earth policy and Agent Orange; and, indeed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were vastly disproportionate to Japanese atrocities and actions and hurt civilians more than military.

Why should now be any different?

It's different if they are learning from their mistakes.
That is the comfort, I'd draw from the anti war movement,it's pervasiveness , throughout the world today, make it increasingly difficult for , a western power to prosecute a war, irresponsibly.
People care and that in this case has had some impact on how this war was fought.

There was a lot of scare mongering regarding what might happen in the course of this war,some things happened, but a lot didn't.

It seems to me, now that ordinary Iraqi's in their many thousands are out on the streets, thanking George W Bush! ( RTÉ news at one ) even with the hospitals overflowing with casualties.
That speaks volumes for how bad they suffered under Sadam, and knocks the comparison beteen Bush and Hitler on the head a bit.

mm

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Man
It seems to me, now that ordinary Iraqi's in their many thousands are out on the streets, thanking George W Bush! ( RTÉ news at one ) even with the hospitals overflowing with casualties.
That speaks volumes for how bad they suffered under Sadam, and knocks the comparison beteen Bush and Hitler on the head a bit.

I'm very surprised at the numbers. They must be pretty certain that Saddam is gone.

patch

Of course this war is about oil. Everybody knows that. Any loss of life is terrible, unless of course it's the death of an evil dictator.Fair enough bush's reasons are more about getting an easily controlled oil supplier, hence providing a nice little 'start-up' government to aim the new 'free' araqi's in the chosen direction.
Having said that though, and I don't expect many to agree with this point- If it means sadaam will be 100% dead, maybe people have to die. It will take an awful lot of dying, on all sides before he IS dead, so for the greater good maybe a slightly bigger view-point is needed.
An awful lot MORE innocent people will die if sadaam isn't wiped out. Bear in mind also, thousands were dying due to sadaam before the coalition forces ever set foot over there.

sanvean

Yeah, i would think that the american/english would use that argument: that despite the heavy casualties, certain actions (such as the bombing attempting to kill saddam hussein, the bombing of dresden - different war, and the atom bombs used against japan) are all means of ending the war quicker, therfore saving more lives in the long run.

interesting argument, but it doesn't really work (not if you have morals or an ethical system guiding you). i have a sneaking suspicion that many of these bunker busting bombs and other such things, are being used on cafes etc instead of the more traditional bombs, to see their effectiveness. these are (to my knowledge) new-ish devices, and there's no better way of testing them than in real conflict.

robert fisk is indeed a fantastic writer. a little bit on the sentimental/emotional side for my liking, but in a war like this, and in the position he's in, i guess it'd be hard not to. he's not entirely objective: it's easy to realise exactly what his political opinions are, but he backs them up with (usually) factual and concrete evidence.

daveg

Of course this war is about oil. Everybody knows that. Any loss of life is terrible, unless of course it's the death of an evil dictator.Fair enough bush's reasons are more about getting an easily controlled oil supplier, hence providing a nice little 'start-up' government to aim the new 'free' araqi's in the chosen direction.

So you think the Americans have the right to drop 4 * 2,000lb bombs in a residential area to kill Saddam ? If so try telling the father sitting next to the 50ft crater where his family is buried and his house used to stand that it is for the good of Iraq. I take your point - and agree to a certain extent - that in the long run it would be "better" for 2,000 (approx fig) to die now and take Saddam out of power rather than 100,000 (approx fig) die over the next 5 years due to oppression from Saddam and his party. However what the fvck gives the US and UK the right to make that judgment ? Were back to the old argument - what gives the Us the right to police the world. Why didn't they do this back in `88 when Saddam gassed the Kurds ? Was he not a tyrant then ?

Another point (and a very good one) that Fisk raised last night is that the majority of Bushes goones are pro Israeli and this war suits Israel down to the ground due to the weakening of a powerful Arab country.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveg
So you think the Americans have the right to drop 4 * 2,000lb bombs in a residential area to kill Saddam ?

If they were certain that there was a hardened bunker there, and certain that it - or the people definitely inside it - was a target of significant importance, then I'd have to say yes - the were right.

Hiding and using such a shelter in a residential area would be the crime here. What would you have suggested if the Iraqi's tied civilians to all of their vehicles? That the US let itself get shot to crap, then give up and go home, because it couldnt deliberately kill innocents in this way?

The problem is that the US were not 100% certain about all of their information. Even should they be shown to have been correct, the fact is that they are willing to take these chances....and that chance is what is putting civilians needlessly at risk.

jc

Slutmonkey57b

A very principled and impartial man - unless you read Private Eye of course:

(From Hack Watch - regular column exposing newspaper hacks for being... hacks.)

"After a week of war some Independant readers must have wondered where staff reporter Kim Sengupta had gone. [...] Can it be that he's fallen victim to the ego of Robert Fisk, the paper's other columnist in Baghdad, and that Fisk was "throwing wobblies" whenever the foreign desk suggested it might print a dispatch from Sengupta? Surely not..."

Éomer of Rohan

It is good to see that there is finally some proof about the US and their heinous campaign. I heard about the report Dave G is talking about on a media discussion program on digital. Personally I think NATO should be disbanded simply based on the US murder of the British troops and some journalists whether accidental or not.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
the US murder of the British troops and some journalists whether accidental or not.

Murder, by definition, is never accidental.

patch

It's all very well pointing out where bush&co are crossing the line, and I'm not even trying to back any of their arguments.

It should be pointed out though, that the true bad guy here is sadaam. Granted it should have been done a long time ago, but he must be stopped. you do realise that he'd kill all us evil westerners given the chance?

I never said it was okay to let people die, but it's come to a point where a lot of people will have to- sadaam is holed up in the middle of a densely populated city. Perhaps if they asked him politely he'd just give up, that way nobody else would have to die.....

sanvean

yes, but where do you draw the line? iran would probably, to us 'westerners' be more intent on killing off us infidels, but invading them would be something close to disaster.

also: hussein was a secularist up until quite recently (as far as i know) and only latched on to the islam angle when he saw he could gain support throughout the arab world (as they all despised him).

then, apparently, he heard muhammad in his dreams, telling him to do important things like building massive mosques in baghdad.

Victor

Originally posted by daveg
I heard a report from (I think) an Irish reporter returning from Baghdad. His name was Kevin "something". Sorry for being vague but I missed the start of the report. Did anyone else hear the report ? If so please add to this thread.

I haven't seen it.

Originally posted by daveg
Firstly this war is about oil. Not about WMD or freeing the Iraqi people - but oil.

This has been argued to death, if you'll pardon me.

Originally posted by daveg
The US and UK are freely using cluster bombs which are illegal (as per the Geneva convention).

While i think any right thinking person would like to see these banned, Geneva is silent on them (I don't think any existed then). It bans pre-fragmentation (essentially a military nail bomb), not sub-munitions.

Originally posted by daveg
The loss of civilian life in Iraq is HUGE and is not being reported by the western media. We are given as blinkered a view from the west as the Arab’s are from the middle east.

This is why I use at least 5 different news sources (eircom.net, Sky News / CBS (Sky use CBS reports after midnight), RTE, Euronews, BBC, C4, ITV News). Part of the problem with reporting civilian casualties is we are dealing with propaganda and a collapsing (collapsed) regime. Getting accurate information is difficult. Try watching Euronews to get a less biased report than Sky.

Originally posted by daveg
He says the US and UK should be tried for war crimes

This may be difficult with them in control of the information, however there do appear to be individual instances that should be investigated (like at the Palestine Hotel yesterday).

Originally posted by daveg
they dropped 4 huge bombs (MOAB I think) in a residential area.

If they dropped MOABs, the basement Saddam Hussein was reputed to be in would have survived but several city blocks would have disappeared.

Originally posted by daveg
He described seeing a father looking into a 50 foot crater which was where his house was - his entire family dead.

I didn't see any 50ft craters, but yes it was overkill. I ask the question if Saddam Hussein is a military (legitimate) or political / civilian (contrary to Geneva) target. If he is considered military (he often wears military uniform), then under Geneva Iraq is liable for placing military personnel near civilian personnel. This is little comfort to the dead, dying or bereaved.

Originally posted by daveirl
Just want to point out that the 4 bombs were most likely JDAMs or some sort of bunker busting bomb. They've been described as 4 2,000lb bombs, which seems to fit the bill. I'm sure Victor will be able to clarify.

Given they were from a B-1B, I would concur with JDAM (GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition), although it had initially been reported as the GBU-28 / BLU-113 which is the "Bunker Buster" (5,000lb). JDAM is a GPS/INS guidance kit with a range of general purpose and penetrating bombs.

Originally posted by Meh
Murder, by definition, is never accidental.

Reckless homocide is murder and in such a case, the murder can be said to be more accidental than deliberate.

Slutmonkey57b

More inspirational reporting from Mr. Fisk. His column yesterday moved on to accusing the americans of having a deliberate subtext to the war of wanting to kill western journalists. As if that was one of the aims of the whole thing all along.

Nothing like thoughtful and insightful commentary.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
More inspirational reporting from Mr. Fisk. His column yesterday moved on to accusing the americans of having a deliberate subtext to the war of wanting to kill western journalists. As if that was one of the aims of the whole thing all along.

Nothing like thoughtful and insightful commentary.

Actually, I like reading his articles, even if, they are as one sided and agenda driven at times as Fox news.
But what does gaul me to be honest, is the way he is interviewed on the last word...
Interview wouldn't be the word for it, as matt cooper ( ever the sensationalist ) just lets the totally one sided information flow out of him with no reasonable effort at all to be neutral, or even contrast it with what Sadam has been responsible for.
mm

DadaKopf

The Trib's great for letting rip sometimes! I guess it's Ireland's only answer to the Guardian.

In a way, though, it can be OK to let someone spout nonsense. If it's done well, it allowed the person space to discredit himself. There was that interview between John Snow and some American congressman or senator recently. Snow made some point on international law regarding Guantanamo and yer man just retorted "are you a lawyer? Tell me John, are you a laywer?" implying that Snow had no authority to judge a legal issue and this guy did. Anyway, Snow said nothing, paused for a moment while this guy blabbed away then brought up another subject. The guy seemed like a dolt and Snow got the upper hand.

It makes a good argument for against censorship .

sanvean

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
accusing the americans of having a deliberate subtext to the war of wanting to kill western journalists. As if that was one of the aims of the whole thing all along.

i got the impression that his point was more on the lines of what exactly what they were playing at. conflicting reports from the american government etc as to who/what was firing on them. they do seem to be deliberately targeting al-jazeera. maybe i was reading an editing version, though.

as for whoever made the point that american mistakes are fine if they are learning from them, sure ... kind of ... but it's not really true.

Éomer of Rohan

....and they haven't learnt from them anyway. Vietnam, Korea, Libya etc.

Sparks

It should be pointed out though, that the true bad guy here is sadaam. Granted it should have been done a long time ago, but he must be stopped. you do realise that he'd kill all us evil westerners given the chance?

I think, given the chance, so would some westerners. I don't think that blind fear is a good reason to go to war.

I ask the question if Saddam Hussein is a military (legitimate) or political / civilian (contrary to Geneva) target. If he is considered military (he often wears military uniform), then under Geneva Iraq is liable for placing military personnel near civilian personnel.

That's not quite correct - the article in the 1949 convention states that you can't put "protected persons" in military areas, not the other way around. Thing is, I don't think that matters much, since the US has been breaking the convention left, right and centre - in this invasion, in the last Gulf war, in afghanistan, in Guantanamo...
I mean, the most recent violation was when US soldiers shot up a marked civilian ambulance with wounded people on board. When this kind of thing is going on with impunity, you may as well forget about finer points being adhered to.

This is little comfort to the dead, dying or bereaved.

Too damn true

This may be difficult with them in control of the information, however there do appear to be individual instances that should be investigated (like at the Palestine Hotel yesterday).

The problem is not the information. The problem is enforcement. And there have been far more than just one or two instances of the convention being broken in this invasion.

Getting accurate information is difficult.

I would recommend (along with the sources you quoted) to try to get access to the source material as well. It's damn hard in some cases but not in others. The UN's open meetings, for example, are broadcast on the web. On-the-spot witnesses maintain weblogs, and that's only scratching the surface. Me, I check these sites daily.

While i think any right thinking person would like to see these banned, Geneva is silent on them (I don't think any existed then). It bans pre-fragmentation (essentially a military nail bomb), not sub-munitions.

The treaty dealing with cluster bombs isn't a Geneva convention, it's the Ottowa treaty on landmines - but the claim is that as the bomblets are not designed as anti-personnel landmines specifically, that they are not included. And of course, the US didn't ratify Ottowa, mainly because of the DMZ in Korea.

More inspirational reporting from Mr. Fisk. His column yesterday moved on to accusing the americans of having a deliberate subtext to the war of wanting to kill western journalists. As if that was one of the aims of the whole thing all along.

I'll give Fisk more credit, if only because of his record. Besides, Kate Adie was warning about the same thing before the invasion even started, and for good reason.

Actually, I like reading his articles, even if, they are as one sided and agenda driven at times as Fox news.

I prefer to read his articles because I know he's generally well-informed on what he writes about and while he gets irate at things, those things are generally things that sane humans should be irate about.

nb. several quotes from different people in this post, in case anyone thinks I think one person said all that...

Hobbes

The war is turning into a clusterfuk.

Anyone see the TV crew filming of two marines gunning a car on a road and killing a family of three. Looked totally unprovoked and they turned the car into swiss cheese in seconds.

Of course the press are just as bad. From what I can make out the pulling down of the first statue was staged after some US press reporter suggested they get locals to do it instead of the tanks + bulldozers (which have been doing it no problem up to that point).

Some of the news reports are just plain funny. Best quote I heard so far, "After suffering years of oppression they show thier joy of freedom by looting" (picture was of a kid stealing 2 large tires). So people only don't loot because they are oppressed... man I'm getting myself a TV later. Via va la Freedom!

sanvean

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
....and they haven't learnt from them anyway. Vietnam, Korea, Libya etc.

that was kind of my point. also include: panama, nicuragua (i always always had a problem with that spelling ... why couldn't they pick a more anglicised name?)

Sparks

Hobbes,
Yes, staged, as the photos show rather clearly.
And you missed out the shooting up of a marked civilian ambulance carrying injured people.

Big Daddy Cruz

Remember Saddam is the bad guy here.

Why is it so many here think everything the US says is lies and everything the Iraqis say is the gospel truth? The US will not invade you and will not attack you. Saddam given the chance will.

People have been cheering Saddams downfall all over Iraq. I know there are some ****tards who will find some conspiracy, or some hidden aganda in those pictures. I really wish they would pull their heads out of their asses and smell the coffee.

I repeat, Saddam is the bad guy.

Sparks

BDC,

Remember Saddam is the bad guy here.

I have no problem with that - I have a big problem with your next line. But before we do that, remember that bad as Saddam was, the fact remains that he came to power because he represented a departure from traditional Islamic rule - in other words, in Iraq, women had equal rights, they had running water and phones and electric power and were the most secular nation in the middle east. He was a brutal bastard, and no mistake, but he didn't take over the country by invading, remember, and there were and are worse leaders in the middle east.

Why is it so many here think everything the US says is lies

Precedence.

and everything the Iraqis say is the gospel truth?

We don't. Why do so many think that if I disbelieve the US, I must by definition believe the Iraqis?

The US will not invade you and will not attack you. Saddam given the chance will.

History suggests otherwise. Iraq invaded two countries under SH - Iran and Kuwait, both times with tacit support or approval from the US. The US, however, has invaded or subverted over forty nations since the end of the second world war and is the biggest enemy to democracy in the world today, by the metric of damage done.

People have been cheering Saddams downfall all over Iraq.

People were cheering for Saddam when he was in power, because to do otherwise courted a few weeks of torture. After 25 years of this, I find it unbelievable that this mindset vanished as soon as another army rolled into town.

I know there are some ****tards who will find some conspiracy, or some hidden aganda in those pictures. I really wish they would pull their heads out of their asses and smell the coffee.

This from someone who will willingly accept news without criticism from a group who have been shown to have broken just about every international law going - Geneva conventions, Hague conventions, the UN charter - and who have trashed the best hopes for future security in the world - the ICC, Kyoto, Ottowa, and so on.

I repeat, Saddam is the bad guy.

I repeat, he's not the only one... and he's not the worst guy.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Big Daddy Cruz
I repeat, Saddam is the bad guy.

Just because there's a bad guy, duesn't mean there's a good guy.

Are you American perchance?

Big Daddy Cruz

Sparks Saddam Attacked five of his neighbors Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qutar and Israel. The US did not support the invasion of Kuwait, do you remember the 500,000 US troops that got him out?

Also are you dumb enough to belive the USA will ever attack your country? If you are truely this damn stupid, it will be a waste of my time even discussing it.


Corinthian I am an American, good call. What gave it away? I tried typing with an Irish accent


I am stuck on a beautiful pacific island with way too much time on my hands.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sanvean

Originally posted by Big Daddy Cruz
Why is it so many here think everything the US says is lies and everything the Iraqis say is the gospel truth?

i don't know, maybe a healthy cynicism mixed with a basic knowledge of world history. as for thinking what the iraqis (for iraqis i'm hoping you mean the ba'athist government) say is gospel truth, no, of course not. however, and perhaps this is simply wishful thinking, but there is an attitude that a government who claims democracy and freedom to be inherent would also be partial to truth. and when they show themselves nto to be, or at least have agendas which are far from noble, then people will cry hypocrit. i guess.

also: see the list above for the countries that america has attacked (panama was invaded only a couple of months before kuwait was by the iraqis in incredibly similar circumstances).

JustHalf

I have no problem with that - I have a big problem with your next line. But before we do that, remember that bad as Saddam was, the fact remains that he came to power because he represented a departure from traditional Islamic rule - in other words, in Iraq, women had equal rights, they had running water and phones and electric power and were the most secular nation in the middle east. He was a brutal bastard, and no mistake, but he didn't take over the country by invading, remember, and there were and are worse leaders in the middle east.

Can you hear what you are saying? You are holding Saddam Hussein's regime up as the shining light of the middle-east.

Name leader in the middle-east who has done more evil than Saddam Hussein. You claimed that these exist, so back up that claim.

And if anyone thinks this war is all about oil, remember this: the US got extremely cheap oil out of Iraq through the "oil for food" programme. They were getting the oil anyway.

Sparks

Can you hear what you are saying? You are holding Saddam Hussein's regime up as the shining light of the middle-east.

No, I'm not. You need to reread my post. In particular the "when he came to power" bit. Good deeds done 24 years ago don't allow you to shoot someone today, at least not in my book. Thing is, shooting someone today doesn't erase those deeds from history. If you ignore them and assume that the torture and human rights violations were there from the start, how would you explain his rise to power in a de facto british colony?

Name leader in the middle-east who has done more evil than Saddam Hussein. You claimed that these exist, so back up that claim.

:rolleyes:
Look at his contemporaries in Iran. Observe the justice system in Saudia Arabia. Look at the rulers of Kuwait. Compare the secular system in Iraq with the islamic system in Iran and tell me which you'd prefer to live under had you no other choice available. It's like choosing between losing an arm and losing two arms, but full appreciation of the situation is important.

And if anyone thinks this war is all about oil, remember this: the US got extremely cheap oil out of Iraq through the "oil for food" programme. They were getting the oil anyway.

Why is it that when anti-war people say "it's about oil", pro-war people seem to think that they mean WD40? It's not about the end product, it's about controlling the production of the end product.

josh40

Saddam was evil, no doubt about that, but is there any guarantee that his replacement will prove any better?
Look what's happening in 'liberated' Afghanistan, the Taliban are coming back big time. Now that the war in Iraq is more or less over, whose going to clean up the mess, and pay the bill to get them back on their feet?

It's interesting because I ovbiously see very different coverage , that what is being described here. I do see CNN, but mostly, I watch Greek coverage which is very much anti- coalition forces.It's hard to imagine that what I watch on CNN, is even covering the same war!

Of course, the coalition forces are trying out new weapons, wars have traditionally been used for this. Hitler tried out all his new weapons in the Spanish civil war, brfore he went for the real thing. The coalition forces are obviously going to win, and therefore write the history books on this one, so will find a way to justify everything if necessary. The victors very rarely have to justify themselves, moves or weapons though.