Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Alas, I'm not keen on politics. I'm sorry.

If you dont want people to think that you simply want things to go wrong in Iraq so that Bush gets kicked, then stop Ill-wishing.

Good start, with an apology. I was about to accept it graciously when you blew it by saying "if you want people to stop thinking you want Americans to be killed, stop wanting Americans to be killed".

Let me be clear: the reason I opposed the war right from the start is because I don't want Americans, or anyone else, to get killed.

[Janny]

Originally posted by Beor
So what would you have us do, man? Pull out? Leave these people to kill eachother? Sure. Screw it. Better they kill each other than us. If we pull out, this country will fall to the next wacko religious leader, and everything will go to hell more than it already has. There is no unity here, no pride, just a bunch of lost children with mean streaks looking for any way possible to get ahead, no matter who they have to kill or betray. Think there are a lot of terrorists here now? I mean hell, most of the attacks against coalition forces are done by terrorists, foreign terrorists, trying to make a base of power in Iraq, trying to move the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people against western influence. So, we leave, and we will have to come back in a few years and do it all over again.

Yes very true, but I think that Ragnarok was referring to a the situation prior to war. Although the situation is hypothetical and has been argued through, I don't think that the loss of life reduction through inaction is a very valid arguement.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Beor
So what would you have us do, man? Pull out? Leave these people to kill eachother? Sure. Screw it. Better they kill each other than us. If we pull out, this country will fall to the next wacko religious leader, and everything will go to hell more than it already has. There is no unity here, no pride, just a bunch of lost children with mean streaks looking for any way possible to get ahead, no matter who they have to kill or betray. Think there are a lot of terrorists here now? I mean hell, most of the attacks against coalition forces are done by terrorists, foreign terrorists, trying to make a base of power in Iraq, trying to move the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people against western influence. So, we leave, and we will have to come back in a few years and do it all over again.

To tell you the truth, I don't think war is the answer. Violence will lead to even more violence.

[azalea]

Originally posted by The Gaffer


Let me be clear: the reason I opposed the war right from the start is because I don't want Americans, or anyone else, to get killed.

I have an objective question for you (or anyone), then (although I guess this is all off topic): which is worse, innocent people getting killed by terrorists, or volunteer soldiers getting killed in battle in the attempt to curb terrorism (I won't say end terrorism, because I'm not convinced that can happen)?

(BTW, this isn't a loaded question or anything, I happen to have opposed the strikes on Iraq myself, but your statement made me think of the reason the soldiers are there, and how if they weren't there, would more lives have been lost? I guess it's something we'll never know.)

[ranger]

yes i do have something to say... well a couple things

1) people blow this thing WAY OUT OF HAND!!! it was over before it even hit the u.s. GOD, I HATE THE NEWS.


2) i have brothers over in iraq risking their lives for your Frikin tails so you better support them......... GRRRRR people really piss me off....... ill come over there and beat the crap out of you....

!!!!!!~~~~~~ GO U.S. ARMED FORCES~~~~~~~~~!!!!!

i am a ranger....i will protect the weak and the helpless i will fight for right and what i believe( you insult my family, friends hobbies.......i will fight for it ) aragorn (viggo) rocks

[ranger]

oh k... im calm now..... i see peoples point of view saying they dont want anyone killed, i respect that, but i do not totally agree with it ( but thats ok) i believe that terroism could be curbed if we try hard enouph.... i agree with you " terrorism will probably not be totally ended" but i think it can be greatly cut down

!!!~~~GO U.S.ARMED FORCESS~~~!!! i am a ranger....i will protect the weak and the helpless i will fight for right and what i believe( you insult my family, friends hobbies.......i will fight for it ) aragorn (viggo) rocks

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by azalea
I have an objective question for you (or anyone), then (although I guess this is all off topic): which is worse, innocent people getting killed by terrorists, or volunteer soldiers getting killed in battle in the attempt to curb terrorism (I won't say end terrorism, because I'm not convinced that can happen)?

(BTW, this isn't a loaded question or anything, I happen to have opposed the strikes on Iraq myself, but your statement made me think of the reason the soldiers are there, and how if they weren't there, would more lives have been lost? I guess it's something we'll never know.)

It's a tie. But since specifically the War in Iraq has lead to increased terrorism against innocent people AND soldiers just doing their duty, it's not really an either/or situation. Certainly the increase in attacks on terror cells has made us safer. But from all reports the war in Iraq has been an Al Qaida recruitment poster. It's impossible to be sure, I guess.

The war in Afganistan made sense, but this Irag effort was forced and rushed for no good reason. It is unlikely that terrorism will decrease if we leave Iraq and dissonance will increase among the native peoples if we increase or overstay our occupation.

The most likely scenario is some US approved regime will get elected and civil war will break out among factions seeking to control the country. The new government will just provide more targets for terrorists without a very strong security force. Such a force controlled by some Iragi faction could threaten other nations, should the democratic process slip out of US control and into the hands of extremists. Odds are not good for a happy ending anytime soon.

[azalea]

Originally posted by Cirdan


The most likely scenario is some US approved regime will get elected and civil war will break out among factions seeking to control the country. The new government will just provide more targets for terrorists without a very strong security force. Such a force controlled by some Iragi faction could threaten other nations, should the democratic process slip out of US control and into the hands of extremists. Odds are not good for a happy ending anytime soon.

That's my outlook as well. I hate to be pessimistic, but I see too much ethnic- and sect-ism among the Iraqis (at least the ones who seem to get the power) to form a stable democracy (Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites need to get along and recognize the need for equal representation). Also, the Iraqi common people need to have as their goal a democracy at any cost, and I just don't see that from the majority. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the Iraqi soldiers' reluctance/ refusal to help supress the insurgencies (or whatever term you want to use for the resistance fighting).

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by azalea
I guess it's something we'll never know.)

Quite

^^ What Cirdan said. Plus an emphasis that IMO the only connections between the Iraq war and terrorism are:
1 - the one that Bush, Rumsfeld etc successfully created in our heads, and
2 - the increase in terrorism, both in acts and recruits, that has resulted from it.

People might say "it's better over there than over here", which is another way of saying that the life of an Iraqi is worth less than the life of an American. In fact, it may well be saying that the life of an American soldier is worth less than the life of a civilian.

Anyhoo, you can't play the consequences game with this, except in theory, which is why motives matter and why we have to examine our own conduct.

i have brothers over in iraq risking their lives for your Frikin tails so you better support them

I'm sorry about that and I really hope that they come home safely. If I was you, I would be questioning why they're there and for exactly what reason their lives are being risked.

I appreciate that their own personal reasons are probably inifitely more altruistic than those of their commander-in-chief. I also appreciate that, on the ground, it's the dedication and decency of these people that is our only chance of coming out of this with the world in a better state than it was before they went in.

[ranger]

why do you think? ever heard of the war of independence? if people took your side about wars etc. we would still be under some european country. sometimes all you can do is fight.



!!!~~~GO U.S. ARMED FORCES~~~!!!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by ranger
why do you think? ever heard of the war of independence? if people took your side about wars etc. we would still be under some european country. sometimes all you can do is fight.
!!!~~~GO U.S. ARMED FORCES~~~!!!

Amputation can save a person's life unser some circumstances but I would not reccommend it as elective surgery.

It would have been nice if we could have played a role like the French did in our revolution by providing support to a self-initiated cause. Liberating people who aren't trying to liberate themselves seems pointless. Was Chalabi the best "George Washington" we could find?

!!!~~~GO U.S. ARMED FORCES~~~!!!

[Janny]

Dear USA,
Thank you most graciously for you current moves to remove Abu Hanza from our country.
Love, the UK.

[Spock]

-------------------------------
So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel..."-Lawrence

[Beor]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Amputation can save a person's life unser some circumstances but I would not reccommend it as elective surgery.

It would have been nice if we could have played a role like the French did in our revolution by providing support to a self-initiated cause. Liberating people who aren't trying to liberate themselves seems pointless. Was Chalabi the best "George Washington" we could find?

!!!~~~GO U.S. ARMED FORCES~~~!!!

I agree on the point that it is pointless to liberate a people who dont want to be liberated, but I dont think that was the case here. First of all, there is a point, and that is to get rid of the cruelty and what not, but it is really condescending to assume we can mess with whatever delicate thing they have going on. Now, here in Iraq, I dont think these people have any idea what they want, and like Spock said one post above me, as long as they keep fighting amongst themselves, they will never rise above anything. Second, these people would never have liberated themselves, because they are not organised, and they have no real loyalties. Fathers turn in their sons, and sons turn in their fathers. Its brother against brother down here.

Now, if the women rose up, they might have a chance, because the women are so held back, that they have an actual tangible unifyed cause, which would be something along the lines of they need to have rights, any rights at all would do.

It is just not a country that can feasably run themselves, its almost like they need to have a tyrant to control them, which sounds mean to say, but man, this is a mess.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Quite

^^ What Cirdan said. Plus an emphasis that IMO the only connections between the Iraq war and terrorism are:
1 - the one that Bush, Rumsfeld etc successfully created in our heads, and
2 - the increase in terrorism, both in acts and recruits, that has resulted from it.

Let me take you to ground zero - then you can say whether Bush created terrorism. He didn't create it in our head - it was just that no one really thought it was a big deal before. Bin Ladin declared war on the west long before 9/11 and we ignored it - it was like Pearl Harbor. We ARE AT WAR and it is not just in our heads.

I do not believe that bin Ladin is reacting to iraq - I believe he is merely using iraq as justification. if it wasn't iraq it would be something else. All I can say is at least we haven't had an attack since 9/11.

As for your comment concerning "better iraq than Americans" that is right. Just as I'm sure during world war II - Britons felt better germany and France being bombed than the air raids over London. I would rather fight the terrorists in the Middle East than fight them on the streets of NY and deal with terrorists bombing our grocery store and trains, etc.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
It would have been nice if we could have played a role like the French did in our revolution by providing support to a self-initiated cause. Liberating people who aren't trying to liberate themselves seems pointless.

We tried that back in 1991 and the world got upset and the Middle East got upset. we supported the Shite uprising and then because of world opinion - we backed down. As for the Role the french played in our independence - they also came in and fought but only in the VERY end - after we proved we could fight and win on our own of course. The only french person that truly championed the American cause was Lafayette though.

Supporting American independence was in the French interest. They didn't do it because they liked America and felt we should be free - let alone a democracy and in the process depose a King.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Let me be clear: the reason I opposed the war right from the start is because I don't want Americans, or anyone else, to get killed.

I guess you had not real problem with Hussein killing his own people though. Did you speak out against the war against Meloshevic?

Sometimes to bring peace - you need to fight and risk lives. And unless there are SEREIOUS changes in the Middle East - the west will never be safe from terrorism that is coming out of that region.

It has only been a little over a year - way too soon to pass judgement on the war in iraq as to whether it increased or decreased terrorism or if it was a success. Afganistan is still not perfect - but it is far better than it was in 2001 and it's been 3 years and still has a long way to go.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Beor
I agree on the point that it is pointless to liberate a people who dont want to be liberated, but I dont think that was the case here. [/clip] It is just not a country that can feasably run themselves, its almost like they need to have a tyrant to control them, which sounds mean to say, but man, this is a mess.

Very insightful. I think that a plan to bring western democracy to Iraq would require massive security over a great deal of time, combined with huge improvements in the economics because people with something to lose tend to not blow stuff up so much.

I agree that they wanted to be liberated from Saddam. It's what they may want to do with that freedom that I find disturbing. It doesn't seem they are bent on building golf courses. (Too many sand traps?)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We tried that back in 1991 and the world got upset and the Middle East got upset. we supported the Shite uprising and then because of world opinion - we backed down. As for the Role the french played in our independence - they also came in and fought but only in the VERY end - after we proved we could fight and win on our own of course. The only french person that truly championed the American cause was Lafayette though.

We would not have won without the Dutch or the French. The Dutch provided war materials we were not able to produce in large quantities at the time. Don't bother trying to teach me history. You're only proving my point that it is primarily the responsibility of the indigenous peoples to free themsleves. Do you think the Iraqis will value a democracy they did nothing to bring about?

Supporting American independence was in the French interest. They didn't do it because they liked America and felt we should be free - let alone a democracy and in the process depose a King.

...and? Allies are not just good buddies who like us for our principles. Common enemies create best friends amongst their foes.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by ranger
yes i do have something to say... well a couple things

1) people blow this thing WAY OUT OF HAND!!! it was over before it even hit the u.s. GOD, I HATE THE NEWS.


2) i have brothers over in iraq risking their lives for your Frikin tails so you better support them......... GRRRRR people really piss me off....... ill come over there and beat the crap out of you....

I like would to say that I don't agree with the war or any war in general. However, that doesn't mean I don't have respect for our soldiers. I admire the soldiers that have volunteered to fight for their beliefs. You need to understand that not everyone shairs the same beilefs. You should respect the beliefs of people who have different views than your own, just like I respect the decisions of our soldiers who have put their life on the line.