Sleuth Home - Message Boards - The Gumshoe Lounge


0 0
War in Iraq
  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

BadAss
BadAss
Charioteer

Jun-6-2006 19:55

Post your opinion her about the ongoing war in Iraq. And remember folks, everybody is entitled to an opinion so don't flame eachother for having opposite thoughts.

Constructive debating can be a nice way to overcome differences and not just widen the gap.

Replies

Lady Ruby Caplan
Lady Ruby Caplan
Well-Connected

Jun-8-2006 13:36

An extreme response was necessary to 9/11. Creating a locus where one can engage in war not on our soil is necessary.
Right, so lets target people who had NOTHING to do with it.
By that logic, FDR, when Pearl Habour happened should have bombed the hell out of Australia.

3. I hoped for democracy to take a foothold in the Middle East (besides Israel).
Democracy???? INVADE a country and FORCE it on the people with a puppet government?
Fabulous, worked in Vietman, oh no, wait. It didn't.


96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations.

4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October.

There are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%.

A lot of this has to do with sanctions that were imposed on Iraq by the USA! Countries could not give Iraq needed vaccines and the like.


atheling
atheling

Jun-8-2006 13:54

"Many documents and research that has allowed to be printed since the end of WWII showed that Harry Truman was aware of and did have other options in stopping the Japanese."

Please elucidate for us.

The sanctions were imposed by the UN, not just the US.

"at least under Saddam Hussien terorism was virtually non-exsistant. " (spelling errors are the author's)

It was??? How so? Again, please give some examples, this statement is not very clear.


Reese Withers
Reese Withers
Well-Connected

Jun-8-2006 13:55

I agree with Atheling on #1! Saddam Hussein was caught because of the USA and because of the USA, them people were freed of his monstrous behavior! God Bless the USA!

BadAss
BadAss
Charioteer

Jun-8-2006 14:49

Just a simple question...

If liberating the Iraqi people from a tyrant such as Saddam Hussain was one of the main objectives, how come people in North Korea are still suffering from the dictatorship of Kim Yong-Il?

If the alleged possession of WDM's was one of the main issues to invade Iraq, how come the international community is now playing diplomatic tactic games with the Iranian regime that IMHO holds a far more dangerous and fanatic leader. Even though he was democratically elected...

What I'm trying to say is, by what standards did "they" judge to invade Iraq while there are a great deal of countries that could be invaded for the same reasons? I know, you can't be everywhere...but why Iraq?

And another thing...if the troops were well-prepared for a guerilla war, how come they completely "lost" it and created another My Lai? And let's not forget what happened in Abu Ghraib as well...

There's no such thing as a clean war but those last incidents are to be deeply regretted and undermine the legitimacy of this war. The recent killing of Al-Zarqawi could be hailed as a decisive turnpoint in the war on terrorism. I just wonder....if there was no war in Iraq, would there have been an Al-Zarqawi as well?

atheling
atheling

Jun-8-2006 16:30

"If liberating the Iraqi people from a tyrant such as Saddam Hussain was one of the main objectives, how come people in North Korea are still suffering from the dictatorship of Kim Yong-Il? "

More than a "simple question"! I won't pretend to know the answers to all of your questions, but if one looks at Asia, (Japan, S. Korea, and even China ) you will see that we are on better terms with them than with many countries in the ME (aside from Israel). Perhaps we can eventually see N. Korea coming to terms because of pressure from their neighboring countries. No such pressure would ever be exerted upon Iraq from their neighbors. Also, the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are from the ME, not Asia. Again, I think Iraq was chosen because no sane or thinking person could defend his position there. Remember, this is a response to 9/11 - we were hit first (actually we've been hit numerous times over the years by ME terrorists: USS Cole, World Trade Ctr, US Embassies in Muslim Africa, hostages in Iran, etc...)

For ME terrorists, this is a religious war. This is Jihad. There is a reason why they chose September 11 to murder thousands of innocent people by using commercial airplanes (Battle of Vienna and the Ottoman Empire).
"
...if the troops were well-prepared for a guerilla war, how come they completely "lost" it and created another My Lai? And let's not forget what happened in Abu Ghraib as well... "

I didn't say they were prepared for guerilla warfare. I corrected you on the statement you made regarding their lack of training for URBAN warfare. There is a difference.

Most people do not know what combat is like. They cannot even imagine what adrenaline does when one is engaged in life and death struggles day after day. I do not condone what those Marines allegedly did in that village. Until the dust clears and a full enquiry is made, we cannot judge them.

atheling
atheling

Jun-8-2006 16:32

I do know this: Stress, fatigue, fear and anger can make a deadly mixture which results in terrible acts. Those soldiers saw their buddies blown up in a vehicle in front of them. They were under attack. They lost it and started killing people. I'm not sure if I would react with restraint if I were under the same circumstances.

atheling
atheling

Jun-8-2006 16:40

"There's no such thing as a clean war but those last incidents are to be deeply regretted and undermine the legitimacy of this war"

That is wrong. Allied soldiers committed atrocities and violated the Geneva Convention during WWII. They were isolated events and were NOT policy. That did not undermine the legitimacy of WWII, as any historian or thinking person can tell you.

A war's legitimacy is not based on individual actions committed by its participants if it is not policy.

BadAss
BadAss
Charioteer

Jun-8-2006 16:55

I absolutely agree with you, atheling. We cannot judge ourselves how we would react in such extreme situations like that. We would probably be all surprised how that could bring out the worst (or maybe the best) in all of us.

Still these military men are supposed to be professionals even though it's "inherent" about their profession that radical situations do occur. War fatigue does exist and so does post-traumatic stress syndrom. Seeing their buddies killed in front of their eyes is something we can only imagine what effect it must have on the human psyche. The bitterness of all that is that it's usually taken out on the weakest which creates a viscious cycle of vengeance and retalliation.

The military staff should have drawn lessons from the past. I guess one of the better things they did was making an end to the draft and go for a fully professional army. Wars are not only won by weapons but also with what goes on in the mind. I think 9/11 was sufficiently retalliated if you assume that the Iraqi regime was the brain behind it, which I strongly doubt btw.
The rogue regime is overthrown, it's main leaders were either killed or taken prisoner. We must therefore assume that the ones who are left must be innocent.

And as much as I try to see things from the point of view of the Alliance, I also try to see things through the point of view of the ordinary Iraqi citizens. Try, not know. And as much as I'm not sure how I would react if my buddies got killed right in front of me, I couldn't possibly tell how I would react if my family members were slaughtered by an alien military force. Even if they suffer from war fatigue.

BadAss
BadAss
Charioteer

Jun-8-2006 17:05

And yes, similar atrocities were taken out by the allies and their enemies. The sad cycle of history repeats itself. And it might not be policy what certain isolated individuals did, it certainly is policy to prevent and sanction such things.

I still have a hard time to believe that Charles Graner and Lyndsey England were the only ones who were to be held responsible for what happened in Abu Ghraib. Under whose command were they and how come those guys never had to appear in court? And remember, official statements and the truth aren't necessarily the same.

crunchpatty
crunchpatty
Old Shoe

Jun-9-2006 01:33

*vomits a little bit in throat*

atheling, are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate cell phone use with social and political justice??? Wow. Who needs democracy when you've got bluetooth?

It has nothing to do with whether a war is fought perfectly. No one expects that. Many people DO hope that a war is fought justifiably. All the justifications given have so far proved to be conjecture and gross distortion. In balance to the thousands of lives lost, you offer the establishment of the Baghdad Stock Exchange? How telling. Often in this discourse, 'freedom' is equated with 'free markets'. I'm of the humble opinion that given the choice, most people would vote for not having their lives threatened, their children killed and their communities turned to rubble over a spanky new stock exchange.

Other comments on this thread should serve to highlight the fact that the Geneva conventions are no more a burden for 'liberators' than they are for 'terrorists'. See Abu Ghraib. See detainment without charge. See illegal deportations and cover ups. See Sikhs beaten because idiots think anything in a turban might be a terrorist. See administration's public dismissal of same conventions as burdensome.

Your contributions:

1. You ask others for proof. Prove your own claim. Don't pull the old 'well it's impossible to prove' thing. You say weapons were moved...prove their existence. Also, deal with your ugly insinuation that the US had some Divine right to move without the agreement of the world community. The fact that it keeps it HQ in New York doesn't mean it's an instrument for US interests.

2. The 'response' here started long before 9-11. See Madalyn Albright's revolting comment that the death of half a million Iraqi children linked to sanctions imposed after the first gulf war were worth the greater cause. Also, calling for a strong response is fine...how about a relevant one? The majority of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis. Oh wait... (more)

  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

[ You must login to reply ]