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

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)

crunchpatty
crunchpatty
Old Shoe

Jun-9-2006 02:10

(cont) ...the U.S. has important political and economic relations with the Saudi Administration. The elder Bush was sitting on boards of directors for some of their oil companies at the time. Hmm. Weird how Saudi Arabia never surfaced as a target for agression. And, speaking of relevance...pre-911, the perpetrators of the largest terrorist act on U.S soil were a Christian militia...I'm trying really hard to remember the U.S war on global Christian Extremism, but just can't think of a single incident...weird, no? Finally, you speak about a need for the locus to be away from home. Why? Would it be a less worthwhile cause if most of the violence was likely to occur at home? How does that thinking work? Aren't civilian casualties simply civilian casualties, irrespective of where they occur? Why are they more acceptable if they aren't in the states? Would we be having this conversation if tens of thousands of people in North America had been killed?

3. Would a Palestinian agree that Israel is a democratic state? Whose perspective is being privileged there? And, it's hard to realistically respect the position that this effort is in the interests of spreading democracy when, for decades, there was not even a hint of intervention into South Africa's formal Apartheid policy.

It IS a religious war for many people apart from Muslim Extremists. Just look at how many people on this thread alone have cited God!

I agree with much of what you have said -particularly insofar as individual soldiers sometimes act in horrible ways, and I would never judge those actions to be a balanced representation of an entire effort. What I question is whether, after decades of negative experience, their commanders can legitimately claim that these soldiers reactions to the horrific pressures of war were ever really unexpected. The military spends loads of money on psychological assessment...seems to me like they would have seen it coming.

(Or even counted on it)

Charlie Cain
Charlie Cain
Thespian

Jun-10-2006 21:11

Just gonna say this to the people who think the Iraqi citizens didnt want to be invaded.

I was here for the initial push and saw all the citizens cheering us on telling us " Saddam bad Bush good" and they still cheer us on today so you cant say they dont want us here they feel protected cause they have to put up with the same things we do over here.

And if anyone remembers 9/11 they would know why we are here its called a pre emtive strike take the war to them. The only reason we are playing the games with the other countries with wmd is because we are already committed to Iraq and cant start another push until we are done here.

Zarqawi was a terrorist of course he would be around. But thats just my views on it and no one should talk about the citizens of Iraq unless you have been here and seen faces met them, even became friends with them. I know this is a just war even with out WMD or anything else if anyone would have seen the way these people lived before we got here then you would know. Dont trust the news cause good news doesnt sell only the bad and then its more or less blown out of proportion.

Charlie Cain
Charlie Cain
Thespian

Jun-10-2006 21:13

now why Iraq was first simple start with the ones that hate you cause its just gonna end up hostile anyways right.

Reese Withers
Reese Withers
Well-Connected

Jun-11-2006 10:29

Amen Charlie!! Noone knows but those, like yourself, who are actually THERE hearing what the Iraq citizens are saying, etc. I also agree that the news doesnt tell you EVERYTHING, and does blow things out of proportion.

Thank you for saying what you did! You are over there....and you, along with the rest of you, are the ONLY ones who TRULY know what is going on, and what is being said! :) HUGS and God Bless! You ARE making a difference ;)

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

[ You must login to reply ]