So many as compared to what? I would say far fewer than any war in history except of course for the “other side”. But then their “crimes” like slicing the heads off live civilians aren’t “crimes” because we don’t consider them an “army” - Right??


IMO the bottom line in Iraq is the “insurgents” are feeling the pressure and are realizing they cannot win unless they can maintain a high level of sectarian violence in Iraq. IMO the majority of Iraqis – with more every day, realize their future lies with a unified country rather than a sect.

Ah, the standard defence of Ted. Yes we may be committing atrocities, but fewer than we did in other wars... Nice. And what an interesting comment Ted: "But then their “crimes” like slicing the heads off live civilians aren’t “crimes” because we don’t consider them an “army”

Firstly, we do consider those crimes, everybody does, Liberals and conservatives alike. When those insurgents cut off the heads of their hostages, those were without question awful crimes. I don't even know what your point was trying to be there.

Of course, when Bush Jr.'s big ole buddy Saudi Arabia slices off the heads, or hands and feet (The only country that still practices Judicial Amputation) thats just fine right?



Yes, we KNOW your opinion. You have been quite open about your opinion. Nobody doubts your opinion. Now the question becaomes, do you have any actual, tangible justification for your opinion?

I listed a half dozen generals, both in Iraq and in the US, who completely disagree with you, and TedN5 just took the wind out of the one person you could find who semi-supported it.

The attacks per day in Iraq are still increasing, so is the casualty rate. The failure of the central government topresent any kind of authority, or for that matter, to even present the possibility of a unified state, is obvious. The Sects seem to be winning the day at the moment, according to every measurable standard.

So, as opposed to repeating your opinion again and again (which everybody is by now aware of), care to provide some evidence to back it up?

Bah! Give me a break Vermillion. People don't give a fig about these crimes. Sure, plenty of people have 'condemned' them, but that hasn't stopped either the flow of 'useful idiots' into Iraq nor the back door deals by western nations, paying millions, to release these fools who put themselves into the position of becoming hostages.

There is a constant, strong under-flow in the current of popular opinion in the west, especially in the left leaning media, that speaks of 'condemnation' only to follow it with excuses and which, when confronted with the news that another person got their head cut off, are more than eager to push the blame on GW Bush... as you do yourself in your very next paragraph!

In my opinion very few people consider what these people do to be crimes. They are considered with distaste, perhaps, but also with a good deal of understanding, fellow feeling and even, by some unscrupulous elements of the left, with satisfaction. Even some of the hostages who have survived the ordeal of being kidnapped and held have come out with open praise and admiration for the people who were prepared to murder them.


How is it GW Bush's responsibility that Saudi Arabia slices off heads? What would you have him do? Invade Saudi Arabia?

Your asking for consistencey and offering nothing but moral ambiguity in return. If its some how wrong to fight these people and yet also some how wrong to trade with them, just what sort of a relationship do you propose?

Saudi Arabia is tolerated because it cooperates. The Iraqi rebels don't. If they were to lay down their arms and support their government, they could, by simple democratic means, acheive all their goals... if that is, they had the support of the people of Iraq. Their unwillingness to use democracy as a means towards their end, indicates, to me at least, that their following in the general Iraqi populace is perhaps not all that great as we are lead to believe by our media.


So what does that mean?
Because they are slow their goal is impossible?

I'm sorry but thats a deliberately defeatist attitude that brooks no understanding of the complexities facing Iraq. Your talking about a nation with a shaky grasp of nationhood, having come through decades of tyranny, with no democratic experience what so ever and no traditions that come close to democracy either. Such a nation as Iraq, facing such a situation as it is, will undergo a long painful period of strife and confusion. It may even fail, but that this set of affairs is so is not any reason to falter and lose one's nerve.

The attitude you are presenting here, as that of TedN5's resembles a desire to lose in order to prove a defeatist perspective that this war is wrong. That bringing democracy, however painful, to Iraq, was wrong.


edited to add a missing word

Moif, before I begin, a small point if I may. It very bad form to take somebody's rebuttal to a post that was not yours, and then answer their rebuttal as if those statements were generalised open comments as opposed to being directed at a specific issue. I assume you read the lead-up to my post, so pretending otherwise is not helpful to anyone.




Your point being?

My comment was directed at Ted's accusation that these acts were not considered crimes (by some phantom unnamed group, presumably the 'left' knowing Ted), clearly they are, as you yourself admit.

You are correct, people are still entering Iraq to do humanitarian work, or to act as journalists and for an assortment of other reasons, generally following causes they believe in right ot wrong. What does that have to do with anything?




Last point first, Stockholm syndrome is a pretty much universally recognised phenomenon, lets not bother with that one. As for your ltter point, well that is quite an opinion.

When you say 'unscrupulous elements of the left', I have difficulty knowing to what you are referring.

If you mean there are a few left wing fanatics who think this way... well, probably, but that has no bearing on the whole. There are a few right-wing fanatics who think dead soldiers is God's wrath for legal homosexuality in the US.

If you are just referring to the whole of the left and taking a generalising jab, then I have to ask you to back up that opinion. What mainstream, representative groups have dealt with 'satisfaction' at the heads of missionaries in Iraq being severed? Name one mainstream, representative group that did not greet the whole event with total outrage. Please.



Again, as you WELL know, this was directed at Ted's fake moral outrage at the 'left' supposedly not recognising the heads of hostages being severed as crimes, which is in and of itself not at all true.

Pointing out the double standards is something you try and do yourself often enough, please don't pretend you do not recognise it when you see it.



Then, as I have said before, that’s fine, if you frame the debate that way. If in the end all you want is co-operation, then there is no double standard. If on the other hand you loudly proclaim moral outrages in one place while secretly supporting or condoning them in others, thats called hypocrisy.



Firstly, that argument is fundamentally flawed and you know it. There are plenty of examples all over the world of extremist factions representing moderates of the same faction who cannot make their goals met democratically. In this case, that would theoretically apply to the entire Sunni population.

Secondly, the democracy is falling apart and you well know it. There is still no democratic government a year later, and some the member groups who were convinced to vote in last elections (based on promises of what they would receive) are by and large rejecting the government when these promises of key posts are not being met.

Here is the news from just TODAY:

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I...AD&SECTION=HOME

Or were you also going to defend Ted’s statement that Baghdad is just as safe as New York city?



Why do I keep having to repeat this? Progress is not slow, it is negative. How many times now have I asked for any tangible signs of progress? Because the tangible signs of regress I have presented in spades.



Allow me to rephrase slightly, and more accurately.

I'm sorry but that’s a unreasonably and unjustified optimistic attitude that brooks no understanding of the complexities facing Iraq. Your talking about a nation with a shaky grasp of nationhood, having come through decades of tyranny, with no democratic experience what so ever and no traditions that come close to democracy either. Such a nation as Iraq, facing such a situation as it is, will undergo a long painful period of strife and confusion. It may even fail, but ignoring that reality and pressing on with ever increasing expense of life and treasure regardless of the reality is a staggering waste.

I have already stated, I am well aware of the difficulties facing Iraq. Ironically, those very difficulties, and the inability to date of the US to overcome or even properly address them, is one of the reasons for those many obvious signs of regress I keep referring to.

I find it amusing that you use this not-even-exhaustive list of the vast difficulties facing the country as an justification for your unevidenced optimism. Frankly, Your arguments of the validity of ‘sticking the course’ and ‘never say never’ were just as ‘valid’ (and just as often spoken by the right) in the latter days of Vietnam. Sometimes blind optimism and ‘gung-ho’ attitude isn’t enough.



Sorry Moif, I'm not even going to answer that. Trotting out the “you see the signs of growing disaster and address them, so you secretly WANT thus US to fail” argument is totally beneath you.

I'm trying to argue not that it is ‘wrong’, but that 'bringing democracy to Iraq' the way it has been done, the way it is being done and in its current form, may be impossible.


You KEEP asking me to justify my view, you insult it as 'wanting the US to lose', yet how many times now have I asked both you and Ted to justify your optimism in the fact of current facts? Why have you both been so unable to do so?


If its going so peachy keen and flowers in Iraq right now as you would like everyone to believe, show us evidence.


Oh, and let me be clear, as there was some confusion on this before. I don't want a report that a bombed out schoolhouse was repainted or a bus shelter fixed up, I would like evidence that counters the reality of half a trillion dollars spent, 21,000 US casualties, increasing body counts and attacks per day all over Iraq, and reconstruction contracts consistently unfulfilled and unfulfillable.

I have never denied that schools are being painted and floors are being swept, I just don't think that’s a particularly valid counter to the staggering bad news. Do you?

This war is wrong! It has done immense damage to Iraq, to the US, and to the international community. The evidence is overwhelming that it was undertaken for reasons other than the successive public reasons that have been put forward publicly.

Your description of Iraq sounds remarkably like the one many of us put forward in an attempt to keep the Neocons from driving off this obvious cliff. However, contrary to your characterization, once we had invaded, I hoped for the best. Instead, I witnessed one stupendous mistake after another - failure to provide security, poor rules of engagement, failure to hold early elections to facilitate a neocon engineered revamping of the Iraqi economy, collective punishment that destroyed a city of 300,000, systematic torture and prisoner mistreatment, attempts to install our own puppet government, and on and on.

I still distrust the reasons put forth for not picking a target date for withdrawing troops and beginning withdrawal. (The construction of permanent bases is obvious). It is true that I concluded more than a year and a half ago that foreign troops only added to the violence in Iraq; nevertheless, I held out some hope of a unified Iraqi government emerging but with a decidedly religious character. The sectarian nature of the last elections dashed that hope. The spread of sectarian violence and forced relocations only affirms it.

In addition to the lives lost and maimed, this war has cost the US $500 billion with obligations for veterans, equipment replacement, debt interest and lost productivity that have been estimate to reach $1 to $2.2 trillion. Just when would you have the US stop spending funds that it doesn't have on this lost cause? There are other much higher priorities including developing energy alternative and addressing global warming.

My “point” is that EVERY time and I mean Every time the “insurgents” blow up innocent people, capture and torture innocents and even use IEDs which kill far more innocents than soldiers it is a WAR CRIME… Now I defy you to show me anywhere near the coverage for these crimes as opposed to those committed by perverted US jailers.

We seem to assume its just “war” when the insurgents blow up men, women and children, yet if Americans do anything rough we are “war criminals”.
This from Amnesty Int. 5/19
Today the United Nations Committee Against Torture has added to the growing pressure on the United States authorities to prohibit, prevent and punish all acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at home and abroad;


The last mention of the atrocities of the insurgents was over a year ago.





And I know your opinion. Apparently you find it easy to blow off the documents I posted and the generals comments. Same for TedN5, and I don't buy the diparagement of his character now that he is not solidly with your opinion. So to you the captured documents are false? Your method of disagreement is to just ignore what you don’t want to address and yet you accuse me of doing this.

Firstly, blowing up IEDs is not a war crime, however its not relevant as the others you mention are. And its true, they do not get as much coverage in the AMERICAN press as when AMERICANS commit war crimes, possibly because this kind of behavious is sadly expected of the insurgents, while the US is supposed to upholding a different standard. And hey, news stories involving AMERICANS tend to get coverage in the AMERICAN media. How is that in any way unusual?


Notably, you are quite wrong, these acts committed by insurgents do get US media attention, though not as much. What do you want Ted? If you hold yourself to a different standard, people will hold you to a different standard. I mean did you actually expect any different? Not to mention the US media tends to cover stories involving the US, call them crazy. This has nothing to do with the supposed 'liberal' bias of the press, its the way national media works, and nobody in their right mind should have expected any different. You want less US media coverage when the US commits crimes? Have the US troops not commit crimes.



Again, completely and utterly untrue, just wrong on fact. These acts, though they may not receive the same level of attention (especially when nobody from the US is involved, is US citizens are the ones killed or captured, there is a media frenzy), but to pretend people don't condemn these acts is a pure and simple falsehood.




This is the saddest and most ironic statement you made yet. I actually dedicated a great deal of a post to these documents, and you ignored it. Now in a bit of tragic comedy, you accuse me of doing what you do all the time, ignoring of course that I have responded in detail, and only by ignoring my response completely (again) could you ever make such a wild assertion.

Ted, at least half of my posts to you are the same every time.

"No Ted, you completely ignored/deliberatly misconstrued what I said, again. Why is that?"

Take that comment and apply it to nearly any situation, and I have to tell you its getting annoying. Especially when you demonstrate that you do this so ably and often with this ironic accusation above.

I'll just repose what I said earlier, shall I, and you can answer the original comment while you eat chew on your words.




Lastly, to add to the irony, I am forced to remind you that you have still continued, despite my constant reminders, to address the half dozen top US generals, on the ground and in the US, who I cited at length completely disagreeing with your oft-stated opinion. Instead you posted one general, not on the ground in Iraq, who you completely mischarictarised (formerly pessimistic about the war) and also ignored TedN5's quotes from him.

Why do I get the suspicion that this will not be the last time I remind you of this?

First of all I strongly disagree on the IED issue. Some are targeted on Iraqi civilians and many others are used against US vehicles and kill nearby civilians. You must know that the “insurgent” killers who set theses devices off know and see what they are doing. So this IS a war crime.

And the idea that there is a different “standard” is just ludicrous. Because they have no respect for human life allows them to be held to a different “standard” by the international community??? Are you serious??? Certainly this is the reality but I attribute it to anti American sentiment.



Right. So we disagree. I feel that if the insergents feel they are losing that is a more important than arm chair generals (with a political agenda) who have never been to Iraq or not recently. Yes we have spent a ton of money and lost lives in Iraq – but in the end IMO we will WIN and Iraq will be the only really free Arab country in the world. Please pardon me for my unbridled optimism.

Explain to me how this is any different than when we shoot a cruise missile with a 200 foot kill radius into a crowded city?



Ted explain to me how progress is being made when the number of bombings is increasing. If we were making progress, wouldn't the number of attacks decrease? Furthermore, you call them armchair generals. Ted, how many medals, stars, pins, and years of service do YOU have? Do you have a Masters of Arts in Diplomacy and Military Studies? Are you well versed in the tactics of guerilla warfare? Do you know the history of tribal Iraq and fully understand why these groups are fighting against each other? Nope you have the same tool I have...Google. So what Ted exactly are your qualifications to dismiss these generals? Even if they do have a political axe to grind (which you can't prove) they have forgottenmore than you or I will ever know about the militray and fighting an insurgency. Maybe they are biased, but at least they can back their point up with something other than blanket statments that mean nothing.

If this is war, then using these weapons against enemy troops, Iraqi forces or support staff is not a war crime, thats black letter law. I have heard no stories about them using them against Iraqi civilians, not that I think they are above it or anything, I just can't imagine they'd use one against a family in a fiat.

As I said its irrelevant, as other actions the insurgents have taken ARE war crimes.



The idea that you hold yourself to a different standard is ludicrous? Is that what you are saying, that the US fully intended to be just as nasty as the insurgents and just as ruthless and evil? Because if not, then there is a different standard each side is holding itself to. Period.

Besides, thats the lesser of two valid points. The US media reports stories about the US first and formost. If US troops kill civilians, its a BIG story. If Iraqi insurgents kill US civilians, its an even bigger story. If iraqi insurgents kill Iraqis, then its a smaller story, in the US.

How could you possibly expect any different? name me one country on the planet that works differently. Even your US right-wing talking heads act that way. Its how a national media works. Are you seriously saying you have a problem with that?



Ted, seriously, its getting to the point where I don't care if the Mods get annoyed any more. Are you deliberatly doing this? Is this some attempt to troll for a reaction?

How many times do I have to repeat myself before you take notice? I even provided a pastiche of previous messages, in a vain attempt to get youto pay attention.

Anyone can miss a point in a post, but nobody can miss a point repeated again and again and again in post after post.

I provided both Generals in the US (including ones who have no political agenda or motives and are not running for anything) as well as several of the top generals IN IRAQ. All disagree with you.

You deliberatly misrepresented one man, who is NOT a general on the ground in Iraq, and who is a political position in the Bush administration (political agenda) thus he is disqualified twice by your own words. besodes, he disagrees with you as well, despite you misconstruing his opinion and his words. None of this have you ever answered. Why Ted, seriously, Why?




Ted, one thing I should tell you, just so you know. Repeating the same unsupported ssertion again and again and again does not constitute evidence.

I also note you, despite ironically insulting me in your last post for 'not answering your one bit of evidence (when I had, and you ignored it) chose to ignore it again. Instead you repeated the assertion 'the insurgents think they are losing' which is not even close to true, you cited a case where a few Al qaida documents posit they are not doing well, and when it was pointed out to you that the generals on the ground refer to Al qaida as 5% or less than the insurgency, you ignored it, and continued making the same blatantly false assertion.

I admire your consistency.

Yes I did, but your post annoyed me so much I felt the need to respond to it.


My point being, actions speak louder than words. Any one can say they condemn something or other but talk is so very cheap. Its actions that matter, what people actually do when their morals require them to act

What good is 'condemnation' without some form of consequence?

This notion that because people condemn atrocity they are then justified in what ever criticism they choose to give voice to is the true hypocrisy in the world today. And a shining example of this is Amnesty Internationals refusal to provide evidence for Saddam Hussein's trial. For years AI 'condemned' Saddam Hussein and documented his crimes. Now he has been caught and put on trial AI remains silent rather than act upon their condemnation.

What good is a voice of reason and moral outrage that has no strength or courage in its own conviction?


It demonstrates how biased such people are that they put their very lives in danger in order to help people who will willingly murder them, against the armed forces of their own nations. And the Stockholm syndrome cannot explain the willingness for these people to put themselves in danger, prior to their being kidnapped. From the beginning of this war there has been an unrelenting opposition that has made damned sure that the war would been seen as a failure, regardless of the facts on the ground. Every slight and set back along the way has been blown up out of all proportion by the western media whilst in Iraq, the news through independent sources paints a very different picture.

The global media has, from the very start, given both the Islamic terrorists and the Iraqi rebels the most potent weapon they have, and the means by which to defeat the western powers. Media attention. All these crack pots and religious maniacs have to do is write a letter, or make a video recording and the media broadcasts this propaganda out to the whole planet and more often than not adds its own bias to make sure the rabble understands the message.

There hasn't been a single day in the last three years where I have not read about how Iraq is 'sliding into civil war', or how the US military screwed up by not doing this, that or the other or to put it in the broadest possible terms, just how evil and stupid the USA is and what an evil despot GW Bush is and how the poor innocent Iraqi's are paying the ultimate price for US imperialism.


Oh give me a break!

What do you want. A list of statements made by prominent left wing politicians and media personalities? No such list exists. These people are not so politically inept that they actually say what they mean. Of course they voice their outrage at atrocity. They make damned sure they do because otherwise how else can they justify their critical stance?

As I said before its not words that matter. Any lying politico can voice words of anger, outrage and moral indignation. Such, mean nothing.

What betrays them is their smug, I-told-you-so attitude when the bad news comes flooding in. Just as you are doing in this thread. As if the bad some how proves this silly point that the 'war was bad'.

Well, there is no such thing as a 'good war'. All war is bad.

What remains after we've gone past the obvious is...

Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical military dictator whose regime sent millions to their deaths. Yes?

Iraq is now a democracy. Yes?

The ONLY argument then that detracts from what the USA is doing is the fact that Iraq is currently a very dangerous and violent place... and the USA has paid a considerable price in its efforts.

..but since this was always so, and since the seeds of democracy have been planted and since the turn out in the elections was pretty impressive, then there is no real reason for any one who believes in democracy to look upon the war with an expression of despair.


Actually Vermillion, I think I know myself well enough to know that I do not know anything of the sort. I do not see this argument as 'fundamentally flawed' at all. If I did, then I would not have made the argument.


So? How does that justify Iraqi violence or the opinion that violence in Iraq proves the war was wrong?


I most certainly do not!

And let me point out that democracy in Iraq cannot be 'falling apart' as you describe it, since in order to fall apart it must have been constructed first. Since Iraq has, as you've admitted, never been a democracy, had no tradition of democratic principles or traditions to assist in the founding of democracy, then just how can Iraqi democracy be falling apart?

Its this, utterly biased perspective that looks down upon the creation of a democratic Iraq that is so completely counter productive to the whole process of creating democracy in Iraq.

Its as if you are, and always were, so sure of your argument that you have not changed your tune in all the years of the conflict. You sound, exactly like the left wing media to whom I was referring earlier. Your points are the same as theirs and your bias is equally similar.

You assume that deep down inside I 'know' your point of view is correct because in your assumed opinion, you apparently cannot conceive of the possibility that the reason why creating democracy in Iraq is so hard is because all across the planet, people like you are arguing against it as a consequence of your own personal bias.


There is a government. It was formed recently. There have also been interim governments that represented the people of Iraq.



The link doesn't work for me.


The people of Iraq voted.

That is all the progress that matters and I find it astounding that you, or any one else on this forum who enjoys the benefits of living in a democracy seek to ignore this fact.

So what if you've spent half a trillion dollars? Who's fault is that? Certainly not the people of Iraq. The extravangant expenditure of the USA is not their concern, nor is the unusually lax methods by which the US military appears to operate. Many military campaigns have been waged on shoe string budgets and been many times as effective as the war in Iraq. If the US military had any brains they'd be using locals to do the fighting, as the British did in the 'good old days' not their own soldiers...

...but this is besides the point. This thread is about a US counterinsurgency expert expressing despair, not the poor performance of the US government/military.

Who cares what some US counterinsurgency expert thinks? or even why GW Bush went to war in the first place! Its old hat. Whats important now is the fact that the people of Iraq have voted and whether we like it or not we owe them.


Why?

Why is the chance for a democracy a waste?


Indeed. You appear to be convinced, despite the excellent turn out in the elections, that democracy in Iraq is not at all possible... or is at least so difficult to achieve that it will be too expensive.

Your arguments return, time and again to the idea that Iraq is regressing and you put forward bombed schools and killings to support this contention as if these vile acts somehow prove your point.

In my opinion however, such a period of unrest, possibly even civil war is inevitable when democratic is established in a nation like Iraq so whats all the fuss about? How is this even a regress?

Its more or less exactly what you'd expect and for as long as their is a majority of Iraqi's who wish the coalition forces to remain in the country then the only sensible course of action is to stiffen our resolve and keep on going until the Iraqi government and military are strong enough to take care of their people.

Iraq is not Vietnam.


Which means what?

Because the USA lost in Vietnam then Iraq is obviously unjustified? Wars are not court cases Vermillion. They do not set precedents. If they did, Europe would have been annexed by the Ottomans long ago.

And also, I'm not 'optimistic'. If anything I am pessimistic because I recognise the fact that we are fighting two fronts in this war and the more dangerous one is at home where a fifth column is doing its best to ensure failure in Iraq in order to score political points against the conservative forces represented by the Bush and Blair governments.

Because you simply refuse to accept the truth.

Iraq has held several elections and these were attended by a healthy majority of Iraqi's.

That you refuse to accept this as a reason to keep working towards Iraqi democracy demonstrates to me that you don't want to accept it and the only reason I can think of as to why you are so adamantly opposed to this work is because you are opposed to either the people who initiated that work or their political perspective.


Ahh, well, you see, I've never asked you, or any one else, to believe its going 'peachy keen and flowers in Iraq' so why should I show you evidence to support such a ridiculous notion?

War is the worst possible out come to any political process and the people of Iraq are going through the meat grinder right now.

But the violence and conflict in Iraq right now is the natural consequence of removing Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a democracy.
Yes, it could have been managed better (but by whom?)
Yes, it could have been done cheaper, (but how?)
No we should not give up.

We have an obligation to the people of Iraq to stand by them and support them until they can support themselves.

If that means spending a whole load of money we can't really afford then I suggest we look at cheaper ways of fighting, but the hard truth is, the high cost in dollars is the reason for the low cost in American lives.