Full Version: Slouching Toward 600
Once upon a time in Iraq...
BAGHDAD, Iraq - In one of the bloodiest and most horrifying days since the end of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, five U.S. troops and four American civilian contractors were killed in separate attacks in the Sunni Triangle west of Baghdad. After an ambush on two vehicles carrying the civilian contractors in Fallujah, jubilant Iraqis burned and mutilated the dead, then dragged two corpses through the streets and hung them from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River.
The brutal treatment of the bodies occurred after the contractors — four American employees of a North Carolina security company — were killed in a rebel attack on their two SUVs in the city about 35 miles west of Baghdad, scene of some of the worst violence on both sides of the conflict since the beginning of the American occupation a year ago.
Associated Press Television News pictures showed one man beating a charred corpse with a metal pole. Others tied a yellow rope to a body, hooked it to a car and dragged it down the main street of town. Two blackened and mangled corpses were hung from a green iron bridge across the Euphrates.
“The people of Fallujah hanged some of the bodies on the old bridge like slaughtered sheep,” resident Abdul Aziz Mohammed said. Some of the corpses were dismembered, he said.
Beneath the bodies, a man held a printed sign with a skull and crossbones and the phrase “Fallujah is the cemetery for Americans.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/
March 30 - The gnashing of teeth you hear at the Pentagon is caused by deep concern over Army morale and suicide numbers that are upside down. The long-awaited Mental Health Advisory Team survey released a few days ago showed that unit morale is low-72 percent called it bad-and that suicide among U.S. troops in Iraq is high—35 percent higher than soldiers stationed elsewhere. And those numbers don’t include suicides that happened once soldiers returned home. The report is alarming because it points to a military that’s being stretched too thin. But the Army should also accept that its plan to treat battle stress isn't working.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632956/
Exhausted American and British special forces troopers, the West's front line in the war on terrorism, are resigning in record numbers and taking highly-paid jobs as private security guards in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senior US commanders are so alarmed that they have held emergency meetings to agree new deals on pay and conditions for the men.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...04/03/31/ixworl
When Alyssa Kopp closes her eyes at night, the children creep into her sleep.
Sad and desperate, they approach her convoy, rocket-propelled grenade launchers slung over their small shoulders.
"You never know if they're going to shoot you or want to trade" their weapons for food, says Kopp, a 28-year-old Army reservist who spent months in the Middle East desert with the 814th Military Police Company based in Chicago.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar04/211546.asp
I've listened to the White House and the President tell America that the blood, the pain and the waste was worth it. Saddam has been toppled from power though if this is peace in Iraq, let's hope we never see war.
No Weapons of Mass Destruction. Scores of dead and wounded. Al Qaeda still on the attack. Greater terrorism activity by Al Qaeda 30 months after 9/11 than the 30 months before 9/11.
The question is: From the results so far, was the war worth it?
Asked and answered: Emphatically NO.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - In one of the bloodiest and most horrifying days since the end of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, five U.S. troops and four American civilian contractors were killed in separate attacks in the Sunni Triangle west of Baghdad. After an ambush on two vehicles carrying the civilian contractors in Fallujah, jubilant Iraqis burned and mutilated the dead, then dragged two corpses through the streets and hung them from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River.
The brutal treatment of the bodies occurred after the contractors — four American employees of a North Carolina security company — were killed in a rebel attack on their two SUVs in the city about 35 miles west of Baghdad, scene of some of the worst violence on both sides of the conflict since the beginning of the American occupation a year ago.
Associated Press Television News pictures showed one man beating a charred corpse with a metal pole. Others tied a yellow rope to a body, hooked it to a car and dragged it down the main street of town. Two blackened and mangled corpses were hung from a green iron bridge across the Euphrates.
“The people of Fallujah hanged some of the bodies on the old bridge like slaughtered sheep,” resident Abdul Aziz Mohammed said. Some of the corpses were dismembered, he said.
Beneath the bodies, a man held a printed sign with a skull and crossbones and the phrase “Fallujah is the cemetery for Americans.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/
March 30 - The gnashing of teeth you hear at the Pentagon is caused by deep concern over Army morale and suicide numbers that are upside down. The long-awaited Mental Health Advisory Team survey released a few days ago showed that unit morale is low-72 percent called it bad-and that suicide among U.S. troops in Iraq is high—35 percent higher than soldiers stationed elsewhere. And those numbers don’t include suicides that happened once soldiers returned home. The report is alarming because it points to a military that’s being stretched too thin. But the Army should also accept that its plan to treat battle stress isn't working.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632956/
Exhausted American and British special forces troopers, the West's front line in the war on terrorism, are resigning in record numbers and taking highly-paid jobs as private security guards in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senior US commanders are so alarmed that they have held emergency meetings to agree new deals on pay and conditions for the men.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...04/03/31/ixworl
When Alyssa Kopp closes her eyes at night, the children creep into her sleep.
Sad and desperate, they approach her convoy, rocket-propelled grenade launchers slung over their small shoulders.
"You never know if they're going to shoot you or want to trade" their weapons for food, says Kopp, a 28-year-old Army reservist who spent months in the Middle East desert with the 814th Military Police Company based in Chicago.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar04/211546.asp
I've listened to the White House and the President tell America that the blood, the pain and the waste was worth it. Saddam has been toppled from power though if this is peace in Iraq, let's hope we never see war.
No Weapons of Mass Destruction. Scores of dead and wounded. Al Qaeda still on the attack. Greater terrorism activity by Al Qaeda 30 months after 9/11 than the 30 months before 9/11.
The question is: From the results so far, was the war worth it?
Asked and answered: Emphatically NO.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 1 2004, 01:22 AM)
The question is: From the results so far, was the war worth it?
YES
Listen, i do not like war...nobody likes war. But people must understand that sometimes it is necessary. Most may not see it that way but i do. In iraq i see a nation that no longer lives under the tyranny of a dictator...now i see a nation that is free...WE FREED A NATION! We are giving these people what we have and i see that as something wonderful. Read the quote by John Stuart Mill in my sig...
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Mar 31 2004, 08:33 PM)
In iraq i see a nation that no longer lives under the tyranny of a dictator...now i see a nation that is free...WE FREED A NATION! We are giving these people what we have and i see that as something wonderful. Read the quote by John Stuart Mill in my sig...
So... you're saying it was worth it... FOR IRAQIS.
Which matches another topic we had on the subject. The Iraq War was wonderful for Iraqis, but didn't do squat for Americans.
I didn't realize that the reason I pay my taxes is to support Iraq.
Of course, considering our current screwed-up fiscal policy of borrowing a dollar for every three spent, maybe I haven't yet paid my taxes to support Iraq, but I sure will some time in the future!
So... was it worth it? For Americans? Not at all. Doesn't matter how many schools we open in Iraq if our kids here still can't get a decent education. Doesn't matter how many roads we build there while our infrastructure is crumbling.
That first slide of the man's charred body on the bridge made me cringe. The entire slide show upset me so much that I feel like I could harm (for the lack of more extreme words) those in the pictures who reveled in the murder and chaos of that event. I mean, these are young boys playing with these bodies and the wreckage, and I wanted to hurt 'em. Bad. But this is EXACTLY what THEY want. They want us to be disgusted day after day. They want soldiers to anguish in the tasks they aim to complete. They want us out. And if it wasnt for my better judgement. I'd say to hell with all of them. All of them. ALL OF THEM. (Pardon my abrasiveness, but this has really struck a chord.)
We could debate the motives for the war until Gabriel blows his horn, but the main focus should be on finishing the job. Repairing Iraq, physically and emotionally, should be and I think is the main priority. We need to leave Iraq in better condition then where it was a year, five years, ten years, fifteen years ago. And not just for Iraq, but for us. Responsibility is what it comes down to. We need to be responsible and stay until the job is finished.
Now I agree, one hundred percent, that there should be, there has to be a better way to complete this mission. (i.e. troop rotation, equipment, money) But that doesn't mean that we should just pack up and hop town.
All that being said, I do believe that the casualties, God forbid they should happen at all, are worth the end result. The end result being, at least they way we will leave it, a free Iraq. I wish that this process would be more efficent, as the results that we do have now are few, but positve nonetheless. If we fail, the anyone form any country, soldier or civilian, who lost their life at the hands of the animals has died in vain.
We could debate the motives for the war until Gabriel blows his horn, but the main focus should be on finishing the job. Repairing Iraq, physically and emotionally, should be and I think is the main priority. We need to leave Iraq in better condition then where it was a year, five years, ten years, fifteen years ago. And not just for Iraq, but for us. Responsibility is what it comes down to. We need to be responsible and stay until the job is finished.
Now I agree, one hundred percent, that there should be, there has to be a better way to complete this mission. (i.e. troop rotation, equipment, money) But that doesn't mean that we should just pack up and hop town.
All that being said, I do believe that the casualties, God forbid they should happen at all, are worth the end result. The end result being, at least they way we will leave it, a free Iraq. I wish that this process would be more efficent, as the results that we do have now are few, but positve nonetheless. If we fail, the anyone form any country, soldier or civilian, who lost their life at the hands of the animals has died in vain.
I guess some sense of the casualty numbers in other wars is in order?
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
I'm with Amlord on this one.
And if we depart, not only will their deaths have been in vain - but departing and leaving Iraq to descend into chaos and violence due to our creation of a power vacuum with no viable substitute will have far-reaching and signficant negative repercussions to our national interests in the region, and to our national security at home.
On a side note, I'm curious about what the hell the Blackwater guys were doing in Falluja. Blackwater Security Consultants provide Bremer's PSD. Their home office in NC claims they were "providing convoy security for food deliveries in the Falluja area". Utter nonsense.
There's much more to the story. Like that of the Spanish HUMINT operatives that were wiped out a few months ago in a similar manner. This was a targeted killing.
And if we depart, not only will their deaths have been in vain - but departing and leaving Iraq to descend into chaos and violence due to our creation of a power vacuum with no viable substitute will have far-reaching and signficant negative repercussions to our national interests in the region, and to our national security at home.
On a side note, I'm curious about what the hell the Blackwater guys were doing in Falluja. Blackwater Security Consultants provide Bremer's PSD. Their home office in NC claims they were "providing convoy security for food deliveries in the Falluja area". Utter nonsense.
There's much more to the story. Like that of the Spanish HUMINT operatives that were wiped out a few months ago in a similar manner. This was a targeted killing.
That's an interesting point Mustang. Could this of been a precursor on a future attempt on Bremer? Take out those in charge of his protection, and his security staff is in disarray. Then go after Bremer. Hmmm.? Foul play is surely afoot! 
This whole subject is too complicated.
What the hell made anyone begin caring about freeing Iraqis and that american lives are worth it? Why out of all nations under siege of horrible dictators do we think Iraqis are especially in need of freedom, enough to risk american lives? Possibly we could feel a little guilty for supporting Saddam in the first place and so Iraqis deserved our concern, but noone really seems to care about that. What about Iranians who we trounced in support of Saddam for seven years and provided the gas and conventional weapons against, do they deserve reparations? Freedom and american style democracy?
How about the rest of the oppressed in the region? Saudis, Syrians are oppressed and tortured. How about Zimbabweans, North Koreans, Cubans? We never gave a crap about Ruanda when they were massacring each other. China and Uzbeqistan, we are chummy with their hateful governments. If we say that american lives are a rightful exchange to free people, than why stop there?
Iraqi's are assured health care, education and social security in their new Constitution, yet we are not. Our schools are closing, our own social security is in trouble, and health care,,,hah! How are we to pay for our newly adopted free country and guarantee them all thats in their Constitution, by sacrificing here the very things we so desperately need ourselves?
Now , the war. Based on false premises we have invaded and occupied and toppled a dictator. Thats all we did, as far as ideology. A country that was no threat to us. Will Iraq be better off? That remains to be seen. We dont know what pulling out will bring, but rest assured, we are not going to let Iraq fall into the wrong anti-american hands. That would be total folly. So in fact, there is no true self determination for Iraq, it will be a pretend democracy ultimately controlled to a large extend by the US. The Iraq war was not in the least about freedom and democracy, it is about furthering our control of an unstable and oil producing region. People will now say to me, but we are pulling out! No, they are building permanent military bases there as we speak. http://enr.construction.com/news/Front2003...ives/040202.asp
You seem to forget that we made war on them. A people who did nothing to us. WE decided what was in THEIR best interest. They appear to disagree, at least to some extent.
Iraq has been invaded many times, and they have ALWAYS revolted, until their occupiers finally left. Whatever makes americans think they would have it any different now?
The country could easily fall into civil war, and besides that, what are the benefits to us from this great sacrifice?
I dont see the effectiveness of this war either in lives or money. I think it will be a bane to us for many years. I dont think it was worth it, especially for americans, however, I dont wish to offend anyone who sacrificed for it.
I am really put off by this. Let me explain in spritual philosophy. If one human being experiences all the suffering that any human can, or ultimate death, that single person is all that counts, because that is all that any one of us can experience, so numbers are completely irrelevant. Besides being an incredibly insensitive arguement to those who have lost their lives, as if they were insignificant because, really, its not so many. In that arguement 3,000 wasnt so many either. Ya think?
More than 10,000 Iraqis have died at our hands in one year, how many maimed and wounded and orphaned? Because? Saddam was a really bad guy and Iraq is now free. But thats 10,600 who are not free, but dead, and thier families will forever morn.
WHY?
One pseudo free country? (and unleashed spread of terrorism because of the invasion) Is this what american lives are worth now?
Give me a real reason that these lives were worth it and the many more to come.
"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams
QUOTE
All that being said, I do believe that the casualties, God forbid they should happen at all, are worth the end result. The end result being, at least they way we will leave it, a free Iraq.
What the hell made anyone begin caring about freeing Iraqis and that american lives are worth it? Why out of all nations under siege of horrible dictators do we think Iraqis are especially in need of freedom, enough to risk american lives? Possibly we could feel a little guilty for supporting Saddam in the first place and so Iraqis deserved our concern, but noone really seems to care about that. What about Iranians who we trounced in support of Saddam for seven years and provided the gas and conventional weapons against, do they deserve reparations? Freedom and american style democracy?
How about the rest of the oppressed in the region? Saudis, Syrians are oppressed and tortured. How about Zimbabweans, North Koreans, Cubans? We never gave a crap about Ruanda when they were massacring each other. China and Uzbeqistan, we are chummy with their hateful governments. If we say that american lives are a rightful exchange to free people, than why stop there?
Iraqi's are assured health care, education and social security in their new Constitution, yet we are not. Our schools are closing, our own social security is in trouble, and health care,,,hah! How are we to pay for our newly adopted free country and guarantee them all thats in their Constitution, by sacrificing here the very things we so desperately need ourselves?
Now , the war. Based on false premises we have invaded and occupied and toppled a dictator. Thats all we did, as far as ideology. A country that was no threat to us. Will Iraq be better off? That remains to be seen. We dont know what pulling out will bring, but rest assured, we are not going to let Iraq fall into the wrong anti-american hands. That would be total folly. So in fact, there is no true self determination for Iraq, it will be a pretend democracy ultimately controlled to a large extend by the US. The Iraq war was not in the least about freedom and democracy, it is about furthering our control of an unstable and oil producing region. People will now say to me, but we are pulling out! No, they are building permanent military bases there as we speak. http://enr.construction.com/news/Front2003...ives/040202.asp
QUOTE
I mean, these are young boys playing with these bodies and the wreckage, and I wanted to hurt 'em. Bad. But this is EXACTLY what THEY want. They want us to be disgusted day after day. They want soldiers to anguish in the tasks they aim to complete. They want us out.
You seem to forget that we made war on them. A people who did nothing to us. WE decided what was in THEIR best interest. They appear to disagree, at least to some extent.
Iraq has been invaded many times, and they have ALWAYS revolted, until their occupiers finally left. Whatever makes americans think they would have it any different now?
The country could easily fall into civil war, and besides that, what are the benefits to us from this great sacrifice?
I dont see the effectiveness of this war either in lives or money. I think it will be a bane to us for many years. I dont think it was worth it, especially for americans, however, I dont wish to offend anyone who sacrificed for it.
QUOTE
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
I am really put off by this. Let me explain in spritual philosophy. If one human being experiences all the suffering that any human can, or ultimate death, that single person is all that counts, because that is all that any one of us can experience, so numbers are completely irrelevant. Besides being an incredibly insensitive arguement to those who have lost their lives, as if they were insignificant because, really, its not so many. In that arguement 3,000 wasnt so many either. Ya think?
More than 10,000 Iraqis have died at our hands in one year, how many maimed and wounded and orphaned? Because? Saddam was a really bad guy and Iraq is now free. But thats 10,600 who are not free, but dead, and thier families will forever morn.
WHY?
One pseudo free country? (and unleashed spread of terrorism because of the invasion) Is this what american lives are worth now?
Give me a real reason that these lives were worth it and the many more to come.
"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams
QUOTE
Listen, i do not like war...nobody likes war. But people must understand that sometimes it is necessary. Most may not see it that way but i do. In iraq i see a nation that no longer lives under the tyranny of a dictator...now i see a nation that is free...WE FREED A NATION! We are giving these people what we have and i see that as something wonderful. Read the quote by John Stuart Mill in my sig...
The war was not necessary because the reason we went to war wasn't for WMD but
for some unknown reason still not revealed by our goverment. What happened yesterday in Iraq was terrible and awful. I immdeiately thought of Somalia, but I know we won't cut and run. Too much at stake now.
The Iraqi people DON'T want us there. They will only feel totally free when they are running the country for themselves WITHOUT ANY FOREIGN PRESENCE. Once we understand that, hopefully things will get better. But we must somehow get more international support to finish our mission.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 1 2004, 03:32 AM)
I guess some sense of the casualty numbers in other wars is in order?
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
If every death is a tragedy, why are we comparing stats of the number of deaths of US soldiers in other wars? Is that supposed to make people comfortable because we have less deaths in this war than others?
The bottom line is we fought a war not for the freedom of the Iraqis from a dictator because if that is the case, why are even talking to North Korea instead of invading the country? (So hypocritical, don't understand why some people buy this freedom of Iraqis garbage we are fed)The people there have been starving for decades. So this argument we should keep things in perspective because of the number of deaths in this war is less than others is ridiculous.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 31 2004, 10:32 PM)
I guess some sense of the casualty numbers in other wars is in order?
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy.
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy.
So what you're saying is that this is less of a tragedy than other wars we've been in? Wow. So comforting. You also forgot Gulf War I, which had fewer casualties.
Perhaps you can clearly state why this was "good" for America instead of "not as sucky as other wars". We already know that the "terrorism" argument is bunk. We know that the "he was a bad man" didn't really help America. The "he might have done something to us" is weak, considering he didn't and hadn't. Please give us disbelievers something to believe other than "it's not quite as sucky as WWI".
QUOTE(amf @ Apr 1 2004, 08:04 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 31 2004, 10:32 PM)
I guess some sense of the casualty numbers in other wars is in order?
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy.
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy.
So what you're saying is that this is less of a tragedy than other wars we've been in? Wow. So comforting. You also forgot Gulf War I, which had fewer casualties.
Perhaps you can clearly state why this was "good" for America instead of "not as sucky as other wars". We already know that the "terrorism" argument is bunk. We know that the "he was a bad man" didn't really help America. The "he might have done something to us" is weak, considering he didn't and hadn't. Please give us disbelievers something to believe other than "it's not quite as sucky as WWI".
Amf, quite frankly your entire line here is iffy at best.
There is no evidence that the conflict against the Nazis would have spilled over onto our soil, but we declared war on Germany (not the other way around). We were attacked by Japan, NOT Germany. How dare we attack Germany!
The wars in Korea and Vietnam did not directly threaten the US homeland. They were both based upon the same thing the war in Iraq is : containment of a threat.
That threat was based partially on Saddam's demonstrated ability and desire to use WMDs. The entire world thought he retained the capacity to produce and WMDs and most thought he still possessed the WMDs themselves. The Kaye report demonstrates that Saddam retained the capacity to MAKE WMDs in a timely fashion, even if he had no large stores of them (that we have found yet...).
Was the world duped by Saddam into believing he retained WMD capacity when he really did not? Perhaps. WMD report to raise new questions
QUOTE
But one thing is clear - so far no weapons have been found.
What is equally clear is that at some point in the past Iraq certainly had weapons - it used them to chilling effect.
And, equally, Iraq retained the scientific know-how, sufficient funding, and probably the strategic rationale to have weapons again at some time in the future.
What is equally clear is that at some point in the past Iraq certainly had weapons - it used them to chilling effect.
And, equally, Iraq retained the scientific know-how, sufficient funding, and probably the strategic rationale to have weapons again at some time in the future.
But we are in there now, and we need to see the job through.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 1 2004, 02:33 PM)
There is no evidence that the conflict against the Nazis would have spilled over onto our soil, but we declared war on Germany (not the other way around). We were attacked by Japan, NOT Germany. How dare we attack Germany!
If I may, a small factual point: After the Attack on Pearl Harbour, the US administration found itself in a real situation, The president wanted to go to war in Europe, but the attack by the Japanese had made that LESS likely, now the fury of the American People would be directed to the Pacific, not to Europe.
Fortunatly, Hitler solved that dillema by declaring war on the US on December 11th, allowing Roosevelt to divide the attentions of the US between both enemies. Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around.
QUOTE
There is no evidence that the conflict against the Nazis would have spilled over onto our soil, but we declared war on Germany (not the other way around). We were attacked by Japan, NOT Germany. How dare we attack Germany!
The wars in Korea and Vietnam did not directly threaten the US homeland. They were both based upon the same thing the war in Iraq is : containment of a threat.
The wars in Korea and Vietnam did not directly threaten the US homeland. They were both based upon the same thing the war in Iraq is : containment of a threat.
There never would have been a Hitler if we hadn't stuck our noses in Europe during WWI. The germans never could have held europe for any length of time and it was ONLY a CONTINUATION of the same idiocy that is the defining THEME of europe. We should of left them to themselves and their ignorance. As for Japan we could have focused our forces on them and them alone and crushed them like bugs if they had actually tried attacking us, which they never would have without the support of nazi germany.
QUOTE
That threat was based partially on Saddam's demonstrated ability and desire to use WMDs. The entire world thought he retained the capacity to produce and WMDs and most thought he still possessed the WMDs themselves. The Kaye report demonstrates that Saddam retained the capacity to MAKE WMDs in a timely fashion, even if he had no large stores of them (that we have found yet...).
We didn't give a damn when he was gassing Iranians and some of his biologicals came from American companies. We supported him and he was a great tool for us in our efforts to control a region only because we need the oil. Just LOVE that Saddam/Rumsfeld photo op. We are more than capable of creating different methods of energy and also making a huge profit from it. We would have long ago found ways to maximize the potential of petroleum or just found other means. Oil itself would probably be near worthless.
We got to the moon in ten years, you think we couldn't do the same for some alternative source of energy? The world would be at our doorstep right now for those technologies.
Iraq is the product of Britain's meddling in the world with their failure of an empire and they created this tragedy by forming a country around several peoples who were never friendly in any fashion whatsoever. As horrible as Saddam was he probably the only type of leader who could hold that region peacefully. It is the middle eastern balkans. Once the distraction of American forces is gone from iraq that place will come apart at the seams. They cannot even decide on a popular form of democracy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer
This is going to form a stable democracy?
QUOTE
I guess some sense of the casualty numbers in other wars is in order?
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy.
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy.
521,519 dead from the European Mistake alone. All because of meddling in and getting entangled in the affairs foreign interests.
If the people of the middle east WANT to live in a democracy then they will have to gain it on their own.
Even now the people in Iran are chafing against the rule of the religious hardliners and soon enough they will rise up and win their own freedom. Probably without our help.
All Iraq is going to do is lay the framework for future combat and death because of oil interests. However it won't be your backside in the line of fire it will be my son and the children of others who will die for oil. Cheered on and hypocritically mourned by ignorant flag waving fools who offer insipid platitudes of
QUOTE
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy.
600 deaths isn't so bad! Sometimes war is necessary! Statements such as these are disgusting. This country is capable of much more and will be when we get rid of suicidal philosophies such as those and the people so willing to sacrifice the lives of other people for their sense of patriotism, acceptable casualty numbers and profit margins.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 31 2004, 11:32 PM)
I guess some sense of the casualty numbers in other wars is in order?
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
QUOTE
So, are you telling me Amlord that numerically speaking, a bodycount of "only" 600 dead Americans is statisically trivial? Tell that to the families who are burying their dead.
This reminds me of what Stalin said, A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.
I keep reading that the U.S. can't "cut and run" in Iraq. Why is that? Will the country collapse into greater instability than it is now? Bush got us into this mess under less than clear reasons and now he has no plan how to get us out.
As it stands now, each and every one of those American deaths HAVE been in vain. Even one soldier killed for the greater glory of George W. Bush and his reelection campaign is one too many.
QUOTE(christopher @ Apr 1 2004, 04:27 PM)
There never would have been a Hitler if we hadn't stuck our noses in Europe during WWI. The germans never could have held europe for any length of time and it was ONLY a CONTINUATION of the same idiocy that is the defining THEME of europe. We should of left them to themselves and their ignorance.
I seem to be correcting a lot of History on this thread, though this post was particularily egregious.
The US did its best to stay out of WWI, and managed for the first four years of the war. It was only after repeated sinkings of US ships and deaths of US citizens that the United States got involved in the war. It was not a mater of the US 'sticking its nose into Europe' but rather defending its interests, and the interests of its allies.
Secondly, Germany in WWI was not after European domination, nor would they have held onto Europe, or even tried. Had Germany been victorious, the results would have been much like the Franco-Prussian war. Borders would have stayed essentially the same (probably with some minor anexations in Northern France, and some larger ones in Russia), large scale reparations and probably a few new colonial posessions to the victor. WWI was fought like a 19th century war, and at no point did the kaiser or his staff make any kind of comment which would lead anyone to thing they sought to dominate Europe as Hitler did.
Without the US in WWI, the end result would likey have been the same, it just would have taken to about 1920 to resolve it. By the time there were Americans on the ground in Europe, Germany was a glass house behind a steel front line, and fading quickly.
Please check your facts before making comments like the above, if you wish to continue this, I would be happy to in the History thread.
Oh, and idiocy is no more a defining theme of Europe than it is of the US or anywhere else, by the way...
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Apr 1 2004, 10:32 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 1 2004, 02:33 PM)
There is no evidence that the conflict against the Nazis would have spilled over onto our soil, but we declared war on Germany (not the other way around). We were attacked by Japan, NOT Germany. How dare we attack Germany!
If I may, a small factual point: After the Attack on Pearl Harbour, the US administration found itself in a real situation, The president wanted to go to war in Europe, but the attack by the Japanese had made that LESS likely, now the fury of the American People would be directed to the Pacific, not to Europe.
Fortunatly, Hitler solved that dillema by declaring war on the US on December 11th, allowing Roosevelt to divide the attentions of the US between both enemies. Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around.
My gaffe.
Congressional Declaration of WarQUOTE(nighttimer)
I keep reading that the U.S. can't "cut and run" in Iraq. Why is that? Will the country collapse into greater instability than it is now? Bush got us into this mess under less than clear reasons and now he has no plan how to get us out.
Despite what you may think, Iraq as a whole is fairly stable. The Sunni triangle remains the main area of resistance.
This is how CNN describes its section on "the New Iraq"
QUOTE
After toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein in less than a month, the United States and other coalition countries are struggling against an ongoing guerrilla resistance as the reconstruction of Iraq gets under way.
The New Iraq
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 1 2004, 03:32 AM)
I guess some sense of the casualty numbers in other wars is in order?
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
Well let’s see:
WWI – a war to stop German and Austro-Hungarian aggression
WWII – a war to stop German aggression
Korean – a war to stop N Korean aggression
Vietnam – a war to stop N Vietnam aggression
In your words, let’s keep this in perspective. Saddam was invading who at the time?
Nice comparison, I’m surprised we didn’t see stats from the Civil and Spanish/American war. I feel so much better knowing those who lost their lives in previous wars justifies the rising body count.
While I agree that we now need to finish what we started, there are no guarantees that whenever we do pull out, X number of years later we’ll be back in the same position.
My real angst over our current situation started before we ever invaded. There was no clear exit strategy and anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knew we were going to be locked into occupation for years.
What ever you want to call our current mess – 459 out of 597 soldiers have been killed since Dubya landed on the air craft carrier and declared the end of the war. Some time, some how, hopefully those who have argued for this invasion will understand that to some, oppression is far worse than occupation.
We can only hope we finally learn from our mistakes.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Apr 1 2004, 12:27 PM)
Some time, some how, hopefully those who have argued for this invasion will understand that to some, oppression is far worse than occupation.
Which is why the majority of Iraqis are happy to have us there. It was Saddam who oppressed them, not us.
The reasons for war against Iraq were multi-pronged, not a simply cut-and-dry "WMD". WMDs were a component, but not the only reason.
These deaths mean the freedom for 25 million Iraqis. These deaths mean that regimes like Libya's are actually afraid of US action against them, and start treading the straight and narrow. These deaths are the price to be paid for the spreading of freedom in the Middle East.
I want to ask a question? Was the first Gulf War a legal war and was the US right?
If you can or do answer yes, got real big news for those we say this war is illegal, etc.
This newsletter is modeled on the Gulf War Review newsletter that was initiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 1992 in response to health concerns expressed by some Gulf War veterans and their families regarding the possible long-term medical consequences of military service in Southwest Asia.
Technically, the Gulf War era began on August 2, 1990, and continues through a date to be set by law or by Presidential Proclamation. <b>On April 6, 1991, the first President Bush signed Public Law 102-25, which among other things established August 2, 1990, as the official starting date of the "Persian Gulf War." That law also provides that the War would end "on the date hereafter prescribed by Presidential proclamation or by law." To date, there has been no law or Presidential Proclamation.</b>
Seems this is just the continuence of Gulf War 1. Think about if folks, there was never a peace treaty signed, just a cease fire and one party didn't do their part, and that partys does go by the intials of GWB, try SH.
Anopther question? Does anyone here think that yesterdays attack was an attempt to re-enact Solmia? Seems the DVD "Black Hawk Down " is very popular there? Now ask your self this question. Why would they even think that the US would leave? Because they believe we are cowards and will run at the first real ugly stuff. Well.........if they are listening to the news from the US I can understand how they get that idea. I sure hope they are wrong. Our military is probably the best it has ever been, but can't and won't say the same thing about our society.
If you can or do answer yes, got real big news for those we say this war is illegal, etc.
This newsletter is modeled on the Gulf War Review newsletter that was initiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 1992 in response to health concerns expressed by some Gulf War veterans and their families regarding the possible long-term medical consequences of military service in Southwest Asia.
Technically, the Gulf War era began on August 2, 1990, and continues through a date to be set by law or by Presidential Proclamation. <b>On April 6, 1991, the first President Bush signed Public Law 102-25, which among other things established August 2, 1990, as the official starting date of the "Persian Gulf War." That law also provides that the War would end "on the date hereafter prescribed by Presidential proclamation or by law." To date, there has been no law or Presidential Proclamation.</b>
Seems this is just the continuence of Gulf War 1. Think about if folks, there was never a peace treaty signed, just a cease fire and one party didn't do their part, and that partys does go by the intials of GWB, try SH.
Anopther question? Does anyone here think that yesterdays attack was an attempt to re-enact Solmia? Seems the DVD "Black Hawk Down " is very popular there? Now ask your self this question. Why would they even think that the US would leave? Because they believe we are cowards and will run at the first real ugly stuff. Well.........if they are listening to the news from the US I can understand how they get that idea. I sure hope they are wrong. Our military is probably the best it has ever been, but can't and won't say the same thing about our society.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 1 2004, 01:12 PM)
Which is why the majority of Iraqis are happy to have us there. It was Saddam who oppressed them, not us.
These deaths mean the freedom for 25 million Iraqis. These deaths mean that regimes like Libya's are actually afraid of US action against them, and start treading the straight and narrow. These deaths are the price to be paid for the spreading of freedom in the Middle East.
These deaths mean the freedom for 25 million Iraqis. These deaths mean that regimes like Libya's are actually afraid of US action against them, and start treading the straight and narrow. These deaths are the price to be paid for the spreading of freedom in the Middle East.
Two problems with your argument (still):
1. No one truly cared in this country what Iraqis wanted before they became the WMD capital of the Muddle East (sic). Not too many folks really care now either. We DO care that we've lost 600 soldiers and billions of tax dollars for this stupidity.
2. What freedom in the Muddle East?? Oh, you mean Israel, the only democratic country there? Maybe I missed the GOP press release on which new country has freedom now? Since we know that Iraq is still run by an autocratic governing council and the CPA, neither of which reports to Iraqi voters, you surely can't mean them. And when was the last time Libya did anything to us? Or are you still fighting the Reagan-era fights?
Is it better for AMERICANS having 600 soldiers die for this mess? NO!
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 1 2004, 06:12 PM)
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Apr 1 2004, 12:27 PM)
Some time, some how, hopefully those who have argued for this invasion will understand that to some, oppression is far worse than occupation.
Which is why the majority of Iraqis are happy to have us there. It was Saddam who oppressed them, not us.
See what happens when you’re sleep deprived.
I meant to say this the other way around: some will view occupation far worse than oppression. Especially if the occupiers are the US.
I think we could all agree that our quality of life here is probably a bit better than their life, pre or post Saddam. But it doesn’t matter what we think, it matters what they think and that’s where we’ve failed.
And Amlord, I truly hope your sentiments resonate through to the other terrorists states and dictatorial countries.
Reported civilian deaths in Iraq range from 9,000 to 11,000. I'm sure that the orphaned children in Iraq are celebrating their newfound freedom. Maybe they are having a party! "My parents were killed by one of the 40,000 bombs dropped by the US, but now I am free!! Yippee!!!"
Forgive me for not valuing an American life over an Iraqi life. If we had lost zero soldiers, the cost to innocent people would still be too high. If people living under a dictatorship wish to struggle for their freedom, they may weigh their deaths as a "cost." Indeed, we should aid them in many ways, for their cause is noble. Our version of "getting rid of that yoke for them" should not include killing so many of them.
War is not part of human nature. People do not have a desire to go to war and kill others. Wars are propogated by people who have power over others. They either want to expand it, or defend it - so they send out the peasants to slaughter and be slaughtered.
So, do the means justify the end? This is a Machiavellian thread. It's a hard question to answer in any situation. Here, where the "end" has been morphing all over the map, I have to give a resounding "no."
Forgive me for not valuing an American life over an Iraqi life. If we had lost zero soldiers, the cost to innocent people would still be too high. If people living under a dictatorship wish to struggle for their freedom, they may weigh their deaths as a "cost." Indeed, we should aid them in many ways, for their cause is noble. Our version of "getting rid of that yoke for them" should not include killing so many of them.
War is not part of human nature. People do not have a desire to go to war and kill others. Wars are propogated by people who have power over others. They either want to expand it, or defend it - so they send out the peasants to slaughter and be slaughtered.
So, do the means justify the end? This is a Machiavellian thread. It's a hard question to answer in any situation. Here, where the "end" has been morphing all over the map, I have to give a resounding "no."
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 1 2004, 03:32 AM)
I guess some sense of the casualty numbers in other wars is in order?
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
World War I: 116,516 dead
World War II: 405,399 dead
Korea : 54,246 dead
Vietnam : 56,244 dead
The War in Iraq? less than 600.
Yes, every death (both civilian and military) is a tragedy. But we need to keep a sense of perspective.
If we tuck tail now, every single one of those deaths will have been in vain.
If we’re to keep things in perspective then it should be noted especially in the case of the Vietnam War that the total is for the 13 years the war lasted. The Iraq War just finished its first year.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Mar 31 2004, 07:33 PM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 1 2004, 01:22 AM)
The question is: From the results so far, was the war worth it?
YES
In iraq i see a nation that no longer lives under the tyranny of a dictator...now i see a nation that is free...WE FREED A NATION!
We freed a nation?? Ronald Reagan cared less about it if you want to pursue the conversatin along that line. Bush I and Rumsfeld visited the "butcher of baghdad" and provided military intelligence and satellite imagery to the Hussein regime. The point? The moral sanctimony doesn't match the historical record, sorry. The sanctions must have done a good job, because since they were implemented, no other Arab nation had been invaded-heck, we can't even find the WMDs!! We haven't freed them, we've just opened pandora's box to a civil war that will see a triangle of blood between the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.
So, let me get this right. There was Saddam, basically minding his own business. He hadn't invaded another Country in what, 10 years?
He didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he did nothing to prove the destruction of these.
He was using that Money from the "Oil for Food" program, to what? Buy food for his people?
I read that 9 to 11 thousand Iraqi's died in the Invasion. Isn't that roughly the same number that would have been killed by Saddam for speaking out against him in what, 9 months?
And of course, a dictator that had rape rooms would never have collaborated with Terrorist. Heck, if he did we would have surely found them "terrorist meeting minutes" by now.
He didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he did nothing to prove the destruction of these.
He was using that Money from the "Oil for Food" program, to what? Buy food for his people?
I read that 9 to 11 thousand Iraqi's died in the Invasion. Isn't that roughly the same number that would have been killed by Saddam for speaking out against him in what, 9 months?
And of course, a dictator that had rape rooms would never have collaborated with Terrorist. Heck, if he did we would have surely found them "terrorist meeting minutes" by now.
What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Considerig US policy on every other dictator with the possibility of getting WMD, cooperating with terrorists, and opressing their people is so clean....oh wait, most of the hijackers were Saudis, opressive torturing dictators and they are our good buddies good pals, hmm let me think, Israel has (hidden) WMB and is considered the biggest threat to world peace, but we are also in their pocket...A bit of hypocracy.
I guess Saddam was just a mark, and Iraqis somehow deserved the benevolent hand of america deciding their fate for them, above all others.
Considerig US policy on every other dictator with the possibility of getting WMD, cooperating with terrorists, and opressing their people is so clean....oh wait, most of the hijackers were Saudis, opressive torturing dictators and they are our good buddies good pals, hmm let me think, Israel has (hidden) WMB and is considered the biggest threat to world peace, but we are also in their pocket...A bit of hypocracy.
I guess Saddam was just a mark, and Iraqis somehow deserved the benevolent hand of america deciding their fate for them, above all others.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 1 2004, 02:12 PM)
These deaths mean the freedom for 25 million Iraqis. These deaths mean that regimes like Libya's are actually afraid of US action against them, and start treading the straight and narrow. These deaths are the price to be paid for the spreading of freedom in the Middle East.
QUOTE
Your justifications for the war in Iraq could have come straight out of a campaign commercial for Bush43, Amlord.
But there's a wall in Washington with the names of 56,244 men and women who died to prevent the spread of communism, protect South Vietnam from the North Vietnam and prevent the domino theory of other countries around Vietnam succumbing to the Red threat.
So what happened? We declared victory, came home and all those things happened anyway.
There's almost 60,000 names on a black wall that can give you all kinds of reasons to justify why they went to some Third World hellhole and came back dead except they can't say anything.
The reasons you give Amlord speak to the higher nature of Americans and the blind conceit that we don't get into war for the wrong reasons. We don't want to say we went to war so Bechtel and Halliburton and General Electric could boost their profit margins. We don't want to say we are spending over $109 billion dollars so far in Iraq and that's $109 billion we don't have to spend on health, education and the environment.
We don't want to say that people who run this country send people who don't to die in the wars they start. We don't want to say that five or ten years from now when people start dying from handling depleted uranium while other people get rich on oil that making a buck was what all this misery was about.
You believe in abstract talking points like "freedom for 25 million Iraqis" Amlord. I believe in the reality that war in Iraq means profit for Corporate America and whether it's 600 American soldiers or 6,000 or 60,000 there's no number of the dead and wounded and destroyed lives that would change the mind of those convinced our reasons for this war were good, honorable and necessary.
And the Saudi Government invaded which Countries in the past decade?
Yes there are a whole lotta bad folk in the World. Guess it's best to ignore theme all?
Lets remember, the Saudi's gave us bases to use when we repelled Iraq from Kuwait. Was that a bad thing also.
Of course not. How could you possibly argue that it was?
Since you brought it up. Please do tell me what they would say. Do you believe they would say their lives were wasted? No, I think they would speak on terms of Valor, of Courage and the Value of one human defending a weaker human.
Sorry, like the man once said. "I ain't buyin what you are sellin"
Yes there are a whole lotta bad folk in the World. Guess it's best to ignore theme all?
Lets remember, the Saudi's gave us bases to use when we repelled Iraq from Kuwait. Was that a bad thing also.
Of course not. How could you possibly argue that it was?
QUOTE
There's almost 60,000 names on a black wall that can give you all kinds of reasons to justify why they went to some Third World hellhole and came back dead except they can't say anything.
Since you brought it up. Please do tell me what they would say. Do you believe they would say their lives were wasted? No, I think they would speak on terms of Valor, of Courage and the Value of one human defending a weaker human.
Sorry, like the man once said. "I ain't buyin what you are sellin"
QUOTE
Since you brought it up. Please do tell me what they would say.
The dead cannot talk, of course. But listen to the combat vets from Vietnam and Iraq.
That is, after the Iraq vets are free to tell the truth (discharged).
But are these really combat vets any longer? Thought the war was over. No, I guess it isn't. Or maybe it is. Whatever.
So talk to the nation builders once they are discharged and can tell the truth.
YES. The war was the resolution of the unresolved issues from the first war. Since the UN could not do their job we made the correct decision to move forward and deal with the murderous regime ourselves.
This latest incident underscores the reality in Iraq. Some said Saddam would never have passed WMD to Al Queada since they did not agree on some issues of faith.
Does anyone still believe that silly idea? The people who committed the horrendous murders in Iraq this week are the people who ran the country before the US invasion. Is there any doubt that given the opportunity to kill tens of thousands of Americans, even indirectly, they would not take it?
Also as pointed out the death toll is a tiny fraction of that of other “wars” including the UN Korean “war” that cost this country 52,000 me and accomplished exactly nothing.
This latest incident underscores the reality in Iraq. Some said Saddam would never have passed WMD to Al Queada since they did not agree on some issues of faith.
Does anyone still believe that silly idea? The people who committed the horrendous murders in Iraq this week are the people who ran the country before the US invasion. Is there any doubt that given the opportunity to kill tens of thousands of Americans, even indirectly, they would not take it?
Also as pointed out the death toll is a tiny fraction of that of other “wars” including the UN Korean “war” that cost this country 52,000 me and accomplished exactly nothing.
QUOTE
But listen to the combat vets from Vietnam and Iraq.
That is, after the Iraq vets are free to tell the truth (discharged).
That is, after the Iraq vets are free to tell the truth (discharged).
OK, I have 1 brothers (combat vet of Vietnam), 1 nephew (Bosnia), 1 nephew (dessert storm) 1 cousin (dessert Storm) 2 cousins (Vietnam), 1 nephew (Somalia). All who speak of their service in the terms of valor, courage and the principle that the United States(strong) should help the weak.
Then there is my Son, currently in Kuwait after being in Iraq for 9 months. Pretty much says the same thing. Of corse, he might be lying to his old man, he is after all still in the service of his country
Lets be clar about a couple things:
Iraq is not AT THE MOMENT free at all. It is run by a council of appointees chosen by an American apointee who chose the council for their Pro-»Western leanings. In the meantime, terrorist organisations have now become active in the country that were not there before, bombs are still going off and ambushes are still killing people in the street. I don't just mean US soldiers, I mean the many more Iraqis that are now being targeted by each other and by external forces.
Now the power is back on and the water is running, but law and order is still hard to come by.
So when you speak of freeing Iraq, this is in fact not true... yet. Might it yet become true? Yes, it is quite possible that Iraq will be able to set itself up as a free state not under US control, able to make its own decisions. However that is an exceptionally difficult task, a task the US refused to prepare for before the war. (See: Commentary by James Fallows- The Atlantic Jan-Feb). It is a task which could fail in a hundred different ways, and if even if successful could easily result in a state which is in fact free, but elects an anti-US government. This the US will likely not allow.
So did you free a country? No, you did not. You exchanged Baathist tyranny for US controlled oligarchy. Clearly the new government does not have the iron fist of the old, however given the chaos whaich has accompanied that invasion, the introduction of international terorism to the state, and the continuing deaths and injuries, and the potential for future disater if this is not handled pefectly, the jury is still very much out on wheither it is a positive change
Iraq is not AT THE MOMENT free at all. It is run by a council of appointees chosen by an American apointee who chose the council for their Pro-»Western leanings. In the meantime, terrorist organisations have now become active in the country that were not there before, bombs are still going off and ambushes are still killing people in the street. I don't just mean US soldiers, I mean the many more Iraqis that are now being targeted by each other and by external forces.
Now the power is back on and the water is running, but law and order is still hard to come by.
So when you speak of freeing Iraq, this is in fact not true... yet. Might it yet become true? Yes, it is quite possible that Iraq will be able to set itself up as a free state not under US control, able to make its own decisions. However that is an exceptionally difficult task, a task the US refused to prepare for before the war. (See: Commentary by James Fallows- The Atlantic Jan-Feb). It is a task which could fail in a hundred different ways, and if even if successful could easily result in a state which is in fact free, but elects an anti-US government. This the US will likely not allow.
So did you free a country? No, you did not. You exchanged Baathist tyranny for US controlled oligarchy. Clearly the new government does not have the iron fist of the old, however given the chaos whaich has accompanied that invasion, the introduction of international terorism to the state, and the continuing deaths and injuries, and the potential for future disater if this is not handled pefectly, the jury is still very much out on wheither it is a positive change
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Apr 1 2004, 01:33 AM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 1 2004, 01:22 AM)
The question is: From the results so far, was the war worth it?
YES
Listen, i do not like war...nobody likes war. But people must understand that sometimes it is necessary. Most may not see it that way but i do. In iraq i see a nation that no longer lives under the tyranny of a dictator...now i see a nation that is free...WE FREED A NATION! We are giving these people what we have and i see that as something wonderful. Read the quote by John Stuart Mill in my sig...
Just out of curiosity, were you this supportive of Clinton when he “freed” Kosovo from the murdering, ethnic cleansing, dictator Milosevic?
The reason I am asking is that I’m hearing a lot of praise from people I know for Bush because he “freed” the people of Iraq. Yet just a few years ago these very same people were cursing Clinton for “freeing” the people of Kosovo and getting American troops involved somewhere they had no business being.
It seems to me that if you are a big supporter of using America’s might and our soldiers lives going around the world “freeing” people you should be equally supportive of Clinton and Bush because both presidents used force without the approval of the United Nations in order to attack and invade countries for the purpose of "freeing" the population.
QUOTE
OK, I have 1 brothers (combat vet of Vietnam), 1 nephew (Bosnia), 1 nephew (dessert storm) 1 cousin (dessert Storm) 2 cousins (Vietnam), 1 nephew (Somalia). All who speak of their service in the terms of valor, courage and the principle that the United States(strong) should help the weak.
Then there is my Son, currently in Kuwait after being in Iraq for 9 months. Pretty much says the same thing. Of corse, he might be lying to his old man, he is after all still in the service of his country
Then there is my Son, currently in Kuwait after being in Iraq for 9 months. Pretty much says the same thing. Of corse, he might be lying to his old man, he is after all still in the service of his country
While in service to the US in the armed services, freedom of speech is limited. Remember the soldiers who were outspoken early on in Iraq? Maybe not. They were commanded to be quiet (putting it nicely).
I have one uncle (deceased) who came back from WWII shell-shocked, one brother who came back from Vietnam on drugs, and a cousin who came back from Korea missing a few parts. I've also celebrated Memorial Day at The Wall with veterans from all over the country and world and had conversations with Gulf vets. I'll probably get to meet some Afghanistan and Iraq vets down the road.
It's interesting to hear what they have to say when free to do so. Is that difficult to understand? Your family might feel free with you or might not. That depends. I'm appreciative of the vets I've met who opened up to me to get their stories at least heard by someone. Now that I've gotten a few things published, maybe these or future stories will find themselves in print.
The thing is that every vet I've met is somewhat different from the others. So when I suggest we talk with the vets themselves, that's what I'm getting at. Assuming all veterans consider their service to have been valorous, courageous and principled is a good way to shut off any meaningful conversation. Some do not feel this way at all. Others might feel their behavior in battle was not a big deal, so why all the medals? Well, I could go on and on while reflecting on those conversations.
But that's not the point. Living veterans are more interesting to talk with than dead veterans.
Maybe you know: Are soldiers still considered in a combat zone while in Iraq?
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Apr 2 2004, 11:08 AM)
Maybe you know: Are soldiers still considered in a combat zone while in Iraq?
There are a lot of designated combat zones throughout the world, AM. The Persian Gulf area has been considered a combat zone since 1991. I expect it will continue to be one for many years to come since Bosnia and Herzegovina still are as well.
To answer the question for debate..."was it worth it so far?" No, but we're in it, and we have to finish it as well as we can. It might be "worth it", in retrospect, depending on what happens in the future with Iraq. Time will tell.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 2 2004, 12:26 PM)
To answer the question for debate..."was it worth it so far?" No, but we're in it, and we have to finish it as well as we can. It might be "worth it", in retrospect, depending on what happens in the future with Iraq. Time will tell.
Yes, I believe by early-1863 a majority in the North were seriously wondering if the Civil War was worth it.
QUOTE
It's interesting to hear what they have to say when free to do so. Is that difficult to understand? Your family might feel free with you or might not. That depends.
How difficult is it to talk openly with a pro-war, pro-Bush supporter, especially if that person is a veteran, more so if you are a soldier yourself and are not in agreement? Even civilians are named cowards and appeasers, anti-patriots and anti-american. Most of us just give up, even with our family members. Sometimes we dont mention it at all just to keep the peace.
Looking at sites like Veterans for Common Sense tells how differently some veterans think on this war in Iraq.
Every Marine is forced to memorize that Smedley Butler is the most decorated Marine, yet few are told that he described his service as "a gangster for capitalism" because "war is a racket."
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/story.asp?id=19
QUOTE(Hugo @ Apr 2 2004, 06:49 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 2 2004, 12:26 PM)
To answer the question for debate..."was it worth it so far?" No, but we're in it, and we have to finish it as well as we can. It might be "worth it", in retrospect, depending on what happens in the future with Iraq. Time will tell.
Yes, I believe by early-1863 a majority in the North were seriously wondering if the Civil War was worth it.
You are not REALLY trying to make some kind of comparsion of events in Iraq to Civil War are you??????
I won't even attempt to reply to that.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Apr 1 2004, 04:48 PM)
QUOTE(christopher @ Apr 1 2004, 04:27 PM)
There never would have been a Hitler if we hadn't stuck our noses in Europe during WWI. The germans never could have held europe for any length of time and it was ONLY a CONTINUATION of the same idiocy that is the defining THEME of europe. We should of left them to themselves and their ignorance.
I seem to be correcting a lot of History on this thread, though this post was particularily egregious.
The US did its best to stay out of WWI, and managed for the first four years of the war. It was only after repeated sinkings of US ships and deaths of US citizens that the United States got involved in the war. It was not a mater of the US 'sticking its nose into Europe' but rather defending its interests, and the interests of its allies.
Secondly, Germany in WWI was not after European domination, nor would they have held onto Europe, or even tried. Had Germany been victorious, the results would have been much like the Franco-Prussian war. Borders would have stayed essentially the same (probably with some minor anexations in Northern France, and some larger ones in Russia), large scale reparations and probably a few new colonial posessions to the victor. WWI was fought like a 19th century war, and at no point did the kaiser or his staff make any kind of comment which would lead anyone to thing they sought to dominate Europe as Hitler did.
Without the US in WWI, the end result would likey have been the same, it just would have taken to about 1920 to resolve it. By the time there were Americans on the ground in Europe, Germany was a glass house behind a steel front line, and fading quickly.
Please check your facts before making comments like the above, if you wish to continue this, I would be happy to in the History thread.
Oh, and idiocy is no more a defining theme of Europe than it is of the US or anywhere else, by the way...
Added onto this: the Zimmermann telegram.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 1 2004, 06:12 PM)
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Apr 1 2004, 12:27 PM)
Some time, some how, hopefully those who have argued for this invasion will understand that to some, oppression is far worse than occupation.
Which is why the majority of Iraqis are happy to have us there. It was Saddam who oppressed them, not us.
The reasons for war against Iraq were multi-pronged, not a simply cut-and-dry "WMD". WMDs were a component, but not the only reason.
These deaths mean the freedom for 25 million Iraqis. These deaths mean that regimes like Libya's are actually afraid of US action against them, and start treading the straight and narrow. These deaths are the price to be paid for the spreading of freedom in the Middle East.
WMDs weren't the only reason, but they were the primary reason given to the American people, and were, in effect, misleading.
SirVLCIV, Please avoid double posting. You can use the EDIT button to amend or add to your post within 12 hours, if nobody has posted since you have. It's a convenient way to avoid cluttering the forum.
The best possible scenario for Iraq,would be a jerusalem like status in that rejoin. I am sure george wb would be very happy with that. Given the region and history it's a no brainer . there will be war there and always will. We could relocate the jews that might help, We could encourage a united arabia , Hmm that would mean they would have some clout in the world against the oil guzzlers. We will and have kept the region unstable. George wb is renaming the defence department to offencsive dept. castro once said of this country becoming like a communist state . George and dick believe strongly in monopolies . Conservatives keep saying this is the best shape the country has been in 20 years ,there even trying to say gas prices are so high because of kerry. Where is the gas shortage ,is there a single gas station in this country that cannot get gas , We are using more gas than ever . We are being pricescalped by George/Dick and his oil company friends. Oh yes I forgot Dick did say the oil industry has been running soooooooooo lean, Hey Dick you want to see lean look in my wallet after I fill up .
QUOTE
Vermillion
Iraq is not AT THE MOMENT free at all.
Iraq is not AT THE MOMENT free at all.
Well, I guess the fine folks on this thread will have to establish the parameters for 'free'.
Does freedom entail alleviating the fear of punishment if one speaks their mind?
Iraqis protest all the time. Not to mention that there were only eleven state run newspapers during the regime. Now, there are more than a hundred privately operated ones.. So they do enjoy freedom.
Does freedom entail the ability to change the world you live in?
Soon after we leave, the democratic process will put down roots all over Iraq and a new generation will be able to make Iraq strong. So they do enjoy freedom.
Does freedom entail the ability to not starve to death, not to worry about the secret police, not to worry weather you would find yourself in a torture chamber?
Then I'd say that, although there is progress to be made, Iraq is a pretty free nation right now.
QUOTE(Titus @ Apr 2 2004, 10:01 PM)
QUOTE
Vermillion
Iraq is not AT THE MOMENT free at all.
Iraq is not AT THE MOMENT free at all.
Well, I guess the fine folks on this thread will have to establish the parameters for 'free'.
Does freedom entail alleviating the fear of punishment if one speaks their mind?
Iraqis protest all the time. Not to mention that there were only eleven state run newspapers during the regime. Now, there are more than a hundred privately operated ones.. So they do enjoy freedom.
Does freedom entail the ability to change the world you live in?
Soon after we leave, the democratic process will put down roots all over Iraq and a new generation will be able to make Iraq strong. So they do enjoy freedom.
Does freedom entail the ability to not starve to death, not to worry about the secret police, not to worry weather you would find yourself in a torture chamber?
Then I'd say that, although there is progress to be made, Iraq is a pretty free nation right now.
Evidently you haven't read in another thread that one shiite weekly,Al Hawza was closed down by the Bush Adminstration. Is that the freedom you were talking about. Free as long as you agree with Bush.
Haha, you didn't think I'd see that one coming. Well any newspaper in the United States would be shut down if it called for the muder of hundreds or thousands.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
QUOTE(Titus @ Apr 2 2004, 10:56 PM)
Haha, you didn't think I'd see that one coming. Well any newspaper in the United States would be shut down if it called for the muder of hundreds or thousands.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
Of course this is just my opinion and I may be sticking my neck out,but I don't believe a newspaper in the United States would be shut down unless there was definitely a law that was broken.
We have underground newspapers in Atlanta that advocate undesirable events to certain law enforcement officials and they have never been closed down.
Closing the newspaper in Iraq will do more harm than letting it operate.
[QUOTE=popeye47,Apr 2 2004, 01:21 PM] [/QUOTE]
Yes, I believe by early-1863 a majority in the North were seriously wondering if the Civil War was worth it.[/QUOTE]
You are not REALLY trying to make some kind of comparsion of events in Iraq to Civil War are you??????
I won't even attempt to reply to that. [/QUOTE]
Probably because the point that you can't judge the outcome of a war until after it is over is irrefutable.
[QUOTE]Of course this is just my opinion and I may be sticking my neck out,but I don't believe a newspaper in the United States would be shut down unless there was definitely a law that was broken[/QUOTE]
There were a lot of newspapers shut down during our Civil War. In civil wars curbs on free speech are inevitable, and sometimes necessary.
Yes, I believe by early-1863 a majority in the North were seriously wondering if the Civil War was worth it.[/QUOTE]
You are not REALLY trying to make some kind of comparsion of events in Iraq to Civil War are you??????
I won't even attempt to reply to that. [/QUOTE]
Probably because the point that you can't judge the outcome of a war until after it is over is irrefutable.
[QUOTE]Of course this is just my opinion and I may be sticking my neck out,but I don't believe a newspaper in the United States would be shut down unless there was definitely a law that was broken[/QUOTE]
There were a lot of newspapers shut down during our Civil War. In civil wars curbs on free speech are inevitable, and sometimes necessary.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Apr 2 2004, 09:07 AM)
Iraq is not AT THE MOMENT free at all. It is run by a council of appointees chosen by an American apointee who chose the council for their Pro-»Western leanings. In the meantime, terrorist organisations have now become active in the country that were not there before, bombs are still going off and ambushes are still killing people in the street. I don't just mean US soldiers, I mean the many more Iraqis that are now being targeted by each other and by external forces.
Vermillion has touched on an important point here. Some people(i.e.-the President) use to state that nation building was a futile act, that to some degree-a nation has to have motivated individuals with a respectable following before stability and democracy can flourish in that given nation. We have a government that governs by appointment, not election; a government that many of it's own people view as being illegitimate and corrupt, as well as a weak military that hasn't shown the mettle to stand and fight, coupled with territories that are basically self-governing. Over 70% of people in Fallujah believe it's o.k. to kill westerners, and a key Sunni leader is advocating more protests against us(Sadr) Yes, their newspapers are printing lies and there is no "absolute" freedom to publish or yell out what you say or believe. At the same time, the will of the people is being manifest, and it's not on our side by any definition.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 1 2004, 01:22 AM)
Once upon a time in Iraq...
BAGHDAD, Iraq - In one of the bloodiest and most horrifying days since the end of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, five U.S. troops and four American civilian contractors were killed in separate attacks in the Sunni Triangle west of Baghdad. After an ambush on two vehicles carrying the civilian contractors in Fallujah, jubilant Iraqis burned and mutilated the dead, then dragged two corpses through the streets and hung them from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River.
The brutal treatment of the bodies occurred after the contractors — four American employees of a North Carolina security company — were killed in a rebel attack on their two SUVs in the city about 35 miles west of Baghdad, scene of some of the worst violence on both sides of the conflict since the beginning of the American occupation a year ago.
Associated Press Television News pictures showed one man beating a charred corpse with a metal pole. Others tied a yellow rope to a body, hooked it to a car and dragged it down the main street of town. Two blackened and mangled corpses were hung from a green iron bridge across the Euphrates.
“The people of Fallujah hanged some of the bodies on the old bridge like slaughtered sheep,” resident Abdul Aziz Mohammed said. Some of the corpses were dismembered, he said.
Beneath the bodies, a man held a printed sign with a skull and crossbones and the phrase “Fallujah is the cemetery for Americans.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/
March 30 - The gnashing of teeth you hear at the Pentagon is caused by deep concern over Army morale and suicide numbers that are upside down. The long-awaited Mental Health Advisory Team survey released a few days ago showed that unit morale is low-72 percent called it bad-and that suicide among U.S. troops in Iraq is high—35 percent higher than soldiers stationed elsewhere. And those numbers don’t include suicides that happened once soldiers returned home. The report is alarming because it points to a military that’s being stretched too thin. But the Army should also accept that its plan to treat battle stress isn't working.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632956/
Exhausted American and British special forces troopers, the West's front line in the war on terrorism, are resigning in record numbers and taking highly-paid jobs as private security guards in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senior US commanders are so alarmed that they have held emergency meetings to agree new deals on pay and conditions for the men.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...04/03/31/ixworl
When Alyssa Kopp closes her eyes at night, the children creep into her sleep.
Sad and desperate, they approach her convoy, rocket-propelled grenade launchers slung over their small shoulders.
"You never know if they're going to shoot you or want to trade" their weapons for food, says Kopp, a 28-year-old Army reservist who spent months in the Middle East desert with the 814th Military Police Company based in Chicago.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar04/211546.asp
I've listened to the White House and the President tell America that the blood, the pain and the waste was worth it. Saddam has been toppled from power though if this is peace in Iraq, let's hope we never see war.
No Weapons of Mass Destruction. Scores of dead and wounded. Al Qaeda still on the attack. Greater terrorism activity by Al Qaeda 30 months after 9/11 than the 30 months before 9/11.
The question is: From the results so far, was the war worth it?
Asked and answered: Emphatically NO.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - In one of the bloodiest and most horrifying days since the end of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, five U.S. troops and four American civilian contractors were killed in separate attacks in the Sunni Triangle west of Baghdad. After an ambush on two vehicles carrying the civilian contractors in Fallujah, jubilant Iraqis burned and mutilated the dead, then dragged two corpses through the streets and hung them from a bridge spanning the Euphrates River.
The brutal treatment of the bodies occurred after the contractors — four American employees of a North Carolina security company — were killed in a rebel attack on their two SUVs in the city about 35 miles west of Baghdad, scene of some of the worst violence on both sides of the conflict since the beginning of the American occupation a year ago.
Associated Press Television News pictures showed one man beating a charred corpse with a metal pole. Others tied a yellow rope to a body, hooked it to a car and dragged it down the main street of town. Two blackened and mangled corpses were hung from a green iron bridge across the Euphrates.
“The people of Fallujah hanged some of the bodies on the old bridge like slaughtered sheep,” resident Abdul Aziz Mohammed said. Some of the corpses were dismembered, he said.
Beneath the bodies, a man held a printed sign with a skull and crossbones and the phrase “Fallujah is the cemetery for Americans.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4551230/
March 30 - The gnashing of teeth you hear at the Pentagon is caused by deep concern over Army morale and suicide numbers that are upside down. The long-awaited Mental Health Advisory Team survey released a few days ago showed that unit morale is low-72 percent called it bad-and that suicide among U.S. troops in Iraq is high—35 percent higher than soldiers stationed elsewhere. And those numbers don’t include suicides that happened once soldiers returned home. The report is alarming because it points to a military that’s being stretched too thin. But the Army should also accept that its plan to treat battle stress isn't working.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4632956/
Exhausted American and British special forces troopers, the West's front line in the war on terrorism, are resigning in record numbers and taking highly-paid jobs as private security guards in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senior US commanders are so alarmed that they have held emergency meetings to agree new deals on pay and conditions for the men.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...04/03/31/ixworl
When Alyssa Kopp closes her eyes at night, the children creep into her sleep.
Sad and desperate, they approach her convoy, rocket-propelled grenade launchers slung over their small shoulders.
"You never know if they're going to shoot you or want to trade" their weapons for food, says Kopp, a 28-year-old Army reservist who spent months in the Middle East desert with the 814th Military Police Company based in Chicago.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar04/211546.asp
I've listened to the White House and the President tell America that the blood, the pain and the waste was worth it. Saddam has been toppled from power though if this is peace in Iraq, let's hope we never see war.
No Weapons of Mass Destruction. Scores of dead and wounded. Al Qaeda still on the attack. Greater terrorism activity by Al Qaeda 30 months after 9/11 than the 30 months before 9/11.
The question is: From the results so far, was the war worth it?
Asked and answered: Emphatically NO.
Collin Powell is now criticizing the intelligence community for being flawed , only to justify the invasion of Iraq. 600 and climbing dead , If our leaders new this as flawed information ,is this grounds for impeachment. With all the lives lost this makes watergate look like a child stealing a 5 cent piece of candy at the local store.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 1 2004, 01:22 AM)
The question is: From the results so far, was the war worth it?
The answer is a definate, unrestrained YES.
1 - Saddam is gone.
2 - One more percieved regional/world threat is no longer there to worry about. (It makes no difference if the threat turned out not to be real. If a police Officer tells an individual to stop and that person reaches into their clothing, the Officer has every right to fire on that individual in self defense. The officer will be exonerated and the shooting deemed "good". All from a from a percieved threat.) That's as simply as I can explain it.
3 - The entire M.E. has now seen the resolve of the British and American governments. They have seen the power of our military and our willingness to use that military when we percieve a threat. Dispite all lines drawn in the sand and other inane threats.
4. We are seeing regimes attempt to make appeasing adjustments in hopes that they will be overlooked if it seems they are inching towards the 21st Century.
5. Most of all we are seeing the Iraqi people free for the first time in two decades trying to make a new country that all groups can live in.
I am afraid all too many posters in their anti-war zeal forget about the Iraqis and what they have undergone. These posters harp on the Losses to both sides, but never speak of the gains. Here is a few Iraqi thoughts.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/G...oll_040314.html
An ABCNEWS poll conducted among a random, representative sample of 2,737 Iraqis in face-to-face interviews across the country from Feb. 9-28-04.
US Led Invasion:
Was Right -- -- All 48%...Arabs 40%...Kurds 87%
Was Wrong -- -- All 39%...Arabs 46%...Kurds 9%
Attacks on Coalition Forces:
Acceptable -- -- All 17%...Arabs 21%...Kurds 2%
Unacceptable -- -- All 78%...Arabs 74%... Kurd 96%
How Iraqis See Their Lives Overall:
How are things going today:
Good -- All 70%...North 85%...South 65%...Central 70%...Baghdad 67%
Bad -- All 29%$...North 14%...South 34%...Central 28%...Baghdad 32%
Compared to the year before the war:
Better -- All 56%...North 70%...South 63%...Central 54%...Baghdad 46%
Same -- All 23%...North 15%...South 21%...Central 22%...Baghdad 31%
Worse -- All 19%...North 13%...South 13%...Central 23%...Baghdad 23%
How They'll be a year from now:
Better -- All 71%...North 83%...South 74%...Central 70%...Baghdad 63%
Same -- All 9%...North 4%... South 6%... Central 10%...Baghdad 16%
Worse -- All 7%...North 1%...South 4%...Central 9%...Baghdad 10%
-----------------------
Only in Baghdad and among Sunnis are the results of the invasion of Iraq not appreciated and even among those, it is the few that are causing the trouble.
We and the Coalition are taking hits and will continue to take hits. The people really being hurt are the Iraqis themselves. however according to the polls, they are taking it much better then some here in the states that have lost nothing in this war.
1SG
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.