Would more U.S. troops help stop Iraq violence?

[astr0creep]

Please. Don't remind me. The day Quebec leaves this greta country is the day I will finally get gloriouslyd runk for the first time in celebration.

 

P.S. I am, by blood, French.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So am I and I'll probably join you in celebration.

 

P.S. Maybe we can discuss philosophy and logic...

[213374U]

How specific do you have to be though.  Australia committed atrocities against the indigenous aborginies, but did they have a civil war, revolution, or a devastating conflict?

 

[...]

 

The British and French frequently had colonial wars, but what is Canada's history of civil wars, revolutions, and devastating conflict?

Australia was a penal colony established by the British just one year prior to the French revolution and during a period of great unrest and change in Europe. They were for all intents and purposes British. I'm sure you can see how England's conflicts affected and influenced Australia as well. The same goes for Canada. Those two didn't acquire a distinct national identity until later, when "modern" society had already been developed, an aspect they inherited from their metropolis. I thought this was pretty obvious.

 

 

What civil wars, revolutions, or devastating conflicts did Sweden have after the concept of the Nation-State was conceived?  They took part in conflicts prior to that (as did many other European countries), so I suppose that that is what you are looking at?

Yes, Sweden and the rest of the nordic countries didn't suffer civil wars per se (that I know of), but they were close enough to the French revolution, the religious wars and power struggles of the 16-18th centuries to be permeated by their influence.

 

 

Besides, I specifically said "civil war," not revolutions, nor devastating conficts.

I'm sure there's a point in being purposefully limited in your scope, but I can't see what it would be. Trying to understand how modern society came to be without taking into consideration the weight revolutions and other conflicts have had is like reading only a book's even pages. The thing is that western culture and history have been written in blood. We have peace now because our forebears paid dearly for it. Edited January 10, 2007 by 213374U

[Colrom]

[1] To just sit idle by and watch someone even more cruel take the mantle of dictator only to eventually be forced to move in again later and crush a new merging power - is not only stupid and shortsigthed but also signs of a dangerously ignorant attitude towards others. Especially saying that they derserve what's coming to them .. I won't punish you for being the friendly neighbour of a serial killer. (A rather limited analogy - but you get the point)

 

[2] When the people of Iraq are ready to assume control (and ask us to leave).. which they aren't at this point.. and when the brewing civil war is merely people debating instead of fighting. This might be some years from now - but that's what we've chosen to involve ourselves in, now we must see it through! I wouldn't mind USA being "world police" if they demonstrate that they are capable of it. And I do see the irony in being willing to force freedom on others.

 

[3] If it was absolutely necessary yes.. but as long as I have the luxury of choice, no.. I won't kill, or be ready to kill, unless I'm forced to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know I'm not sure I like the way you conduct yourself and manage your life.

 

I'm feeling responsible.

 

More importantly, I'm feeling that I have the authority to sort you out.

 

After all, I'm white and I'm Christian and I'm right and I have a manifest destiny. :joy:

 

So don't be giving me no lip when I come over and take over your life and make you do what I want until I decide it is sorted out.

 

Because I am the Decider and don't you forget it. :D

 

I just don't think you are the right kinda guy to be running Rosbjergland - at least not until you are properly trained and can show me that you have the necessary skills and judgement.

 

Yup.

 

That's how it should be.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Colrom

[Sand]

In any case I have severe doubts that this surge of 20,000 more troops will do anything except get more US soldiers killed.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sand

[Volourn]

No. You are wrong.

[Sand]

Volourn, they haven't sent them in yet. So, you don't know if I am wrong or not.

[Volourn]

I do. How is sending more troops over gonna get more troops killed? It's not like every solider is gonna die. Hundreds of thosuands of soldier shave been sent over, and 300 have died. Do the math. Sending more troops over isn't going to by itself increase the number of dead soliders. If anything, it'll likely decrease the death rate. *shrug*

[Sand]

3000, not 300. One more death is one death too many. Especially in this unjustified war and occupation.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sand

[Volourn]

Yeah, 3000. Heh. The war was justified. Saddam asked for it, and he got it. Game over, SADDAM MAN, game over.

[Jorian Drake]

Yeah, 3000. Heh. The war was justified. Saddam asked for it, and he got it. Game over, SADDAM MAN, game over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't recall him asking for it.

 

 

BTW: It isn't over, it just began.

[Volourn]

Sure he did. You must have missed all his speeches where he dared the US to attack him, and how the US would be wiped out by him if they did. You musta forgot his constant breeching of UN Resolutions.

 

The guy asked for it, and he recievdd it.

 

And, the game is over for Saddam. Permenately.

 

He played Chicken with a Superpower, and the Superpower won.

[Calax]

on that note... it would appear that weather it helps or not 21k people will be headed over there to make an attempt.

[alanschu]

Australia was a penal colony established by the British just one year prior to the French revolution and during a period of great unrest and change in Europe. They were for all intents and purposes British. I'm sure you can see how England's conflicts affected and influenced Australia as well. The same goes for Canada. Those two didn't acquire a distinct national identity until later, when "modern" society had already been developed, an aspect they inherited from their metropolis. I thought this was pretty obvious.

 

I brought it up because your stance was that, "successful" nations have had either civil wars, revolutions, or devastating conflicts. I figured for sure you'd have mentioned the natives, since I thought it was pretty obvious. The thing is, your statement didn't mention nations that were at one point considered colonies of other nations, nor countries that were "close" to other nations that had civil wars.

 

Besides, I specifically said "civil war," not revolutions, nor devastating conficts.

I'm sure there's a point in being purposefully limited in your scope, but I can't see what it would be. Trying to understand how modern society came to be without taking into consideration the weight revolutions and other conflicts have had is like reading only a book's even pages. The thing is that western culture and history have been written in blood. We have peace now because our forebears paid dearly for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because your situation included civil wars, revolutions, and devastating conflicts.

 

I don't know, but wouldn't "devastating conflict" already be something in Iraq that has been satisfied?

 

Furthermore, had you followed the dialogue I had made with Hades, you'd see that he was talking about how Hades was basing his opinions on the fact that the US had a civil war, and that "it was a necessary event that made the US stronger in the long run."

 

Had Hades been talking about revolutions, as well as devastating conflicts, your comments that included them would be more relevant.

Edited January 11, 2007 by alanschu

[Eddo36]

Yeah, 3000. Heh. The war was justified. Saddam asked for it, and he got it. Game over, SADDAM MAN, game over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Game over for 3000+ US troops and 100000+ Iraqi civilians too.

 

Game only half over for those 30,000 troops who are only wounded, missing limbs and such.

 

And counting.

 

And I'm not responsible for those deaths, what did I do? It's Bush and his supporters for lighting that hay causing more deaths in less time than Saddam could ever do in his decades of reign, supported by the US or otherwise. tsk tsk

[213374U]

I brought it up because your stance was that, "successful" nations have had either civil wars, revolutions, or devastating conflicts.  I figured for sure you'd have mentioned the natives, since I thought it was pretty obvious.  The thing is, your statement didn't mention nations that were at one point considered colonies of other nations, nor countries that were "close" to other nations that had civil wars.

You are grasping at straws here. I already explained how Iraq's situation is different to that of either Australia or Canada, and how and why those countries are already covered by what I said. Keep nitpicking if you want, because there's not much else to do about that particular point.

 

 

Because your situation included civil wars, revolutions, and devastating conflicts.

 

I don't know, but wouldn't "devastating conflict" already be something in Iraq that has been satisfied?

A war that lasted for less than a year (with major operations ending two months after the start) and what, maybe 100k dead? No, I don't think that's quite devastating when compared, for instance to Red October or the Thirty Years War. Even more so, when considering that the civil war that would probably have ensued is being artificially prevented. It didn't have much impact in the culture of the country either, nor have there been many of the uglier things associated with war such as ethnic cleansing. For a war that utterly destroyed the Iraqi state, I think it was rather neat and tidy, frankly.

 

 

Furthermore, had you followed the dialogue I had made with Hades, you'd see that he was talking about how Hades was basing his opinions on the fact that the US had a civil war, and that "it was a necessary event that made the US stronger in the long run."

 

Had Hades been talking about revolutions, as well as devastating conflicts, your comments that included them would be more relevant.

My bad. Reading Hades gets old real quick, so I wasn't following what he was saying. I was, however, answering a question you had posed. I don't see how that makes my comments irrelevant, as I was simply explaining my original statement after you questioned its validity. If you don't want to be caught flat-footed in discussions, don't leave yourself open like that, not even with Hades.

 

If you are not interested in this discussion or think it's gone off on a tangent a bit too much just say so and we'll drop it right here.

[Commissar]

No. Won't help.

[213374U]

Yo Commie! Long time no see mate. ^_^

[Sand]

I think that revolutions and devastating conflicts can be very much a part of civil wars. The US civil war was very much devastating on both sides of the conflict if memory serves. I have to agree with numberman on this, Alanschu.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

let me ask you both a set of question Sand and Eddo.. I just want to boil your opinions down to tangible answers..

- what do you believe would be the most beneficial course of action at this point?

- what outcome would you hope to achieve in Iraq?

- how do you think this is best achieved (to both of the previous questions)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about we allow Iraqi troops to come to USA and patrol our streets so we would know how it's like to be occupied and get our doors kicked in every now and then, since we got American citizens taking arms via the God-given right of the 2nd Amendment to defend our country, having the santity of our private homes taken away. Since USA got tons of WMD's piled up in bases all over the country, isn't USA guilty in that sense that is the reason Iraq was invaded? Or overthrowing and hanging a dictator (Bush) and get one hundred thousand American citizens killed, as Iraq suffered with their own people? Our water sources, agriculture, military and industries destroyed, our own country being pushed back years. And have 180,000 Muslims patrol our streets (plus 30,000) more to come. With those 30,000 troops coming, we sure won't fight back as insurgents. Kinda how they would feel, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See, EdD'Oh, this is where that apophthegm "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are stupid, then to open it and confirm beyond all doubt that you are."

 

Even ignoring the safety of the citizens of the USA from global thermonuclear strike, look at all the former-USSR countries (a lot of which have now joined or are about to join the EU) for one example; I would say their populations are pretty pleased with the outcome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All three of them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For a start, yes.

 

There are a lot more that want membership, they just have to jump through all the hoops that "Old Europe" insist on, so that the newer members don't screw the Union up (before they do). And ALL of them (barring that one with the dictator who just died, but not before he named the days of the week after himself and his mother) are in better condition than under the soviet system.

[Walsingham]

I apologise for not catching up with existing comments. My two pence:

 

Standard doctrine dictates that it can be handy to have a preponderance of force. "The more you use, the fewer you lose" However, expecting that to solve everything would be desparately naive. If for no other reason than that a lot of very good people who might otherwise be the future of Iraq are dead. Killed mainly by the violent fethwits who are using Maoist doctrine to bring the whole country into a state of Anarchy.

 

The most important thing is to demonstarte that the US will not simply run away. If the USA does this then we are ALL in for a world of hurt, because the Islamists would see it as a massive victory, and the entire world would have to reevaluate its alliances. What use is there in an ally who runs away? This means a lot of upheaval and general shenanigans. With giant hurty brooms.

 

Thi is the practical reason for 'staying the course'. I happen to also think that whatever your feelings about the invasion we now have a moral obligation, having disrupted things to see them through.

 

Now, I have to apoologise because I'm rushed off my feet at work just now, and will probably have to leave this topic for now. I hope you don't object. And if you do... send me sweets or something.

[metadigital]

It's Bush and his supporters for lighting that hay causing more deaths in less time than Saddam could ever do in his decades of reign, supported by the US or otherwise. tsk tsk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leaving aside your atrocious grammar which impedes any cogent analysis of your writing, I will point out that this is absolute horsefeathers. They are still looking for the mass graves in Iraq.

 

Be against the war if you want; be anti-Bush, if you like; blame Bush for taking the Coalition into Iraq on false pretenses, even; but DON'T pretend that Saddam Hussein was a "normal" leader.

 

The death and destruction is incalculable. And that's not counting the men, women and children who have suffered without normal food and living conditions (Iraq was a reasonably affluent country when Saddam took control).

[taks]

iraq was, by some accounts, the most well developed middle eastern country when saddam took control. he bled it, and his people.

 

taks

[Volourn]

Yup. Saddam, and his cronies DESTROYED Iraq. His decisions caused Iraq's downfall; not someone else's decision. His decision to go to war with Iran, his decision to treat fellow Iraqis as dogs, his decision to spend money on himself instead of infrastructure, etc., his decision to invade Kuwait, his decision to break UN Resolutions, his decision to play games with the Oil for Food program, his decision to play chicken with a super power.

 

See the pattern here? It's obvious.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Volourn

[Xard]

supper power?

 

However, Iraq was more stable when Saddam was in lead

[Volourn]

"However, Iraq was more stable when Saddam was in lead"

 

No, it wasn't. If it was, Saddam wouldn't have lost control over a large part of the country. he didn't even rule over the Kurds, anymore. He was in constant fear of assassination so much he constantly used body doubles. The country was not stable. At least not under my defintion of stable. Think of the state of No while Katrina was going on, and that's what iraq reminded me of under Saddam.