We did WHAT!?

[mkreku]

Hahaha. You drew the wrong conclusion from what I wrote, as per usual. I said nothing about "going to war IMMEDIATELY!!1", or suggested anything of the sort. It was pretty obviously a one-time reply to the point Volo brought up about WW2.

 

But I didn't really need to explain that to you. Not even you can be THAT daft!

Yes, of course I did.

 

You give one example where negotiations failed. I'd bet in 99.99% of the times there's a problem between nations, negotiations DO SUCCEED. So instead of avoiding the question, please tell us all what your brilliant example was meant to prove.

[Epirote]

"Valid reason to go to war for me and my country is only a defensive war."

 

Really? You don't believe in defending friends, and allies then? Afterall, Germany was no real threat to my country yet we still went to war against them to help our European allies. *shrug* I'm glad we did, too.

 

I said defensive war didn't I? Besides, both our countries belong to NATO and abide by NATO rules and regulations. And as far as WWII is concerned, Canada had no choice really, since it belongs to the Commonwealth.

 

"I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Prior to the invasion there was very little support for terrorism in Iraq."

 

Not true. Iraq supported terroism. In fact, they paid terrorists (after the fact 'of course') aka suicide bombers in Isreal as just one proven example. Iraq also did have some dealings with AQ (and, yes, I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11). So, to say that iraq didn't support terrorism simply isn't teue. Terrorism does not AQ.

 

Can any of us prove either point? Anyway, my point was that Iran was supporting terrorists far more than Iraq. Iran trains terrorist, provides them save harbor and passage. Saddam did none of those. At least not to my knowledge.

 

"I wonder what made Saddam unacceptable to the US. I remember a time when he was counted among friendly to the US Arab leaders. I also seem to remember that he got weapons of chemical warfare from the US and the EU and he used it all on dissident Kurdish people. That's why they never found any weapons of mass destruction by the way, despite the propaganda lies that the then Secretary of State told the UN, to get the approval to invade Iraq. As far as allies are concerned: sure, as long as they give the US what they want, namely military bases and oil, there ok, but as soon as they dissent, they are bound to become a target."

 

Really? I don't know of any Amerikan bases in my country (ther ekmiught be I don't worry about such things), and last I checked we aren't on the US target list. *shrug* And, my country disgarees with the US a lot including on the Iraq War.

 

I was referring to Arab allies there. The US doesn't need any bases in your country. You're neighbors and you're also a NATO member.

 

As for why Hussein went from being an 'ally' to the US to an enemy. First off, he was never an ally. They used him in their war with Iran. That's it. And, I like how you try to blame eveyrone but Saddam for his use of chemical weapons.

 

I never said he was an ally. I said he was considered friendly and was supported. I am not trying to excuse what Saddam did; I was saying that it was US and EU companies that sold Saddam a small arsenal of chemical weapons.

 

 

"especially a imperialistic war fought to secure more oil."

 

I love how the defintion of imperialism has changed just so that label cna be pinned on the US. And, contrary to the conspiracy theory, not all Amerikan Wars are base don oil. In fact, if they were, the Iraq War would be a failure since the pirce of oil/gas has gone up since it occured.

 

On the contrary, the war for oil in Iraq was a complete success as far as securing a vast oil field is concerned. Where it failed is that it was not anticipated that the resistance to the prolonged occupation would be so fierce and never ending. And the fact that oil prices have gone that high is irrelevant to those who started this war to secure the oil reserves. In fact, they are profiting from that, too. It's not the definition of imperialism that has changed, but the US politics on foreign affairs, namely from isolationism to imperialism.

[Epirote]

You could go look up civilian casualties during the assault on Bagdad, I guess.

No. You are the one claiming that the US military bombed Baghdad indiscriminately. You come up with the figures, buddy.

 

First of all, I'm not your buddy, ok? Want figures go find them. Google is your friend. I just recounted what I remembered seeing on the mass media in my country.

 

What is doing the right thing? For a military commander carpet bombing a city sure is the right thing to do, because it minimizes casualties on his side and maximizes casualties on the opponents side, even if they include civilians. As I said, or more precisely US Army officials, have said: collateral damage. Is it right to impose your political system and your way of life on somebody else?

Only in the day of mass media, wars are fought as much in the homefront against the attrition in the public opinion, as they are on the battlefield. You can't just firebomb a city to rubble nowadays and expect to get away with it. Oh wait, you can, if you're Russian. But yeah, it's no fun bashing anyone that's not America.

 

It's not surprising that after such display of one-dimensional thinking one can make arguments such as this, and keep anything resembling a straight face:

 

I don't condone any unnecessary violence and killing of innocent civilians. And FYI America does not equal the USA. The USA are just a part of America. So, I wasn't bashing America, but the US policy on foreign affairs.

 

 

As to the alternative viewpoint: end all wars now! Utopic, yes, but:

<snip>

 

John Lennon, Imagine

Yeah. Good ol' Johnny is right up there with a bunch of other all-time greatest political theorists such as Che Guevara and Khomeini.

 

For you may be, but putting John Lennon into the same category as Che Guevara and Khomeini, wow, what can I say? Considering that John Lennon was a pacifist all his life and the song I quoted is a pacifist song, I'd say: nice try buster, but try again. This time try harder.

[Zoma]

I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Prior to the invasion there was very little support for terrorism in Iraq. I wonder what made Saddam unacceptable to the US...

 

There was an interesting theory from an article I read mentioning a curious reasoning for the US invasion of Iraq. Iraq wanted to sell its oil using Euro dollars instead of the standard US currency which is the default denomination. Being one the countries that has the largest oil reserve in the world, it will no doubt affect the US currency rate to some degree: A situation that US wanted to avoid at all cost.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Zoma

[Hurlshort]

Saddam was pretty much a total prick. He was uncooperative and he liked to egg the US on. I'm not saying that's a justification for invasion, I'm just saying Saddam did absolutely nothing to keep it from happening. It seemed like he thought the US was bluffing when they threatened invasion, because he really did everything he could to be an a-hole to the US.

[Walsingham]

Hahaha. You drew the wrong conclusion from what I wrote, as per usual. I said nothing about "going to war IMMEDIATELY!!1", or suggested anything of the sort. It was pretty obviously a one-time reply to the point Volo brought up about WW2.

 

But I didn't really need to explain that to you. Not even you can be THAT daft!

Yes, of course I did.

 

You give one example where negotiations failed. I'd bet in 99.99% of the times there's a problem between nations, negotiations DO SUCCEED. So instead of avoiding the question, please tell us all what your brilliant example was meant to prove.

 

Three examples, off the top of my malodorous head:

 

1) Yalta. Negotiations with Stalin, and particularly Roosevelt's attempts to be 'nice' prvoked Stalin into a more aggressive stance than he might have used if he thought a military confrontation was possible.

 

2) USA and North Vietnam. North Vietnam used the negotiations to attempt to secure concessions and cease-fires whenever they wanted a rest, and refused negotiations when they were doing well. Negotiations only hurt the US efforts. The Viet Cong learned this from the North Koreans who used the exact same trick.

 

3) UNAMIR vs the Interahamwe. In Rwanda, the genocidaires repeatedly used offers of negotiation to forestall UN action and military force.

 

I'm a believer in negotiation, but to work there has to be a willingness to engage, and to concede. If there isn't then it is used as a delaying tactic and safe zone.

 

~

 

Epirote, I want to stress that you're fielding questions put to you, which means you're playing the game. So I'm not pissed off, or anything. Fair does.

 

However...

 

1. The concept of "defensive war" ( as you put it) became outdated in the 19th century. Very briefly defensive war at that time meant acting only when your nation's vital interests were damaged. This principle is sound, but one can no longer define it as territorial integrity. Firstly, internationalisation means that my national and personal interests begin in Japan, and end in Kazhakstan. Secondly, the range, and speed of military effects has extended transcontinentally, not just beyond our borders. If you wait until the panzers/terrorists/nano-robots/were-sheep cross the border then you've got virtually no hope of winning.

 

2. You mentioned the impossibility of the US mistaking a civilian vehicle for a weapons convoy. Really? How would teh sensor profile of a weapons convoy differ from a civilian convoy? You give me a simple answer and I'll use it to make a million.

[Calax]

2. You mentioned the impossibility of the US mistaking a civilian vehicle for a weapons convoy. Really? How would teh sensor profile of a weapons convoy differ from a civilian convoy? You give me a simple answer and I'll use it to make a million.

Wasn't a US pilot the guy who shot at a british column back in desert storm? with a freaking Cobra no less.

 

Also Americans have a tendancy to fire at anything remotly connected to the military. See: Highway of Death from Desert Storm. A mile long string of (albeit stolen) civilian cars that were absolutly hammered by American air power. very few actually died in the highway of death, it just looked terrible with gutted cars and trucks strung for a mile or so along highway 80 from Kuwait to Basra.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_death

Edited October 29, 2008 by Calax

[random n00b]

You give one example where negotiations failed. I'd bet in 99.99% of the times there's a problem between nations, negotiations DO SUCCEED. So instead of avoiding the question, please tell us all what your brilliant example was meant to prove.

Well, it's a good thing you didn't actually say what you bet, because you'd lose... if we were to judge from the huge amount of examples YOU provided to back your point. \o/

 

At any rate, you misrepresented what I said, in another sad, blatant attempt at trolling. I said nothing about "going to war ASAP", neither did I intend for my example to be taken as a rule of thumb to be applied to any and all nations, under all circumstances - as evidenced by the fact that only your stunted understanding took it that way. The sort of rhetorics, demands and stance used by Nazi Germany aren't very different from what some groups use now... with the only difference that the Third Reich wasn't to be taken lightly.

 

There, was that enough for you? If you were hoping for me to draw some doodles to help you understand, I'm afraid you got the wrong thread.

 

 

Want figures go find them. Google is your friend.

No. You seem to fail to understand, among many other things, how things work in a discussion. You make a random statement, you come up with the arguments to support it before anyone takes it seriously.

 

I guess Lennon didn't make any songs about it.

 

 

I don't condone any unnecessary violence and killing of innocent civilians.

Yeah, who does, anyway? Have Dubya or any of his cronies ever appeared on TV advocating the general extermination of the Iraqi people?

 

Good thing we have you and Lennon to tell when violence is "necessary" and when it's not. I feel better already.

 

 

For you may be, but putting John Lennon into the same category as Che Guevara and Khomeini, wow, what can I say? Considering that John Lennon was a pacifist all his life and the song I quoted is a pacifist song, I'd say: nice try buster, but try again. This time try harder.

Precisely. Taking anything Lennon said seriously is a painful exercise in mental age regression. Props to you man, not everyone would be able to do that. I know I wouldn't.

 

But yeah, he'd have made a real fine Prime Minister, for sure!

Edited October 29, 2008 by random n00b

[Walsingham]

2. You mentioned the impossibility of the US mistaking a civilian vehicle for a weapons convoy. Really? How would teh sensor profile of a weapons convoy differ from a civilian convoy? You give me a simple answer and I'll use it to make a million.

Wasn't a US pilot the guy who shot at a british column back in desert storm? with a freaking Cobra no less.

 

Also Americans have a tendancy to fire at anything remotly connected to the military. See: Highway of Death from Desert Storm. A mile long string of (albeit stolen) civilian cars that were absolutly hammered by American air power. very few actually died in the highway of death, it just looked terrible with gutted cars and trucks strung for a mile or so along highway 80 from Kuwait to Basra.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_death

 

Sorry, cal, but I have got to take issue. Yes, the yanks do shoot us up, and naturally we get annoyed. But US air power saves more British lives than it costs. British civvies bitch about it, but soldiers witha tour on them generally come back with good words to say. Particularly about the helicopter pilots.

 

*reads wikipedia article*

 

Assuming the wiki is correct, for the sake of argument, it doesn't work as a great example. The stated object of Desert Storm was the ejection of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Any single movement of troops is just that and nothing more. Those same retreating troops can and might have turned around and come right back again, having been rallied by propaganda, shame, or death squads. Bombing retreating troops can't be regarded as unusual in any way at all, or (in my opinion) excessive. I support proportionate force, but taken across time. A single massive strike can save more lives in the long run. Just look at the numbers lost in the Iran-Iraq war.

[Meshugger]

Meh, this whole Iraqi-freedom charade is up again with its regurgitating arguments. Lowering Hitler to the same level of a petty dictator in a country that no one would give a rats ass about in a region only being interesting due to its natural resources. A bunch of goatherders lead by a rich spoiled kid with spiritual issues, all from places that look like biblical times, manages to scare up a generation into bombing the crap out of anything that might be suspicious, locking their doors, and arming themselves up to their teeth.

 

Coming from a family of war veterans that have actually experienced war in its ugliest form, i find some opinions here despicable, as these matters should be handled with the greatest restraint and respect, and without the whole who-ra wardummin'. In these times of coca-cola warfare and 'embedded journalism', war is marketed with their latest reports suitable for a 30 minute segment in reality-tv shows on the Discovery channel, all with commercial brakes. All of these given to salivating armchair-generals, who think that one can discuss the merits of REAL torture and warfare with the same tone and style of wit as one would discuss the advantages of having rogue instead of a wizard in your party, or whether the changes from one RPG-system to an other is justifiable for a new generation of gamers. A generation of people actually surviving a war might build something better for their children, as their country has been bombed into oblivion and back, but with a generation of cynics boosting that "war isn't pretty, boo-feckin-hoo", as it was as trivial as getting late for school, only serve to create further conflicts and misery for the incoming generation.

 

Although i have served in the military and even fired assaultrifles and rocketpropelled granade launchers with live ammunition, i have never experienced the horror of all horrors, as my grandfather described it. I haven't experienced what it is like when a neighbouring, and most of all overpowering, country attacks and wishes to destroy the very soil that generations have lived on. I haven't experienced what it is like to defend that very soil with every aching muscle in your body. I haven't experienced when you have bad or little equipment, you aren't expected to survive this moment, even less this winter. But you have to, since there is no where to go to. There is no safe haven across the big sea where your family lives. I haven't experienced what it is like to see hordes of people from the enemy's side charging against you, overpowering you 10-1 atleast. I haven't experienced the very fear of getting killed, or being sent to a prisoncamp. I haven't experienced what it is like to have the vision of having thousands upon thousands of people being under Stalin's wrath. I haven't experienced what it is like to have 20 of your friends since childhood, from the very same small village, being blown to pieces, getting their head punctuated, dying in agony in front of you, or even go insane with 'battlefever', starting to kill everyone, no matter side you were on; leaving you to shoot against them and hope that they will survive and maybe, just maybe, snap out of it.

 

But i know this, that people who lived through this terror and are still living with the memories of it to this very day, that their opinions and judgement should be respected and revered. I also know from their wisdom gained by these experiences is something to learn from, and not to be cast aside.

 

Taken all of this in consideration, i have a hard time understanding operation Iraqi freedom. Were the risks that grave? Would you send soldiers into a country that is a mousefart compared to you in power and equipment? Is it worth to attack other countries that haven't declared war on you? Would you send these boys and girls, who all volunteered to protect their country, into a war where that were declared on YOUR part? It very hard for me to even try to imagine to justify all that without having every inch of your own existence at stake. It seems more like a good 'ole case of stalinistic cynicism, where the soldiers are more like pawns in your real-life game of risk.

 

Now, if you excuse me, i am in a bad mood at the moment, and i have a deadline that needs to be met.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Meshugger

[Brdavs]

What do you know about international law? Jus in Bello? Jus ad Bellum? Syria has throughout recent history engaged in acts of Cassus Belli.

 

There are many things wrong with the US foreign policy as perpetrated by G.W. Bush, but I hardly think that this ranks highly on that list.

 

What do I know about it? Some tidbits I picked up on actual law university. What do you know about it, prey tell?

 

Just how hypocritical can you get? US demolished 2 countries for an attack on its teritories when there was harldy much to connect them with it. And now youre sweeping under the rug a fact its military is conducting fresh illegit combat operations in a third.

God I actually hope syrians get their hands on some russian hardware and down one of those choppers next time. It`d be interesting to observe, the outrage. And speaking of CB, Syria has a waterproof one at this stage, US, faaar from it.

 

the fact you wouldnt rank this top of the list either means a) w had a really catastrophic foreign policy, b) you have funny criteria for prioritising things, or my fav. c) combination of both heh.

[Epirote]

Want figures go find them. Google is your friend.

No. You seem to fail to understand, among many other things, how things work in a discussion. You make a random statement, you come up with the arguments to support it before anyone takes it seriously.

 

I guess Lennon didn't make any songs about it.

 

Here you go knock yourself out:

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3466.htm

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/page327

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

 

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/12/14/usint17554.htm

 

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news...nvasion-2096-1/

 

http://web.mit.edu/cis/pdf/Audit_6_05_Roberts.pdf

 

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40758

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2897117.stm

 

 

And if you think, belittling me, my beliefs and my personality is a form of a civilized discussion, go ahead, insult me more. Just shows me really that you are not capable of a rational discussion, that in lack of proper arguments, you resort to ridiculing and insulting me.

 

On the burden of proof thing, none of us can really prove anything here, for every link provided as "proof" there are easily links found that prove differently. That does not matter to victims and their surviving relatives however.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Epirote

[random n00b]

Taken all of this in consideration, i have a hard time understanding operation Iraqi freedom. Were the risks that grave? Would you send soldiers into a country that is a mousefart compared to you in power and equipment? Is it worth to attack other countries that haven't declared war on you? Would you send these boys and girls, who all volunteered to protect their country, into a war where that were declared on YOUR part? It very hard for me to even try to imagine to justify all that without having every inch of your own existence at stake. It seems more like a good 'ole case of stalinistic cynicism, where the soldiers are more like pawns in your real-life game of risk.

Heh, very emotional post, but I thought you understood realpolitik.

 

In every war there's at least one side which doesn't fight in self-defense, guaranteed. Because, by definition, there needs to be an aggressor. And that aggressor always has its reasons, good or bad. In this case, the reason was a mix of resources and politics. Wars have been fought over far less. For good or ill, war in one form or another is an integral and fundamentally defining part of most cultures, if only because those cultures for which it's not tend to be destroyed.

 

It may look like we're trivialising the issue, and we probably are, as most folks here haven't experienced war first-hand. But there's no escaping one truth: the world is an ugly, nasty place - and to think the human race has (or should have) advanced enough to put war behind us completely, if such a thing is even possible is self-deceit. To what lengths are we willing to go, how much are we willing to compromise to avoid war? Is war really the worst choice, in all circumstances? The answer to that is neither simple nor unique.

[Meshugger]

Taken all of this in consideration, i have a hard time understanding operation Iraqi freedom. Were the risks that grave? Would you send soldiers into a country that is a mousefart compared to you in power and equipment? Is it worth to attack other countries that haven't declared war on you? Would you send these boys and girls, who all volunteered to protect their country, into a war where that were declared on YOUR part? It very hard for me to even try to imagine to justify all that without having every inch of your own existence at stake. It seems more like a good 'ole case of stalinistic cynicism, where the soldiers are more like pawns in your real-life game of risk.

Heh, very emotional post, but I thought you understood realpolitik.

 

In every war there's at least one side which doesn't fight in self-defense, guaranteed. Because, by definition, there needs to be an aggressor. And that aggressor always has its reasons, good or bad. In this case, the reason was a mix of resources and politics. Wars have been fought over far less. For good or ill, war in one form or another is an integral and fundamentally defining part of most cultures, if only because those cultures for which it's not tend to be destroyed.

 

It may look like we're trivialising the issue, and we probably are, as most folks here haven't experienced war first-hand. But there's no escaping one truth: the world is an ugly, nasty place - and to think the human race has (or should have) advanced enough to put war behind us completely, if such a thing is even possible is self-deceit. To what lengths are we willing to go, how much are we willing to compromise to avoid war? Is war really the worst choice, in all circumstances? The answer to that is neither simple nor unique.

 

When it comes to realpolitik, i understand it, but it is very hard to keep emotional detachment from it as well, since it is the aspect that brings out the worst of humanity. Of course you have to keep your "cool", or so to say, but without realizing repercussions of their ideas is even a worse sin in my book.

 

It is true as you say about it is our nature to wage war, but i am just perplexed at the whole "well, whatever"-mantra that shows its ugly face in this discussion.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Meshugger

[random n00b]

Here you go knock yourself out:

I wonder... have you even read any of the links you posted, or you just copied the first handful of links that Google turned up?

 

Because, how does any of that lend any support to your original statement that the US bombs Iraqi towns indiscriminately? They hit targets, military targets, and civilians are in the way... because that's the way the insurgents want it. Do you really believe that if clear, safe insurgent targets could be attacked, the US would kill civilians just for kicks? Of course, you also conveniently disregard the fact that it's not a war against a standing army, but against a ragtag militia... a collective of unlawful combatants. It's no wonder most of them are labeled as "civilians" when making the bodycount. Of course, there's no excusing faulty intelligence when conducting air raids, but really, I think you need to get things back in perspective by reading some about real "indiscriminate" bombing.

 

 

And if you think, belittling me, my beliefs and my personality is a form of a civilized discussion, go ahead, insult me more. Just shows me really that you are not capable of a rational discussion, that in lack of proper arguments, you resort to ridiculing and insulting me.

Wait, wait. Are you accusing me of not being rational and lacking proper arguments when just a few pages back you were proposing that we look up to John Lennon's Imagine for inspiration?

 

Lol, serious business!

 

 

On the burden of proof thing, none of us can really prove anything here, for every link provided as "proof" there are easily links found that prove differently. That does not matter to victims and their surviving relatives however.

Yeah, yeah. Appeal to emotion all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you made a statement that's not only impossible to prove, but also highly unlikely if you think about it, for the reasons I stated in my first and subsequent replies.

 

That's called making fallacies, btw.

 

 

It is true as you say about it is our nature to wage war, but i am just perplexed at the whole "well, whatever"-mantra that shows its ugly face in this discussion.

Those who haven't experienced it don't really know what they're talking about, and those who have experienced it, don't really want to talk about it... Edited October 29, 2008 by random n00b

[Gorgon]

The truism that in war the truth is the first casualty applies. Of course the US tries to avoid civilian death, but if they happen to screw the pooch it's not like they are going to come out and admit it. They are just going to say 'we don't know, they could have been insurgents'. Point of fact, it's happened that way in Iraq a couple of times already.

 

The level of indiscriminacy is lower than say for instance in Gaza, when Israel carries out its policy of assassinations, or 'targeted killings' as they like to call them. Simply because A, the US has easy access, and B the question of hearts and minds can't be ignored.

[Epirote]

@randomn00b

Read them yourself; I know I did. So, bombing a crowded market is a military target? Or is it the usual excuse: the damn insurgent hide behind civilians, so we have no choice but to kill them all? The use of cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods is not indiscriminate bombing?

 

The use of cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods with no military targets around is according to some of the actual eyewitnesses and international reporters an undeniable fact.

 

But I get it peace loving people are irrational for you, while bombing the hell out of innocent women and children is a rational consequence of modern warfare.

 

End of discussion for me. I am not here to prove anything. I am not here to convince anybody that my opinion is the one and only right one. I am only here to exercise my freedom of speech right and to state my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with it.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Epirote

[random n00b]

Read them yourself; I know I did. So, bombing a crowded market is a military target? Or is it the usual excuse: the damn insurgent hide behind civilians, so we have no choice but to kill them all? The use of cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods is not indiscriminate bombing?

 

The use of cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods with no military targets around is according to some of the actual eyewitnesses and international reporters an undeniable fact.

Yes, that's not indiscriminate. It's a mistake, at worst. But on the Internet, everyone's an analyst, right?

 

Again, what is THE POINT of killing innocent civilians, just for kicks. Give an answer, and explain what the US leadership get out of it, exactly.

 

 

But I get it peace loving people are irrational for you, while bombing the hell out of innocent women and children is a rational consequence of modern warfare.

More inane appeals to emotion. Seriously, can you make one single post without trying to bring a tear to the eye?

 

People die in war. Yes, that includes children and women. Nobody, as far as I know, is reveling on that fact or asking for MOAR. It's a sad and ugly fact. Happy? You can focus on that all you want, and on the fact that the US started an illegal war and stuff. And all of it is true. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the insurgents that have kept the war going since 2003. Without them, there would be no need for airstrikes, shoot-first-ask-later policies at checkpoints, and many other nasty things. Yeah, they are defending their country yadda yadda. But from what exactly? Democracy? Progress?

 

Yeah, I guess nobody likes their totalitarian, mass-murdering government that starves its people to death taken down and replaced with a system that doesn't favor a minority over the rest. I'd probably be pretty pissed about it, too.

 

 

End of discussion for me. I am not here to prove anything. I am not here to convince anybody that my opinion is the one and only right one. I am only here to exercise my freedom of speech right and to state my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with it.

Great. The intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING".

 

Yeah, you sure showed me how one participates in a rational discussion, with great arguments. I bow to your superior conversational skills.

Edited October 29, 2008 by random n00b

[Hildegard]

Taken all of this in consideration, i have a hard time understanding operation Iraqi freedom. Were the risks that grave? Would you send soldiers into a country that is a mousefart compared to you in power and equipment? Is it worth to attack other countries that haven't declared war on you? Would you send these boys and girls, who all volunteered to protect their country, into a war where that were declared on YOUR part? It very hard for me to even try to imagine to justify all that without having every inch of your own existence at stake. It seems more like a good 'ole case of stalinistic cynicism, where the soldiers are more like pawns in your real-life game of risk.

 

Well, the country that starts a war doesn't do it for some high moral reasons. War is nothing but an investment for those whom start it. And there are many things for the starters to gain: Get rid of Saddam who didn't play their way after he stopped being a western pet when the Iran-Iraq ended; Iraq holds a geostrategic position in the ME, you get to spend billions and billions on arms which benefits the military industrial complex which can't function without a war every now and then, you get a permanent military base in the country; your companies get key infrastructure and oil businesses in the country, during the period of the transitional government all Iraqi oil fields were under the control of foreign oil companies and Iraqi oil was outported without Iraqi supervision, or supervision by only those Iraqi put in charge by the American transitional government; in order to pay for all those work done by foreign companies Iraq now is selling oil to some US and UK oil companies for cheap money; another enemy of Isreal is out of the picture; Iran now is totally surrounded by US forces - west in Iraq, east in Afghanistan, US fleet in the south, US military bases in former SSSR countries in the north; you get ME government under your strong influence, billion of dollars in the pockets of defense, oil and infrastructure companies.

 

And down side are hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, thousands dead any many more wounded US soldiers.

 

So when you look at it like an investment how Bush, Chaney and their pals looks at it, why wouldn't you invade Iraq? Most of the US public bought the PR brainwash that: Saddam has large stockpiles of WMD, he has connection to AQ and therefor they can get their hands on it, we are more safe now then before. Imminent threat, imminent threat, imminent threat, repeated and repeated 10 000 times each day.

All you have to do is scare the **** out of the people and then you can manipulate them to a great extent, one of the oldest tricks in the book. And they don't give a rats ass if that is not true, that they lied, why would they? They got away with it and achieved outstanding results for the special interest groups they actually represent, what the Iraq war was all about. And I congratulate Bush, Chaney&co how they pulled it of. In fact this current government is one of the most capable ones in a long time, bad thing for the American people is they aren't even close on their list of priorities.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Hildegard

[Dark_Raven]

USA just needs to attend to its own affairs. I would prefer if we went back to isolation like we were back in the 19th century. Leave us alone, we leave you alone.

 

Iraq was the biggest mistake that idiot Bush made. He sold lies to the American public. WoMD my ass. There was nothing there. Iraqi freedom? If the people feel the need to change the current government, they will, eventually.

[Volourn]

"If the people feel the need to change the current government, they will, eventually."

 

Stated by somebody whose never had a dictator rule their country in their lifespan.

[Gorth]

"If the people feel the need to change the current government, they will, eventually."

 

Stated by somebody whose never had a dictator rule their country in their lifespan.

Aren't you the one who applies the logic of selfishness everywhere? If they can't look out for themselves, they deserve what they got kind of thing?

[Volourn]

No.

 

The only time I mention selfishness is in terms of business ie. the customer's relationship with businesses is all about selfishness on both sides.

 

I'm into actually caring about what happens to other people even if it doesn't help me.

[Hurlshort]

Hildegard makes very good sense.

[Dark_Raven]

"If the people feel the need to change the current government, they will, eventually."

 

Stated by somebody whose never had a dictator rule their country in their lifespan.

Volo logic alert!!!

 

Ever hear of history? Do you give the will of the human being such a low regard? If their will is strong and they had enough of being under the boot heels of a tyrant they will rise and remove them by force. American and French Revolutions to name two. In England when the people had enough of the absolute rule of a monarchy, they removed his/her absolute rule so now, they have very little power. Now they have parliament who hold any real power in that country. The people of Russia suffered centuries under the Czars until they had enough and removed the entire family line by force. Only to be replaced by another oppressive system which by the way had been replaced by a less oppressive system.

 

People who are oppressed after awhile will eventually rise and remove that oppressive system. Given time the Iraqis would have done the same.