Haditha Massacre - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-03-2006, 11:07 PM   #61
Refugee
 
wizard2c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,580
Local Time: 07:34 AM
reply

Great......now I know where I need to be, thanks for the info.

BTW: Anbar province is no more violent than before which makes it equal to.
Does no one here care at all? 2011.........

Yes, wisdom, indeed. I'll just go read a Tolkien LOTR book and make believe my life away.

__________________

__________________
wizard2c is offline  
Old 06-04-2006, 10:25 AM   #62
Refugee
 
wizard2c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,580
Local Time: 07:34 AM
reply

STING2.....btw....who are these "many" of which you speak......any reference points of interest to draw a vague conclusion........perhaps, say....a link????

__________________

__________________
wizard2c is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 12:27 PM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The invasion was not unilateral anymore than the invasion to retake Kuwait in 1991 was. Invasion was indeed the only option in regards to removing Saddam from power. A simple understanding of Saddam's military capabilities prior to the start of the war as well as the strength of his security services proves that fact, as does the numerous failed attempts made by many over Saddam's 25 year reign over Iraq. The only thing that could remove Saddam from power was a military invasion, and that successfully happened in 2003.

There are few if any countries on the planet that have experienced more war since 1945 than Israel. If your looking for the attitudes towards military intervention from a country that has more experience than most when it comes to civilian and military experience in war, you don't need to look any further than Israel. The population there strongly supports US military intervention in most places around the world. They understand the mistakes of World War II, and that while being reluctant to intervene because of the cost is understandable, what is often not understood is that the cost of NOT intervening can be far greater.

As for Europe, you find the strongest support for US military intervention among those that live in Eastern Europe as opposed to Western Europe. Some of the largest contributions to the coalition in Iraq come from Eastern Europe. Thousand of Polish and Ukrainian troops have served in the "unilateral war" in Iraq. Iraq's military today is being equipped with Soviet made equipment donated by Eastern European countries.

The countries most strongly opposed to military intervention in Europe tend to be the countries that have not been heavily involved in war since 1945 if at all. Since 1945, how many Western European countries have lost the number of people that the United States has in war since 1945. The United States has lost over 120,000 people killed and over 600,000 people wounded since the end of 1945. Germany has lost a few dozen people since 1945. Sweden, Norway, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, and for that matter, all of Europe with the exception of the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia losses in war since 1945 would not even amount to 5% of what the United States has lost since then.

The only place in Europe that has actually experienced war on its territory on a large scale since 1945 is Bosnia. What most people in Bosnia remember in regards to the question of military intervention is that everyone waited to intervene in their case. The same arguements about not "rushing to war", and the fact that the costs would be to great and would make things worse, were used to prevent military intervention in Bosnia in the 1990s. The United States and the rest of NATO sat and did nothing significant for years.

Even the members of U2 knew the arguements against military intervention in this case were bullshit and were strong supporters of early military intervention to end the conflict as evidence in Bill Flanagans book, "Until The End Of The World".

While many Europeans and Americans developed "alternatives to military action" and attempted to implement them, over 300,000 Bosnians were massacred, this in a country of only 4 million people. When military intervention finally came, the war was successfully ended in a only a few weeks. But it was several years and 300,000 dead civilians to late for many Bosnians. Most Bosnians would say that "half measures" and ignoring the situation is not going to improve things or in fact prevent what you most fear. Being reluctant to intervene with the military can have enormous costs!

World War II could have been prevented if the Allies had simply enforced the treaty agreements that had ended World War I. Instead, out of their understandable fear of starting a war after the destruction of World War I, they let Germany build up its mililtary forces and annex territory around it, all in violation of the treaty agreement designed to keep the peace. Germany could have been stopped in the early to mid-1930s, but the reluctance by other European nations to take any military action allowed Germany to rebuild itself, and wage the most destructive war in human history. The price of waiting to intervene with the military in this case, was over 40 million dead in Europe alone and potentially Nazi domination of the entire planet. People don't understand how close the Allies came to losing everything.

The United States and several of its Allies learned from the tragedy of World War II, and from then on began to maintain large military forces in peacetime, which successfully prevented World War III, kept much of the world free of Soviet domination, and won the Cold War.


Sometimes, early military intervention is a necessity. Certainly, there are sometimes better methods of action than military intervention in some cases, and given the situation, these methods should be allowed to work and military action put off or not entered into at all. What option is chosen will always been dependent on the specific situation. There is not a standard one size fits all rule in regards to when and where the United States should intervene around the world. It will always be dependent upon multiple factors to include the chances of non-military options to successfully resolve the situation, as well as the cost of military intervention, the cost of NOT engaging in a military intervention etc. To many people ignore the fact that not intervening with the military can have have enormous cost as well. Sometimes, early military intervention is required to prevent enormous loss of life or serious risk to security.


The military intervention in Iraq came after 12 years of sanctions, weapons embargo's, inspections, no fly zones, large military deployments and heavy bombing. It was anything but a "rush to war". But if one ignores the history of the situation prior to Bush coming to office, that might not be clear.




thank you, i couldn't have asked for a better example of an armchair general.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 12:48 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511






thank you, i couldn't have asked for a better example of an armchair general.
First, you don't know anything about most of the people in this forum, nor do you have any idea about what they have experienced over the past 5 years or for that matter their entire lives.

Equally important, it appears you neglected to read the part of the Faq/rules which says:

"Name calling is absolutely not allowed."


Just because you either can't form a civil response or do not want to does not make it ok to break the rules of this forum or make naive assumptions about people you do not know.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 12:56 PM   #65
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


First, you don't know anything about most of the people in this forum, nor do you have any idea about what they have experienced over the past 5 years or for that matter their entire lives.

Equally important, it appears you neglected to read the part of the Faq/rules which says:

"Name calling is absolutely not allowed."


Just because you either can't form a civil response or do not want to does not make it ok to break the rules of this forum or make naive assumptions about people you do not know.


i was referring to your post, not you.

if you're looking for ways to get offended, you're going to have to try harder.

if you've got a problem, take it up with a mod.

and continue to ignore what this thread is all about: the massacre of civilians by US troops.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 03:10 PM   #66
Halloweenhead
Forum Moderator
 
Bonochick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cherry Lane
Posts: 40,816
Local Time: 03:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


i was referring to your post, not you.

Now that that has been cleared up, let's just carry on, please.
__________________
"Knight in shining Zubaz."

Bonochick [at] interference.com
Bonochick is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 07:33 PM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:34 AM
STING2, I'm a bit surprised that you're even posting in this thread, shouldn't you be eating some humble pie?

A_Wanderer, NBCrusader, don't worry guys, there's plenty of humble pie to go around.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 08:05 PM   #68
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,887
Local Time: 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
STING2, I'm a bit surprised that you're even posting in this thread, shouldn't you be eating some humble pie?

A_Wanderer, NBCrusader, don't worry guys, there's plenty of humble pie to go around.
As if any one of them condones the actions of a handful of renegade soldiers.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 10:37 PM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Good to see that some people are paying attention, no wait.

I have maintained through this entire thread that this should be investigated and those responsible punished to the maximum possible extent.

I have also said that this massacre does not change the original reasons for getting rid of Saddam and the benefits of that.

If people fail to take that into account then thats their problem.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 09:46 AM   #70
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


As if any one of them condones the actions of a handful of renegade soldiers.


when there were no resignations after Abu Ghraib, when torture rules were deliberately relaxed, Bush sent a clear signal (*before* the election) that people in command will not be held responsible for atrocities committed on their watch. it is perfectly easy to understand why military commmanders would follow Bush's example. responsibility in the military is vertical. commanders are responsible for violations committed by inferiors. the commander-in-chief is the president (you know, "the decider"), and he is ultimately responsible for any atrocities in the military he commands.

and, i'm sorry, but Americans themselves - not just their government - have some responsibility. 51% of this country re-elected a man who had been shown to have endorsed torture and abuse.

accept the consequences of your actions.

what is particularly sad is that those who love the military the most, by and large, re-elected a man who has done more damage to American credibility than any president, possibly ever. we have little hope for restoring the military's credibility until we have a new president
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 09:56 AM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:34 AM
[q]"This Haditha story, this Haditha incident, whatever, this is it folks, this is the final big push on behalf of the Democratic Party, the American left, and the Drive-By Media to destroy our effort to win the war in Iraq. That's what Haditha represents — and they are going about it gleefully. They are ecstatic about it ... Folks, let me just put it in graphic terms. It is going to be a gang rape. There is going to be a gang rape by the Democratic Party, the American left and the Drive-By Media, to finally take us out in the war against Iraq. Make no bones about it," ~ Rush Limbaugh
[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 10:02 AM   #72
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Rush sounds like he needs a hug.

I think he and Coulter should do a duet.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 11:10 AM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:34 PM
We do have different reactions to death of soldiers by civilians and death of civilians by soldiers.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 11:17 AM   #74
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
We do have different reactions to death of soldiers by civilians and death of civilians by soldiers.
"We" do?

And how many soldiers are killed by civilians?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 11:19 AM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


"We" do?

And how many soldiers are killed by civilians?

Considering there is no uniformed opposition in Iraq, insurgents and civilians are indistinguishable. I'd say all death's since the fall of Saddam fall in this category.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com