Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
nbcrusader said:
An "incident"?
What exactly has to happen over in Iraq before your sense of moral outrage kicks in?
Haditha Massacre
- Thread starter A_Wanderer
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
An "incident"?
What exactly has to happen over in Iraq before your sense of moral outrage kicks in?
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Expressing my sense of moral outrage on a U2 forum helps who?
Bluer White
New Yorker
anitram said:
Respectfully, have you been in on military planning at any level?
No, but I've been a civilian on the other side of the barrel of that gun and I didn't appreciate it much.
Civilians pay the greatest price in any war, any other opinion is naivete. And incidentally, it's always civilians, mostly women and children who never have a choice in the matter either. They didn't choose to go to war, they didn't fight back, they don't stand to benefit from it via profiteering.
Troops chose a life in the military; I didn't choose to get shot at. Which is why my heart is always with the civilians first.
Civilians pay the greatest price in any war, any other opinion is naivete. And incidentally, it's always civilians, mostly women and children who never have a choice in the matter either. They didn't choose to go to war, they didn't fight back, they don't stand to benefit from it via profiteering.
Troops chose a life in the military; I didn't choose to get shot at. Which is why my heart is always with the civilians first.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
anitram said:
perfectly said.
it's awfully easy to think of war as a perfectly good option for dealing with a situation while sitting 5,000 miles away in your comfortable suburb.
Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
nbcrusader said:
I don't know about you, but when I'm feeling morally outraged I tend to talk about it. That's human nature.
And thanks for telling me that what I post on the Internet is unlikely to make a bit of difference in the world. Gee, here I thought I had this power to type words here in the House of Blue Crack and magically change our foreign policy! (Slaps head against forehead).
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Bono's shades said:
As if we need more judgmental posts here
najeena
War Child
Of all Bush's shortcomings, perhaps the most disheartening is his total lack of curiousity. He knows only what his handlers decide to tell him, which is precious little. I hope that we never again have a leader who has so little regard for knowledge and the wisdom that comes with it.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Right, but when those poor civilians are being slaughtered by a secret police force it's all happy fun time? Polls consistently put Iraqi approval at the removal of Saddam at ~80%, this is in 2006, the situation was fucked for the last 10 years when the people were left to die by the Clinton era policies which failed to achieve any of their objectives (surrendering of WMD & regime change) and inflicted disproportionate suffering on the Iraqi people (UNICEF gives figures of 500,000 children dead because of sanctions and their manipulation by the regime). And for what? Saddam to have raked in billions of dollars of illegal oil money, a regime to become more entrenched? A country brought to utter ruin, the effects of which have prolonged the occupation.Irvine511 said:
What sorry part of policy does the USA deserve the most blame for? allowing supression of the Shiite uprising after the first war? a decade of crippling sanctions that probably killed over a million civilians? Keeping Hussein boxed in with forces kept in Saudi Arabia (gee now that was the cause to be for what up and coming Muslim group in the 1990's?) or the war to remove Hussein that has over the course of 3 years killed 40,000 civilians (your enemies seem to take care when targeting hospitals, schools and religious shrines). That is about the number that was being bumped off by the regime directly (not from the sanctions) of 30,000 a year. There were no good options in Iraq, we know the shit that has happened post-Invasion and we also know the result of the previous policy - the choices were bad and worse.
The difference between the US and other countries militaries is not that these vile crimes don't happen, it is that when they do the perpetrators will be tried and if guilty punished very harshly.
A_Wanderer said:
What a broad statement, please. No other country tries their soldiers?
And yeah, the perpertrators here were sure being tried and punished before Time magazine got damning video.
They lied and buried the story until February.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
If people are going to say that these things never happen then it is willfull ignorance, if they say that they have to hold their soldiers to a higher standard then trials and exposure come into it. Other countries would be examples like the Russians in Chechnya, I didn't think I would need a list.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Are any of the other cases in this tread only investigated because there was a conspiracy?
I do not think that there was an attempted conspiracy from the top down, it will become apparent if the initial investigation was lied to and how the new evidence affected it.
I do not think that there was an attempted conspiracy from the top down, it will become apparent if the initial investigation was lied to and how the new evidence affected it.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Perhaps, someday you will be married
and will have the joy of driving your pregnant wife in labor, to the hospital
and witness her head being blown to pieces
and will have the joy of driving your pregnant wife in labor, to the hospital
and witness her head being blown to pieces
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Some of the liberal groups are circulating petitions demanding Rumsfeld's resignation. In fact, I signed one of them. Not a chance in hell of this happening, but stand up and be counted.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
This is the guy the U. S. is pinning all their hopes on, the new P. M.
He is there on the ground. What does he think?
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Right because I am obviously celebrating what happened at Haditha?
How about the one where the Iraqi dissident is held down while he watches he pregnant wife get sliced to pieces by the secret police to make him confess? Since that is one concequence of a supposed peace
As for the new PM, whatever happened to "puppet regime"?
How about the one where the Iraqi dissident is held down while he watches he pregnant wife get sliced to pieces by the secret police to make him confess? Since that is one concequence of a supposed peace
As for the new PM, whatever happened to "puppet regime"?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
who said supposed peaceA_Wanderer said:Right because I am obviously celebrating what happened at Haditha?
How about the one where the Iraqi dissident is held down while he watches he pregnant wife get sliced to pieces by the secret police to make him confess? Since that is one concequence of a supposed peace
if you were here before the Iraqi war
you might recall
i did post many things about Saddam's crimes
for you to bring them up and compare
is just your concession that crimes are being committed now
deep
Blue Crack Addict
A_Wanderer said:
looks like the "strings" are getting a real tug-o-war
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I was merely illustrating that while crimes are being committed now as a result of the war (crimes that I think it reprehensible and must be punished) the situation before the war was at least as terrible in nature and greater in magnitude, removing Saddam was and still is today the path of less death.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
A_Wanderer said:
False Dichotomy
The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Right then, what other options were there in the case of Iraq pre-2003?
What course of action do you think would have been best. There are other possibilities like allowing inspections to continue, if they didn't find anything would there be cause to remove sanctions? Assassination or a coup perhaps - the "one bullet" option? Buy him off maybe, open up a deal to drop the sanctions and buy his oil with the possibility that opening Iraq up for business may pacify the leader a bit and lessen the suffering of the people? All valid options, there are probably an infinite number of other ones.
It may be worth pointing out that we only have two real examples, what actually occured while Saddam was in power during the 1990's and early 2000's and the result of the invasion. Anything else is speculation, I could say that keeping Saddam in power would have allowed him to rebuild his WMD arsenel to counter Iranian ambition in a hypothetical today - but that would be pure speculation. If we take what was going on before and extend it out I think that is the fairest projection, and that would have been Saddam in power, sanctions in place and oil for food as corrupt as ever.
What course of action do you think would have been best. There are other possibilities like allowing inspections to continue, if they didn't find anything would there be cause to remove sanctions? Assassination or a coup perhaps - the "one bullet" option? Buy him off maybe, open up a deal to drop the sanctions and buy his oil with the possibility that opening Iraq up for business may pacify the leader a bit and lessen the suffering of the people? All valid options, there are probably an infinite number of other ones.
It may be worth pointing out that we only have two real examples, what actually occured while Saddam was in power during the 1990's and early 2000's and the result of the invasion. Anything else is speculation, I could say that keeping Saddam in power would have allowed him to rebuild his WMD arsenel to counter Iranian ambition in a hypothetical today - but that would be pure speculation. If we take what was going on before and extend it out I think that is the fairest projection, and that would have been Saddam in power, sanctions in place and oil for food as corrupt as ever.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer said:
i understand your points about the repression of Saddam's police state, but i also think setting up an either/or situation, a false dichotomy where unilateral invasion is presented as the *only* option, is not at all an accurate reading of the situation, and is used to expedite the process of going to war without proper reflection as to whether or not this is the *best* solution to a situation.
very simply, war cannot be entered into lightly. i know many pro-war Americans who view war as simply another foreign policy tool, like containment or sanctions or multilateral talks. to me, this exhibits a total detachment from what actually happens on the ground in war. this, combined with the elevation of "patriotism" to some kind of national virtue (and imbedded within this sense of patriotism a strong support of militarism) makes it all to easy for a public that has never had war on it's soil since 1865 to support wars of choice, especially since there is an exhaustive campaign by the Pentagon to mask the casualties of the war from the public.
i work a mile and a half from Walter Reed. i've seen many former military missing limbs shopping at Borders or getting coffee at Starbucks when on my lunchbreak. i can't view this particular campaign as worthy of the loss of a limb, let alone a life. and these are people who have volunteered.
the phrase is "arm chair generals" -- and we have many in here. i think the reluctance of many European nations to go to war is not just a reflexive defense against American power (though that is part of it). having spent lots of time in Europe, and especially traveling through Eastern Europe, you see just how much WW2 still lives in the minds of the population, even the grandchildren of WW2. this is not to doubt the righteousness of the Allied campagin, but it is to understand the profound depth of civilian suffering even in "good" wars.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer said:
as i've said many times, it's not necessarily what was done, but the manner in which it was done. let's not kid ourselves: it happened on an electoral timetable.
we would have been aided immeasurably if we'd had 400,000 coalition troops on the ground to create stability and security in March 2003, especially if a significant percentage of that 400,000 were Muslim troops (egyptians or pakistanis, perhaps jordanians).
as events played out, the Yosemite Sam-like arrogance of the Bush administration, combined with a murderously dismissive defense secretary, pretty much guaranteed that no Western European country, let alone a Muslim nation, could have supported the US and not faced popular resistance at the polls.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
You raise a very valid point, there is not nearly enough exposure of what is actually going on in Iraq (both good and bad), more exposure of the issues on the ground and the results of it; the polytrauma associated with such low fatalities; for instance this posted on a milbog
The military bloggers carry events like this and in depth rememberences for those who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the circumstances of their deaths every day, the point that comes through from many of those people is definitely not that such sacrifice was in vain - they carry a lot of conviction about what has been achieved, but of course thats their perspective.
If we want to make it a more personal argument that unless I have been either in the military or a civilian in a war-zone that irrespective of the merits of the argument they are forfeit then you should consider the reasons that countries like Australia and the United States have civilian control over the military.
link
The military bloggers carry events like this and in depth rememberences for those who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the circumstances of their deaths every day, the point that comes through from many of those people is definitely not that such sacrifice was in vain - they carry a lot of conviction about what has been achieved, but of course thats their perspective.
If we want to make it a more personal argument that unless I have been either in the military or a civilian in a war-zone that irrespective of the merits of the argument they are forfeit then you should consider the reasons that countries like Australia and the United States have civilian control over the military.
Irvine511 said:
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.
reply
Perhaps a viewpoint from say Michael Ware....his week with the U.S. troops in Ramadi in Anbar province.....called "The Most Dangerous Place"......{photos and all}......"Time" of May 29.....would be a helpful reminder of what this war/invasion has become........
So, as we sit back and relax at home.......and watch the latest sports results.......what exactly is the timeframe with this Iraq scenario. I deal with time {the one with the 12 hands around the clock....which BTW is just a measurement of reality}.......
Perhaps a viewpoint from say Michael Ware....his week with the U.S. troops in Ramadi in Anbar province.....called "The Most Dangerous Place"......{photos and all}......"Time" of May 29.....would be a helpful reminder of what this war/invasion has become........
So, as we sit back and relax at home.......and watch the latest sports results.......what exactly is the timeframe with this Iraq scenario. I deal with time {the one with the 12 hands around the clock....which BTW is just a measurement of reality}.......
Irvine511 said:
Several Western European countries supported the United States. The United Kingdom sent an entire Armored Division which had a key role in the initial invasion. Italy and Spain sent thousands of troops. Dutch and Danish troops were also involved. France and Germany are not the only countries in Western Europe. Besides, Germany did not send troops in the 1991 Gulf War, and France only sent 10,000, its not as though their contributions were really missed this time around in regards to troop deployments.
The idea that you could have a Muslim coalition of nearly half a million troops is really a fantasy. The invasion and occupation would not benefit at all from having neighboring countries of Iraq deploy troops inside Iraq. That would create a whole host of problems and concerns by the local population. Pakistan would never send large numbers of troops to the Persian Gulf, especially since it is outnumbered and is always in a state of low grade crises in regards to possible war with India.
Egypt since it is actually a great distance from the region and could not be seen by anyone as having territorial ambitions in Iraq would have been a possiblity. But Egyptian forces would be 100% dependent on the United States for deployment to Iraq as well as totally dependent when it came to logistical support.
To many people forget that even in the 1991 Gulf War, US forces comprised 75% of the total force available. Whats more, many of the Arab forces did little if any fighting. The United States and United Kingdom did 99% of the fighting in the 1991 Gulf War.
More support from Europe would have only yielded a few more thousand troops. Not much more could have been received from Arab and Muslim countries that did not border Iraq. A 400,000 man force could only have been attained if more than 80% of the force came from the United States. It would also mean that the entire National Guard would be constantly on active duty as the rotation schedual for such a large force in Iraq would require it.
In regards to the 2003 invasion, there are some arguements that could be made for a larger US deployment. What many people don't realize though is that a US invasion and initial occupation force that was double in size of the one that went into Iraq would require the use of every active duty brigade in the US force structure. This would also mean as the entire force was rotated out of country after a full year there, they would have to be replaced by a similar sized force of National Guard brigades. This of course would have meant the early call of nearly all National Guard Brigades for deployment to Iraq in order to replace an active force twice as large as the one that actually went into Iraq.
But by far the best solution to help prevent much of the fighting after the invasion, would have been not to disband the Iraqi military and put off any sort of debathification program except for the highest leadership levels. This would have calmed Sunni fears and severely depleted the insurgency which has been almost completely Sunni based. There would still be an insurgency and heavy fighting, but the coalition would be two years ahead of where it is today, at least in respect to the building of the new Iraqi military and perhaps several months to a year ahead in terms of development of the new government.
Re: reply
Ramadi in the Anbar province is no more violent than it was 2 years ago in April 2004. In fact, based on casualty figures, its a less violent place.
Time frame for the Iraq senerio is tied to the training of the Iraqi military and police force, as well as the continued development of the government and the economy.
Many say that means large numbers of US troops for the next 2 to 5 years. Its unlikely that the United States would be able to pull out all of its troops prior to the summer of 2011, if it wants to succeed in Iraq. It will probably take until the end of 2008 for the Iraqi military to completely control all of Iraq itself from the aspect of combat and patrolling. Iraqi forces will be in control of 75% of Iraq by the fall of 2006, but many of these area's are not in the Sunni Triangle. Even then, Iraqi forces will still be heavily dependent on US forces for logistical support, planning and communication, as well as air support. Over the next two years(2009 into 2011), the Iraqi military would gradually develop capabilities in these area's.
All US air support missions aside from Helicopter units are flown out of Kuwait and other area's in the Persian Gulf. If the United States is able to fully pull out by the summer of 2011, it will still be able to support the Iraqi military in many ways with its forces in Kuwait. There will likely be a rapid reaction force that could quickly deploy out of Kuwait into Iraq if the Iraqi military got into a difficult situation. As time goes by though, the need for that would decrease.
wizard2c said:Perhaps a viewpoint from say Michael Ware....his week with the U.S. troops in Ramadi in Anbar province.....called "The Most Dangerous Place"......{photos and all}......"Time" of May 29.....would be a helpful reminder of what this war/invasion has become........
So, as we sit back and relax at home.......and watch the latest sports results.......what exactly is the timeframe with this Iraq scenario. I deal with time {the one with the 12 hands around the clock....which BTW is just a measurement of reality}.......
Ramadi in the Anbar province is no more violent than it was 2 years ago in April 2004. In fact, based on casualty figures, its a less violent place.
Time frame for the Iraq senerio is tied to the training of the Iraqi military and police force, as well as the continued development of the government and the economy.
Many say that means large numbers of US troops for the next 2 to 5 years. Its unlikely that the United States would be able to pull out all of its troops prior to the summer of 2011, if it wants to succeed in Iraq. It will probably take until the end of 2008 for the Iraqi military to completely control all of Iraq itself from the aspect of combat and patrolling. Iraqi forces will be in control of 75% of Iraq by the fall of 2006, but many of these area's are not in the Sunni Triangle. Even then, Iraqi forces will still be heavily dependent on US forces for logistical support, planning and communication, as well as air support. Over the next two years(2009 into 2011), the Iraqi military would gradually develop capabilities in these area's.
All US air support missions aside from Helicopter units are flown out of Kuwait and other area's in the Persian Gulf. If the United States is able to fully pull out by the summer of 2011, it will still be able to support the Iraqi military in many ways with its forces in Kuwait. There will likely be a rapid reaction force that could quickly deploy out of Kuwait into Iraq if the Iraqi military got into a difficult situation. As time goes by though, the need for that would decrease.
Similar threads
