# The war in Iraq



## john2054 (Feb 24, 2012)

I am posting this thread in the full knowledge that I have already had at least three of my ready present threads taking down due to trolling. So anyway, I have been on about four marches in London, some years ago protesting against this war. One of those marches acruing over some three hundred thousand of us. These were important moments, and times. For both England, and the world as a whole, in some way. I am against the war. If the SAS are as good as they claim to be, they should have taken him out a long time before he was caught, and ended the whole thing before it had started. Instead what we have is a failed state, and a war where civilian deaths impinge upon a million (see the Lancet review also this guardian article...http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq?INTCMP=SRCH.) This is simply unacceptable in today's day and age, I would hazard to mention.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 24, 2012)

john2054 said:


> I am posting this thread in the full knowledge that I have already had at least three of my ready present threads taking down due to trolling. So anyway, I have been on about four marches in London, some years ago protesting against this war. One of those marches acruing over some three hundred thousand of us. These were important moments, and times. For both England, and the world as a whole, in some way. I am against the war. If the SAS are as good as they claim to be, they should have taken him out a long time before he was caught, and ended the whole thing before it had started. Instead what we have is a failed state, and a war where civilian deaths impinge upon a million (see the Lancet review also this guardian article...http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq?INTCMP=SRCH.) This is simply unacceptable in today's day and age, I would hazard to mention.


It would seem that it is.
Sean


----------



## billc (Feb 24, 2012)

That Lancet article was debunked a long time ago...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/24696_Lancets_Iraq_Study-_Bogus_Possibly_Fraudulent



> Remember the study released last year by British medical journal _The Lancet_ that ludicrously claimed more than 650,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the Iraq War? The study that was seized upon by &#8220;anti-war&#8221; groups, and is now cited as fact and repeated endlessly in the propaganda from International ANSWER, CODEPINK, Stop the War Coalition and every other loony left organization on the planet?
> Now, a damning peer review has come to the conclusion that the Lancet&#8217;s study has &#8220;no scientific standing&#8221;&#8212;and may in fact be fraudulent.





> The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,&#8221; contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. &#8220;They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.&#8221; The paper had &#8220;no scientific standing&#8221;. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? &#8220;No.&#8221;If you factor in politics, the heat increases. One of the Lancet authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of Representatives and has spoken out against the war. Dr Richard Horton, Editor of the Lancet is also antiwar.


The article was debunking the lancet was released in 2008(?)


----------



## john2054 (Feb 26, 2012)

Unfortunately Billhichak, you cannot claim that an official peer reviewed article from a prestigious publication such as the lancet, which carried out house to house surveys of iraqi mortality rates and in anything was an underestimation of the total casualty figures, on account of the internal 'civil' war fractures now erupting in the country post invasion, is 'debunked' by a London economist's exertion. That is like saying that the burning of the Quran in Afghanistan is an accidental mistake. Try saying that to the millions of Afghanis who have been so outraged by this terrible act. I am sorry my friend, it just won't wash.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 26, 2012)

john2054 said:


> I am posting this thread in the full knowledge that I have already had at least three of my ready present threads taking down due to trolling. So anyway, I have been on about four marches in London, some years ago protesting against this war. One of those marches acruing over some three hundred thousand of us. These were important moments, and times. For both England, and the world as a whole, in some way. I am against the war. If the SAS are as good as they claim to be, they should have taken him out a long time before he was caught, and ended the whole thing before it had started. Instead what we have is a failed state, and a war where civilian deaths impinge upon a million (see the Lancet review also this guardian article...http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq?INTCMP=SRCH.) This is simply unacceptable in today's day and age, I would hazard to mention.



What would you propose as a solution?


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2012)

Like when the military burned bibles?  Hmmm...not quite the outrage there was there.  The lancet also retracted this peer reviewed paper on Autism

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-02/...d-autism-general-medical-council?_s=PM:HEALTH

so the Lancet is hardly beyone reproach...


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2012)

'If the SAS were as good as they say they are'.... they are, as are other special forces units, both ours and the Americans however they don't act independently, they take their orders from Her Majesty's Government. They aren't mavericks zapping around the place bumping people off.
Several things have led me to believe you aren't from the UK, are you a citizen, I wonder because you make the mistake foreigners do of calling the UK 'England'. The peace marches are important only in that it's free speech and you can march here, unlike Iraq at the time, the peace marches themselves were  unimportant. The abuse our troops have received is important though and shameful, they too serve their country, in the UK they serve their Queen as well, they have gone through hell and highwater, been wounded and gave their lives so you can go on your peace marches, remember that when you next march, remember how many died so you have that freedom in my country.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 26, 2012)

When did he say it was beyond reproach. If the lancet is to have any credibility, it damn well BETTER be able to retract a statement or article. That is part and parcel to the whole PEER REVIEW concept. 

But that does not mean it will be automatically be rebuked by one economist on an article in littlegreenfootballs.com

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 26, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> ...remember that when you next march, remember how many died so you have that freedom in my country.



How many people who served died for the freedom to march peacefully in Iraq?

The answer isn't going to please many people.

The solution is to not get involved in these wars in the first place.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> How many people who served died for the freedom to march peacefully in Iraq?
> 
> The answer isn't going to please many people.
> 
> The solution is to not get involved in these wars in the first place.




I was addressing someone who is not a citizen of my country who is criticising it while taking advantage of the freedom this country offers. He has the right to march through London, as people should, that concerns me, not whether people have the right to march through Iraq's streets. You do not blame servicemen ie the SAS for not 'taking out' another country's leader, it's not in their remit to make calls like killing leaders off their own bat. Blame governments, the UN whoever but not the servicemen.


----------



## john2054 (Feb 26, 2012)

Hold on there tez. I was born in Manchester in 1981. Please be more careful the next time you call out someones nationality ok? And I know that a lot of our boys have died in Iraq, but bearing in mind that they shouldn't have been there to begin with, this was an illegal war on the breach on one of the first united nation's charter points that no country in the un should attack another country within it, without due provocation. And that is clearly something which the uk did NOT have. And please note i am not making this up, it is something an attourney general from France made clear to us at one of the rallys. War is a dirty business. I wash my hands of the whole thing!


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Hold on there tez. I was born in Manchester in 1981. Please be more careful the next time you call out someones nationality ok? And I know that a lot of our boys have died in Iraq, but bearing in mind that they shouldn't have been there to begin with, this was an illegal war on the breach on one of the first united nation's charter points that no country in the un should attack another country within it, without due provocation. And that is clearly something which the uk did NOT have. And please note i am not making this up, it is something an attourney general from France made clear to us at one of the rallys. War is a dirty business. I wash my hands of the whole thing!



If you were born in Manchester why were your other posts implying otherwise as well as going on about other stuff? *No*, don't answer I don't think I'm that bothered. Now you are implying that the soldiers who were killed don't matter because they shouldn't have been there anyway. You can wash your hands of it all but frankly, I'm not bothered at all what you think. The soldiers were doing their duty serving their country, if their country has let them down that's one thing but to suggest it doesn't matter they died ( females as well before you start with the 'our boys again') becaus they shouldn't have been there I find offensive. I don't believe we should have gone to war with Iraq but I support and always will the military who do a damn fine job and sacrifice a lot.


----------



## john2054 (Feb 26, 2012)

Here are some important vids my mate showed me, that i think you should see!











http://collateralmurder.com/

Watch the vids, i've said my bit.

Note if this is the military you are so proud of, opening fire and killing innocent civs, i'm sorry tez but you and me are from different worlds. I say their actions are SHAMEFUL, and they bring SHAME to me and MY COUNTRY, and neither do I want them to be associated with me, or nor do I want any scummy backbiters like you to have anything to do with us either. Keep your politics and your hypocritical oaths to yourself, OK?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2012)

So, let me summarise, you think the deaths of British soldiers unimportant because they shouldn't have been there anyway and the American soldiers are murdering bastards? Yep, you've certainly said your bit. :uhohh:


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Here are some important vids my mate showed me, that i think you should see!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





So much for being a peaceful person, it's alright I forgive you.


----------



## john2054 (Feb 26, 2012)

Note I come on here to express my democratically entitled right to express my free opinion, and I immediately get negative feedback, calling me a troll. And telling me to go away. Well guess what, I am staying put. If you want me gone, conjure up a reason to ban me and then be rid. Until then, and I am not breaking the rules by saying this, but sorry here i stay!


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 26, 2012)

Chill, guy. If you're going to soapbox about your freedom of speech, keep in mind that your detractors have the same freedom of speech you do. Even Tez. 



Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 26, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Note I come on here to express my democratically entitled right to express my free opinion, and I immediately get negative feedback, calling me a troll. And telling me to go away. Well guess what, I am staying put. If you want me gone, conjure up a reason to ban me and then be rid. Until then, and I am not breaking the rules by saying this, but sorry here i stay!



Let me address a couple things.

First, just so you know, I have not given you negative feedback or called you a troll.  If someone else did, I can't help that.  But know it was not me.  I sign my negative feedbacks.

Second, this forum is private property.  Neither you nor I have any 'right' to express any opinions whatsoever.  Period.  Bob's the owner, and what he says goes.  If he allows you (or me) to speak our minds, that's his right to do so or to prohibit it if he feels like it.  "Freedom of speech" is a right that can be upheld or denied by governments; private citizens and property owners have no obligation whatsoever to offer you a platform to say whatever you want to.

Third, I asked a very basic question.  Assuming that your comments about the war in Iraq are accurate (and I am not saying they are, I am simply allowing that they are for the sake of argument), what is it you think should be done?  That's a basic question.  Very simple.  Please answer.

Just posting your opinion that the war in Iraq was bad and the people involved in it are all criminals means what, exactly?  What is it that you want to be done?   Given that we cannot turn back time, what is your proposal?

If you do not have a proposal, and simply wanted to state your opinion about the war in Iraq, consider it noted.  Not much else to discuss, right?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 26, 2012)

But if you want the mods to lock up a thread, the surest way is to complain about your rep... Or bring it up at all, really, at least on the public forum. If you have a problem with your rep, bring it up with the moderators. 

Besides.. its just green and red dots. It's not exactly a huge deal.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 26, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Besides.. its just green and red dots. It's not exactly a huge deal.



And I'm color-blind.  I can't tell which ones are red and which ones green unless the person leaving feedback give me some kind of indication in the text of the feedback itself.  I'm sure I've gotten negative feedbacks and thought it was positive. _ "I can't believe you went there!"_  OK, is that good or bad that I went there?  

Which is why I find the entire thing a bit on the silly side.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 26, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Note I come on here to express my democratically entitled right to express my free opinion, and I immediately get negative feedback, calling me a troll. And telling me to go away. Well guess what, I am staying put. If you want me gone, conjure up a reason to ban me and then be rid. Until then, and I am not breaking the rules by saying this, but sorry here i stay!



First of all, this is a privately owned forum.  

While you may very well have the freedom of speech in whatever country you reside, Martialtalk.com is not your country, nor is this a democracy.  While we do encourage people to partake in freedom of expression, there are still rules concerning this, specifically Section 1.3:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...um-Rules-and-Procedures-Revised-March-29-2011



> *1.3 "Freedom of Speech":
> 
> 
> *MartialTalk is dedicated towards allowing as much freedom in our member&#8217;s communications as we can. However, while we believe very much in the idea of freedom of speech & personal expression, you DO NOT have the absolute right to say whatever you want in this community.
> ...



If you don't like the fact that you've been hit with negative reputation, there are several solutions:

1) Start making productive posts.  This is the easiest way to do so, since people will appreciate good knowledge. 

2) Stop talking about your rather checkered past.  We're really not interested in your criminal actions from before.  

3) You can become a supporting member, and as a result, will have the power to disable your reputation.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 26, 2012)

What they said, yeah.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 26, 2012)

I clicked on this thread and expected somone bumped a thread from 5 years ago.  Sadam was killed in 2006.  And the last study I could find was from Brown university and it said the civilian death toll from direct combat operation is around 120 thousand.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 26, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I clicked on this thread and expected somone bumped a thread from 5 years ago.  Sadam was killed in 2006.  And the last study I could find was from Brown university and it said the civilian death toll from direct combat operation is around 120 thousand.



The Lancet attempts to count everyone killed from the whole destabilization of the country, it includes those killed because of the civil war between Shiite and Sunni muslims.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 26, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The Lancet attempts to count everyone killed from the whole destabilization of the country, it includes those killed because of the civil war between Shiite and Sunni muslims.



I understand what it attempts to do.  The OP is slamming the military members saying they murdered almost a million people and its just not true.

As to the Lancet study It just has too many holes in it for me:

 The man responsible for compiling some of the Lancet study is the very same  propagandist employed by Sadam Hussein to claim that U.N. was killing innocent  Iraqi children when sanctions were imposed after the 1990 liberation of Kuwait. 
While it's widely known that the Lancet authors refused to release their data  to be evaluated by outsiders, there has been little talk about Riyadh Lafta. 
Lafta was the man in charge of the actual collection of numbers, while  another Lancet author was in Iraq but holed up in a hotel. As National Journal  notes, Lafta was also a high-ranking official in Saddam Hussein's ministry of  health and there authored some of the agit-prop papers about the vast number of  small children dying from sanctions the U.N. imposed after the 1990 invasion of  Kuwait


The editor of the Lancet, physician Richard Horton, has unapologetically  used the journal for advocacy on other issues, including a notorious 1998 paper  that created an international panic over the safety of the childhood vaccine for  measles, mumps, and rubella [the MMR] &#8211; linking it to autism and bowel disease. ​And... 
Horton spoke at a rally in 2006 sponsored by Stop the War Coalition, a  British group set up on September 21, 2001, which is to say its purpose was to  oppose punishing and defeating the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. At the  rally, Horton shouted about the "mountain of violence and torture" in Iraq &#8211; and  no, he wasn't talking about Saddam. "This axis of Anglo-American imperialism  extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it  goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease," he angrily  added. ​


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2012)

Suppose that the numbers are wrong. How many children died because of the sanctions and the war? How many were threats to a country on the other side of the world?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Suppose that the numbers are wrong. How many children died because of the sanctions and the war? How many were threats to a country on the other side of the world?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk




How many did Saddam kill? What about the Kurds he gassed? The men, men women and children that lay dead in the streets where they fell? What about all the people who 'disappeared', those that were detained and tortured? If you are going to count the dead, count them all not just those that are convenient to count. How many died in the Iran Iraq war? As I said I don't believe we should have gone to war in Iraq the second time but you can't just see things one sided, you have to look at the whole.

this is from 2003 http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

And this, an interesting view of things including the Lancet report. The one thing I notice here is that he's put down about how many lives were saved by the action.
http://markhumphrys.com/iraq.dead.html I especially like the bit further down where the Lancet blames Israeli aggression for the Palestianians beating their wives and honour killings!


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Chill, guy. If you're going to soapbox about your freedom of speech, keep in mind that your detractors have the same freedom of speech you do. Even Tez.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



I say what I say upfront and so everyone can read, I don't do sneaky.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 27, 2012)

john2054 said:


> I am posting this thread in the full knowledge that I have already had at least three of my ready present threads taking down due to trolling. So anyway, I have been on about four marches in London, some years ago protesting against this war. One of those marches acruing over some three hundred thousand of us. These were important moments, and times. For both England, and the world as a whole, in some way. I am against the war. If the SAS are as good as they claim to be, they should have taken him out a long time before he was caught, and ended the whole thing before it had started. Instead what we have is a failed state, and a war where civilian deaths impinge upon a million (see the Lancet review also this guardian article...http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq?INTCMP=SRCH.) This is simply unacceptable in today's day and age, I would hazard to mention.


I think in this matter -and matters of other wars and potential wars around the world right now- if anyone feels they can speak dispassionately, without the impressions of their own beliefs or prejudices and also speak armed with the full range of subjective opinions and feelings on all sides then they are deluded.  All any of us can do is give a partly-informed opinion of the situation as we see it.  If you lived Kabul and were being subject to oppression you would have one view of the world and a particular thought of how to extricate yourself and your family.  Perhaps your views are not entirely objective.  Yet they may be no less objective than someone from New York or who worked in Manhattan in 2001 or as I do in London 2005.  Your reality would not be their reality yet it would be no less real and worthy an outlook to you.  If you had business interests in Iraq or family working there you would have another view that might contradict the former views.  There are many views no one of which can provide the entire panorama over the situation.

All I am saying is that the only conclusion one can draw from this or any of the upcoming wars is that a great many people were killed on all sides who would be alive had the war not happened.  Some were killed on both sides because they believed they were doing what was necessitated.  Some others were caught in a conflict that was not theirs.  This is the nature of war.  War is not a good thing, can that be disagreed with?  As I see it, wars are taken for granted today and utilised as an expedient rather than an absolute last resort defence against mortal danger.  

Have our governors, politicians, masters and supposed betters got no sense of diplomacy any more?  I do not know, what do you think?

Is the world full of autocrats and fanatics who hear nobody but their own voices in their heads?  Is this why diplomacy is ineffectual?  I do not know that either.

Perhaps are wars contrived in gentlemen's think-tanks so that economically favourable regime changes can occur and to hell with the real cost to innocent military personnel and innocent civilians alike?  I do not know.  I am not party to that class of people.

I think after this war it is obvious that the survivors of those that gave their lives for what they believed are *not *better off for losing their loved ones.  I have no doubt that others however *do *feel better off in the post-war era.  If the net gain is positive and more people are better off because of the war in Iraq is this how the war and all our other current global wars are justified?  Is it purely mathematical?  It does not matter if we lose many people in order to make many other people better off?  Is this correct? I think maybe I am just giving my thoughts in the wrong place.

Really I just do not understand why people cannot tolerate other people.  What am I missing?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2012)

No one in their right mind believes wars solve anything, that they are desirable or pruduce anthing that is good for all concerned. Wars sometimes cannot be avoided, other times can and should be avoided, all wars are about power, land and wealth whatever people may think or say the cause is ie religon. Wars bring out the worst in us yet they can also bring out the very best in humankind. Individual actions can be beyond courageous and wonderfully humanitarian, some actions take our breath away with admiration, others make us weep with despair and grief. 

When wars are declared the blame must be laid squarely at the feet of those responsible, war criminals must be proscecuted. To say glibly 'war is wrong and all soldiers murderers' is simplistic and childish, saying you'll have nothing to do with wars doesn't stop them. The Quakers are famously pacifist but go to great lengths to act in a humanitarian way, helping the wounded, trying to spread the message of peace in a positive manner that has my admiration, they put their money where their mouth is. Posting on a martial arts website that you think war is bad isn't positive, everyone sane thinks war is bad, as Bill M asked twice now, what is the OPs solution to the problem?


Posting up 'reports' that American soldiers kill thousands in cold blood is inflammatory, no country's army is comprised of angels, there has been times when American soldiers have killed in cold blood BUT this is not condoned or encouraged by the authorities, it is punished quite severely as I remember. You can't police every action soldiers take but you can train them, teach them morals and punish those who transgress. The British forces are no different, yes there have been soldiers who have committed crimes and yes they are caught and punished because both America and the UK are trying their best to act properly, in as moral and humanitarian way that they can. In Afghanistan British soldiers cannot fire back at those shooting at them unless certain criteria are in place, this is to hopefully stop civilian casualties. What they also do is build schools, hospitals, dig wells as well as a lot of other things for the people of Afghan,as do the Americans, they understand that many Afghans don't want them there but that many more actually do and appreciate what is being done for them.

John2054, if you feel so strongly about this, don't demonstrate in London come up to Catterick Garrison, stand outside Tescos and tell people here how the soldiers are murderers. You won't be harmed, no one will beat you up. Before you do watch this right to the end, look into the eyes of these dead men and ask yourself honestly are these the eyes of cold blooded killers or of men who made the ultimate sacrifice for something they believed in, their mates and protecting the people their country sent them to protect. I know many of the men in the video, some well, some very well and third from the end in his tank is Steptoe one of my best students. If you are going to call British soldiers murderers have the guts to do it to their faces.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Suppose that the numbers are wrong. How many children died because of the sanctions and the war? How many were threats to a country on the other side of the world?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


One dead child is one too many but dont lie to make your point.  The lancet authors flat out lied to further their political agenda.  Wars suck but sometimes we are left with no choice.  You can debate we should have never entered iraq and thats your opinion.  My opinion is.we should have went in long ago when he gasses his own people.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Suppose that the numbers are wrong. How many children died because of the sanctions?


Wouldn't those deaths lie at Saddam's feet? How many women were raped by Uday and Qusay, how many people fed in to wood chippers or dipped in acid?





> How many were threats to a country on the other side of the world?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


You have things *** backwards again. Western nations NEVER target civilians, unlike the terrorist groups that lay their allegiance to the "Religion of Peace", who go after soft targets for shock value, time after time.
Unless of course you are arguing that sanctions are pointless, which begs the question, why do democrat politicians favor them over actions that are effective?


----------



## john2054 (Feb 27, 2012)

With regards to the last post that western armies NEVER target children, if you watch this vid which i have already posted, you will see that there are clearly children in this truck that the army targets. Also please remember tez that for each one of those soldiers that died doing the job which they took on, each one of them probably killed over a dozen unarmed civs. That is statistically speaking. And if you do know some soldiers i suggest you ask them to tell you how many people they personally killed? Indeed I would be very much interested to hear what they say. Please watch this video below which I am sure that you haven't watched. But I watched your mormatorium.

http://collateralmurder.com/

Also note if you want to know what I think should be done with the politicians involved in the execution of this war (Bush jnr and Blair for two), how about holding them responsible for the deaths of this war. Which was all done to take out Saddam, which as I have said already, if the SAS are as good as you say they are, they could have ended the whole thing before it began with a bullet to the brain and that would have saved the deaths on both sides.

Also please remember that the soldiers in Afghanistan shouldn't even be there. I am sorry for every good man (or woman) who dies, but we turn a blind eye when our soldiers kill by the bucket load, only weep crocodile tears when they die. Well pull another story. Those 'boys' shouldn't even be there, in neither Iraq (and look at what a failed state that has turned out to be), or Afghanistan. That is all.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 27, 2012)

It's a point that is somewhat to the side of how this thread is going but there is a reason why, when they engage in war, nations do not seek to "take out" the political leader on the other side.  For if you do that there is noone with the legitimate authority to bring hostilities to a close.  War by assassination might have the advantage of going straight for the people that started the whole mess but it has the big disadvantage of dragging things out for longer than they need to.

As to the purely practical matters that surround attempting to assassinate a closeted head of state using special forces, well ... the forces may be special but they are not 'Manga special'.  Far easier to hit such a compound with a 'bunker buster' if that's what you want to do.

Regarding the moral questions of whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been undertaken, well, in my opinion, no they should not.  A war that does not have a clear, obtainable, objective is one you cannot win and is best not started.  That is not to say that sometimes a nation should not go to war for reasons of political advantage - we (Britain) have done so on many occasions over the centuries of playing the Great Game.  But if you're going to play, it's best to choose games in which you can gain a decisive outcome.

Iraq parts one and two were to gain America a foothold in the Middle East with a view towards further influence in the region - it didn't work out that way and cost way too many lives for too little political gain.  Tho' it did have the virtue of giving a salutary lesson in what happens when ex-Soviet issue kit faces up to front-line Western hardware -something Iran should consider carefully as it rattles it's sabre.

Afghanistan was again for influence in the region with a view, so the story goes, of building a route for getting ex-Soviet-states oil to the coast.  That one is an even bigger mistake than Iraq was and even less forgiveable as history has shown on several occasions what happens in that country if a foreign power tries to take control.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2012)

john2054 said:


> With regards to the last post that western armies NEVER target children, if you watch this vid which i have already posted, you will see that there are clearly children in this truck that the army targets. Also please remember tez that for each one of those soldiers that died doing the job which they took on, each one of them probably killed over a dozen unarmed civs. That is statistically speaking. And if you do know some soldiers i suggest you ask them to tell you how many people they personally killed? Indeed I would be very much interested to hear what they say. Please watch this video below which I am sure that you haven't watched. But I watched your mormatorium.
> 
> http://collateralmurder.com/
> 
> ...




You allege that British soldiers have killed by 'the bucket load', prove it. I know for a fact that our soldiers haven't killed dozens of unarmed civilians, I do know they have killed Afghan insurgents, killed in battle, that includes those killed by snipers. Those killed by snipers were in the act of planting IEDs designed to kill and maim soldiers *but in fact kill as many civilians including children.* In one engagement 42 RM CDO were ambushed on their way to help at a school that had been the target of a rocket attack by the insurgents, they knew the Royal Marines would go to help, the RMs went knowing they would come under attack but because children were injured they could do nothing else, the commander could have refused to help but the RMs aren't like that. All fire fights etc are done under the Rules of Engagement. Often insurgents have got away because our troops won't open fire while civilians are in the area.

http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/v_s_of_the_british_army.pdf


Do the British soldiers believe in the values and standards that the Army sets? Funnily enough they do, they don't like civilian deaths anymore than you do, when they look at the Afghan families they see their own, they see themselves as being there to help the local people not kill them. Many Afghanis agree with them, for many women it's the first time they've been allowed to work or to send their daughters to school. For many it means healthcare, for others it's freedom from religious persecution.

There are civilians killed by Allied forces as sometimes things go wrong, however no one is saddened more or is sorrier than the Allied soldiers and at no time are civilians deliberately targeted *unlike the suicide bombers who set out to cause maximum injuries and deaths of their own people.

*I assume you aren't trying to be deliberately insulting, though insulting you are. You have allowed yourself to be brainwashed into taking a simplistic view of a complicated situation. You are sounding like an apologist for the Taliban who I notice you don't equally criticise. As I said you come up here and tell the soldiers they are murderers, don't post it here where you are safe, come and tell them face to face.


http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4b7aa9e6c.html

http://www.rawa.org/schoolburnt.htm

_"At least six children were killed and another 14 injured after a rocket hit their school in eastern Kunar province, officials said on Tuesday. 

The rocket landed in the yard of the Salabagh primary school in the provincial capital of Asadabad, close to a US-led coalition base, said Zahidullah Zahid. The students were studying in the yard when the rocket landed, killing six innocent girls and boys, Zahid explained." 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...own-faces-Afghan-schoolgirls-walk-school.html

"These are the horrifying burns left on the faces of two Afghan schoolgirls after two men on motorbikes threw acid on them outside their Kandahar school.
The girls, sisters aged 16 and 14, have been hospitalised. It is said that their attackers removed their head scarves before pouring the acid onto their faces."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/21/world/asia/afghanistan-child-bombers/index.html

"Afghan police have intercepted 41 children whom insurgents were planning to use as suicide bombers, an Interior Ministry spokesman said Tuesday.
Four suspected insurgents were about to smuggle the children across the mountains into Pakistan from eastern Kunar province on Friday, said Sediq Seddiqi, the spokesman.
"We strongly believe that the children were being taken to Pakistan to be trained, brainwashed and sent back as Afghan enemies," Seddiqi said.
The children are aged between 6 and 11, he said."




_John, do your research and stop parrotting the words you've been given. No one is for war, we are all against it but you really need to get your facts right before making accusations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2012)

Or maybe the real question is why can't antiwar movements in various countries around the world, keep our servicemen and women off of senseless battlefields?


----------



## granfire (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Or maybe the real question is why can't antiwar movements in various countries around the world, keep our servicemen and women off of senseless battlefields?



Because there is money to be made. A lot of money.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Or maybe the real question is why can't antiwar movements in various countries around the world, keep our servicemen and women off of senseless battlefields?



Granfire's correct there is too much money to be made. I believe Eisenhower warned against this.

However if you are going to be a member of a peace movement one should be against ALL war, not just the ones that don't fit your idealogy. I don't think the Allies should have gone into Iraq or Afghanistan ( as a matter of interest most British troops think the same) but portraying the troops as some sort of inhuman child killing monsters isn't the answer to achieving peace. Murdering a country's head of state isn't going to do it either.  
Here's someone I don't actually like nor do I support him but while there's bits I disagree with he speaks a lot of sense. He's anti war and goes on the same marches as the OP but he makes some interesting points all the same such as why only criticise NATO.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/07/anti-war-taliban-afghanistan


[h=1]I'm anti-war, but the Taliban must not triumph in Afghanistan[/h]On the 10th anniversary of war in Afghanistan, anti-imperialism cannot be allowed to trump human rights




Share 101


reddit this 

Comments (387)





Peter Tatchell 

guardian.co.uk, Friday 7 October 2011 10.00 BST
Article history






_'A premature exit could result in a Taliban victory &#8211; and a bloodbath. Is this what anti-war activists want?' Photograph: EPA_

_The Afghan war strategy is not working. After 10 bloody years, there are too many civilian casualties and no prospect of defeating the Taliban. We are propping up a Kabul government mired in corruption, which gained power through fraudulent elections. Our intervention has focused on war-fighting to the relative neglect of economic reconstruction and the empowerment of civil society. The cost to the British people of this half-baked venture is a staggering £5bn a year, when public services are being slashed. For all these reasons, I'm supporting the mass anti-war assembly in Trafalgar Square this Saturday. But I do so critically._
_As a leftwinger and internationalist, I can't accept the simplistic calls for immediate troop withdrawal. Don't get me wrong. I never supported the war strategy in Afghanistan. The Nato-led occupation is wrong. Democracy and human rights cannot be imposed by western diktat. The troops should come home &#8211; but not with no regard for the consequences._
_A hasty Nato withdrawal will not bring peace. Afghan security forces lack the training, equipment and numbers to stave off the fundamentalist threat. A premature exit could result in a Taliban victory &#8211; and a bloodbath. Is this what anti-war activists want? I'm sure they don't. So why do many of my colleagues make a demand that risks such a grisly outcome?_
_Campaigners against the war are rightly critical of Nato's ham-fisted intervention, human rights abuses and reckless attacks that kill civilians. But why aren't they equally critical of the Taliban? Taliban fighters deliberately target civilians. They kill many more ordinary Afghans than the Nato forces, and they'd kill even more civilians if there was a rushed pull-out of western troops. A one-sided focus on Nato's wrongs, to the neglect of a far more brutal set of killers, is a tad hypocritical._
_Nearly 90% of Afghans oppose the Taliban &#8211; a clerical fascist movement that seeks to impose a religious dictatorship. A Taliban regime would ban all political parties, trade unions, and women's organisations. Women and girls would be forced out of schools and jobs, back into the home. They'd be subjected to compulsory shrouding and gender apartheid. Any woman who refused to conform would risk lashing and stoning. Why has the anti-war movement never protested against the Taliban's crimes against female humanity?_
_Afghan advocates of women's equality oppose a swift troop pull-out. They fear it could result in a Taliban takeover, which would suppress women for decades. Despite Nato's failings, 72% of Afghan women say their lives are better than 10 years ago._
_Afghan female MP, Fawzia Koofi, this week urged Britain "not to abandon us," arguing that without western help Afghanistan's precarious attempt at democracy "won't survive"._
_Women's rights campaigner and Kabul MP, Shinkai Karokhail, stresses: "In the current situation of terrorism, we cannot say troops should be withdrawn &#8230; the international troop presence here is a guarantee for my safety."_
_Dr Sima Samar, chair of Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission, has appealed to western nations: "Finish the job you started. It's about the protection of humanity. This is a human responsibility."_
_Is it morally right for the west to ignore the Afghan people's fears and leave them vulnerable to the savage fate that will befall them if the Taliban seize power?_
_The "troops out" movement may be silent about the threat posed by the Taliban but most Afghans are not. Three-quarters still support the Nato invasion to topple the Taliban. More Afghans blame the Taliban for the violence than those who blame Nato. While a majority want foreign troops to leave, they don't want them to leave just yet. Nearly two-thirds of Afghans support the current presence of US-led Nato forces, according to an ABC/BBC poll in December 2010._
_If most Afghans want the troops to stay, should we still insist they go?_
_The anti-war movement in Britain is headed by the left. I don't see how immediate withdrawal &#8211; with the risk of mass repression by the Taliban &#8211; is compatible with the leftwing values of anti-fascism, international solidarity, human rights and support for oppressed people. Anti-war activists have never explained how they reconcile their humanitarian motives with the likely barbaric consequences of their demand for "troops out now"._
_There needs to be a more sophisticated anti-war alternative to the Nato strategy. I haven't got the answers but I know we should not abandon the Afghan people to a Taliban bloodfest. Anti-imperialism cannot be allowed to trump human rights"

_


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 27, 2012)

I think we are far past should we have gone to war.  Its too late for that now.  We went in screwed the place up and iny opinion we have a responsibility to try to stabilize the place now.  Too many people are viewed as "helping" the Americans and if we leave  with out atvleast trying to fix the region all the people are as good as dead.  All the woman that took the freedom to do outragious things like go to schiol and learn are as good as dead if we leave.  It sucks and should we have gone who knows but we did now its our baby and we need to do the right thing and take care of it the best we can.  As for every militay soilder killed dozens of innocent people thats to stupid to get an answer.  Maybe next time we can send in a team of ninjas to end it quickly.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I think we are far past should we have gone to war. Its too late for that now. We went in screwed the place up and iny opinion we have a responsibility to try to stabilize the place now. Too many people are viewed as "helping" the Americans and if we leave with out atvleast trying to fix the region all the people are as good as dead. All the woman that took the freedom to do outragious things like go to schiol and learn are as good as dead if we leave. It sucks and should we have gone who knows but we did now its our baby and we need to do the right thing and take care of it the best we can. As for every militay soilder killed dozens of innocent people thats to stupid to get an answer. Maybe next time we can send in a team of ninjas to end it quickly.




Spot on! We went in for all the wrong reasons but it's an ill wind that blows no good, a good many people do have better, more free lives than they did before we went in. The intention was to punish Al Queda, destroying the Taliban would be a by product, hasn't worked out quite like that but all the same a lot of service people who have been out there, a lot of them more than once, do believe they are making a difference to people's lives *and in a good way*. As you say, we are there and we have to put things right, give them what we take for granted..freedom.

Sending the ninjas in, brilliant idea!


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2012)

In Vietnam Americans asked the question, who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake? Are we really back to this? 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> In Vietnam Americans asked the question, *who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake*? Are we really back to this?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk




Actually I believe it was John Kerry who asked the question "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" when he was a future US presidential candidate addressing a Senate hearing in 1971.

Knowing service people though if it were absolutely watertight and genuine (or even a very good chance) that they would be the last ever you would have a volunteer...if it saved comrades lives there would be a queue to be the last man to die. So not a good attempt at wisdom really.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Actually I believe it was John Kerry who asked the question "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" when he was a future US presidential candidate addressing a Senate hearing in 1971.
> 
> Knowing service people though if it were absolutely watertight and genuine (or even a very good chance) that they would be the last ever you would have a volunteer...if it saved comrades lives there would be a queue to be the last man to die. So not a good attempt at wisdom really.



It is still a waste and society should be ashamed for letting it happen again. Instead, we trundle out a the same old slogans and keep on going along with it. I'm tired of it and it's especially hard to watch because of the context of history. In the end, the only solution is to not comply. We need to demand that our soldiers come home and people need to be realistic about what they are actually signing up to do when they join the military. Our politicians have a proven track record of abusing the good will of volunteers and that doesn't look like its changing any time soon. 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Feb 27, 2012)

I think both countries were really screwed up before we went there.  What about 9/11 and the taliban, is everyone forgetting that we sort of had to deal with their arrangement and training camps.  sadaam was the biggest loser because he was a bad actor who already had the paper work filed on him.  After 9/11, to let him sit their and play his games would have been silly.  I supported both campaigns, they made sense then and the only problem is the short memories of human beings.  Our actions did not just happen, they had a cause.  Islamic radical terrorism and the supporters, the taliban and sadaam, needed to be addressed and not ignored the way they had been for years and years.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It is still a waste and society should be ashamed for letting it happen again. Instead, we trundle out a the same old slogans and keep on going along with it. I'm tired of it and it's especially hard to watch because of the context of history. In the end, the only solution is to not comply. We need to demand that our soldiers come home and people need to be realistic about what they are actually signing up to do when they join the military. Our politicians have a proven track record of abusing the good will of volunteers and that doesn't look like its changing any time soon.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk



Who's the 'we' bit? I don't hear slogans and war cries and even a dedicated anti war protestor has explained why the troops can't leave Afghan at the moment, do you want what will happen there if they do leave on your conscience?
 I think you may want to stop insulting the intelligence of the military and realise they know exactly what they are joining up to and for. It would be very hard these days not to know even if you didn't think to ask. This thing of ignorant soldiers is a bit old hat, the days are long gone when soldiers were conned into joining, if in fact they ever existed, the words 'soldier' and 'army' do tend to spell out for people what they are expected to do if they join up.

Now if I were very cynical which of course I'm not, I would say the army regards fighting in wars as it's raison d'etre, the whole point of it being an army is to fight. They aren't volunteering to do social work they are volunteering to fight and I have to say they actually do it with a very good will. They like fair fights though, against other soldiers not fighting civvies. Face it, some people are born warriors.


----------



## billc (Feb 27, 2012)

Yes, just picking up and leaving is such a good idea...


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It is still a waste and society should be ashamed for letting it happen again. Instead, we trundle out a the same old slogans and keep on going along with it. I'm tired of it and it's especially hard to watch because of the context of history. In the end, the only solution is to not comply. We need to demand that our soldiers come home and people need to be realistic about what they are actually signing up to do when they join the military. Our politicians have a proven track record of abusing the good will of volunteers and that doesn't look like its changing any time soon.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


All thats fine but in this case it is too late.  We already went to war.  Do you not feel we have any responsibility to help fix a mess we made?  We made a comittment to all the people that helped us and work with us to abandon them and leave them for dead is wrong in my opinion


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 27, 2012)

This is one of those rare occasions where both sides, if I can characterise it that way, have the right of it.  

I've said myself, in the context of Iraq, that we were wrong to go, wrong to allow our governments to steamroller us to invade on slim pretexts (in legal terms) ... but once you are there and have factions 'in play' who will merrily slaughter each other if noone stops them, then what on earth are you supposed to do other than try to stabalise the situation as best as you are able?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 27, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> This is one of those rare occasions where both sides, if I can characterise it that way, have the right of it.


I could not disagree with you more.





> I've said myself, in the context of Iraq, that we were wrong to go, wrong to allow our governments to steamroller us to invade on slim pretexts (in legal terms) ... but once you are there and have factions 'in play' who will merrily slaughter each other if noone stops them, then what on earth are you supposed to do other than try to stabalise the situation as best as you are able?


You think we should have left Hussein in power, to, as you say: 





Sukerkin said:


> merrily slaughter


? That Saddam Hussein and his sons routinely slaughtered their own populace is unequivocal fact. That he and his regime supported terrorism is widely known. That he had used weapons of mass destruction on his fellow Iraqis as well as on Iranians is known as well. Should we, then, have left Hussein in power and hoped the strongly worded admonitions of the UN would change his mind?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 27, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I think both countries were really screwed up before we went there.  What about 9/11 and the taliban, is everyone forgetting that we sort of had to deal with their arrangement and training camps.  sadaam was the biggest loser because he was a bad actor who already had the paper work filed on him.  After 9/11, to let him sit their and play his games would have been silly.  I supported both campaigns, they made sense then and the only problem is the short memories of human beings.  Our actions did not just happen, they had a cause.  Islamic radical terrorism and the supporters, the taliban and sadaam, needed to be addressed and not ignored the way they had been for years and years.



Point of clarification: Hussein was more of a secular leader throughout his career, though he pimped Islam just like our leaders pimp Christianity. Hussein wasn't an Islamic terrorist. He was a Pan-Arab nationalist and he was an oppressive Nazi dictator (and before anyone gives me push back on the Nazi reference, read up on the Ba'ath Nationalist Socialist party, its founding, the Hussein family's direct ties to Nazi Germany during WWII, etc.)

That being said, it is a tough call for me. I take issue that we went to war in Iraq on BS charges of weapons of mass destruction on very sparse and corroborated human intel.

I do not take issue with taking out a Nazi piece of scum. I remember talking to refugees who had their entire family killed in front of them. I remember reading a story about a dancer who had to watch his wife and children lowered alive into a meat grinder.

No, I hadn't the slightest problem with taking out THAT kind of a leader.

If if only we hadn't helped get him into power in the first place.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> If if only we hadn't helped get him into power in the first place.



This is something that needs to be taken into account.

We messed up these countries before we ever put boots on the ground.  What makes anyone think we can fix them?  What if "the job" we are trying to accomplish is unwinding a 100 + year rat's nest of problems (that the West caused) that can't be unwoven without going Gengis Khan on those mofos?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> This is something that needs to be taken into account.
> 
> We messed up these countries before we ever put boots on the ground.  What makes anyone think we can fix them?  What if "the job" we are trying to accomplish is unwinding a 100 + year rat's nest of problems (that the West caused) that can't be unwoven without going Gengis Khan on those mofos?



Good question. I am in favor of international policy that makes allies instead of enemies. Bin Laden is another example of a problem we created. 

And yet...

It is even more irresponsible to say,"well we know we created this mess, and we are really, really, really, REALLY sorry for what we have done, but you know, right now your country is in a quagmire of a situation, and it is going to take more than we want to commit to to cleaning it up. Later!"

Honestly I don't have a a full solution to it. Doing nothing just dent sit well with me, though. And I think the issues can be resolved without going Ghengis Khan on them. I just don't know how.

Therefore you should vote me for president!

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Feb 27, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Good question. I am in favor of international policy that makes allies instead of enemies. Bin Laden is another example of a problem we created.
> 
> And yet...
> 
> ...



well, look before you leap would come to mind.
Not doing the bull in the china shop gig when looking at a problem...have a little foresight when getting mixed up in ****.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2012)

If we marched right in, we can march right out. 

For historical context on this solution, look at how the Soviet empire collapsed. Some countries immediately got better and some turned really bad, but things eventually worked there way out...and still are working there way out. Therefore, I say it is possible to just leave.



Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If we marched right in, we can march right out.
> 
> For historical context on this solution, look at how the Soviet empire collapsed. Some countries immediately got better and some turned really bad, but things eventually worked there way out...and still are working there way out. Therefore, I say it is possible to just leave.
> 
> ...




nah, man...can't walk right out.
That's reckless. 
With Hussein in power, the region was stable. comparatively few people had to worry about losing their heads, Iraq was relatively modern. 
Now? Good lord, it's a mess. 
You pull out now you leave chaos. You abandon the people who helped you. The Lone Ranger would never go for that!


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 27, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, look before you leap would come to mind.
> Not doing the bull in the china shop gig when looking at a problem...have a little foresight when getting mixed up in ****.



It's a nice sentiment, and one I have already talked about wanting for FUTURE foreign policy. But it does not help with the messes we already HAVE made. And I would like you to note I was referring to that. Crowing "look before you leap!" Just sounds condescending and self-righteous when we have already lept.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 27, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If we marched right in, we can march right out.
> 
> For historical context on this solution, look at how the Soviet empire collapsed. Some countries immediately got better and some turned really bad, but things eventually worked there way out...and still are working there way out. Therefore, I say it is possible to just leave.
> 
> ...



Not exactly a 1 to 1 comparison. And in any event, have you BEEN there? My conscience doesn't sit well with just marching out. That is also why the big push was for RESPONSIBLE draw down.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 27, 2012)

granfire said:


> nah, man...can't walk right out.
> That's reckless.
> With Hussein in power, the region was stable. comparatively few people had to worry about losing their heads, Iraq was relatively modern.
> Now? Good lord, it's a mess.
> You pull out now you leave chaos. You abandon the people who helped you. The Lone Ranger would never go for that!



Relatively stable. I know this of this dancer on Iraq who watched his family get ground up into meat. While still alive. Care to tell that to them? Dude, it was an oppressive Nazi regime. 

You want to tell the Kurds who were bombed with mustard gas that? Oh wait. They're dead. How about the families who had to clean up the after math?

We agree that pulling out too quick is a bad idea... But for different reasons entirely.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Not exactly a 1 to 1 comparison. And in any event, have you BEEN there? My conscience doesn't sit well with just marching out. That is also why the big push was for RESPONSIBLE draw down.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



Actually, I think it very well may turn out to be a 1 to 1 comparison, but I'll get to that in a few lines.

When I apply my *Minnesota Farmboy Ethics* to this problem, I can totally understand wanting to fix the mess that we made before we leave.  That's just the right thing to do.  The problem with this kind of thinking is that "we" didn't cause it.  Or more appropriately, YOU (because you actually served) are not totally responsible for this.  I don't think our servicemen and women should be taken on a guilt trip to fix a mess that began long before your granddaddy was born.  That's not fair according to my MFE system of looking at things.

At any rate, all of this may be moot.  Since this thread started talking about Britain, please pay attention to this recent article.

THE UK HAS RUN OUT OF MONEY!

The US is in the same boat, but we have the world's reserve currency at the moment, so we can play around for a little while longer.  The other half of the Anglo-American Empire isn't going to be playing around much longer because it's gotten to the point where all of this costs too god damned much to pay for.  Which brings me back to the Soviet Union.  All of these wars are going to end, whether we have "fixed the problems" or not.  The US and the UK have broken the bank with guns and butter programs and unless we get serious soon about ending these wars and cutting useless spending, this misadventure is going to end...the hard way.

My fingers feel filthy having to type this argument, killing innocent people needlessly, and wasting productive men and women should be enough for anyone to stand up stop this craziness.  Apparently, it needs also to be pointed out that the specter of hyperinflation and collapse of our economy is also the result of pursuing this asinine agenda even further.  If dead Iraqi babies isn't enough to convince people, maybe the real possibility of not being able to feed their own children, will get the job done.  If it gets to that point, well I have to say, Karma has had it's way with us.  We deserve it...well maybe other people do because I've done my share to try and stop it, and I've prepared for the worst because no one listened.  At any rate, I ain't sticking around to watch the show if it gets that far.

"It's easiest to learn the lessons from history because the pain is removed and wisdom is retained.  It's harder to learn from others because their mistakes reverberate through your life.  The hardest way to learn is through experience, because you own the results of your mishaps."


----------



## granfire (Feb 28, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Relatively stable. I know this of this dancer on Iraq who watched his family get ground up into meat. While still alive. Care to tell that to them? Dude, it was an oppressive Nazi regime.
> 
> You want to tell the Kurds who were bombed with mustard gas that? Oh wait. They're dead. How about the families who had to clean up the after math?
> 
> ...



Oh, don't get me wrong...it was bad

But you knew where to look at for trouble.
Now?

He hand his ilk needed to go, no doubt, but not in this manner...


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 28, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Actually, I think it very well may turn out to be a 1 to 1 comparison, but I'll get to that in a few lines.
> 
> When I apply my *Minnesota Farmboy Ethics* to this problem, I can totally understand wanting to fix the mess that we made before we leave. That's just the right thing to do. The problem with this kind of thinking is that "we" didn't cause it. Or more appropriately, YOU (because you actually served) are not totally responsible for this. I don't think our servicemen and women should be taken on a guilt trip to fix a mess that began long before your granddaddy was born. That's not fair according to my MFE system of looking at things.
> 
> ...




And we're supposed to have run out of money because we spend it on wars? No, don't think so, try the recession, the banks lending money to people who couldn't pay it back, the Euro crisis, the Labour government  etc etc etc. We don't spend nearly as much as other countries on the military and we actually have a nice little number going on selling munitions ( no I don't approve), no where in that article does it suggest that military spending is the cause of the recession which is affecting countries not involved in Afghan or Iraq btw. You can't twist things around to fit your theories just because it sounds okay to you.

The 'dead babies' argument is tasteless and crass, it's what the First World War propaganda used to dwell on, 'the 'Germans kill babies'. Thought we'd have grown out of that one.  You have done little to stop any wars, you just lecture us on here and we're not buying it, none of us here want wars, we are all for peace but we are also realists, we are in Afghanistan, just about out of Iraq and instead of beating our breasts and lamenting we have to do something positive to help sort the mess, which while we are partly responsible for but we must also lay blame on those on the other side who have committed crimes against humanity. I don't see you blaming them for that by the way, if you are against war it follows you should also be against ethinic cleansing, murder, torture, rape and all the other little ways Saddam and his family had. Josh is quite right about the Nazi connection, it runs through the Arab nations like thyphoid. 

Service people aren't being taken on a guilt trip, I don't know how you work that one out, they are doing what you are not, something positive to help the Afghans. The Taliban had a stranglehold on them, now it's being loosened daily and people are discovering there's more to life than having acid thrown in their daughters faces and their sons killed for flying kites. We shouldn't have gone in but now we have it's made a surprising difference to amny peoples lives. Many areas are now being handed over to Afghan security forces, the police trained by my colleagues, the army trained by the Allies, There's women police officers now, a thing never heard of before, there's school for girls, women are working. It's not what we went in for but the troops you keep saying are ignorant and ill used are the ones making the difference, not the governments but the troops many of whom do things like build schools, medical centres etc off their own bat and with money raised at home.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 28, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> I do not take issue with taking out a Nazi piece of scum. I remember talking to refugees who had their entire family killed in front of them. I remember reading a story about a dancer who had to watch his wife and children lowered alive into a meat grinder.
> 
> No, I hadn't the slightest problem with taking out THAT kind of a leader.
> 
> If if only we hadn't helped get him into power in the first place.


I think the inhumanity of those stories are almost impossible to read of.  I think though that this is one of many stories.  Do you think perhaps that other stories from other points of view are not always so clearly represented or portrayed by our sources of information?  Exactly as you say, not everyone realises the significant funding of the West toward the arming and deployment of Afghan mujahideen and others against the Soviet Union.  Yet when these aspects become incongruent with national economic and military goals, they are not represented in mainstream media.  Would you agree that true dispassionate objectivity is not easily come by.

My opinion is that there is a need to differentiate between actions which ARE justified and the realisation of goals through actions that WE justify.  

No matter what I do, be it planning a subway atrocity or initiating aggression with another nation, I can always find ways to justify my action as can each of us.  That is not the same as my, or the action of anyone else actually BEING justified.

I think it is not a simple matter to apply objectivity and tell the two apart when we ourselves are naturally prejudiced. 

More disturbingly, war seems to me to be something that is almost flippantly justified now.  I do not believe that every diplomatic avenue is always explored before war documents are signed.  I think that is unforgivable.  That is just my thoughts.  Thank you.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 28, 2012)

I don't think wars are 'flippantly' justified, I think the people who decide to go to war think long and hard about it however what I don't think they do is look at it from the right perspective. The powers that be will always ask 'what's in it for us' first and if there's enough they will go to war. A lot of effort goes into justifying any action, the 'it's to safeguard our country' is the favourite one, it's 'for national security' is another. If they can sell that to the populace they're they. I'm sure wars aren't done on a whim, there's always the bottom line as I said which is 'what's in it for us'. Iraq it's oil, in Afghanistan there's a vast amount of minerals, prhaps oil and a lot of othe stuff that would make it worthwhile going there. There's also big contracts to companies to 'rebuild', I know America also contracts out much of it's 'housekeeping' to companies things like catering etc. There's big money to be made when a country goes to war. 

One can learn to be objective, one can learn to look at things from all sides, I support our troops but don't support the war in Afghanistan. I know the reason we went in, the supposed reason we went in and the history of Afghan including the fact we propped up regimes and supported the Taliban. Britain has a long history in Afghanistan, this is our fourth war there, the score so far is 1-1-1, the result of this one we are still waiting for.

Perhaps I'm unusual but I don't actually think so, in that I can look at these situations objectively, I can see the bad the good and the indifferent, I don't think assuming everyone is biased is correct, several posters here can see the situation for what it is without the clouds of nationalism or prejudice covering their eyes. I don't think anyone here has justified being in Afghan or Iraq, what people are saying is that now we are there we need to make a withdrawal that doesn't harm the people any more than necessay, that we need to leave the countries better than we found them. The facts are however that Saddam did commit horrendous crimes, killed hundreds of thousands and the Taliban are oppressors, you can't escape that and while people are castigating the Allies for being there they also need to castigate those who commit atrocities, it can't be one sided. The Allies don't lower people into meat grinders, don't gas entire populations, we try to keep to the moral and humanitarian side, if someone trangresses they are punished. We do try to see all sides, people here are allowed to demonstrate against the wars, they are allowed to express their opposition. The Allies do listen to those in Iraq and Afghanistan who have complaints agasinst them, they pay huge amounts of compensation out for buildings, livestock etc that the Afghans claim have been destroyed, we know the claims may well be inflated, (the farmers here do it as well when they claim the soldiers kill the sheep accidently when on exercise) but they are paid anyway for goodwills sake. Can you imagine the Taliban paying out claims? If soldirsstep out of line the Afghans can complain to the Allies, it is taken seriously, soldiers have been punished. 


For the OP who cited Wikileaks documents, here's the result of Wikileaks actions, hardly humanitarian.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667.html


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 28, 2012)

Big Don said:


> I could not disagree with you more.
> You think we should have left Hussein in power ... ?



Not really a fair way to phrase the question, Don.  

If it were the case that action were taken, for purely moral reasons, in all cases where such regimes exist, then we would be in accord with no quibbles (other than where the balance lies between stopping horrors and not gainsaying a peoples right to self-determination).  

I know that, for public consumption by the tax payer, the invasion of Iraq has to be dressed in fine clothes of virtue but we would not be being true to ourselves if we did not admit that we know that that is not how the Real Politik game is played.

Let me state once more, as I alluded to in an earlier post, the Great Game has rolled on for centuries and it rolls on still; if my country is going to play then I would rather it and it's allies made good decisions about which hands to bid on.  Iraq and Afghanistan were not winning hands and never looked like being ones.  Which makes you ponder the background ... but that way lies conspiracy knot-work :lol:.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 28, 2012)

There's reasons for going to war in Afghan and Iraq and there's reasons against, none of these include 'soldiers shouldn't be there because they kill people' and 'the SAS should kill the leaders'. Hysterical outbursts accusing soldiers of killing thousands of civilians does nothing for anyone, neither does name calling.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 28, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> And we're supposed to have run out of money because we spend it on wars? No, don't think so, try the recession, the banks lending money to people who couldn't pay it back, the Euro crisis, the Labour government  etc etc etc. We don't spend nearly as much as other countries on the military and we actually have a nice little number going on selling munitions ( no I don't approve), no where in that article does it suggest that military spending is the cause of the recession which is affecting countries not involved in Afghan or Iraq btw. You can't twist things around to fit your theories just because it sounds okay to you.
> 
> The 'dead babies' argument is tasteless and crass, it's what the First World War propaganda used to dwell on, 'the 'Germans kill babies'. Thought we'd have grown out of that one.  You have done little to stop any wars, you just lecture us on here and we're not buying it, none of us here want wars, we are all for peace but we are also realists, we are in Afghanistan, just about out of Iraq and instead of beating our breasts and lamenting we have to do something positive to help sort the mess, which while we are partly responsible for but we must also lay blame on those on the other side who have committed crimes against humanity. I don't see you blaming them for that by the way, if you are against war it follows you should also be against ethinic cleansing, murder, torture, rape and all the other little ways Saddam and his family had. Josh is quite right about the Nazi connection, it runs through the Arab nations like thyphoid.
> 
> Service people aren't being taken on a guilt trip, I don't know how you work that one out, they are doing what you are not, something positive to help the Afghans. The Taliban had a stranglehold on them, now it's being loosened daily and people are discovering there's more to life than having acid thrown in their daughters faces and their sons killed for flying kites. We shouldn't have gone in but now we have it's made a surprising difference to amny peoples lives. Many areas are now being handed over to Afghan security forces, the police trained by my colleagues, the army trained by the Allies, There's women police officers now, a thing never heard of before, there's school for girls, women are working. It's not what we went in for but the troops you keep saying are ignorant and ill used are the ones making the difference, not the governments but the troops many of whom do things like build schools, medical centres etc off their own bat and with money raised at home.



Holy doublethink batman. Out of one side of your mouth, you say the war is unjustified and then out of the other, you justify it.

Let me straighten this out for you...

If the wars are unjustified, then the civilian deaths are are too, so are service member casualties and deaths and so is the cost to both societies. 

You can't fix a problem by joining the same system that caused it. You fix it getting out and changing the system. It's that simple, but since your investment is so heavy, you can't see it.

Or as Upton Sinclair wrote, "you can't get a man to understand something if there paycheck depends on them not understanding it."

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Feb 28, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Relatively stable. I know this of this dancer on Iraq who watched his family get ground up into meat. While still alive. Care to tell that to them? Dude, it was an oppressive Nazi regime.
> 
> You want to tell the Kurds who were bombed with mustard gas that? Oh wait. They're dead. How about the families who had to clean up the after math?
> 
> ...




Aight, I try to collect my thoughts for a bit.

As hindsight is always 20/20, naturally what I have to say is not exactly news.

However the west has a sad history of supporting the wrong, not cause, but person.
Pretty much started with Germany springing Lenin in 1917, look how that turned out, supporting Stalin wasn't much better, but hey, pick the 'lesser' evil, right.

Hussein had the west's fullest support, although everybody knew what he was, just because he kept the US arch enemy Iran busy. Just like the West supported the Mujahedin because they kicked Soviet butt. See a theme here?

Sad but true, the Hussein regime was in many aspects pretty progressive, too. Women having a nearly normal life by western standards. 

So, they should have not supported him in the 80s, should have definitely pulled the plug on him in 91....

Now, gosh, it's already 20 years since....
we are dealing with the enormous power vacuum left.

The situation is similar in many aspects to Yugoslavia: As much as one condemned Tito for being a dictator, by suppressing everybody equally he managed to keep a lid on ethnic animosities that had been going on for over 400 years. After he was gone the oppression ended, all hell broke lose in a terrifying civil war. 

Much of that is happening in Iraq now, too. Plus of course the added interests of outside influence, the terrorists, the behind the scenes hatred that the so called 'allies' can't say openly. 

All things considered, as coldhearted as it sound, and probably is, Hussein was the lesser of all evils, in his cruelty and insanity he was a stabilizing factor in the region. 

Now all the ethnic groups that nobody bothered before hand to learn about are jockeying for power.
The reactionary forces are trying to turn the clock back a few hundred years. 

Like in Afghanistan...western involvement was to support the opponents of Soviet Russia, for no other reason than that communism is bad. 
How bad was it? I mean, when you look at the Soviet model vs the Taliban. 
Women got to go to school, become professionals. With Western support, mind you, the champions of freedom, they were robbed of it. Good, eh!

So, we are talking a span of over 30 years here, and still we can't find it to look before we leap. the days of riding a charge into battle have been gone, I think as far back as the Korea conflict. Vietnam I should imagine has proven that you can't win against the unseen enemy, not without intelligence. 


so, the long explanation to my short answer:
You just can't pack up your toys and go home.
It's like a contractor coming in to renovate your house, taking his own sweet time to demo the basement, rip out the kitchen and bathroom, taking off the roof, all in time to disappear for monsoon season....or pulling out the keystone from an arch, expecting it to hold up and not crumble.
After all, precedence has been set in Vietnam as to what can and does happen to the people who put their trust in the West after the heroes pull out and go home.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 28, 2012)

granfire said:


> You just can't pack up your toys and go home...



Yes we can pack up our toys and go home.  Your post sets the context for doing just that.  This problem started when the West drew lines in the desert and grouped people together who never wanted to be grouped.  Then, the West supported dictator after petty dictator to keep the lid on the mess.  Now, when that strategy failed, we're going to go in and fix the problem ourselves.

It's not going to happen.  Dictators who were willing to feed women and children into meat grinders couldn't do it.

The West needs to change it's policy in a big way and let the chips fall where they may.  Like I said above, it's going to happen anyway, especially as we break the bank trying to pursue the failed colonial policies of the past.

In the US, we have a candidate for president who is advocating that we do just what we have suggested above.  Ron Paul has promised to end the wars, pull out our troops and close bases around the world in order to save us over 1 trillion dollars a year in debt spending.  We need to do this because of the people that are being hurt by these policies and because of the dismal future these policies deliver to our own children.  

This is not a fringe political belief.  Ron Paul is gaining more and more support every day and he could very well be the Republican nominee for president.  In fact, out of all the presidential candidates, Ron Paul gets more donations from service men and women then any other candidate in the field.  This tells me that most of the people who serve know what the right thing to do is.  This tells me that most of our servicemen and women are tired of the excuses and petty justifications that trap them and endanger them...and they just want to come home and do the job they really signed up to do.

Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, this is the biggest social/moral/economic issue of our times.  We really can end it.  We really can walk away.  And the people over there will be okay.  They will be okay because we're not ****ing with them anymore and they can finally decide how to run their own society.  In some places, it might take a long time to get over the mess of colonialism, but god dammit that's the real price we have to pay.  Our freedom is worth it and their freedom will be worth it...in the end.


----------



## granfire (Feb 28, 2012)

I am sorry, but that is not what I said.

Reread the last paragraph if you will. The west went in there, pulling the stabilizing factors out of the region an now they are packing up.
That's like playing with matches in the ammo storage shed, or the fireworks booth. the BOOM is a matter of when, not if.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 28, 2012)

granfire said:


> I am sorry, but that is not what I said.
> 
> Reread the last paragraph if you will. The west went in there, pulling the stabilizing factors out of the region an now they are packing up.
> That's like playing with matches in the ammo storage shed, or the fireworks booth. the BOOM is a matter of when, not if.



And my point is that we already ****ed it up too bad to fix it.  That's why we need to get out now.

Recently, an Army whistleblower blew the led off of the official propaganda and dared tell the truth.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/15/army_whistleblower_lt_col_daniel_davis



> "Senior ranking U.S. military leaders have so distorted the truth when  communicating with the U.S. Congress and American people in regards to  conditions on the ground in Afghanistan that the truth has become  unrecognizable." That&#8217;s the assessment of a damning new report by Army  Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, who returned in October from his second year-long  deployment in Afghanistan and says military officials have misled the  American public about how poorly the decade-long war is going. He argues  that local Afghan governments are unable to provide the basic needs of  the people and that insurgents control virtually all parts of  Afghanistan beyond eyeshot of a U.S. base. We speak with Michael  Hastings of Rolling Stone, who obtained a copy of the full report and  published it last week. "Lieutenant Colonel Davis is on the right side  of history, and the fact [is] that he believes in this and is willing to  risk [his career]," Hastings says. [includes rush transcript]"



We're not making it better.  We're not helping at all.  We don't control jack ****.  It's time to leave...


----------



## john2054 (Feb 28, 2012)

Hi people. Thanks for contributing to this thread. I know the arguments both for and against the occupations goes a long way. Tez can I ask you to provide a reference for the fact as you say, that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. Are you sure that you didn't just make that little gem up, to suit your argument, as indeed the first casualty of war, typically is, the truth.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 28, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Holy doublethink batman. Out of one side of your mouth, you say the war is unjustified and then out of the other, you justify it.
> 
> Let me straighten this out for you...
> 
> ...



Excuse me? Only in your mind does it read that I'm afraid. You've missed the point, I'm not justifying the war at all, what I'm saying, as I've said before is that sometimes out of bad thngs good things can happen because some peoples will to do good overtakes others will to do evil.

When someone disagrees with you, you always tell them 'you can't see it because....' and you are the only one who sees the truth.   Please don't patronise me by saying what you think I mean, I wrote what I meant, that the war isn't justified, but it's happened, we are in there and surprisingly or not, those who are there, the service people are trying to make a difference to the lives of the Afghans in good ways rather than killing them. That doesn't justify war, it means there people who are trying to help there. How you managed to mangle that into some thing else I don't know but please don't do it. If you don't understand me, ask, I will explain but don't assume I mean one thing when I say something else.


----------



## granfire (Feb 28, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Hi people. Thanks for contributing to this thread. I know the arguments both for and against the occupations goes a long way. Tez can I ask you to provide a reference for the fact as you say, that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. Are you sure that you didn't just make that little gem up, to suit your argument, as indeed the first casualty of war, typically is, the truth.



Actually the first casualty of war is innocence.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 28, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Hi people. Thanks for contributing to this thread. I know the arguments both for and against the occupations goes a long way. Tez can I ask you to provide a reference for the fact as you say, that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. Are you sure that you didn't just make that little gem up, to suit your argument, as indeed the first casualty of war, typically is, the truth.



You really don't watch the news do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...qi-Kurds-remember-day-Saddam-gassed-them.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

"Iraq under Saddam Hussein had high levels of torture and mass murder.
Secret police, torture, murders, rape, abductions, deportations, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control.[SUP][_original research?_][/SUP] The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, as are the reports of human rights violations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture."


http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html

http://www.int-review.org/terr33a.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Commentary/IntlPanel.pdf


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegoldenberg

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

"_Hussein openly idolized the former Soviet premier Joseph Stalin, a man notable as much for his paranoia-induced execution sprees as anything else. In July 1978, he had his government issue a memorandum decreeing that anyone whose ideas came into conflict with those of the Baath Party leadership would be subject to summary execution. Most, but certainly not all, of Hussein's targets were ethnic Kurds and Shiite Muslims"
_
[h=3]_Ethnic Cleansing:_[/h]_The two dominant ethnicities of Iraq have traditionally been Arabs in south and central Iraq, and Kurds in the north and northeast, particularly along the Iranian border. Hussein long viewed ethnic Kurds as a long-term threat to Iraq's survival, and the oppression and extermination of the Kurds was one of his administration's highest priorities._
[h=3]_Religious Persecution:_[/h]_The Baath Party was dominated by Sunni Muslims, who made up only about one-third of Iraq's general population; the other two-thirds was made up of Shiite Muslims, Shiism also happening to be the official religion of Iran. Throughout Hussein's tenure, and especially during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), he saw the marginalization and eventual elimination of Shiism as a necessary goal in the Arabization process, by which Iraq would purge itself of all perceived Iranian influence._

[h=3]_The Dujail Massacre of 1982:_[/h]_In July of 1982, several Shiite militants attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein while he was riding through the city. Hussein responded by ordering the slaughter of some 148 residents, including dozens of children. This is the only war crime on which Hussein has been charged, and he will almost certainly be executed before any other charges go to trial._
[h=3]_The Barzani Clan Abductions of 1983:_[/h]_Masoud Barzani led the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), an ethnic Kurdish revolutionary group fighting Baathist oppression. After Barzani cast his lot with the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein had some 8,000 members of Barzani's clan, including hundreds of women and children, abducted. It is assumed that most were slaughtered; thousands have been discovered in mass graves in southern Iraq._

[h=3]_The al-Anfal Campaign:_[/h]_The worst human rights abuses of Hussein's tenure took place during the genocidal al-Anfal Campaign (1986-1989), in which Hussein's administration called for the extermination of every living thing--human or animal--in certain regions of the Kurdish north. All told, some 182,000 people--men, women, and children--were slaughtered, many through use of chemical weapons. The Halabja poison gas massacre of 1988 alone killed over 5,000 people. Hussein later blamed the attacks on the Iranians, and the Reagan administration, which supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, helped promote this cover story._

[h=3]_The Campaign Against the Marsh Arabs:_[/h]_Hussein did not limit his genocide to identifiably Kurdish groups; he also targeted the predominantly Shiite Marsh Arabs of southeastern Iraq, the direct descendants of the ancient Mesopotamians. By destroying more than 95% of the region's marshes, he effectively depleted its food supply and destroyed the entire millennia-old culture, reducing the number of Marsh Arabs from 250,000 to approximately 30,000. It is unknown how much of this population drop can be attributed to direct starvation and how much to migration, but the human cost was unquestionably high._
[h=3]_The Post-Uprising Massacres of 1991:_[/h]_In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, the United States encouraged Kurds and Shiites to rebel against Hussein's regime--then withdrew and refused to support them, leaving an unknown number to be slaughtered. At one point, Hussein's regime killed as many as 2,000 suspected Kurdish rebels every day. Some two million Kurds hazarded the dangerous trek through the mountains to Iran and Turkey, hundreds of thousands dying in the process. "


_


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 28, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Yes we can pack up our toys and go home. Your post sets the context for doing just that. This problem started when the West drew lines in the desert and grouped people together who never wanted to be grouped. Then, the West supported dictator after petty dictator to keep the lid on the mess. Now, when that strategy failed, we're going to go in and fix the problem ourselves.
> 
> It's not going to happen. Dictators who were willing to feed women and children into meat grinders couldn't do it.
> 
> ...




And the pigs are fed, watered and ready to fly.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 28, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Hi people. Thanks for contributing to this thread. I know the arguments both for and against the occupations goes a long way. Tez can I ask you to provide a reference for the fact as you say, that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. Are you sure that you didn't just make that little gem up, to suit your argument, as indeed the first casualty of war, typically is, the truth.



Honestly, john, that is a matter that was well documented BEFORE the war and led to a number of UN sanctions. Look into the history of the Iraq Ba'ath party, the invasion of Kuwait, the attacks on Kurdistan, and you'll have a better concept.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> And the pigs are fed, watered and ready to fly.



Rarely is the opportunity to riposte so eloquently presented so easily.  Do you mean these pigs?

In the end, I see this issue as a crisis of character.  By standing on the side of the people who perpetrate this, we are telling the children over there that it's okay if we kill you...and we're going to steal from our own children to do that.  No good is going to come of this, we've got Iran, Syria, and Libya waiting in the wings, it's time to wake up and see the train wreck for what it is.  It's a homicidal armed robbery where the spoils go straight up to your masters.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 1, 2012)

However there's several issues here. In the UK it was the Labour government that took us to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition now, they didn't start these wars but are left to 'finish' them one way or another. Getting out of conflicts is a lot harder than it is to start them. To see things simply is a mistake, the cause of the last world war can be traced back to medieval wars, through the Franco-Prussian war, the First World War, actions taken years ago, decades and centuries ago come back to haunt us. Britain is on her fourth war in Afghanistan. Simply saying we have to get out and they'll be fine is naive and foolish showing you don't understand the situation out there, I take it you've never been out there? I feel it's pointless discussing this in many ways, as we are stuck on the 'dead babies' argument which is one I find particularly distasteful and unfactual. If you think Allied soldiers are gunning down defenceless civilians like ducks in a carnival stall, you really don't understand the troops and you are insulting them. I wish you would do some more thinking rather than emoting about the situation which everyone agrees is not good but one that we must try to do the best for everyone in. That includes the Afghans, we simply can't abandon them at this ppint in time for many reasons, see Peter Tatchell's views which I linked. he's a peace campaigner who has taken time to understand the situation. Leaving Afghan is extremely desirable but we can't make things worse, we have to leave them better, we owe it to the people there and we owe it to our troops who do believe they are making a difference for the good even if you don't, they are the ones on the ground so I'm guessing they understand the situation better than you do.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2012)

The emotive moral outrage over the war is justified, Tez3.  We've got people who are dying needlessly, we've got future generations that are being taxed for something that will not provide them any benefit, and we have a stubborn refusal by a massive amount of people to face the facts on the ground that are actually being reported by servicemen and women.  See the link I provided earlier.

I see the whole idea that "we need to stay in order to fix the mess we made and/or make life better for afghans" as just another Fascist slogan.  The idea that we can use force to make one group of people somewhere live according to how another group of people choose is fascist.  How many regimes have tried this?  How many have failed?

The ultimate irony, Tez3, is that you are actually supporting fascism with your posts.  From other posts, I can see that you are normally vehemently against it, but in this case, you're inconsistent.  This is a blind spot to consider in the future...


----------



## john2054 (Mar 1, 2012)

Hi Josh and Tez, with regard to Saddam's character, I agree that he was a bad murderous bastard, and i for one will not miss him. But that being said i think that spending Billions or Trillions is it, to attack bomb and rape a country (don't be offended my my precise use of language, but look it up if you don't believe me), is like using a rocket launcher to swat a fly. Not necessary and overkill. What's more it sets a bad example to our children, to know that the only way their elder's, parents and grandparents, know to deal with a foreign threat is with threats of violence and culminating in ultimate force, or whatever phraseology it is the army chooses to call its mission that day. Fact is we have affectively attacked and effectively dismantled not just the emotional dignity and well being of these countries, but also their history and dignity as well. It is all very well claiming the moral high ground with hindsight, but in the face of the slaughter which side of the pond were you gunning for? I know I was with the Iraqis all the way!


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The emotive moral outrage over the war is justified, Tez3. We've got people who are dying needlessly, we've got future generations that are being taxed for something that will not provide them any benefit, and we have a stubborn refusal by a massive amount of people to face the facts on the ground that are actually being reported by servicemen and women. See the link I provided earlier.
> 
> I see the whole idea that "we need to stay in order to fix the mess we made and/or make life better for afghans" as just another Fascist slogan. The idea that we can use force to make one group of people somewhere live according to how another group of people choose is fascist. How many regimes have tried this? How many have failed?
> 
> The ultimate irony, Tez3, is that you are actually supporting fascism with your posts. From other posts, I can see that you are normally vehemently against it, but in this case, you're inconsistent. This is a blind spot to consider in the future...



Oh really? I don't know how you work that out. You are not a lone messiah crying in the wilderness and I'm not a fascist just a realist. If you have been out to Afghan and actually talked to the Afghans in person I will start taking what you say seriously, until then you are ascribing meaning to things people are writing that they don't mean. I've been there for myself, I know what the women as well as many of the men want out there even if you don't. You have a very skewed idea of what is being done out there as well as a skewed idea of what they country is like, I can tell you it's nothing like you seem to think.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2012)

What makes you think you have the right to take a gun and force someone to live they way that you want to live? What would the people look like without constant foreign intervention?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Oh really? I don't know how you work that out. You are not a lone messiah crying in the wilderness and I'm not a fascist just a realist. If you have been out to Afghan and actually talked to the Afghans in person I will start taking what you say seriously, until then you are ascribing meaning to things people are writing that they don't mean. I've been there for myself, I know what the women as well as many of the men want out there even if you don't. You have a very skewed idea of what is being done out there as well as a skewed idea of what they country is like, I can tell you it's nothing like you seem to think.



You've aligned yourself with fascist policies. I don't think you are a fascist.

Consequentially...

http://lionsofliberty.blogspot.com/2012/02/lt-colonel-speaks-out-on-unwinnable.html

"In August, I went on a dismounted patrol with troops in the Panjwai  district of Kandahar province. Several troops from the unit had recently  been killed in action, one of whom was a very popular and experienced  soldier. One of the unit&#8217;s senior officers rhetorically asked me, &#8220;How  do I look these men in the eye and ask them to go out day after day on  these missions? What&#8217;s harder: How do I look [my soldier&#8217;s] wife in the  eye when I get back and tell her that her husband died for something  meaningful? How do I do that?&#8221; 

This is the price that our servicemen and women always pay for fascism.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 1, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Hi Josh and Tez, with regard to Saddam's character, I agree that he was a bad murderous bastard, and i for one will not miss him. But that being said i think that spending Billions or Trillions is it, to attack bomb and rape a country (don't be offended my my precise use of language, but look it up if you don't believe me), is like using a rocket launcher to swat a fly. Not necessary and overkill. What's more it sets a bad example to our children, to know that the only way their elder's, parents and grandparents, know to deal with a foreign threat is with threats of violence and culminating in ultimate force, or whatever phraseology it is the army chooses to call its mission that day. Fact is we have affectively attacked and effectively dismantled not just the emotional dignity and well being of these countries, but also their history and dignity as well. It is all very well claiming the moral high ground with hindsight, but in the face of the slaughter which side of the pond were you gunning for? I know I was with the Iraqis all the way!




Too simplistic, it's not a case of taking sides, were you on the Iraqi's side when they invaded Kuwait, killed and tortured the Kuwati's or were you with the Kuwaitis when they killed and tortured the Palestinians who supported the Iraqis, were you on the Iranian's side when they fought the Iraqis or the Iraqi side? Which Iraqi's were you supporting, which tribe? the Marsh Arabs who were being wiped out by Saddam's tribe ( it wasn't his actions alone) or the tribes that were against Saddam and supported the Allies? Which side in Iraq so you support now? 

People need to disabuse themselves of the idea too that Afghanistan was some sort of democratic country that the Allies invaded and turned into some sort of warzone. Afghanistan is a medieval country which is being dragged into the 21st century, somewhat unwillingly. there are many tribes each with it's tribal leaders who are the law among their people. Putting aside for a moment the legalities and morals of the Allies invading, have a good look at what Afghanistan is. there's no such thing as an Afghan, the country is a collection of tribes. The tribal leaders were often at war with each other, have been for centuries. Woman are treated as lower than goats, worth only anything as breeding stock for sons not useless daughters. You can look up for yourself the restrictions women are still under. The Taliban ruled only because they had the guns, as one tribal leader said at a shuria, whoever has the guns is in charge. Fear was and still is the overwhelming emotion in Afghanistan, not fear of the Allies but fear of the Taliban and the warlords. The history of Aghanistan is one of violence and fear, there's no dignity in being afraid all the time. This is not a defence of the Allies invasion but hopefully will make you look up the history of Afghanistan before you again state they were all sweetness and light until the Allies invaded. The country had no well being and certainly no country that treats it women the way Afghan does has any emotional dignity, dream on sunshine. Iraq was and is no better, the record of human rights in that country is appalling so don't tell me there's dignity there. The Allies might be wrong but dear me, Iraq is not a place for the weak. Life's not as simple as one side is all shiny and nice the other side are all baddies. You have to look at it all in perspective not through rose tinted glasses, you aren't Lawrence of Arabia.  

Now, the invasion of the country was wrong but there's little we can do about that, so what can't be undone has to be put right. A surgeon doesn't leave a patient on the operating table cut open and walk away just because they can't find anything wrong with the patient. The patient has to be sewn up,brought round and cared for. 



As for this emotive language of what we teach our children. don't you think they learn more about violence from computer games, television programmes and the general behaviour of adults around them than they ever do from what a government does?  A country that has the state kill people because they killed and it's supposed to show that killing is wrong can hardly teach it's children more about violence can it? Look at the programmes that are on television and in the cinema, things like the 'Saw' series, the zombies etc etc. the games that are available..'Assassin's Creed, all the war and killing games. 


You can live in your dream worlds where there are countries that are pristine democracies who are invaded by the evil empires or can you wake up and start looking at the reality, that nothing is black and white, no one side is all good or all bad, that sometimes countries make mistakes and sometimes they do try to rectify them, sometimes bad things happen but good people will try to help, that sometimes the bad people have bad things happen to them, sometimes good people have bad things happen, the fact is that nothing is simple. The situations in Iraq and Afghan are horrendously complicated, nothing is what it seems and sitting at your computers pontificating does nothing to help anyone. I believe the American expression is 'wake up and smell the coffee'.


----------



## granfire (Mar 1, 2012)

Re: Afghanistan
Tez has more insight, by far, however just to point somethings out, the country has been at war for over 30 years now. That means probably most people there have never known 'peace' as we do. 

And let's not forget 'the allies' were all to happy to swoop in ans support the very same people they are fighting now, back in the 1980s when the evil Soviet empire was busy there (probably also a reason why you really can't get the dang country and it's sister nation China to agree with anything the US or their friends suggest).

Yes, the Soviet backed president was not loved by the warlords. It seems puppets to foreign interests seldom are. 
however, for a brief moment the country was actually eyeballing the 20th century as in allowing women to pursuit interests of their own.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> You've aligned yourself with fascist policies. I don't think you are a fascist.
> 
> Consequentially...
> 
> ...




That is one man's opinion, he's entitled to it but it doesn't make it true does it? If he feels like that he needs to resign his commission. His opinion isn't that of the majority of the military, just because you agree with it doesn't make it correct either. it's an opinion not a fact. When you come up with your opinion based on your having been in Afghan and having spoken to the Afghan tribes people then it will carry more weight, if then if it's the same as this chaps then fair play to you but until then....

I don't know what the American army does but for a long time now since the Malayan Insurgency the British military has always employed the Hearts and Minds policy first. 
Other views of what it's like out there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2011/06/our-war-afghanistan.shtml

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010...ier-and-author-offers-a-view-from-the-ground/
http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2010/11/shooting-on-the-front-line-one-soldiers-war-in-afghanistan.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...enges-of-training-Afghan-National-Police.html



No one is forcing Afghans to live how we want them to...don't you think the fact they treat their women like dirt proves that? when medical aid is offered to them by the Allies do we make them treat their children fisrt as we would here? No the men are treated first then the women and children, we respect, reluctantly in this cases the way they live even if it goes against everything we believe in like childrens lives being pricelss not worthless.  Again you are jumping to conclusions. The Afghans live the way they want to or are forced to by forces other than the Allies.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 1, 2012)

granfire said:


> Re: Afghanistan
> Tez has more insight, by far, however just to point somethings out, the country has been at war for over 30 years now. That means probably most people there have never known 'peace' as we do.
> 
> And let's not forget 'the allies' were all to happy to swoop in ans support the very same people they are fighting now, back in the 1980s when the evil Soviet empire was busy there (probably also a reason why you really can't get the dang country and it's sister nation China to agree with anything the US or their friends suggest).
> ...




Thank you, the country however has always been at war, the tribes were fighting each other long before even the first British war with them. As someone said here recently, that's why they are such good fighters, they've been doing it for centuries.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2012)

You can't solve the problems of intervention with more intervention. As more and more countries become more and more cash strapped, this conclusion will become abudantly clear. This argument will ultimately be settled by economics, not guns. 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> You can't solve the problems of intervention with more intervention. As more and more countries become more and more cash strapped, this conclusion will become abudantly clear. This argument will ultimately be settled by economics, not guns.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk



and did anyone say it was right to intervene militarily? Not I, and trying to sort it economically is exactly what the British..I can't speak for the other Allies..are trying to do. Contracts for new building etc are put out for Afghan contractors, we don't employ contractors from here we use local, we are training the Afghan army and the police to take over.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...AfghanPoliceUncoverTalibanWeaponsAndDrugs.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...tions/AfghanSoldiersTakeOverNewPatrolBase.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/F...istanChronologyOfEventsJanuary2009May2010.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D.../SappersHelpBuildABrighterFutureInHelmand.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PeopleInDefence/ACiviliansAfghanExperience.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> and did anyone say it was right to intervene militarily? Not I, and trying to sort it economically is exactly what the British..I can't speak for the other Allies..are trying to do. Contracts for new building etc are put out for Afghan contractors, we don't employ contractors from here we use local, we are training the Afghan army and the police to take over.
> http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...AfghanPoliceUncoverTalibanWeaponsAndDrugs.htm
> 
> http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...tions/AfghanSoldiersTakeOverNewPatrolBase.htm
> ...



We shall see how it turns out for you guys economically.  

In the US, we're currently deciding to destroy our own currency and tax future generations to pay for all of this.  Both of these are hidden taxes that will ultimately drag down our standard of living.  I don't believe that it will be worth it in the end...and I think that our intervention now will spawn multitudes of problems for us and for people who live in the region.  There will be no happy ending here and hopefully we can avoid getting drawn in again and again like you guys.  Sheesh!

This is why I support Ron Paul's foreign policy.  Sometimes you have to look at the costs and the benefits of a situation and you need to make hard decisions.  Getting out of these wars ASAP makes the most economic sense for our country.  We don't have to saddle the future with crushing debt and we don't have to destroy our currency now.  We could just focus on our needs as a country...but that's going to mean letting go of the idea that we can be successful here and that it's worth it.


----------



## billc (Mar 1, 2012)

Yes, and the terrorists training in Afghanistan before we invaded just left us alone.  Remember that little thing called 9/11, I know it is easy to forget, it was a whole bunch a time ago.   Yes, how many more times can we let them train unmolested, come over here and kill our people?  And of course we forget our embassies in Africa, the Kobar towers, the U.S.S. Cole, our ambassadors in Africa, the first time they tried to knock down the World Trade Center, and all the other little things they did and that we kept ignoring and ignoring and explaining away...until they finally managed to kill 3,000 of our citizens.  Yes, let's just retreat behind our borders and I'm sure they will leave us alone.

Do you intend to stop Hollywood from exporting our culture overseas.  The radical, muslim terrorists hate that as well.   To keep us safe will you say Hollywood can't export movies or television.  How about American business.  The terrorists hate that as well.  Do we forbid American businesses from going overseas?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, and the terrorists training in Afghanistan before we invaded just left us alone.  Remember that little thing called 9/11, I know it is easy to forget, it was a whole bunch a time ago.   Yes, how many more times can we let them train unmolested, come over here and kill our people?



I'll take the terrorists over the loss of my liberty, dollar devaluation, and lowered standard of living for my children. All we ever needed to protect us is the 2nd amendment.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I'll take the terrorists over the loss of my liberty, dollar devaluation, and lowered standard of living for my children. All we ever needed to protect us is the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


So in your opinion has there ever be a justified time we have gone to war?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So in your opinion has there ever be a justified time we have gone to war?



Very few wars are justifiably fought as self defense.  Most of them in our history were fought to expand our power and influence.  Most of them were sold to the public with various levels of propaganda.  

Listen to Major General Smedley Butler on this matter.






I'll second his opinion.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Very few wars are justifiably fought as self defense. Most of them in our history were fought to expand our power and influence. Most of them were sold to the public with various levels of propaganda.
> 
> Listen to Major General Smedley Butler on this matter.
> 
> ...



It's fine you sitting there pontificating and lecturing to us. I find it extremely odd too that John with his self confessed criminal record of violence also chooses to lecture us on war etc. 
The people in Afghan, well the men at any rate have probably got more say so in the running of their country than we have in ours, there are weekly shurias with the village elders, the triable elders and others where they get there say, what they want to happen,  they discuss what's happening and what they want to happen, permission is sought from them for various things and they are being led to take more and more responsibilty for their country all the time, we are gearing up to leave and we are trying to make sure that when we do we leave a structure behind that will survive. If the UK and it's people are such an anathema to them I wonder why we have tens of thousands of Afghans here are immigrants, legal and illeagal as well as thousands waiting in the EU to smuggle themselves over here?

When you say you would have terrorists over anything else you really don't know what you are talking about, you clearly have no idea what it's like to be in a community where the terrorists run free, there is no safety for your children, there is no security,no freedom, you are forced to hand money over to them, you will be forced to hand your children over. No, you saying such a thing reeks of the worse kind of naivety going. 

You think you are the only one who knows the 'truth', the only one who 'understands', well the opposite is actually the truth you show a huge amount of naivete and lack of understanding how the world works. You know nothing of Iraq and nothing of Afghanistan and I venture to suggest you don't actually know much about your fellow Americans if you think they are all so stupid they believe every word that your governments say.

Blaming the military for the wars etc is incorrect, the military serve your country, The governments can be blamed because they send the troops out but if the military were to refuse you would be in big trouble because then you will have a military dictatorship. No, support your troops and look to the politicians if blame is needed. Don't rant at us, rant at them, go out to Afghan and see for yourself before you decide the rest of us is evil.

Afghanistan was ahellhole before we invaded, living hell for a good many people, this doesn't make invading there right but it does show that the country wasn't a shining example of peace and tranquillity. Al Queda, the Taliban, drug warlords all operated out of there bringing misery to hundred of thousands worldwide. When you look at the war there you can't just take the view that they are totally innocent and we corrupted them, we invaded when we shouldn't, can't do anything about hat now but what we can do is hopefully leave the place a bit better than we found it. Hopefully the drugs that came out of there will have been cut down by some and hopefully women might stand a chance of a better life , not perfect not ideal but a darn sight better than some have done by whinging on a martial arts forum.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 2, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's fine you sitting there pontificating and lecturing to us. I find it extremely odd too that John with his self confessed criminal record of violence also chooses to lecture us on war etc.
> The people in Afghan, well the men at any rate have probably got more say so in the running of their country than we have in ours, there are weekly shurias with the village elders, the triable elders and others where they get there say, what they want to happen,  they discuss what's happening and what they want to happen, permission is sought from them for various things and they are being led to take more and more responsibilty for their country all the time, we are gearing up to leave and we are trying to make sure that when we do we leave a structure behind that will survive. If the UK and it's people are such an anathema to them I wonder why we have tens of thousands of Afghans here are immigrants, legal and illeagal as well as thousands waiting in the EU to smuggle themselves over here?
> 
> When you say you would have terrorists over anything else you really don't know what you are talking about, you clearly have no idea what it's like to be in a community where the terrorists run free, there is no safety for your children, there is no security,no freedom, you are forced to hand money over to them, you will be forced to hand your children over. No, you saying such a thing reeks of the worse kind of naivety going.
> ...



:BSmeter:


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 2, 2012)

Come along now, ladies and gentlemen.  That is hardly the sign of a discourse that is going to be productive.

It is in the Study so I'm not going to scale things up to a report but let's not allow things to get any worse.

Mark A. Beardmore
MT Mentor


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 2, 2012)

*Totally agree Sukerkin!
*

Unfortunately I think we all know what will happen in Afghanistan when we pull out.  You only need to look at the history of this area to realize that any steps forward will probably then go backward.  

Even if you dislike someones opinion let's all  be civil!


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 2, 2012)

Has any foreign power ever conquered Afghanistan?  Is it really worth all of the deaths?  Is it worth all of the debt?  Is it worth giving away all of our liberties?  Is there any reason to expect terrorism if we're not violently interfering all around the world?  I don't think so and that's why I'm politically against it.  That's probably all that needs to be said.  Vote Ron Paul to stop this madness.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 2, 2012)

Uh... We're not trying to conquer Afghanistan and we never were.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## john2054 (Mar 2, 2012)

Thanks Tez, I appreciate your contributions to this discussion. As for whether I have ever met any Iraqis, well besides from the high number of Kurds who used to live in the city district where I was (and made friends with a couple of them), I also once met an Iraqi officer, who fought Saddam, and fled Iraq after the war started, only to return again before it had finished (presumably to fight FOR his people, and AGAINST the invaders.) I never heard from him again, he's probably now sixty feet under! I also once met an Afghani, who had fled Afghanistan, because of all of the death and destruction 'we' brought to them, along with our carpet (cluster) bombs and napalm (Well they used that in Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan), and he fled for his life. Well I met him in a locked rehab mental health ward, 'S'. No there was nothing wrong with him in my eyes, but then who am I to discern. And with regards to my own checked history, it is true after I had the RTA in 1997 I was a violent sod with my family. I do not deny this. But then don't you think the past seven years in and out of intensive care wards for mental illness (allegedly), somewhat goes to mitigate these crimes. I'm just saying.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 2, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's fine you sitting there pontificating and lecturing to us. I find it extremely odd too that John with his self confessed criminal record of violence also chooses to lecture us on war etc.



The rest of the post was good. This part was entirely unnecessary. And ad hominem. You can argue effectively. There is no need to go after the messenger if you can thwart the message effectively. And if you CAN'T thwart the message effectively, going ad hominem won't help that, and demeans the conversation. 

It's low-brow, it's crass, and it's repugnant. I think this took away from your message rather than adding to it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 2, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Uh... We're not trying to conquer Afghanistan and we never were.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



What is the difference between conquering and nation building?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 2, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> The rest of the post was good. This part was entirely unnecessary. And ad hominem. You can argue effectively. There is no need to go after the messenger if you can thwart the message effectively. And if you CAN'T thwart the message effectively, going ad hominem won't help that, and demeans the conversation.
> 
> *It's low-brow, it's crass, and it's repugnant. I think this took away from your message rather than adding to it*.



Actually I refute what you are saying, someone who practically boasts of his violence who then tells us that our soldiers kill thousands of innocent civilians should be told the truth, it's not an attack, it's hypocracy on his part. You think what I said was repugnant yet you don't think painting the military as mass murders of innocent children at all off? If you don't like my plain speaking fine, I don't like hypocracy. If you had read any of his posts you will remember what they said, I'm not attacking him in the least just repeating what he himself wrote.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 2, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Very few wars are justifiably fought as self defense. Most of them in our history were fought to expand our power and influence. Most of them were sold to the public with various levels of propaganda.
> 
> Listen to Major General Smedley Butler on this matter.
> 
> ...



So in your opinion what was the correct reaction to 9-11? 

P.S. Ill see your Marine and counter with some modern day Marine Warriors


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 2, 2012)

OK - lets take a look at some of the...



Tez3 said:


> It's fine you sitting there pontificating and lecturing to us.



Most of this thread, I've just been asking questions.  For the rest of it, I've been pointing out the terrible costs of these wars and saying that it wasn't worth it.  I know you don't want to hear that.  I know you have a lot invested in the war and you want to make something good happen, especially because you've seen so many good men and women go in there and get ground up, but it is the unavoidable truth.  When you look at how much this costs us now and will cost us in the future, and if you look at this war like an investment, it's hard to find a single good thing that this will bring to us.  It's time for all of the nations involved wake up and smell the fecal matter they stepped in and clean it off their boots.



Tez3 said:


> I find it extremely odd too that John with his self confessed criminal record of violence also chooses to lecture us on war etc.



There are about four fallacies packed into this statement and I'm not going to bother pointing them out.  However, I find it ironic that people can put on a costume, kill a whole bunch of people, and come home and be called heroes.  Meanwhile, in a different time and different place, this makes a person a monster.  This is completely irrational...and unfortunately it's how our society works.  I think if people were exposed to philosophy more, we'd probably start to address some of these contradictions.



Tez3 said:


> The people in Afghan, well the men at any rate have probably got more say so in the running of their country than we have in ours, there are weekly shurias with the village elders, the triable elders and others where they get there say, what they want to happen,  they discuss what's happening and what they want to happen, permission is sought from them for various things and they are being led to take more and more responsibility for their country all the time, we are gearing up to leave and we are trying to make sure that when we do we leave a structure behind that will survive.



It's starting to look as if the politicians are trying to find a way to leave and make this look like a win.  The truth is that any government we leave behind in Kabul is going to collapse the moment we exit.  The politicians are going to blame it on the Afghans and all of those dead people will still be dead.  Afghanistan is going to be whatever it's people decide.  When we get out, this process will finally sort it's way out.  We're going to have very little say in the end.  All of our supposed control is an illusion.



Tez3 said:


> If the UK and it's people are such an anathema to them I wonder why we have tens of thousands of Afghans here are immigrants, legal and illegal as well as thousands waiting in the EU to smuggle themselves over here?



Maybe because we're over there bombing the **** out of them.

I listened to Naomi Wolfe speak the other day.  She shared a story about how she keeps in touch with friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan with social media.  They regularly beg her to do whatever she can to stop the drone attacks, stop the bombs, and stop the war because it's so dangerous and it's so hard to have any kind of life at all.  That's amazing power of the internet because now we can actually connect with people on the other end of our foreign policy. 

The bottom line is that if you lived there, you'd want to move somewhere that was more peaceful as well.  Our presence is what is making it not peaceful.



Tez3 said:


> When you say you would have terrorists over anything else you really don't know what you are talking about, you clearly have no idea what it's like to be in a community where the terrorists run free, there is no safety for your children, there is no security,no freedom, you are forced to hand money over to them, you will be forced to hand your children over. No, you saying such a thing reeks of the worse kind of naivety going.



We don't need video cameras watching us every where we go.  We don't need to pass through checkpoints and strip searches just to board a plane and soon to go shopping or just go down the highway.  We don't need a massive police state to protect us, especially if we're not inciting terrorists all around the world with our foreign policy.  We don't need to sacrifice our civil liberties for safety.  

Also, I think you are projecting some other situation or experience on what is happening now.  It's good bet that if we got the rest of the story behind your experience, we'd find some significant differences.



Tez3 said:


> You think you are the only one who knows the 'truth', the only one who 'understands', well the opposite is actually the truth you show a huge amount of naivete and lack of understanding how the world works. You know nothing of Iraq and nothing of Afghanistan and I venture to suggest you don't actually know much about your fellow Americans if you think they are all so stupid they believe every word that your governments say.



There's no argument here, only a silly rant.  This set of statements is complete nonsense.  Let me point out an obvious contradiction.  If we can't believe every word about what the government says and you work for the government, we can't trust what you have to say about Iraq and Afghanistan.  You've been parroting out propaganda this entire thread.  Out of one side of the mouth you say that you don't support the war and out of the other you justify it.  That is what propaganda does.  It helps you rationalize your inconsistencies.  It helps you doublethink.



Tez3 said:


> Blaming the military for the wars etc is incorrect, the military serve your country, The governments can be blamed because they send the troops out but if the military were to refuse you would be in big trouble because then you will have a military dictatorship. No, support your troops and look to the politicians if blame is needed. Don't rant at us, rant at them, go out to Afghan and see for yourself before you decide the rest of us is evil.



More nonsense and propaganda.  You are the government.  You joined it.  You are responsible for it's actions.  



Tez3 said:


> Afghanistan was a hellhole before we invaded, living hell for a good many people, this doesn't make invading there right but it does show that the country wasn't a shining example of peace and tranquility. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, drug warlords all operated out of there bringing misery to hundred of thousands worldwide. When you look at the war there you can't just take the view that they are totally innocent and we corrupted them, we invaded when we shouldn't, can't do anything about that now but what we can do is hopefully leave the place a bit better than we found it. Hopefully the drugs that came out of there will have been cut down by some and hopefully women might stand a chance of a better life , not perfect not ideal but a darn sight better than some have done by whinging on a martial arts forum.



More propaganda and it's all based on revisionist history.  Every single statement in this paragraph is cut off from the context of history.  Just leave those people alone.  You have no right to take a gun and force them to live the way you want them to live.  In the end, you're going to fail because that kind of control is always an illusion.  Its the kind of magical thinking that government regularly engage in.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 2, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So in your opinion what was the correct reaction to 9-11?



Terrorism can be more properly described as anti-Americanism.  It's a reaction to our global empire.  It's a reaction to the evil that has been done by our government in that region for generations.  My response would be to stop supporting evil dictators, pull out our troops, close down our bases and let people peacefully arrange their lives the way they please.  That is the long term solution to what we call terrorism.  

The correct response to 9/11 is to call the government on its BS.



ballen0351 said:


> P.S. Ill see your Marine and counter with some modern day Marine Warriors.



How is recruitment propaganda a response to what Smedley Butler had to say about the truth of war?

Check this out for a different perspective.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 2, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Terrorism can be more properly described as anti-Americanism. It's a reaction to our global empire. It's a reaction to the evil that has been done by our government in that region for generations. My response would be to stop supporting evil dictators, pull out our troops, close down our bases and let people peacefully arrange their lives the way they please. That is the long term solution to what we call terrorism.


So do nothing?




> How is recruitment propaganda a response to what Smedley Butler had to say about the truth of war?


Because its AWSOME and AWSOME trumps old guy speech all day long.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 2, 2012)

I didnt see you video clip until I posted already.  So you found a few out of the Millions of military people that regret enlisting.  There are FAR more military service men that are Proud of what the did, and would do it again in a heart beat.  FAR more military members that would say the few people in that clip are just cry babies and knew what the truth was when they enlisted.

PS. Cry baby was the term my partner just used when he watched the clip with me and hes been to Iraq twice in the last 6 years.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 2, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So do nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> Because its AWSOME and AWSOME trumps old guy speech all day long.



I didn't say do nothing and AWESOME is cooler with an E.  LOL!

I'm just joking about the spelling, btw.  

I am curious as to what you really think about what Smedley Butler had to say.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 2, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Actually I refute what you are saying, someone who practically boasts of his violence who then tells us that our soldiers kill thousands of innocent civilians should be told the truth, it's not an attack, it's hypocracy on his part. You think what I said was repugnant yet you don't think painting the military as mass murders of innocent children at all off? If you don't like my plain speaking fine, I don't like hypocracy. If you had read any of his posts you will remember what they said, I'm not attacking him in the least just repeating what he himself wrote.



Read up on ad hominem personal attacks and why they aren't conducive to rational debate. Whether or not an argument displays hippocracy is irrelevant to whether or not an argument is sound. And had you not included the ad hominem personal attack, I would have been behind you 100%. As it stands, I am behind you about ninety percent, and for the rest I will point out that our forum rules don't favor personal attacks. At all. Ever.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 2, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Terrorism can be more properly described as anti-Americanism.



No, of can be more properly be described as murder. Protests, complaints lodged with the UN, ETC. can be more properly described as anti-American. Hammas is anti-American. A number of anti-American protests are anti-American (obviously). Hussein could have been described as anti-American.

Al-qaeda is a TERRORIST organization, judged as such by their stated goals and beliefs, and their tactics, techniques, and procedures. And the proper method for dealing with terrorists is not to reason with them, not to give into their demands, but to KILL them. 

Save reason for reasonable people. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, killing thousands, and in response, we joined in a war we were originally staying well out of, because because we were "too proud to fight".

Al-qaeda repeatedly attacked the us, killing thousands, and so we killed them right back. Al-Qaeda has no interest in peace, and has stated that its goal is the utter destruction of the US, regardless of any changes we make. 

Yes, Al-Qaeda is a demon of our own making. That doesn't change the fact that this fight is zero-sum.

Frankly, one of my big issues with the war in Iraq is that not only did it hinder our ability to wipe out al-qaeda through the dilution of our forces,it gave them a new foothold in a country that was previously hostile to them. 

I am not at all opposed to taking out a Nazi scumbag like Hussein. But we had much more pressing issues at the time.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 2, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I didn't say do nothing


Your answer was how to prevent them from happening.  We didnt do that I agree what you said for the most part but My question was what should our reaction should have been since it did happen.



> I am curious as to what you really think about what Smedley Butler had to say.


Alot of what he has said has some points but his isolationism I think goes too far.  Sometimes we need to step in and help people.  He was against the US entering WWII.  I think we do get too involved in some matters that we shouldnt but there are times where we should step in.  I think we should have invaded Iraq in 1988 when Saddam gassed and killed thousands of his own people not in so much in 2003.  I dont however think we need to get involved in Syria since in my opinion its a civil war.  However when one side has been clearly defeated and the other then starts to kill off thousands of innocent civilians from the loosing side then we need to step in and stop it.  The world is far to complicated to just say we need to stay out of everything.  It should be delt with on a case by case basis BUT involvement should also be done correctly by an act of congress not by presidential order.  No one person should have that much power.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 2, 2012)

To piggyback on ballen, Rwanda was a prime example of a time we could have and should have stepped in, but did not. I believe that was a moral failure on the part of our nation. (And I cannot prove it, but I strongly suspect that the fact we stood to gain nothing financially had a lot to do with it).

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Mar 2, 2012)

While I agree that basically ignoring genocide in Rwanda was and is shameful, I have to disagree with your attributing financial gain as a motive in Iraq and or Afghanistan. We've spent a couple of TRILLION dollars in the last decade, where is this financial gain?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 2, 2012)

Not being party to the internal decision making of the American government, I can only ascribe to it the motives that are commonly perceived from the outside.  I think the gain, to respond to Don, was supposed to be in political influence in the region with a view to obtaining more secure oil supplies.  That's only a guess, of course, looking for a rationale as to why so much effort should be expended against a target regime that, altho' reprehensible, was hardly unique in that regard.

The twister with that one is that similar investment in research and development would probably have gotten alternative energy sources a couple of big steps forward in viability or even gotten us onto the verge of fusion.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 2, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Read up on ad hominem personal attacks and why they aren't conducive to rational debate. Whether or not an argument displays hippocracy is irrelevant to whether or not an argument is sound. And had you not included the ad hominem personal attack, I would have been behind you 100%. As it stands, I am behind you about ninety percent, and for the rest I will point out that our forum rules don't favor personal attacks. At all. Ever.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



It's not a personal attack, if someone is glorifying his own violence he cannot then make unfounded allegations against others. if I were to attack him on a personal basis there would be no doubt it was a very personal attack but I cannot see that someone who boasts about his own violence has the right to then smear others for what he perceives as their violence. I didn't make personal remarks about him, unlike his about me, I haveing insulted him, unlike his posts calling me a liar, I haven't called BS unlike others. I am pointing out the fact that someone who_ boasts_ on here of his own violence who then accuses me and others of violence against innocence civilians is an unfounded allegation and smear. His is the persoanal attack that needs questioning which I notice you don't even when his outbursts against me were personal. Mine wasn't a personal attack, believe me you'll know when and if I made one of those, I'm sorry you thought it was but it wasn't.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 2, 2012)

Malakumu, I have nothing invested in any war, you always think you have people and things sorted out and that's why you make these personal attacks. You think you are the only one against the war so things must be how you hear they are, you heard Naomi Wolfe, I've heard the Afghans, I've been there you haven't, war is hell, the soldiers want out, no arguments there however all your bluster against me doesn't change anything. Your assertation that terrorism is anti Americanism is more than paranoid, there's terrrorism going on in countries that have nothing to do with America and never will. Anyway this is a short answer, I'm off to work.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 3, 2012)

Big Don said:


> While I agree that basically ignoring genocide in Rwanda was and is shameful, I have to disagree with your attributing financial gain as a motive in Iraq and or Afghanistan. We've spent a couple of TRILLION dollars in the last decade, where is this financial gain?



Long term: continued access to Iraq's oil supply, plus the prospect of having helped rebuild a nation's political infrastructure increases the potential for favorable trade relations in a country that has historically tense relations with our country. High initial investment that could lead to even higher rewards in the much later future. (Though I don't think that will pan out as well as planned.)

Short term: lots of money to the arms industry, service industry, etc. War is historically good for business. Not that great necessarily for the country, but the potential benefits for business are certainly there.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 3, 2012)

Plus all that government spending helped prop up the GDP.


----------



## john2054 (Mar 4, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's not a personal attack, if someone is glorifying his own violence he cannot then make unfounded allegations against others. if I were to attack him on a personal basis there would be no doubt it was a very personal attack but I cannot see that someone who boasts about his own violence has the right to then smear others for what he perceives as their violence. I didn't make personal remarks about him, unlike his about me, I haveing insulted him, unlike his posts calling me a liar, I haven't called BS unlike others. I am pointing out the fact that someone who_ boasts_ on here of his own violence who then accuses me and others of violence against innocence civilians is an unfounded allegation and smear. His is the persoanal attack that needs questioning which I notice you don't even when his outbursts against me were personal. Mine wasn't a personal attack, believe me you'll know when and if I made one of those, I'm sorry you thought it was but it wasn't.



Calling soldiers and terrorists murderous bad people, is not hypocracy but a matter of fact. What's more I have never boasted about the fights I have been in, illegal though they may have been. But merely described them as a matter of fact. This violence is not something which I am proud of. What's more I don't ever remember making personal attacks as to your character integrity. And I don't remember calling you a liar. If I did I am sorry, what's more I take this back. We all make mistakes right? Just these mistakes can cost lives. Please never forget this.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 4, 2012)

The self same 'murderous' soldiers are the same ones who fought against the Nazis to allow you to be able to speak your mind, the self same 'murderous soldiers' are the ones you will expect to do your fighting for you if we ever are threatened again. the soldiers are the ones who do the things you don't want to, they pick up rubbish when the dustmen are on strike, they carrying the sick and injured when the ambulance men are on strike, they put out the fires when the firemen are on strike. The servicemen are the ones who carry out those caught by floods, they rescue people taken by pirates, they were the ones who had to dig up the bodies of those massacred in the Balkans so that those responsible could be brought to justice and the dead could be identified. Those servicemen are the ones who make sure you sleep safely in your bed, they risk their lives for you whenever it's necessary and they do it willingly. They defend you and pick up the pieces when it all goes pear shaped. You can 'wash your hands' of them, but don't forget how many died in Europe and Asia during the last war so that you are allowed to say you revile them.

These btw are the anti war protestors, note the violence they seem to enjoy, there's plenty more both here in America if you wish to Google.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-violent-clashes-erupt-streets-Brighton.html

As for your violence I think you are being a bit disingenuous here, we both know it's not the fighting I was referring to.











I hthink you don't have any idea of what our soldiers are doing out in Afghan, I don't think you know how they work and what it's like for them. There's not one of them doesn't want us to come out of there but while they are there they will try to make a difference in people lives for the better, they serve their country unstintingly and unselfishly, if their country lets them down by sending them off to wars that are unjust then it has to be addressed to those who send them not the soldiers. No one likes war but wars happen sometimes they are unavoidable if we want to keep our freedom, some wars we should stay right out of. Some wars we go in as peace keepers to stop the fighting as in Cyprus and other places, the self same soldiers are the ones who take all the risks. I repeat my challenge to you, come up here, to the largest garrison in Europe and explain to the soldiers why you think they are murderers and deserve to die. You should of course travel to Afghan and tell the insurgents there, in between them bombing the schools, throwing acid in schoolgirls faces and burying IEDs for the locals to walk on, that you think they are wrong too. disabuse yourself of the idea that Afghanistan or Iraq were utopias of freedom, they are pretty lousy countries to live in, that doesn't justify wars but it does mean that while our troops are there, they at least even if the politicians, the would be politicians and the peace protestors don't do anything to help the people they are trying to. You can go on your peace marches with everyones blessing, you have the right, hard won by soldiers, to speak your mind but remember where that freedom came from, you wouldn't have it under the Nazis, that's for sure. Remember too that while you are shouting about soldiers fighting those self same soldiers are also the ones delivering medical care to the people who wouldn't receive it otherwise, they are also the ones who won't fire on civilians so risk being shot themselves, they are also the ones who try not to actually kill the civilians but yes they will kill the insurgents, you shoot at soldiers they will shoot you back. Should they be there? Who knows, the fact is you can play 'what if' all day but they are there and they are trying very hard not to make the situation any worst. The Afghan police and army are being trained up to take over, they do a lot of the patrols there now anyway. They are totally random about who they shoot, a medic friend of mine had to try to patch up a 3 year old Afghan girl they shot. She kept her alive long enough for the Americans to take her by helicopter to hospital where she survived. The female engagement teams out there do tremendous work and it's the ethos of the armed forces that makes them want to help as much as they can, they will not however be attacked with impunity however. There are instructions on when they can fire back these are adhered too as much as is practicable. Despite what you think the soldiers aren't happy at civilians deaths, don't be under any illusion however that the insurgents they are fighting aren't trained soldiers, they are and good ones at that. Mistakes, misunderstandings and just sheer stupidness happen in war as they do in peacetime, the Allies have killed innocents, and will do so again sadly, and it is sad, it's a tragedy, and very very regretable, the soldiers do feel sorrow, as they do when it's a blue on blue but if there's a mistake made they try to rectify it, it's it's deliberate they will punish because we are trying to do the right thing, not much you might think if your family is the one killed. How much worse then is it to be blown up by your own people, to have suicide bombers taret the markets, the schools and the towns? How much worse to have the insurgents come and kill the men in your village because they can, how much worse is it that your children are maimed and killed by IEDs planted by your own people? We will leave Afghan, sooner rather than later we hope, but we also hope that while being there was regrettable we have at least done something to atone for it all when those who have cause the problems the Taliban and Al Queda are unrepentant at all the deaths and suffering they have caused?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 4, 2012)

Very well said, good lady.  Passion and eloquence simultaneously there.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 4, 2012)

If our society wants to empower groups of people to use force in order to dictate how others should live, we're in big trouble.  If our society wants to empower people to take life when we're not engaged in self defense, we're in big trouble.  It all bounces back...and lets be really clear...the people who can justify both of those things are the ones who throw other people into prison/re-education camps.  Let's hope it doesn't get that far, but it should be noted that the pieces for it to go that far are falling into place.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2012)

One of the biggest exports from Afghanistan apart from terrorism is drugs, the ones that are peddled to our children sometimes at the school gates. Opium is their biggest crop, the Taliban are fighting for the right to keep supplying the world with illegal drugs as much as anything else. These aren't 'freedom fighters' who are fighting off invaders, these are drug and warlords who are fighting to maintain their control over a very lucrative crop which brings misery to hundreds of thousands. So who's dictating to whom about how to live? These 'freedom fighters' who hold the locals in terror, who force the men to wear bearfs, small children to be killed for flying kites and throw acid int he face of schoolgirls or the 'invaders' who are trying to empower the women, free the tribes people fromt he stranglehold of the Taliban and give back to the people control of their own country?

The United States was formed by war, Americans fought for their independance seeing themselves as a free people, it's seems strange now that you want to deny that to others by deciding that living under the Taliban is 'freedom'. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...of-seven-was-hanged-to-punish-his-family.html
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/6185.htm

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mvcarmac/women2.html

As for the talk of camps, I really think you are being overly melodramatic for effect. Try to imagine yourself as a woman in Afghanistan then see how 'freedom' tastes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 5, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> One of the biggest exports from Afghanistan apart from terrorism is drugs, the ones that are peddled to our children sometimes at the school gates. Opium is their biggest crop, the Taliban are fighting for the right to keep supplying the world with illegal drugs as much as anything else. These aren't 'freedom fighters' who are fighting off invaders, these are drug and warlords who are fighting to maintain their control over a very lucrative crop which brings misery to hundreds of thousands. So who's dictating to whom about how to live? These 'freedom fighters' who hold the locals in terror, who force the men to wear bearfs, small children to be killed for flying kites and throw acid int he face of schoolgirls or the 'invaders' who are trying to empower the women, free the tribes people fromt he stranglehold of the Taliban and give back to the people control of their own country?
> 
> The United States was formed by war, Americans fought for their independance seeing themselves as a free people, it's seems strange now that you want to deny that to others by deciding that living under the Taliban is 'freedom'.
> 
> ...



I wish it were just melodrama.  With the new NDAA legislation, people can be locked up forever with new due process.  You can be disappeared.  The tyranny overseas becomes a tyranny of mind at home.  The two ideas, that we can kill to get what we want and use force to make people live how we say, grease the skids on the slippery slope.

The Taliban don't deserve to be wiped out because of their religious zealotry any more then Christians who used religion to justify holding slaves.  Social change can happen without interventionism...and we wouldn't really even have this problem if we didn't give the Taliban weapons and money in the first place.

Regarding drugs, in 1999, the Taliban actually cracked down on the production of opium to the point where 96% of the crop disappeared.  When the allies invaded, production of drugs skyrocketed.  Now, we have Hamid Karzai's brother selling huge amounts of it with strong ties to our CIA.  We also have US marines guarding poppy fields for friendly locals.

The drugs on the streets are the products of your tax dollars.  The 500 billion dollar industry is being protected and perpetrated by allied weapons.  How's that for a reason to get out of Afghanistan NOW?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I wish it were just melodrama. With the new NDAA legislation, people can be locked up forever with new due process. You can be disappeared. The tyranny overseas becomes a tyranny of mind at home. The two ideas, that we can kill to get what we want and use force to make people live how we say, grease the skids on the slippery slope.
> 
> The Taliban don't deserve to be wiped out because of their religious zealotry any more then Christians who used religion to justify holding slaves. Social change can happen without interventionism...and we wouldn't really even have this problem if we didn't give the Taliban weapons and money in the first place.
> 
> ...



So I expect what we saw in Afghan is just Scotch Mist then if 96% of the crop disappeared. 

Damn right the Taliban should be wiped out, not because of their religious beleifs but for their sheer criminal, inhumane, disgusting and downright nasty habits of hanging children, throwing acid in girls faces, whipping people, murdering, torturing, I surely don't need to go on. showing tolerance for the Taliban is like showing tolerance for the Nazis or the Inquisition, it's mind blowing stupid to tolerate such monsters.  You simplify things so much it all sounds so easy written down, well I'm afraid it's not that simple in practice. perhaps though believeing everything you see on Fox makes life easier for those who want to betray their country by blaming them for _everything. _There's been mistakes by the Allies but to show tolerance for inhuman monsters is going too far.
And yes we would have this problem even if we hadn't armed them because they are warlords and criminals and they do what warlords and criminals do do...make war,peddle drugs and make good peoples lives hell on earth.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2012)

The Taliban
http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/6185.htm


http://www.rawa.org/nbc.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007407,00.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-nose-ears-hacked-trying-flee-cruel-laws.html
http://www.rawa.org/zarmeena2.htm



If a country committed such crimes against an ethnic group or a particular religion/political group the world would demand action but it's only women, only half the population, only those who cannot fight. So we have the apologists for the Taliban 'it's their way', 'it's their religion', 'we can't interfere'. However the Taliban are carrying out a Holocaust on women, they persecute them, enslave them, murder and torture them. We may have gone into Afghanistan for all the wrong reasons but by god we'll come out leaving it a better place whatever the apologists think.

http://www.afghan-web.com/articles/story.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 5, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Showing tolerance for the Taliban is like showing tolerance for the Nazis or the Inquisition, it's mind blowing stupid to tolerate such monsters.



http://www.rawa.org/cia-talib.htm



> [SIZE=+3][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+3][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]"It  also means turning our back on history, Afghanistan today is the  product of a war fought by other on its soil. The US and its allies  piled this country with Stinger missiles and cash to fuel the  Mujahideen's opposition against Soviet occupation. They encouraged the  growth of Islamic fundamentalism to frighten Moscow and of drugs to get  Soviet soldiers hooked. The CIA even helped "Arab Afghans" like Osama  bin Ladin, now "America's most wanted", to fight here. When the Soviet  fled Kabul, US money and interest also evaporated, leaving a terrible  mess. Whether we like it or not, the Taliban is part of the West's  legacy of intrusion followed by neglect and Afghanistan is the last  orphan of the Cold War."  [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]



It looks like the Taliban are the product of interventionism.  Why do you think you can solve this problem with more interventionism?  What if we leave and Afghan goes to hell again?  Do we go back and try to fix it?  How many times has the West gone into Afghan in order to "fix" them?  What about other areas of the Earth that have traditions that we consider barbaric?  Do we invade them all and attempt to show them the wrongness of their ways with our bullets and bombs?

What if war isn't a solution to this mess?


----------



## john2054 (Mar 6, 2012)

Hi Tez and others, thanks for your comments, and insightful remarks about the armed services in Afghanistan. I suppose that I have to agree with you that now we are there, it is important that we try and do our best. And by we I mean you me and our soldiers. I also think that it's a shame that such a culture of machoism and bravardary has built up, not just amongst the armed forces, but in general by the right wing classes in this country. Just look at how Cameron is stripping back from the welfare state, to in what is effect, line his greasy pockets. And do not think that I have not had similar problems at home. Without going into detail, I will say that I have, and my finances are out of my hands, instead being managed by a group of well paid and self righteous solicitors. Who just about pay me enough to keep me off the bread line.

Back to the soldiers, well if you remember that I said that this war which they, if not started, then saturated themselves in once it had already begun, has soon turned around to bite themselves on the derry air. But of course it wasn't the soldiers who made the decision to goto war, but their right wing paymasters. Tony Blair and the lib cons. I would have them shot as well. By the way that is a figurative way of speaking. I never called you a liar tez, indeed as far as I can see you do a good job at adding a valued and valuable contribution to the site. And I am glad to see that you have got a good working relationship with the soldiers in your know. Thanks for your offer to visit them, but the last soldier i talked to (TA) looked right through me as if I wasn't there. And I don't much fancy facing up to this highly trained group of experts, without any friends around. God only knows I've got few enough friends as it is.

I think you think that I'm some kind of traitor for opposing the war and opposing the deaths by the British men's bullets. Well in the time of war it is quite understandable that you can think like that. But at school I was always picked last for the football teams. I mean sports was a big no no for me back then. I WAS good at drama, and got quite a lot out of that for what it is worth. But my athletic and certainly cardiovascular appeal is a n sum nil. That being said I did take up Aikido for a couple of months a couple of years ago, before I was taken into hospital for a, rowing with my dr and b, fighting for my own good reasons. So I had to pack it in, and have chosen not to restart it just yet while I am studying for my undergraduate degree. I'd like to point out that trust me, no matter how great these external enemies are, the drs in the mental health services, with their powers are also not to be underestimated.

In think that I'm beginning to repeat myself now, and I also don't want to offend the admin of this site by stepping too far off the mark, so I'm going to leave it right there. Good luck.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2012)

Actually I don't think you are a traitor for opposing the war, it's a right that has been fought for, oxymoron that may be but true all the same. I'm not sure if you saw the real army you would be so sure they are 'macho' and saturated in war, they are normal blokes who like a drink, a shag and a fight with the RMPs ( but then everyone likes afight with the RMPs lol, they are just numpties) they are however professional soldiers. The Israeli military has a saying, it's that war shuld be the last resort like surgery, it should only come after every other cure has been tried and then like surgery it should be sharp and as short as possible, get in do the job and out, the British army is vey like that. We don't do the macho, the posturing, the 'honour of serving your country bit, it's the honour of the regiment and all for your mates. The TA, shouldn't be considered proper soldiers, they are 'weekend warriors', if they were any reall good they'd be regulars so don't judge the army by one STAB (Stupid TA Bastard). I've seen and been with soldiers who have cried, laughed, cross dressed, got drunk, saved lives, took lives and they are the funniest., most annoying little buggers going, they don't like authority, truly despite what you might think lol, are kind, will nick anything that isn't nailed down, will chat up your wife, daughter, sister with aplomb and will lay down their lives for their fellow soldiers. 

There's a good book out, it's called Six Months without Sundays, it's the story of the Scots Guards on their last tour in Afghan, it's an interesting read. I know most of the guys in it. 


Makalakumu, inaction has killed far more than action did. You've ignored totally anything I've posted about the treatment of women in Afghanistan. I can only assume when you say the people will be 'ok' if we pulled out now that youhaven't given consideration to the treatment of women by these monsters. Interventionism didn't cause the Taliban to treat women this way, their own evil did. If you can countanance such evil and all you can say is oh well it's the culture I think you need to think very carefully about what you think is acceptable. You may also want to read what I've said and not make it up as you go along, I said...that we may have gone in for all the wrong reason but we are there and we can try to at least make things better. You are blinkered by your own thoughts and you are constantly missing what I am saying. You have your own conversation going on in your head between me and you only you don't have understand what I'm saying. You come across as an apologist for the Taliban and it's hateful treatment of women, and like David I think I'm done here too. Should the Taliban be destroyed? Ask women, we'll tell you hell yes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Makalakumu, inaction has killed far more than action did.



This is the first commandment in the Official State Religion.  We must intervene or more people will die.  The truth is that interventionism has only brought us an unending trail of tears and sorrow.  The unintended consequences reverberate through history and always come back to haunt us.  From President Wilson's decision to bring the US into WWI which led to the disastrous Versailles Treaty and ultimately led to WWII, to our decision to use the Mujahedin against the Russians, to our backing of Al-qaeda like groups in Libya, who immediately turned around and massacred black africans, our intervention has only spurred the cycle of violence down into greater and greater depths of hell.

Like all religions, the state religion is false.  It's idols are the masks for human evil.



Tez3 said:


> You've ignored totally anything I've posted about the treatment of women in Afghanistan. I can only assume when you say the people will be 'ok' if we pulled out now that you haven't given consideration to the treatment of women by these monsters.



We're responsible for the Taliban's power in Afghanistan.  If we hadn't armed them and given them money, they wouldn't have been able to take power like they did.  So, now they are in power and surely we must do something?  Underlying that proposition is the same assumption that makes the Taliban so evil...and produces the same results.

I would post pictures of women scarred by the Taliban's acid in the face treatment and women whose faces melted from hellfire missiles launched from drones, but it violates MT policies.  Guess what?  The results are the same.  The idea that you can use force to make another group of people live the way you want them to is evil.  It produces evil results.  It dehumanizes one group of people so that it's okay for another to dominate them.  The women the Taliban murder are lesser creatures, worthy of being subjugated, and totally abused when they disobey or dishonor the family.  To the allies in Afghanistan, the women that are murdered are Bugsplat.



> And, according to a 2003 Washington Post story, it's the name of a  Defense Department computer program for calculating collateral damage,  as well as, apparently, casual terminology among Pentagon operation  planners and the like to refer to the collateral damage itself ... you  know, the dead civilians. CIA drone operators talk about bugsplat. The  British organization Reprieve calls its effort to track the number of  people killed by U.S. drone strikes &#8212; in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen &#8212;  Project Bugsplat.



It's all being done for the greater good of course.  The Taliban believe that God is on their side and the allies (depending the propaganda that's been used to support this war) tell you it's being done to help the poor people who live there.  The Taliban are evil monsters and must be destroyed...for the good of all.

You may have heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, well that seems to hold true in this case.



Tez3 said:


> Interventionism didn't cause the Taliban to treat women this way, their own evil did. If you can countanance such evil and all you can say is oh well it's the culture I think you need to think very carefully about what you think is acceptable.



On the contrary, I think you need to think very carefully about what you (and others) think is acceptable.  The reverberations from this intervention will only spawn more pain and suffering.  You may wish to use Sauron's Ring for good, but the power of Mordor is in it and it will only turn you into what you fought against.



Tez3 said:


> You may also want to read what I've said and not make it up as you go along, I said...that we may have gone in for all the wrong reason but we are there and we can try to at least make things better. You are blinkered by your own thoughts and you are constantly missing what I am saying. You have your own conversation going on in your head between me and you only you don't have understand what I'm saying.



I understand clearly what you and others have been saying about the war.  I've decided that I'm not going to hold back and speak the required slogans that would make me popular.  There is a real issue of right and wrong here and I've been pointing this out the entire time.  



Tez3 said:


> You come across as an apologist for the Taliban and it's hateful treatment of women, and like David I think I'm done here too. Should the Taliban be destroyed? Ask women, we'll tell you hell yes.



How do we change the Taliban's hearts and minds without turning the bystanding public into bugsplat (and never mind the drug issue btw - there is so much hidden from us about this war that even now I know we're just discussing a particular bit of propaganda).  

Peace, freedom, and trade spread attitudes that respected human rights (war rolls them back).  That's how they spread in our culture.  Why would you expect it to be any different for any other group of people?

I know the answer.  You were taught it differently from the holy pulpit of the state religion.  It's always been just another slogan to justify interventionism.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> , they are normal blokes who like a drink, a shag and a fight with the RMPs ( but then everyone likes afight with the RMPs lol, they are just numpties) . .



You need to start speaking American cause I have no clue what that says


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 6, 2012)

:chuckles:  Let me try and help:

RMP - http://www.army.mod.uk/agc/provost/13306.aspx

Shag - erm, well, you know ... physical congress between consenting adults

Numpty - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/04/britishidentity.features11


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Numpty - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/04/britishidentity.features11



I like that one I may use that one


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 7, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I like that one I may use that one



For some really good insults etc if you have a military/police sense of humour try http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Dictionary it's really not a safe site for work unless you have a boss who really doesn't understand lol. There's some serious stuff on there as well though.


----------



## john2054 (Mar 9, 2012)

Hi Tez, I want to say this so as to offend the absolute minimum number of people as possible, and I am very sorry about the boys killed over in Afghanistan recently, but I fear that their armoured personnel carrier, rather than being hit by an i.e.d., in fact ran over a discarded cluster bomb munition and so was in fact a friendly fire incident.

Also what do you think of the recent hostile overtones made both here by Cameron and in America by the Boston tea party candidates threatening war with Iran? Don't you think that the two wars we have waged over there has done enough damage already? And yeah that's right I said damage. With a capital D.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 9, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Hi Tez, I want to say this so as to offend the absolute minimum number of people as possible, and I am very sorry about the boys killed over in Afghanistan recently, but I fear that their armoured personnel carrier, rather than being hit by an i.e.d., in fact ran over a discarded cluster bomb munition and so was in fact a friendly fire incident.
> 
> Also what do you think of the recent hostile overtones made both here by Cameron and in America by the Boston tea party candidates threatening war with Iran? Don't you think that the two wars we have waged over there has done enough damage already? And yeah that's right I said damage. With a capital D.




No, it was an IED no doubt at all.


----------



## john2054 (Mar 11, 2012)

How can you be so sure TEZ. They dropped a lot of bombs over Iraq. More in fact than were dropped by BOTH sides during the whole of world war two! Then is it hardly surprising that they run over one or two in their off road vehicle exercises? And the same can be said for Afghanistan and this situation there. But of course you still haven't answered my second point, that of Iran. Are you really so headstrong as to wish us to invade yet another country (by all but the name), and thus commit us and others to the pay back and consequent reparations for the foreseeable future?

What's more did you also hear about that American soldier today who ran berserk and took out some fifteen innocent Afghani civilians? Now that's hardly warranted is it? I am just saying.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 12, 2012)

john2054 said:


> How can you be so sure TEZ. They dropped a lot of bombs over Iraq. More in fact than were dropped by BOTH sides during the whole of world war two! Then is it hardly surprising that they run over one or two in their off road vehicle exercises? And the same can be said for Afghanistan and this situation there. But of course you still haven't answered my second point, that of Iran. Are you really so headstrong as to wish us to invade yet another country (by all but the name), and thus commit us and others to the pay back and consequent reparations for the foreseeable future?
> 
> What's more did you also hear about that American soldier today who ran berserk and took out some fifteen innocent Afghani civilians? Now that's hardly warranted is it? I am just saying.




I've said nothing about Iran, I don't know where you got the idea I want to do anything there. Headstrong has nothing to do with it. I've not expressed any thoghts on Iran at all. 

Yes I know it was an IED in Afghan, I'm not going to tell you how I know but it was definitely an IED. 


No one is suggesting or even thinking that a soldier who went rogue is justified in killing civilians, tbh he could just have likely turned on his own people if he's in the frame of mind that allows no rational thoughts or is mentally ill. We've had similiar killings here in the UK as well as Europe and America. It's not sanctioned, it's not policy and I can tell you that the military will be as sorry as anyone that it happened. The soldier is in custody now, as much for his own safety as anything else. His own troops will not tolerate what was done by him.


----------



## john2054 (Mar 13, 2012)

I was thinking maybe some other soldiers could have done it, and he covered up for them. Either way he should be punished by the full extent of the law, which in America includes the death penalty doesn't it? Well that is what i think!


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2012)

john2054 said:


> I was thinking maybe some other soldiers could have done it, and he covered up for them. Either way he should be punished by the full extent of the law, which in America includes the death penalty doesn't it? Well that is what i think!




The American military authorites are investigating and we will know soon enough what and why this thing happened. There's been reports that the soldier concerned have a head injury and has family problems but it's all conjecture at this point. The American authorities have little to gain btw by covering up what happened, I add that before people start jumping on the conspiracy theories, they will know their best bet is a frank and honest disclosure of the facts though these may not be released until after any court martial as they may prejudice the fairness of it. They will be open because they own it to their own guys as well as the Afghans.

Sometimes **** happens, there's no rhyme or reason for it, it just does. We like things these days for things to be logical, explainable, if they aren't people say it's a conspiracy, governments cover things up but often it's just things that happen without explanation. Something went off in this mans head, we may never know what it was or what he was thinking. Sometimes, things that happen aren't anyone's fault as in the 'military', or soldiers in general, this *one* guy went ape, you can't always see things coming, you can't always prevent them, you just have to live with it and try to do the best you can. He may have gone this way anyway, going on the rampage in his home town, he may not, it may have been because he was in Afghan, it may not. Does he deserve the death penalty? He may but I don't believe taking the life of someone is how you punish someone for taking life, you are saying it's wrong to kill but I'm going to kill you. Far better he atones for his actions for the rest of his life.
My thoughts are with the families of those killed and with the soldiers family because whatever he's done will affect all of them now, forever.


----------



## john2054 (Mar 16, 2012)

Yes Tez, my thoughts go with the bereaved families as well. But I have to point out, again, that the families of those killed seem to think that it was more than one killer. So without waiting for the officials to cover up their tracks, and create an oh so convincing sob story for the accused soldier, why don't we listen to them (the families) for a change. I am sure that if this slaughter had happened in America, or anywhere in the West for that matter, the families would be listened to instead of swept under the carpet by the occupiers of an unnamed and totally illegal occupation. Just as in Iraq. And things like this happened over there do I have to remind you?!


----------



## granfire (Mar 16, 2012)

The people in Afghanistan - or at least the ones voicing their opinion the loudest to the media - will never believe anything US officials conclude.
For many reasons.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 17, 2012)

john2054 said:


> Yes Tez, my thoughts go with the bereaved families as well. But I have to point out, again, that the families of those killed seem to think that it was more than one killer. So without waiting for the officials to cover up their tracks, and create an oh so convincing sob story for the accused soldier, why don't we listen to them (the families) for a change. I am sure that if this slaughter had happened in America, or anywhere in the West for that matter, the families would be listened to instead of swept under the carpet by the occupiers of an unnamed and totally illegal occupation. Just as in Iraq. And things like this happened over there do I have to remind you?!




Bollocks, if you watch the news you will know there's no cover up and the families are being heard, I saw some of them on Sky news this morning. No one has made up any sob story for the accused soldier, in fact he's in solitary confinement waiting to go before a judge or the equivilant tomorrow. Please don't make things up to suit your viewpoint, it makes it very weak.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 17, 2012)

What never ceases to amaze me is when those seeking to rabble-rouse and stir the pot of trouble are successful in their aims despite a complete lack of justification for what they say. 

Like, for example, those supposed family members claiming there was more than one loony soldier murdering their families.  It's impossible to prove otherwise, true.  But what on earth would the Coalition forces have to gain by doing such a thing? 

It is *guaranteed*&#8203; to have the very consequences we are seeing playing out now - i.e. utterly destructive to the mission (such as it is).  Whilst those that politically lead us and our militaries are certainly not pure as the driven snow, they are not stupid enough to order, condone or cover up such an action (well, maybe the latter but the cats well out of the bag now).


----------



## john2054 (Mar 17, 2012)

Try and keep things civil Tez. I think that if Sky news has showed footage of the families reaction well good on them. I wasn't aware of this, but then I don't watch that much tv anyway. As to the point surekin made, well if you are calling me a rabble rouser you are entitled to you opinion. However if is my opinion that Iraq is a hundred times worse since before we invaded, and Afghanistan is getting that way. I am glad that they have kept the perpetrator in solitary confinement. He doesn't deserve to live, and that's going by the Afghani and U.S. laws. Not British laws. Tez, as I am sure you are aware of they do things differently over there. When you mingle with the soldiers it is clear that some of their camaraderie rubs off on you. But they are trained killers, following orders and consequently without control of their own destiny.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 17, 2012)

John, you live in a world of your own making to be honest, whether you believe me or not, and I suspect not as you actually called me liar when you said 'IF' Sky showed the families, son, they did... the fact is I know soldiers, the military and military far better than you do. I don't 'rub shoulders with soldiers' so nothing rubs off on me. I have a deep and strong knowledge of the military here including all the faults, foibles and shortcomings. If they behave badly or illegally I'm there, that's my job. You have been listening to too many people with ulterior motives, not everyone who says they want peace actually wants a peace where all are equal. For example we are currently looking into cases where people have been emailing the families of soldiers killed saying they deserve to die, they are child killers etc, the sort of sentiments you were expressing earlier in this thread actually. 
Your melodramatic last line shows how little you know of the morality of soldiers, the ethos they follow and in fact how little you know of the human condition. The fact that you can express you opinion freely in this country, that you can call the soldiers killers etc is down to the fact that the army you are disparaging and sneering at is the reason you can do so. The Armed Forces of this country and of our Allies America fought and died to allow you the freedoms you have today, just a thought you might like to ponder. 
All right minded people are against war, no one in their right mind wants death and destruction. You aren't the prophet crying alone in the wilderness, others are out there actually doing soemthing to stop the death and destruction. 

As for the soldier who is alleged to committed the killings, remember too that condemning someone and saying they deserve to die before they have had a proper trial is actually ato act as badly as any insurgent or war monger. To be civilised, to be fair, to be the people we think we are we make sure people have a fair trial, to call for his death without that trial and to condemn him without hearing the evidence is to make you as bad as he's alleged to be. Taking a moral stand means you have to do that across the board not just when it suits you, you can't call the soldiers killers then call for the death of a man without a fair trial. It's the mark of decent people that we can do that even for someone who has allegedly done something as bad as that. We don't take the law into our own hands and just kill people we think we should, we have to obey the law, if we don't then we aren't any better than our enemies.


----------



## john2054 (Mar 21, 2012)

Good points Tez. I think I have spent too many years at school just downright unpopular, then too many years after I hit my head in a RTA hitting my mum and being unhappy, and then too many years after I was kicked out of my mum's house, then too many years in hospital, too be able to see these things clearly. I don't have a grudge against the military, but I have known one in the past who upset me. The SAS man I told you about, and I am not even supposed to be talking about. So yeah I guess you are right. But you are not a better person than me. A better fighter, most surely, but a better person, individual with a soul? Listen love I have been striving very hard for all of these years. It finally seems like we are beginning to get somewhere with progress on my wife's visa. I don't know if you are aware of the Buddhist concept of Karma, but I am. And as a Buddhist I fully reconcile to it. But this is in parallel to my later, but no less worthy Christian faith.

I understand that the worthy men and women in the army do a good job. Perhaps I was taking a preemptive stance in moving to the attack position. And I will remind you that at school I was the least popular person there, a complete loner. So isn't it ironic that now as an adult I am posing to get back in there and teach those little blighters a thing or two (about Sociology)! HA. Oh well, that's assuming that I can pass the CRB check, which if it's an enhanced one I think I may fail. In which case I'll have to look for another job. But i don't particularly want anything less then a teachers wage if you get my drift. Especially seeing as all of these years (and pounds) I will have spent in this culmination of my education (at university). I think you told me earlier that you were studying for a degree also. How is it going? And how is your training going? I'm all ears, really I am.


----------

