9 American Soldiers Were Killed In Iraq Yesterday...

[Tez3]

..... Lets stop pointing fingers and FIX it.

I agree wholeheartedly with that! The governments of the US and the UK are busy thinking about their re- election chances and how they 'look' to the electorate when they should be doing all they can to bring a solution to the Iraq and Afghanistan problems. The thing I hate the most is when the politicians tell us that we don't understand the situation out there and they know best.

 

[Makalakumu]

Let us not forget all of the democrats who voted for this war. Let us not forget all of the democrats who could have been out there among the American people trying to spread the truth of this war. Let us not forget the two-faced lying scumbags who stood by and did nothing...or worse...made big shows of opposition but continually voted for this trainwreck.

Partisan blame spreads thin among all of those who support the military industrial complex.

 

[HKphooey]

Let's not forget the psycho gassed thousands of people. I would call that a weapon of mass death!

I have asked many soldiers their thoughts, and each said they will go back without hesitation. The news is not showing any of the good. I hat to see any soldier killed. There are many areas of Iraq that are safe and prospering.

Yes, in restrospect, maybe we should not be there, but anyone can be a Monday morning QB.

And it is not a party-thing. The both have plenty of blame.

 

[Makalakumu]

Let's not forget the psycho gassed thousands of people.

I'm not going to deny that Saddam gassed his own people, but, the story is much more complicated then the propaganda that is thrown into the echo chamber back in the US.

Lets not forget who gave Saddam the chemicals for the gas, gave him the helicopters to carry it out, and watched dispassionately while the whole thing was going on.

IMO, we don't need to monday morning quarterback Iraq. We shouldn't be there...end of story. The evidence was crystal clear and I am absolutely ashamed that the Democrats failed to stand up for what was right.

All of those "yes" votes were politically motivated...and that sickens me.

 

[michaeledward]

Let's not forget the psycho gassed thousands of people. I would call that a weapon of mass death!

I have asked many soldiers their thoughts, and each said they will go back without hesitation. The news is not showing any of the good. I hat to see any soldier killed. There are many areas of Iraq that are safe and prospering.

Yes, in restrospect, maybe we should not be there, but anyone can be a Monday morning QB.

And it is not a party-thing. The both have plenty of blame.

You are aware that soldiers can be court martialed and thrown in jail if they speak against the Commander-in-Chief. They really aren't a good source for an objective opinion.

Many power sources around the globe have done horrible things to their citizens. To mention the gassing of the Kurds, which too place in the 80's, isn't really a very good argument. Someday, someone may make the argument that the United States Nuked Hiroshima and Nagisaki. They would be accurate, wouldn't they?

There are not "many" areas that are safe in Iraq. The Kurdish north is relatively calm. But that is because it has been operating independently since 1992, when the first Gulf War ended. During the intervening years, the Kurds operated under the protection of the United States no fly zone. They were able to establish an effective local government.

However, are you arguing that we should expect to be in Baghdad for the equivilent 14 years ... to establish similiar stability? That is not what I was told by the people in power; President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and his undersecretarys, National Security Advisor and her undersectretaries, and the Secretary of State.

Further, the Kurds would be just as happy to see Iraq disolve. So, while their particular region is relatively stable, were they to secede, things would get far worse, not better.

Lastly, I would ask anybody proposing there is plenty of blame to go around, to please spend some time using "The Google" to review "PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY".

The Democratic Party of the last 5 years has been completely neutered. They had no power, no authority, no nothing. They were able to play one card - once, when a brave Democratic Senator called the full Senate into a closed session to discuss the Phase Two portion of the report about the Bush Administrations mis-handling of intelligence.

Any 'YEA' votes from the Democratic members of the Congress, were completely meaningless in terms of policy. The Republican Controlled Congress would have carried all votes anyhow. Sure, those votes helped the Congressman become a candidate that couldn't be painted into the peacenik hippie crowd, but in terms of policy - nothing.

This disaster lies completely at the foot of the Republican President and his Rubber Stamp Republican Permanent Majority.

As for fixing it ... yes, the Democrats will again come in and clean up after the children ... there are people calling for an immediate withdrawl. I point anyone who thinks otherwise to Dennis Kucinich's web site.

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

 

[Makalakumu]

The Democratic Party of the last 5 years has been completely neutered. They had no power, no authority, no nothing. They were able to play one card - once, when a brave Democratic Senator called the full Senate into a closed session to discuss the Phase Two portion of the report about the Bush Administrations mis-handling of intelligence.

A Senator or a Congressmen always has power. They have two legs and a mouth and a mind and a name. And I have known a few that would take the show on the road in order to drum up support for unpopular ideas that just happened to be right.

Any 'YEA' votes from the Democratic members of the Congress, were completely meaningless in terms of policy. The Republican Controlled Congress would have carried all votes anyhow. Sure, those votes helped the Congressman become a candidate that couldn't be painted into the peacenik hippie crowd, but in terms of policy - nothing.

More "NO" votes would have shown the world that this country is not unified by this cause. It would have provided more unity among democrats...instead we got politics.

This disaster lies completely at the foot of the Republican President and his Rubber Stamp Republican Permanent Majority.

I just don't believe this. Can you imagine what a group of 10, 20, or 30 senators could have done if they had traveled the country together and brought all of those who cared to Washington to voice their opinion? There would have been millions of people protesting PNAC's illegal war.

That sort of thing used to happen in our country's past. Sadly, it is not the case anymore...

As for fixing it ... yes, the Democrats will again come in and clean up after the children ... there are people calling for an immediate withdrawl. I point anyone who thinks otherwise to Dennis Kucinich's web site.

Unless the Democrats get serious about impeaching Bush on the various crimes he has committed in office, the best they can acheive is a holding pattern for two more years. The worst thing they could do is to keep going along with this trainwreck by attempting to "fix" the problems in Iraq.

IMHO, if we don't want to be there for 20 years spending trillions of dollars, the only viable solution is to cut and run.

Kucinich is one voice among a sea of people who are still playing politics while people are dying.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i blame partisanship.

we're in a war of aggression in order to establish (one could say maintain) a global empire. i'm not saying that's a bad thing. historically, well-run empires have been good overall (han china, british, roman, even mongol) with some exceptions (nazi germany, ussr).

what i object to is that we citizens don't get a say in this. it doesnt' matter if we vote dem or rep (sorry, mikeedwards). both parties are so caught up in their power struggle that their squabbling is more important than the good of our society.

the united states needs a progressive, independent party with some actual teeth. if we, as a nation, want to rule the world, then lets vote for it and fire up the legion. but let's not get caught up in hating some puppet from texas while the real criminals saunter away out of the spotlight.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Allow me to repeat myself.

There are alot of people who are American. About 3000 people who were American were killed in 9/11. Have you forgotten? Where is the rage for this? Where is the rage for the train bombings in Spain and London? How about the embassy bombings across the world? Suicide bombers in Tel Aviv? Why is there no rage for police murdered? Victims of drunk driving? Training accidents in the military?


There is no call for perpetual war.



Key word... you believe. We have the right to have our own beliefs. Others have beliefs that differ from your own. A majority of Americans elected George Bush as president. Perhaps you voted the other way. However, this is a democracy. The last election made the statement that public view is changing. That fine, thats how democracy works. In the next presidential election the process will work again.

Want to raise objections? Feel free! I maintain the right to do the same or support whatever route I feel is right. I don't like my opinions being called having "the appearance of patriotism before the actuality", but thats your view. It is also debatable if your views represent the best interests.

My apologies - it terms of "sociopaths" and false patriotism, I was speaking specifically about the talk radio hosts who constantly and consistently toe the party line over a critical examination of what is in the bests interests of the country rather than their party. The extreme folks on both sides do this. I did NOT mean and apologize for sounding this way, MT members who supported the war. I also specifically apologize to Mrhnau for my comments about "drinking the kool-aid". They were uncalled for.

Rage for 9/11? Of course. Even the President admits that Iraq had nothing to do with that.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

9 American Soldiers Were Killed In Iraq Yesterday. Please tell me what their deaths are accomplishing? The situation in Iraq is getting WORSE, not better. Is there an end in sight? What is the objective? And don't give me **** about not supporting "the troops". If I had had my way NO troops woulld have been sent to Iraq. I SUPPORT the troops. It is the right-wing kool-aid drinkers "freedom is on the march!" folks who don't.

The Objective: To create a stable government in Iraq. One which does not condone or sponsor terroism, and is friendly to the American people and government.

Are they accomplishing that? Well that is certainly to be debated.

There were inspectors on the ground in Iraq WITH unrestricted access in the months before the invasion. Your information comes from right-wing propaganda.

After the paradigm shift which occurred after 9/11, the Bush Administration decided not to mess around any more. It is historical fact that Saddam Hussein would allow inspectors in, with "unlimited access", only to kick them out again, or impose restrictions which would allow him to circumvent the UN Resolutions. At what point do we say, "Enough is enough?" Saddam Hussein was very much the con artist in this regard. It was not:

That Saddam Hussien was uncooperative, is a 'Big Lie' that the Republican Party spins, to shift blame, from them to anyone else

Lets not forget who gave Saddam the chemicals for the gas, gave him the helicopters to carry it out, and watched dispassionately while the whole thing was going on.

You're absolutely correct. We gave Saddam Hussein the gas to kill people, in the hopes that he would use it against a worse enemy (to the U.S), Iran. Were we wrong for that. Historians will continue to debate it.

What a lot of people seem to forget is that the UN resolution not only asked do you have, or are you developing WMDs, but also what did you do wiht the stuff the U.S. gave you. They were never able to adequately establish that.

Now, my opinion.

We were correct to go after Saddam Hussein. After 9/11 (and in my opinioin before that) we could no longer stand by why innocent people were killed in the name of Islam, Jihad, fatwah, etc. Especially in our own country. The paradigm shifted to not just defeating those specifically involved in that attack, but those who supported terrorism, like Hussein (ie. $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, training camps, etc.). The U.S. throughout the years (from 1975) had suffered too many acts of terrorism. 9/11 is just the one that brought it home to most Americans.

And lets face it, our military did an excellent job in defeating the Iraqi Army and security forces. With very few casualties suffered by us.

Where the Administration went wrong, IMHO, is that they misunderstood the culture of the Middle East. These are not people who's culture allows for a true democracy (or republic, if you will). They are generally tribal, with power structures embracing a single leader, usually genetically inherited. Also, their religious practises are not conducive to these type of governments either.

We should have gone in there, taken out Saddam and his children (who were reportedly worse then him), installed a dictator (or similar) who was friendly to us, and let them go their own way. If that dictator we installed was taken out, so be it. But the threat (openly stated) would be that if you act against us, we will return.

We are forcing on the Iraqi's something that they don't understand, nor will their culture or religion allow it. That is where the Administration messed up.

 

[HKphooey]

"You are aware that soldiers can be court martialed and thrown in jail if they speak against the Commander-in-Chief. They really aren't a good source for an objective opinion."

I very well a aware of what can/cannot be doen to a soldier. Do you really thinj that keeps a soldier from taking to friends and family about their opinions. One would just keep their mouth shut if they disagree, not promote what they are doing.

And how can you say they are not a good source of an objective opinion? They are there. They see things first hand. They put their life on the line for a cause in which they believe. Do you think the opinions we base on a CNN and books written by college professors make us all the better at forming an objective opinion.

Looking back with all the facts, I will agree with the "next guy", we should not have gone. But we are there and we made that choice. We need to get a better plan and ask the rest of the world to support the cause.

I always enjoy these discussions because it brings out a lot of great points and it nice to read other people's opinions.

 

[michaeledward]

The Objective: To create a stable government in Iraq. One which does not condone or sponsor terroism, and is friendly to the American people and government.

Are they accomplishing that? Well that is certainly to be debated.

After the paradigm shift which occurred after 9/11, the Bush Administration decided not to mess around any more. It is historical fact that Saddam Hussein would allow inspectors in, with "unlimited access", only to kick them out again, or impose restrictions which would allow him to circumvent the UN Resolutions. At what point do we say, "Enough is enough?" Saddam Hussein was very much the con artist in this regard. It was not:

You're absolutely correct. We gave Saddam Hussein the gas to kill people, in the hopes that he would use it against a worse enemy (to the U.S), Iran. Were we wrong for that. Historians will continue to debate it.

What a lot of people seem to forget is that the UN resolution not only asked do you have, or are you developing WMDs, but also what did you do wiht the stuff the U.S. gave you. They were never able to adequately establish that.

Now, my opinion.

We were correct to go after Saddam Hussein. After 9/11 (and in my opinioin before that) we could no longer stand by why innocent people were killed in the name of Islam, Jihad, fatwah, etc. Especially in our own country. The paradigm shifted to not just defeating those specifically involved in that attack, but those who supported terrorism, like Hussein (ie. $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, training camps, etc.). The U.S. throughout the years (from 1975) had suffered too many acts of terrorism. 9/11 is just the one that brought it home to most Americans.

And lets face it, our military did an excellent job in defeating the Iraqi Army and security forces. With very few casualties suffered by us.

Where the Administration went wrong, IMHO, is that they misunderstood the culture of the Middle East. These are not people who's culture allows for a true democracy (or republic, if you will). They are generally tribal, with power structures embracing a single leader, usually genetically inherited. Also, their religious practises are not conducive to these type of governments either.

We should have gone in there, taken out Saddam and his children (who were reportedly worse then him), installed a dictator (or similar) who was friendly to us, and let them go their own way. If that dictator we installed was taken out, so be it. But the threat (openly stated) would be that if you act against us, we will return.

We are forcing on the Iraqi's something that they don't understand, nor will their culture or religion allow it. That is where the Administration messed up.

The objective was not to install a stable government in Iraq. It was to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And to prevent the use of those weapons against the United States and her allies.

All other objectives have grown up to justify the invasion "ex post facto".

Another error in this thought process is when you attribute killings of innocent people to Saddam Hussein in the name of "Islam", or "Fatwah". Saddam Hussein led a secular government. Religion was allowed, but not supported by the government. One of the most popular Iraqi's in the world, is Former Iraqi United Nations Ambassador Tariq Aziz. After serving as Ambassador, he functioned as Deputy Prime Ministier. Mr. Aziz is a Christian. In the first Iraqi war, Aziz was the voice of Iraq.

By linking Hussein and Iraq to religious fervor and fundamentalism, you lead into the last, and most aggregious error. Your argument about the 'culture' of the middle east, not allowing for democracy, is an argument of racism. You propose that "those people" are incapable of self rule, and our best option is to stand up a, 'Our son of a *****' government.

Egypt and Jordan have both implemented democratic reforms that run counter to your argument of tribal, inherited authority.

The 'problem' our government has encounter is that you can't implement a democracy at the gun point.

There are further problems that you hint at with your tribal argument. And you are correct in the Administration created a significant error by not learning of the history and ecomonics of the area before invading. Iraq is not a natural country. It was created by the empirical British 80 years ago. Without a strong man to keep the country unified, it will revert to its natural state; three different groups living in proximity.

Whether the people of Iraq unify or 'balkanize' is complete acceptable to me. What is not acceptable, is that United States soldiers die in service of those objectives and that the United States tax payer pays (and pays, and pays) for it.

 

[Makalakumu]

You're absolutely correct. We gave Saddam Hussein the gas to kill people, in the hopes that he would use it against a worse enemy (to the U.S), Iran. Were we wrong for that. Historians will continue to debate it.

According to our own government at the time of the deed, Saddam was gassing villages he believed had sided with Iran. The particular villages in question were in open rebellion and were aiding the enemy (Iran).

So he dealt with the threat.

Now, before anyone jumps up and starts screaming, do you know what the threshold for collateral damage is for every single bomb we drop in Iraq? 30 non-combatants. So, if we drop 200 bombs to deal with a threat, and kill 6000 non-combatants without even blinking an eye, how different are we?

 

[michaeledward]

"You are aware that soldiers can be court martialed and thrown in jail if they speak against the Commander-in-Chief. They really aren't a good source for an objective opinion."

I very well a aware of what can/cannot be doen to a soldier. Do you really thinj that keeps a soldier from taking to friends and family about their opinions. One would just keep their mouth shut if they disagree, not promote what they are doing.

And how can you say they are not a good source of an objective opinion? They are there. They see things first hand. They put their life on the line for a cause in which they believe. Do you think the opinions we base on a CNN and books written by college professors make us all the better at forming an objective opinion.

Looking back with all the facts, I will agree with the "next guy", we should not have gone. But we are there and we made that choice. We need to get a better plan and ask the rest of the world to support the cause.

I think soldiers who state a desire to 'get back in there' are speaking of a committment to 'Billy' and 'Frankie', who were lying next to them in a fox hole, or playing cards with them in the cafeteria, or manning the gun on the HumVee. I do not think soldiers who state a desire 'get back in there' are speaking of a government policy that intertwines military, ecomonic, and political agendas.

I would also suggest that any one soldier's point of view is too limited in scope to be considered an objective source about what is happening in Iraq. A couple of video clips linked to on this board show that; one with a soldier kicking a soccer ball around with some kids, one with a soldier taunting some children with a bottle of water. Only through the advent of video sharing do we see these two opposing images - but which one will be the one the soldier tells us about, and gets passed on amid claims that 'no good news gets reported'.

In your last assessment, we have a problem. And this is the sad thing. As many have said, we are left with a choice of no good options, and having to choose among bad options. And in this there has been a complete lack of accountibility. And, with the hubristic way the United States government has acted toward foreign countries since 911 (you're with us, or you're with the terrorists), we have not given the world a reason to support our misguided objectives. The other nations, in their own self interest, may be willing to play a part, but it will come at a high price for we citizens of the United States; a price that we may be unwilling to pay.

 

[Cryozombie]

I would also suggest that any one soldier's point of view is too limited in scope to be considered an objective source about what is happening in Iraq.

But any one puppet for the liberal agenda who will ignore 100 positives to focus on a single negative is objective?

PLEASE. We know which story is gonna get passed on, the one how our soldier TORTURED those poor children by denying them water.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The objective was not to install a stable government in Iraq. It was to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And to prevent the use of those weapons against the United States and her allies.

I will reply by simply saying the same thing another way. The objective was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, a person, and be extension a regeime, who sponsored terrorism and posed a threat by giving the enemies of the U.S. weapons of mass destruction. In doing so, we sought to institute a regeime with would not do those things, and be friendly towards the U.S. and its allies.

Another error in this thought process is when you attribute killings of innocent people to Saddam Hussein in the name of "Islam", or "Fatwah". Saddam Hussein led a secular government. Religion was allowed, but not supported by the government. One of the most popular Iraqi's in the world, is Former Iraqi United Nations Ambassador Tariq Aziz. After serving as Ambassador, he functioned as Deputy Prime Ministier. Mr. Aziz is a Christian. In the first Iraqi war, Aziz was the voice of Iraq.

I will assume that my wording was faulty and will attempt to clarify. I was not attempting to say that Saddam Hussein his activities for religious reasons. And also, he never made an attack by terrorist means on the U.S.( although he continually shot at our planes in the no-fly zone, an activity which went essentially unanswered militarily until the invasion). However, he supported those who attacked us for religious reasons by providing them with training, weapons (possibly WMD's, which was the concern), and economically (eg.: $25,00 to the families of religious suicide bombers). Saddam Hussein was no fool. He would only go so far in attacking the U.S.

By linking Hussein and Iraq to religious fervor and fundamentalism, you lead into the last, and most aggregious error. Your argument about the 'culture' of the middle east, not allowing for democracy, is an argument of racism. You propose that "those people" are incapable of self rule, and our best option is to stand up a, 'Our son of a *****' government.

Egypt and Jordan have both implemented democratic reforms that run counter to your argument of tribal, inherited authority.

Your very statment provides proof to my argument. What reforms do you have to make to a culture that will already readily accept a democracy? The answer is none. If their current culture allowed for democracy, and the people wanted it, then they could easily have it. That the people of those countries want a democracy is great, but they have to change their cultural mindset. It is not racist to say such, just as it is not agism to state that the elderly are old. It is what it is.

You also need to recognize that neither Egypt (republic in name only, but not in actuallity) nor Jordan (a constitutional monarchy) are anywhere near being a practicing republic (democracy).

The 'problem' our government has encounter is that you can't implement a democracy at the gun point.

I agree, especially after you devastate a country through a war, wether justified or not. It is up to "those people" to have self-determination for their govermental type. We can even help them if asked. But again, I say we reserve the right to return if they "mess up."

There are further problems that you hint at with your tribal argument. And you are correct in the Administration created a significant error by not learning of the history and ecomonics of the area before invading. Iraq is not a natural country. It was created by the empirical British 80 years ago. Without a strong man to keep the country unified, it will revert to its natural state; three different groups living in proximity.

Whether the people of Iraq unify or 'balkanize' is complete acceptable to me.

I agree. Personally, everyday I see more and more reason to support the three country system over there. We should not force upon them a government type. We can, however, protect ourselves from their government should the need arise.

What is not acceptable, is that United States soldiers die in service of those objectives and that the United States tax payer pays (and pays, and pays) for it

Again, I think the "nation building" effort should have ended a long time ago. But the Administration messed up, and they have to clean up their mistakes.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Now, before anyone jumps up and starts screaming, do you know what the threshold for collateral damage is for every single bomb we drop in Iraq? 30 non-combatants. So, if we drop 200 bombs to deal with a threat, and kill 6000 non-combatants without even blinking an eye, how different are we?

What makes us different is that our governments attempt to avoid those casualties as much as possible. To Saddam Hussein, all of the people in those villages you refer to were the enemy, wheter they were fighting or not.

Net effect, for every 200 bombs dropped, 6,000 non-combatants died. But when did this become a perfect world. That's like trying to blame the cop who shoots a bystandard accidentially, while he was actually trying to hit the bad guy. Would you be so quick to convict him/her and say he was as evil as the bad guy? I somehow think not.

 

[Cryozombie]

Would you be so quick to convict him/her and say he was as evil as the bad guy? I somehow think not.

Ohh... watch that assumption, I'd bet money you would see certain people here screaming how the cop was responsible and all cops should be disarmed, and it was probably intentional excessive force anyhow.

 

[Makalakumu]

What makes us different is that our governments attempt to avoid those casualties as much as possible. To Saddam Hussein, all of the people in those villages you refer to were the enemy, wheter they were fighting or not.

"You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want."

Donald Rumsfeld

Net effect, for every 200 bombs dropped, 6,000 non-combatants died. But when did this become a perfect world. That's like trying to blame the cop who shoots a bystandard accidentially, while he was actually trying to hit the bad guy. Would you be so quick to convict him/her and say he was as evil as the bad guy? I somehow think not.

The problem is that "the cop" in this case didn't have any case to start shooting in the first place. So much for minimizing casualties...

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The problem is that "the cop" in this case didn't have any case to start shooting in the first place. So much for minimizing casualties...

That is your opinion. Based on the information known at the time and under the totallity of the circumstances, one can say that we were justified in going to Iraq. It will probably be continued to be argued for a long time.

 

[mrhnau]

My apologies - it terms of "sociopaths" and false patriotism, I was speaking specifically about the talk radio hosts who constantly and consistently toe the party line over a critical examination of what is in the bests interests of the country rather than their party. The extreme folks on both sides do this. I did NOT mean and apologize for sounding this way, MT members who supported the war. I also specifically apologize to Mrhnau for my comments about "drinking the kool-aid". They were uncalled for.

Rage for 9/11? Of course. Even the President admits that Iraq had nothing to do with that.

Thanks man... its really touchy with alot of people. Raises alot of emotion, especially when those making that ultimate sacrifice are your family and friends. I don't wish that on anyone.

In many ways this has been a bad war. I do wish we could leave Iraq and things just go peachy. I've spent alot of time thinking about this, and I don't see a clear exit strategy that is going to be 100% positive.

The war on terror is a difficult thing... one wonders how much is dealing with terrorist and how much our warring is creating the next generation of terrorists. Its just a big nasty mess.

I think I'll be starting a new thread on sacrifice soon... its one I've been contemplating for a while now...