9 American Soldiers Were Killed In Iraq Yesterday...

[Tez3]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6214078.stm

This has been all over our news today, there have also been comments that it hasn't been on the news in the US. I don't know if thats true or not?

Quote:
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 first sentence comes across as being heartless. The second sentence is too much of a generalisation, I can think of many circumstances where neither had to be shot. I think the analogy is not a good one. I've been bombed and it's a little facile I think to say "hey, innocents get killed, shame but we meant well"

 

[michaeledward]

The military has announced that 10 US Servicemembers were killed in four seperate attacks today.

I foresee a time when we are looking back upon 9 or 10 US deaths per day, and thinking it was a good day. Look at the first four years of the United States involvement in Vietnam. While there were lower numbers serving in the early sixties, the casualty rates took a significant increase in the fifth year.

Those who never learn history (5 deferment Mr. Other Priorities - and MR. skilled out an TANG, except for my dentist appointment) are doomed to repeat it.

I expect the Iraq Study Group report will get as much attention in the White House as the Downing Street Memo recieved. But, it is the buzz of the radio talk shows today. Too late for those ten soldiers though, isn't it.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The first sentence comes across as being heartless. The second sentence is too much of a generalisation, I can think of many circumstances where neither had to be shot. I think the analogy is not a good one. I've been bombed and it's a little facile I think to say "hey, innocents get killed, shame but we meant well"

I certainly empathize with you. My point though is that in war/combat, sometimes innocents get hurt. In modern warfare, its a virtual guarantee that innocents will be hurt or killed.

But the problem is that most are searching for the perfect answer. There is no such thing. And sometimes, war is necessary, unless you want to roll over for every strongman that comes around. But I guarantee you that the strongman thinks he's at war, even if the loser doesn't.

The question is what would you have us do?

 

[Makalakumu]

The question is what would you have us do?

Disarm (to an extent). Beat (some of) our swords into plowshares. This would force us to find peaceful solutions for most problems. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I believe that we have every right to defend ourselves...but Iraq was no threat. The world community, through the UN, was taking care of the problem.

And I would like to point out, more people died in Iraq as a result of the US backed sanction plus the damage to their infrastructure from the first gulf war.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Disarm (to an extent). Beat (some of) our swords into plowshares. This would force us to find peaceful solutions for most problems. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

How can we consider beating our swords into plowshares as an individual country, when there are those out there who seek our destruction? To what level do we disarm? We already handicapped our military during the Clinton-era. What more would you have the government do?

And I don't think that we only have hammers for tools. However, when you see a nail, you need a hammer, not a wrench.

I believe that we have every right to defend ourselves...but Iraq was no threat. The world community, through the UN, was taking care of the problem.

And am I the only one who see's the UN as a impotent joke? Please explain to me just what exactly has the UN accomplished in the last 25 years.

When you have some of the worst human-rights violators on the Human-Rights Commission of the UN, it's the most tragic of ironies.

And the UN was not taking care of Iraq. How many times did Iraq restrict or out and out kick out the UN Weapons Inspectors? How many times did Saddam Hussein shoot at planes patrolling the northern and southern No-Fly Zones.

I wonder, if you have kids, how many times it would take or your child saying to you, "**** you", before you spanked them.

And I would like to point out, more people died in Iraq as a result of the US backed sanction plus the damage to their infrastructure from the first gulf war.

Let's see, the Oil-For-Food program, which ostensibly allowed Iraq to sell its oil to feed the people was filled with corruption by the overseeing body. Who was that body: the UN.

Instead of buying food, Saddam bought other things, like houses and palaces, and you guessed it, weapons.

So is that really our (the U.S.) fault that people died, while we tried to keep ourselves and Iraq's neighbors safe.

You seem to be attributing all of the good things about Iraq to the UN, and all of the bad things to the U.S., without examining the historical truth of the matter

 

[Tez3]

Going back to the point should we have invaded, it was said that based on the information we had at the time we should have. The problem with that is that the information we as the electorate was given was not the information that the governments actually had. Blair admitted that the reports were 'sexed' up, that some of it was based on a these by a university student several years ago.
You also asked if we should roll over for every strongman that comes along but who made Saddam strong? The west did, he was sold weapons with which he went to war against Iran, where was keeping the neighbours safe then? What threat was Iraq really? Very little in fact. This is not a just and moral war, it's a dirty little squabble between a very powerful nation and one of it's allies who did the dirty on them, as they should have known they would. What's not little is the ensuing death toll.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Going back to the point should we have invaded, it was said that based on the information we had at the time we should have. The problem with that is that the information we as the electorate was given was not the information that the governments actually had. Blair admitted that the reports were 'sexed' up, that some of it was based on a these by a university student several years ago.
You also asked if we should roll over for every strongman that comes along but who made Saddam strong? The west did, he was sold weapons with which he went to war against Iran, where was keeping the neighbours safe then? What threat was Iraq really? Very little in fact. This is not a just and moral war, it's a dirty little squabble between a very powerful nation and one of it's allies who did the dirty on them, as they should have known they would. What's not little is the ensuing death toll.

I can't speak to what information was given the the British people, as I'm not there. But, the information given to the Amercans was, for the most part truth, another part incorrect (though not intentionally false) information.

And the west did not roll over for Saddam Hussein for Iran. We used him, plain and simple. We used him as fodder to fight a war against Iran, who at the time, was a worse enemy than he was.

One could argue that if you lie with dogs, don't be surprised if you get fleas, but this ain't that simple.

And people get this impression (and I'm taking it that you do too) that we were worried about Saddam's T-55 and T-72 Main Battle Tanks marching down Main Street, USA. That is not the case. He was attacking our allies (and interests), and using surrogates (like Al-queida) to do the same. He was paying the families of suicide bomber $25,000 for their actions. That's why we went into Iraq.

And the fear was, that since he was not being forthcoming about his WMD programs, that these surrogates would obtain them and use them to attack us, a very real and possible fear.

 

[Tez3]

I can't speak to what information was given the the British people, as I'm not there. But, the information given to the Amercans was, for the most part truth, another part incorrect (though not intentionally false) information.

And the west did not roll over for Saddam Hussein for Iran. We used him, plain and simple. We used him as fodder to fight a war against Iran, who at the time, was a worse enemy than he was.

One could argue that if you lie with dogs, don't be surprised if you get fleas, but this ain't that simple.

And people get this impression (and I'm taking it that you do too) that we were worried about Saddam's T-55 and T-72 Main Battle Tanks marching down Main Street, USA. That is not the case. He was attacking our allies (and interests), and using surrogates (like Al-queida) to do the same. He was paying the families of suicide bomber $25,000 for their actions. That's why we went into Iraq.

And the fear was, that since he was not being forthcoming about his WMD programs, that these surrogates would obtain them and use them to attack us, a very real and possible fear.

No I wasn't thinking you were worried about the tanks marching down your streets! I work for the Ministry of Defence and maybe have an even clearer idea than most of the situation over there. Iraq and Iran were never the main problem, Syria was and still is.
American intel is lacking because they don't use humint which gives a much clearer view of a countries situation ( I have spent over 30 years in the Int business mil and civvie). You did get false information because it came from us and it's since been proved to be false, you were intentionally lied to as Blair lied to you as well as us. What allies in particular was Saddam attacking? The Kurds? Turkey has been killing them for years without a squeak from western governments. Kuwait? As I've said their human rights record is worse than Saddams yet again the west never said a word, only when the supply of oil was endangered did the west decide to do something about it. Thats the bottom line... money and oil. A dirty war.

 

[Sukerkin]

A most pertinent last sentence there, Tez :tup:.

Real world geo-politics in action was what we observed when the Anglo-American world power decided to flex it's military muscle.

I shouldn't imagine that there are many who don't believe that the root cause of rolling into the Middle East was the black stuff that comes out from under the sand (oh and to field test some of the new destructive toys on targets who largely could not respond).

I'll read this thread through in a minute (I admit I've reflex posted here to my shame ) to see what the core ideas are but I just want to add one thought to the mix.

'We' have lost quite a number of soldiers 'keeping the peace' (oh the irony) over in Iraq. I do not for a second want to lessen the appreciation of the impact on the families of the fallen, nor am I a raving Arabo-phile or anti-Western thinker (I'd far rather live here than there thank you very much) but the number of Iraqui's slain during this period has been monumental. I just hope we can spare a little sympathy for them amidst our grief for our own.

Now to go read so that I can comment in an informed manner rather than just being a bleeding-heart liberal bleating on about how we all suffer when we slay each other :blush:.

 

[Tez3]

Sukerkin, sometimes first thoughts are the best!

I live in the largest garrison in Europe, written in graffiti on one of the local walls was this, obviously written by a soldier.....

" Fighting for peace is like *****ing for virginity". Crude but pithy.

 

[jazkiljok]

No I wasn't thinking you were worried about the tanks marching down your streets! I work for the Ministry of Defence and maybe have an even clearer idea than most of the situation over there. Iraq and Iran were never the main problem, Syria was and still is.
American intel is lacking because they don't use humint which gives a much clearer view of a countries situation ( I have spent over 30 years in the Int business mil and civvie). You did get false information because it came from us and it's since been proved to be false, you were intentionally lied to as Blair lied to you as well as us. What allies in particular was Saddam attacking? The Kurds? Turkey has been killing them for years without a squeak from western governments. Kuwait? As I've said their human rights record is worse than Saddams yet again the west never said a word, only when the supply of oil was endangered did the west decide to do something about it. Thats the bottom line... money and oil. A dirty war.

the hypocrisy of our foreign policy is blatant and has been exposed endlessly to no avail. gadaffi gets tea with blair for a few bucks and good timing, saddam gets jailed for messing with bush's kuwaiti oil princes-- when it was the eighties and reagan, it was the other way around (gaddafi almost killed for messin with kuwait/saud princes, saddam getting tea with rumsfeld.) -- yep, Turkey has been fighting a kurdish rebellion (wait, isn't that what saddam was up against?) and we condone that cause Turkey is an important ally in the region. Syria has always been a player in the region-- and one that we could just as easily allied with as say Egypt-- enemy or ally? hey, let's see which way the bottle points-- it's all about time and place and practicality and mutually beneficial alliances and screw the millions who suffer from realpoliticking.

true foreign policy would have created lines of communication in the mideast that could have avoided most of the turmoil we've seen in the last 50 years-- as James Baker finally stated- we CAN talk to our enemies- we did it with the Soviet Union and China for 50 years and managed to avoid world war 3 and even untangle a few serious other conflicts.

the neofarts with their hellbent kill'em if they don't like macdonalds on every street corner mentality has screwed this country up to no end. now they all just get to quietly vanish into history, write books, take on prestige jobs at schools, think tanks, etc... sipping tea as 100,000s of thousands have died and suffered from their big ideas and, ahem, good intentions.

money and oil? perhaps.. but dont' forget ideology and vanity's side tango.

 

[CoryKS]

Sukerkin, sometimes first thoughts are the best!

I live in the largest garrison in Europe, written in graffiti on one of the local walls was this, obviously written by a soldier.....

" Fighting for peace is like *****ing for virginity". Crude but pithy.

Only if you think peace is something that magically happens all by itself. Peace always requires enforcement.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

No I wasn't thinking you were worried about the tanks marching down your streets! I work for the Ministry of Defence and maybe have an even clearer idea than most of the situation over there. Iraq and Iran were never the main problem, Syria was and still is.
American intel is lacking because they don't use humint which gives a much clearer view of a countries situation ( I have spent over 30 years in the Int business mil and civvie). You did get false information because it came from us and it's since been proved to be false, you were intentionally lied to as Blair lied to you as well as us. What allies in particular was Saddam attacking? The Kurds? Turkey has been killing them for years without a squeak from western governments. Kuwait? As I've said their human rights record is worse than Saddams yet again the west never said a word, only when the supply of oil was endangered did the west decide to do something about it. Thats the bottom line... money and oil. A dirty war.

In the area of the Middle East, it appears to me America has always had trouble with humint. In my opinion, we tend not to trust Muslims in that part of the world, so using them for intelligence purposes isn't gonna happen.

And if we got lied to by those who supposedly do know, then why blame the U.S.? We went there on the best information that we had, according to you.

And as I said before, but maybe should have said clearer. The role of an individual government is to protect the citizens of that country. What do you think wars have always been about, "Give me what I want (need) peaceably, or I will take it by kicking your butt." To think otherwise would be childish.

I'm not arguing that it was not a war for oil. I think that is very much a part of it. We wouldn't need stability in the region were it not for the oil there. Hence, look at the Sudan (which the French are blocking the UN from doing anything about due to their oil interest there).

Are their alternatives, sure. It's called bio-diesel. But for right now, we have to do what we have to do.

But also, and a bigger part, is that we needed to make sure that Muslims stop attacking us for not being Muslim, and for assisting Isreal, an ally in the region (and that's not just for oil). Come on people, most of the leaders in that country have stated some form of the phrase: "Death to America!!!" And we have been attacked by Muslims of the region for not being Muslim. Enough is enough.

the hypocrisy of our foreign policy is blatant and has been exposed endlessly to no avail. gadaffi gets tea with blair for a few bucks and good timing, saddam gets jailed for messing with bush's kuwaiti oil princes-- when it was the eighties and reagan, it was the other way around (gaddafi almost killed for messin with kuwait/saud princes, saddam getting tea with rumsfeld.) -- yep, Turkey has been fighting a kurdish rebellion (wait, isn't that what saddam was up against?) and we condone that cause Turkey is an important ally in the region. Syria has always been a player in the region-- and one that we could just as easily allied with as say Egypt-- enemy or ally? hey, let's see which way the bottle points-- it's all about time and place and practicality and mutually beneficial alliances and screw the millions who suffer from realpoliticking.

true foreign policy would have created lines of communication in the mideast that could have avoided most of the turmoil we've seen in the last 50 years-- as James Baker finally stated- we CAN talk to our enemies- we did it with the Soviet Union and China for 50 years and managed to avoid world war 3 and even untangle a few serious other conflicts.

I find it interesting that you say that we "talked" with the Soviet Union and China. For one thing, we attempted (while "talking" with them), and ultimately succeeded in economically bankrupting the Soviet Union. We forced them to spend billions on the military that they could ill-afford (a la Star Wars, among others).

We have spoken with Iraq, Iran, etc., but they have been attacking us (directly or indirectly) while we speak with them. So what do we do about it? Continue to be attacked, while they tease us with talking.

They have said they want the world to become Muslim and if we don't die. Let's deal with that fact people.

 

[michaeledward]

Only if you think peace is something that magically happens all by itself. Peace always requires enforcement.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

M. Ghandi

 

[Tez3]

"Jaw jaw is better than war, war" Winston Churchill

Our government lied to us, your government lied to you. Don't imagine poodle Blair did this off his own bat!

America doesn't use humint in any country, it relies on satellites and yes I do think Bush and Yo Blair do have the mentality of 'give me what I want or I'll kick your butt'. It was called Gunboat Diplomacy in the days of the Empire.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

"Jaw jaw is better than war, war" Winston Churchill

Our government lied to us, your government lied to you. Don't imagine poodle Blair did this off his own bat!

America doesn't use humint in any country, it relies on satellites and yes I do think Bush and Yo Blair do have the mentality of 'give me what I want or I'll kick your butt'. It was called Gunboat Diplomacy in the days of the Empire.

As you know, humint comes in many forms, not necessarily the spy of the movie industry. Business people, journalists, foreign nationals, and diplomats. I can't agree that we have no human intelligence assets in any country of the world. Although I will agree that we rely too heavily on technological assets for most of our intel.

And remember this about Winston Churchill as well:

“There can never be absolute certainty that there will be a fight if one side is determined that it will give way completely… always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor…”

and

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

and

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and withouth flinching, you will reduce the danger in half."
"By this time next year we shall know whether the policy of appeasement has appeased, or whether it has only stimulated a more ferocious appetite."

and finally:

"You had the chance to vote for appeasement or to vote for war. You have voted for appeasement, and you shall get war."

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't necessarily disagree with the fundamental principle that, whilst most of the world are not pacifists or Buddhist, you have to be prepared to show that you can defend what you have.

That's not the circumstance that applies with regard to the 'Iraq' question.

If it had been true that they had weapons of mass destruction then, coupled with the tendency for Arab rhetoric to be rather over-hyperbolic, it would be much easier to justify the overwhelming application of force to eradicate the threat. As I've said elsewhere, the primary function of a military is to project force in such a fashion as to remove your enemy's ability to project force - the usual precis is "break stuff and hold ground".

However, what the reality of the situation is that there is a lot of oil under the sand over there and 'our' governments want to secure the supply of that oil for themselves. Again, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that except that the tool they chose to use for this was the huge military left over from the cold war ... might as well get some use of it it eh?

I'll have to come back later .. bosses looming .