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
Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk
The war in Iraq
- Thread starter john2054
- Start date
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
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.
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.
Yes, just picking up and leaving is such a good idea...
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
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
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?
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?
I could not disagree with you more.
You think we should have left Hussein in power, to, as you say:
? 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?
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
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
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 ****.
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
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
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!
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
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
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
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."
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...
