US Troops Accused of Mosque Massacre:

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rdnor I do not understand the willingness to believe that our military is evil, unless you are supporting the other side(s).

It's not necessary to believe that our military is evil, rdnor, simply human. Do you deny that the abuses at Abu Ghraib happened? No one was suggesting that our military was evil because of it, simply flawed. One side argued that it was just an isolated group of ne'r do wells, I argued that it was simply some poor dumb National Guard slobs doing what thought they were supposed to be doing with absolutely no training and no supervision.... human error due to bad planning and policy.

I'm not saying the military is lying, I'm not saying they're not. All I know is that it's entirely possible this may be a case of simply the wrong leader making the wrong decision at the wrong time. And gawd knows our troops are over-extended, worn out and frustrated. After all, My Lai happened under similar circumstances, it doesn't mean that our military in Vietnam was 'evil'.

According to the Pentagon's own report, our military is nearing the breaking point. This could... IF it happened... be a sign of our troops reaching that point.

I noted on an NPR interview with Karen Hughes, Bushes spin meister, the rather ham-handed way the military is going about dealing with this. I almost laughed listening to two officers discussing just the right phrasing of the message, "The U.S. military does not target civilians.", as if, if it just sounds sincere enough, a blanket denial will be sufficient, despite the highly detailed descriptions by witnesses of what happened.

The military has been involved in way to many FUBARS to simply blow this off with a press release sound bite. They need to let the press all over the site, and to hold a serious and hi-profile investigation. I'm sure they'll hate it, but at this point, nothing less is going to satisfy Iraqis - and a Muslim world - already inclined to believe the worst.

Quote by: rdnor The real dumbshits are the ones that think that if we are nice to the radical muslims that they will like us . What we have in Iraq is a golden opportunity to eliminate terrorists .

and create a whole lot more. Becoming a bunch of ruthless storm-troopers didn't help the Nazis in WWII and it sure won't help us here.

..

[Athena]

Quote by: Allas As far as i am concerned, a "holy place" ceases to be holy the SECOND any activity that does not involve worship or charity like activity takes place. We simply cannot give these militants an automatic safehouse in every "holy" place. It is in no way fair nor justifiable.

This is unfortunate and an attitude that fuels the war. And listening to the news, I think it will add to the reasons Bush is plummeting in the polls. We have lost the moral high ground, and this is most unfortunate for the US.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rdnor I do not understand the willingness to believe that our military is evil , unless you are supporting the other side(s).

You're either with us or with the terrorists, eh?
No one is saying the "military" is evil, but some members of it leave a lot to be desired. I prefer to judge the individuals on their conduct and not as a whole. You sound like you jusge ALL of them to be blameless for everything. Personally I think that demeans the ones who ARE good as you lump them in with the bad.

You mentioned Vietnam as if you were the only one here who REALLY knew about it. How about William calley and the chopper pilot who set his machine down between Calleys killers and the innocent people they were about to kill. BOTH were in the same military, so should we avoid condemning Calley because he is a PART of the military? Calley was a scumbag with no sense of decency or honor, but he was a small minority. The idea is to point a VERY bright light on him and those like him just so others who ARE honorable don't get tarred with the same brush instead of looking through right wing rose colored glasses.

[rmnunez]

Iraq has become a 'magnet' for terrorist activity and this, though deplorable, has its advantages. People who have trained to become terrorists and are committed to whatever terrorist cause are better handled together in one place. Their enemy is armed, wears protection and travels often in armoured vehicles, this makes attacking potential victims more dangerous.

It is a matter of speculation what level of terrorism the world would live in now, had the US not intervened in Iraq or Afghanistan. Since the terrorists have expressed outrage over both interventions, some think there would be fewer terrorists absent intervention, but since there were terrorist attacks before either intervention, it seems likely we'd have terrorism regardless of foreign deployments.

Accomodating terrorism is a very bad idea, doubtless any movement in this direction will encourage more terrorism. This is a problem when there is merit in the terrorist cause. If the terrorists were advocating for something like human rights or environmental protection, even if they were right, they could not be bargained -just because they are terrorists and such means are an intolerable way to accomplish any cause.

Asked about the apparent surprise, not to say disapproval, of the operation in the ruling Shi'ite Alliance bloc, Chiarelli said: "It was coordinated through military channels. Not every operation we run is coordinated with every politician in Iraq."

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez It is a matter of speculation what level of terrorism the world would live in now, had the US not intervened in Iraq or Afghanistan. Since the terrorists have expressed outrage over both interventions, some think there would be fewer terrorists absent intervention, but since there were terrorist attacks before either intervention, it seems likely we'd have terrorism regardless of foreign deployments.

I'm sorry, rm, but not nearly on the scale we've seen in the last 3 years in Iraq.

Quote by: rmnunez Accomodating terrorism is a very bad idea, doubtless any movement in this direction will encourage more terrorism.

Beyond the fact that there was no terrorism in Iraq prior to our invasion, creating massive collateral damage in our zeal to 'get tough' on terrorism only creates more terrorists. It's simply a vicious circle, as we've seen in Israel.

The only real solution is not to have invaded Iraq in the first place, but that, of course, is quite impossible at this point. We're stuck in exactly the quagmire Bush was warned about by his own intelligence and military, fighting an amorfous enemy that's nowhere and everywhere, infiltrated deep within the very domestic security forces we're counting on to replace us, blending seamlessly into the civilian population so that we can't attack one without harming the other. And just like quicksand, the more we struggle to free ourselves of our tormenters, the deeper we get sucked into the vicious cycle of increasing hatred and resistance.

Your first statement was the truest...

"Iraq has become a 'magnet' for terrorist activity and this, though deplorable, has its advantages."

It's impossible to defeat our military on our terms... head to head battle. But history has shown again and again that you can defeat an occupying military, no matter how superior, through ruthless assymetrical guerilla warfare. In fact, the worst thing about it is they don't have to actually defeat us... just keep us from ever winning until we're simply worn out.

.

[Zeebadee]

Which is worse, U.S. troops committing such a massacre, or having the people we are supposedly fighting and dying to bring democracy to framing our troops for it??

[rmnunez]

So what would you recommend to break the "vicious cycle"? Would you prescribe a retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq? What should be done in the event of another 911?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez So what would you recommend to break the "vicious cycle"? Would you prescribe a retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq? What should be done in the event of another 911?

Yeah, and if you "retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq", what should be done in the event of another London subway bombing??

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Zeebedee Which is worse, U.S. troops committing such a massacre, or having the people we are supposedly fighting and dying to bring democracy to framing our troops for it??

A very good, and very sad, point.

Quote by: rmnunez So what would you recommend to break the "vicious cycle"? Would you prescribe a retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq?

To be honest, rm, I just don't know. For two years now I've been alternately torn between thinking we should cut our loses, fold a losing hand and accept the horrible consequences, and thinking we had no choice but to gut it out and see if we can salvage some sort of reasonable outcome. But I've never really believed we could find that outcome, for the reasons I stated above, and I believe less so today. Bush desperately wants to get out of Iraq this year, because his own Pentagon has reported that we simply can't keep this up without wrecking our military, and I mean within months if not by the end of this year.

My best answer is the one I gave back in '04 when folks would ask, "Oh yeah, well what can Kerry do to make it better?" I answered, nothing.... the train's wrecked. We can't unwreck it. I honestly and truly believe we're fuqued whether we pull out now or pull out later.

And I want the Bush League to answer for this disastrous, criminally reckless blunder.

Quote by: rmnunez What should be done in the event of another 911?

For starters, deal with the people that perpetrated the attack, not go prancing off into a quagmire against a country that had nothing to do with it, for reasons that didn't exist. If we'd focused on rebuilding Afghanistan instead of throwing our resources down the toilet in Iraq, I suspect we'd be much better off today. Instead, now we face the very real possiblity of losing BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan to anti-American Islamic regimes.

.

[Matt W]

And, in Iraq and Afghanistan, your former allies are your enemies. Isn't politics a fickle game? :rolleyes:

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rdnor Ruthless storm troopers is what our military is NOT.

And yet, that's exactly what you and your 'get tough on the terrorists' advocates WANT them to be. Damn the collateral damage, damn the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, we gotta go in there and blow those terrorists away!!!

Here's what you said...

--"The real dumbshits are the ones that think that if we are nice to the radical muslims that they will like us . What we have in Iraq is a golden opportunity to eliminate terrorists . Those who would terrorize the US AND those that would terrorize the middle east including Israel .We cannot fight a war when we have to call out the JAGs everytime we engage the ENEMY!"--

As if all that's necessary is to simply decide to do it. :eek:

Quote by: rdnor I have talked to many people that were actually there and comparing our guys to the SS shows your bias

I'm not calling them that... I'm saying that's what they WOULD BE if they followed YOUR ADVICE.

But they're not stormtroopers because they're NOT following your advice.... thank gawd!

Quote by: rdnor It ain't over by a longshot . The Germans , the Japanese , and the Italians ARE our allies only after the postwar period where they saw our humanity . The Japanese expected us to eat them ! Mmm , japanese sounds good .

Both of those former empires were totally defeated, surrounded on all sides by a world that hated them. Neither had an insurgent resistance and neither was threatened by sectarian conflict within their own country. Iraq has an ever growing insurgency, an mounting civil war and is surrounded on all sides by a Muslim world that hates US!!!

.

[rmnunez]

I used to live in a fancy apartment building, on the third floor a neighbor who was a bhuddist installed a temple and had regular visits from groups of correligionaires, if they were Muslims instead, would it be said I lived in a Mosque?

[bishop]

it's unfortunate that some people have this inability to seperate the actions of decision makers from the people carrying out those decisions... it's the epitomy of stupidity as far as i'm concerned, and the centerpiece of bush's "oppose me and you oppose our troops" rhetoric.

the fact of the matter is that virtually everyone who criticizes the actions of our military is primarily focused on the decision makers who have their heads deep up their asses.. little pawns like sgt. nobody are not our focus - and i personally feel sorry for them being caught up in such a blunderous war.. and when you learn of the dichotomy between the decision makers and the sgt. nobody's neck deep in iraqi quicksand, you have even more reason to despise the decision makers...

a new book entitled "cobra II" was recently released.. according to every critic that i've read, it's a fair assessment, and extremely well documented. the book provides a seemingly irrefutable picture of complete incompetence at the top, which has caused undue burden on everyone on the ground in iraq.. it casts blame on both the civilian and military leadership who were completely removed from the reality that the troops saw on a daily basis. and, it casts a chronological play-by-play listing every opportunity that came and went where we could've proactively improved the situation.

[bishop]

Quote by: rdnor Nope . Never said damn the collateral damage . Never said that our soldiers should treat people as the nazis did . Please do not twist my words . I do think that if foriegn and domestic jihadees want to fight , let's rock and roll . Better in the desert that in Dallas .

what a load of bullshit... this *better in the desert than in dallas* idiocy..

pray tell, how would over 10,000 islamists suddenly appear in dallas - armed, ready and able to fight a guerilla war?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rdnor Please do not twist my words . I do think that if foriegn and domestic jihadees want to fight , let's rock and roll.

That's the whole damn point, dood. The jihadees know they'd lose a straight up fight, and they have no intention of losing, so they're "rocking and rolling" in a way that makes it impossible to seperate them from the civilians. Duh!!!

Quote by: rdnor Better in the desert that in Dallas.

LOL!! Yeah, I worry about that a lot.


.

[rmnunez]

But yes, better in that desert than in Dallas, or at least one would expect united statians, Texans and people from Dallas to think this way.

BTW people in the thirties had no idea that the nazis would damn near defeat Europe.

The impression I got was that many on both sides of the Atlantic anticipated, absent united statian intervention the Nazis would accomplish their aim in Europe.

[jose]

And they (http://iraq-kill-maim.org/dead/dead-gallery.htm) are dying in ever increasing numbers

[rmnunez]

Chamberlain is now seen as a foolishly naive, pacifistic, weak-kneed, frenchified "surrender-monkey".

Terrorists are attracted to Iraq due to united statian deployments there and this has its benefits if they would otherwise focus on western capitals. Question is whether there has been growth of terrorism because of the intervention, whether absent intervention there would be less terrorism. One would need to know the likelyhood of another 911-like attack had the US military never gone to Afghanistan and Iraq. We should be mindful 911 took place before either intervention, so the likelyhood there would have been another major terrorist attack in some western capital despite a failure to intervene seems high.

There is good reason to suspect a failure to intervene after 911 would promote more terrorist attacks. Some think terrorists saw the US as weak and incapable of a major military engagement, that they wouldn't dare risk soldiers in an infantry deployment. Debacles in Somalia and Vietnam were highlighted, the worst that could be expected would be a few missiles lobbed from great distances. Terrorists seeing things that way would feel relatively safe no matter what they did.

But we have to deal with the situation as it is, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and have been occupied, insurgencies have emerged and they are supported by religiously-inspired foreign terrorists. If the "infidels" now flee, this will be seen as a victory by terrorists and would encourage them to renew efforts. I think the chances of another 911-like attack are higher if the Coalitioneers flee Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't see appeasement and accomodations as a good answer and existence under terrorism unacceptable.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rdnor And they (the enemy) are dying in ever inreasing numbers . DOOD !

EVERYONE'S dying in ever increasing numbers.

In Vietnam, we lost around 54,000 troops. The North Vietnamese and VietCong lost around 1.2 MILLION dead. In Afghanistan, the Soviets lost about 15,000 troops. The Afghanis lost another million.

They didn't care. All they cared about was killing Americans and Soviets day in and day out for as long as it took for them to eventually give up. That's why they're called 'Wars of Attrition'.

Iraqis on all sides are dying by the thousands. They don't care, just as long as Americans keep dying day in and day out until the day we realise we can't win and decide to leave.

Quote by: rmnunez But yes, better in that desert than in Dallas, or at least one would expect united statians, Texans and people from Dallas to think this way.

Yeah, except the chance of anyone in Dallas or anywhere else in the U.S. being attacked by crazed Iraqis was always pretty marginal. :rolleyes:

Quote by: rdnor Yeah I have lost two friends there . What about it ? They knew the risks of the job Jose

Well okay then. I guess that makes a bad war, started by mistake, that we can't win, all right.

Quote by: rdnor these men had the guts to do a job that most of you would not do under any circumstances. Brave men they were

All the more tragic they have to perform their duty in the name of such a tragicly flawed and irresponsible policy.

Quote by: rdnor No . Nevel Chamberlain thought Hitler would stop like he had promised . Imagine Herr Hitler telling a lie.

The difference being, Hitler actually invaded Czekoslovakia. Then Poland, at which point Chamberlain declared war.

Iraq, on the other hand, was not attacking anyone, not mobilizing to attack anyone and not threatening to attack anyone, had no military to speak of and no weapons programs.

.

[Matt W]

That's it. This thread is not about rehashing the whole Iraq thing. Clear? I've already asked people to get back on-topic once. There will not be a next time.

Do not respond to me within this thread. PM myself or Sean with any questions.