Did we win the war in Iraq?

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Well, sometimes you have to look bad in the short bad to do better things in the long run. Sometimes doing otherwise makes you look bad in the long run, where in the short run it worked out quite nicely (nuclear bombing of Japan).

This goes beyond "looking bad." But perhaps you'd care to expand on what you believe were the causes of this war, before you go on about things "in the long run." I can help you in some ways. Just look at the shifting rationales behind this war. First it was about the WMDs, then it became about "liberating Iraqis" (though we've "liberated" plenty of them from their very lives and livelihoods over the years, including through support of Saddam Hussein), and then it simply became about "fighting them over there before they can get over here." The obvious implication is that these rationales are just weak rationalizations, intended to benefit either those with a bloodlust or a simple desire to profit from our overtly militarized economy. It's an effort so expensive in terms of lives and money that, in the long run, it's hardly even going to matter what kind of rationalizations are dreamed up. The ordinary people will suffer.

As for Japan:
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American
occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur that
"MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.
When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb,
I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would
his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the
dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the
United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the
institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

A similar admission (Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

Grandpa h.

[Raastee]

If the objective was to get Hassen out...was that not a victory?

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa This goes beyond "looking bad." But perhaps you'd care to expand on what you believe were the causes of this war, before you go on about things "in the long run." I can help you in some ways. Just look at the shifting rationales behind this war. First it was about the WMDs, then it became about "liberating Iraqis" (though we've "liberated" plenty of them from their very lives and livelihoods over the years, including through support of Saddam Hussein), and then it simply became about "fighting them over there before they can get over here." The obvious implication is that these rationales are just weak rationalizations, intended to benefit either those with a bloodlust or a simple desire to profit from our overtly militarized economy. It's an effort so expensive in terms of lives and money that, in the long run, it's hardly even going to matter what kind of rationalizations are dreamed up. The ordinary people will suffer. Grandpa h.

I wrote a good lot of text right now and just clicked the back button erasing it... so I'll sum up my thoughts...

All of those objectives existed throughout the entire war, they did not change, they were only emphasized more or less. True, WMDs turned out to be a fluke, but that reason cannot be discredited because there was such substantial evidence to say otherwise--from everywhere. We also found a chemical weapons plant in Northern Iraq (sargat) before the war began from a CIA intelligence group, we couldnt report this in public because the CIA wasnt supposed to be there. Also, Curveball and Saddam himself helped to promote the idea that WMDs did exist and that they were probably being sent to other nations and terror groups.

The grand majority of the objectives of Iraq were completed

A) Get rid of Saddam and the dictatorship
B) Set up a democratic government and help the people to get along (after a long time)
C) Get rid of terrorist groups in Iraq (Ansar Al Islam, Al-queda affiliates, although not neccesarily Al-Queda itself, admittedly)
D) Rebuild the Iraqi National Army to defend themselves

and some unexpected objectives we completed:

1.Quell the insurgency
2. Turn native population of Iraq and neighboring nations against Al-Queda and extremists
3. Most importantly: helping to put in motion events that will end the hatred between religious sects in Iraq, and helping to break up that culture of division and persecution in the middle east...in other words, teaching them to live together in peace. While this will never fully be completed, I beleive a major step forward has been taken. This, along with the democratic institutions in Iraq, will help to send ripples across the middle east (already being seen in Iran) and break up some of the more extreme and backwards parts of that culture.


Iraq was not a failure. In fact, I think it was a major success. It was costly, but it will save and better millions of more lives in the future.

The immediate costs were unavoidable. We planned to make this a quick and relatively short war---few casualties on either side--get Saddam, end it. Essentially, we did that--Iraqi casualties were only 10% of what they lost in the first gulf war and are own casualties were minimal. We plan wars hoping for the best, but we must also be prepared for the worst. Sometimes other factors will cause the loss of human life, and civilians in this case---terrorists and Islamic militants. It became our duty to protect the people of Iraq then from this seige, so that is what we did. Iraq had to be a victory, or else it would have been a catastrophe. We did it. We lost some reputation, but we made a good change in a region that doesnt have a lot of good changes.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost I wrote a good lot of text right now and just clicked the back button erasing it... so I'll sum up my thoughts...

No problem. Since you went through such trouble, I'll reply to your thoughts.

Quote by: The Black Ghost All of those objectives existed throughout the entire war, they did not change, they were only emphasized more or less. True, WMDs turned out to be a fluke, but that reason cannot be discredited because there was such substantial evidence to say otherwise--from everywhere. We also found a chemical weapons plant in Northern Iraq (sargat) before the war began from a CIA intelligence group, we couldnt report this in public because the CIA wasnt supposed to be there. Also, Curveball and Saddam himself helped to promote the idea that WMDs did exist and that they were probably being sent to other nations and terror groups.

WMD's were cited as the primary reason to invade Iraq, and these claims were being discredited at the time by some key figures, such as Scott Ritter. And, even though he gave mixed messages, Hans Blix expressed considerable skepticism. And look at the Zarqawi claim, for instance.
"He had been travelling around the Middle East but was ‘not in Iraq,’"
Powell’s Al Qaeda-Baghdad link falls apart

If Saddam had developed serious weapons but decided not to use them upon being invaded, some congratulations are due him for being one of the dumbest tyrants in history. And Saddam was not linked to al-Qaeda. Besides, other nations, including the United States, are infamous for supporting terror operations throughout the world, including the very kind of Muslim extremists it is now fighting. If Saddam had been arming al-Qaeda, he could have told US officials, "But I learned it from you!"

Quote by: The Black Ghost The grand majority of the objectives of Iraq were completed A) Get rid of Saddam and the dictatorship B) Set up a democratic government and help the people to get along (after a long time) C) Get rid of terrorist groups in Iraq (Ansar Al Islam, Al-queda affiliates, although not neccesarily Al-Queda itself, admittedly) D) Rebuild the Iraqi National Army to defend themselves

Iraq had been under genocidal U.N. sanctions since 1990 when it invaded Kuwait. In addition to opposing such sanctions, many are against wars and dictatorships, and with good reason. The US government isn't, however, and it has had the effect of crippling the whole of Iraq through its policies of supporting and arming dictators, staging wars and coups, and strangling foreign economies. All of these situations make it difficult to set up elections, if that's really what America wants. As I've mentioned many times, Iraq only had elections because thousands of Iraqis protested to have them, represented by a man named Sistani. They were not originally part of America's plan, as anyone can easily find out. And an independent, non-corporate Iraqi government is the last thing I'd think the oil companies want.

Quote by: The Black Ghost and some unexpected objectives we completed:

'Unexpected objectives" -- cute.

Quote by: The Black Ghost 1.Quell the insurgency 2. Turn native population of Iraq and neighboring nations against Al-Queda and extremists 3. Most importantly: helping to put in motion events that will end the hatred between religious sects in Iraq, and helping to break up that culture of division and persecution in the middle east... in other words, teaching them to live together in peace. While this will never fully be completed, I beleive a major step forward has been taken. This, along with the democratic institutions in Iraq, will help to send ripples across the middle east (already being seen in Iran) and break up some of the more extreme and backwards parts of that culture.

By your standards, the US could invade countries all over the globe. Look at Thailand,
where "daily violence that has claimed more than 2,000 lives in the past three
years in Thailand’s Muslim-majority
southern border provinces, where ethnic Malay Islamist insurgents are
waging a brutal campaign against the state and those they see as its
collaborators.
The insurgency was cited by the Thai military as one of the
justifications for the coup last year that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra,
the policeman turned tycoon turned prime minister whose strong-arm
tactics were blamed for exacerbating tensions and further alienating
an already disgruntled ethnic and religious minority.
The military-installed government has made little headway against the
separatists."
FT.com / Asia-Pacific - Thailand seeks help to quell insurgency

Why not invade Bosnia and Herzegovina now, too? They're still having problems.

As for objective number three, that's simply ludicrous. If anything, America's invasion has spurred new sects, along with exaggerating previous sectarian divisions. You don't "teach peace" through policies of arming dictators, and starting wars and sanctions to cripple populations and destroy their infrastructure. You teach them the truth, whatever that is. One truism is that you may reap what you sow. Also, Iraqis could take upon themselves positive regional initiatives, provided they are allowed to run their own lives for once, with no illusions about political security through ideology and power. That could happen, as Iraq used to be a much more secular and progressive country than, say, Saudi Arabia. However, if they are not allowed independence and remain just a military base for the United States with only illusions of sovereignty, no such plans will matter much.

And your suggestion that events in Iran are a "ripple effect" from the US invasion of Iraq is simply laughable. It also demonstrates a lot of nerve to suggest that Iranians couldn't possibly oppose their regime without US influence. If they are inspired by any westerners, I'd guess they would quote Thoreau, not George W. Bush. I should also say that, if we indeed should use political violence to eliminate "extreme and backwards parts" of a culture, why not start here at home with teh Democrats and Republicans? Would it not have an equivalent effect of bringing everyone together?

Quote by: The Black Ghost Iraq was not a failure. In fact, I think it was a major success. It was costly, but it will save and better millions of more lives in the future.

Sacrificing real lives to save imaginary ones -- priceless. It sounds like another form of religious fanaticism, frankly. I'll be "enlightened" if I just think all these daths were for some glorious cause. But that ray of light is painful when you look at up close. And Americans always had better things to worry about anyway, like being able to afford homes.

Quote by: The Black Ghost The immediate costs were unavoidable. We planned to make this a quick and relatively short war---few casualties on either side--get Saddam, end it. Essentially, we did that--Iraqi casualties were only 10% of what they lost in the first gulf war and are own casualties were minimal. We plan wars hoping for the best, but we must also be prepared for the worst. Sometimes other factors will cause the loss of human life, and civilians in this case---terrorists and Islamic militants. It became our duty to protect the people of Iraq then from this seige, so that is what we did. Iraq had to be a victory, or else it would have been a catastrophe. We did it. We lost some reputation, but we made a good change in a region that doesnt have a lot of good changes.

Reading this, you'd think the US practically tip-toed in there shyly, and only reacted violently when a sleeping giant woke up and threatened it. That's far from the truth, and I don't wish to be associated
with such people who would twist reality around so much. We made Iraq into a much greater catastrophe than it was, and Iraq didn't "have a lot of good changes" largely thanks to US foreign policy, which did a great deal to ruin just about everything.

Grandpa h.

[The Black Ghost]

Wow, I didnt think negative thinking could get that extreme. This is the difference between perception and reality. I dont think you want to admit that any good could have possibly come from our actions in Iraq.

The US was never a sleeping giant, Iraq has been consecutively pissing us and the rest of the world off for the last 20 years--creating wmds, invading nations, selling weapons, imposing harsh tyranny on its people, murdering its people in mass numbers, defying human rights organizations, shouting anti-western and anti-Israel propaganda, supporting militant groups that attacked Western states (Like saddam offering the reward of 20k for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who attack Israel, among many other things...

It wasnt all at once--they were like a fly in our ears, coming back again, and again, and again...until BAM! Finally, we've had enough. Same with North Korea, except that North Korea actually poses a military threat to South Korean civilians if we attack, which for the moment is their greatest trump card.


I dont mind having the United States act in other nations when it is neccessary to protect lives--both home and civilians abroad. We do it as much as possible across the world, helping out governments and giving aid/military assistance to fight rebels (such as we are doing now in North Africa, Yemen, Columbia, recently in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and the Phillipines.

Everyone always criticizes America for "policing the world" --but in reality, we are the only one that can do it. China doesnt care about the rest of the world, Russia has self-interests in mind, and whenever the UN calls for something to be done, it is the US that has to step up and do the bulk of the work--whether militarily, financially, etc...

There are countries in the world that need and outside influence to keep them in line. I always hear that we're "violating sovereignty"...but if any of the people that claim that were to go into those nations and realize the terrible conditions the people there live in, they would understand that something has to be done, and Dan the Dictator is not going to do it.

Actively, I would say the United States is sort of a "bad cop"...we do whatever is neccessary to make the world a better place, even if it means bending some rules.

[Nono]

Quote by: Ghost Everyone always criticizes America for "policing the world" --but in reality, we are the only one that can do it.

Then why don't you do it? I mean what about Burma? Or Darfur? Or the Congo? If you want to be cops, I don't understand why you don't do policing where it's most needed.

The US invaded Iraq to get its hands on oil wealth and line the pockets of Bush's cronies with oil revenues but also your tax dollars.

Quote by: Raastee If the objective was to get Hassen out...was that not a victory?

The stated reason was WMDs. Anyway, Saddam was captured years ago, so what is the US doing there?

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Wow, I didnt think negative thinking could get that extreme. This is the difference between perception and reality. I dont think you want to admit that any good could have possibly come from our actions in Iraq.

This is especially ironic considering we're discussing Bush Administration policy.
Those folks' perception is their reality.

Quote by: The Black Ghost The US was never a sleeping giant, Iraq has been consecutively pissing us and the rest of the world off for the last 20 years--creating wmds, invading nations, selling weapons, imposing harsh tyranny on its people, murdering its people in mass numbers, defying human rights organizations, shouting anti-western and anti-Israel propaganda, supporting militant groups that attacked Western states (Like saddam offering the reward of 20k for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who attack Israel, among many other things...

I didn't say the US was a sleeping giant. I was referring to Iraq. From that comment alone, I'm skeptical that you really read my response. And you keep syaing these quite ironic things. In addition to the fact that America supported Saddam Hussein, it has been creating wmds, invading nations, selling weapons, imposing harsh tyranny, murdering people in mass numbers, defying human rights organizations, creating war-like propaganda (which our media outlets present as absolute truth), supporting militant groups that attacked Western states, etc.

Like I suggested before, America could have invaded just about any country and rationalize it as a police measure. Look at China in 1989, when "Governments and business firms around the world scrambled...
to get foreign nationals out of China as fears grew that the country could be
plunged into civil war.
Some governments chartered special planes for a mass evacuation reminiscent
of the alarm that swept the foreign community in Iran during the 1979
Islamic revolution. At least three special charter flights were sent to
Beijing...and others were expected."
Six Years Ago This Day

And America, Israel and a number of other countries have nuclear weapons. What if they wouldn't let the
inspectors in? America is, after all, the only country to have actually dropped atomic bombs on another. Abiding by our standards, any number of countries could team up and try to take us out due to our supposedly benevolent trips around the world, be these Islamic states or otherwise.

Quote by: The Black Ghost It wasnt all at once--they were like a fly in our ears, coming back again, and again, and again... until BAM! Finally, we've had enough. Same with North Korea, except that North Korea actually poses a military threat to South Korean civilians if we attack, which for the moment is their greatest trump card.

True, North Korea is a military threat. In fact, South Korea's Deputy Defense Minister said in 1997 that
"North Korea possesses a large number of tanks and military artillery, and it's imperative to
delay North Korean mechanized troops north of Seoul."
So, "from a military standpoint and from a humanitarian standpoint," he
argued, "it is clear that we need to use land mines."
South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines - The New York Times

It should be noted, however, that this line of defense is hardly different from the felt need to set up IED's throughout Iraq to weaken American efforts to take over that country. The core ideas are pretty much identical.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Everyone always criticizes America for "policing the world" --but in reality, we are the only one that can do it. China doesnt care about the rest of the world, Russia has self-interests in mind, and whenever the UN calls for something to be done, it is the US that has to step up and do the bulk of the work--whether militarily, financially, etc...

But keep in mind, the US has self-interests in mind, and kills and otherwise harms plenty of innocent people throughout the world, either directly or by its military and financial support of despots and warlords. I think that consideration is very relevant.

Quote by: The Black Ghost There are countries in the world that need and outside influence to keep them in line. I always hear that we're "violating sovereignty"... but if any of the people that claim that were to go into those nations and realize the terrible conditions the people there live in, they would understand that something has to be done, and Dan the Dictator is not going to do it.

Again, your assumption is that America has always used its influence and power with purely benevolent interests at heart, which is sheer nonsense, and any honest person can find that out very quickly. Look at President Wilson's government expansionism, for example.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Actively, I would say the United States is sort of a "bad cop"... we do whatever is neccessary to make the world a better place, even if it means bending some rules.

Or, as I would put it, the United States government is not taking every precaution necessary to prevent violence and tyranny in the world, but is actually contributing to it. You could try to justify this, saying there is no "Good Cop Vs Bad Cop," that they are all bad. That would be accurate. But any thug could argue such a thing. It doesn't mean he is right to engage in thuggery. Your sloppy argument here is that a "bad cop" is adequate in "making the world a better place" when, in reality, the idea of a better world through global dominance and force is simply an illusion, and a dangerous one for all who hold it. There is a difference between merely "bending some rules" and knowingly killing many people, including the innocent.

Grandpa h.

[tengers]

Quote by: RVonse We have a huge military base located right in the middle of the worlds richest oil deposits. So that means we won. As far as global domination is concerned, neo-cons feel this shakedown well worth the price.

And that oil was selling for $20/Barrel when Dick met with the oil companies in private and we started this war. That war has a total all-in cost that exceeds $3 trillion. At $60 bucks a barrel, that's 50 billion barrels, at $20, it's 150 Billion barrels, Their output is about 2.5 million barrels per day, so that's about a 50 to 150 year supply, depending on the price, but infortunately, that $3 trillion was borrowed at about 4 to 5% interest and that means its costs $120 to $150 Billion per year in interest. We import about 11 million barrels per day x 365 x $60/barrel = $240 Billion, so the cost of the war is a little over half of our current oil bill, whose price has tripled. This doesn't count the fact that the war actually helped push our finances over a cliff.

Now to put this in perspective, we could have put much of the US on alternative energy systems for $3 trillion and not needed this energy at all.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: barts Just wondering. As things seem to be winding down, with some hints that troops will be--well, maybe--coming home, I'm left wondering if the United States' Coalition of the (few) Willing won the Iraq war?

Of course we won the war, that is unquestionable. If any politician or leader ever cliaimed otherwise, he'd be drawn and quartered. To admit that we didn't win would mean that every GI that died there died in vain, and that's something that the families of those dead would never allow. By definition, the American service members that have been killed over there have died "defending our freedom". The fact that our freedom was never threatened by Iraq is immaterial.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: Nono Then why don't you do it? I mean what about Burma? Or Darfur? Or the Congo? If you want to be cops, I don't understand why you don't do policing where it's most needed. The US invaded Iraq to get its hands on oil wealth and line the pockets of Bush's cronies with oil revenues but also your tax dollars.

Oil wealth...not another oil conspiracy is it? I would you to research the Iraqi Oil Industry and come back to me with the results and facts for your conspiracy theory.

The stated reason was WMDs. Anyway, Saddam was captured years ago, so what is the US doing there?

Not being assholes by making sure the country is stabilized, rebuilt, and protected before bugging out.

WMDs was ONE of the reasons for the war. It was the most publicized

[barts]

Quote by: The Black Ghost WMDs was ONE of the reasons for the war. It was the most publicized

WMDs--and nuclear WMDs at that--was the only reason to go to war. None of the other manufactured reasons rose to the level of war. All the other objectives could have been achieved without going to war.

[Alpha_und_Omega]

Quote by: barts WMDs--and nuclear WMDs at that--was the only reason to go to war. None of the other manufactured reasons rose to the level of war. All the other objectives could have been achieved without going to war.

I would agree that WMD's (especially within stiking distance of Isreal) were the real reason we went to Iraq and that would mean we failed.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa I didn't say the US was a sleeping giant. I was referring to Iraq. From that comment alone, I'm skeptical that you really read my response. And you keep syaing these quite ironic things. In addition to the fact that America supported Saddam Hussein, it has been creating wmds, invading nations, selling weapons, imposing harsh tyranny, murdering people in mass numbers, defying human rights organizations, creating war-like propaganda (which our media outlets present as absolute truth), supporting militant groups that attacked Western states, etc.

-Supported Saddam: 20 years ago (military support, no wmds---only because we had to fight Iran, the greater threat. Irrelevant because it was so long ago)
-Wmds: It has been at least 20 years since the US has built any nuclear weapons, probably more. We have been slowly disarming unilaterally with Russia.
-Selling weapons: The US does not sell weapons to terrorist organizations. It limits those weapons sold and does so responsibly, as most nations do, but not all.
-Murdering people in mass numbers: No, it doesnt.
-Defying human rights organizations: Human rights organizations dont run wars. Sometimes collateral damage occurs, and more can be prevented, but a lot of it is impossible to prevent, because terrorists usually use people as human sheilds, even if we dont see them (i.e. in a building's basement)
-war propaganda: Where? When?
-Supporting militant groups: a LONG time ago, before they adopted mass-murdering tactics and anti-western hatred. Big difference.


I dont like how you compare the current administrations to the past ones. Actions taken in the past are not to be compared with those taken now, times are different.

[quote]
Like I suggested before, America could have invaded just about any country and rationalize it as a police measure. Look at China in 1989, when "Governments and business firms around the world scrambled...
to get foreign nationals out of China as fears grew that the country could be
plunged into civil war.
Some governments chartered special planes for a mass evacuation reminiscent
of the alarm that swept the foreign community in Iran during the 1979
Islamic revolution. At least three special charter flights were sent to
Beijing...and others were expected."
Six Years Ago This Day
[quote]

America has not always used force to acheive ends. Force is not always neccessary, sometimes it is. Sometimes it is impossible to use force. The US would not attack China, for instance.

And America, Israel and a number of other countries have nuclear weapons. What if they wouldn't let the inspectors in? America is, after all, the only country to have actually dropped atomic bombs on another. Abiding by our standards, any number of countries could team up and try to take us out due to our supposedly benevolent trips around the world, be these Islamic states or otherwise.

You see, underneath their fascade, most nations agree with our actions--for popular support they cant always say it, but they follow it. It showed, pre-Iraq invasion, the entire Arab commitee voted not to support the US invasion or provide any military assistance, however, secretly they let the US use airbases in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other nations--because they wanted Saddam gone, but couldnt say so in public.

They also rely on the United States to buy oil, and to power the world economy.

True, North Korea is a military threat. In fact, South Korea's Deputy Defense Minister said in 1997 that "North Korea possesses a large number of tanks and military artillery, and it's imperative to delay North Korean mechanized troops north of Seoul." So, "from a military standpoint and from a humanitarian standpoint," he argued, "it is clear that we need to use land mines." South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines - The New York Times It should be noted, however, that this line of defense is hardly different from the felt need to set up IED's throughout Iraq to weaken American efforts to take over that country. The core ideas are pretty much identical.

And IEDs, however unconventional, are a legitimate military weapon...when they arent blowing up civilian or other vehicles that is...

But keep in mind, the US has self-interests in mind, and kills and otherwise harms plenty of innocent people throughout the world, either directly or by its military and financial support of despots and warlords. I think that consideration is very relevant.

Example?

Again, your assumption is that America has always used its influence and power with purely benevolent interests at heart, which is sheer nonsense, and any honest person can find that out very quickly. Look at President Wilson's government expansionism, for example.

We're talking about the present. If you want to go back in time, we can find any number of things that have been done wrong...by every nation on Earth. I can guarantee, the least number would have been done in the United States, or at least they would be low on the list.

Or, as I would put it, the United States government is not taking every precaution necessary to prevent violence and tyranny in the world, but is actually contributing to it. You could try to justify this, saying there is no "Good Cop Vs Bad Cop," that they are all bad. That would be accurate. But any thug could argue such a thing. It doesn't mean he is right to engage in thuggery. Your sloppy argument here is that a "bad cop" is adequate in "making the world a better place" when, in reality, the idea of a better world through global dominance and force is simply an illusion, and a dangerous one for all who hold it. There is a difference between merely "bending some rules" and knowingly killing many people, including the innocent. Grandpa h.

When have we knowingly killed many innocent people? When have we deliberately gone out and said, here is a crowd of people that probably dont like us, lets blow them up (like the terrorists do)? Please, enlighten me.

[barts]

Quote by: The Black Ghost When have we knowingly killed many innocent people? When have we deliberately gone out and said, here is a crowd of people that probably dont like us, lets blow them up (like the terrorists do)? Please, enlighten me.

See A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan.

See Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government'.

There are more reports, but let's see how you respond to these two.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: barts See A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan. See Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government'. There are more reports, but let's see how you respond to these two.

For the first, the article is very biased, as it only includes the sources that it deems to be "correct" where in reality there are always conflicting reports. Such as when the Afghans declared that 100 people were killed in a bombing incident a year back--it turned out that only 40 had been killed, 30 of which were Taliban. People tend to exaggerate things. Secondly, civilians are never purposefully targeted, and I dont care what people say, this is true, unless a soldier is truly acting rogue when calling in airstrikes.

Even further complicating the matter, is the fact that few Taliban/terrorists/enemies follow the rules of war. They dress as civilians, use civilians buildings to attack with, hide civilians deemed "unhealthy in the name of Islam" in basements so they will die in airstrikes after they start a battle, purposefully intending to get an airstrike called in on them.

The lines are often blurred when the enemy does not follow the rules of war:
Official: Afghan militants fled dressed as women - CNN.com

Furthermore, terrorists have brought in civilians (at gunpoint) after a battle begins so that they will die, making the U.S. look bad. If you have noticed, no newspaper ever talks about the atrocities committed by the enemy--atrocities willingly and purposefully carried out to kill civilians (which accounts for around 80% of civilian deaths in both Afghanistan and Iraq--market bombings, drive by shootings, execution squads)

US soldiers are trained to verfiy targets several times before calling in airstrikes or attacking targets, but if you think about it--consider a situation where marines are pinned down by fire from a building, they cant move, and they know that there are enemies attacking them--they must call in an airstrike or die. How can they know if there are civilians in the same building? There shouldnt be, according to the rules of war, but there might be.

I think there are times when it can be done better, but I cant blame our troops for doing what any sane person would do under fire, and at the same time doing a good job protecting many civilians that otherwise would have been killed, despite what the media says.


The marine story is even more ridiculous. The shootings at the checkpoints make perfect sense to me...what else can be done in those cases? (Read the book "shooter" it talks about them a lot) A vehicles is moving towards you at high speeds and wont stop when you shoot around it. The possibility that it could be a bomb is high. In these cases, they werent, but there are hundreds of cases of bomb-trucks in these wars. Terrorists have even used ambulances to carry bombs or troops to attack checkpoints. If we shoot, we might hurt civilians, if we dont, we might lose a lot of troops....its a no-win situation, understand that.

This marine obviously isnt very high up on the rank of command, as he seems a bit clueless on some things (the fallujah incident he mentions, for one, is innaccurate). Also, where he shoots into the crowd, that was probably an order lost in translation--no U.S. military commander would order that, it would result in an istant court-martial.

To that point, there have been numerous cases of mistakes made my soldiers where they have had incidents of collateral damage and even friendly fire because of miscommunication. There have also been a few (very few) cases of soldiers acting independantly and doing horrible things--Abu graib, the rape incident, a few murders....those people have been punished. The US has not ordered any attacks deliberately against civilians, no matter how someone tries to spin it. We take many precautions to avoid collateral damage, despite what the media tries to say.

This unit in particular is responsible for a few of such incidents, and they were ferried out of the country for their actions. Rumsfeld's "renegade unit" blamed for Afghan civilian deaths | World War 4 Report

From another article:

[QUOTE]“It is very hard to distinguish between civilian and insurgent. Until they display hostile intent, they are civilians.” There are, nonetheless, several ways NTC teaches troops to tell combatant from civilian. Maj. Cameron Kramer said, “We look for who is out of place. If we understand demographics, [we understand] who’s new in town, who doesn’t fit, who walks away.” Captain Bodenhamer said, “The biggest thing to look for is indicators—someone who stands out, is standoffish.”US troops also learn to look at hands rather than at faces.“[The enemy] can only kill with their hands. They need hands to push a button or a trigger,” Captain Dougherty said. If weapons are hidden or pointed at them, soldiers consider the person hostile. If not, they are taught to have a “measured response. If they have a rock, don’t shoot.”[/QUOTE]

[Dan_77]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Wow, I didnt think negative thinking could get that extreme. This is the difference between perception and reality. I dont think you want to admit that any good could have possibly come from our actions in Iraq.

I was unaware that, from an American point of view, any good HAD come from it.

I dont mind having the United States act in other nations when it is neccessary to protect lives--both home and civilians abroad. We do it as much as possible across the world, helping out governments and giving aid/military assistance to fight rebels (such as we are doing now in North Africa, Yemen, Columbia, recently in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and the Phillipines.

Then why don't we triage need? Iraq wasn't even on the top 10 list of bad places before 2003.

Everyone always criticizes America for "policing the world" --but in reality, we are the only one that can do it.

What if we weren't? How would you honestly feel if, for example, the UK sent troops into New Orleans to enforce martial law and a few civilians were shot?

In your answer you'll discover why an "insurgency" exists in Iraq.

China doesnt care about the rest of the world, Russia has self-interests in mind, and whenever the UN calls for something to be done, it is the US that has to step up and do the bulk of the work--whether militarily, financially, etc...

I am not aware of any social or legal concept that requires the US to step into the affairs of sovereign nations. Perhaps you can cite one for me?

There are countries in the world that need and outside influence to keep them in line.

You mean like a country that has its troops in dozens of nations all over the world, had weeks of riots the last time a major storm hit, and has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction for half a century?

I always hear that we're "violating sovereignty"...but if any of the people that claim that were to go into those nations and realize the terrible conditions the people there live in, they would understand that something has to be done, and Dan the Dictator is not going to do it.

And bombing the sh*t out of their country is?

How about we do what worked on the USSR: We Levi's Jeans/McDonalds/Coca Cola/MTV them into surrender. American "influence" is most effectively spread through our consumer goods. It worked in the Soviet bloc. It's working in China and southeast Asia. It's even working in predominantly Muslim countries like Dubai.

Actively, I would say the United States is sort of a "bad cop"...we do whatever is neccessary to make the world a better place, even if it means bending some rules.

Except that we don't do whatever is necessary. We do what we think will help our interests. How else do you explain our micromanagement of the Middle East while simultaneously we ignore Africa, South America, and SE Asia? The only time despotism gets our attention is when something we want is dangled in front of us.

We have ignored Cuba since the Russian missiles left, but Hugo Chavez is front page news. We ignore Darfur but spend trillions effecting regime change in Iraq.

Quote by: tengers Now to put this in perspective, we could have put much of the US on alternative energy systems for $3 trillion and not needed this energy at all.

Or, to strike at another problem, we could have given every man, woman, and child in the US $10,000 to use towards personal debt reduction. Or, to buy an American-made car. Hell, if we restricted it to college stuff we could have given out enough to pay off most people's student loan debt or financed college for an entire generation of working poor.

When you look at any sort of cost-benefit analysis, it becomes clear that Iraq was an idiotic blunder that makes Vietnam look like a raging success.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost -Supported Saddam: 20 years ago (military support, no wmds---only because we had to fight Iran, the greater threat. Irrelevant because it was so long ago) -Wmds: It has been at least 20 years since the US has built any nuclear weapons, probably more. We have been slowly disarming unilaterally with Russia. -Selling weapons: The US does not sell weapons to terrorist organizations. It limits those weapons sold and does so responsibly, as most nations do, but not all. -Murdering people in mass numbers: No, it doesnt. -Defying human rights organizations: Human rights organizations dont run wars. Sometimes collateral damage occurs, and more can be prevented, but a lot of it is impossible to prevent, because terrorists usually use people as human sheilds, even if we dont see them (i.e. in a building's basement) -war propaganda: Where? When? -Supporting militant groups: a LONG time ago, before they adopted mass-murdering tactics and anti-western hatred. Big difference.

For the sake of argument, let's say we're both different people. Let's say I was somehow a major supporter of Saddam Hussein 20 years ago, and at that time he had killed your entire family, miraculously sparing you. Would this fact be "irrelevant because it was so long ago"? Probably not, at least with most people. But, with most people, it is more cost-effective to prevent and to resolve conflicts. That's not true of the United States government which apparently profits greatly from warfare, thanks to our militarized economy and the political ladder-climbing that comes from a warlike population.

As for supporting terrorists, we've done so:

ISI, in the past 50 years, has influenced subversive groups in, among others, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka. Sometimes its “Islamist” influence used practical political lines, sometimes it used religious lines. In the process of building, supporting and influencing a “network of Islamist” subversive or even terrorist groups, ISI also hooked up with Maktab al-Khidamar, or MAK (“Services Office”). MAK was an organization founded in the early eighties by Osama bin Laden and two others to funnel money, arms and combatants into Afghanistan to combat the soviet-supported Marxist Afghan regime and the de facto Soviet occupation of that country. By then, ISI had also become the US Central Intelligence Agency’s main “channel” for covert action against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Surprising? No: the desire of the Carter government to thwart any Soviet success in Afghanistan needs no explanation. The means to this end, designed by National Security Advisor Brzezinski, was to “create” or promote a “Muslim” extremist movement in the region, aimed at destabilizing the Muslim republics of the USSR and then to have it spill over into Afghanistan. These goals were shared by Pakistan’s dictator Gen Zia ul-Haq and ISI. In addition, CIA and ISI mounted an operation to recruit Islamic militants from anywhere to fight in Afghanistan. It is believed that up to a hundred thousand “Islamist” combatants ultimately were channelled to Afghanistan. ISI profited; the CIA (and thus the US) profited. Read Article

The US government has killed plenty of innocent people throughout the world.
And the US and its allies are constantly violating international law:
"Under an illegal occupation, Israeli policies of evicting Palestinians
or destroying their homes are often used as acts of collective
punishment, contrary to international law.
As refugees and people living under occupation, we are asking people
to help us with our struggle for our rights. It is unbelievable that
in the 21st century, Israel’s authorities can get away with
demolishing the homes of Palestinians in order to build settlements or
national parks."
Chicago activists drop 88 banners across city protesting Israeli eviction and demolition of Palestinian homes | International Solidarity Movement Palestine

Furthermore, its commonly argued that
"Terrorists attack targets that are vulnerable, have a high psychological impact
on a society, produce significant publicity, and demonstrate a government’s
inability to provide security. Both critical facilities and prominent
individuals are potential terrorist targets....."
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fp97/fp97a.htm

Well, that almost perfectly describes America's war on Iraq, including the devastating UN sanctions. You don't complain about it because it's not happening where you live and you otherwise don't care, but to others this is a pretty well-known and even uncontroversial attitude to adopt, if for no other reason than it's accuracy.

As for war propaganda, that is all over the place. But I guess I'll have to take your word that none of it exists anywhere.

Quote by: The Black Ghost I dont like how you compare the current administrations to the past ones. Actions taken in the past are not to be compared with those taken now, times are different.

Well, chains of events happen whether you "like them" or not. This fact alone is sufficient to constitute a basis for protesting government policy.

Quote by: The Black Ghost America has not always used force to acheive ends. Force is not always neccessary, sometimes it is. Sometimes it is impossible to use force. The US would not attack China, for instance.

That's because the Chinese regime wouldn't be easy to get rid of and, ultimately, is an ally of the United States. The US government is actually very cowardly, willing only to attack people it assumes can't defend themselves very well. This cowardice is further implied by the very fact that politicians use soldiers -- hired henchmen, in other words -- to do their dirty work for them. And soldiers are supposed to blindly obey their orders, whether they're instructed to look for WMDs or the fountain of youth. That kind of power is already unjust, and easily and readily abused. It's actually a good contrast to the very freedom they supposedly to stand for.

Quote by: The Black Ghost You see, underneath their fascade, most nations agree with our actions--for popular support they cant always say it, but they follow it. It showed, pre-Iraq invasion, the entire Arab commitee voted not to support the US invasion or provide any military assistance, however, secretly they let the US use airbases in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other nations--because they wanted Saddam gone, but couldnt say so in public.

That wouldn't be because they agree with the United States in principle, but because they are cowardly, corrupt, and blatantly hypocritical. Then again, I guess that means they do agree with US leaders in principle. You see, where the United States is concerned you follow the law or you don't, and the law is whatever we say it is. If you don't obey, you may pay a price that is very high, and others may end up paying it as well -- as was the case when Saddam's disobedience led to the punishment of the whole of Iraq, leaving the country with a much greater humanitarian crisis on its hands than ever before. Interestingly, that disdaster wouldn't have changed if more folks voted. The only way to help Iraq would have been to end the sanctions, but the US and the UN stubbornly refused to. This is objectionable from many a political, or even a religious view point. A popular view is that America is a Christian country, and that Christian countries are only supposed to give alms to the poor. Not this one. This one will support a foreign dictator and punish his population for his own misguided efforts.

Quote by: The Black Ghost They also rely on the United States to buy oil, and to power the world economy.

Another reason there's so much riot gear in the world.

Quote by: The Black Ghost And IEDs, however unconventional, are a legitimate military weapon... when they arent blowing up civilian or other vehicles that is...

As if aerial strikes don't often accomplish civilian deaths.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Example?

Already given.

Quote by: The Black Ghost We're talking about the present. If you want to go back in time, we can find any number of things that have been done wrong... by every nation on Earth. I can guarantee, the least number would have been done in the United States, or at least they would be low on the list.

We're talking about a historical pattern that hasn't really been interrupted. You obviously want to deny history, and the general reality of chains of events, but I can give you a more recent example: If Bush never invaded Iraq then Al-Qaeda would not have entered, nor would there have been an insurgency. Also, plenty of Iraqis wouldn't have died thanks to the increased destruction of their infrastructure. But, by your standards, the fact that America promised to train Muslim extremists in Afghanistan and actually delivered somehow has no significance on the present day.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost When have we knowingly killed many innocent people? When have we deliberately gone out and said, here is a crowd of people that probably dont like us, lets blow them up (like the terrorists do)? Please, enlighten me.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki is a pretty good example, but there are many others we could discuss, like the invasion of Iraq as a whole. Also consider the US-led NATO bombings of Serbia. And this is often done by proxy because, as I said, US politicians are too cowardly to engage us directly in all the conflicts they want us in, and would also lose support in doing so. There are only so many dead GIs America can take. But a lot of lesser foreigners can die doing the dirty work of US politicians, and fewer people even have to learn about these.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dan_77 I was unaware that, from an American point of view, any good HAD come from it.

Its seems that, from his perspective, the US can practically do no wrong. I lack that power myself, but perhaps I just need to read up on the wisdom of Ted Bundy, or some other person incapable of doing something immoral.

Grandpa h.

[barts]

Quote by: The Black Ghost For the first, the article is very biased, as it only includes the sources that it deems to be "correct" where in reality there are always conflicting reports.

I only posted two links, BG, because I have confidence that no evidence change your view.