Did we win the war in Iraq?

[The Black Ghost]

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

Thats because the common Americans are uninformed, ignorant, and many have only self-interests in mind. However, this is common elsewhere as well.

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.

The UK has no need to send troops to New Orleans to enforce martial law--we have our own troops to do that. If we had no National Guard to spare, I would expect our allies like the UK would help us in that situation. In this situation (I assume you are referring to post-Katrina) I dont see why any civilians would be killed, since it is a non-combat situation. If you are talking about troops stopping looters, I dont know why there would be any killing, but if there was, it would only be if it was justified (suspects are armed, dangerous).

Even if the US was not a significant global power, I dont see why many nations would be against the U.S. Common hatred would simply be turned elsewhere, to whatever nation was the most powerful (seems to attract hatred). Russia was just as, if not more, hated (rightfully, often) than the US by many nations back in the day.

If we were invaded, well, I would expect a good number of people would fight. However, unlike Iraq, we would not turn against eachother for different religious differences, or social differences, and massacre thousands of civilians. You see, so much of the internal violence in Iraq was directed against other sects or ethnic groups, NOT against the Coalition forces. It wasnt that we caused it, it was that we unchained it. Under Saddam, this hated existed---order was kept through fear of the Baathists and fedayeen paramilitaries. Dictatorships keep the peace, but only superficially. To think that a civil war nearly came, was averted, and now that these groups are working together peacefully is a HUGE success on the part of the Iraqi Government, the democratic process in Iraq, and a cultural change in Iraq.

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?

Thats the problem with the UN. There is nothing requiring any nation to do anything. Therefore it is left up to the the US, Britain, China, Russia, and a few others to try to do something by default. Lets say its--allotting aid to African Nations---usually, we have to take a disproportionate load of the work in such efforts. Same with Kosovo, and way back in the day--Korea.

Also, many nations, not just us (the 30 "coalition of the willing") beleived that Iraq had long lost its sovereignty for defying the rest of the world. I dont beleive a nation's government can be sovereign with a murderous dictator in power.

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?

To an extent, we too depend and need outside influences as part of the international balance. However, you seem to harbor a grudge specifically against the US. We only stockpiled weapons because we beleived it was neccessary to stop WWIII (ironically). However, the US policies during the Cold War--especially with nuclear weapons--cannot be compared to today. The Cold War was politically a turning point in history that could have gone either way, it was also an experimental age with powerful new weapons and technology...technology that history has now taught us must be strictly mandated and controlled.

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.

That is probably the most naive thing I have heard.

A)Bombing a nation is not the solution, it is a means of getting to the solution. We didnt just "bomb the sh*t out of them" indiscriminately. We attacked only military targets and tried even then to only hit key command and control targets to minimize casualties (even enemy military casualties, which are surprisingly light compared to the first Gulf War)... We wanted to get Saddam out of power, and we made it clear to the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi Army, that we were not against them, that wer were against their tyrannical government. Not suprisingly after hearing this, hundreds of thousands of their troops surrendered without firing a shot. Only Saddam's loyalist troops and paramilitaries remained to fight really, because no one else cared about Saddam, many Iraqi units turned right around after surrendering and joined us to get rid of the remaining Baathists.

We took great care to minimized civilan deaths in this war, more precautions that have been used in any modern war. We were not always successful, but we did a better job that any other nation could have at that task.

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.

First of all, we have not "ignored" anyone. The media has ignored them, but not the government. During the Bush Administration, we spent more money and sent more aid to help Africa that ever before. Ironically, Bush is more popular in many poor African countries that he was in the United States...

I agree, a more defined presence in nations like Sudan would have helped the peace process there, probably. However, by the time Darfur violence flared, we had already committed our troops elsewhere. It would be a selfless act to send more peacekeepers to Africa (especially Somalia, again) if just to show that we are not just out for our own interests as the media has proposed.

Quote by: grandpa 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.

I think you misunderstand me. Back when we supported (many of the groups you listed) they were freedom fighters against oppression, not suicide bombers and extremists. Its true, we should have been more careful with whom we dealth with, but at the time, it was common practice for the USSR and US to trade blows through proxy warfare. We were both successful at it on many fronts. At the time, Islamic extremism was not a real threat to the world, at least not anywhere near on the scale as it is today.

As soon as these groups began adopting terrorist tactics and brutalizing civilians, we stopped supporting them and began to fight them. It was a mistake to arm some of them, but again, that is the past and we couldnt have seen the future then. Is always easier to look back and say "we should have done this..."

[The Black Ghost]

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." [COLOR=#0000ff]Chicago activists drop 88 banners across city protesting Israeli eviction and demolition of Palestinian homes | International Solidarity Movement Palestine[/COLOR] 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....." [COLOR=#0000ff]http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fp97/fp97a.htm[/COLOR] 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.

You failed to demonstrate even one example of the "mass killing" that America is committing. Your Isreali example is irrelevant to this topic, and doesnt mean anything.



Also, how does America's war in Iraq at all compare to the tactics used by terrorists? Maybe in that wording, you can say that, but look at the reality of what terrorists do---drive buses into market stalls and blow up 50 innocent people in the name of Islam, raid a town at night and execute any non-muslims, or people of different sects. That is terrorism, and those are the people we are fighting. Dont play word games here.

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.

So, I guess you're forced to agree with me here? Did you even try to search google? Or did it turn up with 'no results'?

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

Im talking about people deliberately targeting civilians. An insurgent becomes a terrorist after they join a cause that kills any civilian that is affiliated with the government, or is deemed "un-islamic"--which includes women and children. The terrorists we are fighting are the worst war criminals in history since the Nazis, and yet there is no outcry against them--instead people are angry with us? Thats a major propaganda triumph for the terrorists.

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.

Sure, if we never invaded Iraq, many things might not have happened. However, we got rid of a dictatorship and freed the people. That alone is a good thing. We stopped many terror cells in Iraq too, and in the end, we did win by drawing out the enemy, defeating them, and the people in Iraq have turned against extremism, which is a major accomplishment.





What you say about America arming extremists is significant today, but we cannot judge the current administrations policies off of the past ones. Just the same as we cant judge Russia today off of the atrocities commited by the Soviets. Times have changed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost I think you misunderstand me. Back when we supported (many of the groups you listed) they were freedom fighters against oppression, not suicide bombers and extremists.

No, they were extremists, and America wanted extremists for the job. And it's not like America didn't go any further in its support of Muslim extremists. Consider the KLA in Kosovo, for example. Or Pakistan's ISI. Such support is highly ironic for the United States in its "fight against terrorism and radical Islam."

Grandpa h.

[soothsayer]

You've all been watching entirely too much TV (or at least believing it ! )

The Iraq "War" ....? :

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

(The Chinese are pumping the oil, in exchange for continuing to prop-up false U.S. currency by buying Treasury Bonds)

What's a little American blood in the sand compared to that?
You think Bush or Obama care about that? Hah !

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse | Energy Bulletin

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost You failed to demonstrate even one example of the "mass killing" that America is committing. Your Isreali example is irrelevant to this topic, and doesnt mean anything.

No, I didn't. I cited the Iraq War, the sanctions against Iraq, and a number of other instances. Maybe you can't read well or something. I don't buy this nonsense that America is not responsible for its killings in, say, aerial bombings. It is, but it refuses to acknowledge this fact. It's also been committing political suicide by ignoring world concerns about its terror suspects.

As for Israel, I shouldn't even have to talk much about its ongoing atrocity and what it may mean. That should be common knowledge by now.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Also, how does America's war in Iraq at all compare to the tactics used by terrorists? Maybe in that wording, you can say that, but look at the reality of what terrorists do---drive buses into market stalls and blow up 50 innocent people in the name of Islam, raid a town at night and execute any non-muslims, or people of different sects. That is terrorism, and those are the people we are fighting. Dont play word games here.

I'm not playing "word games." Believe it or not America can kill more than 50 innocent people at a time, and has. One example out of many:
"FARAH, Afghanistan — The number of civilians killed by the American airstrikes in Farah Province last week may never be fully known. But villagers, including two girls recovering from burn wounds, described devastation that officials and human rights workers are calling the worst episode of civilian casualties in eight years of war in Afghanistan....
The bombs were so powerful that people were ripped to shreds. Survivors said they collected only pieces of bodies. Several villagers said that they could not distinguish all of the dead and that they never found some of their relatives.
Government officials have accepted handwritten lists compiled by the villagers of 147 dead civilians. An independent Afghan human rights group said it had accounts from interviews of 117 dead. American officials say that even 100 is an exaggeration but have yet to issue their own count...
It is bombings like this one that have turned many Afghans against the American-backed government and the foreign military presence."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/wo...arah.html?_r=1

"ZERKOH, Afghanistan, May 9 — Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from heavy American and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance.
Afghan, American and other foreign officials say they worry about the political toll the civilian deaths are exacting on President Hamid Karzai, who last week issued another harsh condemnation of the American and NATO tactics, and even of the entire international effort here.
What angers Afghans are not just the bombings, but also the raids of homes, the shootings of civilians in the streets and at checkpoints, and the failure to address those issues over the five years of war. Afghan patience is wearing dangerously thin, officials warn."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/wo.../13AFGHAN.html

As Rafia Zakaria put it, Americans "seem to be accepting that the world is
indeed grey."

Quote by: The Black Ghost So, I guess you're forced to agree with me here? Did you even try to search google? Or did it turn up with 'no results'?

No, I just wouldn't know where to begin. Ever see a military ad on television? Ever see FOX News? Your denial on thsi point is simply outlandish. I didn't even think you were serious, to tell you the truth. But, if you want, here's an example so that you can read and weep:

"It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.
'Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.,' a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of 'another success' in the Bush administration's 'drive to strengthen aviation security'; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.
To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The 'reporter' covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/po.../13covert.html

The Bush Administration has constantly been lying, and not just about the Iraq War:
"TV news reports in America that showed President George Bush getting a standing ovation from potential voters have been exposed as fake, it has emerged.
The US government admitted it paid actors to pose as journalists in video news releases sent to TV stations intending to convey support for new laws about health benefits.
Investigators are examining the film segments, in which actors pretending to be journalists praise the benefits of the new law passed last year by President Bush, to see if they could be construed as propaganda.
Two of the films are signed off by 'Karen Ryan', who was an actor hired to read a script prepared by the government, according to production company Home Front Communications.
Another video, intended for Hispanic viewers, shows a government official being interviewed in Spanish by a actor posing as a reporter with the name 'Alberto Garcia'".
US government faked Bush news reports | Media | MediaGuardian

I have to stress that the government is constantly lying or otherwise being dishonest, about countless things.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Im talking about people deliberately targeting civilians. An insurgent becomes a terrorist after they join a cause that kills any civilian that is affiliated with the government, or is deemed "un-islamic"--which includes women and children. The terrorists we are fighting are the worst war criminals in history since the Nazis, and yet there is no outcry against them--instead people are angry with us? Thats a major propaganda triumph for the terrorists.

Actually, there is an outcry against al-Qaeda and other such groups. For example, I don't think I've ever said anything in their favor. I would liken them to vermin, but that would insult vermin. But that's not the point. One scumbag act does not necessarily excuse another. You might hate al-Qaeda, but how many were killed in Laos and Cambodia by America's major bombing operations? And yes, those included women and children (though killing men is bad enough).

And the US supports Israel, which prefers war and settlements (illegally, according to the UN) to a just solution. That is significant, if you are concerned about terrorism.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Sure, if we never invaded Iraq, many things might not have happened. However, we got rid of a dictatorship and freed the people. That alone is a good thing. We stopped many terror cells in Iraq too, and in the end, we did win by drawing out the enemy, defeating them, and the people in Iraq have turned against extremism, which is a major accomplishment.

This sounds like a US or British Govt. sponsored report on Iraq. Nothing more, but probably something less. Because of the invasion, other foreign invaders had ample opportunity to use Iraqi streets as channels for religious extremism, and did. We allowed that to happen.

Quote by: The Black Ghost What you say about America arming extremists is significant today, but we cannot judge the current administrations policies off of the past ones. Just the same as we cant judge Russia today off of the atrocities commited by the Soviets. Times have changed.

It's significant today partly because it's still happening today. And 20-30 years ago is not ancient history anyway. The fact is, America is no stranger to killing the innocent directly, or less directly by supporting the atrocities of its allies in the Jihad against the world population.

Grandpa h.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa No, I didn't. I cited the Iraq War, the sanctions against Iraq, and a number of other instances. Maybe you can't read well or something. I don't buy this nonsense that America is not responsible for its killings in, say, aerial bombings. It is, but it refuses to acknowledge this fact. It's also been committing political suicide by ignoring world concerns about its terror suspects. As for Israel, I shouldn't even have to talk much about its ongoing atrocity and what it may mean. That should be common knowledge by now.

Hardly a valid arguement. If you think the "entire Iraq war" is an example of mass killing. There was mass killing done--by terrorists and religious zealots...People which our soldiers put their lives on the line to destroy, and largely succeeded at.

[airstrikes examples] As Rafia Zakaria put it, Americans "seem to be accepting that the world is indeed grey."

As I stated already, nothing is being "covered up" or "justified". Every civilian dead is both a weight on our collective conscience and also a political problem, because as we know, it works against the cause in every way. But I want to reassert that if the people in our military who were responsible for these airstrikes knew that any civilians were in the target zones, they would not have dropped bombs in any situation. It is standard military protocol. If there are civilians or possible noncombatants on the ground, an airstrike is called off.

It must be stressed then, that in these situations, there was no evidence of civilians in the area of these attacks when they occurred, at least to the pilots. On the ground, there are errors and a misuse of power on the part of individual units. Our troops arent always perfect, but they do a damn good job at keeping collateral damage to a minimal. Israel's war in Gaza showed what happens when less precautions are taken in a war using air power...and even they were being cautious and still there were huge civilian deaths. It is the downfall of air power--political fallout, although its a good thing I suppose.

It is knowing intent that is the difference between an accident and an intentional killing. Anyone who knows anything about law knows this. Accidents happen--in war, they happen a lot. Im not saying we arent responsible, but that there must be a level of understanding as to why these things happen. Its not as the media likes to portray it---recklessly blowing everything up like 'cowboys'. Anyone who knows anything about the US military knows that its not like that.

No, I just wouldn't know where to begin. Ever see a military ad on television? Ever see FOX News? Your denial on thsi point is simply outlandish. I didn't even think you were serious, to tell you the truth. But, if you want, here's an example so that you can read and weep...[other things....]

First of all, if you can call a military recruitment ad "propaganda", then you might as well call every tv advertisement propaganda. Recruitment ads have existed throughout all of history, they did not just appear when the war began. To think that these ads are effective propaganda is a load of crap...they are hardly convincing even to a weak mind, they are simply meant to advertise the job.

Your other assumption is that the government is always lying as cannot be trusted. Well, right off the bat I see there is no hope argueing here, some people will only listen out of the ear that hears the news they like. Sure, there are these few little incidents that one might call "faked", however, they did not provide any inaccurate information, and there were no lies.

Actually, there is an outcry against al-Qaeda and other such groups. For example, I don't think I've ever said anything in their favor. I would liken them to vermin, but that would insult vermin. But that's not the point. One scumbag act does not necessarily excuse another. You might hate al-Qaeda, but how many were killed in Laos and Cambodia by America's major bombing operations? And yes, those included women and children (though killing men is bad enough).

And once again, lets go back in history to something totally irrelevant.

If there is an outcry against Al-Queda, like I said already, it is an improvement! That is something that didnt happen by itself.

This sounds like a US or British Govt. sponsored report on Iraq. Nothing more, but probably something less. Because of the invasion, other foreign invaders had ample opportunity to use Iraqi streets as channels for religious extremism, and did. We allowed that to happen.

We did not allow that to happen, because we have been fighting down and dirty for the last 6 years to stop it. Fine, so some terrorists got in after we uprooted Saddam, should we have left Saddam there to prevent that, even if somehow we had known it would happen? No! We fight the enemy wherever they are, we dont cower behind excuses and do nothing. If the terrorists got into the country, we will fight them in that country, and we did--successfully. Now the borders are protected again AND the dictator is eliminated.

It's significant today partly because it's still happening today. And 20-30 years ago is not ancient history anyway. The fact is, America is no stranger to killing the innocent directly, or less directly by supporting the atrocities of its allies in the Jihad against the world population. Grandpa h.

I cant beleive I hear this nonsense so much. Its ridiculous. "JIhad against the world"? You're so biased you shouldnt even be argueing this. To you, "America is evil" and "everyone who supports America is evil", is an absolute. If thats a given to you, then you're not even willing to hear logic. 20 or 30 years ago, a lot of things were different. As I said before, I dont call Medvedev a 'communist murderer' just because his predeccessors may have been. Then is not now.

And while you keep talking about Vietnam--it is the epitome of a leftist propaganda victory...as they are essentially the reason the war was lost. Vietnam is the most misunderstood war of all, because it is written that way in our history books. However, many people of the time, especially the soldiers fighting in that war, can tell you the realities of what it was like. Its not like its portayed in the movies, and its not whats written in history books. When soldiers were interviewed as to why the war was lost--most of them said "politics". They werent allowed to do what needed to be done to win--forcing them to fight a defensive war which was bound to fail. The soldiers in Vietnam were not butchers or crazy Rambos like they are often portrayed as--that is the steryotypical view that the leftist hippies and their idiot friends in the television industry gave them...and that is the reason why most troops had to come home to crowds of people shouting hate slogans at soldiers. No wonder we lost, our people back home were idiots. Nothing has changed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Hardly a valid arguement. If you think the "entire Iraq war" is an example of mass killing. There was mass killing done--by terrorists and religious zealots... People which our soldiers put their lives on the line to destroy, and largely succeeded at.

Actually, a large amount of innocent Iraqis have been killed by US foreign policy over the years, as I've been pointing out. So it is a valid argument. What you say above is not a logical conclusion but disguised as such. There was not much "mass killing" done in Iraq by terrorists and religious zealots until the US invaded. Then all kinds of people flooded in, including not just al-Qaeda operatives but private contractors and more than a few American corporations trying to make a buck in the midst of a warzone. Let's pretend that the US isn't responsible for more Iraqi deaths than al-Qaeda itself. Okay, but that still doesn't mean our killings are justified. There are perhaps less Xian terrorists in the United States today, but it hardly justifies clinic bombings. The same logic applies to the war in Iraq. I also think journalists should consider what they are doing when they lie by omission, like when they overlook how the destruction of Iraq is an ongoing policy. It didn't just start with George W. Bush, or even with the first Gulf War. And it's not likely to end too soon, either.

Quote by: The Black Ghost As I stated already, nothing is being "covered up" or "justified". Every civilian dead is both a weight on our collective conscience and also a political problem, because as we know, it works against the cause in every way. But I want to reassert that if the people in our military who were responsible for these airstrikes knew that any civilians were in the target zones, they would not have dropped bombs in any situation. It is standard military protocol. If there are civilians or possible noncombatants on the ground, an airstrike is called off.

So the theory goes, but there is evidence all over the internet otherwise, and not just from so-called "conspiracy websites." Youa re also overinflating the morality of the military. Depsite your claims to the contrary, plenty of warriors are bound to say, "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti" [Follow your own course, no matter what people say], even if they are wearing American uniforms. The US military shapes many into "military people," and uses that power to take over the government. Militarism is their product, and we are forced to buy it through tax dollars. In effect, we are paying to be brainwashed.

Quote by: The Black Ghost It must be stressed then, that in these situations, there was no evidence of civilians in the area of these attacks when they occurred, at least to the pilots. On the ground, there are errors and a misuse of power on the part of individual units. Our troops arent always perfect, but they do a damn good job at keeping collateral damage to a minimal. Israel's war in Gaza showed what happens when less precautions are taken in a war using air power... and even they were being cautious and still there were huge civilian deaths. It is the downfall of air power--political fallout, although its a good thing I suppose.

So simply because a bombing campaign happens "there was no evidence of civilians in the area"? I don't buy that one bit. There are people here who would buy that, but they are military people. They believe the US military cannot do any wrong. Other militaries might, but never us.

Here again, I feel obligated to quote Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall:
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."

And just think about it: This war is taking place largely because of 9-11, an event that may have been prevented simply by arming a couple of pilots. "if there is another major round of hijackings,
it will probably bankrupt the entire U.S. airline
industry. People are so obsessed with banning guns that they are willing to sacrifice
human lives and a huge portion of our economy to political correctness."
Armed pilots banned<br>2 months before 9-11

I feel weird quoting WorlNet, but they have a very good point, and it might have, in its own little way, prevented a tragic situation in Iraq from becoming much worse.
So, as you can see, history matters. Even airline policy may have a huge impact on the world. You can't start a war without starting a war. Even an Alzheimer's patient should remember that from reading up on history.

Here's something to consider, if you can put aside your gloating over how beautiful the American military is:
"In a single day, U.S. cluster-munition attacks in Hilla on March 31 killed
at least 33 civilians and injured 109, while the same weapon was implicated
in high civilian casualties in Najaf and Nasariya, as well. One hospital
director told HRW that cluster munitions caused 90 percent of the civilian
injuries that his hospital treated during the war.
Moreover, the Coalition is believed to have left behind many tens of
thousands of cluster-munition duds, those that did not explode on impact and
then become de facto landmines that have already caused dozens of
casualties."
Cluster Bombs, Decapitation Bombing Killed Hundreds, Says Human Rights Watch

Furthermore, I should not that you risk political fallout by appearing equivocal. When you have clear standards and are not a complete hypocrite, you have a more solid base of support. In contrast, the US war effort is losing support, with blatant hypocrisy of policy as one of the reasons. You see, despite efforts to depict anti-war-types as lazy and good-for-nothing, we can be awfully demanding, and awfully moralistic -- especially when lives are at stake.

Quote by: The Black Ghost It is knowing intent that is the difference between an accident and an intentional killing. Anyone who knows anything about law knows this. Accidents happen--in war, they happen a lot. Im not saying we arent responsible, but that there must be a level of understanding as to why these things happen. Its not as the media likes to portray it---recklessly blowing everything up like 'cowboys'. Anyone who knows anything about the US military knows that its not like that.

If I drop a bomb in a neighborhood somewhere, it's hardly an "accident" if innocent people die. Barring severe brain damage on my part, I know the risks. Maybe "the law" doesn't consider this, but I do, and so does anyone else with enough intelligence to understand cause and effect. There is also scant evidence regarding the "motives" behind your average aerial bombing, nor will the average recipient of a bomb even care. If you destroy someone's house, he or she might take up armsa against you, whatever your stated aims. "These things happen," too. Why do these things have to happen? They don't. They are conditional, and we may be able to change the conditions.

As for the media going out of its way to portray American militarism badly, it isn't true. In fact, the very opposite is true. A real objective, honest media would have the nerve to question why we are supposed to worship soldiers and flags, and why they have a right to drop bombs in foreign lands. If there are any such reports, they are exceedingly rare. Sure they can get existential about Michael Jackson's death, but not about anything that really matters much, like policy. Do you really think mainstream corporate media wants much of anything to do with the Phoenix Program, fro example? That would be a downer -- bad for advertisers and "too unpatriotic".

Quote by: The Black Ghost First of all, if you can call a military recruitment ad "propaganda", then you might as well call every tv advertisement propaganda. Recruitment ads have existed throughout all of history, they did not just appear when the war began. To think that these ads are effective propaganda is a load of crap... they are hardly convincing even to a weak mind, they are simply meant to advertise the job.

Yes, every TV advertisement is propaganda.
"Propaganda is communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause."
Can you find the distinction between that common definition and an advertisement?
And the argument that "recruitment ads have existed throughout all of history" does not negate the fact that they exist now and actually have a significant impact on the public mind. If market research showed that advertisements had no significant effect on our thinking, I'm sure most advertising would stop in a matter of days and commercial media would be sunk. So no, it's not "a load of crap." It's been proven to work. In your own words, "recruitment ads have existed throughout all of history." I direct you again to the words of Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Your other assumption is that the government is always lying as cannot be trusted. Well, right off the bat I see there is no hope argueing here, some people will only listen out of the ear that hears the news they like. Sure, there are these few little incidents that one might call "faked", however, they did not provide any inaccurate information, and there were no lies.

How do you know that? Have you seen them? I'd say their very existence was essentially a lie, as these phony broadcasts were set up simply to promote government agendas, not to actually provide in-depth, detailed analysis, and certainly not to deal with possible criticisms in any meaningful way. In other words, they could not be trusted by anyone with any intelligence. Frankly, your response here paints a pretty clear picture of how you think the world works. When they spew out sentences at press conferences, we're supposed to gobble it up without much critical thought, even when it's admitted that they use deceit to govern the public. That's defensible how? I am supposed to trust them how? By entering their world and leaving my brain outside the door, that's how. And offerings of cash could help ease my entry as well. That's how governments work. Hell, we're supposed to believe that if governments didn't exist we woudln't exist either. Of course they lie. There's no need for any further confusion on that one.

Quote by: The Black Ghost And once again, lets go back in history to something totally irrelevant.

Cambodia and Laos were good examples, and perfectly relevant to the question of America's supposed benevolent aims. I'll let somebody else take care of the rest.

Quote by: The Black Ghost If there is an outcry against Al-Queda, like I said already, it is an improvement! That is something that didnt happen by itself.

Nor did al-Qaeda happen by itself. It's creation enjoyed significant CIA and ISI support, among other factors.

Quote by: The Black Ghost We did not allow that to happen, because we have been fighting down and dirty for the last 6 years to stop it. Fine, so some terrorists got in after we uprooted Saddam, should we have left Saddam there to prevent that, even if somehow we had known it would happen? No! We fight the enemy wherever they are, we dont cower behind excuses and do nothing. If the terrorists got into the country, we will fight them in that country, and we did--successfully. Now the borders are protected again AND the dictator is eliminated.

We have been "fighting down and dirty" to prevent a situation we helped happen, and that plenty of analysts predicted would probably happen, including this one:
YouTube - Cheney in 1994 on Iraq

I don't think Saddam had to prevent al-Qaeda and other groups from running around in Iraq too much, simply because he was not a Western power trying to overthrow himself and occupy "holy Muslim land". He was a secularist (and relatively progressive compared to some of America's allies, like Saudi Arabia), but he was more concerned about maintaining Sunni and Baa'thist rule in his country.

I have to ask you: Do you believe in anything about the war that couldn't pass for Bush Administration propaganda? Because I don't think I could survive that. Is the Republican party your employer or something?

Quote by: The Black Ghost I cant beleive I hear this nonsense so much. Its ridiculous. "JIhad against the world"? You're so biased you shouldnt even be argueing this. To you, "America is evil" and "everyone who supports America is evil", is an absolute. If thats a given to you, then you're not even willing to hear logic. 20 or 30 years ago, a lot of things were different. As I said before, I dont call Medvedev a 'communist murderer' just because his predeccessors may have been. Then is not now.

No, it's not ridiculous. In fact, the statement "Jihad against the world" could be taken rather literally, given the sheer number of Islamic radicals supported by the United States over the years. In addition to the extremists in Afghanistan, US support (and I assume plenty of US tax dollars) have gone to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan's ISI, Kosovo's KLA, and the relatively more secular though still considered tyrannical Saddam Hussein. With that kind of track record, it's practically impossible to honsetly say a single positive thing about the US "preventing terrorism" in the world. I mean, we're talking about hypocrisy of the very highest calibre here. Saying we "prevent terrorism wherever we go" makes as much sense as Barack Obama joining the KKK. It's just stupid.

I don't know if those supporting America's agenda are "evil," but they sure ain't the saints they pretend to be.

As for your argument about changes within a span of 30 years, of course. A lot of things in the world have changed since yesterday. That doesn't mean yesterday didn't matter. Obviously the old Soviet rulers are gone, but the conseuqnces of their actions live on to the present day. And Medvedev, or anyone else, doesn't become less dangerous because he doesn't call himself "communist." So long as governments exist, so too does their capacity for destruction.

Quote by: The Black Ghost And while you keep talking about Vietnam--it is the epitome of a leftist propaganda victory... as they are essentially the reason the war was lost. Vietnam is the most misunderstood war of all, because it is written that way in our history books. However, many people of the time, especially the soldiers fighting in that war, can tell you the realities of what it was like. Its not like its portayed in the movies, and its not whats written in history books. When soldiers were interviewed as to why the war was lost--most of them said "politics". They werent allowed to do what needed to be done to win--forcing them to fight a defensive war which was bound to fail...

Plenty were in Vietnam who don't sing its praises. In fact, returning troops were, and still are, a large part of the anti-war movement. But that's largely besides the point. My simple point is, doesn't one have the obligation to free us of any unnecessary "propaganda victories," if possible? And that you call Vietnam a "propaganda victory" is actually very telling of your willingess to distort the order of events. The war was not designed by the anti-war movement as a means of defending itself in arguments and changing policy, though that's what calling it a "propaganda victory" implies. If anything, the anti-war movement actually tends to exaggerate the sense of loss that came with war, though probably not by much. It was "victory" only in the sense that less Americans were engaging in an unjust war, and that some people maintained their organization ever since. But they would have just as soon went without the war. Though the emphasis is on "hippies" and "radicals," much of the "regular" public was strongly against fighting. And, from what I understand, the media was largely just reporting news in a conventional, very pro-government way, just as it has done over the past couple of weeks.

Grandpa h.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa Nor did al-Qaeda happen by itself. It's creation enjoyed significant CIA and ISI support, among other factors.

Al-Queda was formed long after the Afghanistan war, and after the US had turned against the mujahadeen for its increasingly terrorist tactics and anti-western hatred. The original mujahadeen was a movement that was new at the time, and not fully understood by the US for what it would become as a symbol of the power of Islamic Resistance. At the time, it was considered "just another rebel group against communists", and there was little evidence to point to anything else. As their tactics increasingly grew towards Islamic Extremism, the US abandoned them, and even tried to cut their funding and weapons. This turned them against us.

We have been "fighting down and dirty" to prevent a situation we helped happen, and that plenty of analysts predicted would probably happen, including this one: YouTube - Cheney in 1994 on Iraq I don't think Saddam had to prevent al-Qaeda and other groups from running around in Iraq too much, simply because he was not a Western power trying to overthrow himself and occupy "holy Muslim land". He was a secularist (and relatively progressive compared to some of America's allies, like Saudi Arabia), but he was more concerned about maintaining Sunni and Baa'thist rule in his country. I have to ask you: Do you believe in anything about the war that couldn't pass for Bush Administration propaganda? Because I don't think I could survive that. Is the Republican party your employer or something?

And as I said, you're assumption that everything (including blatant facts) is propaganda is the reason you are unwilling to beleive it. Maybe it is because you are simply against the Republican Party, or do not beleive in foreign involvement. Maybe I just try to look at things from a perspective that is more logical than just reading the front page news...which happens to lead me to conclusions more similar to the Republican views than democratic veiws--which I would say are many times misinformed.

Saddam may have been a secularist, but if you think the US has been supporting terror groups for its own interests, you couldnt even begin to make a list for Saddam. He did not like Al-Queda, but as long as it was killing Westerners, he praised it, secretly, as did many others in his government. Not just AL-Queda, but many other organizations secretly used Iraq as a "middle ground" for staging operations elsewhere...and evidence shows that Saddam had knowledge of them but turned a blind eye. On the other side of the spectrum, he paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers 20k to kill Israelis and foreigners, and likely he did so for many other groups as well.

FOXNews.com - Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers - Opinion (this alone, to me, is reason to go to war and shows he was a state supporter of terrorism...not even to mention everything else he did)

No, it's not ridiculous. In fact, the statement "Jihad against the world" could be taken rather literally, given the sheer number of Islamic radicals supported by the United States over the years. In addition to the extremists in Afghanistan, US support (and I assume plenty of US tax dollars) have gone to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan's ISI, Kosovo's KLA, and the relatively more secular though still considered tyrannical Saddam Hussein. With that kind of track record, it's practically impossible to honsetly say a single positive thing about the US "preventing terrorism" in the world. I mean, we're talking about hypocrisy of the very highest calibre here. Saying we "prevent terrorism wherever we go" makes as much sense as Barack Obama joining the KKK. It's just stupid. I don't know if those supporting America's agenda are "evil," but they sure ain't the saints they pretend to be.

I realize that fact, and I think many people do. There have been many instances, historically, where the US or people in its administration have made significant or even small blunders. I dont think, however, that Iraq was as much of a blunder as it was a miscalculation based on incorrect evidence (provided by the CIA and other international agencies)

Supporting some groups over the years was a mistake, however, the status of these groups as "terrorists" has changed. Consider some of the original Mujahadeen, which were guerillas in Afghanistan who did not attack civilians or use terror tactics. They were "muslim warriors" but at the time, the US knew of no aspiration by them to create Islamic-run states. If they had known that they would take power, and turn to tyrannical and terrorist tactics later on, Im sure they wouldnt have been so willing to support them, regardless of whether the USSR was in Afghanistan (considering what happened in Iran not long before).

How do you know that? Have you seen them? I'd say their very existence was essentially a lie, as these phony broadcasts were set up simply to promote government agendas, not to actually provide in-depth, detailed analysis, and certainly not to deal with possible criticisms in any meaningful way. In other words, they could not be trusted by anyone with any intelligence. Frankly, your response here paints a pretty clear picture of how you think the world works. When they spew out sentences at press conferences, we're supposed to gobble it up without much critical thought, even when it's admitted that they use deceit to govern the public. That's defensible how? I am supposed to trust them how? By entering their world and leaving my brain outside the door, that's how. And offerings of cash could help ease my entry as well. That's how governments work. Hell, we're supposed to believe that if governments didn't exist we woudln't exist either. Of course they lie. There's no need for any further confusion on that one. As for your argument about changes within a span of 30 years, of course. A lot of things in the world have changed since yesterday. That doesn't mean yesterday didn't matter. Obviously the old Soviet rulers are gone, but the conseuqnces of their actions live on to the present day. And Medvedev, or anyone else, doesn't become less dangerous because he doesn't call himself "communist." So long as governments exist, so too does their capacity for destruction.

So essentially, you dont specificically have anything against the United States, just governments in general? All governments have the same capacity to do good or bad, I would argue that America does exponentially more good than bad, while it isnt perfect. That predisposition is something I cant fight, because its not part of this topic. Anarchy, however, is not a valid solution.

Plenty were in Vietnam who don't sing its praises. In fact, returning troops were, and still are, a large part of the anti-war movement. But that's largely besides the point. My simple point is, doesn't one have the obligation to free us of any unnecessary "propaganda victories," if possible? And that you call Vietnam a "propaganda victory" is actually very telling of your willingess to distort the order of events. The war was not designed by the anti-war movement as a means of defending itself in arguments and changing policy, though that's what calling it a "propaganda victory" implies. If anything, the anti-war movement actually tends to exaggerate the sense of loss that came with war, though probably not by much. It was "victory" only in the sense that less Americans were engaging in an unjust war, and that some people maintained their organization ever since. But they would have just as soon went without the war. Though the emphasis is on "hippies" and "radicals," much of the "regular" public was strongly against fighting. And, from what I understand, the media was largely just reporting news in a conventional, very pro-government way, just as it has done over the past couple of weeks. Grandpa h.

Vietnam is the most misunderstood and miscommunicated war (historically). Since we lost, those who were against the war were allowed to write its history, and the media latched on to an anti-war sentiment seen in most Vietnam War movies (most of which are entirely innaccurate).

For instance
-2/3 of the Vietnam War soldiers signed up to fight, versus only 1/3 in WW2.
-91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served.
-74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome
-Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations.
-87% of the American people hold Vietnam Vets in high esteem.

Facts About The Vietnam War
(just a few of many facts, however this is just one site of many) The facts are accurate, but it shows how far skewed our history on the subject has gone. If you want to talk about propaganda...read our "revised" history books courtesy of many uninformed morons.

Its sickening to see that so easily can the same thing be done about Iraq, and even Afghanistan, and obviously just war. Yet public sentiment is turning against it already, even when our casualties are negligable compared to past wars and our protection of the civilian population is better than ever. Yet STILL, our media can turn the minds of the people against all logic. It makes me sick.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Al-Queda was formed long after the Afghanistan war, and after the US had turned against the mujahadeen for its increasingly terrorist tactics and anti-western hatred. The original mujahadeen was a movement that was new at the time, and not fully understood by the US for what it would become as a symbol of the power of Islamic Resistance. At the time, it was considered "just another rebel group against communists", and there was little evidence to point to anything else. As their tactics increasingly grew towards Islamic Extremism, the US abandoned them, and even tried to cut their funding and weapons. This turned them against us.

Boy, are you wrong about the whole "ignorance of their origins" thing. In reality, America is one reason children are raised up as Muslim extremists today:

...Western motives become clearer when one recalls that it was the US that originally trained and armed the faction in Afghanistan - even “long before the USSR sent in troops” - which now constitutes the “leaders of Afghanistan”.[40] The record illustrates the existence of an ongoing relationship between the United States and the Taliban. AI reports that even though the “United States has denied any links with the Taleban”, according to then US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel Afghanistan was a “crucible of strategic interest” during the Cold War, though she denied any US influence or support of factions in Afghanistan today, dismissing any possible ongoing strategic interests. However, former Department of Defense official Elie Krakowski, who worked on the Afghan issue in the 1980s, points out that Afghanistan remains important to this day because it “is the crossroads between what Halford MacKinder called the world’s Heartland and the Indian sub continent. It owes its importance to its location at the confluence of major routes. A boundary between land power and sea power, it is the meeting point between opposing forces larger than itself. Alexander the Great used it as a path to conquest. So did the Moghuls. An object of competition between the British and Russian empires in the 19th century, Afghanistan became a source of controversy between the American and Soviet superpowers in the 20th. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has become an important potential opening to the sea for the landlocked new states of Central Asia. The presence of large oil and gas deposits in that area has attracted countries and multinational corporations... Because Afghanistan is a major strategic pivot what happens there affects the rest of the world.”[Goltz, Thomas, ‘The Caspian Oil Sweepstakes - A Great Game Replayed’, Jinn Magazine (online), Pacific News Service, San Francisco, 15 October 1997, Pacifc News Service Raphel’s denial of US interests in the region also stands in contradiction to the fact that, as AI reports, “many Afghanistan analysts believe that the United States has had close political links with the Taleban militia. They refer to visits by Taleban representatives to the United States in recent months and several visits by senior US State Department officials to Kandahur including one immediately before the Taleban took over Jalalabad.” The AI report refers to a comment by the Guardian: “Senior Taleban leaders attended a conference in Washington in mid-1996 and US diplomats regularly travelled to Taleban headquarters.” The Guardian points out that though such “visits can be explained”, “the timing raises doubts as does the generally approving line which US officials take towards the Taleban.”[Wall Street Journal, 23 May 1997.] Amnesty goes on to confirm that recent “accounts of the madrasas (religious schools) which the Taleban attended in Pakistan indicate that these [Western] links [with the Taleban] may have been established at the very inception of the Taleban movement. In an interview broadcast by the BBC World Service on 4 October 1996, Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto affirmed that the madrasas had been set up by Britain, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan during the Jihad, the Islamic resistance against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.”[New York Times, 26 May 1997] Similarly, former Pakistani Interior Minister, Major General (Retd) Naseerullah Babar, stated that “[The] CIA itself introduced terrorism in the region and is only shedding crocodiles tears to absolve itself of the responsibility.”[Fitchett, Joseph, ‘Worries Rise that Taleban May Try to Export Unrest’, International Herald Tribunal, 26 September 1998; also see Gall, Carlotta, ‘Dagestan Skirmish is a Big Russian Risk’, New York Times, 13 August 1999] In light of Brzezinski’s testimony, the establishment of this Western link with the Taliban - as well as other Afghan factions - was initiated even prior to the Soviet invasion. Similarly, Vidgen reports that “the corporate media have... remained silent in regard to America’s involvement in the promotion of terrorism. On the issue of right-wing terrorism, little has been reported. On America’s intelligence connection to ‘Islamic’ guerrillas (and their manipulation of Islam), nothing has been said. Yet, the truth is that amongst those who utilise religious faith to justify war, the majority are closer to Langley, Virginia, than they are to Tehran or Tripoli... In a move to recruit soldiers for the Afghanistan civil war, the CIA and Zia encouraged the region’s Islamic people to think of the conflict in terms of a jihad (holy war). Thus was fundamentalism promoted." [Stobdan, P., ‘The Afghan Conflict and Regional Security’, Strategic Analysis (journal of the Institute for Defence & Strategic Analysis [ISDA]), August 1999, Vol. XXIII, No. 5, p. 719-747]. Afghanistan, the Taliban and the United States (by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed) - Media Monitors Network

Maybe I missed a few things along the way, but that sums it up pretty well.

Quote by: The Black Ghost And as I said, you're assumption that everything (including blatant facts) is propaganda is the reason you are unwilling to beleive it. Maybe it is because you are simply against the Republican Party, or do not beleive in foreign involvement. Maybe I just try to look at things from a perspective that is more logical than just reading the front page news... which happens to lead me to conclusions more similar to the Republican views than democratic veiws--which I would say are many times misinformed.

Yet I'm the one providing more actual information. I didn't say propaganda can never be right, but in order for it to be accurate, it has to have facts that are verifiable, and preferably already verified from a wide variety of sources. And some things are simply reasonable to believe. I have a non-magical view of the military and of the world, which seems to bother you. And I think you have been misinformed, and willingly misinform yourself.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Saddam may have been a secularist, but if you think the US has been supporting terror groups for its own interests, you couldnt even begin to make a list for Saddam. He did not like Al-Queda, but as long as it was killing Westerners, he praised it, secretly, as did many others in his government. Not just AL-Queda, but many other organizations secretly used Iraq as a "middle ground" for staging operations elsewhere... and evidence shows that Saddam had knowledge of them but turned a blind eye. On the other side of the spectrum, he paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers 20k to kill Israelis and foreigners, and likely he did so for many other groups as well.

Here's another premise I don't buy. I don't think Saddam supporting families of Palestinian suicide bombers is any worse than the US arming Israel, or paying the families of its own soldiers who have died in a conflict. And, like I said, the US supported Saddam Hussein -- the anti-Christ in person -- anyway.
As Aaron Glantz pit it, "memories of the Reagan administration's support for Saddam linger in northern Iraq where 150,000 Kurdish refugees still lives in camps."
The Neil Rogers Show - News - Saddam Will Miss Old Buddy Reagan

And I should also mention Turkey, which has relied on US support to attack Kurds for years. I'm predicting that could also very much backfire. In fact, although Turkey is considered a "secular" society, they're not really much better than the Taliban. In addition to maintaining official denial of the Armenian genocide, they even went so far as to ban the Kurdish language at one point. But the US has supported them, dipolomatically and militarily., out of hopes for a strategic ally. I don't want America adopting such policies, and discourage others from doing so as well. But I'm sure China could similarly "liberate" Taiwan.

Quote by: The Black Ghost FOXNews.com - Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers - Opinion (this alone, to me, is reason to go to war and shows he was a state supporter of terrorism... not even to mention everything else he did)

As if Bush never backed a terror crusade. But I'm sure they will nail him (just kidding).

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost I realize that fact, and I think many people do. There have been many instances, historically, where the US or people in its administration have made significant or even small blunders. I dont think, however, that Iraq was as much of a blunder as it was a miscalculation based on incorrect evidence (provided by the CIA and other international agencies)

Someday I hope you really realize how terribly inappropriate what they were doing was.
How are things going now? Have we changed?
Consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 in his famous Four
Freedoms speech:
"The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms,
means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a
thorough manner that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of
physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world."

But we're actually flooding the world with weapons:
"U.S. government-to-government arms sales are on track to total as much as $40 billion in fiscal 2009, up from a bumper $36.4 billion last year, despite a sharp drop in oil prices that typically tracks with reduced demand, the Pentagon's top official for such deals said...."

Meanwhile:
"The New America Foundation, a nonprofit research group, has called on Obama....and the new U.S. Congress to consider multilateral efforts to curb 'destructive and destabilizing' weapons exports.
More than half of the top 25 U.S. arms purchasers in the developing world were 'undemocratic governments or regimes that engaged in major human rights abuses,' in 2006 and 2007, the foundation said in a report..."
U.S. arms sales seen booming in 2009 | Industry Summits | Reuters

It's hard to call these "blunders." To those making profit, it is very smart strategically. Obviously, plenty of Saddam-types also benefit.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Supporting some groups over the years was a mistake, however, the status of these groups as "terrorists" has changed. Consider some of the original Mujahadeen, which were guerillas in Afghanistan who did not attack civilians or use terror tactics. They were "muslim warriors" but at the time, the US knew of no aspiration by them to create Islamic-run states. If they had known that they would take power, and turn to tyrannical and terrorist tactics later on, Im sure they wouldnt have been so willing to support them, regardless of whether the USSR was in Afghanistan (considering what happened in Iran not long before).

Because I haven't been brainwashed, I look at it as a matter of fact that America knew who it was supporting, just like they've known who they are supporting in Saudi Arabia, or who they were supporting when they supported Saddam Hussein. As the article above noted, the US was very much in favor of the Islamic terrorist mentality. If they didn't know who they were supporting, then they were complete idiots and still deserve sharp criticism anyway. So, quite literally then, we're presented either with a government run by completely evil bastards or by stupid and ignorant "blunderers," or both. The point is, for a non-terrorist state we sure do support a lot of terror.

Quote by: The Black Ghost So essentially, you dont specificically have anything against the United States, just governments in general? All governments have the same capacity to do good or bad, I would argue that America does exponentially more good than bad, while it isnt perfect. That predisposition is something I cant fight, because its not part of this topic. Anarchy, however, is not a valid solution.

But supporting Islamic terrorists is? As Dwight Eisenhower once said:
"The people want peace; indeed, I believe they want peace so badly that the
governments will just have to step aside and let them have it."

I'm not saying there would never be a problem in an anarchist society, but nothing like what we're talking about. But, of course, a society can only do what its background would allow it to do.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Vietnam is the most misunderstood and miscommunicated war (historically). Since we lost, those who were against the war were allowed to write its history, and the media latched on to an anti-war sentiment seen in most Vietnam War movies (most of which are entirely innaccurate). For instance -2/3 of the Vietnam War soldiers signed up to fight, versus only 1/3 in WW2. -91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served. -74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome -Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from antiwar critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any attention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations. -87% of the American people hold Vietnam Vets in high esteem.

Again, tell all that to Vietnam veterans who opposed the war, who also lived it.

Grandpa h.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: Alpha_und_Omega 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.

Are you trying to say they are now in Syria? Because I dont believe there are any remaining in iraq unles they are burried in the desert somewhere.

[NoJingoLingo]

I only made it to post #3 and after reading it I realized that there is no debate to be had. If you think the future is bright because oil is flowing from Iraq then you can't be reasoned with.

[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa Boy, are you wrong about the whole "ignorance of their origins" thing. In reality, America is one reason children are raised up as Muslim extremists today:

Thats a pretty stupid thing to say. They would be extremists either way, its part of their culture (at least, the small percentage of militant Islam that controls the rest of the people, until we ousted them). Its not like, had we done things different, that wouldnt have happened. It happened anyways, it had probably existed before that too. And the Mujahadeen would have existed with or without US support. We simply tried to arm and coordinate them a little better for a short period during the war.

Yet I'm the one providing more actual information. I didn't say propaganda can never be right, but in order for it to be accurate, it has to have facts that are verifiable, and preferably already verified from a wide variety of sources. And some things are simply reasonable to believe. I have a non-magical view of the military and of the world, which seems to bother you. And I think you have been misinformed, and willingly misinform yourself.

Misinformed about what? The facts provided are accurate, and I dont know what you are saying, this "magical view" of the military and the world. I only beleive what is logical, neccesary, and ethically correct.

Here's another premise I don't buy. I don't think Saddam supporting families of Palestinian suicide bombers is any worse than the US arming Israel, or paying the families of its own soldiers who have died in a conflict. And, like I said, the US supported Saddam Hussein -- the anti-Christ in person -- anyway. As Aaron Glantz pit it, "memories of the Reagan administration's support for Saddam linger in northern Iraq where 150,000 Kurdish refugees still lives in camps."

The US support of Iraq was limited and bare-bones even when it was neccessary. We were never allies. It was more of "well, here we have the lesser of two evils, we will arm them to stop the other, then get rid of the lesser one later". In an ideal world we would have helped neither, and possibly fought against both. However, we had neither the resources nor capabilities to do that at the time, and we also had to look at things in the manner of actually getting something accomplished (which, we thought, would be the end of the Tehran regime) rather than trying to take on everyone at once.



I beleive, in hindisight, it was a mistake to do so. Politically, more than anything else. What happened to the Kurds would have happened anyways, there was nothing we could do to prevent that short of invading Iraq back then, which would probably have neccessitated the invasion of Iran at the same time.

And I should also mention Turkey, which has relied on US support to attack Kurds for years. I'm predicting that could also very much backfire. In fact, although Turkey is considered a "secular" society, they're not really much better than the Taliban. In addition to maintaining official denial of the Armenian genocide, they even went so far as to ban the Kurdish language at one point. But the US has supported them, dipolomatically and militarily., out of hopes for a strategic ally. I don't want America adopting such policies, and discourage others from doing so as well. But I'm sure China could similarly "liberate" Taiwan.

If you are comparing Taiwan to Iraq, then you are making a huge leap of judgement that doesnt make any sense. However, I will take that point for what it is.



Turkey has been a strategic point, as you say, like Saudi Arabia. As for the genocide, that is irrelevant because the government of Turkey now is not the same as that during the genocide 100 years ago...We have diplomatic negotiations with Germany now too, and they committed the worst genocide in history. The problem with the Kurds is probably Turkey's main point of failure, but recently (mainly at US urgings, I might add), they have been trying to correct their failures. That conflict is entirely different. The government of Turkey is A) secular B) democratic and C) for the most part, a fair and just system compared to its middle eastern counterparts.



The Kurds praise the US, and the US works well with them. We've helped them out unilaterally while helping Iraq and Turkey. The PKK are still a threat, but they have expressed willingness to talk peace.

As if Bush never backed a terror crusade. But I'm sure they will nail him (just kidding).

I dont know what you're trying to say there, but you must admit that Saddam had it coming.

Quote by: grandpa [selling weapons...] It's hard to call these "blunders." To those making profit, it is very smart strategically. Obviously, plenty of Saddam-types also benefit.

If you arent aware, our government does not control our military contractors. We regulate them, but in the end, we are a relatively free-market economy. The companies that do these military contracts are free to sell and run their businesses in other nations (most of which are part of NATO) without strict government control, however the US government does prohibit the selling of arms to certain nations. To say it these are the result of the government is unfair.

Because I haven't been brainwashed, I look at it as a matter of fact that America knew who it was supporting, just like they've known who they are supporting in Saudi Arabia, or who they were supporting when they supported Saddam Hussein. As the article above noted, the US was very much in favor of the Islamic terrorist mentality. If they didn't know who they were supporting, then they were complete idiots and still deserve sharp criticism anyway. So, quite literally then, we're presented either with a government run by completely evil bastards or by stupid and ignorant "blunderers," or both. The point is, for a non-terrorist state we sure do support a lot of terror.

Perhaps you are just brainwashing yourself with any material that suits your interests without regard to anything that does not. I have done this myself at times, so I dont blame you, but you seem to only look at the negatives, and emphasize them without end.

The US did not support terrorist mentalities, and anyone who did at any point in US history is not only un-American, but inhuman. In a mainly Christian, fairly conservative and in one of the most justice-seeking nations on the planet, I will not beleive that people in office would allow such actions if they had known what would become of them. Arming rebels was common practice for both sides back in the day, and in many people's eyes, we might need to use some less-savory people to help us in nations like Afghanistan where we really couldnt do anything.
We did not support any terrorist actions, and at the time as I said, they were considered freedom fighters, because they were a new force--not terrorists and Islamic extremists, which they became.

But supporting Islamic terrorists is? As Dwight Eisenhower once said: "The people want peace; indeed, I believe they want peace so badly that the governments will just have to step aside and let them have it." I'm not saying there would never be a problem in an anarchist society, but nothing like what we're talking about. But, of course, a society can only do what its background would allow it to do.

First of all, Eisenhower never would have supported a society without government. Government is order, and its cost thousands of years worth of fighting between thousands of different sides to create a relative order between 300-some nations on Earth.

Because naturally, if there is no order, it will return to chaos. Some societies might become peaceful, but others will not. Communities of people will band together, some of them will try to control others, grow their power. Without government, there is no justice system--justice is decided by whoever holds power. Morality would fail, along with moderate religions---moderate religions would die off and only extremists would be left in the world, who would weild great amounts of power....likely Islamic militants would rule most of Africa and a large part of Asia. Elsewhere, figures would rise up, conquering others....it would essentially be a return to the dark ages.

However (this may seem contradictory) I am a firm beleiver in the possibility of a structured post-multiple-government-world society, where there would be relative laissez-faire throughout society so long as everyone follower certain guidelines and didnt upset the peace. It would take a one-world-order to establish this though, becase even one other nation outside of this concept would ruin it for the rest of us. It has to be everything or nothing.

Again, tell all that to Vietnam veterans who opposed the war, who also lived it. Grandpa h.

Well, Im sure a fair number did oppose it, but a larger number probably saw its purpose--to defend the South Vietnamese people, and to keep their political freedoms from communist rule (granted, I dont want to say stopping communism alone is a good cause to fight, except for the fact that they were taking over by force, rather than through peaceful means)

[soothsayer]

If you think the future is bright because oil is flowing from Iraq then you can't be reasoned with.

Oil flowing from Iraq does indeed signal a "bright future"... but for whom?

[The American]

Quote by: grandpa That doesn't "outweigh the outcome" because it was the outcome. Even if somehow "History will smile on us," it doesn't mean a thing to those frowned upon by the direct circumstances of existing policy. Grandpa h.

What would have been the outcome based on Iraq's future under circumstances of endless sanctions? Sanctions destroyed the Iraqi people. They suffered under the corruption of U.N. programs such as the Food for Oil programs. The people of Iraq didn't get relief from that. Government dictatorship profitted.

Who knows the outcome now? You can bet your bottom dollar, we, and with the help of quite a few number of the coalition forces in the war on terror, 26 to be exact, followed us and supported us in both wars. I find it quite odd, with an exception of very few, allies involved in U.N. corrupt programs, did not follow the decision to remove hussein at the time the decision was to be made. It is Saddam's forced hand that sealed his own fate. However, let me ask you, had Hussein allowed inspections to be continued in reasonable time, instead of over a decade, the war could have been possibly avoided?

Maybe it is a possibility. But then he would have to decide how to handle his enemies knowing he was stripped of defense? Fat chance of that. Iraq and Iran was never buddy buddies. I read something somewhere on that, I think it was implied in an interview, I could look it up again if you like.

Not very many in Iraq thought he was that great. They convicted and hung him I remember?

Just as the enemy of my enemy is my friend, turned to be dangerous thought, so would be enemies support each other in the the removal of a common enemy of each. Hussein was not above financing terror. He came to power through terror. I would say, his country, and the world is better off with him gone.


Trig.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: The American What would have been the outcome based on Iraq's future under circumstances of endless sanctions? .

Not to mention another generation of Iraqis under the rule of Uday or Qusay.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Thats a pretty stupid thing to say. They would be extremists either way, its part of their culture (at least, the small percentage of militant Islam that controls the rest of the people, until we ousted them). Its not like, had we done things different, that wouldnt have happened. It happened anyways, it had probably existed before that too. And the Mujahadeen would have existed with or without US support. We simply tried to arm and coordinate them a little better for a short period during the war.

...which is similar to saying, "it is as it should be, so let's arm these people anyway." The simple point is that it is very hypocritical and destructive to arm militant Muslims while "fighting militant Islam". That's like fighting hunger by letting everyone starve. The significance of either plan is not small, and they sound almost like racial plans at the same time.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Misinformed about what? The facts provided are accurate, and I dont know what you are saying, this "magical view" of the military and the world. I only beleive what is logical, neccesary, and ethically correct.

You misinformed in the sense that all creationists are misinformed. You assume you are right no matter how much contradictory evidence exists, then you cry and moan about my undermining your efforts to hoodwink others out of applying elementary logic. Hence I referred to your "magical view" about US militarism that arms the very people it claims to be fighting against. To deny the significance of this is no better than applying mental hocus pocus. You express a lot of faith in militarism, but its real impact is barely even partly understood.

Quote by: The Black Ghost The US support of Iraq was limited and bare-bones even when it was neccessary. We were never allies. It was more of "well, here we have the lesser of two evils, we will arm them to stop the other, then get rid of the lesser one later". In an ideal world we would have helped neither, and possibly fought against both. However, we had neither the resources nor capabilities to do that at the time, and we also had to look at things in the manner of actually getting something accomplished (which, we thought, would be the end of the Tehran regime) rather than trying to take on everyone at once.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. It's all about class struggle. The US was, and still is, just another big, fat pig at the trough. Like over there, we are expected
to stand by the leaders right or wrong, while never taking responsibility for our role.

Quote by: The Black Ghost I beleive, in hindisight, it was a mistake to do so. Politically, more than anything else. What happened to the Kurds would have happened anyways, there was nothing we could do to prevent that short of invading Iraq back then, which would probably have neccessitated the invasion of Iran at the same time.

The point is, if America relishes the opportunity to support
democratic movements in the Islamic world, it should stop doing what it is doing, which is largely the complete opposite. But the militarists profit from doing this. Soldiers and mercenaries go in and destroy a country, then companies charge obscene amounts of tax-payer money for slapping one brick on another in the repairs.

Quote by: The Black Ghost If you are comparing Taiwan to Iraq, then you are making a huge leap of judgement that doesnt make any sense. However, I will take that point for what it is.

China could invade Taiwan, and your arguments could be used to justify the war, and they would be just as right.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Turkey has been a strategic point, as you say, like Saudi Arabia. As for the genocide, that is irrelevant because the government of Turkey now is not the same as that during the genocide 100 years ago... We have diplomatic negotiations with Germany now too, and they committed the worst genocide in history. The problem with the Kurds is probably Turkey's main point of failure, but recently (mainly at US urgings, I might add), they have been trying to correct their failures. That conflict is entirely different. The government of Turkey is A) secular B) democratic and C) for the most part, a fair and just system compared to its middle eastern counterparts.

If Turkey's official denial of the Armenian genocide is irrelevant, than so is Ahmadinejad's denial of the holocaust. Fair is fair. The US also has had close ties with Pakistan, often charged with state sanctioned genocide against Hindus. These people probably don't care about rationalizations or statistics, just like hundreds of thousands of Soviet victims didn't care about rationalzations or statistics. You know, brains and computers are different. We're not always going to cooly stand by while "operations" are taking place. Sometimes we'll take up arms and fight our attackers, whoever they are. That's a danger to war, and a reason behind the saying, "war begets war." You can call Turkey a "secular, democratic republic" all you want, but it doesn't change what it actually does.

Quote by: The Black Ghost The Kurds praise the US, and the US works well with them. We've helped them out unilaterally while helping Iraq and Turkey. The PKK are still a threat, but they have expressed willingness to talk peace.

Say what you will, but Turkey is still a divided nation, thanks partly to crucial US support.

Quote by: The Black Ghost If you arent aware, our government does not control our military contractors. We regulate them, but in the end, we are a relatively free-market economy. The companies that do these military contracts are free to sell and run their businesses in other nations (most of which are part of NATO) without strict government control, however the US government does prohibit the selling of arms to certain nations. To say it these are the result of the government is unfair.

So, essentially, what you are saying is these military contractors have no interests that are political and military in nature. Even if that were entirely true, that wouldn't make them better. It would simply make them opportunistic scoundrels. But I think they've produced some influential
"social engineers", for lack of a better term, to help them operate. And, despite your attempts to portray them in a purely benevolent way, there is no reason to believe that those benefitting from warfare believe we should be able to live our own lives and pursue our own destinies without fear of poverty or persecution. They thrive off of poverty and persecution, and they add to it every day.

Quote by: The Black Ghost The US did not support terrorist mentalities, and anyone who did at any point in US history is not only un-American, but inhuman. In a mainly Christian, fairly conservative and in one of the most justice-seeking nations on the planet, I will not beleive that people in office would allow such actions if they had known what would become of them. Arming rebels was common practice for both sides back in the day, and in many people's eyes, we might need to use some less-savory people to help us in nations like Afghanistan where we really couldnt do anything. We did not support any terrorist actions, and at the time as I said, they were considered freedom fighters, because they were a new force--not terrorists and Islamic extremists, which they became.

Well, we already do support Saudi Arabia, often described as the center of Wahabbist Islam. So, if the real issue is denial of rights, the US could start by ending that supportive relationship.

I should remind you that the objections to overthrowing Saddam were pretty general. George H. W. Bush said in his 1998 book "A World Transformed" that doing so "could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability." So, obviously, seeing the danger of it was not to be "liberal" or
"conservative," but to have at least half a brain. Was father Bush being serious? I don't know. But I can say that he made sense in that specific statement. He could have predicted similar things while we were in Kosovo. When people objected to the Iraq War, the reasons they were seeing
"made sense," and Iraq did indeed become a considerably bigger disaster than it had been. That's what we discovered, just as predicted. Similarly, one could have predicted something like the attacks in New York and Washington in response to US invasions abroad.

Quote by: The Black Ghost First of all, Eisenhower never would have supported a society without government. Government is order, and its cost thousands of years worth of fighting between thousands of different sides to create a relative order between 300-some nations on Earth.

State government is the most effective way to smother civil society. That's implied by the very fact of having the rulers and the ruled.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Because naturally, if there is no order, it will return to chaos. Some societies might become peaceful, but others will not. Communities of people will band together, some of them will try to control others, grow their power. Without government, there is no justice system--justice is decided by whoever holds power. Morality would fail, along with moderate religions---moderate religions would die off and only extremists would be left in the world, who would weild great amounts of power.... likely Islamic militants would rule most of Africa and a large part of Asia. Elsewhere, figures would rise up, conquering others.... it would essentially be a return to the dark ages.

Ah, moments of truth.

It's not "chaos" to oppose tyranny. If you're really concerned about this, I recommend you take a few hours out of your day and read up on anarchism. I can forward some classic writings if you want. Whether you like it or not, anarchism does not mean "justice is decided by whoever holds power." That is in fact the opposite of mainstream anarchist theory, which is in favor of the elimination of all positions of elite power. So there could be no Islamic warlords if anarchists had their way, as those types would have no followers and would effectively cease to exist. In fact, governments are the best way to assure Islamic militarists, and other tyrants, can stay in power. However, just like logic can infiltrate the "armor of God," it can do away with the God that is the almighty, omnipotent State.
And I take your dire warnings with a grain of salt, seeing as to how you think the Iraq War is a bowl of cherries.

Consider this example, written about in 1994, to see what I mean:
"Algeria is ruled by a collective presidency in the
form of the five-man High Council of State (HCS). It assumed
power when normal political activity was suspended in January
1992 on the cancellation of the general elections, which the
fundamentalist Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) was poised to win.
Since then the crisis has deepened..."
(Source: The World Bank)

My position?
Neither side would be legitimate, because they both desired to impose their wills on a population.

Quote by: The Black Ghost However (this may seem contradictory) I am a firm beleiver in the possibility of a structured post-multiple-government-world society, where there would be relative laissez-faire throughout society so long as everyone follower certain guidelines and didnt upset the peace. It would take a one-world-order to establish this though, becase even one other nation outside of this concept would ruin it for the rest of us. It has to be everything or nothing.

This reveals nothing but the possibility of nothing new. It is the same destructive trend we're already familiar with. Oddly enough, I happen to agree with Alan Greenspan that "The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves." Of course, he leaves out the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, the state should also not protect "the owners of wealth." I think we must try harder to protect our own interests, not the interests of our would-be masters.

Quote by: The Black Ghost Well, Im sure a fair number did oppose it, but a larger number probably saw its purpose--to defend the South Vietnamese people, and to keep their political freedoms from communist rule (granted, I dont want to say stopping communism alone is a good cause to fight, except for the fact that they were taking over by force, rather than through peaceful means)

People should flock to your posts to see what they're up against, I think. You suggest that we should resist oppression through peaceful means, while you support oppressive means to "police" the world.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The American What would have been the outcome based on Iraq's future under circumstances of endless sanctions? Sanctions destroyed the Iraqi people.

I haven't defended the sanctions. As to the outcomes of not invading, I cannot really say much other than how it could have been up to the real Iraq specialists -- Iraqis themselves. Now that they've been a country destroyed, they will have to be the ones to rebuild anyway.

Grandpa h.