The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

I'm saying that you can't have it both ways. Either the troops are responsible and they are "heroes" if things go well and they are "baby killers" if things go bad. So far of the comments i've seen "supporting the troops" means actually "not blaming the troops".

As I said, you can't have it both ways. Either they are responsible for both the good and the bad or they are not responsible for it at all.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 29 2003,08:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm saying that you can't have it both ways. Either the troops are responsible and they are "heroes" if things go well and they are "baby killers" if things go bad. So far of the comments i've seen "supporting the troops" means actually "not blaming the troops".

As I said, you can't have it both ways. Either they are responsible for both the good and the bad or they are not responsible for it at all.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you refering to comments on this website?...or where? (I admit, I have not read even 1/3 of the posts on this thread)

I will go on record to say, that I support the troops, I support the war, and I support my President.

And if they do something wrong or criminal...absolutely they are responsible for it

That being said...

The Coalition forces have gone to great lengths to avoid collateral damage, to suggest they have not is assinine.

If they did not care about collateral damage, they would have already obliterated all of the areas that are giving them problems right now.

The fact is...war does not happen like in the movies, people die...and when military forces are mingled with civilians, bad things are going to happen.

In a perfect world, there would be no war.

But this world is not perfect.

(edited to add: I dont know for sure if I am comprehending you statement exactly correct, and if my statement was relevent to it)

[Longinius 1]

"im willing to bet if japan didnt get involved the US would have don nothing as britian fell, and ither germany takes over russia or russia takes over germany and rest of europe."

Well, obviously the US government at that time realised something you dont. That they had no choice. Japanese or not, if Germany would have taken Europe, they would be at war soon enough. Only if Germany had taken Europe, America would not have any allies to join with.

The Japanese actually served a purpose for the US government, they gave them an excuse to enter the war and get the support of the US public at the same time.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

The U.S. had been supplying Britain and other contries with War Materiel even as the Wehrmacht was rolling over Europe and Eyeing the British Isles. Roosevelt wanted to get involved from the get go, IIRC, but public opinon was strongly against it, and so they didn't.

I think most of us can agree to disagree. I think we can all agree that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing, even if the way we're going about it isn't.

That said, there are some on both sides who are quite noble in their ideals an intentions, and some who aren't.

Just as an example, I have great respect for the Anti-War movement. You may not always think so from my posts, but I seriously do. I do not always agree with it, but I respect it, and the people who advocate it. That said, there will always be a few people like this:

"The anti-war site Indybay.org features this photo of anit-war protesters in San Francisco on March 13, 2003."

And unfortunately, both sides have them. In any agruement. Almost anywhere you go in the world.

I don't even remember what my point was, it just really irks me.

[bn880 5]

What's the problem with you english speaking folks... support the troops means literally you want your tax money to go to their ammunition, vehicles, training, bandages etc. Or that you are in Iraq as an engineer, medic, preist etc.

It can be stretched to a moral support, in which case it must extend to Iraqi troops as well, because htey are just soldiers too. Besides that, 100% illogical to use the line "I support the troops".

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 28 2003,21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tovarish ,

I agree US did setup some puppet goverments.However those were in the communist years.When everyone was scared of a communist.Atlleast give me something recent.Like 1990 until now.<span id='postcolor'>

Back then communists were the boogeyman, and the US used that fear to excuse some pretty immoral actions. Replace communists with terrorists and that statement still applies today.

[bn880 5]

I think what Tovarish just said should be obvious to everyone by now.

Since this is a political thread

http://bangladesh-web.com/news/mar/26/ir26032003.htm

I must say I agree with a lot of what's written in these articles.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

This is diverting the course of this discussion but anyway...

The universality of the phrase 'supporting the troops' is part of the reason for its widespread use.

In a job where death is a real risk 'support' can mean many things to many people. Maybe campaigning to bring the troops home is support. Maybe just letting them know that we wish them well is support. Maybe its praying for their quick victory (for religious people).

Who would argue against 'supporting' the fire fighters or the nurses in their job?

So who can argue against supporting the troops of their country?

Our taxes pay for them. They act on behalf of our government. They are not responible for the politics behind the war.

However some opinions would not be regarded as supportive   and its not difficult to have some idea what they might be.

The war is now an ongoing fact. That troops do not tend to like losing wars is another fact (certainly in the case of the coalition here). Therefore to wish to see the western allies lose this war militarily is clearly not to support them.

So what are the military aims of the US/UK/AUS troops?

There are many strands ,a few broad aims have been

expressed but its actually been hotly debated and this gets to the root of the problem for many. People still just dont know what this war is really about. They are unsure why America and Britain are acting this way. The people who are sure tend to be either firmly supportive or firmly against.

Im sure oil is a factor, im sure the cruelty of Iraqs government is a factor, im sure the threat posed by WMD is a factor, im sure the threat to Israel is a factor , the domino effect of democracy in the middle east may be a factor. Who knows which of these are primary and which secondary?

I dont know. It could well be money, oil and Israeli security motivating TBA as many left wingers and many europeans find it simple to believe.

But then this war might well inflame arab opinion such that concessions must be made by Israel on the palestinean issue  and theres no apparent guarantee that a democratic Iraq wouldnt increase trade with the EU instead. Further, its at least slightly conceivable that pro-western pro-american governments might be toppled by their people because of this war.

Given all of that you might think that only national security could make all of those risks bearable for the US. But of course this war could well increase terrorism and certainly hostility to the interests of the belligerents. A more democratic Iraq might be inclined towards militant fundamentalist Islam (i personally doubt this) .It may encourage other weak states to speed up NBC weapons production and have other negative effects.

Then it might be for the good of the Iraqi people, to free them from their regime and undo the mistakes of the past. But then this hasnt been brought to the fore fully really until the war began and this war could make Iraq less stable ,start (more) civil wars and increase the suffering of the Iraqi people (especially if a lot continue to fight).

Then again it might just be that Iraq does have NBC weapons and was planning to attack america with them by using third parties. It might be that a great new democratic state in the middle east springs up after the initial difficulties and makes the region much safer and more prosperous place. It might be that oil from Iraq keeps the US economy on a high and the democracy of Iraq helps to foster better relations between the muslim world and the west.

I dont know for certain.Given all of this im not surprised that people have some difficulty separating the good from the bad, the supportable from the unsupportable. If someone is not from one of the belligerant nations i can see loyalties could be rather abstract. Nonetheless it is rather jarring to think that many people in supposed allied countries of europe might be explicitly or implicitly wishing for the coalition endeavour to fail even as EU citizens are dieing on the battlefield. Its a strange situation.

I just know that i dont want people from my country coming home in body bags, i dont want a humanitarian disaster in the region, i dont want increased terrorism and hatred

and now that its begun

i dont want Saddam Hussein to win this bloody war.

[DarkLight 0]

Looks like the war isn't going as planned, not just the fighting but also several villages don't have any more food or water ever since the war began. I bet they are pretty pissed off, for 12 days they and their kids have had barely anything to drink. I even saw some guy begging a journalist to sell him a bottle of water for 40 euros! (about 40 dollars)

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I agree Darklight. There are serious problems getting enough water into the region or repairing existing facilities(many still in disputed or Iraqi held territory). Every day we are seeing a steady stream of people leaving Basra (with max-60% water supplies) partly to get away from the fighting but to a large extent to get water.

I am concerned that the diplomatic situation has not improved. The Ba'ath regime may feel emboldened by the political climate in the world and especially in the region. If the Iraqi people believe Saddam will win and has international support, it will make it a lot harder for the coalition to win their support. In fact the more it seems that the coalition will not get a decisive victory ,the more it becomes a self fullfilling prophesy as local people become afraid of enraging their local Ba'ath party people knowing that they may be there to stay (and not deposed).

I think the British are doing their best to make an impact by explictly targeting the party apparatus. Yes including statues. It may have some positive effect...but it remains to be seen. It relies on how the Iraqi people think things will play out...and how much they trust the coaltion people in their vicinity. To have a major part of a major war such as this rely on something as nebulous as local peoples perception of the situation and loyalties is somewhat worrying.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 28 2003,23:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree Darklight. There are serious problems getting enough water into the region or repairing existing facilities(many still in disputed or Iraqi held territory). Every day we are seeing a steady stream of people leaving Basra (with max-60% water supplies) partly to get away from the fighting but to a large extent to get water.

I am concerned that the diplomatic situation has not improved. The Ba'ath regime may feel emboldened by the political climate in the world and especially in the region. If the Iraqi people believe Saddam will win and has international support, it will make it a lot harder for the coalition to win their support. In fact the more it seems that the coalition will not get a decisive victory ,the more it becomes a self fullfilling prophesy as local people become afraid of enraging their local Ba'ath party people knowing that they may be there to stay (and not deposed).  

I think the British are doing their best to make an impact by explictly targeting the party apparatus. Yes including statues. It may have some positive effect...but it remains to be seen. It relies on how the Iraqi people think things will play out...and how much they trust the coaltion people in their vicinity. To have a major part of a major war such as this rely on something as nebulous as local peoples perception of the situation and loyalties is somewhat worrying.<span id='postcolor'>

What is also true is that due to the war a lot of people don't have food, water, electricity, etc.

I bet this won't be very good for the US's popularity!

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 28 2003,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I love how GWB says NK is a problem for that area of the world to deal with. If thats so then what the hell is Iraq?

and will you PLEASE stop trying to tie Saddam to 9/11 in order to drum up support for the war.<span id='postcolor'>

I know it's a stretch, but I figured I just point his out, from

Human Rights Watch

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">PUK officials have repeatedly accused Ansar al-Islam of having links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, and that its members included Arabs of various nationalities who had received military training in Afghanistan. The PUK also said some fifty-seven "Arab Afghan" fighters had entered Iraqi Kurdistan via Iran in mid-September 2001. While Human Rights Watch did not investigate these alleged links, the testimonies of villagers who had fled Biyara and Tawela and were interviewed in September 2002 appeared to support this contention. A number of them, including former detainees, said that there were foreigners among Ansar al-Islam forces, that on occasion they were interrogated by non-Iraqis speaking various Arabic dialects, and that they had heard other languages spoken that they did not recognize.

Scores of Iraqi Kurds affiliated to Ansar al-Islam, including key leaders, consider themselves veterans of the Afghan war. They had spent time in Afghanistan, initially fighting against Soviet forces during the 1980s. Representatives of other Iraqi Kurdish Islamist groups who maintain links with Ansar al-Islam told Human Rights Watch that a small number of Iraqi Kurds affiliated to the group had also fought alongside the Taliban, and that they then returned to Iraqi Kurdistan following the latter's defeat.<span id='postcolor'>

Concrete evidence? No, not at all. But you know, al-Qaeda ay not like Saddam, but I wouldn't go scoffing at the possibility of an al-Qaeda/Ansar al-Islam link right out of hand.

[Bernadotte 0]

The Newark-Zurich leg of my return flight had fewer than 40 passengers on board.  Everyone had their own 3-seat center row to spread out on and I'd bet that more than a few couples were able to become new members of the "mile-high" club.

Continental Airlines says they'll survive, but Delta says their days are now certainly numbered.  Of course, the Whitehouse knew that their decision to invade Iraq would cost America one of its largest companies and thousands of jobs (not to mention the lives of so many allied soldiers and Iraqi civilians and the countless billions of tax dollars that could have gone into the US health care system... etc... etc...).

So, what do the American, British and Australian people get in return for all this sacrifice?  I certainly know what George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, Peter Rodman, Dov Zachkeim, John Bolton, David Wurmser, John Hannah, Elliott Abrams and their families will get out of it.

Let's just take Richard Perle for example.  Sure, he had to resign this week from leading the Pentagon's defence advisory board that would have decided on a Global Crossing deal that would have (and probably still will) put $750,000 into his own pocket.  But did you know this?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Amid general stock market jitters, one British company linked to the American hawk Richard Perle and dealing with secret intelligence is among the few UK commercial organisations that stand to profit from the Iraq war and its accompanying worldwide terrorist alert.  -- Guardian<span id='postcolor'>

And this...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Two weeks ago the New Yorker detailed a lunch that Perle had taken with Saudi arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi, at which he allegedly implied he would temper his criticism of the House of Saud in exchange for investment in a new security and defence investment firm with which he is involved.<span id='postcolor'>

And this...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perle advised a major US satellite maker, Loral Space and Communications, as it faced government accusations that it improperly transferred rocket technology to China.<span id='postcolor'>

And you thought this was only about oil.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 29 2003,08:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm saying that you can't have it both ways. Either the troops are responsible and they are "heroes" if things go well and they are "baby killers" if things go bad. So far of the comments i've seen "supporting the troops" means actually "not blaming the troops".

As I said, you can't have it both ways. Either they are responsible for both the good and the bad or they are not responsible for it at all.<span id='postcolor'>

I believe they are responsible, for both the good and the bad, but it's a tricky line to walk.

"Just following orders" isn't an excuse, as many leanred in Nuremberg, but on the other hand, soldiers can't just follow the orders they like and ignore the ones they don't without serious consequences.

I believe the soldiers are responsible for what they do over there, but Bush is also responsible for what happens, as the Commander-in-Chief, and the one who put into motion the events that sent them there.

I just need to say this becuase it almost seemed like you were saying "either Bush is responsible, or the soldiers are", which, you didn't say, but I couldn't help but infer it, and thus, felt I needed to respond.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 30 2003,07:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you thought this was only about oil.  <span id='postcolor'>

Then the first Gulf War broke out, my High school Social Studies teacher was a stock broker. As soon as he heard that Iraq had invaded Kuwait, he sank lots of money into defence and weapons stocks and appearently made a nice little nest-egg from it.

IT's a different scenario, but here will always be opportunists who use conflict for their own personal gain.

Reading all that doesn't change my opinion of the war much.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ Mar. 30 2003,08:o1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reading all that doesn't change my opinion of the war much.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm told that all those pro-war hawks I listed above are commonly referred to as "chickenhawks" because they all found ways to avoid service in Vietnam.  (Btw, I haven't been able to verify this entirely.)

In any case, if George Bush would tell the American people a bit more about all the verified business interests he and his admin have in this invasion and a bit less about all the unverified threats of WMD and Al-Qaida connections then quite a few people might form new opinions about the war - even if yours would remain unchanged.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Mar. 30 2003,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But did you know this?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, saw it on Friday. Also saw the earlier article on Perle a week ago leading up to his resignation. And, indeed, he did resign.

I still don't think that Washington went to war so that a few fellows at the top could line their pockets with stocks and options.

I wish some of your local favorites could have Perle's integrity - but they don't and never will.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 30 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I still don't think that Washington went to war so that a few fellows at the top could line their pockets with stocks and options.<span id='postcolor'>

Neither do I.  So let's wait and see what else the investigations will turn up.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 30 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wish some of your local favorites could have Perle's integrity - but they don't and never will.<span id='postcolor'>WTF are you rambling on about now?

[Bernadotte 0]

Some War Predictions:

Saddam Hussein is dispersing/hiding his forces and armament throughout Iraq like the Taliban did in SE Afghanistan, but on a much larger scale.

The Allies will be allowed to enter Baghdad relatively unopposed.  

Saddam Hussein and his chiefs will go into hiding like Mullah Omar did in Afghanistan.

Many Iraqis will resist the Allied occupation as the Afghans did against the Soviets, with the help of factions in neighbouring states like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.  This will accelerate in the second half of this year with the loss of many Allied and civilian lives.

The US will use evidence of Iranian and Syrian interference to pursue invading those nations.

Evidence of Saudi involvement will force the Saudi regime to crack down on their Islamic militants with US assistance just like in Iran in the '70s.  The US will occupy the Saudi oil fields to avoid the same outcome as what happened in Iran.

I hope I'm wrong.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

A lot of Bush's upper staff got exemptions from Vietnam. Can't remember all of them, though I remember Dick Cheney was one.

As for your predictions, I agree with the first and third, but I believe Saddam will use the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard to buy some time for his escape, at staggering cost for both sides.

I think more countries like Canada, who stayed out of the war will take part in the rebuilding, but that the attacks on Coaliton personnel are likely.

I think it equally likely that the U.S. will use those attakcs as a springboard into Iran and Syria, as they are to pull out forces and rely a bit more on proxies.

[-Siegfried- 0]

BTW does any of you guys know if the embedded reporters are subject to any type of censorship? I mean, I know that they cannot disclose information that can compromise the troops, but can the Pentagon let's say not allow them to report how many soldiers die or material losses?

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (-Siegfried- @ Mar. 29 2003,16:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW does any of you guys know if the embedded reporters are subject to any type of censorship? I mean, I know that they cannot disclose information that can compromise the troops, but can the Pentagon let's say not allow them to report how many soldiers die or material losses?<span id='postcolor'>

Notice that the press that get protection are British and American press.

Yesterday they showed a video on TV of an Iraqi man begging a reporter to show the world what's really going on, he claimed that the press lies about the war and that they didn't have any food or water since the war started. Their village was "rescued" about 12 days ago and they hadn't had any food or water for 12 days.

You don't see this kinda stuff a lot on TV but i'm sure it all exists... more then we think or want to think.

This was filmed by a Belgian crew who didn't get any protection, soldiers acted pretty angry towards them... i wonder why...

I knew this would happen, go back a lot of pages and you might find what i've posted. It was so obvious that this would happen. Worst part is that the "allied" invaders think Europe should help getting food overthere. Sure, we need to help them but i get pretty angry when i see that a country invades first and then realizes that they can't give food to everyone.

Of course we will transport water and food, that's normal, but i still think it's pretty stupid that we need to transport food while we never asked for this war. Oh well... the war has started, we might better help the ppl now that it's too late anyway...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (-Siegfried- @ Mar. 30 2003,16:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW does any of you guys know if the embedded reporters are subject to any type of censorship? I mean, I know that they cannot disclose information that can compromise the troops, but can the Pentagon let's say not allow them to report how many soldiers die or material losses?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. I listened two days ago to an interview with BBC's news director. She said that there was a good side and a bad side to the embedded reporter system. The good side was that they could get direct reporting from where the action is. The bad side was that everything they wanted to report had to be approved by the military press liaison officer and that reports were heavily censored.

So yes, they are indeed subject to censorship.

[Longinius 1]

"Yes. I listened two days ago to an interview with BBC's news director. She said that there was a good side and a bad side to the embedded reporter system. The good side was that they could get direct reporting from where the action is. The bad side was that everything they wanted to report had to be approved by the military press liaison officer and that reports were heavily censored.

So yes, they are indeed subject to censorship."

That's just bull, Denoir. Because people on this forum have told us time and time again that America advocates freedom of speech and freedom of press, and the government does NOT decide what does or does not end up in the news...

</sarcasm>

[-Siegfried- 0]

Thanks for your replies, Denoir and Darlight. I asked that question because I was having a chat with a friend and I said that the embedded reporters were subject to censorship but he [my friend] claimed that one Swedish journalist, who is embedded in a Coalition unit, said his information is not being censored.... I thought this was a bit odd...