War crimes by US troops

[PunkMaister]

When you two are yelling at each other, you aren't getting anything across to each other. I understand this is an emotionally intense topic, but we aren't going to get anywhere by appealing to emotions.

If I may?

Domestically, from the American point of view - soldiers or civilians - the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam are very different. The rhetoric was different, and there were draftees being sent. Vietnam was a strategic quagmire that lasted many years and involved a war with two clearly identified combatants (N. and S. Vietnam), at least at the start. To PunkMaister, the ideologies being talked about are different, and that is important.

From a global point of view, however, both look quite similar. American troops are sent in to a small country (25 million people or so), defense contractors and other corporate interests get rich, and lots of the natives of that country die as the US attempts to impose a political structure and control the smaller country against the will of its own populace. To Mr. Oragahn, all the talk about this or that ideology is just that - talk, with little relation to the real meanings or motives.

What will make the most difference in how historians from all schools view the current war in Iraq, and whether they call it the same or different from the Vietnam war, will depend on what happens next. But for now, historians judging the start of the war will have little trouble finding common ground between Bush's justifications for starting a war and the Tonkin Gulf resolution.

I agree that how the war in Iraq started has some resemblance to how Vietnam started but only some and here is why.

Vietnam never, ever attacked the US homeland. And while it can be argued that Iraq did not attack the US their fellow muslims did attack it and savagely so on 9/11 and from then on sadly but surely Saddam's days were counting down as the US began to mobilize it's war machine. The U.S and Iraq had been grinding axes against each other since the end of the first gulf war and that is no secret. It is no secret that just a few years before 9/11 Saddam had kicked the international inspectors out and just about everyone was concerned about him redeveloping his weapons programs which is evidenced by all the resolutions that were passed against Iraq up 'till the US 2nd invasion of that country.

The only ones that got rich out of this were the weapons developers...

[2046]

Ah, emotion and ignorance.
Fantastic tools.

Fact is, your brother knows shit and he's not asked to give his opinion.
He's just a pawn, caught in a machine.

And this reaches beyond "leftards" and "rightards".

That was so faux-deep I can almost smell the pot-smoke.

[2046]

And while it can be argued that Iraq did not attack the US their fellow muslims did attack it {...}

Dammit, don't help him. That's not why we went there and you know it.

[PunkMaister]

And while it can be argued that Iraq did not attack the US their fellow muslims did attack it {...}

Dammit, don't help him. That's not why we went there and you know it.

First of all who is him? Who are you even referring too if I may ask?

We did have an axe to grind against Saddam and we had it for a long, long time Bush simply looked for the easiest excuse possible and under the prism of the September 11th attacks it was inevitable that sooner or latter we would end up in a war with Saddam if not over wmds over something else but the fact is the chips for that showdown had been laid since the first Golf war.

[Cocytus]

And while it can be argued that Iraq did not attack the US their fellow muslims did attack it {...}

Dammit, don't help him. That's not why we went there and you know it.

Well, I know oil played a role in our decision to invade. Take it from me, or take it from no less august a figure than, as you called him, Alan-frakkin-Greenspan:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296938,00.html

I chose a Fox News source to defang any argument of "liberal media bias."

Oh, by the way, remember that three-way last year about this very subject? As it turns out, the Pentagon actually has a program to do exactly what I suggested, help our troops understand language and customs. It's called the Human Terrain Program, and it's been going on since 2003. It's apparently been quite useful in Afghanistan. It has its critics in academia, but what doesn't. Good for those anthropologists.

[Who is like God arbour]

• PunkMaister, could you please use a less allegorical language. I've trouble to understand you because I don't understand your metaphors.
  
  Furthermore try to use at least a few punctuation marks and try to build complete sentences. Sometimes I really can't understand, what you are trying to say.
  
  I know, I use too many punctuation marks - although I have never seen an English comma rule, which was violated - and my grammar is probably awful. But to me English is a foreign language and I think, it is excusable if I'm making mistakes.
  
  But for you, English is your mother tongue and there is no excuse for the errors you are making.
  
  And now please explain me in plain English, point for point, why the Iraq was invaded and why the invasion was - according to your opinion - justified. And it would be good, if you would consider, what was already said in that thread.

[Mr. Oragahn]

And while it can be argued that Iraq did not attack the US their fellow muslims did attack it {...}

Dammit, don't help him. That's not why we went there and you know it.

Well, I know oil played a role in our decision to invade. Take it from me, or take it from no less august a figure than, as you called him, Alan-frakkin-Greenspan:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296938,00.html

I chose a Fox News source to defang any argument of "liberal media bias."

Oh, by the way, remember that three-way last year about this very subject? As it turns out, the Pentagon actually has a program to do exactly what I suggested, help our troops understand language and customs. It's called the Human Terrain Program, and it's been going on since 2003. It's apparently been quite useful in Afghanistan. It has its critics in academia, but what doesn't. Good for those anthropologists.

Quite logical. The less US troops understand the local people, the lesser their chances of winning without disproportionate methods.
It's rather positive, but on the long term it is to make troops more efficient, not make them think too much about the US's role in the wars.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ah, emotion and ignorance.
Fantastic tools.

Fact is, your brother knows shit and he's not asked to give his opinion.
He's just a pawn, caught in a machine.

And this reaches beyond "leftards" and "rightards".

That was so faux-deep I can almost smell the pot-smoke.

It's a reality. But considering your neocon positions and much displayed attacks on anything that has "democrat" in it, it's clear that you would not even consider the possibility that the pseudo existence of a true choice in politics is just a dream. Just two roads to apply the same agenda, either by brute force (Bush) or trickery (Obama).

[PunkMaister]

Ah, emotion and ignorance.
Fantastic tools.

Fact is, your brother knows shit and he's not asked to give his opinion.
He's just a pawn, caught in a machine.

And this reaches beyond "leftards" and "rightards".

That was so faux-deep I can almost smell the pot-smoke.

It's a reality. But considering your neocon positions and much displayed attacks on anything that has "democrat" in it, it's clear that you would not even consider the possibility that the pseudo existence of a true choice in politics is just a dream. Just two roads to apply the same agenda, either by brute force (Bush) or trickery (Obama).

See what I mean you view the world as being Neocon while we view you as Neoliberal! My oh my!
This is never going to get anywhere...

But for you, English is your mother tongue and there is no excuse for the errors you are making.

And now please explain me in plain English, point for point, why the Iraq was invaded and why the invasion was - according to your opinion - justified. And it would be good, if you would consider, what was already said in that thread.[/list]

Actually Spanish and English are my languages as we Puertorricans speak mostly Spanish with English being the second most important language.

In regards to Iraq I never said it was justified but that the US had an axe to grind against Iraq for a long, long time and that such a war was inevitable sooner or latter.

[Who is like God arbour]

In regards to Iraq I never said it was justified but that the US had an axe to grind against Iraq for a long, long time and that such a war was inevitable sooner or latter.

With that you are admitting, that the invasion was not justified and has only happened to grind an axe (?).

Over 600'000 people had to die for it.

That was not an unforeseeable consequence of that war, but was predicted by many experts long before the war has started.

Please explain me, how that does not violate human rights or how you can still believe that the US government has cared for human rights.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Colloquially, having an axe to grind means having a grudge. In a similar vein, the metaphor of burying the hatchet refers to making peace between parties with grudges against each other.

I agree that how the war in Iraq started has some resemblance to how Vietnam started but only some and here is why.

Vietnam never, ever attacked the US homeland.

Neither did Iraq.

And while it can be argued that Iraq did not attack the US their fellow muslims did attack it and savagely so on 9/11 and from then on sadly but surely Saddam's days were counting down as the US began to mobilize it's war machine.

And you are aware that Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq had a secular government prior to the invasion, much like Turkey, and unlike Afghanistan; nor was Iraq even remotely involved with 9/11.

We could go down the list of nations linked in any way. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, with others coming from the UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon. Training activities took place in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Prior to relocating to Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden's base of operations was in Sudan. A couple of the hijackers had fought in Bosnia. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the presumed mastermind of the operation, was born in Kuwait to Pakistani parents - and that's the closest we'll get to Iraq.

Funding didn't come from Iraq, personnel didn't come from Iraq, training didn't take place in Iraq. The only thing Iraq had in common with the 9/11 attacks is a predominantly Arab population (much like... 20 other countries or so) and a predominantly Muslim population (much like 40-50 other countries).

The U.S and Iraq had been grinding axes against each other since the end of the first gulf war and that is no secret. It is no secret that just a few years before 9/11 Saddam had kicked the international inspectors out and just about everyone was concerned about him redeveloping his weapons programs which is evidenced by all the resolutions that were passed against Iraq up 'till the US 2nd invasion of that country.

The only ones that got rich out of this were the weapons developers...

Against each other? I thought the post-mortem of Saddam's military preparations made it clear he was more worried about Iran resuming the Iran-Iraq war.

Saddam Hussein used to be a US ally, in fact - in particular, he was a US ally at the time of most of the crimes he was charged with in his trial took place. Was Bush planning on invading Iraq as soon as he could come up with a politically viable excuse? It seems so, but that doesn't justify the choice to go to war.

[PunkMaister]

In regards to Iraq I never said it was justified but that the US had an axe to grind against Iraq for a long, long time and that such a war was inevitable sooner or latter.

With that you are admitting, that the invasion was not justified and has only happened to grind an axe (?).

Over 600'000 people had to die for it.

That was not an unforeseeable consequence of that war, but was predicted by many experts long before the war has started.

Please explain me, how that does not violate human rights or how you can still believe that the US government has cared for human rights.

You obviously do not understand the concept allow me to enlighten you both sides had a deep grudge and resentment against the other. After 9/11 the US began to pursue a policy of preemptive strikes against whoever might be a threat or a potential threat with that kind of a policy in place war with Iraq became all but inevitable. Saddam was never going to budge and give the US what it demanded as his ego could not allow it and the US being on the Preemptive war mode were both on an inevitable collision course. Now did it backfire yes. But at the time there was a lot of fear about what Saddam might do or not do he was a wild card and the US was and still is very twitchy about wild cards when engulfed in a war against terror (what a misnomer that is but more on that latter).

[Mr. Oragahn]

You obviously do not understand the concept allow me to enlighten you both sides had a deep grudge and resentment against the other. After 9/11 the US began to pursue a policy of preemptive strikes against whoever might be a threat or a potential threat with that kind of a policy in place war with Iraq became all but inevitable.

This just as vague as it can get. Anyone is a threat to anyone. For example, Saudi Arabia's leaders have used their wealth at great lengths to promote Islam currents under any form over the whole region. Yet the Saudi are not exactly enemies of the US, on the contrary (safe when ties are just too obvious, then princes mysteriously drop like flies).

Saddam was never going to budge and give the US what it demanded as his ego could not allow it and the US being on the Preemptive war mode were both on an inevitable collision course.
Now did it backfire yes. But at the time there was a lot of fear about what Saddam might do or not do he was a wild card and the US was and still is very twitchy about wild cards when engulfed in a war against terror (what a misnomer that is but more on that latter).

That's a nice little story you can tell to kids before going to bed, but Saddam could not have serious intentions to threaten neighbours, even less the USA. He didn't have the resources and it's been abundantly clear now that the whole WMD menace was absolute total bull.

Besides, the people Hussein was said to kill in the north, although we could surely complain about the methods, were also largely trouble makers financed and armed by foreign powers. It's been the case in the 70s with Kurds armed by Iran.
And when you think that Hussein's regime was laic.

[Kane Starkiller]

If you think a country has WMD you don't announce to the world you'll attack it and then hold a public countdown to the attack.
You make preparations in secret and when you strike you do so without warning. The WMD excuse was always a flimsy one at best.

[Feldercarb]

If you think a country has WMD you don't announce to the world you'll attack it and then hold a public countdown to the attack.
You make preparations in secret and when you strike you do so without warning. The WMD excuse was always a flimsy one at best.

How would you accomplish such a thing? It would be virtually impossible for the US to mass troops on the border of Iraq without people noticing. Just the increased volume in flights out of the major airbases would tip people off as would the sudden absence of the troops from local bases.

The adventure in Iraq was asinine beyond belief but it wouldn't be feasible to hide the invasion force. Now the countdown and posturing that occurred before the invasion, that was indeed stupid.