Can america leave iraq?
- Thread starter buffys
- Start date
i recall listening to NPR the day colin powell reported on the supposed chemical weapon facilities sighted in iraq. i was extremely upset that day. it was just so f***ing obvious what would result from this course of action. now the actions of the bush administration have lead to greater animosity toward troops in the mideast and the f***ing quagmire of iraqi reconstruction keeping troops in the proverbial shooting barrel. and to think, so many protests and nobody listened. hawks may be very good at seeing things, but they can't hear worth a damn. this is not how you fight f***ing terrorism!
actually, it is the presence of insurgents which makes the situation worse and worse and worse...
no, i disagree. people are capable of truly beautiful things. the drive to annihilate is only one side of humanity. and there is just too much misunderstanding and too many assumptions made between people to establish a lasting bond between humans. it seems our beliefs are just too different.
actually, it is the presence of insurgents which makes the situation worse and worse and worse...
An effect cannot make the situation worse, the cause is the reason why the effect even exists.
no, i disagree. people are capable of truly beautiful things. the drive to annihilate is only one side of humanity. and there is just too much misunderstanding and too many assumptions made between people to establish a lasting bond between humans. it seems our beliefs are just too different.
Thus, we all die; or one group eliminates all others so become the sole rulers of Earth. Since communism is almost impossible to accomplish, we have very little recourse.
An effect cannot make the situation worse, the cause is the reason why the effect even exists.
no, i disagree. people are capable of truly beautiful things. the drive to annihilate is only one side of humanity. and there is just too much misunderstanding and too many assumptions made between people to establish a lasting bond between humans. it seems our beliefs are just too different.
Thus, we all die; or one group eliminates all others so become the sole rulers of Earth. Since communism is almost impossible to accomplish, we have very little recourse.
antifreeze said:
this is what bothered me the most I think. Normally, I don't make predictions, the world is just too complex to be absolutely positive about anything. But when the iraq war started to loom all I could think of was, "how stupid can these guys be?". I can think of few things in recent history that was as obviously counter productive as the iraq war. I kept saying to myself, "ok, I must be missing something here, it can't be as cut and dried as I think". What truly amazed me is that it was.
This was a grade A, 100% pure, bad idea from the start. Usually these assertions can only be made in retrospect but this one was crystal clear right from the start, like watching a car crash in slow motion.
EDIT: oops, I promised myself I wasn't going to go there, it's done and complaining about it won't change anything. The only real question is, what do we do now?
Last edited:
I think that we should keep troops in there for a period of time even though I was against the war. The reason is to stop a civil war from occurring. It would be preferrable to internationalize this force and this can only be done if we stop trying to run Iraq like a colony and share the contracts for the rebuilding. The troops should only be there for security and should not attempt to interfere with the Iraqi government. As for the issue of if Al Gore would have went into Iraq or not I think that the answer is no. I am sure that he would have went into Afganistan. It is true that democrats have been in more wars than republicans but democrats tend to be more multilateral and take world opinion into account. The Iraq war was probably the most unilateral(America going it alone) foreign policy action in the history of America and only the right wing believes in that kind of action.
mr chips
Yes, the UN needs to be the force there and not the US but that appears nonviable as much of the UN is corrupt (food for oil compadre?). I think it is.
uhh, so what? the primary roles i see the un playing in iraq are as peacekeepers and mediators b/w the various factions. secondly, tho the instance of corruption you allude to has a basis in fact, it sounds like suspiciously like a meaningless soundbite when used in that context...ie: the un is good for nothing and has no role to play in iraq. perhaps some info to the contrary might be pertinent (i have not checked for accuracy of claims but see no real reason to doubt the gist of the propaganda)
missions accomplished
the same can happen in iraq. all we have to do is insist that it be so.
anu, when you meet an obstacle on .......
there comes a time when one is forced to fight and defend ones way of life and the right to self determination. this is it. those that demand the iraqis take whatever scraps are thrown their way and be content are suffering from unrealistic and selfish expectations.
i do not believe if the roles were reversed, these hypocritical and wannabe pacifists would tolerate even a fraction of what they ask the iraqis to put up with.
take a moment and observe the tactics employed by the nationalists. it is not a blind rage. there is strategy to the resistance offered up by the nationalists.
the disenfranchised usually find other ways to participate in politics when conventional means are not availed to them, they adopt a tried and tested alternative...bullets!
everyone eventually arrives at the table to negotiate. the role of the un is to faciltate this shit. in iraq, the us keeps fucking the un up the ass. that is not exactly a very productive environment
I believe we need a world around comprehensive anticipatory design.......
thanks for the grin, pal
Yes, the UN needs to be the force there and not the US but that appears nonviable as much of the UN is corrupt (food for oil compadre?). I think it is.
uhh, so what? the primary roles i see the un playing in iraq are as peacekeepers and mediators b/w the various factions. secondly, tho the instance of corruption you allude to has a basis in fact, it sounds like suspiciously like a meaningless soundbite when used in that context...ie: the un is good for nothing and has no role to play in iraq. perhaps some info to the contrary might be pertinent (i have not checked for accuracy of claims but see no real reason to doubt the gist of the propaganda)
missions accomplished
*El Salvador: Ending Civil War & Holding Free and Fair Elections 1991 - April 1995
Accomplishments: Successfully implemented peace accord, ending 12 years of bloody civil war. Disarmed combatants and created conditions for free and fair elections. Monitored human rights abuses while dismantling existing security forces and beginning creation of a civilian police force. Provided buffer, police and humanitarian observer force to implement peace accord and monitor elections. Helped maintain public order pending the creation of a national civilian police.
*Cambodia: Assisting the Rebirth of a Nation 1992 - 1993
Accomplishments: Conducted peaceful, free and fair elections. Helped establish new constitution and government. Investigated ceasefire violations and illegal return of forces. Destroyed weapons caches and demined major roads. Monitored human rights violations while providing human rights training for military police and judicial personnel. Achieved limited disarmament. Provided humanitarian relief, and helped repatriate 370,000 Cambodian refugees.
*Mozambique: Shifting from bullets to ballots 1992 - January 1995
Accomplishments: Organized free and fair elections. Monitored withdrawal of Zimbabwean and Malawian troops and conducted investigations of ceasefire violations. Demobilized over 80,000 troops and secured transportation corridors. Facilitated the return of 1.5 million refugees. Delivered humanitarian aid and provided technical assistance. Monitored and verified ceasefire, demobilized forces, and destroyed weapons. Provided security to transportation corridors. Coordinated and monitored humanitarian assistance, provided technical assistance, and monitored elections.
*Namibia: Creating a Free Country 1989 - 1990
Accomplishments: Achieved ceasefire and peaceful withdrawal of South African troops. Held free and fair elections, demobilized South African forces, and won release of prisoners. Helped repeal repressive legislation and create a new and independent government in Namibia.
*Golan Heights: Maintaining the Peace 1974 - present
Accomplishments: Patrolled bases along ceasefire line. Established check-points and observation posts along the boundary of separation. Disengaged troops and established 24-hour observation patrols. Carried out inspections of arms and force levels. Arranged for transfer of prisoners and war dead and offered humanitarian assistance.
*Suez Canal, Sinai: Silencing Weapons and Keeping the Peace 1973 - 1979
Accomplishments: Achieved ceasefire and facilitated separation and withdrawal of troops. Monitored borders and carried out inspections through checkpoints along buffer zone. Provided communication, delivered humanitarian aid, and helped exchange prisoners. Maintained ceasefire during operation.
*West New Guinea: Assuring Peaceful Transfer of Power 1962 - 1963
Accomplishments: Successfully implemented all provisions for the peaceful transfer of power in West New Guinea. Assured peaceful negotiations between the Netherlands and Indonesia throughout transition process. Maintained order and improved economic, health and education services in West New Guinea.
*India & Pakistan: Monitoring breaches to the peace 1965 - 1966; 1949 - present
Accomplishments: Monitored ceasefire. Eased tensions and prevented military escalation along ceasefire line in Kashmir. In 1965-1966, monitored breaches in the ceasefire that helped facilitate the Tashkent Agreements which led to complete withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani troops in 1966.
the same can happen in iraq. all we have to do is insist that it be so.
anu, when you meet an obstacle on .......
there comes a time when one is forced to fight and defend ones way of life and the right to self determination. this is it. those that demand the iraqis take whatever scraps are thrown their way and be content are suffering from unrealistic and selfish expectations.
i do not believe if the roles were reversed, these hypocritical and wannabe pacifists would tolerate even a fraction of what they ask the iraqis to put up with.
take a moment and observe the tactics employed by the nationalists. it is not a blind rage. there is strategy to the resistance offered up by the nationalists.
the disenfranchised usually find other ways to participate in politics when conventional means are not availed to them, they adopt a tried and tested alternative...bullets!
everyone eventually arrives at the table to negotiate. the role of the un is to faciltate this shit. in iraq, the us keeps fucking the un up the ass. that is not exactly a very productive environment
I believe we need a world around comprehensive anticipatory design.......
thanks for the grin, pal
Thanks for the education anu concerning the UN. Myself, if I had any say in the matter, many corporations would be ended. Their sky-scrapers would be converted to nice apartments and all and any people in desperate situations around the globe should be offered the chance to live in these and other places where there is power, food, water, medical facilities etc. They should be offered free education and when and if they feel ready, allowed and facilitated to return to their home turf to help improve conditions with funds and resources to do so. But the thing is I have no say. I am living in a military dictatorship where the control of the media is so thorough many here swallow the lies and pick up a gun to aid in the hegemony.
US nationalism has become rampant. It is spilling over and seeking to make all resources on the planet subject to its control with the alienated rich blaming the poor and seeking to kill many of them. Nationalism is a real part of the problem. If you want to make war against the agressively military national factions on the planet because of their abuse of you and your families I can understand but you are just adding fuel to the fire and, believe me, you do not have the major amount of fire power. Nationalism is no solution. Consider humanism instead as the only way out of the predicament in a long lasting and ever improving way. Depend on nationalism to justify more violence and you and I will see more violence and something real would be lost, humanity, for the sake of our culturally derived fantasies, the nation-state.
If you want to see things as black and white, good verses bad, then you give those who rained the bombs down on Iraq women and children and elderly the excuse to do the same.
I see you started that rejoinder with disagreeing and ended it with agreement concerning my opinion of the UN. I did not say it should not be used, its really all that there is right now and I did say it should be the major force there, not the US. I am all for the US pulling out of Iraq all togethor and paying reparations. The US corporate-military complex can not be trusted and has already done so much horrendous terrible atrocities, it can not be a peace keeping force in that area of the world or in many others.
The world is burning all over. The main flames are in people's heads, making smoke that gets in the way of their seeing that we are all in this togethor, that we are all on the same side.
US nationalism has become rampant. It is spilling over and seeking to make all resources on the planet subject to its control with the alienated rich blaming the poor and seeking to kill many of them. Nationalism is a real part of the problem. If you want to make war against the agressively military national factions on the planet because of their abuse of you and your families I can understand but you are just adding fuel to the fire and, believe me, you do not have the major amount of fire power. Nationalism is no solution. Consider humanism instead as the only way out of the predicament in a long lasting and ever improving way. Depend on nationalism to justify more violence and you and I will see more violence and something real would be lost, humanity, for the sake of our culturally derived fantasies, the nation-state.
If you want to see things as black and white, good verses bad, then you give those who rained the bombs down on Iraq women and children and elderly the excuse to do the same.
I see you started that rejoinder with disagreeing and ended it with agreement concerning my opinion of the UN. I did not say it should not be used, its really all that there is right now and I did say it should be the major force there, not the US. I am all for the US pulling out of Iraq all togethor and paying reparations. The US corporate-military complex can not be trusted and has already done so much horrendous terrible atrocities, it can not be a peace keeping force in that area of the world or in many others.
The world is burning all over. The main flames are in people's heads, making smoke that gets in the way of their seeing that we are all in this togethor, that we are all on the same side.
Nationalism is a real part of the problem.
i refer to nationalism in the sense of the current conflict. it is not a identity imposed from the outside but rather a conception of iraq held by the inhabitants themselves. in that context it is not the traditional jingoistic bull we normally associate it with.
If you want to see things as black and white, good verses bad, then you give those who rained the bombs down on Iraq women and children and elderly the excuse to do the same.
oy vey. there is a time and place for everything mr. non resistance is suicide.
blood has to be spilt. lots of it. the us needs to get some balls and kick back hard.
i need a wider regional conflict. i need another plane crash. why? there are lessons to be learnt from all this fear and pain.
I see you started that rejoinder with disagreeing and ended it with agreement concerning my opinion of the UN..
did i? pardon anyway
i refer to nationalism in the sense of the current conflict. it is not a identity imposed from the outside but rather a conception of iraq held by the inhabitants themselves. in that context it is not the traditional jingoistic bull we normally associate it with.
If you want to see things as black and white, good verses bad, then you give those who rained the bombs down on Iraq women and children and elderly the excuse to do the same.
oy vey. there is a time and place for everything mr. non resistance is suicide.
blood has to be spilt. lots of it. the us needs to get some balls and kick back hard.
i need a wider regional conflict. i need another plane crash. why? there are lessons to be learnt from all this fear and pain.
I see you started that rejoinder with disagreeing and ended it with agreement concerning my opinion of the UN..
did i? pardon anyway
Anu:
get a grip, niggy. gimme some stats. is the whole world on fire or is it just some recurring hotspots?
Well anu the human urge to kill your enemy transcends temporary periods of “relative” peace; I didn’t say that w would all die now, all I said is that humanity is our own greatest threat. We only have to fear ourselves (or one of those asteroid bastards!). Consider that the US and Russia alone can make this planet into a nuveau Mercury within one hour, and knowing belligerence today, I wouldn’t be exactly surprised. Also Anu you seemed to have forgotten the UN’s greatest accomplishment, that most mirror’s modern day Iraq: East Timor.
get a grip, niggy. gimme some stats. is the whole world on fire or is it just some recurring hotspots?
Well anu the human urge to kill your enemy transcends temporary periods of “relative” peace; I didn’t say that w would all die now, all I said is that humanity is our own greatest threat. We only have to fear ourselves (or one of those asteroid bastards!). Consider that the US and Russia alone can make this planet into a nuveau Mercury within one hour, and knowing belligerence today, I wouldn’t be exactly surprised. Also Anu you seemed to have forgotten the UN’s greatest accomplishment, that most mirror’s modern day Iraq: East Timor.
you said "inevitable", pal.
my take on the inevitable is a time when inequities are minimized and as such, the causes for disputes are not present. tech will solve a lot of problems, cheap energy available for all. it is not a rosy outlook. rather, it is a logical extension of current trends.
you dare disagree? start a thread...the world is going to hell in a handbasket
heh
my take on the inevitable is a time when inequities are minimized and as such, the causes for disputes are not present. tech will solve a lot of problems, cheap energy available for all. it is not a rosy outlook. rather, it is a logical extension of current trends.
you dare disagree? start a thread...the world is going to hell in a handbasket
heh
you said "inevitable", pal.
I know, and where have I said that it’s not inevitable?
tech will solve a lot of problems, cheap energy available for all. it is not a rosy outlook. rather, it is a logical extension of current trends.
Technology does us good, but it also does us bad. Clinton said humanity would die coughing, not burning in a nuclear war (paraphrasing) . Tech, like everything else has a good and bad.
I know, and where have I said that it’s not inevitable?
tech will solve a lot of problems, cheap energy available for all. it is not a rosy outlook. rather, it is a logical extension of current trends.
Technology does us good, but it also does us bad. Clinton said humanity would die coughing, not burning in a nuclear war (paraphrasing) . Tech, like everything else has a good and bad.
Undecided said:
yes, i actually remember ranting at the aussies on this board sometime back about that issue.
*if any of you tards think this un is entity in an of itself, you could'nt be more wrong. granted it has a culture and bureaucracy, but in the end, it is the support of the member nations that make these successes happen.
the us matters. the un is their invention. make it work
anu said:
moving along on this vein, we have another article by fisk..
Sayed Baghdadi's forefinger goes up like a warning beacon. "This is a play, a scenario of theirs. This civil war will not happen because the Iraqi people are linked by their Arabic origins and religion. So when this civil war threat didn't work, the intelligence service invented the character of Zarqawi [the al-Qa'ida member whom the Americans claim is in Iraq]. Then a mosque explodes or a Husseiniya [Shia house of worship] blows up or a Shia religious leader is killed. Then the local press - the collaborationist press - say like the Dawa Party and the National Conference of [Ahmed] Chalabi that there will be civil war like this if the Americans go."
First point which I must make is a bit off-topic, but I am responding to an earlier statment by Anu, and I just could not believe it. Anu described the U.S. attack of Afghanistan as bloodlust. I would be curious, considering that Al Q had a central command located there which allowed thousands to train before running all over the world in order to cause chaos, what Anu would consider as an appropriate reaction? Afghanistan should not have been invaded after 9-11, it should have been invaded long before. Al Q would not have the strength that it has today if it was not allowed to train and organize the way it did. I just cannot believe that someone could rationally consider that invasion "bloodlust".
Secondly, I myself was without a doubt against this war in the first place (I have a thread dedicated to that point), but we certainly cannot leave now. If U.S. military left at this moment, Iraq would likely break up into three parts. One Shii'te controlled by Iran. Another located and controlled by Kurds to the north. The third may not exist by a border, but will exist by the chaos it creates, as Bosnia existed to both Serbia and Croatia. Sunni civil war would never stop, and the fighting would be brutal. This would not only be a disaster for the Iraqi people, but would become a breeding ground for terrorists dedicated to attacking both the U.S. and its interests(worse than Afghanistan).
Thirdly, the U.S. ability to dictate any foreign policy would be serverly impaired. The invasion was bad enough, but to leave now would make the U.S. look incapable of defending itself or its interests. Terrorism would be given a life the world has not seen. Nations would realize that they could blindly ignore terrorism in their own borders without fear of U.S. retaliation in any way.
Though I was against this war completely, nothing perturbs me more than needless exaggeration of an already bad situation. To the contrary, the resistance in Iraq is not increasing, it has been decreasing as of late. People read headlines and not the facts. U.S. death total stands around 900, but has been slowing (due to the fact that Iraqis have been doing alot of the policing in major cities). Fighting has broken out in the resistance between members of it who wish to attack American soldiers only (true guerrillas) and those homicidal maniacs, many foreign, who wish to kill as many people as possible including Iraqis. Al Sadr is looking for a political role in his country now. Will the U.S. be able to truly leave in ten years? No. But in one or two years, they may be able to start to slowly start to move out troop strength. If the Iraqis see this, they will start to believe more in the power of their government (which will always be influenced by the U.S. in reality) and begin to despise the resistance members who are killing their own people. Considering the rebellion taking place, I would say 900 killed was actually better than i thought it would be at this time (but please, I am now trying to downplay the sacrifice these men and woman have made). And as to the statment made earlier that 30,000 have been maimed, that is just untrue. About 10,000 have been injured yes, but most of those injuries are either minor or do not have any permanent effects, so that statment was ridiculous.
Finally, part of the reason for Saddam's rise to power was in a way, Iraqs need for him. I know this will be controversial to say, but he came into power because Iraq was a country that never should have existed in the first place, considering it was a Western(British) creation. On many occasions, Tyrants come to power because the population accepts the void they fill and their stability and he kept three factions in control, wether brutal or not. I do not say that I am unhappy to see the man go, but he was not a threat to the U.S. Humanitarian reasons, unfortunately, are not reason enough to invade or the United States would have to invade half the world . Iraq was a mistake, but the U.S. cannot possibly leave now. Since Iraq cannot create a goverment to control three factions, the world and the U.S. will have to dictate that government to them now that the tyrant is gone. Unfortunately, no true help will come to the U.S. from the United Nations, but hopefully some other world members will eventually gain enough dignity to help out.
Secondly, I myself was without a doubt against this war in the first place (I have a thread dedicated to that point), but we certainly cannot leave now. If U.S. military left at this moment, Iraq would likely break up into three parts. One Shii'te controlled by Iran. Another located and controlled by Kurds to the north. The third may not exist by a border, but will exist by the chaos it creates, as Bosnia existed to both Serbia and Croatia. Sunni civil war would never stop, and the fighting would be brutal. This would not only be a disaster for the Iraqi people, but would become a breeding ground for terrorists dedicated to attacking both the U.S. and its interests(worse than Afghanistan).
Thirdly, the U.S. ability to dictate any foreign policy would be serverly impaired. The invasion was bad enough, but to leave now would make the U.S. look incapable of defending itself or its interests. Terrorism would be given a life the world has not seen. Nations would realize that they could blindly ignore terrorism in their own borders without fear of U.S. retaliation in any way.
Though I was against this war completely, nothing perturbs me more than needless exaggeration of an already bad situation. To the contrary, the resistance in Iraq is not increasing, it has been decreasing as of late. People read headlines and not the facts. U.S. death total stands around 900, but has been slowing (due to the fact that Iraqis have been doing alot of the policing in major cities). Fighting has broken out in the resistance between members of it who wish to attack American soldiers only (true guerrillas) and those homicidal maniacs, many foreign, who wish to kill as many people as possible including Iraqis. Al Sadr is looking for a political role in his country now. Will the U.S. be able to truly leave in ten years? No. But in one or two years, they may be able to start to slowly start to move out troop strength. If the Iraqis see this, they will start to believe more in the power of their government (which will always be influenced by the U.S. in reality) and begin to despise the resistance members who are killing their own people. Considering the rebellion taking place, I would say 900 killed was actually better than i thought it would be at this time (but please, I am now trying to downplay the sacrifice these men and woman have made). And as to the statment made earlier that 30,000 have been maimed, that is just untrue. About 10,000 have been injured yes, but most of those injuries are either minor or do not have any permanent effects, so that statment was ridiculous.
Finally, part of the reason for Saddam's rise to power was in a way, Iraqs need for him. I know this will be controversial to say, but he came into power because Iraq was a country that never should have existed in the first place, considering it was a Western(British) creation. On many occasions, Tyrants come to power because the population accepts the void they fill and their stability and he kept three factions in control, wether brutal or not. I do not say that I am unhappy to see the man go, but he was not a threat to the U.S. Humanitarian reasons, unfortunately, are not reason enough to invade or the United States would have to invade half the world . Iraq was a mistake, but the U.S. cannot possibly leave now. Since Iraq cannot create a goverment to control three factions, the world and the U.S. will have to dictate that government to them now that the tyrant is gone. Unfortunately, no true help will come to the U.S. from the United Nations, but hopefully some other world members will eventually gain enough dignity to help out.
Last edited:
towards said:
my allegation of bloodlust is not the easiest to justify as it is psychological condition, a state of mind if you will. these states do not readily lend themselves towards any form of quantification. what i do have to go on is a personal reaction to the events, a particular interpretation of history and how shall i say it...idle chatter.
i do however have questions before i try to justify bloodlust.
*is it impossible that the action in afghanistan was in part, based on a primitive desire for revenge?
*have you considered why an whole scale invasion of afghanistan rather than covert ops was adopted as the game plan?
*do you not think that the culture of war that we have here in the states lends itself readily to that sort of mentality (bloodlust)?
that last of course assumes you accept "culture of war". if you do not, i will provide info
as for your assertion that an early invasion would have solved problems, it is mere conjecture and also one that goes against current trends...ie: increase in american adventurism in the region corresponds with increased radicalization of the region against the us
a few responses to Anu....
"have you considered why an whole scale invasion of afghanistan rather than covert ops was adopted as the game plan?",Anu
Yes, I have considered a smaller, surgical response in opposition to an invasion of Afghanistan, but it simply would not work. Assuming one could find all of the camps by satellite alone, the soldiers would have attacked only dirt and tents. Al Q had anticipated an American attack and simply moved on, in order to wait for better days. After the U.S. left, Al Q simply would have moved back, based on the support that Mohammad Omar gave them. Al Q was just to engrained with the Taliban to consider any other action. I believe the U.S. response was tame and controlled considering that 3000 of its citizens were murdered on its own soil. American bombing was precise and tactical; bloodlust would have been the carpet bombing of the entire nation (world war II had many examples of this, Berlin, Toyko).
"as for your assertion that an early invasion would have solved problems, it is mere conjecture and also one that goes against current trends...ie: increase in american adventurism in the region corresponds with increased radicalization of the region against the us", Anu
What were those in Al Q training camp training for? I believe that answer is obvious. Since these camps were left untouched, literally thousands of young "jihadists" were able to train there. It no longer requires a central command to perform attacks, their training has been finished. They simply decide their own course of action. Secondly, the radicalization of the middle east has more to do with their own problems and behaviors than what the U.S. does. There are three major reasons for this radicalization. 1) A massive increase in population without a corresponding increase in resources, creating a disenfranchised youth. 2) Saudi oil money, used as a payoff to mullahs, finding its way to the construction of radical "Wahhabism" schools promoting hatred of the U.S. and the West 3) A severe cultural problem that is unable to adjust to modern times. I remember my visit to Egypt several years ago, and the hospitality of its people. Because of hospitality that they showed, I asked them their opinion of Jews and Israel. I even asked them why they hated jews, whom they had never personally met. The answer was an engrained, racist response that was taught to them for years. These were not bad people, just ignorant of the realities of the modern world. It does not necessarily require an unpopular American action to feel their wrath. The easiest way to stop these radicals is to cut off the money that they receive from the oil we buy. They dont want your education, your help, or your pity. They simply want to be left alone.
"is it impossible that the action in afghanistan was in part, based on a primitive desire for revenge? ",Anu
Yes, part of that may be true. I consider the American response, however, to Afghanistan to be under extreme control. Regarding Iraq, on the other hand, I am not sure if revenge was not part of the motive of the American people. I am not sure if bloodlust is the term though. Rather complete ignorance of the realities, belief in a president who lied, and a lack of understanding, and therefore hatred of the arab people. I have seen many a forum were racist terms were used to describe them, with the suggestion of blowing them to kingdom come. This attitude will never help solve problems.
......Sorry for the long, tiring response
"have you considered why an whole scale invasion of afghanistan rather than covert ops was adopted as the game plan?",Anu
Yes, I have considered a smaller, surgical response in opposition to an invasion of Afghanistan, but it simply would not work. Assuming one could find all of the camps by satellite alone, the soldiers would have attacked only dirt and tents. Al Q had anticipated an American attack and simply moved on, in order to wait for better days. After the U.S. left, Al Q simply would have moved back, based on the support that Mohammad Omar gave them. Al Q was just to engrained with the Taliban to consider any other action. I believe the U.S. response was tame and controlled considering that 3000 of its citizens were murdered on its own soil. American bombing was precise and tactical; bloodlust would have been the carpet bombing of the entire nation (world war II had many examples of this, Berlin, Toyko).
"as for your assertion that an early invasion would have solved problems, it is mere conjecture and also one that goes against current trends...ie: increase in american adventurism in the region corresponds with increased radicalization of the region against the us", Anu
What were those in Al Q training camp training for? I believe that answer is obvious. Since these camps were left untouched, literally thousands of young "jihadists" were able to train there. It no longer requires a central command to perform attacks, their training has been finished. They simply decide their own course of action. Secondly, the radicalization of the middle east has more to do with their own problems and behaviors than what the U.S. does. There are three major reasons for this radicalization. 1) A massive increase in population without a corresponding increase in resources, creating a disenfranchised youth. 2) Saudi oil money, used as a payoff to mullahs, finding its way to the construction of radical "Wahhabism" schools promoting hatred of the U.S. and the West 3) A severe cultural problem that is unable to adjust to modern times. I remember my visit to Egypt several years ago, and the hospitality of its people. Because of hospitality that they showed, I asked them their opinion of Jews and Israel. I even asked them why they hated jews, whom they had never personally met. The answer was an engrained, racist response that was taught to them for years. These were not bad people, just ignorant of the realities of the modern world. It does not necessarily require an unpopular American action to feel their wrath. The easiest way to stop these radicals is to cut off the money that they receive from the oil we buy. They dont want your education, your help, or your pity. They simply want to be left alone.
"is it impossible that the action in afghanistan was in part, based on a primitive desire for revenge? ",Anu
Yes, part of that may be true. I consider the American response, however, to Afghanistan to be under extreme control. Regarding Iraq, on the other hand, I am not sure if revenge was not part of the motive of the American people. I am not sure if bloodlust is the term though. Rather complete ignorance of the realities, belief in a president who lied, and a lack of understanding, and therefore hatred of the arab people. I have seen many a forum were racist terms were used to describe them, with the suggestion of blowing them to kingdom come. This attitude will never help solve problems.
......Sorry for the long, tiring response
towards said:Sorry for the long, tiring response
it was a good read. anyway...
i want to consider a scenario before moving on to the afgan action.
if mcveigh, the perp in the bombing of the murray building in ok had not been quickly caught, would the us have bombed his home state of michigan? i think not. what would have been a plausible reaction? they would have conducted a manhunt until he was apprehended. the rule of law would be adhered to.
we see now that this was the route chosen by the govt
now look at afghanistan, the us proceeded on the assumption that everyone who supported the taliban govt, native or foreigner, was 1) a "terrorist" and 2) morally, if not legally, stained with the blood of september 11 and was thus fair game.
and so the bombs rained for months on end. on terrorist and civilian alike. you gotta now ask, who is killing more innocent civilians now, the terrorists or the us?
Consider this statement from Admiral Michael Boyce, Chief of the British Defense Staff. Referring to the bombing campaign, he said, "The squeeze will carry on until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed." A War Against Civilians?
then we have this..
After US AC-130 gunships strafed the farming village of Chowkar-Karez in October, killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official felt able to remark: "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead", while US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld commented: "I cannot deal with that particular village."
The Innocent Dead in a Coward's War
why are the americans doing this. why did they just decide to bomb the shit of the place? can you think of any strategic value that would be served by such an overeaction? how farfetched is it to imagine that this happened due to a primitive and indiscriminate desire for revenge? could this bloodlust be a factor in the slaughter of civilians?
"now look at afghanistan, the us proceeded on the assumption that everyone who supported the taliban govt, native or foreigner, was 1) a "terrorist" and 2) morally, if not legally, stained with the blood of september 11 and was thus fair game.", Kali
The quote from Boyd was just war rhetoric, I do not take that as proof of bloodlust. I remember the attack on the village you speak of, and this is an example of a military action gone to far. While not trying to make excuses for those who commit them, incidents like these will always occur during a military campaign. If it is proven that the attack was inappropriate, then those who committed it should be rightly and justly punished. If Rumsfeld gave the green light for this action... then he should be held more responsible than anyone. This is an example of the military simply not policing itself adequately, not a knock on the campaign as a whole. The U.S. invasion certainly was tactical, and the vast majority of those killed were indeed fighting back. Considering that, without argument, Omar Muhammad was harboring Osama bin Laden, do you not feel that the only way to prevent Al Q's return was by overthrowing that government? Do you not feel that harboring one who has led to the deaths of 3000 civilians as appropriate justification for overthrowing a government? If not, what action do you feel would be an appropriate response?
edit: In response to the second article, I feel that many of the points it made were exaggerated or lies in general. To get the feel for "carpet bombing", I think one would have to witness the devestation of many cities in world war II. The U.S. was not in any way carpet bombing. 99.9% of civilian infrastructure remained intact. Compared to its own civil war, Afghanistan certainly was not devastated by the attack. As for the quotes, the phrases were said at two different times and had completely different meanings than when standing alone. The first was after he found out about the attack, and felt that the convoy was military. The official meant that he felt it was a fact that they were enemy combatants, and they meant to kill them( in other words they know who they are attacking). The second part was a snap after considerable questioning a week later, as a term that he meant that he had enough of questions about the village. This quote was severly taken out of context, I knew there was something fishy. This Seumas Milne writes for the British Guardian and makes some unsubstantiated claims pretty regularly.
The quote from Boyd was just war rhetoric, I do not take that as proof of bloodlust. I remember the attack on the village you speak of, and this is an example of a military action gone to far. While not trying to make excuses for those who commit them, incidents like these will always occur during a military campaign. If it is proven that the attack was inappropriate, then those who committed it should be rightly and justly punished. If Rumsfeld gave the green light for this action... then he should be held more responsible than anyone. This is an example of the military simply not policing itself adequately, not a knock on the campaign as a whole. The U.S. invasion certainly was tactical, and the vast majority of those killed were indeed fighting back. Considering that, without argument, Omar Muhammad was harboring Osama bin Laden, do you not feel that the only way to prevent Al Q's return was by overthrowing that government? Do you not feel that harboring one who has led to the deaths of 3000 civilians as appropriate justification for overthrowing a government? If not, what action do you feel would be an appropriate response?
edit: In response to the second article, I feel that many of the points it made were exaggerated or lies in general. To get the feel for "carpet bombing", I think one would have to witness the devestation of many cities in world war II. The U.S. was not in any way carpet bombing. 99.9% of civilian infrastructure remained intact. Compared to its own civil war, Afghanistan certainly was not devastated by the attack. As for the quotes, the phrases were said at two different times and had completely different meanings than when standing alone. The first was after he found out about the attack, and felt that the convoy was military. The official meant that he felt it was a fact that they were enemy combatants, and they meant to kill them( in other words they know who they are attacking). The second part was a snap after considerable questioning a week later, as a term that he meant that he had enough of questions about the village. This quote was severly taken out of context, I knew there was something fishy. This Seumas Milne writes for the British Guardian and makes some unsubstantiated claims pretty regularly.
Last edited: