 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shock and Horror, Ten Years Later
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm ashamed to say that 10 years ago I was on this site fully justifying it and more.
I fully repudiate that, but not the blood on my hands for saying 'In my name.'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm not defending the US military here, I'm really not. Sometimes they did horrible things. But to start from a position of saying that a US soldier and a terrorist are morally equivalent is in my view - and to use a term I first heard on this board - batshit crazy.
It is not simple. I am not apologising for terrorism, but it is not intrinsically more evil than conventional war.
Yes, this is an interesting argument. The normal point is that the terrorist targets civilians, whereas the army does not. However, some guerillas don't target civilians, and some armies do.
Then you have to decide if killing civilians is worse than killing soldiers. I suppose the usual argument is to say that the former are innocent, therefore it is more reprehensible. However, killing is killing.
I suppose we are talking partly about the conventions of war, whereby armed and uniformed soldiers are entitled to kill each other (in law) in hot combat, but not afterwards. Thus killing POWs is also considered highly reprehensible and illegal.
I suppose morality and legality make uneasy bed-fellows!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.
Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Quetzalcoatl,
There is also an additional dilemma. "Terrorism" is often a weak force attacking a strong force with whatever means possible. If one sees this as wrong, then oppression is de facto right.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Quetzalcoatl,
There is also an additional dilemma. "Terrorism" is often a weak force attacking a strong force with whatever means possible. If one sees this as wrong, then oppression is de facto right.
I vaguely recall some Christian stuff written justifying guerilla warfare in the 70s and 80s. I suppose it was based on just war theory, but then probably the rise of Islamism has tended to shut it down.
Well, the West just tends to assume its own rightness in invading other countries, and 'taking out' their leaders. But, surprise, surprise, the locals are often not too keen on this, and fight back. These are the bad guys, by the way, so we are justified in killing them.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.
Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?
Yes, you could whisper to a Vietnamese orphan, or Iraqui orphan, 'remember, your parents' deaths are the result of centuries of democratic accountability. And in addition, your parents were bad people. Now run along and play'.
[ 20. March 2013, 16:41: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Whichever way you look at it, they failed.
A few years ago I was working with an Iraqi doctor on translating a medical book. Even despite the violence still present in Baghdad where he lived, he considered the regime change to have been a good thing, and was very pleased that it had happened.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Yeah. The regime change was great for Christians living in Iraq, and for the various Muslim factions, and for those who have died in car bombs, and those dead in bombs, and those shot, and those beaten up, intimidated and abused, and those who can't feed themselves or their family because someone else controls all their resources. I bet they think it's just fan dabby doosey. It changed from being shit to being shit with the added bonus of the long term benefit being totally shit; but hey, the word of one doctor overrides all of that I'm sure. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
Well it's the first testimony from an actual Iraqi citizen that's been posted on this thread. That's why I thought it might be interesting to share.
But I suppose your personal opinions are of much more value than those of the people who actually live there.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Exactly which 'personal' opinions did you spot in my post?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.
Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?
This is not in itself an excuse for military action, of course not, but it's one of the factors that puts a Western soldier in a morally superior position when compared to an Al-Qaeda terrorist. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand how anyone could consider these two things in any way equal.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.
Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?
This is not in itself an excuse for military action, of course not, but it's one of the factors that puts a Western soldier in a morally superior position when compared to an Al-Qaeda terrorist. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand how anyone could consider these two things in any way equal.
Doesn't it depend on what they are both doing? If the Western soldier is torturing somebody, is he still morally superior?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Well it's the first testimony from an actual Iraqi citizen that's been posted on this thread. That's why I thought it might be interesting to share.
But I suppose your personal opinions are of much more value than those of the people who actually live there.
In any large group, one can always find an exception. What might have been the motivations of that particular individual?
But, again, here are the views of others who have been there. I gave the following links up-thread, but here they are again for your convenience:
Watching as Iraq crumbled
Post-Saddam Iraq defined by division
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Lots of people talked about 'it's all about oil' in the UK. I really don't think that was Tony Blair's motivation (which is not to say that he was right).
As someone put it recently on another thread -- If Saddam was ruler of Zimbabwe he'd still be there . Nuff said .
Some say blair was motivated by the thrill of war itself , having gained a taste for it as Prime Minister during the Serbia conflict. The reality is probably that his hands were tied , the UK has been beholden to the US since WW2.
I'm no fan of blair but have to say he was visibly aging as the Iraq campaign started to resemble the blood-bath it turned out to be.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Doesn't it depend on what they are both doing? If the Western soldier is torturing somebody, is he still morally superior?
I am still having issues understanding how a regular military soldier is inherently moral superior to an irregular soldier.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
We were told Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was willing to use them on his neighbors...I would like to thank those who bought the Bush Administration selling of the war hook, line and sinker.
What some people seem to overlook is that it wasn't just the Americans and her allies who thought Saddam had WMD, it was a widely-held view amongst the intelligence community.
That's one of the scariest things, if true. Apparently me and my friends had a better idea of the real military capability of Iraq, and the likely outcome of a war there than the intelligence services of every major country in the world ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Were they really all that deluded? Or were they just saying what they thought their bosses wanted to hear? Or were they telling the truth and the governments they were working for twisting it? I know which seems the most likely. (And also the least scary)
quote:
The Russians, French and Germans all thought that Saddam had WMD, though they still opposed the war.
Everyone knew that they had "weapons of mass destruction" in that they had, and had used, nerve gas and medium-range ballistic missiles. Everyone who was paying attention knew that they had very few of them left. The British goverment used "WMD" as a weasel word to scare people into thinking they were going to get nuked.
quote:
We were told that Saddam was sheltering Al Qaida and was involved with 9/11.
I know some nutcases have made this link, but have any serious people done so? Would be interested to know.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
American and British governments at the time. Why pretend they didn't?
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Bullshit. It was about oil.
I've never really understood the whole 'it was all about oil' argument. Are you saying that the West needed to secure new oil reserves because existing reserves were running out? Or was it just about opening up Iraqi reserves to the world and using western contractors to do that? If so, has this actually happened? I've no idea.
The 1990/91 war was about oil from Iraq's point of view. A simple land grab to get the oil wells, followed by a deliberate attempt to destroy them to hurt the attackers when they knew they had lost.
Less so from the American point of view, although oil is what gives the area its importance to them. They could perfectly well continue to buy oild from an Iraq-ruled Kuwait as from a Sultan-ruled one. After all they did heaps of business with Iraq already.
Whether or not it was a good idea for us to attack Iraq, in legal terms we had a pretty unassailable reason to do so in that war because they had attacked an ally, oil or no oil. Very differrent from ten years later.
quote:
Lots of people talked about 'it's all about oil' in the UK. I really don't think that was Tony Blair's motivation (which is not to say that he was right).
2003 was quite different. Blair's motivation was to do anything possible to stay in bed with the Americans. When it because obvious the Americans were going to invade, they British government wanted us to join in. I have no idea whether or not that is because they had some fantasy of ameliorating or modifying American policy, or just because they liked being part of the biggest gang, I don't know. Maybe it just let them carry on feeling important.
Bush's government wanted to invade because of 9/11. Its not that they thought Saddam had anything to do with it - though they did try to pretend that he did - but that they wanted to be seen to be doing something, preferably something that involved killing a lot of Arabs, because it would go down well with the voters. And Iraq was in the shit, and had a very nasty government, and they were under pressure from the old neo-cons and Israel and Russia to hurt Iraq, so they did. Because they knew they coudl get away with it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Blair's motivation was to do anything possible to stay in bed with the Americans. When it because obvious the Americans were going to invade, they British government wanted us to join in.
Well, only Blair actually knows and possibly not even him. Blair had a history of humanitarian interventions: Sierra Leone and Kosovo. There were left-wing neo-conservatives outside the government who bought into the idea that Saddam could be toppled and easily replaced by a democracy. I think it's quite possible given Blair's past actions that he was one of them. I don't say that it meant snuggling up to the Americans would have hurt.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
And, certainly it was not about democracy. Kuwait was an undemocratic regime. Kuwaiti citizens, an elite minority of the actual population of Kuwait, used its vast oil wealth to sit on their fat asses (figuratively) in luxury, while the work was done by the majority of the population who were immigrants without getting an equitable share of the riches or any political rights.
If you replace "oil wealth" with "fraud and exploitation wealth" and "citizens" and "immigrants" with "2%" and "98%" it sounds just like the United States.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I wonder how much the Rwanda genocide changed the thinking that European governments had about direct intervention.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Not every intelligence service in the world believed Iraq had wmd. The Russians denounced the argument. The French Doubted it. The Germans questioned it. Only two agencies claimed there was, the CIA and MI6 claimed there were wmds. However they were told by several other agencies there were no wmd in Iraq. Not everyone got it wrong.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I wonder how much the Rwanda genocide changed the thinking that European governments had about direct intervention.
Considering they have jumped to help fight oppression since then, oh, wait.....
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... But I think Iraq will emerge better. Mixed signals at present, but some hopeful ones as well. ...
Is there any evidence at all for that statement of bizarre optimism?
And even if there were now any such green shoots of hope, how long ago was the Iraq invasion now?
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't
No. No. No.
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions. ...
So invading a foreign country wantonly and without cause, is OK as long as it is done by a government which happens to have been elected by its own people?
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000
"Bush & Co.'s actions were intended to save lives (by removing a tyrannical ruler, creating democracy." Bullshit. It was about oil. ...
Sorry, but that is as dissuasive of the opposite cause as the two above that I've just quoted.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.
Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?
Yes, you could whisper to a Vietnamese orphan, or Iraqui orphan, 'remember, your parents' deaths are the result of centuries of democratic accountability. And in addition, your parents were bad people. Now run along and play'.
You know, my family does speaking engagements every so often; and it's happened several times that some excessively dovish person has come up to apologize to Mr Lamb for "Americans destroying your beautiful country." They are taken aback when he grabs them by both hands and says enthusiastically, "Thank you, thank you for coming to help us." Then fixes them with a reproachful gaze and adds, "Why did you go home too early?"
Your Iraqi orphans may have a spectrum of opinions as well. It's certainly not clearcut that everything we did was evil, or that all the effects are bad. And local people are notsimple minded--at least, not more so than human beings anywhere else on the planet.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Doesn't it depend on what they are both doing? If the Western soldier is torturing somebody, is he still morally superior?
I am still having issues understanding how a regular military soldier is inherently moral superior to an irregular soldier.
Yes, your word 'inherently' is the key. If he is taking part in an illegal war, which might be seen as a war crime, or a group of war crimes, how does his morality stand then? Quite honestly, I have no idea. How about the morality of an Iraqui insurgent, who saw himself as a patriot?
I'm not sure if one can actually measure such things, as they are going into very grey areas. I suppose it's nice to think of the men with white hats as good, and the ones with black hats as bad. Shane, come back!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the West just tends to assume its own rightness in invading other countries, and 'taking out' their leaders. But, surprise, surprise, the locals are often not too keen on this, and fight back. These are the bad guys, by the way, so we are justified in killing them.
Interestingly, this is roughly the argument the Germans used against the Belgians when they invaded their country in 1914. "You're shooting at us, so you're bad guys, so we can kill you with impunity."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Also used in the Indian Mutiny, no hang on, correct that, used in the British Empire extensively. How dare the little brown buggers be patriotic?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
The only mildly uplifting thing to happen in the whole Iraq war debacle was watching Baghdad Bob; the sheer lunacy was strangely compelling.
Everything else turned to shit really quickly.
[ 21. March 2013, 02:46: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have more innocent blood on their hands than Osama bin Laden ever did.
How so?
OBL: a few thousand people in the World Trade Centre.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld: hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq alone.
I have trouble drawing an equivalence between the two. Bush & Co.'s actions were intended to save lives (by removing a tyrannical ruler, creating democracy, etc.). A number of innocent people died in that process and some of them made have done so as a result of Bush & Co.'s negligence, but that wasn't the intention.
Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, did intend to kill lots of people. Indeed, the only reason he did anything was to kill lots of people.
Given that the two groups start from such different positions, I not only find a comparison a little bit distasteful but I'm also not sure if it's in any way useful.
The fact that Bush and Co. killed civilians out of indifference rather than malice doesn't cut much ice as far as I'm concerned. They had a political objective and it was fine with them if many thousands of people who were no threat to anyone died for it. They're terrorists, just as much as bin Laden, as far as I'm concerned.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Dafyd said: quote:
There were left-wing neo-conservatives outside the government who bought into the idea that Saddam could be toppled and easily replaced by a democracy. I think it's quite possible given Blair's past actions that he was one of them.
I suspect he may also have been influenced by the fact that the UN/EU/international community was widely criticised for dithering over Kosovo and failing to prevent the genocide. Perhaps that made him more inclined to jump first and ask questions later in 2003.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Well it's the first testimony from an actual Iraqi citizen that's been posted on this thread. That's why I thought it might be interesting to share.
But I suppose your personal opinions are of much more value than those of the people who actually live there.
In any large group, one can always find an exception. What might have been the motivations of that particular individual?
But, again, here are the views of others who have been there. I gave the following links up-thread, but here they are again for your convenience:
Watching as Iraq crumbled
Post-Saddam Iraq defined by division
I don't know what my work colleague's motivation was. But the first link you posted was from a peace activist who isn't an Iraqi. The other is an Australian lawyer. But he does mention he has spoken to Iraqis. He admits that it depends on whom you speak to whether they think it is better now than before invasion. Some people think it isn't, quoting the uncertainty, and anarchic style of the violence. Some, like my colleague are willing to overlook such uncertainties and focus on the fact that oppression and violence are no longer legitimised weapons of the state against the people.
The second link says that professionals are leaving Iraq. My colleague was a doctor and was happy to remain, in fact telling me that he was finding it easier to work in Iraq's Health Department than before. He was involved in translating educational books into Arabic, with a grant from the Iraq government, so that doctors could educate their patients about health issues in the patient's own language (most medical books in the Middle East are currently in English). He was very positive and enthusiastic about the project, with a great deal of hope for the future.
Yes there are always exceptional opinions. But to discard any opinion that doesn't follow your expectations is hardly the way to get to the truth. Maybe my colleague was the one person in the entire country who wasn't beating his chest and shaking his fist at the sky. But you don't know that. It is more likely that it is an opinion shared by many others. Give the opposing view the credence it deserves.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
And there is, I think, something cowardly about sitting safely afar while you are killing people as if it were a video game.
Join the armed forces and see if you agree then!
I think there is something cowardly about making comments like yours in the safety and comfort provided for by your armed forces.
Be a pacifist if you like but do so with gratitude and humility please.
Soldiers are (certainly used to be) told to shoot the enemy in the back if possible on an ambush, so ensure the ambush was a success, and they could be court marshalled if they gave the enemy a "sporting chance".
Have you ever heard the expression "All's fair in love AND WAR"?
If we are in a war then we do what we can to kill more of them than they kill of us. It's one of the basic rules.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The fact that Bush and Co. killed civilians out of indifference rather than malice doesn't cut much ice as far as I'm concerned. They had a political objective and it was fine with them if many thousands of people who were no threat to anyone died for it. They're terrorists, just as much as bin Laden, as far as I'm concerned.
If Bush & Co. hadn't invaded Iraq, some other other Iraqis would have died - not through indifference but through Saddam's malice. If Osama Bin Laden hadn't decided to hijack some planes, no-one would have died. Does that not make a difference?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Dafyd said: quote:
There were left-wing neo-conservatives outside the government who bought into the idea that Saddam could be toppled and easily replaced by a democracy. I think it's quite possible given Blair's past actions that he was one of them.
I suspect he may also have been influenced by the fact that the UN/EU/international community was widely criticised for dithering over Kosovo and failing to prevent the genocide. Perhaps that made him more inclined to jump first and ask questions later in 2003.
Reading a biography of the UK's Ambassador to the US at the time, the main thing I got from it, was that the US was heavily influenced by the Iraq exiles lobby. These dissafected exiles who had fled the Saddam regime, were constantly lobbying Washington, and telling them such overblown truths like there was a massive opposition movement in Iraq just waiting to be liberated, that Saddam definitely had WMDs, that it would be easy and everyone would welcome them with open arms and stick flowers in their hair and so on. This was very wrong but these voices were the ones that the US had been listening to since the 90's.
American foreign policy is usually IMO far too heavily influenced by lobbying groups of exiled nationals. They obviously have a very biased view coupled with very little first-hand knowledge about the area since it's often been decades since they were there. But since the US intelligence network is so awful and incompetent, having almost no information from the ground itself, they give far too much weight to whatever scraps of information they can get, even when its so fundamentally flawed. Hence the Curveball source.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Threads like this reveal to me that there is a definite culture of "if you are not for us, you are against us".
I get vilified for saying it, but I make no apologies; I don't mind "them" dying if it keeps "us" from being killed.
Some will say "oh but from the other side they say the same thing..."
I care nothing for that argument. I'm on THIS side.
Saddam deserved everything he got and so did those who supported him.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
The only mildly uplifting thing to happen in the whole Iraq war debacle was watching Baghdad Bob; the sheer lunacy was strangely compelling.
So you DO understand.
I take back what I just posted in Hell, and consider you a brother (or sister or some combination - whatever).
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Threads like this reveal to me that there is a definite culture of "if you are not for us, you are against us".
I get vilified for saying it, but I make no apologies; I don't mind "them" dying if it keeps "us" from being killed.
Is there a tariff? Like, is it worth 10 foreign deaths to keep you safe? 100? 1000? Or is there no limit?
quote:
Some will say "oh but from the other side they say the same thing..."
I care nothing for that argument. I'm on THIS side.
Saddam deserved everything he got and so did those who supported him.
And those tens of thousands who died who may or may not have supported Saddam Hussein but were in the wrong place at the wrong time? They deserved what they got - death - as well?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Hawk:
quote:
Yes there are always exceptional opinions. But to discard any opinion that doesn't follow your expectations is hardly the way to get to the truth. Maybe my colleague was the one person in the entire country who wasn't beating his chest and shaking his fist at the sky. But you don't know that. It is more likely that it is an opinion shared by many others. Give the opposing view the credence it deserves.
It also depends greatly on the question that's being asked. At one stage not long ago I knew a large number of Iraqi Christians who fled to this country because of the state of Iraq some time after the war and toppling of Saddam. They left family and friends behind and they were deeply concerned for their safety. Most of them were professional people with the means and money to get out. Now if you asked them if the regime needed to be toppled, I think most of them (if not all) would have said 'yes'. If you asked them if the war was necessary to do it - just like on these boards, you would have a mixture of opinions, but if you had asked them if the war was 'just' I think they would look at you like you were stupid. If you asked if things were better in Iraq, I think they would have found that an equally stupid question, being where they were. But I did ask it once, and it was interesting to note that they responded in terms of their concern for others, and those of other faiths, and not only from their own personal perspectives and experiences.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I think there is something cowardly about making comments like yours in the safety and comfort provided for by your armed forces.
Safe from what? Iraq's massive arsenal of WMDs? The Balsa Drones of Death?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
And those tens of thousands who died who may or may not have supported Saddam Hussein but were in the wrong place at the wrong time? They deserved what they got - death - as well?
Of course they deserved what they got. If they did not wish to be associated with Saddam, they should have chosen to be born somewhere else.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Have we learned anything?
No.
Same thing is happening with Iran.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Have we learned anything?
No. The U.S. is still allied with regimes that are every bit as dictatorial and oppressive as Iraq under Saddam was, like Saudi Arabia.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
And those tens of thousands who died who may or may not have supported Saddam Hussein but were in the wrong place at the wrong time? They deserved what they got - death - as well?
Of course they deserved what they got. If they did not wish to be associated with Saddam, they should have chosen to be born somewhere else.
It's just collateral damage, I'm afraid. After all, in the grand sweep of strategic planning, the deaths of a few thousand people is not very important, as long as our strategic planning is shown to be working.
And this plan has definitely worked - we intended to make Iran more powerful, turn Iraq into a Shia stronghold, and alienate many Arab and Muslim people.
Success!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Deano, your above 2 posts indicate to me just how profoundly un-Christian are the views you express (despite your signature). The Christian concept of "just war" apparently has no meaning for you.
PS - I am not a per se pacifist (i.e. 100% Ghandian pacifist). I believe that on (very) rare occasions there can be a just cause for a war, and there is nothing in my posts that indicates otherwise.
I'm not being Hell-ish; this is not intended as an attack on you as a person -- I cannot read your innermost thoughts. I'm just stating what a reading of your posts strongly indicate.
[ 21. March 2013, 16:39: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmm, a warmongering universalist. I suppose the more we kill the quicker the infidel get to heaven.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Gramps49, what you seem to forget is that Saddam was playing the same silly ass games as North Korea and Iran are doing today--the yes we are, no we aren't developing horrific weapons now, and wouldn't your inspectors like to see? Oh never mind, we won't let you in, we've changed our minds. Oh wait... For months and months and years. If the international community finally freaked out, it was hardly unexpected. Tapdancing on the edge of possible disaster while singing "Neener neener neener" tends to bring out the worst in people.
You do have a point, but I've always thought it was more than a coincidence that the international community (well, the US and UK anyway) freaked out at just about the time 9/11 happened.
And one way in which America was sold this bill of goods was by the suggestion that Saddam Hussein was connected in some way with Al-Qaeda--even though it beggared belief that Saddam would have anything to do with an Islamist group that would have been happy to topple his government and institute a theocracy in its place.
So yes, Saddam Hussein's antics certainly played a role, but to paint the invasion as being solely (or even primarily) conditioned by his provocations would leave the picture incomplete.
In my most cynical moments I've wondered whether GWB's motivation wasn't to prove that his pee-pee was just as big as Daddy's.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.
Like I said, if you ain't for us you are against us.
You are tryiong to vilify me, but in the end, I'm on the side that got rid of Saddam and his death squads. You ain't.
My conscience and Christian beliefs are intact in spite of those who would take the position that anyone who doesn't agree with them isn't A True Christian(tm)
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.
Like I said, if you ain't for us you are against us.
You are tryiong to vilify me, but in the end, I'm on the side that got rid of Saddam and his death squads. You ain't.
My conscience and Christian beliefs are intact in spite of those who would take the position that anyone who doesn't agree with them isn't A True Christian(tm)
Removing Saddam was a good thing in itself, but the problems as I see it are :
1) Our motives were far from pure. Getting rid of a despot makes a great slogan, but that's not why we were there; there are despots all over the Middle East who were just as bad, if not worse (the House of Saud comes to mind), so clearly there were other reasons.
2) As I stated above, Iraq was one of the few more-or-less stable secular states in the region. Destabilizing that state makes an Islamist power grab much more likely. In fact, once we're fully pulled out of Iraq, I give it 10 years tops before some mullah is sitting in Baghdad running the show.
So yes, it's probably a good thing, in isolation, that Saddam is no longer the boss. The problem is that he is very likely to be replaced by something much worse.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.
From the Washington Post article five myths about Iraq.
quote:
3. Iraq is a democracy.
It is — on paper. It has held successive national elections; it has a parliament and a modestly functional court system. In practice, however, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is exercising authority and centralizing power in ways that remind many Iraqis of Hussein. His security agencies have rounded up numerous Sunni leaders in recent months, accusing them of supporting the insurgency. Sunni officials contend that Maliki is using terrorism as a pretext to neutralize political foes.
Since he first won election in 2006, Maliki has moved to consolidate control over the country’s security forces. He also has presided over the dismantling of the Sons of Iraq, the Sunni tribal militia that was instrumental in the fight against al-Qaeda. The militia was supported by the U.S. military, which urged Maliki to integrate its members into the army and police force. Although he pledged to do so, only a fraction of Sunni militiamen have been given positions in the security services.
"Changing despots" is not the same as "free[ing] people from a despot".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
He admits that it depends on whom you speak to whether they think it is better now than before invasion. Some people think it isn't, quoting the uncertainty, and anarchic style of the violence. Some, like my colleague are willing to overlook such uncertainties and focus on the fact that oppression and violence are no longer legitimised weapons of the state against the people.
I think a lot depends on who you are and where you are.
Life has got a lot better for most people in Iraqi Kurdistan, which isn;t a particualrly dangerous place any more (or at least wasn't until the Sysrian civil war started to spill over the border), and a lot more prosperous than most of the region. Though part of the reson for that is its effective indepoendence from the rest of Iraq. The peace of the north depends on everybody pretending that it is in fact still a normal part of Iraq when in fact it isn't.
Things have also got a lot better in the far south. Not that that is saying much seeing as things were so bad there before.
Life is a lot easier for radical Sunni Islamicists and the friends of Al Qaida as well. Saddam Hussein's mob used to kill people like them much more efficiently and in larger numbers than the new regime does.
In central Iraq, not so much. Yes, its probably better if you are well-off and live in a nice well-defended compound. And probably better if you are a Shia (unless you are unlucky enough to go to the mosque on one of the days those Sunni loonies decide to blow everyone up) But the streets are no longer safe. And women are even less equal than before. And minority religions are openly persecuted in many areas.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
... in the end, I'm on the side that got rid of Saddam and his death squads. You ain't.
Oh come off it! Who got rid of what death squads? Not you, and the have just been replaced by others (or the same ones with Islamicised camouflage) More people have been murdered each year in Iraq since we made the place safe for Islamic terrorists than ever were before.
You seem to think that if a bloke is a silly green toy soldier uniform shoots five innocent men that's a "death squad" but if a bloke in a thawb blows up fifty that's just bad luck.
And not at all our fault, oh no.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
