The war itself has been relatively begign as wars go. Limited casualties on BOTH sides.
[/B]
Depends on what you mean by benign. One of my brother-in-law's brothers lives in Baghdad - in May one of the "smart" bombs blew glass in the windows out AND the picture tube on the tv - they can't get the glass replaced - no window salesmen just now - so they use plastic sheeting and their kids can't watch their videos...not a true tragedy maybe, but not a way of life I'd want to lead...his wife used to work as a medical lab technician which doesn't look like restarting for a long time, so she's on a career downslope
They were both guilty of not emigrating to Britain in the 1980's when they had the chance, but at that time life seemed better there, bigger house, large garden, great health & educational facilities - it was a rich country, favoured by the west, women had much more freedom than other ME states (much more than they have now - they are nominally Shia).
"Relatively benign?" I don't think any war can be...
Iraqis did more damage to Bahgdad after the "fall" on Saddam, than Americans did in their "war." Sure, it's big and loud and scary, AND deadly, but give the military some credit, what was done, was done with a minimum loss of life relative to the size of the operation, certainly less loss of life than another 10 or even 5 years of Sadam would have brought to Orphans, dissidents, and Kurds.
I've got relatives in Iraq and it doesn't worry me a bit. If anything my two Marine cousins would probably like hearing that.
Don't know and don't really care, but I'd be confident in a wager.
You have not one single goddam clue what this means to the Iraqi people. You are posturing.
----
[/B][/QUOTE]
Groverat, buddy, you could saved the keystrokes and just said "nu uh!" But you'd have been wrong (which I'm sure you're getting used to by now anyway.)
As for my knowledge on how this relates to the Iraqi people, I happen to work at the largest refugee services provider in Texas. Many of my coworkers are refugees or immigrants. You want the Iraqi perspective? I can give you the Irani perspective, the Afghani perspective, the Egyptian perspective...hell, I can give you the Bosnian and Vietnamese perspective, and raise you the Cambodian perspective .
Keep in mind that these people are all naturalized US citizens, most of whom have come from horrendous conditions. They are hardworking and proud Americans, many with a personal stake in this crisis. Matsu is somewhat right about "marketing" the war. Moderate Arabs (like my co-workers) enjoy living in America, and they want more than anything to have good things to tell their relatives in their home countries.
Most of the time, my co-workers are very tight-lipped about Bush, the current Iraq war, politics in general, especially around me, since I'm one of three "native born" Americans at the place (out of about 75 people).
But I've been there a while, and I've had a chance to get to know a few of them on a more personal basis. Simply put, hey see the Iraq war as 'big brute' America stomping on Iraq because they can. They resent President Bush's duplicitous comments about building Arab democracy (many of them would like to see actual democracies in their home countries).
As for your Marine cousins, I'm sure my cousin (Army) would probably say the same thing, "bring it on." They are quite confident of their superior force. But two years from now, when they are sitting around "keeping peace," and facing terrorist attacks every day, they might have it different perspective. We shall have to see if a legitimate political structure will, or even can emerge with US and British troops stationed there.
bunge I like how you take the initative and and say that all future terrorists attacks happen because of the the war in iraq...
Your comprehension skills are lacking.
Bush said "bring it on", but he doesn't mean it. He's an idiot. When they do (and did) "bring it on" he's not happy about it. Neither are the military and civilians that die when others "bring it on" against our people.
You're lying if you say you want them to "bring it on" because you don't want them to. You're a dogmatic drone if you don't think that encouraging someone to kill our troops isn't disrespectful to the families of those that die.
Everyone here knows this, just some of you are falling in line with your political party favorites. Congratulations. As I've said in other threads just shut the hell up the next time someone does "bring it on" and people die.
I wonder if looking at this after that statement by Bush makes any difference: released 50 minutes ago:
Quote:
New US casualties in Iraq
_
The US military has said that one US soldier was killed and at least 10 were wounded in two attacks in central Iraq on Thursday night, while one other was hurt in an explosion on Friday. In Thursday's attacks, a sniper reportedly shot dead one American soldier in Baghdad, while 10 were said to have been wounded in an attack near the town of Balad, north of the capital. Initial reports said 19 had been wounded but the number was later brought down to 10. On Friday, a US soldier was reportedly wounded in an explosion on the outskirts of Baghdad. The latest wave of attacks comes after the United States stepped up its hunt for Saddam Hussein, placing a $25 million bounty on his head. Washington blames diehard supporters of the deposed president for launching the attacks.
I guess, unfortunately, they are "bring[ing] it on"
Iraqis did more damage to Bahgdad after the "fall" on Saddam, than Americans did in their "war." Sure, it's big and loud and scary, AND deadly, but give the military some credit, what was done, was done with a minimum loss of life relative to the size of the operation, certainly less loss of life than another 10 or even 5 years of Sadam would have brought to Orphans, dissidents, and Kurds.
Sure, I agree Iraqis brought a lot of trouble to themselves, but in times of war rioters, looters and thugs that are usually found in any society do naturally find an environment where they can get away with whatever. I suppose if you took away the police force of LA you might see a considerable amount of looting. And, true, Saddam was/is an Iraqi, so you are right in saying that the Iraqis brought it upon themselves. But so have a lot of other people and countries. There are a lot of basket cases in the world, with cruel and irresponsible dictatorships and democracies. Are you suggesting that the old imperial idea of governing "lesser breeds without the law" who can't be trusted to look after themselves be restarted? The Russians use that argument against the Chechens...
A lot of friends of America around the world (and Americans have many more friends than enemies) have in the past looked up to America as a nation which was different from all the old empires, British, French, Russian, Chinese whatever. Respect for a common law and property are fundamental to what many admire in America - this must be as valid for inernational situations as well as internal conditions.
There is reasonable doubt among many Western countries about the evidence against the clear and present threat posed by Saddam before launching the war. From a distance, it looks like the Administration knew beforehand that there would NOT be a worthwhile resistance which made a war much more politically acceptable.
Using that staement, in whatever context at this time from Bush was utter stupidity IMO...What's next "Unemployment? BRING IT ON!" God, I bet the other cronies around Bush probably and said, "Oh no...not again..."
Using that staement, in whatever context at this time from Bush was utter stupidity IMO...What's next "Unemployment? BRING IT ON!" God, I bet the other cronies around Bush probably and said, "Oh no...not again..." [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, I disagree with that guy, GIs need to stay, prolly the only guys with the engineering skills to seriously rebuild
Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, how is THAT war going?
The tragedy is that actually most middle class Iraqis, civil servants, doctors, engineers, guys who are really needed now would have welcomed a UN/NATO op...should have cut a deal on the oil with the French, Russkies, Chinese etc. The Iraqi middle class is quite westernised...much more than the Saudis Kuwaitis etc. The one thing that Saddam did do is he spent a lot of the oil money in making a good educational system, unis, schools etc...of course a lot of the techies ended up making war stuff (thats what techies do most countries)
Bush did have a great opportunity with all the internat ional sympathy over 9/11 - if only they hadn't gone into it quite so gungho, screw the ROW etc Blair got his ass fired for trying to do it via the UN...
if i was the parent of a g.i. in iraq, i'd be plenty pissed.
Here is a good editorial to explain the situation to some of the conservative/hawks here at AI. Just a point of view I think some of you c/h-ers should try and understand a bit.
But that's the beauty of being a republican hawk. You get to talk tough on defense out of one side of your mouth. And take away from defense out the other.
And in this countryn no one, (not even the liberal media) will call you on it ...
Comments
[i]
The war itself has been relatively begign as wars go. Limited casualties on BOTH sides.
[/B]
Depends on what you mean by benign. One of my brother-in-law's brothers lives in Baghdad - in May one of the "smart" bombs blew glass in the windows out AND the picture tube on the tv - they can't get the glass replaced - no window salesmen just now - so they use plastic sheeting and their kids can't watch their videos...not a true tragedy maybe, but not a way of life I'd want to lead...his wife used to work as a medical lab technician which doesn't look like restarting for a long time, so she's on a career downslope
They were both guilty of not emigrating to Britain in the 1980's when they had the chance, but at that time life seemed better there, bigger house, large garden, great health & educational facilities - it was a rich country, favoured by the west, women had much more freedom than other ME states (much more than they have now - they are nominally Shia).
"Relatively benign?" I don't think any war can be...
Gizzmonic:
I've got relatives in Iraq and it doesn't worry me a bit. If anything my two Marine cousins would probably like hearing that.
Don't know and don't really care, but I'd be confident in a wager.
You have not one single goddam clue what this means to the Iraqi people. You are posturing.
----
[/B][/QUOTE]
Groverat, buddy, you could saved the keystrokes and just said "nu uh!" But you'd have been wrong (which I'm sure you're getting used to by now anyway.)
As for my knowledge on how this relates to the Iraqi people, I happen to work at the largest refugee services provider in Texas. Many of my coworkers are refugees or immigrants. You want the Iraqi perspective? I can give you the Irani perspective, the Afghani perspective, the Egyptian perspective...hell, I can give you the Bosnian and Vietnamese perspective, and raise you the Cambodian perspective
Keep in mind that these people are all naturalized US citizens, most of whom have come from horrendous conditions. They are hardworking and proud Americans, many with a personal stake in this crisis. Matsu is somewhat right about "marketing" the war. Moderate Arabs (like my co-workers) enjoy living in America, and they want more than anything to have good things to tell their relatives in their home countries.
Most of the time, my co-workers are very tight-lipped about Bush, the current Iraq war, politics in general, especially around me, since I'm one of three "native born" Americans at the place (out of about 75 people).
But I've been there a while, and I've had a chance to get to know a few of them on a more personal basis. Simply put, hey see the Iraq war as 'big brute' America stomping on Iraq because they can. They resent President Bush's duplicitous comments about building Arab democracy (many of them would like to see actual democracies in their home countries).
As for your Marine cousins, I'm sure my cousin (Army) would probably say the same thing, "bring it on." They are quite confident of their superior force. But two years from now, when they are sitting around "keeping peace," and facing terrorist attacks every day, they might have it different perspective. We shall have to see if a legitimate political structure will, or even can emerge with US and British troops stationed there.
Originally posted by kraig911
bunge I like how you take the initative and and say that all future terrorists attacks happen because of the the war in iraq...
Your comprehension skills are lacking.
Bush said "bring it on", but he doesn't mean it. He's an idiot. When they do (and did) "bring it on" he's not happy about it. Neither are the military and civilians that die when others "bring it on" against our people.
You're lying if you say you want them to "bring it on" because you don't want them to. You're a dogmatic drone if you don't think that encouraging someone to kill our troops isn't disrespectful to the families of those that die.
Everyone here knows this, just some of you are falling in line with your political party favorites. Congratulations. As I've said in other threads just shut the hell up the next time someone does "bring it on" and people die.
New US casualties in Iraq
_
The US military has said that one US soldier was killed and at least 10 were wounded in two attacks in central Iraq on Thursday night, while one other was hurt in an explosion on Friday. In Thursday's attacks, a sniper reportedly shot dead one American soldier in Baghdad, while 10 were said to have been wounded in an attack near the town of Balad, north of the capital. Initial reports said 19 had been wounded but the number was later brought down to 10. On Friday, a US soldier was reportedly wounded in an explosion on the outskirts of Baghdad. The latest wave of attacks comes after the United States stepped up its hunt for Saddam Hussein, placing a $25 million bounty on his head. Washington blames diehard supporters of the deposed president for launching the attacks.
I guess, unfortunately, they are "bring[ing] it on"
Originally posted by Matsu
Iraqis did more damage to Bahgdad after the "fall" on Saddam, than Americans did in their "war." Sure, it's big and loud and scary, AND deadly, but give the military some credit, what was done, was done with a minimum loss of life relative to the size of the operation, certainly less loss of life than another 10 or even 5 years of Sadam would have brought to Orphans, dissidents, and Kurds.
Sure, I agree Iraqis brought a lot of trouble to themselves, but in times of war rioters, looters and thugs that are usually found in any society do naturally find an environment where they can get away with whatever. I suppose if you took away the police force of LA you might see a considerable amount of looting. And, true, Saddam was/is an Iraqi, so you are right in saying that the Iraqis brought it upon themselves. But so have a lot of other people and countries. There are a lot of basket cases in the world, with cruel and irresponsible dictatorships and democracies. Are you suggesting that the old imperial idea of governing "lesser breeds without the law" who can't be trusted to look after themselves be restarted? The Russians use that argument against the Chechens...
A lot of friends of America around the world (and Americans have many more friends than enemies) have in the past looked up to America as a nation which was different from all the old empires, British, French, Russian, Chinese whatever. Respect for a common law and property are fundamental to what many admire in America - this must be as valid for inernational situations as well as internal conditions.
There is reasonable doubt among many Western countries about the evidence against the clear and present threat posed by Saddam before launching the war. From a distance, it looks like the Administration knew beforehand that there would NOT be a worthwhile resistance which made a war much more politically acceptable.
Originally posted by Matsu
I suggest that I should be appointed benevolent emperor of the world.
like SJ you mean 8)
Before I go to work I'd thought I'd throw a match into this gas filled room...
We Screwed This One Up Big Time
Using that staement, in whatever context at this time from Bush was utter stupidity IMO...What's next "Unemployment? BRING IT ON!" God, I bet the other cronies around Bush probably
Using that staement, in whatever context at this time from Bush was utter stupidity IMO...What's next "Unemployment? BRING IT ON!" God, I bet the other cronies around Bush probably
Actually, I disagree with that guy, GIs need to stay, prolly the only guys with the engineering skills to seriously rebuild
http://www.dawn.com/2003/07/05/top1.htm
our "friends" and "allies" in the war against terror...
Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, how is THAT war going?
As shown in Artmans link US troops are NOT trained good enough to in peace making and keeping situations.
Originally posted by Anders
To quote one of my old threads:
Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, how is THAT war going?
The tragedy is that actually most middle class Iraqis, civil servants, doctors, engineers, guys who are really needed now would have welcomed a UN/NATO op...should have cut a deal on the oil with the French, Russkies, Chinese etc. The Iraqi middle class is quite westernised...much more than the Saudis Kuwaitis etc. The one thing that Saddam did do is he spent a lot of the oil money in making a good educational system, unis, schools etc...of course a lot of the techies ended up making war stuff (thats what techies do most countries)
Bush did have a great opportunity with all the internat ional sympathy over 9/11 - if only they hadn't gone into it quite so gungho, screw the ROW etc Blair got his ass fired for trying to do it via the UN...
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
if i was the parent of a g.i. in iraq, i'd be plenty pissed.
Here is a good editorial to explain the situation to some of the conservative/hawks here at AI. Just a point of view I think some of you c/h-ers should try and understand a bit.
And in this countryn no one, (not even the liberal media) will call you on it ...