i don't really think west Oakland = Iraq. I'm responding to your notion that the measures being taken in Iraq are benign because we have sobriety check-points in America.
Still , I am slighlty weirded out that you're willing to go with the analogy and apply the logic of occupation to an American city. This sort of thing is usually offered as a critique of police heavy-handedness; however, I get the impression you think of it as an endorsement.
I guess once you become a fan of war it starts looking like the solution to everything.
It's not that I am a fan of war. I just understand that no one is above certain tactics. We are led to believe that the U.S. is acting harshly but it is allowing as many freedoms as are possible within the current constraints. I use American cities as an example to try to show that we are not treating the Iraqis any differently than I believe we would treat ourselves. I lived in Los Angeles during the riots and I assure you the freedoms that are taken for granted were gone pretty quick when people are burning buildings, shooting at anyone and anything and there is general lawlessness. It isn't an endorsement, it is simply reality.
The criticism amounts to hey, the people you are working against follow no rules, and you follow all of them and by the way, don't upset anyone or make any mistakes. They are a pretty impossible standard to meet. That is why I was hammering on bunge a bit. (but he knows I still love him) He complained that we weren't willing to lose ground forces and instead were (and are) using air strikes which risk civilian lives to save military lives.
Now we are using ground forces and the result is a cost in military lives. In order to attempt to minimize that, they give every one an i.d. and have them go through a checkpoint. They don't do this everywhere in Iraq, just in the most troublesome spots. It would appear that it is the best possible attempt to save military lives and not harm civilian lives. This is of course met with... more criticism and comparisons with Nazi Germany. (compliments of giant)
The reason I compare it to American cities is because the liberal expectation is pretty much the same. Don't stereotype anyone, solve every crime, never misuse or overuse force, never make a mistake. Oh and again, btw the other side doesn't have follow any rules. You hear the same sort of nonsense about the same impossible expectation.
They should just admit they don't want anyone doing the job and it would be much easier.
I noticed the above posts seemed to have a general trend - what is this "war" doing to America? Think about what it is doing to the Iraqi's. This invasion/liberation was meant to make their lives better, so they could live in freedom, not oppression. Is this being achieved? General consensus is that the Iraqi people are now worse off than before, and to boot they have lost control of their country. Don't you think they have the right to be a little pissed off?
In my opinion this second phase was doomed from the beginning. You need the support of the populace to be successful in a "war" such as this. Who has this support? Once Saddam had fallen, action to restore fundamental services was required. Diplomatic posturing took care of that idea and now people are dying.
I did not support the war, but once started and finished more was needed to be done to return Iraq to "normality"
I In my opinion this second phase was doomed from the beginning. You need the support of the populace to be successful in a "war" such as this. Who has this support? Once Saddam had fallen, action to restore fundamental services was required. Diplomatic posturing took care of that idea and now people are dying.
I did not support the war, but once started and finished more was needed to be done to return Iraq to "normality"
why wasn't the second phase done the same way it was done in afghanistan, (installing a government almost immediately) that model is working much better than the current iraqi model. afghanistan was much more 'wild west' as well.
i don't know could it be......hmmm....oil?
if we were interested in the heroin trade would we have done anything different in afghanistan?
why wasn't the second phase done the same way it was done in afghanistan, (installing a government almost immediately) that model is working much better than the current iraqi model. afghanistan was much more 'wild west' as well.
i don't know could it be......hmmm....oil?
if we were interested in the heroin trade would we have done anything different in afghanistan?
Are you trying to imply that maybe the motives of Bush were impure?
First of all I too am bothered by all aspects of the war in Iraq:
- Why are we there? That is the main question that sticks....
This thread is worthy of the attention of all who are concerned with the tactics being used. Some say "War is War" but I ask again "Why are we there?"
Nick I am amazed by the examples and comments you bring to this thread and quite frankly disgusted with the effort in which you defend any and all actions put into play by the US and so-called "coalition" forces within Iraq. I believe to compare Iraq to inner-city California is ignorant and off base in the worst of ways. I am not even going there as to why but let's be clear that was extremely ignorant.
Have the "coalition" forces done any good with their actions? I would suggest not at all. Is this their fault? No I lay blame with the Bush admin.
What is the exit stategy? Is it to hand over control just as the elections come around the corner for Bush? Or, could it be to stay for a protracted period and draw in more fighters from the ranks of Bin Laden and co? Is Iraq going to become stable and free?
Can I ask one more time,, Is Iraq going to become stable and free? Why do we believe in this idea of stability when in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict nothing of the sort is a reality. But for some reason this can be achieved in Iraq? I am also to believe we are there for the Iraqi people? For their liberation? No chance for a grab of power from differing factions of the country and peoples? I am not buying that Iraq is going to become stable and free any time soon unless the UN is involved.
Where are we with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? Has the Bush admin. relaxed attention on Al Qaeda in light of the focus on Iraq?
Has the broadening mess "coalition" forces find themselves in as well as the known political pressure at home in respective coalition countries created an opportunity for Al Qaeda fighters to flock to Iraq through now more complacent and less concerned Iran and Syria? Iran and Syria both know Bush would have (NO) political support let alone the resources to enter into an even larger quagmire.
Needless to say I for one believe that the tactics of the US-led "coalition" forces in Iraq as stated by the opening post of this thread are advancing a less than human environment for the Iraqi people. I do not support these actions. I will never defend such inhumane actions.
I say fsck them losers. Immediately withdraw the forces from populated areas in Iraq. Immediately halt all reconstruction funding until election are held and a responsible local government establishes itself. Also, make certain all aid to Iraq is secured by Iraqi oil revenues. Those that we support should receive small carrots in the form of military aid such as small arms, and if necessary the occasional air support.
I say fsck them losers. Immediately withdraw the forces from populated areas in Iraq. Immediately halt all reconstruction funding until election are held and a responsible local government establishes itself. Also, make certain all aid to Iraq is secured by Iraqi oil revenues. Those that we support should receive small carrots in the form of military aid such as small arms, and if necessary the occasional air support.
Yeah I say $$$$ those losers too. If they don´t appreciate all what we done to... for them they can rot. I mean they are supposed to be thankful for our ... their liberation and if they aren´t we might as well take it away from them again and just grab the oil.
... their liberation and if they aren´t we might as well take it away from them again and just grab the oil.
Repeat after me: this war was not about oil!
It was about promoting democracy and universal humanitarian values ... and liberation ... and WoMDs, yes WoMDs ... and and and Al Quaida and US security and ...
Well, just forgetaboutit. What exactly are they doing there, apart from issuing "drivers licences" and pulling a Sharon on civilian villages?
First of all I too am bothered by all aspects of the war in Iraq:
- Why are we there? That is the main question that sticks....
This thread is worthy of the attention of all who are concerned with the tactics being used. Some say "War is War" but I ask again "Why are we there?"
Let me understand this. Because you don't like, or believe the evidence for us being in Iraq that somehow changes, against an objective measure the the true harm or lack thereof of the actions undertaken by the troops there. The actions are nothing more than a hassle in an attempt to minimize deaths.
Quote:
Have the "coalition" forces done any good with their actions? I would suggest not at all. Is this their fault? No I lay blame with the Bush admin.
If you do not consider the removal of Saddam a good thing, regardless of your questioning the initial motives, then that is your perogative. However I consider that a very good thing done.
Quote:
What is the exit stategy? Is it to hand over control just as the elections come around the corner for Bush? Or, could it be to stay for a protracted period and draw in more fighters from the ranks of Bin Laden and co? Is Iraq going to become stable and free?
How would Iraq become stable and free? Your "or" solutions of which one must be chosen all stink. The "or" solutions presented by critics before the war even began basically would force you to choose massive casualties. Of course when they were wrong they weren't liars who mislead the American people, it was "Oops, we will move on to the next question and be equally wrong."
Maybe the ranks are thin and desperate, much like the army that fell so quickly. Perhaps this is their last stand they are trying to win politically, that which they cannot win militarily. Of course the U.S. is attempting something that does not currently exist in the middle east, a democracy. I have faith that it, like all true democracies, will flourish. There will be occasional set backs, but it will flourish just as Japan and Germany did after WWII.
Quote:
Can I ask one more time,, Is Iraq going to become stable and free? Why do we believe in this idea of stability when in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict nothing of the sort is a reality. But for some reason this can be achieved in Iraq? I am also to believe we are there for the Iraqi people? For their liberation? No chance for a grab of power from differing factions of the country and peoples? I am not buying that Iraq is going to become stable and free any time soon unless the UN is involved.
How are the two even comparable? Of course this can be achieved in Iraq. The Israeli/ Palestinian conflict revolves around the same pieces of land. The groups arguing over it are diametrically opposed. Is Iraq somehow made out of some land from surrounding nations created from a U.N. resolution and surrounded on all sides by religiously opposed people who wish to see them exterminated?
Monarchy is not democracy. Saddam, even though he had the title president, was effectively a monarch. When only a single person can have power the only way you can have ANY is to grab it from him or broker something with him. Democracy does not operate under the same principles. I don't have to broker power with you for example to obtain wealth. You don't control all of it, and I am free to work and obtain it myself. That is the difference.
Quote:
Where are we with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? Has the Bush admin. relaxed attention on Al Qaeda in light of the focus on Iraq?
Has the broadening mess "coalition" forces find themselves in as well as the known political pressure at home in respective coalition countries created an opportunity for Al Qaeda fighters to flock to Iraq through now more complacent and less concerned Iran and Syria? Iran and Syria both know Bush would have (NO) political support let alone the resources to enter into an even larger quagmire.
I still read plenty of periodic articles. I actually almost thought the opposite. I was still reading so many articles, that I thought that critics of the president were going to accuse him of beating the terrorist drum to ignore domestic issues. Oh wait they do accuse him of that. Perhaps actions can take place even in the absense of daily news briefs on them.
As for Syria and Iran, were they ever concerned about Al Queda to now fall to the level of complacency? Prior to the war the rumors were that the WMD had been taken to Syria. Now suddenly Syria is concerned with terrorism or less so? These tribes and their terrorist ties move as they wish across the borders. They don't work as a nation-state just because western views tell them them must do so.
Quote:
Needless to say I for one believe that the tactics of the US-led "coalition" forces in Iraq as stated by the opening post of this thread are advancing a less than human environment for the Iraqi people. I do not support these actions. I will never defend such inhumane actions.
Then don't defend it. The article was clear. They were assigned I.D.'s and still move freely in and out of town. They just do so through a checkpoint. It has only been imposed on the most troublesome sites within Iraq. It is not less than human treatment, it is an annoyance.
Quote:
Nick I am amazed by the examples and comments you bring to this thread and quite frankly disgusted with the effort in which you defend any and all actions put into play by the US and so-called "coalition" forces within Iraq. I believe to compare Iraq to inner-city California is ignorant and off base in the worst of ways. I am not even going there as to why but let's be clear that was extremely ignorant.
What is ignorant is to believe hyperbole instead of actions. You are also welcome to be "disgusted" by it. I call something what it is regardless of the parties involved. Giving someone an ID and having them go through a checkpoint is not an death camp or a prison camp. To call it such is dishonest and is an attempt to win with rhetoric, that which cannot be won with reason.
As I said I compared the two to show the types of tactics used here at home where we are "free" from living under a police state. You would think that surely someone could never be denied the right to congregate, own a phone, or walk the streets when not guilty of a crime. Yet injunctions have been granted against these gang members for just those actions. They are "premptive" measures in an attempt to prevent gang actions. I've watched our own freedoms disappear when riots have occured. If you believe that you could do what you want or go wherever you want in your own community if wide-spead murder or mayham were occuring, then you are naive.
Likewise here in the U.S. due to the terrorist attacks we implimented measures that forced EVERYONE to take up to three hours just to get on a plane. Are those suddenly less than human conditions? They had to submit to random searches, etc. The tactics change with the conditions that is my contention both in Iraq and here as well. If there were gang bangers firing tank armor piercing missles at police cars, you can bet there would be curfews, and checkpoints a plenty.
You're missing the most important facts. You're trying to compare Iraq to America, but our government and military are in charge of America. We're not in charge of Iraq. It's not our country.
So, if the U.S. were to move into a foreign country like Canada and issue I.D. cards to Canadians and surround their cities in razor wire and shoot them if they didn't go through the checkpoints then yes it would be a police state. The U.S. shouldn't do that and shouldn't in Iraq.
If we have to resort to these tactics then we've failed. We should get out and get someone in there that can handle the situation without blowing up children. If there's a suspected militant in the building we should put troops on the ground and get him, not bomb the kids from a plane.
If we can't handle that we should get out. Bush would rather kill children than risk his reelection campaign.
Likewise you make these places sound like some sort of prison camps, when the reality is that the people can come and go as they please, just through the checkpoint. So you tell me how that is bad since you have labeled it as such.
They can't come and go as they please, they'll be shot if they do. If that's not bad in your mind then your mind is warped.
Kingdom of Suck...which is what the troops call downtown Mosul, and I can't say that I disagree with them. Rainy, cold, smelling of diesel mixed with dishwater and turds from the open sewers running down the center of the Biblical era alleyways across the street...this $$$$ing place is a treat for ALL of the
senses and then some...
This shit is fun, but it's no picnic. I'm in a small former schoolhouse in downtown Mosul right across the street from the stone and mud-brick ancient buildings and alleyways of the Old City, which is Bad Guy Central. This company CP took two RPG rounds a couple of days before I got here, and there is AK fire on the street every night all around us...
These guys roll out of the rack at 3:00 a.m. and put on their boots and pick up their flak vests, helmets and M-4 carbines and about 300 rounds of ammunition without complaint and hit the streets like they're going to Pizza Hut. But it's very, very dangerous outside the wall and wire, and very, very scary, and I know, because I've been out there with them at 3 a.m...
My $$$$ing Cipro bill alone would be enough to put me in the poorhouse if I didn't have WGA health insurance. They've got bugs and intestinal worms and the smoke of burning, stinking garbage heaps out the window and piles of
human shit, donkey shit, and goat and sheep shit in the street I have walked through every goddamned day that would quite literally make you puke, not to mention the nightly pop-pop-pop of AKs down the alley across
the street. I wouldn't wish this place on a CAA agent, and you can imagine what I think of them...
Now I didn't read most of the conversation above, but from the shorter posts it looks like certain folks are trying to downplay the current situation in Iraq. This shit is hitting the fan, and all indications point to it getting worse.
It's total bullshit to claim that the civilian population isn't getting repressed right now. Just as in every conflict of this sort (of which there are a few high profile examples), the US military is punishing the whole class for throwing the paper airplane until it figures out who to blame.
Unfortunately, more and more Iraqis are getting pissed as a result. Hell, even the Iraqis I know here in the US that supported the war are now pissed. The situation is $$$$ed up, and to pretend it's comparable to a toll booth is $$$$ing stupid.
Oh, and don't forget: post-war Iraq is a totally foreign environment. The first flaw in this discussion invovles thinking it's equivalent to ID cards in a peaceful, developed, prosperous and organized country when really it is chaotic, war-torn, violent and fully under developed.
You're missing the most important facts. You're trying to compare Iraq to America, but our government and military are in charge of America. We're not in charge of Iraq. It's not our country.
You are correct that we do not own Iraq. But I would consider it dishonest to say our government and military are not in charge of Iraq. We are in charge temporarily while setting up and working with the new government being put in place there, but we are still in charge.
Quote:
So, if the U.S. were to move into a foreign country like Canada and issue I.D. cards to Canadians and surround their cities in razor wire and shoot them if they didn't go through the checkpoints then yes it would be a police state. The U.S. shouldn't do that and shouldn't in Iraq.
From dictionary.com (If it's good enough for Shawn, it's good enough for me. )
A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
It speaks only of actions by a government against the people. It does not claim the actions are justified if it happens to be against it's own people instead of a foreign people. That seems like a very odd strawman. It implies in its reasoning that if the U.S. government made it's own people go through checkpoints, that is okay. That's not true. A police state is a police state, whether on foreign soil or on our own.
Quote:
If we have to resort to these tactics then we've failed. We should get out and get someone in there that can handle the situation without blowing up children. If there's a suspected militant in the building we should put troops on the ground and get him, not bomb the kids from a plane.
Please and who would handle this? The UN already began removing people from Iraq because of the terrorist attacks on their buildings and people there. If there is another organization on this planet that can act with more accuracy and use aggression in a more tempered manner than the U.S. military, you are welcome to name it. As for the tactics, again you complain be they ground or air.
Quote:
If we can't handle that we should get out. Bush would rather kill children than risk his reelection campaign.
And the killing of troops and children has in no way lowered American support for the war or Bushes poll numbers? Yes, I'm discussing and disagreeing with Fellowship because Bush has used Iraq to grow his support here at home. You have a strange definition of success.
They can't come and go as they please, they'll be shot if they do. If that's not bad in your mind then your mind is warped.
Please don't be dishonest and leave off what I and even you typed, THROUGH THE CHECKPOINT. I never made the claim they could cut holes in the barbed wire and leave without harm. I said clearly, as did you that they could come and go freely through the checkpoint. Don't omit something we both already know.
Then my mind is warped, because when I had to go to the airport and get on a plane while watching National Guard soldiers stand around with M-16's I didn't think I was living in a police state. I'm sure if I had started acting like I had a bomb, a gun, or actually using either of those, I would have been shot.
Then my mind is warped, because when I had to go to the airport and get on a plane while watching National Guard soldiers stand around with M-16's I didn't think I was living in a police state. I'm sure if I had started acting like I had a bomb, a gun, or actually using either of those, I would have been shot.
You see, acting like you have a bomb or a gun is an assault. Leaving your house is not. Big difference. Getting on an airplane is not the same as visiting a friend or relative in the next town over. There's no comparison.
Isn't the checkpoint the only way in or out? If that's the case, then they clearly cannot come and go as they please.
Isn't the only exit out of my room through the door. Oh wait, I could jump through the window, but that wouldn't a very pleasant experience. Oh, the inhumanity.
Isn't the only exit out of my room through the door. Oh wait, I could jump through the window, but that wouldn't a very pleasant experience. Oh, the inhumanity.
I have tried to understand what that have to do with the situation discussed here but I simply fail to. Please show how your post applies to the situation in Iraq in any way.
For the comparishment to the airport situation: You really don´t have to go to the airport. It is your choice to do so. When you can´t leave your village (to go to work or the marked) without accepting certain restrictions the situation is quite different. Especially when the people doing the control is an occupational force not speaking you language and the id papers you have to show is written in a language you can´t read.
I see this not as much through moral eyes but strategical. The forces are shooting their collective foot with this one, distancing themselves even more from the population.
Isn't the checkpoint the only way in or out? If that's the case, then they clearly cannot come and go as they please.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You see, acting like you have a bomb or a gun is an assault. Leaving your house is not. Big difference. Getting on an airplane is not the same as visiting a friend or relative in the next town over. There's no comparison.
As midwinter said, they can't come and go freely.
Yes and don't you have to get on and off the freeway via the appropriate ramp. The point, which both of you are certainly smart enough to grasp, is that limiting how you enter and leave a town does not limit your ability to enter and leave that town and still travel as you wish. I have to enter Mexico, via a crossing point. I don't think "police state" while waiting to cross the border. It doesn't limit my ability to travel in Mexico or in the United States. It is just the government designated way of getting from one to the other. It doesn't limit my travel.
The fact they cannot leave the town WHERE they please does not limit their ability to travel. It is a ridiculous notion to even ponder. It would be like saying I'm in a police state because I have to drive on the designated roads and use the traffic signs and signals.
If they wish to get in their car and leave the town at any time, they may do so. However instead of just driving out on any road, they drive out on the one checkpoint. Controlling traffic flow is not repression. It is about the strangest thing I can imagine someone asserting. People have their access to roads blocked for a variety of reasons. If there is construction and thus I can only use one freeway off-ramp instead of the other three, I'm not living in a police state even though they have limited my ability to get into my town.
I have tried to understand what that have to do with the situation discussed here but I simply fail to. Please show how your post applies to the situation in Iraq in any way.
For the comparishment to the airport situation: You really don´t have to go to the airport. It is your choice to do so. When you can´t leave your village (to go to work or the marked) without accepting certain restrictions the situation is quite different. Especially when the people doing the control is an occupational force not speaking you language and the id papers you have to show is written in a language you can´t read.
I see this not as much through moral eyes but strategical. The forces are shooting their collective foot with this one, distancing themselves even more from the population.
Absurdity. It is no more a requirement that you work in a certain place or drive there than it is that you use the airport. People have to use the airport for their jobs and their work. It is a mode of travel just like a car. It was picked out because that is what the terrorists used and that is why I make the comparisons I do. If the terrorists had used moving vans filled with explosives. I wouldn't call it a repressive police state if there were checkpoints stopping vans.
My father makes his living as a diesel mechanic. We live right near some diesel scales where the state mandates all big rigs to pull over, be inspected and weighed. The don't do this for immigration action, or for terrorist action. They do it for road safety and EVERY SINGLE truck must pull over and submit to it. If they attempt to go around it via city or side streets they will have their rig impounded. Are these diesel drivers living in a police state because we don't wish to have 18 wheelers running down the road overweight, with bald tires and no brakes?
Comments
Originally posted by addabox
i don't really think west Oakland = Iraq. I'm responding to your notion that the measures being taken in Iraq are benign because we have sobriety check-points in America.
Still , I am slighlty weirded out that you're willing to go with the analogy and apply the logic of occupation to an American city. This sort of thing is usually offered as a critique of police heavy-handedness; however, I get the impression you think of it as an endorsement.
I guess once you become a fan of war it starts looking like the solution to everything.
It's not that I am a fan of war. I just understand that no one is above certain tactics. We are led to believe that the U.S. is acting harshly but it is allowing as many freedoms as are possible within the current constraints. I use American cities as an example to try to show that we are not treating the Iraqis any differently than I believe we would treat ourselves. I lived in Los Angeles during the riots and I assure you the freedoms that are taken for granted were gone pretty quick when people are burning buildings, shooting at anyone and anything and there is general lawlessness. It isn't an endorsement, it is simply reality.
The criticism amounts to hey, the people you are working against follow no rules, and you follow all of them and by the way, don't upset anyone or make any mistakes. They are a pretty impossible standard to meet. That is why I was hammering on bunge a bit. (but he knows I still love him) He complained that we weren't willing to lose ground forces and instead were (and are) using air strikes which risk civilian lives to save military lives.
Now we are using ground forces and the result is a cost in military lives. In order to attempt to minimize that, they give every one an i.d. and have them go through a checkpoint. They don't do this everywhere in Iraq, just in the most troublesome spots. It would appear that it is the best possible attempt to save military lives and not harm civilian lives. This is of course met with... more criticism and comparisons with Nazi Germany. (compliments of giant)
The reason I compare it to American cities is because the liberal expectation is pretty much the same. Don't stereotype anyone, solve every crime, never misuse or overuse force, never make a mistake. Oh and again, btw the other side doesn't have follow any rules. You hear the same sort of nonsense about the same impossible expectation.
They should just admit they don't want anyone doing the job and it would be much easier.
Nick
In my opinion this second phase was doomed from the beginning. You need the support of the populace to be successful in a "war" such as this. Who has this support? Once Saddam had fallen, action to restore fundamental services was required. Diplomatic posturing took care of that idea and now people are dying.
I did not support the war, but once started and finished more was needed to be done to return Iraq to "normality"
Originally posted by jwri004
I In my opinion this second phase was doomed from the beginning. You need the support of the populace to be successful in a "war" such as this. Who has this support? Once Saddam had fallen, action to restore fundamental services was required. Diplomatic posturing took care of that idea and now people are dying.
I did not support the war, but once started and finished more was needed to be done to return Iraq to "normality"
why wasn't the second phase done the same way it was done in afghanistan, (installing a government almost immediately) that model is working much better than the current iraqi model. afghanistan was much more 'wild west' as well.
i don't know could it be......hmmm....oil?
if we were interested in the heroin trade would we have done anything different in afghanistan?
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
why wasn't the second phase done the same way it was done in afghanistan, (installing a government almost immediately) that model is working much better than the current iraqi model. afghanistan was much more 'wild west' as well.
i don't know could it be......hmmm....oil?
if we were interested in the heroin trade would we have done anything different in afghanistan?
Are you trying to imply that maybe the motives of Bush were impure?
First of all I too am bothered by all aspects of the war in Iraq:
- Why are we there? That is the main question that sticks....
This thread is worthy of the attention of all who are concerned with the tactics being used. Some say "War is War" but I ask again "Why are we there?"
Nick I am amazed by the examples and comments you bring to this thread and quite frankly disgusted with the effort in which you defend any and all actions put into play by the US and so-called "coalition" forces within Iraq. I believe to compare Iraq to inner-city California is ignorant and off base in the worst of ways. I am not even going there as to why but let's be clear that was extremely ignorant.
Have the "coalition" forces done any good with their actions? I would suggest not at all. Is this their fault? No I lay blame with the Bush admin.
What is the exit stategy? Is it to hand over control just as the elections come around the corner for Bush? Or, could it be to stay for a protracted period and draw in more fighters from the ranks of Bin Laden and co? Is Iraq going to become stable and free?
Can I ask one more time,, Is Iraq going to become stable and free? Why do we believe in this idea of stability when in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict nothing of the sort is a reality. But for some reason this can be achieved in Iraq? I am also to believe we are there for the Iraqi people? For their liberation? No chance for a grab of power from differing factions of the country and peoples? I am not buying that Iraq is going to become stable and free any time soon unless the UN is involved.
Where are we with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? Has the Bush admin. relaxed attention on Al Qaeda in light of the focus on Iraq?
Has the broadening mess "coalition" forces find themselves in as well as the known political pressure at home in respective coalition countries created an opportunity for Al Qaeda fighters to flock to Iraq through now more complacent and less concerned Iran and Syria? Iran and Syria both know Bush would have (NO) political support let alone the resources to enter into an even larger quagmire.
This Newsweek Link has me asking just that.
Newt Gingrich has now come public with his view of the situation in Iraq as handled by the Bush admin.
"Off a Cliff" quote by Gingrich
Needless to say I for one believe that the tactics of the US-led "coalition" forces in Iraq as stated by the opening post of this thread are advancing a less than human environment for the Iraqi people. I do not support these actions. I will never defend such inhumane actions.
Fellowship
I say fsck them losers. Immediately withdraw the forces from populated areas in Iraq. Immediately halt all reconstruction funding until election are held and a responsible local government establishes itself. Also, make certain all aid to Iraq is secured by Iraqi oil revenues. Those that we support should receive small carrots in the form of military aid such as small arms, and if necessary the occasional air support.
Originally posted by majorspunk
I agree.
I say fsck them losers. Immediately withdraw the forces from populated areas in Iraq. Immediately halt all reconstruction funding until election are held and a responsible local government establishes itself. Also, make certain all aid to Iraq is secured by Iraqi oil revenues. Those that we support should receive small carrots in the form of military aid such as small arms, and if necessary the occasional air support.
Yeah I say $$$$ those losers too. If they don´t appreciate all what we done to... for them they can rot. I mean they are supposed to be thankful for our ... their liberation and if they aren´t we might as well take it away from them again and just grab the oil.
Originally posted by Anders
... their liberation and if they aren´t we might as well take it away from them again and just grab the oil.
Repeat after me: this war was not about oil!
It was about promoting democracy and universal humanitarian values ... and liberation ... and WoMDs, yes WoMDs ... and and and Al Quaida and US security and ...
Well, just forgetaboutit. What exactly are they doing there, apart from issuing "drivers licences" and pulling a Sharon on civilian villages?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Where do I even start?
First of all I too am bothered by all aspects of the war in Iraq:
- Why are we there? That is the main question that sticks....
This thread is worthy of the attention of all who are concerned with the tactics being used. Some say "War is War" but I ask again "Why are we there?"
Let me understand this. Because you don't like, or believe the evidence for us being in Iraq that somehow changes, against an objective measure the the true harm or lack thereof of the actions undertaken by the troops there. The actions are nothing more than a hassle in an attempt to minimize deaths.
Have the "coalition" forces done any good with their actions? I would suggest not at all. Is this their fault? No I lay blame with the Bush admin.
If you do not consider the removal of Saddam a good thing, regardless of your questioning the initial motives, then that is your perogative. However I consider that a very good thing done.
What is the exit stategy? Is it to hand over control just as the elections come around the corner for Bush? Or, could it be to stay for a protracted period and draw in more fighters from the ranks of Bin Laden and co? Is Iraq going to become stable and free?
How would Iraq become stable and free? Your "or" solutions of which one must be chosen all stink. The "or" solutions presented by critics before the war even began basically would force you to choose massive casualties. Of course when they were wrong they weren't liars who mislead the American people, it was "Oops, we will move on to the next question and be equally wrong."
Maybe the ranks are thin and desperate, much like the army that fell so quickly. Perhaps this is their last stand they are trying to win politically, that which they cannot win militarily. Of course the U.S. is attempting something that does not currently exist in the middle east, a democracy. I have faith that it, like all true democracies, will flourish. There will be occasional set backs, but it will flourish just as Japan and Germany did after WWII.
Can I ask one more time,, Is Iraq going to become stable and free? Why do we believe in this idea of stability when in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict nothing of the sort is a reality. But for some reason this can be achieved in Iraq? I am also to believe we are there for the Iraqi people? For their liberation? No chance for a grab of power from differing factions of the country and peoples? I am not buying that Iraq is going to become stable and free any time soon unless the UN is involved.
How are the two even comparable? Of course this can be achieved in Iraq. The Israeli/ Palestinian conflict revolves around the same pieces of land. The groups arguing over it are diametrically opposed. Is Iraq somehow made out of some land from surrounding nations created from a U.N. resolution and surrounded on all sides by religiously opposed people who wish to see them exterminated?
Monarchy is not democracy. Saddam, even though he had the title president, was effectively a monarch. When only a single person can have power the only way you can have ANY is to grab it from him or broker something with him. Democracy does not operate under the same principles. I don't have to broker power with you for example to obtain wealth. You don't control all of it, and I am free to work and obtain it myself. That is the difference.
Where are we with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? Has the Bush admin. relaxed attention on Al Qaeda in light of the focus on Iraq?
Has the broadening mess "coalition" forces find themselves in as well as the known political pressure at home in respective coalition countries created an opportunity for Al Qaeda fighters to flock to Iraq through now more complacent and less concerned Iran and Syria? Iran and Syria both know Bush would have (NO) political support let alone the resources to enter into an even larger quagmire.
I still read plenty of periodic articles. I actually almost thought the opposite. I was still reading so many articles, that I thought that critics of the president were going to accuse him of beating the terrorist drum to ignore domestic issues. Oh wait they do accuse him of that. Perhaps actions can take place even in the absense of daily news briefs on them.
As for Syria and Iran, were they ever concerned about Al Queda to now fall to the level of complacency? Prior to the war the rumors were that the WMD had been taken to Syria. Now suddenly Syria is concerned with terrorism or less so? These tribes and their terrorist ties move as they wish across the borders. They don't work as a nation-state just because western views tell them them must do so.
Needless to say I for one believe that the tactics of the US-led "coalition" forces in Iraq as stated by the opening post of this thread are advancing a less than human environment for the Iraqi people. I do not support these actions. I will never defend such inhumane actions.
Then don't defend it. The article was clear. They were assigned I.D.'s and still move freely in and out of town. They just do so through a checkpoint. It has only been imposed on the most troublesome sites within Iraq. It is not less than human treatment, it is an annoyance.
Nick I am amazed by the examples and comments you bring to this thread and quite frankly disgusted with the effort in which you defend any and all actions put into play by the US and so-called "coalition" forces within Iraq. I believe to compare Iraq to inner-city California is ignorant and off base in the worst of ways. I am not even going there as to why but let's be clear that was extremely ignorant.
What is ignorant is to believe hyperbole instead of actions. You are also welcome to be "disgusted" by it. I call something what it is regardless of the parties involved. Giving someone an ID and having them go through a checkpoint is not an death camp or a prison camp. To call it such is dishonest and is an attempt to win with rhetoric, that which cannot be won with reason.
As I said I compared the two to show the types of tactics used here at home where we are "free" from living under a police state. You would think that surely someone could never be denied the right to congregate, own a phone, or walk the streets when not guilty of a crime. Yet injunctions have been granted against these gang members for just those actions. They are "premptive" measures in an attempt to prevent gang actions. I've watched our own freedoms disappear when riots have occured. If you believe that you could do what you want or go wherever you want in your own community if wide-spead murder or mayham were occuring, then you are naive.
Likewise here in the U.S. due to the terrorist attacks we implimented measures that forced EVERYONE to take up to three hours just to get on a plane. Are those suddenly less than human conditions? They had to submit to random searches, etc. The tactics change with the conditions that is my contention both in Iraq and here as well. If there were gang bangers firing tank armor piercing missles at police cars, you can bet there would be curfews, and checkpoints a plenty.
Nick
You're missing the most important facts. You're trying to compare Iraq to America, but our government and military are in charge of America. We're not in charge of Iraq. It's not our country.
So, if the U.S. were to move into a foreign country like Canada and issue I.D. cards to Canadians and surround their cities in razor wire and shoot them if they didn't go through the checkpoints then yes it would be a police state. The U.S. shouldn't do that and shouldn't in Iraq.
If we have to resort to these tactics then we've failed. We should get out and get someone in there that can handle the situation without blowing up children. If there's a suspected militant in the building we should put troops on the ground and get him, not bomb the kids from a plane.
If we can't handle that we should get out. Bush would rather kill children than risk his reelection campaign.
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise you make these places sound like some sort of prison camps, when the reality is that the people can come and go as they please, just through the checkpoint. So you tell me how that is bad since you have labeled it as such.
They can't come and go as they please, they'll be shot if they do. If that's not bad in your mind then your mind is warped.
http://tinyurl.com/xwvk
Kingdom of Suck...which is what the troops call downtown Mosul, and I can't say that I disagree with them. Rainy, cold, smelling of diesel mixed with dishwater and turds from the open sewers running down the center of the Biblical era alleyways across the street...this $$$$ing place is a treat for ALL of the
senses and then some...
This shit is fun, but it's no picnic. I'm in a small former schoolhouse in downtown Mosul right across the street from the stone and mud-brick ancient buildings and alleyways of the Old City, which is Bad Guy Central. This company CP took two RPG rounds a couple of days before I got here, and there is AK fire on the street every night all around us...
These guys roll out of the rack at 3:00 a.m. and put on their boots and pick up their flak vests, helmets and M-4 carbines and about 300 rounds of ammunition without complaint and hit the streets like they're going to Pizza Hut. But it's very, very dangerous outside the wall and wire, and very, very scary, and I know, because I've been out there with them at 3 a.m...
My $$$$ing Cipro bill alone would be enough to put me in the poorhouse if I didn't have WGA health insurance. They've got bugs and intestinal worms and the smoke of burning, stinking garbage heaps out the window and piles of
human shit, donkey shit, and goat and sheep shit in the street I have walked through every goddamned day that would quite literally make you puke, not to mention the nightly pop-pop-pop of AKs down the alley across
the street. I wouldn't wish this place on a CAA agent, and you can imagine what I think of them...
Now I didn't read most of the conversation above, but from the shorter posts it looks like certain folks are trying to downplay the current situation in Iraq. This shit is hitting the fan, and all indications point to it getting worse.
It's total bullshit to claim that the civilian population isn't getting repressed right now. Just as in every conflict of this sort (of which there are a few high profile examples), the US military is punishing the whole class for throwing the paper airplane until it figures out who to blame.
Unfortunately, more and more Iraqis are getting pissed as a result. Hell, even the Iraqis I know here in the US that supported the war are now pissed. The situation is $$$$ed up, and to pretend it's comparable to a toll booth is $$$$ing stupid.
Oh, and don't forget: post-war Iraq is a totally foreign environment. The first flaw in this discussion invovles thinking it's equivalent to ID cards in a peaceful, developed, prosperous and organized country when really it is chaotic, war-torn, violent and fully under developed.
Originally posted by bunge
Nick,
You're missing the most important facts. You're trying to compare Iraq to America, but our government and military are in charge of America. We're not in charge of Iraq. It's not our country.
You are correct that we do not own Iraq. But I would consider it dishonest to say our government and military are not in charge of Iraq. We are in charge temporarily while setting up and working with the new government being put in place there, but we are still in charge.
So, if the U.S. were to move into a foreign country like Canada and issue I.D. cards to Canadians and surround their cities in razor wire and shoot them if they didn't go through the checkpoints then yes it would be a police state. The U.S. shouldn't do that and shouldn't in Iraq.
From dictionary.com (If it's good enough for Shawn, it's good enough for me.
A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
It speaks only of actions by a government against the people. It does not claim the actions are justified if it happens to be against it's own people instead of a foreign people. That seems like a very odd strawman. It implies in its reasoning that if the U.S. government made it's own people go through checkpoints, that is okay. That's not true. A police state is a police state, whether on foreign soil or on our own.
If we have to resort to these tactics then we've failed. We should get out and get someone in there that can handle the situation without blowing up children. If there's a suspected militant in the building we should put troops on the ground and get him, not bomb the kids from a plane.
Please and who would handle this? The UN already began removing people from Iraq because of the terrorist attacks on their buildings and people there. If there is another organization on this planet that can act with more accuracy and use aggression in a more tempered manner than the U.S. military, you are welcome to name it. As for the tactics, again you complain be they ground or air.
If we can't handle that we should get out. Bush would rather kill children than risk his reelection campaign.
And the killing of troops and children has in no way lowered American support for the war or Bushes poll numbers?
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
They can't come and go as they please, they'll be shot if they do. If that's not bad in your mind then your mind is warped.
Please don't be dishonest and leave off what I and even you typed, THROUGH THE CHECKPOINT. I never made the claim they could cut holes in the barbed wire and leave without harm. I said clearly, as did you that they could come and go freely through the checkpoint. Don't omit something we both already know.
Then my mind is warped, because when I had to go to the airport and get on a plane while watching National Guard soldiers stand around with M-16's I didn't think I was living in a police state. I'm sure if I had started acting like I had a bomb, a gun, or actually using either of those, I would have been shot.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Please don't be dishonest and leave off what I and even you typed, THROUGH THE CHECKPOINT.
Isn't the checkpoint the only way in or out? If that's the case, then they clearly cannot come and go as they please.
Originally posted by trumptman
Then my mind is warped, because when I had to go to the airport and get on a plane while watching National Guard soldiers stand around with M-16's I didn't think I was living in a police state. I'm sure if I had started acting like I had a bomb, a gun, or actually using either of those, I would have been shot.
You see, acting like you have a bomb or a gun is an assault. Leaving your house is not. Big difference. Getting on an airplane is not the same as visiting a friend or relative in the next town over. There's no comparison.
As midwinter said, they can't come and go freely.
Originally posted by midwinter
Isn't the checkpoint the only way in or out? If that's the case, then they clearly cannot come and go as they please.
Isn't the only exit out of my room through the door. Oh wait, I could jump through the window, but that wouldn't a very pleasant experience. Oh, the inhumanity.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Isn't the only exit out of my room through the door. Oh wait, I could jump through the window, but that wouldn't a very pleasant experience. Oh, the inhumanity.
I have tried to understand what that have to do with the situation discussed here but I simply fail to. Please show how your post applies to the situation in Iraq in any way.
For the comparishment to the airport situation: You really don´t have to go to the airport. It is your choice to do so. When you can´t leave your village (to go to work or the marked) without accepting certain restrictions the situation is quite different. Especially when the people doing the control is an occupational force not speaking you language and the id papers you have to show is written in a language you can´t read.
I see this not as much through moral eyes but strategical. The forces are shooting their collective foot with this one, distancing themselves even more from the population.
Originally posted by midwinter
Isn't the checkpoint the only way in or out? If that's the case, then they clearly cannot come and go as they please.
Originally posted by bunge
You see, acting like you have a bomb or a gun is an assault. Leaving your house is not. Big difference. Getting on an airplane is not the same as visiting a friend or relative in the next town over. There's no comparison.
As midwinter said, they can't come and go freely.
Yes and don't you have to get on and off the freeway via the appropriate ramp. The point, which both of you are certainly smart enough to grasp, is that limiting how you enter and leave a town does not limit your ability to enter and leave that town and still travel as you wish. I have to enter Mexico, via a crossing point. I don't think "police state" while waiting to cross the border. It doesn't limit my ability to travel in Mexico or in the United States. It is just the government designated way of getting from one to the other. It doesn't limit my travel.
The fact they cannot leave the town WHERE they please does not limit their ability to travel. It is a ridiculous notion to even ponder. It would be like saying I'm in a police state because I have to drive on the designated roads and use the traffic signs and signals.
If they wish to get in their car and leave the town at any time, they may do so. However instead of just driving out on any road, they drive out on the one checkpoint. Controlling traffic flow is not repression. It is about the strangest thing I can imagine someone asserting. People have their access to roads blocked for a variety of reasons. If there is construction and thus I can only use one freeway off-ramp instead of the other three, I'm not living in a police state even though they have limited my ability to get into my town.
Stranger by the minute...
Nick
Originally posted by Anders
I have tried to understand what that have to do with the situation discussed here but I simply fail to. Please show how your post applies to the situation in Iraq in any way.
For the comparishment to the airport situation: You really don´t have to go to the airport. It is your choice to do so. When you can´t leave your village (to go to work or the marked) without accepting certain restrictions the situation is quite different. Especially when the people doing the control is an occupational force not speaking you language and the id papers you have to show is written in a language you can´t read.
I see this not as much through moral eyes but strategical. The forces are shooting their collective foot with this one, distancing themselves even more from the population.
Absurdity. It is no more a requirement that you work in a certain place or drive there than it is that you use the airport. People have to use the airport for their jobs and their work. It is a mode of travel just like a car. It was picked out because that is what the terrorists used and that is why I make the comparisons I do. If the terrorists had used moving vans filled with explosives. I wouldn't call it a repressive police state if there were checkpoints stopping vans.
My father makes his living as a diesel mechanic. We live right near some diesel scales where the state mandates all big rigs to pull over, be inspected and weighed. The don't do this for immigration action, or for terrorist action. They do it for road safety and EVERY SINGLE truck must pull over and submit to it. If they attempt to go around it via city or side streets they will have their rig impounded. Are these diesel drivers living in a police state because we don't wish to have 18 wheelers running down the road overweight, with bald tires and no brakes?
Inane...
Nick