The War in Iraq - Your Opinions On The Situation

[anthony]

This thread is a global hot topic, and I will warn everyone now, please be mindful of what you say in response, ensuring your opinions are stated as such, and no member attacks another member because of their opinions, which they are entitled. This thread will be heavily moderated by editors.

I don't want people to avoid global discussion, but are encouraged to participate to help with your healing, in that to discuss topical issues within the world is to help self esteem and confidence in ensuring you respond appropriately, not aggressively or attacking another for their opinions.

The War In Iraq

The war has been ongoing since its inception in 2003, where the US made a decision against UN support to invade Iraq, and I do say invade, as that is the word the describes what occured as they did not have permission to actually enter the country itself.

Now, after a conversation with veiled yesterday, I was enlightened that she had no knowing of what has really gone on with the war as she cannot watch the news because it triggers her symptoms. When I told her about President Bushes statement last year, admitting that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and even admitting that Osama Bin-Laden was not the man responsible for the 9/11 attack on America, she suddenly felt quite ill. These are undisputed facts now, admissions by President Bush within the world media circuit.

What has also come to light, is that the initial satellite images provided by the CIA where sent for authenication, all of which failed authenticity tests and had been manipulated by computer programmes to show things that the satellite did not actually capture.

President Bush admitted that the CIA has secret jails, in which the real mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been held, and will face prosecution. Still, undisputed facts which have been made public by President Bush himself.

Now, for those that are US citizens, and maybe fail to see where other countries now look very much down on America as a Nation, you may start to understand why. Yes, this does not say the world looks down on all the citizens themselves, but definately the nation as a whole, and more importantly, the political level of the country.

America has used knowing false information the entire time, especially to try and garnish support in the first place to invade Iraq. They used this known false information in which to then drag other countries into the war as allies, all levels believing there was a true purpose to this. Well, after 3 years and countless lives lost, it was all a smoke screen which the truth has finally evolved for nothing more than America to take control of the oil fields within Iraq, being the main objective in the first place.

If America wanted to go get Saddam, they should have just said so, as no country would have really disputed those reasons for the acts and crimes he has committed against his country. I think he would off had countries lining up to help actually for that one. But what they did was use 9/11 and the impact of that act to garnish support from their citizens and allies in order to invade a country for nothing more than power. That power being to control the oil, as America is the largest buyer. Do the math.... America is the largest buyer, so why pay a fortune to continue buying something when instead you can makeup other excuses to go get it and take control of the asset, then pay a much lesser fee, which means greater profits for the country at the political level...

When you look at all these facts that came to light last year, and they are facts, from the very mouths of the political moguels who told the complete opposite initially to invade the country, what do you think other countries would now think of America as a nation? It is very much hand in hand with the political backlash of the world against America, even American citizens now also against their own countries political level for what they have done to their country, and the world as a whole.

John Howard here in Australia will not win the next election now, very very doubtful, as whilst he was consumed in the initial lie, and not knowing the real facts, as I doubt even Bush knew at the time, but he still supports what has now started, in that he will not remove our troops from the lie, instead leaving them in the face of danger for nothing more than an outright lie that was told to the world. John Howard has taken our country from billions in debt, to now no debt, we own the country again, and would have continued to be Prime Minister if he kept his very commonsense approach to running this country, but it seems old age is getting to his decision making abilities, and trying to blind the public and control the public like the US attempts, none of which works here. So on that note, I think we will have a new Prime Minister here next year, all because he blatantly refuses to continue using his commonsense and get our troops out of the lie that has been pulled over the worlds eyes by the US political arena.

So... what do you feel about what you know, or even don't know, about the war in Iraq? IMO, all countries should be getting the hell out of the country now, last year actually.

[cookie]

i feel it is very unfortunate to have been handled so badly, and there is no right thing to do now, if the us pulls out, it is going to be even more pandemonium than it is now, and if we stay, we are going to keep losing soldiers and innocents for a cause that has gone awry. i voted for Bush, i would do it again, i don't agree with everything he has done, though. all war is unfortunate, the root always being that someone feels superior to another race, creed, religion, etc. and try to hold power or death over them. we are all people of this earth, made by God, given our own free will to accept Him or not, and people should respect each others differences and similarities as such.
cathy

[anthony]

I too feel it is very unfortunate Cathy, in that so many lives have been taken for a cause that was all a mask of lies and deceipt, one of which there is no benefit as I can see that helps human beings in whole. Saying you would vote for Bush again Cathy, what helps you come to that decision?

[Terry]

I voted for Bush not because I thought he was the right man for the job but because the others were way wrong for the job. Having worked all my adult life in government I've learned it's not a battle between the political parties but rather a battle between the very proud weathy and the very guilt ridden weathy. In the US you can only run for public office with BIG BUCKS which leaves the majority of the good folks out of the running. It's like an old guy told me at a voting booth several years ago when the question was asked by the new media that was there asking about voting along racial and party lines. The old guy turned to me and grinned and said "they don't get it, It's not about race or political parties. It's about trying to figure out which one's gonna screw you the least". WISDOM. As for the war, they F***ed up going to Iraq instead of just going after Osoma (however he spells it) and his bunch. But now troops and resources are commited and Iraq is about as F***ed up as it was before so do we just pull out and let whats left of the good people fend for themselves or what. I could give a rats ass about what the rest of the world would think (US weak, whatever). The US needs to take care of the US and not police the rest of the world. We got our own problems. And NO I would never vote for Hillary !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Aussie vote don't count.....:p

[mouse]

I feel that this war is built on lies and misdirection WMD which havent been found, there has been so much money and lives spent fighting for a cause that is not shared by the general public I hate to say it but I feel it is a war similar to Nam and that the americans and their allies dont have a chance they have the firepower but not the drive. It was a war started to get Saddam and then after 911 God rest there souls it became a political empowerment a cause to root the people together to build moral which happened but now ther have been to many unnessasry lives lost on all sides may be it s time to let the country go back to its oe=wn civilwar and get out while we still can save as many lives as possible, it is after all only property, I dont know a view from a canuck remember we live in igloos and wear toques

[reallydown]

Ok...I guess I'm gonna put my two cents in as well...Remember though, just my opinion here...mixed with soem facts. of course there is a long and complex history to all this as well and I'm not sure I can do justice to it...

Saddam Hussein was, beyond a doubt, a terrible person, an evil dictator who killed his own citizens if they were opposed to him, and systematically violated their human rights.

But, what many seem to forget is the fact that that didn't seem to bother the US before, as the US supported Saddam Hussein and, indeed, helped him get into power. There is a famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld cordially shaking Hussein's hand (I believe back in the 1980's, can't remember the exact date though)

Also, during the early 1990's, after Saddam Huessein's forces were ousted from Kuwait, I believe the Iraqis tried an uprising, which Bush, the elder, said he supported but turned his back on. Naturally the rebellion was crushed by Hussein, and God knows what happened to those people.

Of course, the sanctions that were imposed on Iraq (and here, the international community as a whole (at least the UN Security Council) i sresponsible, didn't actually hurt Hueesein and his thugs as much as it hurt most of the Iraqi people who were unable to get even the basic medical equipment, for example) At any rate, th elikelyhood of Hussein obtaining WMD was low, given the severity of the sanctions...That doesn't mean, however, that he did not try...

As for the current mess, I beleive it was not authorized by the UN Security Council, though some (as Bush and Blair have done) may argue that UNSC Resolution 1441 gives implicit authorization for the use of force...Still, for all intents and purposes the action wa sillegal under international law...

In terms of merely going in there to get rid of Saddam Huessein...again, that is not permissible under international law (state sovereignty etc)
The US Administaration, as well as the Brits apparently, used false intelligence in an attempt to scare the world into support of r the war...Of course, after the terrible events of 9/11 it is understandable that Americans would be scared and more on edge regarding security...however, as many Administration officials, and indeed, the president himself have later said, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Which begs the question, why did the US then invade Iraq...the resons given have changed many times...from attempted links to Al-Qaida, to liberating Iraqi's, to democracy etc...Sadly, the US seems to have lost focus in terms of getting the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11...

Now in terms of pulling out...I agree that the US should pull out...but, at the same time, you can't just go in, f**k up the country and leave; what about all the damage, and all the innocent lives lost, not to mention the lives of US soldiers themselves?...Ok...I could probably go on and on and on on this topic but I'm gettign tired ...so I'll stop there for now.

[becvan]

What bites my ass about this is the fact that sooo many people are dying and just how many have PTSD from it now?? As all governments, mine included, people army and all, are no more than a "resource" to be used up... I feel like governments could give a rat's ass about their own people's lives and put no worth on human life..

that greatly disturbs me...

bec

[anthony]

Funny reading the paper today, as John Howard thinks its somehow ok to get involved directly in US politics and attack Obama (I think his name is) because Howard backs George Bush for some stupid reason, as he is in deep also in the political arena with the Iraq issue. John Howard has now lost the majority of favourtism here in Australia by the things he is doing off late. The man is getting senile, for sure, with some of the stupid things coming from his mouth.

Speaking of stupid, America is now being fed intel that Iran is supplying weapons to the Iraqi freedom fighters to fight against the coalition, with talk obviously surrounding whether the US is then going to attack Iran also. A funny comment that was made referred directly to the Iraq situation, in that the US invaded Iraq feeding false intel to the world, and now the CIA and other organisations are feeding similar intel, all unconfirmed, to the US in order to provoke war against Iran.

Let me just say for those who are not in the know about Iran and fighting, in that Iran is the one country on earth you do not ever want to attack. Their soldiers have fought since birth nearly, and each generation is the same, born and when walking learning how to shoot and fight in war. Iran has nuclear weapons, all of which they ARE absolutely without a doubt willing to use and have told America previously, outright; that if they come into Iran at any stage they WILL use nuclear weapons against the US. I am hoping so much, that the US do not act on this in any manner nor be convince that going into Iran is the only alternative. If this happens, you could 99.9% believe that the US is going to get nuked as a result, even elsewhere in the world if others get involved. I was stunned reading this today, near fell off my chair, that the US would even consider such an act or contemplate it, and even provide any opinion on actions based on unconfirmed intel. Have they not learnt a thing from Iraq? Nostradamus predicted that the next world war would commence in the middle east, and Iran is the one country in the middle east that WILL start the nuclear WWIII. Not that that means a great deal, considering so many of his predictions never occured, and then missed a whole bunch of major events, more prominent than what he had even listed as historical... but the general prediction that it would eventuate from the Middle East... well, I wonder at times.

[Scott_Fraser]

I think that enough is enough about the war in Iraq. If our NATO allies are not willing to help i.e. France and Germany. We should start pulling our boys out and let the UN take over. We are losing to many young men and women. Regiments are worn out and exhausted, the turn over in replacements is taking to long, and being replaced by troops that are not up to standard, the Territorial Army (UK) and National Guards units. It is quite clear that this is slowly becoming another Vietnam and we are getting even more deeper into this Abyss. We have 30,00 British Troops in the south and although it is a quieter sector, casualties are mounting daily. Due to the fanatics. Our own regiments have been cut to the bone due to amalgamation of regiments and defence cuts. Our navy is now a joke, we have more warships lieing idle than at sea.
Bring all the boys home and concentrate on Afghanistan, that is the main trouble spot.
Scott

[mac]

Got-damnit Anthony, I think this thread is a sht-stirrer!:wink:

I read through about 3/4 of your initial post and it sounds like you have your facts straight.:thumbs-up

I feel compelled to write my damn experiences over there, but I'm not going into all the details because it would be too damn long and painfull. I will note that rumor spread (May 03) that the war was over, but I did not see that... I saw more casualties and the innocent children injured are ABSOFCKINGLUTELY THE WORSE:crybaby:
Everytime I think about them I break down, even now as I write this. I feel guilty in a way supporting a military machine that has caused so much undue suffering upon the innocent and a lot of times I feel this PTSD is a sort of purgatory/punishment for that, regardless of even though I was initially deceived into believing this war was 'just.'

Off and on over there, I didn't wear my uniform as sort of a protest. Nobody cared though I guess because I was my own boss there. And I stopped ducking down underneath a running helicopter to retrieve another casualty (I would get briefly chewed by the crew chief but I didn't care)... now that I think about it, that's the first time I was ever suicidal in my life. I was lucky to be out of Iraq so quick... because the powers that be realized that there was no primary mission for me there; identify biological agents used in WMDs. When I got home I was like in a culture-shock. It was euphoric and I thought that I could put all that sht behind me and move on.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" = "MISLEADING ACCOMPLISHED!"

[mac]

Barrak Obama (s?) makes me leary to think of casting a vote for him simply because of his 'Muslim' name... reminds me of Osama. Call it discrimination, or what you want, I don't care. I have a hard time trusting anyone that has a Muslim name, but proclaims to be a Christian... I look like a wolf, but really I'm a sheep.:biggrin:

[Nam]

This upcoming election is going to be pivotal, that's for sure. My view maybe a simple one; I want the war to end. I want our troops home.

[veiled]

Anthony, after the update you gave me... All i can do is shake my head. People were duped. What needs to be done is a clean up and give it over to the proper officials and the Iraqi people. At least the monster is dead. His reign of terror over his own people is gone. But we need out and do some clean up efforts simply put. Still feel pretty ill over that chat!

I am going to have to work on my news issues but maybe once a week or month as it would send me all over to uncontrollable symptoms if I even thought of more than that.

I know I am curious who will be up for the elections. We all know Bush cannot go again. But it is a ways off and from what I have heard (apparently not much) I have not heard the names tossed out who will be running in the Rep primaries.

[waynes]

At least the old marine in charge of the JCS does not buy into the bad intel.. Gen. Pace said today that there is no facual information proving the connection between explosives and Iran. Anthony, where did your information on Irans suposed possesion of acuall nukes come from? I was under the impression that they were in the mid stage of development?
Wayne

[anthony]

They had it publicized in "The Age" newspaper yesterday or day before, with images taken of the ordnance and the issues surrounding what has been going on. The funny thing was, from memory when reading the news, is that sources from within Iran claimed they had been doing this for some time now, however; if you look back to the US previously, they have been supplying weapons to Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries for decades, their used weaponry as such. Many of the soldiers are being killed by some older ordnance that was built within the US itself. I knew about the existing issues from my own military operations and information, even though its public nowadays, but I didn't know about Iran supplying weapons to help kill Americans. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, in that the US also supplies weapons to Iran, or have done in the past decades. I will have to go look that one up now, as my memory is a bit fuzzy on that.

Either way, no country should ever contemplate attacking Iran IMHO... suicide is a nice word for it if you ask me.

Some recent references which are now online:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7357347&ft=1&f=1001
http://newsbreak.com.au/related/a792842Lots more if you do a search. Most of the information is pretty much the same, with the main points, only the little differences between news publishers. Then there are now immediate prints that the Iranian government have obviously denied doing such acts, even though media have been presented documented evidence by the militia's. I always used to tell my soldiers actually, don't worry about orders, just watch the news and media, because they often know more accurate information than the military does, or what they tell us... we used to make a joke of it actually, in that to get orders, watch the evening news. It was pretty accurate though... that is the scary part.

[mac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

[mac]

"we used to make a joke of it actually, in that to get orders, watch the evening news. It was pretty accurate though... that is the scary part."

That is so true.

[anthony]

Thats the one... thanks mac, much appreciative.

[cookie]

ok, anthony, to clarify what i said about voting for bush again...i mean i still would have voted for him, compared to the others that were running at the time. didn't mean now, lol. i believe he is a good man, and i believe things were misrepresented to him, and he allowed himself to be manipulated by others he chose to listen to. i am registered to one political party, but i think we have to weigh all the candidates as to who believes the things that are best for our country, and who would stand for those things--a person of their word (hard to come by in a politician, or the public at large, anymore)
cathy

[anthony]

Don't worry Cathy, it doesn't bother me if anyone wants to vote for him again, if he could run that is... that is their opinion and right. Its all good.

I very much agree with things said here recently, in that its not about voting in the one that is the better, but voting in the one you believe is telling the less shit. Politicians are twits... all over the world, twits. One in maybe a thousand are actually worth anything as a human being, and aren't tainted to simply conspire and accept the manipulated system that is placed before them. I say that, because how many do you see knocking back their pay rises, whilst the countries themselves are often taking pay cuts? I have seen it once here in my lifetime...

[reallydown]

Another two cents from me...Personally, don't have too big of a problem with Bush himself...He's rather entertaining (personal opinion) but the people pulling the strings...seem rather nasty to me...

Now in terms of voting for (in teh case of the US) Democrats or Republicans...it's really pretty much the same (ok...the neo-cons currently running things are a bit different I guess...not in a positive way) the Democrats seem to be abit better domestically in terms of education, social security etc...

Also (again, my personal opinion) not voting for someone because the media (and the other side) portray him(think George Lakoff and framing) (yes, talking about Kerry here) as a flip-flopper is to me a little strange...because it seems to suggest to me that the person is being influenced by that too much, rather than making an inforemd decision...

We have these things here too...I mean so many people voted Conservative just to punish the Liberals for the "sponsorship scandal" rather than considering what the implications of such a vote may be (Harpy seems to have a bit of a dictatorial streak in him...never mind him being utterly incapable of running a country...He also didn't even bother to show his face at the AIDS conference hosted by Canada...that's just...rude, at the very least)...Even worse is people voting against the Liberals, for example, just for change...Don't get me wrong politicians have to be held accountable...and I'm certainly not saying the Liberals here are great....However...they're the only party ehre that's shown itself capable of runnign the country (mind you, still tons of room for improvement)...OK end of rant for now...

[anthony]

It's funny actually RD, in that I was just watching a little Chris Rock humour last night, and he mentioned in one of his shows that no decent person would vote for only one party, without hearing all the arguments first, for example: a little liberal here, conserative with crime, etc etc... basically, weighing up at each election who is running and what their policies are. Who will do the least damage I guess was his point, but ensure that any person who votes listens to all arguments first, without already having decided their preference. Its amazing how many people have a "party" in which they choose regardless what policy they have, they just vote that party, and not based on what the policies themselves are. Each to their own obviously, that was just something that Chris Rock happened to mention in the show I was watching last night. Funny bugger he is, but very effective at making his point with humour involved.

I personally like to listen to all sides first, and I make my decision based on past performance (if any), and what their going to do for Australia as a whole, not what their going to do for me as one person in the country. Even then, I guess you have to try and push past the shit that they dribble, and find what the real truth is behind the candidate.

[reallydown]

Agreed. And also...when you have a system where it essentially boils down to having only two parties that can realistically win the elections one has to wonder about the level of choice in such democracies...of course, it also depends on the electoral system...We have first-past the post here...which, I think, is nto the best idea. I'm more for some kind of proportional representation...

One other thing that strikes me as a little strange in some democracies...you have to have a lot of money to run...so while in theory everyone can run for office, in practice, huge numbers of the population ar eunable to do so...which also contributes to voter apathy etc...which I gues sis in the interest of those who rule...etc...

[mac]

IMO, I wish this thread would just close.

[anthony]

Why is that mac? It is a topical issue within the world, one in which every person is entitled their opinion, and others must respect one anothers opinions, not try and change one another to suit ourselves, but just respect one another.

[Scott_Fraser]

I think that whatever George Bush does, Tony Blair does as well. Like I said before. Bring all our troops home, let the Iraq's sort the mess out. Afterall they are killing each other and getting our boys killed into the bargain. Enough is Enough.
Scott

[anthony]

Yep... and don't leave out John Howard, as he seems to be getting on the boat more and more, using less and less commonsense, which is what got him elected in the first place, and for so long at that... old age is getting too him now.

[reallydown]

Just a question for the military guys out there...to what extent do they (whereever you happen to be from) familiarize soldiers with international law (I mean the jus in bello...Geneva Conventions but also the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force) before deployment?

[Scott_Fraser]

The UN Charter is a load of "Bull" to put it politely. The UN is a complete waste of space, its more of a talking shop for highly paid diplomats than anything else, like an Exclusive Gentlemans Club, if you like.
Scott

[anthony]

When you deploy RD, you deploy under what is called Rules Of Engagement (ROE), each military force will have certain ROE types, just as the UN also have one. Basically what an ROE card is, is the laws of what you can, and cannot do, in a specific operation depending on what they classify a zone to be. For example: aid missions may be no weapons, or if weapons are present, the lowest ROE meaning there is no direct enemy. It obviously steps up from there to warlike situations. The UN have standard laws in which are given to every soldier deployed within a UN mission, which outline the laws of conflict for that operation. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they change, depending on each situation uniquely.

So, soldiers are briefed and made aware of the laws of conflict to an International level, and they carry them upon them in a brief form if under UN control.

[reallydown]

Thanks for your answers Scott and Anthony.

[motorjack]

Iraq, veitnam(sp),spanish war,second world war, or what ever one you can bring up,its all the same and it will happen all over agian. It doesn't matter who the superpower is or has been , when the boss wants to send a message the young men and women will go. Rules of engagement are for the winners and they chose to apply them,,,,just my two bits....mj

[Scott_Fraser]

There is a saying by the old Prussian General, Von Clauswitz, just before Waterloo, which says. "War is the continuation of a Country's Foreign Policy by other means".
Agreed we went into this war with good intentions, to rid the world of a vicious Dictator. But why in 1991 at the end of the 1st Gulf War, did we stop!
The road to Bagdad was open and clear of all enemy troops. Their best troops, The Republican Guard, were wiped out on the road to Basra. We could have ended it then, British and American troops could have been in Bagdad that evening if we just kept going. I know, I was there and I was bewildered as to an order that did not make any sense. Then all of this waste of lives now wouldn't be happening. End of Story. Ask George Bush Senior why he decided to stop.
Scott

[anthony]

Even though it wasn't Bin-Laden at that time they wanted, if your talking about Bush senior as to why they stopped, my guess is because of their family ties as business partners to the Bin-Laden Group.

[reallydown]

"Bring all our troops home, let the Iraq's sort the mess out. Afterall they are killing each other and getting our boys killed into the bargain. Enough is Enough."

Scott, I agree that it is tragic that all those soldiers (British. American etc) are getting killed in a war waged based on lies...the way Bush and Blair (and others) play with the lives of their own sodliers and their families is disgusting.

Having said that, I beleive that those who helped bring this mess about should also help to clean it up...And also, any time a country is invaded, no matter how 'noble' (gettign rid of dictators, bringing democracy etc) the reasons, the fac t is that the people, under international law, have a right to self-defence and that they will fight those they see as occupiers...just my two cents

[mac]

It appears the consensus agrees it SUCKS! Let's stop beating a dead horse...:wall:

[reallydown]

Mac, I agree that this is not productive in terms of changing anything...but does that mean it shouldn't be discussed at all?

[Scott_Fraser]

Blair announced today that he is bringing 2000 troops home before christmas, the first lot come home at Easter. The British forces are handing back control to the Iraqi Army in the south.
I wonder if Bush will do the same in Bagdad?
Scott:dontknow:

[Linda]

I am sorry, I do not want to offend anyone here. I will just tell my opinion without telling that is is the only right one... (Hah, a new skill I have to learn).
I do not like muslims in general and iraqies in particular and consider them to be our primary enemies. I thing it would be a right thing to do in 1945 to try a nuclear weapon on them., I mean all arabic countries. It was not done, so, we have to deal with the situation. I consider it absolutelly wrong to send Americans to fight and die for the good of the country enpopulated by the emenies of Christians, Christian culture, and Christian tradition. I also feel that it is wrong to send any kind of help to them. If they want to live their own way, they must rely on themselves only.
If Bush would destroy this whole region, he would be my hero. However, now we do not know who else has and wants to use the weapon of mass destruction. So, I would leave those things alone, withdraw any help, and do not let them go to the USA and other civilized traditionally Christian countries.
But, here is another thought crossing my mind, if I try to think that iraqies are still human beings and thus have all feelings and thoughts of human beings. I had participated in the Russian Resistance movement in early 90-s, and I do know what the fight against the unrighteous government is. My PTSD is coming from a brutal street fight I was involved.
However. Yes, is we could overthrow those "democrates", and bring our country to the constitutional order, thet would be a great victory and a tremendous triumph. But did we want anyone else to come and do it for us? Especially the super-powerfull country, which, of course, wants its influence in our land rather than good for our people?
The answer is: absolutelly no. If at this time Americans would come for "help", and kill the Kremlyn Alcoholic (Yeltsin) with his fellows, and make the person _they_ find right a president... No, even if they would come to our land and started to make their order...
I am sorry for saying this, but many of us would become a suicidal bombers, as Russian tradition of fighting teaches to give your life for your land.
I am sorry agains, and, again, I DID NOT MEAN to offfend anyone here, or to hurt anyone's feelings.
Anthony, if you find this post unacceptable for any reasom, please feel free to delete it.

[anthony]

Linda, your post is your opinion, and others must respect anothers opinion here. I know what your saying above... but do you believe it really has to do with Iraqies themselves, or more a select faction of them? Its like saying I guess, that all Australians are bad, where there are always a selection of the population in which will do bad. This would apply to every country within the world. Every population has factions, has proportions of bad people, some more than others, but to label an entire type of people... well, maybe a little prejudice on that one IMHO.

The good thing is Linda, is that I highly value and push people here to express their opinions, and then on the other side, others respect anothers opinions. Well done, and glad you are participating in such topics.

[Linda]

Anthony, thanks for taking my post as an opinion rather than as trying to force people to think like I do... Well, that probably means I'm on a riht way!:biggrin:
I do not think that there are any group of people "good" or "bad" from their nature. I rather think that in the beginning there are equal number of fair and unfair individuals between any several randomly choosen populations.
But I am sure that culture matters. A simple example: in Russia, alcohol is a major cultural component, thus, you can expect any Russian to be an experienced drinker :smile: I think that an Arabic baby adopted by a European ar American family will grow as a European or an American, not as an Arab.
And what I mean, muslims think that their religion is the only right one, and that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for killing people of other religions. The Koran says right the opposit thing, by the way, but for some reason this wrong interpretation is greatly widespread and accepted in the Muslim world. Just think about this: they do not know how to read, but do know how to shoot. This is why, I do not like them and do not trust them. I have base for my opinion: look what happened in France last year, or in Denmark a little later.
Again, if you think I'm saying something insulting or unacceptable, please feel free to remove my postings.

[mouse]

The only Thing that I have to say about this is no matter what religion, cultural base, ethnic group what have you, There will always be extremists and those who chose to interprute religious beliefs It would be fair in my opinion to say that the general principals behind the Koran, the Bible, and all other religious writtings is that they are not set with the belief to cause war and terror and that killing is right It is how it is interpruted thats is the issue. I had a Partner that was Iranian and for the longest time I thought he was so rude and aggressive, and confrontational, I am glad that I had the patience to talk with him mand to find out that his beliefs are that it is unacceptable to be wronged and that you must always stick up for yourself and fight for what is right say what you mean and be upfront. Anyways I too am tired of the loss of life and would love for the wars to be over and everyone be home, but I am also glad to see that there are nations people that are willing to stand up to injustice and to help fight for whats right. I am proud of our Troops I just wish they could all come home.

[reallydown]

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion...However, when that opinion, stated in a public forum, could be seen as spreading hate, I get a bit worried... Saying that a people or peoples (in whole or in part) should be annihilated is extremely worrying at best and I don't know what at worst...but the word genocidal comes to mind...and in my opinion, is no different than the sick Nazi ideology used in WWII

Sweeping generalizations and "othering" certainly do not help matters...Not everyone is a fanatic...but in my opinion, those sweeping generalizations and "othering" usually result from ignorance and fundamentalism on the other side...

[Marilyn_S]

Hello,
I'm a newbe here but would like to join in a little. I got a bit of a weird view on this whole matter. Although I try to keep my head in the clouds and ignore things I havn't the power to do anything about, sometimes my adult brain over rides my kid brain and I decide to try and develop an informed oppinion.
1st, I'd like to say that alot of folks have the idea that our military men in Iraq are invensible machines that are trained and able to handle anything. I've even heard poeple say this is just a conflict and not even a war! And I thought I had my head in the clouds! What people fail to understand is that our men and women of the United States Military are human beings who are away from their homes and families living in an unpredictable, dusty, foreign environment where there are no clear targets and no predictable enemy!!! They are either bored stinkless, worked buttless, or scared sh*tless!!!! Not only that, they don't know if the woman crossing the street with skinny arms and a fat dress is just pregnant or toting a bomb!!! And this is not a war!!! If thats not a war I shutter to think what a war is! What? Do people think there has to be an extinction level event for it to be called a war!!! And this whole big thing about "War on Terror"! Who the H#ll is terror!!! Is it a country? Is it a dictator? I may be a simple hick from the sticks but I think our elected folks need to do a better job defining this whole thing if they are going to put America's best men and women in harms way to go to WAR!!!!
I've seen pictures of men and women in Iraq holding hands in prayer, feeding children, and helping people build things. It makes me so proud of our military people and our allies military folks I just want to hug everybody and cry!
Well there's my speal!
LUV & CARE
Marilyn

[Linda]

Aming them, there are a way too many fanatics.
You've never seen, and are never going to see, ultra-ortodox Jews protesting violently against pictures of pigs in public places, or cartoons in newspapers. You will never find them burning cars and houses in the country which accepted them as immigrants.
Well, I do have an opinion, and for now, it is not going to change. There is also notheng to add to what I had already posted, simply in order to avoid hot discussion.
I respect other people's opinions, and will keep mine for myself.

[Jim]

You've never seen, and are never going to see, ultra-ortodox Jews protesting violently against pictures of pigs in public places, or cartoons in newspapers. You will never find them burning cars and houses in the country which accepted them as immigrants.


You've got a definite point there, Linda. While I served with UNDOF in Golan Heights, we rarely had difficulties with Israeli settlers. The Arabs were another matter entirely. That's not prejudice, it's simply the truth of the matter.

However. Having recently returned from a very brief deployment to Afghanistan, must say, I do have compassion for the Afghan people. The majority are against the Taliban and grateful to have our troops there to assist them. Fortunately I have never been to Iraq and God willing I never shall.

Jim.

[Linda]

Jim,
I had a lot of friends in Russia who were Afganistan vets, and my ex-boyfriend was one, too. None ever said negative about Afgani people. I heard "They are hard workers", "They are humble", "They are not vicious". None hated them.
Also, I had friends who had been in Chechnya, and here, many came back with a real hate toward Chechens.
I do not know what the difference is, probably it is that Afganistan is a poor country with a large population of peasants, who just want to have their land and work on it in peace.
In contrast, Chechens traditionally were living from invading other tribes' land and robbing.

[Loathe]

Intersting topic, and I like to hear what people outside the US have to say about things.

I guess I'll break this up into facts and opinions.

Facts:
1. The gov't lied abotu the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
2. There were other reasons to invade (cease fire violations, violations of UN mandates)
3. Sadaam paid for and ordered an attempt to be made on the life of former president Bush (sr)
4. Sadaam's forces repeatedly fired upon American and British aircraft patrolling the no fly zone.

Opinions.
1. We broke it we bought it. We can't pull out to the job is done.
2. We are not giving our troops the support they need to accomplish the mission at hand.

A good plan that a friend told me Sen. Murtha (I'm going to hell for agreeing with him) put forth was that we retire to the dessert and form several bases in the country outside the cities, giving us the ability to launch lightning strikes against targets at a momoents notice. I really like this a lot, too bad Bush(jr) woudln't go for it.

[madjon]

its a mess, if its a war you would be able to fire on anyone firing at you, no problem there, if its a peacekeeping role then you cant do shit, if its an occupation then you can only deal with organised uniformed groups if its a cooperative assistance force your tied up liasing with locals,
if its a big mess where everybody is trying to kill everybody else and all you can do is try to keep a lid on it, to stop it boiling over what do you do, they have no rules of engagement or tribunals or laws about killing, they certainly dont have to read a poxy card or wait for more than one round to come in before firing, its not a war anymore its not a defined operation, its a case of doing the best with a big mess, you cant use military tactics in cities without killing people, the press dont like that, you cant act against the local bad boys as that gets you in more trouble, between the press , people gaggling to cry foul and tie the hands of people on the ground, and idiots in charge, its going to take time, there is no new nation born without struggle, the reasons for going in were bullshine, the way the occupation was handled in the early days led to a lot of problems later, now have to deal with the mess, best option is build stability and internal governance, get the place reasonably self regulating, build up local forces and resources and leave, but only at a point in time when the iraqis are capable of managing, that still leaves others on the ground in a mess, their not in a war their not in a peacekeeping role and their being screwed from all sides, is there an answer to the problem? pull out and the place will be overrun with anarchy in 48 hours and all these bleeding hearts who complain of it all being attributable to soldiers on the ground will be astonished to see mass open inter nicene warfare and extermination instead of the attrition which is happening now, for the moment the only thing to do is stay and make the best of it, do the best you can do in a bad situation,
stay and have casualties and disruption,or go and have mass exterminations and a never ending civil war.

[anthony]

Excellent perspective Loathe... well said.

[reallydown]

Well, it's debatable whether or not the no-fly zones were actually authorized by the Security Council in the first place, and if not, then they were illegal. UN Security Council Resolution 687 provides for weapons inspections, the oil for food programme etc...thoguht it's true that there were some ceasefire violations; Even if you look at UNSCR 1441, there is no clear authorization for the use of force...Even with violations of ceasefires etc...you still need Secuirity Council Authorization...In terms of other reasons to invade...I suppose the fears over burning oil fields was just looking after the best (economic) interests of Iraqis....and the fact that Halliburton's in Iraq has nothing to do with it either haha

I agree with both your stated opinions Loathe...why anyone would put their own troops at such risk in such a poorly planned mission is beyond me...