fun in the middle east

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Snake, stop encouraging him ffs.

Sorry, it was entirely too easy and I don't take insults and racism well...

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Sorry, it was entirely too easy and I don't take insults and racism well...

sandsnake - to keep things sane between us in future posts, just as you dont take insults and racism well... i don't take too well to being called "thick" either.

I apologize for my outburst

[JonnyBGood]

Can I get apologised to for being referred to as pinheaded please? I want in on the universal <3

[Zar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Can I get apologised to for being referred to as pinheaded please? I want in on the universal <3

fine apologies.

if only you guys could see the capital gains form my boss has made me do. his contract forms are all over the place, his handwriting is awful, the print outs are smudged and certain parts missing. i've had to take it home just to finish it.

and i have till tomorrow morning to do it. i'm going mad!

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Can I get apologised to for being referred to as pinheaded please? I want in on the universal <3

You are pinheaded, if by pinheaded he means "Permanently drunk on Guinness and unable to hold down a job because his student mentality means he thinks everything should be free, but not to the extent of Communism that Dante preaches"

k?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

You are pinheaded, if by pinheaded he means "Permanently drunk on Guinness and unable to hold down a job because his student mentality means he thinks everything should be free, but not to the extent of Communism that Dante preaches"

k?

I don't think everything should be free. Just everything I care about.

[Evergreen]

You need a new sig Kura

[Ste]

And I'm sorry I didn't post on the first page of this thread

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Zar

sandsnake - to keep things sane between us in future posts, just as you dont take insults and racism well... i don't take too well to being called "thick" either.

I apologize for my outburst

Yes, sorry about that. As a veteran, I tend to be somewhat passionate about soldier issues, so I tend to get a tad upset when nasty generalizations start to get tossed around.

For the record, I don't support the war in Iraq. While I think that it may have become necessary, the reasoning behind it was crap. (Sadly, those standing against it were doing so for equally crap reasons)

What people typically fail to realize is the sacrifices that soldiers make as far as rights and freedoms. Soldiers do the best they can in often shitty situations, and they may or may not agree with the whole thing. However, an army of philosphers with "freedom to choose" wouldn't be an army at all. Unfortunately, it's nie impossible to explain what it means to someone who hasn't done it or cannot understand that there must be someone willing to give up everything so that you can keep it...

Be angry with the coalition, be angry with how things are being done, but for god's sake, don't paint the guys on the ground as a bunch of bloodthirsty whackos because most would rather die than harm an innocent person.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

You need a new sig Kura

When someone says something funny or ironic enough, i might change it.

Or when they let me have a banner for a sig

[Kurashima]

BTW Snake, with the current uprisings in various cities around the country, is Iraq "The New Vietnam".

(The comedy value of watching Paul Bremer attempting to answer that question on NBC was priceless)

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

BTW Snake, with the current uprisings in various cities around the country, is Iraq "The New Vietnam".

(The comedy value of watching Paul Bremer attempting to answer that question on NBC was priceless)

I'm leaning towards "yes, but not yet" because I don't hold great faith in arab culture and their ability to shake islamic control. The US's first mistake was thinking we could ever hope to form a truly democratic state in a culture where fanaticism and violence in the name of god has become acceptable (and always was if you read the koran heh).

The people will invariably vote in some priest who will go exactly the route that we don't want. The US, in an attempt to stop the spread of communism, advised the South Vietnamese government to postpone the elections until such a time as the communists had lost their foothold. The direct result of that advice was the vietnam war....

If the coalition attempts to stop the iraqi people from getting their elections until such a time as the islamic leadership doesn't have a chance, blood will flow. And how do you win a war where you're fighting the will of the very people you're "defending"? It didn't work 35 years ago either.

[wu_trax]

maybe its their right not to want democracy and a country like the ones we are all living in?
maybe a capitalist, democratic society is the most efficent one (but if you consider how many other countries are exploided by us (thats us, read EU and USA) maybe its not) who can tell? and who can tell if its all the same for the whole world?
any attempts to force someone into something they dont want have to fail, all you can possibly do is replace a hostile dictator by a more friendly one, but does that make things any better for the people?

(im assmuning here the current us-goverment has any desire to turn the iraq into a democratic country, which is not at all prooven)

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

...
But anyway, I don't see why people alwas criticise soldiers. It's ridiculous. They're doing a damn hard job, in a horrible climate, surrounded by a population any of whom could either hate them, or try to kill them. In such conditions I'd have probably accidently shot off my own leg, plus at least twenty or thirty civilians.

Should they be there? No, of course not. Are their leaders criminals who probably should face some kind of trial? Probably, yeah. But blaming the soliders? Sheesh.

...

Doing a hard job isn't particularly good or bad by itself. Putting up with bad conditions is probably a bad thing. If someone joins the army and gets sent to Northern Ireland or Iraq, it's like seeing a friend hurt themselves or something. The only responses are to mind your own business and ignore it, or call them idiots.

Or how about a comparison to suicide bombers. I'm sure they're both really hard jobs. Sure, fighting soldiers is Braver than slaughtering civilians, and I have no experience of either, but it seems like the same sort of thing. I used to think the TA's were ok, but it seems they're just used in the same way as the regular army now except with lower pay, and the response to mass resignations seems to be to put out ****loads of primetime adverts to attract more heros. I appreciate it's not an issue of morality, but soldiers must be ****ing nuts.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

maybe its their right not to want democracy and a country like the ones we are all living in?

Maybe it is, but I'm not sure how one would determine what the Iraqi people want absent any sort of democratic process. If, after elections have been set up, the Iraqis want to vote for the mullahs or Saddam II then fair enough--they had their chance and they can go back to being oppressed with my compliments. Until then though, I don't see any point in letting a handful of extremists speak for the Iraqi people. If we're going to do that then we should have just left Saddam in power.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Maybe it is, but I'm not sure how one would determine what the Iraqi people want absent any sort of democratic process. If, after elections have been set up, the Iraqis want to vote for the mullahs or Saddam II then fair enough--they had their chance and they can go back to being oppressed with my compliments. Until then though, I don't see any point in letting a handful of extremists speak for the Iraqi people. If we're going to do that then we should have just left Saddam in power.

why is it your buisness in what kind of society the people in iraq life in? sooner or later theyll figure out what they want and what they need on their own (and they wont hate you if something doesnt work out)

oh, and it most likely takes a little more than 'a handful of extremists' to take over a few cities.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

why is it your buisness in what kind of society the people in iraq life in? sooner or later theyll figure out what they want and what they need on their own (and they wont hate you if something doesnt work out)

oh, and it most likely takes a little more than 'a handful of extremists' to take over a few cities.

The point concerns the eighteen individuals who don't want to live under sharia law because it's not right end of story. Maybe they'll figure it out on their own in a while but morally speaking does that really justify death, repression and violence. The fact the majority thinks they have a right to decide on the laws is the main reason behind my view that democracy is shit.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

why is it your buisness in what kind of society the people in iraq life in?

Since we took out the previous regime because, in part, it was oppressive then I figure we owe these people an election. What they do with it of course it up to them. I suppose we could just leave and hope some armed faction doesn't seize power, but that hardly seems right to me.

sooner or later theyll figure out what they want and what they need on their own (and they wont hate you if something doesnt work out)

I'm pretty sure they'll hate us anyway, but that's a different thread.

oh, and it most likely takes a little more than 'a handful of extremists' to take over a few cities.

Not really; but regardless, if these groups have so much popular support then they should welcome an election--unless of course they don't really have that much support. :eek:

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

why is it your buisness in what kind of society the people in iraq life in? sooner or later theyll figure out what they want and what they need on their own (and they wont hate you if something doesnt work out)

oh, and it most likely takes a little more than 'a handful of extremists' to take over a few cities.

I think you misunderstand human psychi...In Iraq, it's "look what you did to us" and in Rwanda, it's "Why didn't you help?"

Blame will always be there, and the blood will always be on your hands. The question is really when does it become the world's business to make sure that people get a fair shake and when should we just stay out of it?

Do I beleive that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do? Maybe, but not for the reasons presented.
Do I think that 800,000 rwandan lives are on the heads of both my and your nation? Surely.

So here's the kickers:
IF we hadn't removed Saddam, who would be responsible for the deaths he caused?
IF we had stopped the genocide in Rwanda, would the violence we would have had to commit put unjust blood on our hands?
When is the time for talk over? How far do we let it go? What is our responsibility as a world community? How many must die before it's justified in your mind to step in?

[Zar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The point concerns the eighteen individuals who don't want to live under sharia law because it's not right end of story. Maybe they'll figure it out on their own in a while but morally speaking does that really justify death, repression and violence. The fact the majority thinks they have a right to decide on the laws is the main reason behind my view that democracy is shit.

mainland europeans use that proportional representation thingy right? Thats probably a better thing for those 18 individuals. Only problem with that is that things take forever to go through :/

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Not really; but regardless, if these groups have so much popular support then they should welcome an election--unless of course they don't really have that much support. :eek:

bush and co aren't going to allow a non pro-west (pro-us) into power. It's naive to think that they would allow elections to run, without interference if a saddam think-a-like was to enter power.

Whether or not americans end up rigging any future elections in iraq, it is certain that whoever will end up being in power will be someone who is 10 times more friendly to the usa than saddam was recently - (lets not forgot donny rummsfeld and his saddam loving days) - even if he is not the perfect puppet.

We won't be seeing any major extremists coming to power, no matter how popular they are.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Zar

mainland europeans use that proportional representation thingy right? Thats probably a better thing for those 18 individuals. Only problem with that is that things take forever to go through :/

Not really. That's just one of those vague misconceptions that everyone assumes is right and never bothers to research. The point is about the, even just one, individual who doesn't want to live under an unjust system. Proportional representation just gives a more accurate reflection of the collective biases of the nation without giving excessive weight to those of the majority.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

ho ho ho....I wore the uniform, I carried the rifle. I know exactly what many of them are thinking because i WAS one of them.

If anyone is naive, it's you. No, they're not masters at peaceful operations because ultimately that ISN'T their primary job. However, they do not go into an area thinking "How many kids can I kill today?"

Soldiers do not sign away their right to think, they sign away their right to make the big decisions. It comes with the territory. They didn't choose to be where they were, but they make decisions every day on what they're going to do while they're there and none of them are easy.

However, your average soldier is not a murderer and isn't actively looking for a violent solution to every problem. In a peace keeping operation, you get to know faces and names and concerns. People talk to you, children flock around to get candy..hell, it's rather normal for emergency resupplies to get called because a unit just gave everything they had away.

You say I'm naive, but you don't have the first clue what it's like to be a soldier, much less one in a place like Iraq. I do. If I'm naive, what does that make you?

I was an Engineer for 3 years in the Army. 3rd Star Private 3rd Field Corps of Engineers.

I know all about being a soldier. HENCE MY POST. I did not assume anything. I have first hand knowledge of what it's like. I've served 6 months in Lebanon. I am well aware of what it's like in a forgien country to be a forgien soldier.

I also know exactly the types of people who sign up and their general attitudes. It was people like you,people with illusions of what it was to be a soldier that pissed most regualrs off.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

I was an Engineer for 3 years in the Army. 3rd Star Private 3rd Field Corps of Engineers.

I know all about being a soldier. HENCE MY POST. I did not assume anything. I have first hand knowledge of what it's like. I've served 6 months in Lebanon. I am well aware of what it's like in a forgien country to be a forgien soldier.

I also know exactly the types of people who sign up and their general attitudes. It was people like you,people with illusions of what it was to be a soldier that pissed most regualrs off.

And I was infantry. I was also a non-commissioned officer, so illusions weren't exactly an option. I pissed my guys off regularly by enforcing what it meant to be a soldier.

No, it's not all perfume and roses, wondering if the next innocent looking civilian is going to try to blow your head off, and god knows being a killer is part of the job, but the heartless bastards were the ones none of us wanted ****all to do with, even if no one wanted to be there. Sadly, those are the fkers that never get it.

Sure, there's lots of hard talk and when the axe hits the grind, things get iffy, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck to watch people starve or see true poverty for what it really is...It also doesn't mean that you wouldn't pull the trigger in a fking second if you thought you had to.

Then again, having worked with the british military on multiple occasions, I can assure you that we're two different types of people, army-wise. The brits, for all their skill in handling peace keeping missions, used to amaze us with the sheer violence of their attitudes and outlook.

[IncubusGod]

I was part of the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon before Isreal pulled out of its occupied areas.My point was soldiers are not trained as keepers of peace. Hence the problems in Iraq.
From experience this is the way things went.
1.Join the Army
2.Basic Training
3.Weapons Training and Tactics
4.Advanced Tactics and Explosive Training
5.Gurella Warfare in Combat

6.Week long course on the duties and actions allowed by UN Peacekeepers in countries you are about to ship to.

So your there,trained to kill and your expected to act as a jumped up policeman in a country where people see you as their saviors or the line that keeps them from being slaughtered.
Then one night some Isreali militia man puts 60rounds into a 5 year old kid from his machine gun nest because he's cracked under pressure and you have to stop the locals who are pleading and asking you why you could allow this to happen and are trying to get to the spot where the medics are picking up whats left of the kid.
Locals react badly, Hezzbolla fire rockets at the guard post,Isreal then bulldozes 4 houses in the area "used as cover by gurellas". Including the house of the dead kid.
You cant belive this shit is happening and try to tell people about it back home. Its ignored by the media and the world in general.
The locals loose faith in you. Problems begin.You begin to end up considered part of the problem.
That happened us.

Now instead of a neutral country trying to stop Isreal killing people at will imagine you are a soldier in an invading army,sent into battle and end up battleing your way across the country.
Vast numbers of Iraqi's died and then your told that the war is over and that everything will be ok form now on. You've managed to kill thousands of civilians and piss large swaths of the country off.
But alot of people see you as a savior.
Then you get hit now and again by small arms fire,you get twitchy and fire on anything that seems suspicous.
You will end up killing innocents no matter how careful you are.You dont want to but it happens.Its in your training to save your life and your buddies before others.
People then see you as part of the problem.Your not making new friends your making new enemies and your old allies are starting to dissapear.

Over time more and more will hate you and you'll end up the victim of a RPG in the face.

My problem isnt with the soldiers. It was with the use of ultra violent methods by people without the vaugest notion of their impact and then the utter failure in achieving the objectives this hideous act was supposed to get.
My problem is with using those who are trained to kill to try to rebuild and stablise a country,you cant do it very well.
Yet Bush decided to do it anyway.

I have little sympathy for US troops in Iraq simply because they all joined of their own free will.They knew what the army entailed. They knew they might end up in combat and in danger. Whats happening now is what happens when you commit an act of violence against a people and invade their country,then occupy it.

Now I dont want to see ANYONE dead but I also dont like people painting the picture of good samaritans over there trying to help a people rebuild things by the goodness of their hearts.
Thats not why they went in,that's not what they did and its certainly not what will happen.

[Sandsnake]

heh well, that's israel/lebanon for you...worst peace keeping tour in the world next to a couple places in Africa.

Anyway, I think you missed my point. I agree with what you said in that last post. What I was arguing against was the fact that soldiers are part of the "status quo"....they didn't choose to be there, no, but when they're there, they want to do the right thing. This isn't always easy and they're often not prepared.

The insinuation has largely been that the soldiers are there to toss bullets around and kill people, and that's NOT what they're there for. Many do beleive in what they're doing and are doing their damnedest to make it happen but they're twitchy, they're scared, and shit happens.

As for sympathy, I sympathize with them being in a tough situation, but no, they knew what that could mean, so dying is 'part of the job' and shouldn't be a deterant. It's a risk they take.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

I think you misunderstand human psychi...In Iraq, it's "look what you did to us" and in Rwanda, it's "Why didn't you help?"

Blame will always be there, and the blood will always be on your hands. The question is really when does it become the world's business to make sure that people get a fair shake and when should we just stay out of it?

Do I beleive that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do? Maybe, but not for the reasons presented.
Do I think that 800,000 rwandan lives are on the heads of both my and your nation? Surely.

So here's the kickers:
IF we hadn't removed Saddam, who would be responsible for the deaths he caused?
IF we had stopped the genocide in Rwanda, would the violence we would have had to commit put unjust blood on our hands?
When is the time for talk over? How far do we let it go? What is our responsibility as a world community? How many must die before it's justified in your mind to step in?

but the us is not the 'world community', the united nations are and if they decide that the us, the nato or whoever should send troops somewhere then everything is fine. but what your goverment did was invade a country against the wishes of that 'world community', how can that be any more right than saddam invading kuwait?

[Zar]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

but the us is not the 'world community', the united nations are and if they decide that the us, the nato or whoever should send troops somewhere then everything is fine. but what your goverment did was invade a country against the wishes of that 'world community', how can that be any more right than saddam invading kuwait?

your point is good wu - but the UN (although the closest we get) is a 5 veto power organization. Those 5 nations who wield the power to veto anything they dont like, prevent it from becoming anything near to a "world community". Although i will agree its the closest we have got

[wu_trax]

it doesnt work any other way. i doubt any major power will accept any un-decision without that veto-power. thats how it is, no matter if you like that the us vetoed about 150,000 resolutions against israel or not.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

it doesnt work any other way. i doubt any major power will accept any un-decision without that veto-power. thats how it is, no matter if you like that the us vetoed about 150,000 resolutions against israel or not.

its a shame

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

I think it's being referred to as another vietnam based on the fact that our ability to "win" is almost non-existant despite military dominance. At the end of the day, Iraq is torn internally by ideals, just as south vietnam was, and like South Vietnam, allowing an election will almost assuredly put one of the "bad guys" in charge and not allowing an election will just cause violence to flare, which is exactly what happened in Vietnam.

Basically, the will of the people is most likely going to be islam (communism) and US/UN/Whatever interference in such will just cause widespread violence and unrest (invasion and civil war).

The clerics have too much power in arabic culture and Iraq will end up divided along religious lines, which gives the Shia VAST power which is exactly what we don't want. The question is now "Can we hold off that powerplay long enough for the iraqi people to shake off that control or will this all just blow up in our face?"

While I don't agree with it being another vietnam just yet, I find the parallels disturbing.

so tell me:
do you still think the invasion of iraq was a good idea???

[queball]

Originally Posted by Perle

so tell me:
do you still think the invasion of iraq was a good idea???

Eh?

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

For the record, I don't support the war in Iraq.

[Perle]

ok, didnt see that

[Texan]

Originally Posted by Snurx

They uphold the status quo that's killing those children every day. The western supremacy status quo, i mean. They are "defending" America, or at least, attacking for America, and thus, no matter what way you put it, defending America's goals or ideals, and that is most often, the western ideal/goal. That goal, or maybe system, also capitalism, is the thing that makes the world as ****ed up as it is.

Of course they want to change things for the better. I really do think that everybody want to do that, I don't think there exists such a thing as a evil person. But, does that make their actions okay? Just beacause you think/belive that a thing is good or right to do, does not make it so. If you want to change things for the better, is it right to do it with a gun in your hands?

Do you think that posting on PA Forum is going to make things better in this world? You said in an earlier post that you are concerned about thousands of children. What have you done for those children lately? Were you one of the people who wanted the United States to give the weapon inspectors more time? Or did you want to just let Saddam Hussein do whatever he wanted in the future? What was your answer to help the children of Iraq?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Texan

What was your answer to help the children of Iraq?

Ending sanctions would have been a start.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Texan

Do you think that posting on PA Forum is going to make things better in this world? You said in an earlier post that you are concerned about thousands of children. What have you done for those children lately? Were you one of the people who wanted the United States to give the weapon inspectors more time? Or did you want to just let Saddam Hussein do whatever he wanted in the future? What was your answer to help the children of Iraq?

hi there, you are back, ive missed you

bombing the shit out of the whole country and causing general chaos didnt exactly help the children neither, did it?
also, how many children died because the usa blocked the delivery of goods the iraq requested in the security council? if you try hard enough you can define a kitchen knife as a weapon of massdestruction.