1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Violence aside, Baghdad is broken

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Mark Holtz, May 25, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    If you look only at the short-term, most things would appear to be a mistake. 700 men died in one day TRAINING for D-Day but do we say that D-Day wasn't worth it now? No.

    Jimmy Carter, while president, looked at the short-term when the Shah of Iran was overthrown. He said we didn't need to get involved. We now have him to thank for the rise of radical Islam.

    And were you just as concerned when Clinton sent troops to the Balkans to fight against a country that didn't attack the US?

    Regarding our "loss of credibility," we know now that several countries that opposed the coalition invasion of Iraq had officials that were getting a lot of money from Saddam through his manipulation of the Oil For Food program. I don't care about losing the respect of those who were selling their votes in the UN in order to gain huge profits from Saddam's oil. And we're condemned by leaders like Castro? If Castro's against us, we must be doing something right. And George Galloway in England said that murdering Tony Blair would be justified. Honestly, we shouldn't care one bit about what such people think.
     
  2. durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    Well, to some people, the glass is half-full. To the others, the glass will fall to the floor, break into a dozen pieces and cut their feet causing us to bleed so badly that they'll need to have them amputated.
     
  3. billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    Somehow I figured it was the Democrats who were responsible for "the rise of radical Islam".
     
  4. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    WW2 and D-day were quite different than the invasion of Iraq. Germany had already invaded and occupied a number of countries, and clearly had the means and intention to keep on invading more countries. There were other options left when Bush and Blair decided to ignore other options and invade.

    Placing the entire blame of the rise of radical Islam at the feet of Jimmy Carter is misplaced at best, and only shows your personal feeling for the President, not the reality of the world situation. Tell me how the actions of George Bush have been successful in quelling the rise of radical Islam.

    And how many American troops lost their lives in the Balkans? The Balkan war was a NATO operation. At least European neighbors were involved.

    But since you brought up the Balkan War, it is interesting reading the CATO policy report on it.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n4/balkans.html

    Just change the names and it is pretty much the same story this time around. To CATO's credit, they were against the invasion of Iraq in the first place (those pinko liberals), and they still more problems than solutions coming out of Iraq.
     
  5. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Lest anyone miss Bogy's sarcasm, Cato Institute, of course, is a libertarian think-tank.
     
  6. tomcrown1

    tomcrown1 Hall Of Fame

    1,576
    0
    Jan 16, 2006
    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/gossip/14672039.htm

    In one scene, James is downright giddy while shooting a machine gun and hanging out of a helicopter. In another, he visits injured soldiers in a hospital. And in another, the air-raid sirens go off and the battalion is seen moving to a safe place.

    "It's not safe," he said. "It's as safe as can be. We're sitting there laughing and joking during the mortar attack, but three soldiers were killed then. You can hear bombs and stuff like that going off."

    In Iraq, Jesse James sees action for a reluctant Discovery Channel
    This may come to a Discovery Channel near you!!!
     
  7. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Without buying into the analogy, things WERE relatively good prior to our invasion at least for Sunni Baathists. And presumably most Iraqis, including the majority of Shia and Kurds, lived their lives in a relatively normal manner despite whatever lack of "freedom and democracy" they endured. The key was not to challenge Saddam's power and authority. Regardless of whatever abuses and atrocities, even against complete innocents, were endured by Iraqis under Saddam, there was order(stability if you will) and the threat of IEDs, RPGs, suicide and mortar attacks and/or roving bands of assassination squadrons were not an ever present reality.

    Elections and a constitutional government ARE certainly "good things". But will they matter if some semblance or order cannot be restored? Chaos, anarchy and insurgency are not conducive to democracy. The difficulties in even forming this "constitutional government" are illustrative of that. Even if the invasion and occupation were justified, our inability to enforce the order needed for the formation of a stable government, constitutional or not, haunts us(and the Iraqis) to this day. And it rightly dominates any discussion of what the future may hold for Iraq.
     
  8. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    I doubt that Iraq will prove to be a long-term friend or ally (as I suggested in my prior post). The country is more likely to align itself with Iranian and Islamic interests.

    What? The overthrowal of the Shah we installed and supported was the rise you describe. It was the final outward display of hostility that Iranians had for us and the Shah for many years and the equivalent of our war of independence. You suggest we should have taken some action against the will of their people.

    You chose to mention just a few nations. What about all the others that don't meet your criteria? Does their respect matter?
     
  9. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,838
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    The above is a multi-purpose statement -- just fill in the blanks with your choice of catastrophe, person and title.
    An example,

    :rolleyes:
     
  10. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Unbelievable. You'll go to any lengths, won't you Jon?
    Sure, things were fine. Just forget about the kidnappings, rape rooms, mass graves. No problem!
    Just be a good little Iraqi, don't worry about your lack of freedom and you'll live a perfectly fine life- filled with all the frivollity and happiness one could hope for.
     
  11. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    So are you talking about the "kidnappings, rape rooms, mass graves" now? Or before we invaded?:scratchin Because they're back baby!!! With a vengeance, literally!

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1592629.htm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031400273.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1531742,00.html

    OK, so let's assume the Lancet is WAAAAAY off. Let's say by a factor of 5-10. That still means the chances of a violent death is 5-10 times higher now than before the invasion. I don't care how many purple fingers you have or how "constitutional" your government is, safely insulated behind the walls of the "green zone", those kind of figures are unacceptable.

    Again, I don't condone anything Saddam did along these lines, regardless of how you want to twist things. But a situation where the odds of a violent death have increased anywhere from 5 to fifty times could hardly be considered a situation where one is "better off".
     
  12. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    And now we have reports of our Marines killing women and children (just like Vietnam)
     
  13. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Just like Korea, Just like WWII, Just like WWI, Just like the Spanish American War, Just like the Civil War. Of course with those earlier wars you knew for sure who's side the media was on and such actions didn't get much, if any, air time (or print space).

    Until we are able to develop the "perfect" soldier and conduct the "perfect" war, this kind of thing WILL happen no matter what. This, of course, doesn't mean it should be accepted.
     
  14. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    It was just a matter of time before a Mi Lai type atrocity was revealed.

    Our leaders at many levels have some serious explaining to do. Why was the American public so slow to learn about this incident? The affected Iraqis and all their neighbors obviously knew about it. Initial reports claimed a (nonexistent) gunfight and said many were killed by the initial explosion. Some official lying was done in an apparent cover-up of butchering old men, women and children. Many levels of command had to know about the event, and I expect word had to reach the highest levels.

    This atrocity was uncovered. How many more wait in the wings?
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well you know what then? Maybe we should do our best to refrain from wars unless they are absolutely necessary. This war certainly wasn't necessary. And by extention neither were the nearly 2500 American military killed necessary, nor the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians necessary. Nor certainly the murders of 15-20 in Haditha and not the death of the soldier which seems to have precipitated it.

    So who is responsible for all these unnecessary deaths?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page