Some pictures are worth a thousand words
Found here
http://edition.cnn.com/
Front page...
Attached....also
Maybe a copyright violation :(
But the picture moved me
Pray for them...that they come home safe ............................and sound
MLF
Printable View
Some pictures are worth a thousand words
Found here
http://edition.cnn.com/
Front page...
Attached....also
Maybe a copyright violation :(
But the picture moved me
Pray for them...that they come home safe ............................and sound
MLF
today the 2,000 soldier was killed in Iraq. before i start this i want to make something clear, I really do feeling for every soldiers families and i value their sacrifice, with that said: I think the media makes WAY to much of EVERY single death in Iraq... they sensationalize it and blow it out of perportion ( sp?) ok in WW2 2,000 soldiers died in one day or in one battle... and im sure people cared but, not like this! the media has been allowed to permeate (sp) the battle field to much I think... i mean its good they are over there documenting and stuff but they make to much of this! keeping death talies for the public to read on every single soldier and Cindy Sheehan OMG dont get me started on the insane media whore... anyway im not an anti american communist and i do value our military its just how i feel.
There is one thing I never understood what is the National Gaurd and the reserves doing in Iraq. I didn't think they could be deploied overseas. They are not even full time soldiers as far as i know.
He looks so lost..distressed...like he doesnt know what the Fu&k hes doing there...
I hope he makes it through ok...
I do not believe in this war...and I hope they all come home ...soon
MLF
First off I don't want to sound anti American, which I am not..
Second I don't want to sound like some anti war weirdo..
But soon there'll be more soldiers dead in this 'holy' war on terror then have died in the WTC, Pentagon, Madrid and London attacks..
In 1916 in one morning Britain lost SIXTY THOUSAND troops [The Somme]
American losses are [militarily speaking] irrelevant ........
America took an entire country in a matter of DAYS, with losses in the '00s.
No military EVER has had the capability to do this, and the insurgency is just a natural consequence of those who now have nothing to stop for.
They can be stopped quickly, but the cost [to Iraqi's] would be EXTREMELY high, and would entail utilising Soviet tactics, something that the US military has never considered.
War IS hell, and people die.
but in this war, the numbers are so low, that we [home based civillians] are in danger of losing perspective on this, and we need to remember the MILLIONS that died in the major wars / conflicts of the 20th century alone, to remind ourselves how lucky we are that we still have personnel who are prepared to 'walk the walk'
In a few days we [UK - not sure if it's done in the US ?] shall remember the dead with the wearing of a poppy.
that day is November 11th, as it was at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918 that WWI finally ended.
and we are still killing each other :confused:
The Texan: there is a big difference between todays army and the army of WWII, in WWII we had 16 million boots on the ground 12% of our total population. Today we have total in iraq is ~150,000 so while 2000 in WWII is not a big deal (massed armies fighting each other) in iraq it is a significant hit (small units in a insurgancy/counter insurgancy). IF we lost people at WWII rates we would nolonger have a military. as it is our guys over there are on their third tour with no one sighing up as replacement...2000 is a crippiling number of lost personal to our current army (and that isn't looking at the number of wounded).
Edit: My number for WWII partcipation is quick and dirty, it is semiacurate but the true number is higher.
The US only has 150,000 troops over there, no loss is irrelevant at those numbers, this is not a WWII army this is a very small army by compairison.Quote:
Originally posted here by foxyloxley
In 1916 in one morning Britain lost SIXTY THOUSAND troops [The Somme]
American losses are [militarily speaking] irrelevant ........
America took an entire country in a matter of DAYS, with losses in the '00s.
No military EVER has had the capability to do this, and the insurgency is just a natural consequence of those who now have nothing to stop for.
They can be stopped quickly, but the cost [to Iraqi's] would be EXTREMELY high, and would entail utilising Soviet tactics, something that the US military has never considered.
Oh and what we pulled of in invasion of iraq, well the germans pulled off very similar victories in WWII useing the same tatics in belgium (well most of western europ for that matter)
How many of the British army casualties in Iraq are from the reserve forces? I forget if it is called the home gaurd or terratorial Army in the UK. Would the british army even consider send its reserve forces into Iraq today? A lot of my americain friends both pro and anti Bush agree that the National guard should never have been sent to Iraq and definatly not for more than one tour of duty. I think this is where a lot of the "media hype" is coming from.
And German casualties were measured in the 10's of 000's .....................Quote:
Oh and what we pulled of in invasion of iraq, well the germans pulled off very similar victories in WWII useing the same tatics in belgium
And irrelevant was not the best choice of word, inconsequential is a better fit ........
as in, the number of casualties makes NO diference to the fighting capability of a unit.
Most here are looking at the problem through civvie eyes, for a military problem you HAVE to accept what in any other walk of life would be un-acceptable.
And the Territorial Army [STAB's - Stupid T A Bast@rds :)] are a part of the regular army's line up, and as such are used where they are NEEDED.
Ok time to play devil's advocate yet again...
What is the price for one's own freedom? A human life? 2000 human lives? 30,000?
What about someone else's freedom? Someone who isn't even of your race, nationality, or religion?
There's a few things here to consider:
1. The price of freedom is blood, and it must be refreshed from time to time.
2. There is no price too high for one's own freedom.
3. Our military puts their lives on the line EVERY DAY for your freedom, whether you're the same religion, race, or nationality as our military. I'll take a moment to prove this last point -
A Jewish Rabbi in Israel who's never come to the United States is protected because some African-American Christian serviceman is out in Iraq giving the Muslim terrorists someone else to shoot at. An Iraqi child is saved because an Oriental Bhuddist Marine disarmed a bomb right outside his home. A new democratic/republic is born and nurtured because one country was willing to spend billions of dollars and the lives of its own patriots to topple a corrupt regime.
What is the price of freedom?
Nuff said.
I think we are all on the same page, a big page, but the same one. Every person's death diminishes me. In today's terms, 2,000 is a large number. Not just that it is the list of casualties for the US, but that in proportion to the total force deployed, it is high. It is high due to the nature of combat today. One soldier today--armed, trained, supported and deployed--represents a much more lethal, capable and effective force than has ever been possible in the past.
To see the number increase weekly, and watch the names on the screen every Sunday on This Week, is hard.
We were involved in Vietnam from 1960 to 1974. We lost in excess of 50,000 in that time. It was the first time that we saw the war on TV, in our homes. The impact of the seeing lives lost and witnessing the horrors of war is what drove the anti-war movement and fundamentally changed this country.
Yeah, that was 30 years ago, but we still remember the pain and it colors how we respond to what we are witnessing today. Good or bad.
Quote:
Originally posted here by foxyloxley
And irrelevant was not the best choice of word, inconsequential is a better fit ........
as in, the number of casualties makes NO diference to the fighting capability of a unit.
This is just flat wrong, we have 150K total, 2k killed and 10'sof thouands wounded is what we are looking at. a signifigant protion of our force over there. More over no one back home is signing up to replace them. we have lost whole units. batalions are running at 50% strength do to lack of replacements. We are giving the insurgants larg swths of land that we just don't have the manpower to defend. We are blowing up bridges to try and hamper the insurgents ability to move..this is not the sign of a fighting force that hasn't lost its capability to fight.
When the commander of the national gaurd states that his will be a brokn force unless enlistments go up/casualitys go down...welll i would say that the number makes a ver big diference. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4150749.stm
Note this isn't some nonothing civilian this is the lt general in charge of the reserves makeing this statment. We didn't have enough bodies on the ground to begin with, every casuilty makes that much worse.
Overall the U.S. Military recruiting outlook is not really all that bleak. Yeah there are some rocky points alond the path, but that is to be expected anytime the military is engaged in an active conflict.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...cruitgoals.htm
Quote:
Originally posted here by foxyloxley
In 1916 in one morning Britain lost SIXTY THOUSAND troops [The Somme]
American losses are [militarily speaking] irrelevant ........
America took an entire country in a matter of DAYS, with losses in the '00s.
No military EVER has had the capability to do this, and the insurgency is just a natural consequence of those who now have nothing to stop for.
They can be stopped quickly, but the cost [to Iraqi's] would be EXTREMELY high, and would entail utilising Soviet tactics, something that the US military has never considered.
War IS hell, and people die.
but in this war, the numbers are so low, that we [home based civillians] are in danger of losing perspective on this, and we need to remember the MILLIONS that died in the major wars / conflicts of the 20th century alone, to remind ourselves how lucky we are that we still have personnel who are prepared to 'walk the walk'
In a few days we [UK - not sure if it's done in the US ?] shall remember the dead with the wearing of a poppy.
that day is November 11th, as it was at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918 that WWI finally ended.
and we are still killing each other :confused:
Even if 40% of the troops over there are actually reserve, that's not a bad thing necessarily. That's the entire point of reserve. They are used when the primary force needs numbers. Reservists are aware of this when they sign, and should expect to serve the country as they promised to.Quote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
Overall the U.S. Military recruiting outlook is not really all that bleak. Yeah there are some rocky points alond the path, but that is to be expected anytime the military is engaged in an active conflict.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...cruitgoals.htm
Not to diminish what you said,but would you mind not excluding the "Commonwealth" the next time you want to talk about something that the "UK" was not alone in. ;)Quote:
In a few days we [UK - not sure if it's done in the US ?] shall remember the dead with the wearing of a poppy.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...r/tributes.htmQuote:
They shall grow not old
as we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them
nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun
and in the morning
we will remember them.
LEST WE FORGET
More people are killed each year in North America by Vehicles and guns then what you will lose in any theatre of war at this time, everything is surgical, no one is jumping up from a trench or foxhole and running at a machine gun nest, or from a wide open beach. If you can bomb the Sh*t out of them first, and save more lives, then that's the way to go, if you watch carefully you will notice that what they are trying to do eventually is design the ultimate fighting machine, "no humans" need apply.
Allready testing remote controlled fighter jets, so eventually the deaths will decrease for the military, but not so for the real casualties of conflict, the Old, Young and Women.
I am in no way belittling the amount of deaths and casualties by the US/UK Servicemen and women, but as was stated, we all should be extremely thankful it is only "2000", this could have been a whole lot worse, lets not forget, after the initial euphoria of whipping the overly matched Iraqi army, who didn't really want to fight in the first place (re first Gulf War),now everyone is entrenched in guerilla warfare. What if the enemy had been a match for the US/UK armies, what if they had of used Gas, I am sure instead of 2000 dead that we would be witnessing a whole lot more, and the uproar back home would be deafening.
The media are at fault for one thing, exposing the ugly truth to what war/conflicts are really about, blood and guts, death, grief, hate, paranoia, apathy, rape, abuse, just all around crap.
As for the unavailability of moving in reserves, what is happening is some of these units are being sent back after being home for a short time, so in effect they could do in an 18Mth span 12 Months,(6Mths there, 6Mths back, then 6mths again)this has a very debillitating affect on an individual, (just put yourself in their shoes after being back from doing a tour allready and the prospect of going back to the meat grinder, makes me shudder just thinking about what this must feel like) not a very good incentive for recruitment.
just my milk crate for today (in UK soapboxes in Canada milk crates) :mad:
Quote:
Originally posted here by dalek
More people are killed each year in North America by Vehicles and guns then what you will lose in any theatre of war at this time...
I couldn't dissagree with you more on this. The media is capitalizing on and sensationalizing the war as much as they can. Like you said about how more people are killed annually by car accidents, etc in the US than this war thus far. Why don't I hear about ever car victim who was walking home from school, or every random child snuffed by a drive-by-shooting (even on the local news). They don't, because it isn't sensational.Quote:
The media are at fault for one thing, exposing the ugly truth to what war/conflicts are really about, blood and guts, death, grief, hate, paranoia, apathy, rape, abuse, just all around crap.
There is more harm from a war than physical. For as many medics as they have, they have psychological support staff. Learning to exist durring a war is part of your training as well, not just how to fight one. People enlist full-well knowning what they are getting into, especially these days. I don't know why everyone precieves enlisted to be naive morons incapable of making rational choices. They enlist as a compitant adult to do a service willingly. How is that difficult to understand? We don't second-guess the choices of police officers or security guards when they are wounded or killed. How is the military any different?Quote:
As for the unavailability of moving in reserves, what is happening is some of these units are being sent back after being home for a short time, so in effect they could do in an 18Mth span 12 Months,(6Mths there, 6Mths back, then 6mths again)this has a very debillitating affect on an individual, (just put yourself in their shoes after being back from doing a tour allready and the prospect of going back to the meat grinder, makes me shudder just thinking about what this must feel like) not a very good incentive for recruitment.
Besides, recriutment is fine: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...cruitgoals.htm
There is a difference between the journalist who reports on "War Crimes" (re Bosnia, Croatia, Yugoslavia, you get the picture) then the talking heads you watch on TV, who are fed crap by the directors and media moguls (Ted Turner, Conrad Black etc).Quote:
I couldn't dissagree with you more on this. The media is capitalizing on and sensationalizing the war as much as they can. Like you said about how more people are killed annually by car accidents, etc in the US than this war thus far. Why don't I hear about ever car victim who was walking home from school, or every random child snuffed by a drive-by-shooting (even on the local news). They don't, because it isn't sensational.
When I said the media report on the ugly truth, I was talking about the men and women who get stuck in on the conflict wherever it may be, and a lot of them have been killed in the course of their getting at the information, so don't confuse the two, what you see on Prime Time is I agree sensationalism (it sells), but what you don't see, is the extraordinary accomplishments of some of these individuals who manage to stay alive and get the information out.
If there were no cameras recording the action in Serbia, do you think Milosovic would have been implicated and later charged with the crimes he was responsible for?
And are you kidding me on the people who join the reserves knowing fully that they may be called up to the front lines, hah, at most a lot of them (due respect to those who actually do expect to be called up) are in it for the part time paycheck and the weekly campouts, or the one night a week get togethers.For the most part, whenever someone joins the reserves they are completely oblivious to what may be required of them, lets face it the difference in training standards between the professionals (regulars) and the reserves is probably like night and day in some states, depending on whose budget for training is the biggest, here in Canada the reservists get the scraps (leftovers from the regs), so while the regs are running around in a nice new M1 Abrams battle tank, the reserve unit might have some humvees to tool around in.
Military Recruitment Down for the Year
Don't confuse the two as well, Police Officers make a career choice, reservists do it for either furthering their education, or as a step to the professional ranks, a lot of reservists are already working at full time jobs, heck some reservists are probably active police officers who are probably ex service and figured they would like to keep in touch with the Military.Quote:
The Department of Defense (DoD) announced on Oct. 11 that the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force met or exceeded their active duty recruiting goals in September. In terms of retention, the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps exceeded their annual retention goals; the Navy achieved 91 percent of its mid-career goal. Three of the six reserve components, Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve and Air Force Reserve, exceeded their September recruiting goals. Regarding reserve forces retention, DoD said, “Losses in all reserve components in August were within acceptable limits. Indications are that trend continued into September.” DoD did not give specific numbers. For the year, the Army has not met its active duty recruitment goals and the Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, the Navy Reserve and the Air National Guard have all fallen short of their recruiting goals.
The emotional scars that this conflict is causing will be felt for many years.
Robert Shrode can't sleep.
Read the rest here http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...anentscars.htmQuote:
At night, in the fly-speck town of Guthrie, Ky., in the rented farmhouse he shares with his 20-year-old wife, Debra, he surfs the Internet, roams the house. He lies down and gets up again. He drinks a beer and stares out the window at the black fields beyond. Hours pass. He can't sleep. Before the war, he could have six beers and sleep like a baby, but now that works against him. Drinking may help get his head to the pillow, but it also ratchets up the nightmares. For a while, he sweated out his bad dreams on the living-room couch, and it drove Debra crazy. She would come down from the bedroom, touch his shoulder, ask what the problem was. Shrode would just turn his back to her and not say a word. Now she knows better than to ask, though occasionally when the silence between them gets too deep, she'll put it out there, What're you thinking about?
''Iraq,'' he'll say. And then the silence falls again.
He pops Ambien to coax some sleep. The results are mixed. On the advice of his doctors, he is taking three different pills for pain, a pill for swelling and another pill for depression. There are days when he is unrecognizable to himself, a guy who a few years ago was a party-loving bartender at a Mississippi casino and who is now 29 and engaged in what can feel like a never-ending battle to see his own future brightly.
The only person who understands him is his buddy Brent Bricklin, a restless, dark-haired 22-year-old and fellow Army specialist in the 101st Airborne Division, who is also home after serving in Iraq. Most mornings, Shrode picks up Bricklin at Fort Campbell, the sprawling base that straddles the Kentucky-Tennessee state line where both men are stationed, and they go driving. It's always more or less the same. They drive through the buttressed gates of the base, patrolled by armed National Guardsmen, and turn onto Fort Campbell Boulevard, passing the check-cashing outfits, the strip clubs and gun-and-ammo shops that, during peacetime anyway, boom with military business.
Evil Moo: The yare not bing used as reserves they are being used as regular army, 18month toures over see fallowed by a few months down then back for another tour...this is tearing their lives and families apart.
Oh as for the recuritng crisis...sure they came close to the goal after they lowered the number by 5000 http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...925-900996.php
Oh and they started accepting more marginal people http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0614-03.htm
Talkign ot some of my recurter buddies, well you can get in now by gettign scores on the asvab that you should get by breathing....Now I doubt anyof you have taken the asvab, I scored a near perfect half drunk and sleep deprived...teh army y nesisity is accepting people who would have been considered to have faild it last year.
So they have increased the bounses (you et 20k for signing up now), lowered their standards (they are accepting people with out HS deplomas and who faild the asvab) and cut 5k off their goal and still can't reach it. Ya your right Evil Moo there is no recurting crisis. Orwill would be proud
bballad - think you need to type a bit slower mate!
Wow...
dalek...that is a great article...although I havent the time to read the whole thing just yet.
Quote:
it is the wounded who must live with the confounding mix of anonymity and exposure wrought by surviving a war
Quote:
''Buddy,'' he said, ''I'm going to hurt the rest of my life.''
Quote:
It has been suggested that the wounded are the hidden casualties of the Iraq war, stranded somewhere between our grief for the dead and a wartime patriotism best stirred by the belief that our troops are both productive and healthy
I still do not understand what they are doing there.....freedom, injustices in the world.....Quote:
an average of nine soldiers have been injured per day
Where was the US when the Ruwandian massacure was going on....oh yeah ...Ruwanda is a land locked country.....with limited natural resources.....and no oil!
Nothin there :rolleyes:
MLF
Some of us were wounded in ways other than just physical. Some wounds are visible, others aren't. In any case, we carry them the rest of our lives. Some of us actually found healing. Many didn't.
morganlefay: very good points....if iraq is for humanitrian/freedom reasons why are we not in the congo (they are selling pygmies as food on the street corners). Why are we allied with Ubeciistan (one of the worst humanitarian records in the world, far worse the husain). Nope thse reasons don't hold up. If its about terrorism why did we go after iraq(never a sponser of secular terrorist groups) instead of iran(sponser of verious groups) or saudi arabia (major sponser of Al Quida)? Hell why is it we ignored the weapons depos and secured the oil feilds?
Not much left but naked greed is there
If find that completely unacceptable. The reasons you gave for most people joining the Reserves are correct. However, they are signing an agreement with the Military. How on earth can you not expect someone to be compitant enough to know that violence and fighting may be involved? They train weekly for that exact puporse. Especially in times of war, how can someone not expect to serve? They sign a contract, an agreement, not a hand-out.Quote:
Originally posted here by dalek
And are you kidding me on the people who join the reserves knowing fully that they may be called up to the front lines, hah, at most a lot of them (due respect to those who actually do expect to be called up) are in it for the part time paycheck and the weekly campouts, or the one night a week get togethers.
The same as applies above. They joined a fighting force. There is no difference. Last time I checked Police Officers carried weapons and routinely trained how to use them in violent and dangerous situations. Just because your motive to join wasn't to fight, doesn't mean you're ignorant or excusable to it. People get jobs to earn money even if they hate the occupation. However, just because they don't like the nature of the work doesn't mean they get a free pay-check. Pay & benefits is reciprical to the work agreed apon. It can't be more simplified than that.Quote:
Don't confuse the two as well, Police Officers make a career choice, reservists do it for either furthering their education, or as a step to the professional ranks, a lot of reservists are already working at full time jobs, heck some reservists are probably active police officers who are probably ex service and figured they would like to keep in touch with the Military.
I'm from a military family. Born and raised in the US Marine Corps. My father has served tours of duty for years at a time when I was a child, and even in conflicts. His most recent tour of duty was Iraq itself. I grew up on military bases, and actually spent most of my life living outside of the US on them. I'm fully aware of what it is like to be left behind and have/see familys divided. I probably understand better than you what it's like when your friend tells you that his father won't be coming home, or when my parents notify me that the gentleman we had over for dinner the month prior won't be coming over again....Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
Evil Moo: The yare not bing used as reserves they are being used as regular army, 18month toures over see fallowed by a few months down then back for another tour...this is tearing their lives and families apart.
As to the Reserves, they are being used exactly as Reserves are intended to be used. When the standard force falls short in numbers, Reserves are used in place of them. Simple concept. Additionally, because Reserves have more relaxed training than full-issue, they usually undergo "re-freash" training for some time before actually encountering any real combat as well.
I did take the ASVAB actually. I scored nearly perfect aside from the automachanics portion (as I'm not big on cars.) Mind you, the ASVAB is not an IQ or intelligence test. It rates a person's basic strengths and helps guide what positions and duties they will be assigned should they join. Obviously superior scores in all areas will be more condusive to them wanting you to join, as you'll probably be good at anything they assign you.Quote:
Talkign ot some of my recurter buddies, well you can get in now by gettign scores on the asvab that you should get by breathing....Now I doubt anyof you have taken the asvab, I scored a near perfect half drunk and sleep deprived...teh army y nesisity is accepting people who would have been considered to have faild it last year.
Hey Hey,
I wasn't going to post... I figured I'd spare ya'll but now I have to post.... I can't believe some of the comments in this thread... Oh no... not 2000 soldiers... heaven forbid....
How about the iraqi body count ... Civilians alone are estimated between 26 and 30000 dead (source)... I've used this number first because you'll say that it's skewed and biased... so here's my next link
CNN
Yes.... 100,000 civilians are dead because of this invasion.... yes that's right.. invasion...Quote:
Public health experts have estimated that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year.
Someone step up and smack Bush already.. How can you feel bad for 2000 Americans who are over there killing innocent civilians... Let's see.. I've seen 150K troops over there as the common belief.... and 100K civilians dead... That means that 2 out of every 3 soldiers have killed a civilian.... civilians are innocent.... So I'd say 2000 deaths isn't bad for the US... another 98,000 of those troops deserve to die.
Peace
HT
HT > I've been accused of being Anti-USA, and then when I moved I was accused of "switching sides". To make a long story short: you're one of those people that do not help the cause you think you're helping (you're just making it very VERY hard for anyone in that camp to be taken seriously - not to mention that what you say is very laughable, which makes it even harder!), and you're definitely not making it hard on the other side (they're going to welcome a clown character like you!).
Do you even realize what you're saying? I think it's fruggin time you start limiting yourself to tech discussion - let's hope (for those waiting for an answer) that you know what you're talking about in that field...
I've tried over and over to make a case for what is called "the left" in the US. It wasn't "the right" who burnt my ideas... it was people like you... trying to be "left"... but in the process being as frigging right as possible...
Hi HT,
Personally I like your directness whether I agree with you or not...I don't like to have to read between the lines...you're like a frieght train going full speed...a boxer that doesn't pull his punches...
but Neg is right...comments like this...
do not help your argument...they actually hurt your argument.Quote:
another 98,000 of those troops deserve to die
Eg ;)
I realize exactly what I'm saying... Americans whine when one of their own die... but that person was over there causing death... How anyone can support that is beyond me... I may lack tact... I'd be the first to agree with that... but I'm honest... and I'm fair... I can't believe that a society (such as the US) that still has states with the death penalty can be so against equality.. If someone kills a person in texas...people say "it's a shame those innocent people had to die" then the killer goes to court and is found guilty and put to death and then everyone says "Good.. they got what they deserved".. With the military it's the exact opposite... A soldier goes over to war... and kills an Iraqi civilian and the American public says "Good.. they got what they deserved".. then that soldier is killed and we hear "It's a shame that an innocent soldier died"... I don't understand this and would love for someone to explain this in a sane, logical way.. If they can I'll gladly stop posting... but since it's not possible to explain that in a sane and logical way I don't have to worry about it.Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
Do you even realize what you're saying? I think it's fruggin time you start limiting yourself to tech discussion - let's hope (for those waiting for an answer) that you know what you're talking about in that field...
As far as limiting where I post... I don't think so.... Just because I'm the only member of this forum with a social conscience... just because I'm the only one that thinks the war in Iraq is nothing but injustice doesn't mean I should be silenced. You cry for your 2000 dead and continue to cheer as your war machine moves forward... I'll cry over the 100,000 dead... killed for nothing but oil. Those 2000 soldiers died because they accepted the mission of a war-mongering religious man seeking revenge... Those 100,000 civilians died because of where they were born... The 2000 had a choice... the 100,000 did not... Yet no one on this forum seems to realize that... All they see is 2000... 2000 of their own... Who cares who else dies in the process... as long as they account for and cry for their own... This makes the US nothing more than a nation of bigots... Nationalists to the Extreme... and none of you Americans seem to see a problem with that... That makes me sad... but the fact that 2000 murderers died doesn't... I'm sorry if that hurts the cause... I'm sorry if that's disrespectful but those American soldiers are murderers... and just like the killer in Texas deserves the death penalty.. so do they. Since when was the 00 rating something beyond fiction... since when did we license people to kill and say that some deaths are acceptable?
Eg: I'm glad you appreciate the directness... I'm nothing if I'm not honest and open... I'm also very strong in my beliefs and I believe in equality, justice and fair play... In hockey if two guys exchange punches... they both get 2 minutes (or 5 minutes).. If anything the instigator gets an extra 2 minutes... Here we're seeing the opposite... The instigator is getting off with two minutes while the other fighter is getting a game misconduct... If it were hockey people would be whining and booing, but because it's the American military it's allowed.. They instigated and now they are crying about their loses... Anyone who feels the loss wasn't deserved is a shame to humanity... Do I feel bad for their families... maybe a little... do I feel bad for the soldiers... not in the least... they chose the life and now they are feeling the results of it.
If the roles in this war were reversed, every American on this site would be whining about foul play (What the US is doing here is no different than what Al Qaeda did on 9/11... it's a plain and simple terrorist attack)... I just don't understand why no one else sees that.... I don't know how anyone can justify the actions of the US.... and I feel ashamed to be associated with those that do.
Peace,
HT
Neg, I hope the response you gave was based on the manner in which HTRegz replied, and not on the subject matter of his reply. Granted, it was a very offensive and strongly worded reply, but this is our precious cosmos, the forum which you have asked people not to give points in, based on free speech grounds. HT has every right to post whatever he feels he believes in here. That's the whole purpose of this forum.Quote:
<Hitler> I'm going to kill 6 million Jews
<Hitler> ...and one clown
<Churchill> Why the clown?
<Hitler> See? Nobody cares about the Jews!
Now, as for the subject matter of the post, I highly doubt anyone is apathetic to the hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians. But they aren't coming home to state funerals, flags draped over their corpses, and grieving parents and spouses. We don't notice the impact of civilian deaths over there nearly as much as we notice the impact it has on families over here. Therefore, we pay more attention to it.
Personally, I honour the Iraqi civilians far more than Allied soldiers. They are there, fighting tooth and nail for a better country, living in the conditions that some are trying to improve. They live with a greater fear of death and in far worse conditions than do allied soldiers. They struggle every day to feed themselves, while two thirds of the allied force sleeps in guarded bunkers on their soil, well fed and well rested. They struggle every day with a hatred and with ethnic divisions that have taken decades, if not centuries, to create, that we demand solved in mere years. Much as I consider Nazi holocaust survivors heroes, so do I the Iraqi civilians.
But we don't relate to the civilian condition in Iraq like we did the Jews in Germany.
No, I don't believe that we have any right to be there. I don't believe that a military solution was the best solution. War is the continuation of politics by other means. I don't believe that all those other means were exhausted. It was done too hastily. It seemed to me the whole thing built up in mere months in my memory. Suddenly the Americans invaded. It was done too quickly, and not enough time was given for other solutions. And yes, I am well aware of the UN's refusal to ratify U.S. resolutions, which eventually led to the United States' unilateral invasion. Regardless of how impatient the Americans were, they did not give the matter enough time.
But aye, there's the rub... Suddenly Iraq refuses to let weapons inspectors in. Knowing what we knew then, what possible reason could there have been, save for the manufacture of WMD's? Faced with such a threat, a military invasion was the only alternative, regardless of whether or not it was justified.
In short, we shouldn't be there. But the world is a far better place without Saddam. Just like the world is a beter place without Texan serial killers. The right thing to do is not always the moral thing to do. (Whether or not we'd be there without the oil is a whole other debate for a whole other thread)
But as a whole, I agree with you HT. If we are to grieve the loss of 2000 allied soldiers, we should as well grieve, and more so, the loss of the hundred thousand Iraqi civilians. Thier loss is incalculably more than ours. To ignore that loss is an insult to everything that we, as humans, aspire to one day become.
HT, why do u think 98,000 more soldiers deserve to die? i understood ur logic mostly to that point but when you said that, it was just irrational... there was no justification in that statement! they are just doing their job for our country whether they like it or not. You must agree that this world is a better place without Saddam.
Humm that's an interesting statement... Let's elaborate a little ..Where was the "World Community" when the Rwanda Massacre was going on ?? You see instead of pointing fingers I'll be honest where I was during that time .. Lets see I was sitting at home having dinner while doing some homework and then once I was done I went out came home and went to bed .... That just begs to ask the question : " Where were you ? "Quote:
Where was the US when the Ruwandian massacure was going on....oh yeah ...Ruwanda is a land locked country.....with limited natural resources.....and no oil!
To me the Rwanda genocide can be summarized as a global failure ....
You dont think that Canadians dont have the same line of thinking when it comes to situations like those ??Quote:
If someone kills a person in texas...people say "it's a shame those innocent people had to die" then the killer goes to court and is found guilty and put to death and then everyone says "Good.. they got what they deserved"..
You assuming that the soldier went out of his way to kill that innocent human being ... As if he stood there in front of him and pointed that gun and shot him ...Quote:
With the military it's the exact opposite... A soldier goes over to war... and kills an Iraqi civilian and the American public says "Good.. they got what they deserved"
Simple that soldier was someones : Son, Father, Cousing , Husband , Uncle .... Maybe they feel ashamed because they understand how unjust war is ... Maybe because someone who didn't have to die so young did ...Quote:
then that soldier is killed and we hear "It's a shame that an innocent soldier died"...
I don't understand this and would love for someone to explain this in a sane, logical way..
I'll cry for workers who get underpaid in third world countries so that we can wear the clothes that we wear , ... peoples who's lives get abused everyday why ? cause they have to feed the big consumerists machine of north america ....Quote:
You cry for your 2000 dead and continue to cheer as your war machine moves forward... I'll cry over the 100,000 dead... killed for nothing but oil.
Who cares who gets abused in the process ? Hey? As long as we have our Nike shoes, big S.U.V's.... really who cares ???
Umm last time I remembered they had plenty of people who opposed the war ??Quote:
and none of you Americans seem to see a problem with that...
It's a war, death occurs. How can you expect those whom have lost loved ones to be apathetic to it and not mourn? The media sensationalizes it and capitalizes with such tactics because of people like you. There is a difference between personal loss and media exploitation--realize this. Ironically, you claim such a reverence for life, yet actually wish death on a hundred thousand more?Quote:
Originally posted here by HTRegz
I realize exactly what I'm saying... Americans whine when one of their own die... but that person was over there causing death...
I can't say I've ever heard one person praise the death of an Iraqi civilian--ever. That statement is just a hateful lie.Quote:
... A soldier goes over to war... and kills an Iraqi civilian and the American public says "Good.. they got what they deserved".. then that soldier is killed and we hear "It's a shame that an innocent soldier died"... I don't understand this and would love for someone to explain this in a sane, logical way.. If they can I'll gladly stop posting... but since it's not possible to explain that in a sane and logical way I don't have to worry about it.
The vast majority of civilian deaths are not cause by US and allied forces, rather insurgents who use murder, terror, and scare tactics. Yes, I'm sure the US is to blame when that suicide bomber detonates himself in the middle of a bus, market, community center, etc that has nothing but innocent civillian Iraqis within them.
The media also has a logic problem when defining civilians. Just because you don't wear a uniform does not mean you are not a combatant. You point/fire a weapon at military, police, or even civilians...you have revoked all status of innocence and bystanding.
Look at this SITE This site (in the early stages of the war) actually listed cases of death caused by poor hygeine and diarreah due to inadequate water & sewage systems and attributed them to the coalition. They also listed the US and coalition at fault for the deaths of Iraqis who rushed head-long into check-points. It's amazing what the media can turn things into. Aside from that, just glance at this list and you'll see why all of the civilians are dying. Look at the targets, who died, and why--then but them together and think. Guess what international banwagon for blame isn't responsible for hardly any of these deaths?
Oil? People still think this is about oil? I can't believe that argument is even made anymore without feeling blatenly naive and poorly educated.Quote:
You cry for your 2000 dead and continue to cheer as your war machine moves forward... I'll cry over the 100,000 dead... killed for nothing but oil.
Murderers? The fact that you honestly think that sickens and disgusts me.Quote:
This makes the US nothing more than a nation of bigots... Nationalists to the Extreme... and none of you Americans seem to see a problem with that... That makes me sad... but the fact that 2000 murderers died doesn't...
You call a US soldier fighting for ideals that you hold dear & true, fighting because his nation's hand was forced, a murderer? So what is the suicide bomber killing entire families in one swoop? What do you make of the kinappers that randsom people's lives and lop off heads to fit some self-righteous, religious fanatic, zealotry? What do you make of the insurgent that cuts down children in the street with indifference because he has "a higher agenda"? Better yet, what do you make of the person filling young minds with racism and hate? Using their own political views to poison the minds of the next generation so that their "mission" has more fodder for the cannons?
Where are your accusations for them? Or would that be too logical, and not quite enough yuppie, smarter-than-thou, contradictary (simply for the sake), liberalism gone foul? Get a grip and take a reality check about what you seem to think and believe so firmly.
Hhmmm that just about covers the feelings of the US Military.Quote:
"The strong do as they must and the weak accept what they have to." ~ Bismark
If your "Foreign Policies" were carried out half as good as your "Domestic Policies" the planet would be a festering hulk.
From day one the actions of the US Military has been mostly self serving, you joined WWI late, because it didn't suit your purposes, you joined WWII because of Pearl Harbour", this after half of Europe lay in ruins and people like my Dad trying to dodge bombs in London during the Blitz, ever wonder where the term "jonny come lately" came from.
(suppose America had of joined in the fight against Hitler at the same time as everyone else, just maybe those 6 million jews would not have died, or the 20 million Russians, or the millions of Europeans period)
Yugoslovia was allowed to descend into chaos, while the US sat on the side lines, Rwanda was embroiled in a genocide of it's own while the US sat there, you guys bitch and moan about why is it we have to be the "World Policeman" and why does the rest of the world hate us so much, it's because you step in when you are not wanted, and you don't step in when you are needed, I know it sucks, 6 and 1/2 dozen or caught between a rock and a hard place.
George Sr had the opportunity back in 1991 to make it so that what is happening today does not take place.He dropped the proverbial ball, at a time when he even had Arab backing, but noooo, lets just hold on a minute, we did what we were asked to do (save Kuwaiti's asses), time to go home, we'll just leave some sanctions in place (later to be exploited for food for oil program, and the dirty laundry is coming out now).
So by backing off of Saddam at a time when you had him by the balls, you sealed the fate of your own allies at the time, the Kurds, I am surprised they haven't turned their weapons on the US, maybe they are waiting until the time is right, when the dust settles and the "Democratic Iraqi's" start to run their own country, yeah right, in pig's eye.
What happened on 9/11 was I agree tragic, but so was the Oklahoman bombing by a domestic terrorist, you Americans must think you have the "god given right" to be able to muster all of your christian beliefs and go after these baddies, sh*t, Europe has been dealing for decades with terrorists, fanatics or freedom fighters, whether it is ideological or religious, this has been going on for some time and the Europeans seem to be able to deal with it either through political means (IRA) or through cooperation with other Governments (Germany & Israel).
We just ignored the FLQ, until they went away.
Your rush to punish a despot, has resulted in your troops being mired in a conflict I am sure no one wants, you can pound your chest and wave your flags a much as you want, and exclaim that this is only about your fight for the freedom of all Americans, and that it is a just war.But the bottom line is, it is not a just war, a just war would have been securing allies to fight along side you (okay the UK was there) by doing it through the UN, sure your sceptical of the UN, and you are still witholding your share of the dues(gee maybe this is why the UN can't do what they are trying to do).
If you had done it right by asking (I know it is probably humbling for any American to ask for help) maybe you could have gone in with the complete backing of the World Community, remember us there are other people on this planet besides the US.
History lesson 101, it was the US who placed a criminal on the throne of Iran (Shah) which of course resulted in his overthrow and the enmity of that nation's people to anything US.
History lesson 102, it was the US who meddled in the affairs of Nicarauga (remember Ollie and Reagan)(Iran/Contra)
History lesson 103, it was the French who messed up Indochina (Vietnam), but Kennedy bailed them out, and of course the rest is they say History.
War is the result of a failure to communicate (Diplomacy).This episode is going to end up like Vietnam,long and drawn out.
Don't get me wrong or think I have a hate on for the US (family members living in Flint/Tampa and Troy), but you guys ought to take a step back and see the forest for the trees. Being ex military myself I appreciate what you Americans do (hey you kept the big bad ruskies from coming over the top of the world and invading Canada), but it amazes me that with all of your clout and might that you continue to ignore the little conflicts (Somolia,Darfur,), or the real bad guys (North Korea, Saudi Arabia,Libya, Syria, Iran), Saudi Arabia I can see you leaving alone, I mean with all of the good ole boys greasing each others palms, it wouldn't do to piss off an "Ally".
Hi dalek,
Not true...Russia never had any intentions of invading Canada...and we were on friendly/civil terms with them throughout the cold war.Quote:
hey you kept the big bad ruskies from coming over the top of the world and invading Canada
If anything...Canada offered protection for the US by the very nature of that relationship.
Eg ;)
I know http://www.lswilson.ca/dewline.htm I was making nice. :pQuote:
Originally posted here by Egaladeist
Hi dalek,
Not true...Russia never had any intentions of invading Canada...and we were on friendly/civil terms with them throughout the cold war.
If anything...Canada offered protection for the US by the very nature of that relationship.
Eg ;)
But the US did keep their B52's flying over most of that territory (physically closer to Moscow then via Europe) and with NORAD always on the alert (good flick is Fail Safe), their base in Thule Greenland used to at the height of the Cold War have at least 10,000 personell stationed there, now it's a caretaker crew, with a lot of locals helping out, and it's a great place for duty frees, when flying back home from CFS Alert. :D
http://www.ww2pacific.com/attacks.html
Hi dalek,
I realize you probably already know...however...for the benefit of others...
The Dewline was established primarily for the benefit of the US who feared that the Soviet Union would attack them via Canada's north...it never offered us any protection...it served ' only ' as an early warning system to protect the US.
What the Americans never figured out was the Soviet Union had no intention of crossing over Canada...we provided the ' perfect ' buffer...our relationship with both parties resolved that issue before it ever became an issue.
We fortunately live in one of the very few countries in this world that has no enemies...we've been attacked once since Confederation...a german U-boat torpedoed St.John's harbor...if Canada was ever to be attacked by 'anyone' the whole world would side with us...even fewer countries can claim that...if any.
As I've said before...we offer more protection to the US than they offer us...by virtue of the history and philosophy we have, no other country could have afforded the US the free reign to become the superpower it is.
Eg ;)
hhmm hmm cough cough!!!Quote:
We fortunately live in one of the very few countries in this world that has no enemies...we've been attacked once since Confederation...a german U-boat torpedoed St.John's harbor...if Canada was ever to be attacked by 'anyone' the whole world would side with us...even fewer countries can claim that...if any.
Japanese Submarines
Dec 7, 1941. On its way to the US west coast, I-26 tracks a US freighter. Precisely at 8:00 a.m., Dec 7, Pearl Harbor time, she surfaces and sinks Cynthia Olson with gunfire. Dec 15, 1941. Japanese submarine shelled Kahului, Maui, Hawaii.
Dec 20. Unarmed US tanker sunk by Japanese submarine I-17 off Cape Mendocino, California. 31 survivors rescued by Coast Guard from Blunt's Reef Lightship.
Dec 20. Unarmed US tanker shelled by Japanese submarine I-23 of the coast of California
Dec 22. Unarmed U.S. tanker sunk by Japanese submarine I-21 about four miles south of Piedras Blancas light, California, I-21 machine-guns the lifeboats, but inflicts no casualties. I-21 later shells unarmed U.S. tanker Idaho near the same location.
Dec 23. Japanese submarine I-17 shells unarmed tanker southwest of Cape Mendocino, California.
Dec 27. Unarmed US tanker shelled by Japanese submarine I-23 10 miles from mouth of Columbia River.
Dec 30, 1941. Submarine I-1 shells, Hilo, Hawaii.
Dec 31, 1941. Submarines shell Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii.
Feb 23, 1942. I-17, shelled Ellwood oil refinery at Geleta on the Californian coast. The skipper had fueled there many times before the war.
June 20, 1942, the radio station on Estevan Point, Vancouver Island was fired on by a Japanese submarine I-26.
June 21. I-25 shells Fort Stevens, Oregon.
Sept 9 . Phosphorus bombs were dropped on Mt. Emily, ten miles northeast of Brookings, Oregon, to start forest fires. It was a Yokosuka E14Y1 "Glen" reconnaissance seaplane piloted by Lt. Nubuo Fujita who had been catapulted from submarine I-25.
Sep 29. Phosphorus bombings were repeated on the southern coast of Oregon.
Sorry Eg, had to put that in there, agree with the rest though. :p
Hi dalek,
No problem...I forgot about the one Japanese incident on the west coast...but..I was refering specifically to attacks on the country itself...not offshore attacks which were many...our merchant marines were hit hard trying to get supplies out...
but our soil remained intact except for those two incidences which happened not as an attack upon the country but as a way to impede shipping...so everything else doesn't apply to my statement...
...we were after all at war. ;)
but...throughout the war there was never an attempt to gain access to our soil...just attempts to prevent the shipping of supplies.
Eg ;)
Late for very good reasons. The US was fed-up with the endless centuries of war-mongering in Europe. There was no UN, no agreements at this time in the world, nothing. It was not the duty, obligation, or even moral obligation for the US to save another country. Nor was it anyone else's. It's not as if the US didn't aid though. Three words: Lend-Lease Act. As towards the Jews, nobody knew explicitly about the genocide until it was too late.Quote:
Originally posted here by dalek
From day one the actions of the US Military has been mostly self serving, you joined WWI late, because it didn't suit your purposes, you joined WWII because of Pearl Harbour", this after half of Europe lay in ruins and people like my Dad trying to dodge bombs in London during the Blitz, ever wonder where the term "jonny come lately" came from.
Yugoslovia is in Europe, where was Europe? Why should a nation half a world away have to clean up a mess that their neighbors would not? Rawanda: Why is the US to blame? If it is the job of the United Nations, not the US to serve the world, why is the US getting the blame?Quote:
Yugoslovia was allowed to descend into chaos, while the US sat on the side lines, Rwanda was embroiled in a genocide of it's own while the US sat there, you guys bitch and moan about why is it we have to be the "World Policeman" and why does the rest of the world hate us so much, it's because you step in when you are not wanted, and you don't step in when you are needed, I know it sucks, 6 and 1/2 dozen or caught between a rock and a hard place.
The US didn't press forward because of the reasons it's hated now. The Cold War was just ending and the expansionist USSR was still very freash on people's minds. US forces pushing beyond the UN mandate would have not only look bad, but been bad. The US stopped because it was not the US fighting Iraq, it was the UN. The UN is to blame, not the US.Quote:
George Sr had the opportunity back in 1991 to make it so that what is happening today does not take place.He dropped the proverbial ball, at a time when he even had Arab backing, but noooo, lets just hold on a minute, we did what we were asked to do (save Kuwaiti's asses), time to go home, we'll just leave some sanctions in place (later to be exploited for food for oil program, and the dirty laundry is coming out now).
The US is withholding their dues for legitmate reasons. The UN does nothing but take, take, and then demand more from the US to solve their problems. If the UN cannot function because one country (the US) does not comply, then maybe we should be spelling UN with an 'S' at the end of the acronym, not an 'N'.Quote:
But the bottom line is, it is not a just war, a just war would have been securing allies to fight along side you (okay the UK was there) by doing it through the UN, sure your sceptical of the UN, and you are still witholding your share of the dues(gee maybe this is why the UN can't do what they are trying to do).
I believe the US did gather allies, and did so for quite some time. The evidence given was plentiful, and Iraq was refusing inspectors. The only reason why a Security Council edict was not made was because Putin was using it as leverage, and Chirach along with Schroeder simply hate the US and were simply kicking dirt to feel important. When France and Germany began saying things like "We will refuse a pass vote no matter what is presented to them", communication ends. At that point, the US gave an ultimatim because it was enforcing Mandates the UN is incapable of.Quote:
If you had done it right by asking (I know it is probably humbling for any American to ask for help) maybe you could have gone in with the complete backing of the World Community, remember us there are other people on this planet besides the US.
Very good reasons???Quote:
Late for very good reasons. The US was fed-up with the endless centuries of war-mongering in Europe. There was no UN, no agreements at this time in the world, nothing. It was not the duty, obligation, or even moral obligation for the US to save another country. Nor was it anyone else's. It's not as if the US didn't aid though. Three words: Lend-Lease Act. As towards the Jews, nobody knew explicitly about the genocide until it was too late.
Quote:
It is impossible to learn about the Holocaust and the Second
World War without the question of how it possibly could have happened
arising, and along with that question comes another. The question of
whether or not the Western World did enough to help the Jews in Europe.
What was their reaction to the campaign of systematic persecution,
robbery and murder the Third Reich inflicted upon the Jewish people?
During the time leading up to the outbreak of World War II, the
Western Press consistently carried numerous reports of the German’s
anti-Jewish policies and their purposeful victimization of the Jews
living in Nazi Germany as well as the annexed territories. The general
public cannot claim that they did not know what was going on, that they
were uninformed. Whether or not they chose to believe it however, is a
completely different story.
I am sure the survivors of the Holocaust will feel better now.
http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/942.html
Lend Lease, you must think this was free and from the heart.
I am sure Ford/Chrysler and GM lost their shirts on this deal :rolleyes:Quote:
Lend-Lease, program of military and economic aid given by the United States to nations warring against the Axis powers in World War II. Despite the proclaimed neutrality of the U.S., Congress by the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 empowered President Franklin D. Roosevelt on behalf “of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States, to sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article” not expressly prohibited. The law originally authorized an appropriation of $1 million. The Office of Lend-Lease Administration, established in October 1941 to administer the act, was incorporated into the Foreign Economic Agency; in 1943 the office was transferred to the Department of State.
In addition to the United Kingdom, China, and the USSR, 35 other governments received lend-lease aid. They included the Netherlands, Belgium, and the Free French. By the Reciprocal Aid Agreement with the United Kingdom, the Free French, Australia, and New Zealand, popularly known as reverse lend-lease, American troops stationed overseas in return received material assistance from the signatory nations. By August 1945, when the war ended, lend-lease appropriations totaled about $48 billion. The U.S. had received more than $6 billion in reverse lend-lease. Arrangements for the repayments by the recipient nations were begun shortly after hostilities ceased. Except for the Soviet debt, of which less than one-third was repaid, repayment was virtually complete by the late 1960s. The U.S., in 1972, accepted an offer by the Soviet Union to pay $722 million in installments through 2001 to settle the indebtedness.
What are the legitimate reasons? (US can't always get it's own way?), and yes to an arrogant person putting the S after U would make sense.Quote:
The US is withholding their dues for legitmate reasons. The UN does nothing but take, take, and then demand more from the US to solve their problems. If the UN cannot function because one country (the US) does not comply, then maybe we should be spelling UN with an 'S' at the end of the acronym, not an 'N'.
Yes you score 100 on the geography part of that statement, they are in Europe, and Rwanda is in Africa, a place that US Multinational Corporations just love to exploit. As for ignoring the problems in Europe, I can see why the US would not want to be involved, it does not have anything of value for the US to exploit by way of resources.So the point you and I are both making is the US loves to pick and choose where it steps in, wether it is for Moral reasons or Humanitarian reasons,or self interest reasons, that is where we differ.Quote:
Yugoslovia is in Europe, where was Europe? Why should a nation half a world away have to clean up a mess that their neighbors would not? Rawanda: Why is the US to blame? If it is the job of the United Nations, not the US to serve the world, why is the US getting the blame?
If you had of waited to ensure the truth about WMD, maybe then the rest of the world would have supported you, do you not think that with the absence of credible (not CIA crap) evidence that the majority of the nations involved felt that the Diplomatic channels would be the best way to get at Saddam Hussein, why was it nescessary to rush in, sh*t if you ask me, they should have turned right at Baghdad and headed straight for Tehran, Iraq was not worth it, the country was in a state of anarchy at best, the people were fractured, it wouldn't have been long until Saddam would have been overthrown from within, they were not the base of operations for the US trained Osama Bin Laden Al Queda, these idiots worked out of Iran and Pakistan, and formely Afghanistan.Quote:
I believe the US did gather allies, and did so for quite some time. The evidence given was plentiful, and Iraq was refusing inspectors. The only reason why a Security Council edict was not made was because Putin was using it as leverage, and Chirach along with Schroeder simply hate the US and were simply kicking dirt to feel important. When France and Germany began saying things like "We will refuse a pass vote no matter what is presented to them", communication ends. At that point, the US gave an ultimatim because it was enforcing Mandates the UN is incapable of.
Let's put it this way, if the US Gov't had of stayed out of Afghanistan while the Soviet occupation was underway, Osama and his merry band of mujhadeen's would have most likely have been caught by the Russians.
Oh and lets not forget who it was who first armed Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war which lasted 10yrs can you say USA.Back then Saddam Hussein was a very important US ally was he not.
Whatever the argument and facts, my opinion is the US has a very poor Foreign Policy, instead of using Diplomacy, they use the big stick.Step in where they are not wanted and ignore the places they are needed.