On March 29 2011 05:45 Cloud9157 wrote: I really hope there is only one "Kill Team". I've heard about it, but I haven't heard of multiple KTs.
Afghanistan+Iraq are a disaster, especially the latter. Since we had at least somewhat of an excuse for going into Afghanistan, I have been patient in hopes that there would be progress. Iraq is just moronic. We went in there because of reports of WMD? Thats such bs as we know now.
Just get the hell out of both countries. This is going to be just like Vietnam where we can't win and it only costs more and more lives to wear them down.
While your statement about Vietnam might be true about Afghanistan(only time will tell), the war in Iraq Is pretty much over.
I was a machine gunner over there and went on missions daily and never once had to fire my weapon. And that was back in 2009....
On March 29 2011 05:45 Cloud9157 wrote: I really hope there is only one "Kill Team". I've heard about it, but I haven't heard of multiple KTs.
Afghanistan+Iraq are a disaster, especially the latter. Since we had at least somewhat of an excuse for going into Afghanistan, I have been patient in hopes that there would be progress. Iraq is just moronic. We went in there because of reports of WMD? Thats such bs as we know now.
Just get the hell out of both countries. This is going to be just like Vietnam where we can't win and it only costs more and more lives to wear them down.
While your statement about Vietnam might be true about Afghanistan(only time will tell), the war in Iraq Is pretty much over.
I was a machine gunner over there and went on missions daily and never once had to fire my weapon. And that was back in 2009....
Doesn't that depend heavily on where you are deployed though? Genuinely curious, I know shit all about what happens in Iraq other than the odd car bomb I see in the news. I didn't think it was.. well, "pretty much over" as you put it.
Edit: Want to clarify, the war is obviously over but I thought there was still some action here and there.
Stuff like this are the reason why U.S has been so hostile against ICC and has tried everything to stop the Rome Statute being ratified or its provisions put to use.
On March 29 2011 06:31 cz wrote: Anyone have numbers on the number of people involved in actual killings and the estimated dead as a result?
I will tell you that it is no where near the amount of civilians that have died to some roadside bomb in ONE day, But you will never know actually how many wrong shootings take place, it's war and it sucks. I will just say it again if no one read my earlier post I do not agree with what happen I think they should each get 1000 lashings on live tv, but it wont happen.
The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
Nobody is "protecting your country". Euro-American force in Irak and Afghanistan are invading armies, are there for wrong reason, and, as it has been proven many times, don't behave much better than their opponents. What's really easy and confortable is to say that theses guys were psychopaths and that the problem has nothing to do with the whole situation.
Just watch Fox News, like 3 minutes, and you get a good picture of what is really fucked up in the first place, of where the violence originaly comes from.
I would respond to this, but you're inability to form a coherent argument makes it difficult to do.
It's disrespectful to soldiers as a whole to group them together with these crazy people. They have an occupation that grants a larger amount of respect than most jobs. Whether or not you agree with their presence has no bearing on if you should support the individuals. They have a duty to serve their country and continue to make sacrifices that allow me to live the life that I live.
I find that the Afghans who defend their country against our armies deserve much more respect that our soldiers who have invaded their. I'm not even talking about Irak. If I were an Iraki, I would know who is the ennemy right now. Namely, people who have invaded my land to make money, thinking I was stupid enough to believe that they wanted to "bring me democracy".
You find military respectable in itself, that's great. I don't. Now don't start your post implying that I am an idiot or that I can't make a coherent reasoning, because that's a bit too easy. The number of scandals involving american army in theses two wars is already astonishing, and has to be the top of the iceberg, given the culture of secret of any modern military. You have to realize that until now, american army has behaved like pigs in the middle east. On its defence, any invading army of hundred of thousand men occupying a foreign couuntry behave like pigs, in almost any circunstances.
US had a debate about if torture should be legal. It's just astonishing. Really, just thinking about it makes me so damn angry. In fact, it's so shocking that everytime I think about it, I lose for a moment faith in any kind of progress and civilization. Now, if you don't see that there is a problem there which is deeply connected with the fucked up stuff theses kids can do, I am the one who is sorry for you.
[/QUOTE] I find that the Afghans who defend their country against our armies deserve much more respect that our soldiers who have invaded their. I'm not even talking about Irak. If I were an Iraki, I would know who is the ennemy right now. Namely, people who have invaded my land to make money, thinking I was stupid enough to believe that they wanted to "bring me democracy".
You find military respectable in itself, that's great. I don't. Now don't start your post implying that I am an idiot or that I can't make a coherent reasoning, because that's a bit too easy. The number of scandals involving american army in theses two wars is already astonishing, and has to be the top of the iceberg, given the culture of secret of any modern military. You have to realize that until now, american army has behaved like pigs in the middle east. On its defence, any invading army of hundred of thousand men occupying a foreign couuntry behave like pigs, in almost any circunstances.
US had a debate about if torture should be legal. It's just astonishing. Really, just thinking about it makes me so damn angry. In fact, it's so shocking that everytime I think about it, I lose for a moment faith in any kind of progress and civilization. Now, if you don't see that there is a problem there which is deeply connected with the fucked up stuff theses kids can do, I am the one who is sorry for you.[/QUOTE]
Well one if you respect these people so much its called IRAQ, and another how do you know how these people feel? Have you been there? are you in fact an iraqi or afghan? Well lets talk about what the majority of them think for a moment. In 2003 after the invasion I went up to Mosul and that was my primary city for that deployment. 95% of citizens in Mosul(size of detriot) were happy about america being there. Now thats a pretty big number if I am not mistaken. The reason we invaded iraq might of been wrong, but there is one thing you can't denie. The Husseins are even more dirt then what these people have done, do you know uday and qusay? they used to walk down random streets see a pretty girl and take them home, abuse them rape them and then throw them to the streets after they had there fill. Remember Chemical ali? he isnt fiction. Did you know the iraqi soccer team was threatened and there families if they didn't win games? Sure our invasion in iraq may have not found WMD, but that country needed our help.
@ the video's showing soldiers harassing kids
Kids harassed us much more, infact some kids were quite dangerous with the big rocks they would throw at your gunners. I still think it's dumb what they did and I would never do that to a kid. But you didn't link the video's of where we would give these kids our MRE's (food) and bottled water even if we were low. in 2003 we had to regulate water useage because we were running low and we still gave kids water and food. Built schools, cleaned up the roads, picked up millions and I do mean millions of munitions and im not talking about bullets, im talking about 155 howitzer rounds, tank mines, rpg's... laying in a school or whereever for kids to play with. if that isnt a breeding ground for mass destruction i don't know what is.
On March 29 2011 05:45 Cloud9157 wrote: I really hope there is only one "Kill Team". I've heard about it, but I haven't heard of multiple KTs.
Afghanistan+Iraq are a disaster, especially the latter. Since we had at least somewhat of an excuse for going into Afghanistan, I have been patient in hopes that there would be progress. Iraq is just moronic. We went in there because of reports of WMD? Thats such bs as we know now.
Just get the hell out of both countries. This is going to be just like Vietnam where we can't win and it only costs more and more lives to wear them down.
While your statement about Vietnam might be true about Afghanistan(only time will tell), the war in Iraq Is pretty much over.
I was a machine gunner over there and went on missions daily and never once had to fire my weapon. And that was back in 2009....
Doesn't that depend heavily on where you are deployed though? Genuinely curious, I know shit all about what happens in Iraq other than the odd car bomb I see in the news. I didn't think it was.. well, "pretty much over" as you put it.
Edit: Want to clarify, the war is obviously over but I thought there was still some action here and there.
Well I was operating all throughout the Al Anbar province which was very violent at one point.
But yeah, I'm sure the odd car bombs will continue for years to come
On March 29 2011 05:29 Magic_Mike wrote: Until you've walked in their shoes, you only have your opinion about what happened. According to this information, none of us were there when it happened. Therefore our opinions are irrelevant. We only have the part of the story that is being posted here. There could be a whole lot more going on.
Also I hate all this generalization crap. Just because on person who is representing a nation or a group of people fucks up or can't handle that burden doesn't mean that all people from that group or nation are fuck ups. Look at Hitler. I'm fairly certain that the average German is nothing like him and would not like to be compared to him one bit.
Americans hate generalizations only when it's done to them. You pretending like we don't generalize people? You are correct in that it's easy for us to sit here behind computer screens and judge soldiers. At the same time, the accusations here are pretty heinous.
One of the most dedicated and informed journalists who have been immersed in the shocking tragedy, Nir Rosen, published an epitaph, "The Death of Iraq," in Current History.
"Iraq has been killed, never to rise again," Rosen writes. "The American occupation has been more disastrous than that of the Mongols, who sacked Baghdad in the 13th century" -- a common perception of Iraqis as well. "Only fools talk of 'solutions' now. There is no solution. The only hope is that perhaps the damage can be contained."
Well one if you respect these people so much its called IRAQ
Not everyone on this site knows the english terminology for everything. It's irak in french, and he's from france, so I'm guessing that's why he's calling it that. And if you want to be technical, it's not called IRAQ, it's called العراق.
Warlords and drug lords dominate Parliament and the Karzai government, Joya said, while U.S. troops kill civilians and rain destruction from the air. Afghan women and democratic people are caught between three enemies: the misogynist Taliban, the fundamentalist and misogynist warlords and Karzai regime, and the U.S. occupation forces. If the U.S. occcupation forces leave her country, Joya said that it will be easier, because Afghans will only have two enemies to fight, instead of three.
Prof. Chomsky agreed that the U.S. military is not in Afghanistan or other countries for humanitarian reasons or to promote security or democracy, but to advance the interests of a corporate elite that controls U.S. policy. He pointed to the dangerous destabilization of Pakistan that has been driven by U.S. aid to the military there over many decades, by U.S. support of fundamentalist Islam which began under Reagan and continues via Pakistan to this day, and by the U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan which are causing many civilian casualties, and suggested that no one could possibly think these policies were intended to advance security.
well hes from france that might explain thing's but this is an English site so I take it how I see it. would also like to say sorry for that, i just didn't know.
On March 29 2011 07:07 ReDDoG-TrEe wrote: Well one if you respect these people so much its called IRAQ, and another how do you know how these people feel? Have you been there? are you in fact an iraqi or afghan? Well lets talk about what the majority of them think for a moment. In 2003 after the invasion I went up to Mosul and that was my primary city for that deployment. 95% of citizens in Mosul(size of detriot) were happy about america being there. Now thats a pretty big number if I am not mistaken. The reason we invaded iraq might of been wrong, but there is one thing you can't denie. The Husseins are even more dirt then what these people have done, do you know uday and qusay? they used to walk down random streets see a pretty girl and take them home, abuse them rape them and then throw them to the streets after they had there fill. Remember Chemical ali? he isnt fiction. Did you know the iraqi soccer team was threatened and there families if they didn't win games? Sure our invasion in iraq may have not found WMD, but that country needed our help.
No country "need your help", who do you think you guys are? The cops of the world? The enlighten nation which will bring peace democracy and light to the whole world with your jets your tanks and your marines? Hussein was awful, but it's Irakis who should have taken care of him. You don't bring peace and democracy by invading a country, you just make things worse.
If you ask Irakis if they are happy now about the war and american being there, I am pretty much certain they woud say no. They were probably happy to get rid of Saddam in 2003, but their country has been absolute chaos since America went to mess everything up. I'm pretty sure that it was less worse to live in Bagdad twelve years ago than now.
My landlady is Iraki. She says that Irak was a horrible dictature, but that now it's madness and civil war. The only thing American army brought with it is more violence.
The motive were wrong and dishonest. The principle is arrogant and naive. The result is a disaster.
No country "need your help", who do you think you guys are? The cops of the world? The enlighten nation which will bring peace democracy and light to the whole world with your jets your tanks and your marines? Hussein was awful, but it's Irakis who should have taken care of him. You don't bring peace and democracy by invading a country, you just make things worse.
If you ask Irakis if they are happy now about the war and american being there, I am pretty much certain they woud say no. They were probably happy to get rid of Saddam in 2003, but their country has been absolute chaos since America went to mess everything up. I'm pretty sure that it was less worse to live in Bagdad twelve years ago than now.
My landlady is Iraki. She says that Irak was a horrible dictature, but that now it's madness and civil war. The only thing American army brought with it is more violence.
The motive were wrong and dishonest. The principle is arrogant and naive. The result is a disaster.
Face it.
Your landlady's opinion is not authoritative just because she's Iraqi.
The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless (like, say, they did try to "take care of him" in 1991 and he slaughtered them, there are multiple cases of "invading a country" and getting rid of its rulers making that country better, etc.).
You can keep saying Iraq is a "disaster" but that doesn't change the fact that that statement applied in 2005 and 2006 but certainly not today. Close to a hundred people or a little bit over were dying a day on average at one point in Iraq. There were thousands of "attacks" a day. Those numbers are astoundingly low fractions today of what they were considering how bad things were.
You're just angry at America so you say confrontational things that hold a thin grasp on reality at best.
Face it.
stereotypes of this nature are part of the problem in the american mainstream and i assume in the armed forces as well.
Funny thing about stereotypes is it's always the other guy's stereotypes that are inaccurate / offensive. Assumptions make wonderful things too I'm sure we know what they are.
Prof. Chomsky agreed that the U.S. military is not in Afghanistan or other countries for humanitarian reasons or to promote security or democracy, but to advance the interests of a corporate elite that controls U.S. policy. He pointed to the dangerous destabilization of Pakistan that has been driven by U.S. aid to the military there over many decades, by U.S. support of fundamentalist Islam which began under Reagan and continues via Pakistan to this day, and by the U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan which are causing many civilian casualties, and suggested that no one could possibly think these policies were intended to advance security.
Noam Chomsky's political arguments (in general, not just on this topic) consist of unsupported assertions, dismissal of the importance of any and all inconvenient facts that either don't help shape his narrative or contradict it, and eventually breaking down and accusing anyone disagreeing with him of being complicit in genocidal imperialism or not intelligent enough to see the truth. He isn't a reliable source for information or opinion on anything outside linguistics.
I find it interesting (for lack of a more accurate term) how the US citizens seem to inconditionnally support their troops (at least that's what it looks like from where I'm standing).
This thread and the argueing going on in it reminds me of a video on another thread here on TL, who showed soldiers from the US coming home (I think it was for christmas) and their kids crying overjoyed when they saw their daddies were home. The reactions in this thread from american TLers were astounding to me.
Anyway, I find it really weird that in the self-proclaimed "greatest democracy in the world", there seems to be so little questionning of the propaganda going on around the "support our troops" slogan. Once again, maybe it's not true, it's just what it looks like to me (and probably to many non-americans who follow loosely the international situation).
George Bush invaded Iraq because he deceived the people who elected him, and made them believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US security, that he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, that he was harboring muslim terrorists. We all know all of this is nothing but lies. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, sure he had a lot of blood on his hands (mainly thanks to the weapons we, western democracies, sold him, by the way...), and I'm not going to mourn his death, but that's beyond the point.
My point is I don't think the soldiers in Iraq need to be supported. They are not serving their country. They are not giving their lives for a greater moral purpose, like those who died on the beaches of France or Italy to stop the Nazis.
They are fighting an indecent war. Some of their parents did the same in Vietnam, but those didn't choose it. It wasn't their job, they were forced to. Those who are fighting in Iraq are obeying by the orders of a regime that used deception to wage an uncalled-for war, disregarding the thousands of lives it would cost. The moral obligation of the US soldiers was to quit. I'm sure some of them did.
In these conditions, I find it really disturbing and surprizing that people, in what seems to be the vast majority in the US, continue to "support our troops".
EPT
