| Forum Index > General Forum |
Personal attacks and off-topics arguments won't be tolerated. Report posters that break the rules, instead of responding to them. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
I agree the situation in Iraq sucks, but if America didn't support and maintain a standing military, and stop dictators elsewhere, you'd be speaking German. Rather hypocritical. Should we have invaded under false pretenses? No. Were there dozens of political blunders? Yes. Did some individual soldiers make things worse? Yes. Would you be in as good of a place as you are if America didn't take out dictators on foreign soil occasionally? I doubt it. | ||
|
ScarletKnight
United States691 Posts
On March 29 2011 11:49 JingleHell wrote: ^ I think it's funny that you don't mind that America was part of the process of overthrowing a certain dictator in the 40s. Yknow, since you bring up us invading sovereign soil of other countries during WW2 as a good thing, and Iraq as a bad one. I agree the situation in Iraq sucks, but if America didn't support and maintain a standing military, and stop dictators elsewhere, you'd be speaking German. Rather hypocritical. Should we have invaded under false pretenses? No. Were there dozens of political blunders? Yes. Did some individual soldiers make things worse? Yes. Would you be in as good of a place as you are if America didn't take out dictators on foreign soil occasionally? I doubt it. Actually they'd more than likely be speaking Russian. But that's getting technical. | ||
|
reddog1999
United States143 Posts
On March 29 2011 08:48 nymeria wrote: stereotypes of this nature are part of the problem in the american mainstream and i assume in the armed forces as well. you assume to much my friend. I was just stating the fact that he is from another country I said sorry didnt i? I do not know how french people write, that doesn't mean im against you. Even though i know why you would assume that, but really thats your problem not mine. | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
On March 29 2011 11:49 JingleHell wrote: ^ I think it's funny that you don't mind that America was part of the process of overthrowing a certain dictator in the 40s. Yknow, since you bring up us invading sovereign soil of other countries during WW2 as a good thing, and Iraq as a bad one. I agree the situation in Iraq sucks, but if America didn't support and maintain a standing military, and stop dictators elsewhere, you'd be speaking German. Rather hypocritical. Should we have invaded under false pretenses? No. Were there dozens of political blunders? Yes. Did some individual soldiers make things worse? Yes. Would you be in as good of a place as you are if America didn't take out dictators on foreign soil occasionally? I doubt it. First, you're not addressing my question at all. Second, I don't know why you are comparing WW2 with the Iraq situation, they have nothing in common except the fact that both wars eventually rid the face of the Earth of a horrible dictator. Do I have to remind you of how many horrible dictators plagued the Earth over the last 70 years that America (or anyone else) just let be because they had no interest in overthrowing them and because they were no threat to foreign countries (other than their own, I mean)? Also, the United Nations have a rule (I don't know the English name for it, but I guess you'll know what I mean) that no country has the right to get involved in another country's internal politics unless extremely special and precisely defined circumstances, which Iraq didn't qualify for in the slightest. Also, if the invasion of Iraq was a legitimate fight against a horrible dictator (and I really have trouble believing you really believe that), then why are the US not invading North Korea? Sudan? Why did they not invade Cambodia in the 80's? Pinochet's Chile? Do I really need to go on? | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
While I don't think the war in Afghanistan is providing any more use or security to the world, I also appreciate that there are U.S. military personnel doing things over their that are good. In this case, we see three soldiers who lacked humanity, and killed some people. It's shameful. But it's also worth noting that a lot of U.S. military engineers are over there deactivating land-mines that Afghani rebels set-up themselves -- land-mines that would otherwise possibly kill innocent Afghanis. There are villagers all over Afghanistan that wouldn't survive a Taliban take-over and depend on U.S. protection. I know it isn't popular to say, but a good portion of the U.S. military men and women over there are actively fighting to save lives, not take them. But, I do think it's time we leave. That place has way too much strife, of a way too complicated nature, for our military to be able to provide any lasting solutions. But when we leave, innocent people will die because of it. It's just a bad situation. I hope people take some time to appreciate the nuances of such matters and not cast broad and ignorant judgments. My only sibling, my older brother, died in Afghanistan less than a year ago, when an IED flipped over his armored car. He left behind a wife and three kids. We grew up together, living in the same room for more than half our lives. I know he was a good man incapable of hurting anyone defenseless. So it obviously bothers me greatly when other military personnel soil the reputation of the military as a whole, because I've met a lot of them who are plainly good, empathetic, trustworthy people. Just as my family has suffered, the families of these innocent Afghans will suffer as well. It's horrible, and there are no easy answers. There is no one side to blame. Murderers are murderers, war-profiteers are war-profiteers, and politicians are politicians. You'll find them on every side of every conflict. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On March 29 2011 11:59 ReDDoG-TrEe wrote: you assume to much my friend. I was just stating the fact that he is from another country I said sorry didnt i? I do not know how french people write, that doesn't mean im against you. Even though i know why you would assume that, but really thats your problem not mine. Ironically isn't he just stereotyping himself? haha. | ||
|
Ghost151
United States290 Posts
i work with a dude who was a spotter for a sniper team in the USMC. He's been in Iraq and Afghanistan and has told me countless stories of basically gruesome deaths at the hands of the superior technology that the U.S fields over there: guys getting shot by barrett rifles, bombings, machine guns, tanks and whatnot, but even if (the way he told it) the guys were never sorry about doing these things to the enemy, they were NOT taking sadistic pleasure in killing innocent civilians like the pricks in in these articles. Seriously, how fucked up do you gotta be to kill a 15 year old kid FOR FUN? And they talk about them going around planting drop weapons to get away with it. There's no doubt in my mind these dumbshits just wanted to kill as many human beings as possible. Seriously. Compare this to those rednecks who run around killing animals just for fun ( I don't mean hunting and If you thought I did you completely missed my point). Same thing. Only because there are repercussions for killing people, they (half-assedly) had to cover their tracks. I mean, I'm no humanist or bleeding heart or anything, and these atrocious photos aren't even that grisly compared to some of the war shit you can find on the internet, but you don't expect it out servicemen in a first world country like the USA. The Corporal and Pfc. deserve to fry. Staff Sergeant should be harshly punished as well, maybe not capital. | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
On March 29 2011 12:05 Leporello wrote:Murderers are murderers, war-profiteers are war-profiteers, and politicians are politicians. You'll find them on every side of every conflict. Everything you wrote was very sensible, and I'm sorry for your loss. The problem in this case, though, is that politicians that led to this conflict were also murderers and war-profiteers. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
I entirely don't believe the situation was handled properly. This has nothing to do with support of the military. If people don't back the soldiers, there won't be a well trained, standing, volunteer army. If we don't have one of those, in the world we actually live in, bad things WILL happen. I don't trust the UN any more than I trust any other oversized political body with a million parts moving in different directions. They wouldn't be able to protect me in an emergency. That's the job of the US Army. Are they protecting me now? No. Does that mean the soldiers shouldn't get support for willingness to do a difficult job? No. It shouldn't be a thankless job. If there was no good to come of it, people wouldn't do it in times of peace, let alone war, and we would have untrained conscript armies and militias as our only chance if someone decided to invade. (And I'm sure without a reason not to, someone happily would.) | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On March 29 2011 12:10 Husnan wrote: Everything you wrote was very sensible, and I'm sorry for your loss. The problem in this case, though, is that politicians that led to this conflict were also murderers and war-profiteers. I agree, actually. We might agree on a lot politically. As would my brother. He wasn't much of a political person at all, which is okay. He joined the army because he lost his job, to be frank. But I talked to him while he was in Afghanistan several times. He didn't feel great about the mission, but he also knew that his company, the 27th engineer battalion, was actively helping to save lives. You can't judge an army based on the atrocities of a few (whose crimes, by the way, are being brought to the public). Article about my brother I don't usually divulge my real identity on the internet forums, but TeamLiquid has been a place I can seemingly trust, so I'll let it slide. | ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
On March 29 2011 11:55 ScarletKnight wrote: Actually they'd more than likely be speaking Russian. But that's getting technical. France was already speaking German for a bit there. But honestly. Does the actions of a few give enough reason to condemn an entire country? My grandmother, 71 at the time, traveled across Europe before she died. When she and my aunt were in France, they got on a bus to the Eiffel Tower and some Frenchman knocked her out the door where she fell and broke her arm. As he passed he said "fuck you American." (He is extremely lucky me or my brother were not there.) Does this mean that I should hate every citizen of France? No, that was one uptight shithead not the whole country. On March 29 2011 11:34 Husnan wrote: 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). Guess what, the troops are American citizens, of course I support them. If someone supports something why should they be against it? | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
On March 29 2011 12:43 Ordained wrote: France was already speaking German for a bit there. I don't know where you got this idea, but it's wrong. On March 29 2011 12:43 Ordained wrote: Guess what, the troops are American citizens, of course I support them. If someone supports something why should they be against it? Err.. If you support something, you're not against it, that's what supporting means... What I'm saying is "Why are they not against it?" | ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
On March 29 2011 12:52 Husnan wrote: I don't know where you got this idea, but it's wrong. Err.. If you support something, you're not against it, that's what supporting means... What I'm saying is "Why are they not against it?" I was lightheartedly joking about the occupation of France by Germany in my first part. The second point is that because American soldiers are American, I do not want to see them killed, thus I support them. Plain and simple. I have the mental capacity to see that these are a few soldiers who committed a terrible crime but do not reflect every last American soldier. | ||
|
hongo
207 Posts
Of course no one is saying this is right for 3 innocent people to be killed, or for any innocent people to be killed. But I'm sure the vast majority of the people getting jumping on the "hate the military" bandwagon have absolutely no idea what goes on in war. An example is Vietnam where women would put bombs under their shirts so they would look like pregnant women and blow up on US troops. Lets say you see your friend explode and lose limbs and ultimately die to that, how trusting are you going to be of the next "pregnant lady" approaching you. I'm not saying these soldiers have had something as crazy as that happen, but my point is CRAZY STUFF HAPPENS IN WAR. We have no idea what these soldiers had gone through before this and what they were thinking or experiencing at the time. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
On March 29 2011 13:06 hongo wrote: The French can say whatever they want about armies and wars because they have never effectively fought a war since Napoleon and are effectively the biggest pussies in the world. They no nothing about war until it's on their doorstep and they need to be rescued. Delete this part because it weakens your argument. I am not a fan of the French but even I find it insulting. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
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. Over 90% of the weapons sold to Iraq were sold by the Soviet Union and other countries in the Eastern Bloc. It is an enduring lie that "we" armed him. Yes, we did, in far less proportion than others. BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED is agitprop and isn't true anyway; no one has been able to prove anything other than Bush said something he believed was factual that was not in regards to WMD. He had no intent to lie. As for no threat to the US or didn't harbor terrorists, no one can seriously say that because he had shown again and again and again that he was a threat to the US and he did harbor terrorists. Literally every Muslim government in the Middle East, including ones we are "allies" with, harbors terrorists to one degree or another, but Saddam didn't? Bull and shit. Husnan I really don't understand posts like yours because they are very condemnatory in nature and are based off of your emotional reaction to things you believe are true but most of them simply are not. You create a picture of moral monstrosity that simply isn't there. Do I have to remind you of how many horrible dictators plagued the Earth over the last 70 years that America (or anyone else) just let be because they had no interest in overthrowing them and because they were no threat to foreign countries (other than their own, I mean)? What's funny is that there are only a handful of countries that have ever actually, you know, really seriously gone to war putting all national effort towards winning with the goal being liberating countries from foreign occupation for the purpose of restoring political liberty to the native inhabitants. The US is one of those countries. And people like you whine because we "let some alone." Nonsense. Also, the United Nations have a rule (I don't know the English name for it, but I guess you'll know what I mean) that no country has the right to get involved in another country's internal politics unless extremely special and precisely defined circumstances, which Iraq didn't qualify for in the slightest. We weren't getting involved in their internal politics, we were saying their government was a threat to us and we were going to remove it because of that and that democracy afterward would be the best way to go. Whether or not we were correct in perceiving ourselves in danger, nothing in the UN takes away each and every sovereign nation's right to decide what actions to take in its own self-defense without having to ask permission from anyone. The US didn't go invade Nicaragua although we've had problems with them in the past. We haven't had a relationship with Nicaragua defined by military factors for 20 years. We did have that with Iraq. They shot at our planes enforcing a UN No-Fly Zone. Also, if the invasion of Iraq was a legitimate fight against a horrible dictator (and I really have trouble believing you really believe that), then why are the US not invading North Korea? Sudan? Why did they not invade Cambodia in the 80's? Pinochet's Chile? Do I really need to go on? No, you don't, because this is a debater's point. The simple way to deal with it is to simply ask the questioner if he would support the US reimplementing the draft, building an army of fifteen million men and women, and going on a world-stomping tour through Africa and Southeast Asia. Hell no he wouldn't. But you're more than happy to ask us "Why not invade X, Y, and Z?" Well because despite what you may think, the US doesn't have the soldiers or the money or the ships or tanks or guns to go invade 20 different countries at once, just because all of them have strong moral arguments for doing so. We don't so much get to pick and choose as we have to pick and choose, as this is war we're talking about. If we're going to get into a dispute with a dictator that may cause war, we better make sure that for us it is worth taking it that far, not whether or not it meets your impossible and silly standard of consistency. And by the way, Sudan has oil, so invading there would obviously be a war for imperialism to steal their oil right? | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
Sorry, I didn't get the joke. On the second part of your answer, you'll notice if you read my posts once more that I didn't say one thing about these 3 soldiers. I was not making any generalizations either. Many American TLers seem to have a grudge against French, I don't know why that is, we too have our share of anti-american retards, but I would like you to understand that I'm not one of them by any stretch of the imagination. All I'm saying is I'm puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops". I don't understand your answer at all. "They are American, so I don't wanna see them killed". Well, duh.. I don't wanna see anyone killed either. That's not the point. The point is this invasion was decided by deceptive politicians under false pretenses (I hope I spelled that one right) and yet, amazingly enough, people don't seem to question it. They "support our troops". They choose to ignore the fact that those troops have chosen to be where they are. Those troops knew (just like everyone else) that invading Iraq was NOT about stopping a dictator. They knew that it was NOT about ensuring security for the Iraqi people, or for the American people, or anyone else's. Yet, they went there. When France sent soldiers to Serbia to ensure the security of civilians, I agreed with it. When we heard in the news that a French soldier had died there, I was genuinely saddened. When France joined the US to help free Koweit from Saddam Hussein's attack in 1991, I was behind it too. But when France waged a war in Algeria to prevent the Algerian people to gain independancy, I wouldn't (I wasn't born, but you get the idea). The war in Algeria was a dirty war not only because it was fought by soldiers who didn't choose to be here (they were'nt professionnal soldiers, just kids doing their military service for most of them) but also because it was fought for wrong reasons. The first gulf war in 1991 was about protecting Koweit (how the hell do you spell that in English?) that was invaded by a hostile foreign country. The people who fought there did it for a morally justified cause. What was the second war in Iraq about exactly? On a slightly different subject, I still fail to see how me being French and not supporting the invasion of Iraq is "ironic" or whatever. The International Community has rules. The United States of America are not above those rules. One of those rules is that no country has a right to intrude into another country's internal politics. Admittedly, I have very little understanding of international legislations or diplomacy but if you think (that's not aimed at you, Ordained) that the second Iraq war has anything to do with the US intervention in France during WW2, you're a fool. If Nazi Germany had not invaded several other countries, and conducted the most horrible crime against humanity, then there would have been no place for any other country to wage war against Germany. You may find it sad, or wrong, or depressing, but this is how international law works. | ||
|
wwer
United States53 Posts
On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: Over 90% of the weapons sold to Iraq were sold by the Soviet Union and other countries in the Eastern Bloc. It is an enduring lie that "we" armed him. Yes, we did, in far less proportion than others. Paid for with US loans you idiot On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED is agitprop and isn't true anyway; no one has been able to prove anything other than Bush said something he believed was factual that was not in regards to WMD. He had no intent to lie. + Show Spoiler + "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. " http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/g8/interview5.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202103.html On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: As for no threat to the US or didn't harbor terrorists, no one can seriously say that because he had shown again and again and again that he was a threat to the US and he did harbor terrorists. Literally every Muslim government in the Middle East, including ones we are "allies" with, harbors terrorists to one degree or another, but Saddam didn't? Bull and shit. Yeah he was gonna have an invasion force ready to land in NY in moths if we didn't stop him. On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: Husnan I really don't understand posts like yours because they are very condemnatory in nature and are based off of your emotional reaction to things you believe are true but most of them simply are not. You create a picture of moral monstrosity that simply isn't there. Could you be any more condescending? You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I'm tired of people like you giving Americans a reputation for arrogance and willful ignorance so I'll say it again. Take off the rose-colored glasses, they make you look fucking stupid | ||
|
Husnan
France298 Posts
On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: And by the way, Sudan has oil, so invading there would obviously be a war for imperialism to steal their oil right? Didn't have time to read all you wrote, but I will and try to answer. But please, don't be putting words in my mouth, bro. You know better. Edit : Full answer, here goes... On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: Over 90% of the weapons sold to Iraq were sold by the Soviet Union and other countries in the Eastern Bloc. It is an enduring lie that "we" armed him. Yes, we did, in far less proportion than others. I did not know that. In fact, I was pretty convinced of the contrary, but I might have been mistaken, I'll try to do a little research. On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED is agitprop and isn't true anyway; no one has been able to prove anything other than Bush said something he believed was factual that was not in regards to WMD. He had no intent to lie. As for no threat to the US or didn't harbor terrorists, no one can seriously say that because he had shown again and again and again that he was a threat to the US and he did harbor terrorists. Literally every Muslim government in the Middle East, including ones we are "allies" with, harbors terrorists to one degree or another, but Saddam didn't? Bull and shit. You don't understand. Of course, there were muslim terrorists in Iraq, as there is in every other country (not even just arab countries). What I meant to say was "There were no more terrorists in Iraq than any other Arab country and it is a lie to pretend this is the reason (or one of the reasons) why Iraq was invaded." Someone else already reminded you of the proofs we have that Bush and his administration lied about WMDs, so I'm not gonna do that again. I'll just add that after the Colin Powell episode at the UN, and what an embarassment it was for your country, I don't understand why anyone still tries to defend them. Please do understand once again, I have nothing against the USA, or the American people, but if I was king, this government would be first against the wall. On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: What's funny is that there are only a handful of countries that have ever actually, you know, really seriously gone to war putting all national effort towards winning with the goal being liberating countries from foreign occupation for the purpose of restoring political liberty to the native inhabitants. The US is one of those countries. And people like you whine because we "let some alone." Nonsense. Please, once again, you're either putting words in my mouth or maybe my English isn't good enough to get my point across, or you're reading what I write with a bias because it's written "France" next to my name, but geez, I am not "whining because we let some alone." I sincerely believe that the fact that the USA did indeed "wage a war putting all national effort towards winning with the goal being liberating countries from foreign occupation to restore their political liberty" is exactly what makes the USA's greatness. I'm not a historian, and I'm not sure if the US really fought Germany only to free France, Poland, Austria and the other invaded countries (I think I remember learning in History class a long time ago that the US stayed neutral in WW2 until Pearl Harbor, after which they declared war to Japan, and since Japan was allied to Germany and Italy, they also were at war with them), but it doesn't change the fact that they fought for a noble end goal. I'm merely trying to explain that trying to pretend that getting rid of a horrible dictator such as Saddam Hussein is NOT the reason why the US invaded Iraq. It's logically absurd to believe it. If it was true, then the US would also intervene everywhere else where the basic freedoms are ignored, where the political police decide what people should think, etc... Just an overall answer : I think you're mistaken (or misinformed) if you really do believe that this war in Iraq was fought for the freedom of the Iraqi people. It was not. It was not fought for the security of the USA's territory or people. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On March 29 2011 13:51 Husnan wrote: All I'm saying is I'm puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops". What you're saying is actually the same faulty logic used by so many American right-wing Bush-voters. You can support the troops, and not necessarily support the "invasion" or the mission. There is actually a very wide difference there. Supporting the troops, who are largely just everyday people, and supporting the politics of war are two completely different things. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  30400Calm  6664Flash  3832Horang2 3373Sea 3005Shuttle 2917ggaemo 1150EffOrt 1009Barracks 817Mini 759[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2155 hiko1280 crisheroes392 Hui .347 Fuzer  224oskar121 KnowMe109 ArmadaUGS97 QueenE65 Trikslyr62 rGuardiaN28 FunKaTv  26ZerO(Twitch)22 |
|
|
EPT
