So much for John Edwards' take on terrorism

[armygas]

I begin to doubt you are in the military

 

Whatever, dude, I have been serving proudly since 1988. Basic Training at Fort Jackson, SC in '88........Officer Basic Course in Fort Sam Houston in '00.......Advanced Officer Course in '05.....oh and 2 deployments in support of Operation Desert Storm '91 and Operation Iraqi Freedom '03. I can post pictures of me when I was there if you want, in fact got em on my website, wanna see? You don't have to look very hard to find me, just google my username---you will find me.

 

That's it, keep dismissing everyone (but yourself) and calling people liars........ what a maroon you are sometimes!!

[bombus]

Thank you, Bombus, for posting the smoking gun that showed just how dumb Hussein's logic was!

 

Dumb to us maybe, but maybe he felt that that the British had no right in the first place to declare Kuwait as an independent state. Saddam Hussein was dumb in not seeing the trap, and under international law had no right to do what he did regardless of how fair he thought the situation was, but we know how random the policing of international law seems to be!

 

Actually, in period of mobilization prior to the start of troop movements in August 1914, the Germans did indeed discuss refraining from invading Belgium. They made several offers to both Britain and France to avoid war with them. See Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August. There were huge arguments within the German government about whether they should go to war against France at all. And whether an invasion of Belgium would bring in Britain and how to avoid that. In the end, they misunderstood Britain's committment to Belgium and decided that Britain would not fight for what the Germans thought was just a "point of honor" that didn't seem to be vital to Britain's interests.

 

This seems similar to Iraq's actions before the invasion - they didn't think it would actually lead to a war. Germany didn't offer to retreat once they'd invaded though.

 

Also, some of the stuff I said I'd post up is below:

 

On September 11, 1990, Bush also told a joint session of Congress that "following negotiations and promises by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within three days, 120,000 troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then I decided to act to check that aggression." However, according to Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times (of Florida), the facts just weren't as Bush claimed. Satellite photographs taken by the Soviet Union on the precise day Bush addressed Congress failed to show any evidence of Iraqi troops in Kuwait or massing along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border. While the Pentagon was claiming as many as 250,000 Iraqi troops in Kuwait, it refused to provide evidence that would contradict the Soviet satellite photos. U.S. forces, encampments, aircraft, camouflaged equipment dumps, staging areas and tracks across the desert can easily be seen. But as Peter Zimmerman, formerly of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Reagan Administration, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency, who analyzed the photographs for the St. Petersburg Times said:

 

We didn't find anything of that sort [i.e. comparable to the U.S. buildup] anywhere in Kuwait. We don't see any tent cities, we don't see congregations of tanks, we can't see troop concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It's five weeks after the invasion, and from what we can see, the Iraqi air force hasn't flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of people. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food.... But where is it?

On September 18, 1991, only a week after the Soviet photos were taken, the Pentagon was telling the American public that Iraqi forces in Kuwait had grown to 360,000 men and 2,800 tanks. But the photos of Kuwait do not show any tank tracks in southern Kuwait. They clearly do show tracks left by vehicles which serviced a large oil field, but no tank tracks. Heller concludes that as of January 6, 1991, the Pentagon had not provided the press or Congress with any proof at all for an early buildup of Iraqi troops in southern Kuwait that would suggest an imminent invasion of Saudi Arabia.

 

The usual Pentagon evidence was little more than "trust me." But photos from Soviet commercial satellites tell quite a convincing story. Photos taken on August 8, 1990, of southern Kuwait - six days after the initial invasion and right at the moment Bush was telling the world of an impending invasion of Saudi Arabia - show light sand drifts over patches of roads leading from Kuwait City to the Saudi border. The photos taken on September 11, 1990, show exactly the same sand drifts but now larger and deeper, suggesting that they had built up naturally without the disturbance of traffic for a month. Roads in northern Saudi Arabia during this same period, in contrast, show no sand drifts at all, having been swept clean by heavy traffic of supply convoys. The former DIA analyst puts it this way: "In many places the sand goes on for 30 meters and more." Zirnmerman's analysis is that "They [roads] could be passable by tank but not by personnel or supply vehicles. Yet there is no sign that tanks have used those roads. And there's no evidence of new roads being cut. By contrast, none of the roads in Saudi Arabia has any sand cover at all. They've all been swept clear."[6]

 

It would have taken no more than a few thousand soldiers to hold Kuwait City, and that is all satellite evidence can support. The implication is obvious: Iraqi troops who were eventually deployed along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border were sent there as a response to U.S. build up and were not a provocation for Bush's military action. Moreover, the manner in which they were finally deployed was purely defensive - a sort of Maginot Line against the massive and offensive mobilization of U.S. and Coalition forces just over the border with Saudi Arabia.

[geoguy]

It's a positive that the terrorism is being revealed.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/15/marines.iraq.ap/index.html

[lucaspa]

Whatever, dude, I have been serving proudly since 1988.

 

Then why haven't you picked up the basic concept that casualties are acceptable in accomplishing the mission? You never claimed that the concept is wrong.

 

That's it, keep dismissing everyone (but yourself)

 

That's what you are doing. You focus on ONE sentence I posted and dismiss all the other points I made. I have reasons for my doubt and never said definitively that you were NOT in the military. As it turns out, you are not in the military NOW and haven't been for 2 years -- you've been a grad student. You stated "I will do my job to the best of my abilities." That certainly implies that you are STILL in the military and serving in Iraq. But you are not.

 

what a maroon you are sometimes!!

 

Ad hominem. As a grad student I would have expected you to learn that this is an invalid form of argument.

 

Dumb to us maybe, but maybe he felt that that the British had no right in the first place to declare Kuwait as an independent state.

 

That still does not negate that Kuwait WAS an independent nation.

 

Saddam Hussein was dumb in not seeing the trap, and under international law had no right to do what he did regardless of how fair he thought the situation was, but we know how random the policing of international law seems to be!

 

That's where the "miscalculation" comes in that I spoke about. All wars involve some miscalculation on someone's part. Hussein's seems to be that no one would really do anything about his occupation of Kuwait.

 

Germany didn't offer to retreat once they'd invaded though.

 

Not in the West. However, in the war against Russia, peace was signed in 1917 because Germany did offer to withdraw.

 

Also, some of the stuff I said I'd post up is below:

 

On September 11, 1990, Bush also told a joint session of Congress that "following negotiations and promises by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within three days, 120,000 troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then I decided to act to check that aggression." However, according to Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times (of Florida), the facts just weren't as Bush claimed. Satellite photographs taken by the Soviet Union on the precise day Bush addressed Congress failed to show any evidence of Iraqi troops in Kuwait or massing along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border.

 

Excuse me, but Iraqi troops DID invade Kuwait. That is not in doubt. So exactly when did the invasion take place? I don't see the relevance of this. If Bush threatened action BEFORE Iraq invaded, then that was clear signal to Hussein that invasion would be opposed! Which would supposedly have deterred him. If he invaded after this, is it any less aggression on his part?

 

On September 18, 1991, only a week after the Soviet photos were taken, the Pentagon was telling the American public that Iraqi forces in Kuwait had grown to 360,000 men and 2,800 tanks. But the photos of Kuwait do not show any tank tracks in southern Kuwait. They clearly do show tracks left by vehicles which serviced a large oil field, but no tank tracks. Heller concludes that as of January 6, 1991, the Pentagon had not provided the press or Congress with any proof at all for an early buildup of Iraqi troops in southern Kuwait that would suggest an imminent invasion of Saudi Arabia.

 

1. By the start of the air war there were certainly LOTS of Iraqi troops dug in in Kuwait. Exactly when do your sources think they got there? They didn't come in AFTER the air campaign started, did they? So the sources are obviously wrong by testing against the data.

 

2. The reports dispute whether Hussein intended to continue into Saudi Arabia. Irrelevant. The invasion of Kuwait, IMO, was enough justification to use force to oust him. In military terms (subject to Armygas' corrections), the big thing is capability and not intention. Hussein had the capability to continue by invading Saudi Arabia. In fact, he did so when the Iraqis launched the attack on that coastal town (can't remember the name off the top of my head).

 

It would have taken no more than a few thousand soldiers to hold Kuwait City, and that is all satellite evidence can support. The implication is obvious: Iraqi troops who were eventually deployed along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border were sent there as a response to U.S. build up and were not a provocation for Bush's military action.

 

Irrelevant. The provocation was the invasion of Kuwait. So Hussein decided to defend his conquests. Which means he never had any intention of withdrawing, does it?

 

Sorry, but your arguments are internally inconsistent. First you say Hussein was willing to withdraw but now you tell us he built up forces in Kuwait so as to hold it! Can't have it both ways, Bombus.

[Evilution]

WTF. Are you nuts I work in anti terrorism, and some of the stuff I've seen is scary. Obviously I not allowed to give any specifics but take on board that terrorists are more advanced than you could imagine. Oh by the way I'm completely opposed to the war in Iraq.

[Sayonara]

WTF. Are you nuts I work in anti terrorism, and some of the stuff I've seen is scary. Obviously I not allowed to give any specifics but take on board that terrorists are more advanced than you could imagine.

 

That rather depends on which particular terrorists you are talking about, doesn't it?

[armygas]

That certainly implies that you are STILL in the military and serving in Iraq.

 

Whatever dude, I don't think I ever said that again you are untruthful and deceitful. Why do you insist on doubting me when I gave you all the information you needed to check my story in my previous post? Just plain lack of effort on your part and I guess your more comfortable just accepting your own point of view that its "everyone elses" fault. I gave you a compliment in another thread and you still basically called me a liar, what is wrong with you?

 

I am done wasting my time with you (integrity is a big deal to me and you seem to have none accusing everyone of being untruthful). As you know as a PhD (I'll take one out of your book....."if you really are" LOL......at least I am verifiable like I said just google my name, you'll find me I have the courage to present who I am); Ahem, again as you know as a "PhD", your actions towards others are typically an outward projection of your own personality flaws. I know my flaws, I expect people to be civil and honest and get piXXed when they don't.

 

As it turns out, you are not in the military NOW and haven't been for 2 years -- you've been a grad student.

 

Again, you have no idea of what your talking about, again you call me a liar, again WHAT IS WRONG with you DO YOUR HOMEWORK, goto http://www.usuhs.mil and see how IT IS POSSIBLE to be on ACTIVE DUTY and still be a GRADUATE STUDENT.

 

Man, I feel like I am talking to my four year old daughter...........

 

EDIT a few minutes later:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA do you know what I just realized? My homepage with my information is listed on my user profile here and you didn't even take the time to look at that before generating your false hypothesis, are you that error prone in your own work? Do you always state a hypothesis without the proper research?

[ParanoiA]

Seriously, credibility matters when it matters. Does it really matter for this discussion? I think it's safe to say armygas is in the military at some capacity and has served active duty on the side of the planet we're all talking about. Even if he's a total liar and he's really George Bush disguising himself as a solider, it makes no difference here. Prove the logic wrong, not the man.

[armygas]

Seriously, credibility matters when it matters. Does it really matter for this discussion? I think it's safe to say armygas is in the military at some capacity and has served active duty on the side of the planet we're all talking about. Even if he's a total liar and he's really George Bush disguising himself as a solider, it makes no difference here. Prove the logic wrong, not the man.

The funny thing is the answer is on this site in my profile, all he had to do was click on it, instead he attacks the man.

 

For the Record!!

1. I am an Active Duty Officer in the United States Army.

2. I am a veteran of Operation Desert Storm 1990-1991, and Operation Iraqi Freedom 2003.

3. I am a Nurse Anesthetist

4. I am a Graduate Fellow who had just finished his 2nd year in a Neuroscience PhD program.

 

VERIFY BEFORE YOU TESTIFY!!!!

[geoguy]

This 'I was in the army' (even though he's a fake ) is a bizarre logic.

 

Akin to giving Hitler's SS troops credibility in justifying their actions in WW2 because they participated in the atrocities.

[armygas]

This 'I was in the army' (even though he's a fake ) is a bizarre logic.

 

Akin to giving Hitler's SS troops credibility in justifying their actions in WW2 because they participated in the atrocities.

 

Whatever...

[geoguy]

a balanced view of american soldiers:

 

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-randall210207.htm

[armygas]

a balanced view of american soldiers:

 

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-randall210207.htm'>http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-randall210207.htm

Title of Article: US Troops Terrorize Baghdad In “Operation Law And Order”

Source: as stated above

Just to amuse myself, let us dissect this article, did you actually read this article?

 

First let's look at the source shall we??

About Countercurrents.org

 

http://www.countercurrents.org came online on 27th March 2002. 'Countercurrents' is a non profit organisation and the site is financed by our personal income and the small contributions received from the readers.

 

http://www.countercurrents.org is an alternative news site. "We bring out what the mainstream media fails to tell you, or hides from you. These are the things that really matter. The things which may determine the fate of planet earth! The future of our children! In a word, the survival of the species!"

 

Countercurrents.org stands for peace and justice. Our sympathies are with all those who are engaged in struggles for economic, political, social, cultural, gender, environmental ….. justice. Our aim is to strengthen all these movements. Our conviction is that the driving force of social change is these small counter movements and struggles!

 

Countercurrents.org

PB No. 5

Kumaranalloor PO

Kerala

India

686 016

Not too impressed............

 

Second, the article said we would terrorizing them, yet not once does it mention any "atrocity" on the US Military's part all it does is just recapitulate the Operation's Mission Statement. "The aim of Operation Law and Order is to move into strongholds of resistance throughout Baghdad, arrest or kill insurgents, and occupy the neighborhoods", where are all the atrocities to follow the title of the article??

 

Third, the only atrocities I see in the article:

"Early Monday, an attack by three suicide car bombers killed two American soldiers and eight Iraqi officers at an Iraqi police headquarters that is being used as a US base in Tarmiya, 25 miles north of Baghdad. The US military also confirmed that 17 US troops had been injured in what it referred to as a “coordinated attack.”

 

Attacks on such vulnerable bases—and the deaths of more US troops—can be expected to increase as the US counterinsurgency operation proceeds. The death toll of US troops now stands at 3,144.

 

The vast majority of Iraqis see the American military as their enemy and occupier. Recent polls show that the majority of Iraqis believe that killing American soldiers is justified.

 

If this journalist was actually there in Iraq, they might get some facts and decrease the likely chance of erroneous reporting.

American officials have released no estimate on the total number of arrests and casualties in the Baghdad operation.

Fifth, again the only atrocities I see in the article, who is terrorizing them again.....cuz I don't see in the article any atrocities committed by the US Military in that article to justify the title?

While in the initial days of the operation sectarian violence and deaths appeared to decline, by Sunday the death toll was nearing the 100-per-day Baghdad residents have come to expect. Three car bombs exploded in mainly Shia areas of the city, killing at least 67 and injuring more than 120."

 

 

That article doesn't shed a favorable light on that journalist organization and don't know if they have even heard of the Journalism Code of Ethics http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

 

Not a great source, what is the impact factor for that journal again?

 

 

VERIFY BEFORE YOU TESTIFY!!!!... dang that sounds better each time.

[Saryctos]

a balanced view of american soldiers:

 

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-randall210207.htm

 

quite balanced

[geoguy]

quite balanced

 

What? Not enough mention of all that great 'progress'? I'll look for the 312 quotes of Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' and 'graet progress' to add balance. Thanks for the pointer.

 

July 1973

 

Bush: "In the 83 days since I announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq, we have made tremendous progress and Iraq is becoming an example for all to see."

[ParanoiA]

a balanced view of american soldiers:

 

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-randall210207.htm

 

It's an opinion site. They're not balanced by definition. Peak Oil, US Imperialism?? Just activitist mentalllity stuck on overdrive...

[lucaspa]

Whatever dude, .. Why do you insist on doubting me when I gave you all the information you needed to check my story in my previous post?

 

What was the reason I gave for doubting you? And remember, you were trying to use your credentials as being in the military to attack the ideas I was posting. Let me remind you here:

Arnygas: "BTW I have been in the conflict twice (TWO deployments)... can you say the same???? "

 

Armygas: "You said "yeah, a few people will die [in the US]", almost as if you wished for it. I for one certainly do not think thats acceptable. No death is acceptable however our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have that option, they must kill or die (have you ever been in that situation?)"

 

Again, asking me a personal questions as tho my military credentials determine the validity of the argument. Your site indicates that you are not in the combat arms, but in medical support. So can you answer the last question for yourself? Does the answer make any difference to the position you are arguing for?

 

Armygas, what I'm seeing here is a classic debating tactic: distraction. When losing a debate, pick up on one area not related to the discussion -- preferably personal -- and devote all possible energies in directing the discussion to that. Examples of that in your latest post are:

I am done wasting my time with you (integrity is a big deal to me and you seem to have none accusing everyone of being untruthful).

 

So, in an effort to get this discussion back on track I ask that you go back and read my posts.

 

What got you started was this statement by me:

Lucaspa: Try a little courage. Can al Quada and any of its fellow-travelers really destroy the USA? NO! They don't have the capability. Yes, they can kill a few individuals, but they can't destory Western civilization. As long as we don't destroy ourselves. One of the primary axioms taught military officers is "keep calm; don't lose your head".

 

Remember, if there is al-Qaeda attack in the USA, I, and my loved ones, are on the front line. Now do you disagree with either my assessment about the capability of al-Qaeda to destroy the US or that a primary military axiom is "keep calm"?

 

Do you deny that a basic military principle is that casualties are acceptable in accomplishing the mission? Yes, it's a very good day when you can accomplish the mission without any casualties to your side. But the goal is to accomplish the mission. Sometimes the casualties must be 100% -- as in the Alamo to delay the Mexican Army to give Sam Houston time to form the Texan army.

 

Do you agree? Or do you still insist that "no casualties are acceptable"?

 

So, what is the mission here? I say the mission is to preserve the USA as a free, secular, democratic nation. Do you disagree? Can al-Queda, by itself, destroy the USA (or other Western democracies) by terrorist attacks? I say "No". The only way for al-Qaeda to succeed in destroying the USA is if we help them by making mistakes such as 1) destroying our own liberty by enacting laws that do so under the guise of "defending us" against al-Qaeda or 2) generalizing al-Qaeda to all Muslims and turning the entire Islamic world into our enemy.

 

The latest National Intelligence Estimate (available to read at http://www.npr.org) says that, before the 2003 invasion, al-Qaeda had NO presence in Iraq! Now al-Qaeda has a strong presence in Iraq and has been able to use the Iraq War as a strong recruiting tool to convince Muslims that the USA is an enemy of all Muslims.

 

So, my claim is that the Iraqi war was a defeat the moment we invaded. At that point, thanks to the NCA, we lost a battle against terrorism. Do you disagree? If so, why?

 

I claim that staying in Iraq is not going to turn defeat into victory. The tactics being used by us and the insurgents in Iraq guarantee eventual victory for the insurgents. What we have in Iraq is a meatgrinder that chews up soldiers without producing victory. The only saving grace is that, thanks to improvements in our equipment and tactics, the meatgrinder is working a lot slower than it has in situations in the past: the Somme, Fredricksburg, Kursk, and Hurtgen Forest, for instance. But its still a meatgrinder.

 

I claim the correct military course is to abandon this battle we can't win, pull out, and prepare for the consequences. All the while looking for opportunities to engage in battle where we can win. One option would be assisting Pakistan to drive al-Qaeda out of its new safe areas at the Pakistan tribal areas bordering Afghanistan (also in the latest NEI).

 

I also made the claim that there is an unspoken contract between the military and civilians: it's the job and responsibility of civilians to question the legitimacy of any war and whether the tactics and strategy of the military is going to accomplish the stated political mission. Do you disagree? If so, why? Do you think it proper for personnel in the military to attempt to quash that questioning by simply saying "you are not military, so you must support every war"?

 

Title of Article: US Troops Terrorize Baghdad In “Operation Law And Order”

Source: as stated above

Just to amuse myself, let us dissect this article, did you actually read this article?

 

Yes, you left several parts out:

 

"The Los Angeles Times reported that in Sadiya, a nearby Sunni neighborhood, an Iraqi soldier searched a home for weapons, harassing a woman in her 70s. “What, grandma,” he said, “don’t you have any rocket-propelled grenades or roadside bombs?”"

 

"The predominantly Sunni Dora neighborhood was also one of the first to be hit, with US troops targeting the Abu Disheer Shiite enclave. With Humvees and armored vehicles protected by aircraft, US troops set off stun grenades before smashing down doors and storming houses in search of insurgents."

 

Now, how many of those houses (since they did each one) actually had insurgents and how many contained innocent civilians? How many innocents were affected by the stun grenades? Did the US troops offer to pay to have the doors repaired or replaced?

 

"New checkpoints were set up around the city, with individuals frisked at gunpoint and cars and motorbikes searched from top to bottom. The US military announced on day two of the operation that it had cleared several areas of the capital in “intelligence-focused searches.” "

 

Again, how many of those subjected to body searches actually were insurgents and how many were innocent?

 

Now, imagine that happening in the USA with foreign troops frisking people at gunpoint, setting off stun grenades, and breaking down doors for room to room searches. Just how happy would YOU be? Would you be happy at having male soldiers frisking your girlfriend? Would you think they spent perhaps just a bit too long making sure there were no weapons around her breasts or in the area of her vagina?

 

You deliberatly limited your search of the article for "atrocities". That apparently allowed you to overlook these paragraphs. The title said "terrorizes". I would say that the people in the neighborhoods felt terror at seeing all the military force and loaded guns pointed at them. You can "terrorize" people without setting off car bombs or killing them. "Terrorizing" is about scaring them. I'd say we did that fairly well. In fact, I'd say that was the whole point, because they wanted to scare any insurgents so that they did not start trouble.

 

The point of the article is that, no matter how nice American soldiers are, the very nature of the tactics necessary to accomplish the mission is going to piss Iraqis off. We are acting like an oppressive occupying power. Don't get me wrong, the soldiers on the ground must be aggressive. Too careful and some kid pulls a grenade and drops it into their midst and they are dead.

 

David Drake once made the emphatic comment that a soldier will, quite rightly, do whatever is necessary for his survival. What needs to be considered is whether we want him doing that before we send him into that situation. This is part of my argument that, using the tactics we're using, we can't win. The search and destroy might make Baghdad safer for a while. But in the long term all it can do is enlist recruits for the insurgency to fight against the oppressors. And we are the oppressors.

 

"The US media has provided virtually no coverage of the actions of American soldiers in Operation Law and Order "

 

I don't watch much TV news. Is this true? If so, can you think of a reason? Perhaps because Americans would not want to be treated the way we are treating the Iraqis.

[ParanoiA]

Do you agree? Or do you still insist that "no casualties are acceptable"?

 

It's pretty clear he was talking about civilian casualties - more over, american civilian casualties. That's the attitude expected from our military, and I'm proud of them for it. Casualties are acceptable in a military capacity, not in the civilized front.

 

Your appeals to "have a little courage" are appropriate when we're talking about whether to walk the streets or live your life here in fear. But they aren't appropriate when talking about policy. "Have a little courage" is not a policy, it's a dismissive and rather offensive investment in doing nothing. You don't have to tear some country apart on the other side of the world, and you don't have to tread on our civil rights to protect us.

 

(Actually, I'm a little more old fashioned and prefer a CIA that invades our privacy, illegaly - that way the state can't prosecute anyone with the information, but can still "act" on information related to a terrorist act.)

 

There is something to be done, something smart and thoughtful.

 

But the anti-war left and pro-war right are both guilty of lying or at least distorting the truth and misrepresentation, propaganda, grand-standing, you name it, both sides have done it. Lefties see nobility in it, rationalizing any means for their "noble" end. The neo-cons and swindled righties rationalize for the same reasons.

 

The rest of us shake our heads with no idea what to believe at this point. Are marines actually killing innocents and torturing people, or is much of this the result of the terror tactic outlined in the terrorist handbook (to always claim atrocity and torture)? Is the insurgency really made up of Iraqi nationals who will never stop fighting the occupier, or is Al Quada, Iran and Syria successfully inflaming, supporting and fighting in their stead? Is there really no progress being made in stablizing Iraq, or are successes simply undermined by "yellow journalism"?

 

There are just as many stories on either side of those questions, and many, many more. Any position people take in Iraq, at this point it seems, is sheer choice, hope, faith - how could it be factual when facts seem to be absent, contested, changing from day to day or delayed?

[Pangloss]

Fair Warning: Future personal attacks and ad homs in this thread will be deleted and infractions issued.

[lucaspa]

It's pretty clear he was talking about civilian casualties - more over, american civilian casualties. That's the attitude expected from our military, and I'm proud of them for it. Casualties are acceptable in a military capacity, not in the civilized front.

 

That doesn't apply even there. In WWII civilians caught overseas on Wake and in the Phillipines suffered casualties. In the Atlantic, we sent merchant ships crewed by civilians to carry materiel to Europe. Many of them were sunk and thousands of crewmen killed. No military person suggested that those casualties weren't "acceptable". Instead, "acceptable" was couched in relation to the amount of materiel that got across.

 

The French accepted civilian casualites caused by the Allies as "acceptable" if the end result was French Liberation.

 

The British civilians and military accepted civilian casualites due to the bombing of London and other cities as "acceptable" if the military situation wasn't hurt. In fact, Churchill egged Hitler into bombing London as means of taking pressure of Fighter Command. Churchill even sacrificed the civilians of Coventry to protect the Enigma secret.

 

I want the military to keep the mission of a free, secular democracy in sight. I'm willing to risk, and lose, my civilian life rather than see civil liberties lost so that there won't be any casualties.

 

Your appeals to "have a little courage" are appropriate when we're talking about whether to walk the streets or live your life here in fear. But they aren't appropriate when talking about policy. "Have a little courage" is not a policy, it's a dismissive and rather offensive investment in doing nothing. You don't have to tear some country apart on the other side of the world, and you don't have to tread on our civil rights to protect us.

 

But I think that's how armygas used the argument of "no casualties": as justification for treading on our civil rights and the war in Iraq. And I object to that. Of course, at the time I thought he was also a civilian. We civilians should have the courage to risk our lives rather than wage an unnecessary war in Iraq or tread on our civil liberties.

 

You can NEVER 100% protect us from asymmetric tactics without treading on our civil rights. That's that point, Paranoia. As long as you are in a war, the other side is going to score sometimes. The only way you can guarantee no casualties is to turn the USA into a police state so that no one has the freedom to plot or carry out such an attack.

 

The question is: are they going to score enough to significantly threaten our way of life? No. They can kill a few of us but they can't destroy the USA that way.

 

So I disagree. "Have a little courage" is part of policy. It's the part of policy we have to recognize we as civilians have to do in order to be free. We can't be perfectly safe and still be free.

 

The rest of us shake our heads with no idea what to believe at this point. Are marines actually killing innocents and torturing people, or is much of this the result of the terror tactic outlined in the terrorist handbook (to always claim atrocity and torture)?

 

The answer is "yes". In any military organization there is going to be a small percentage who are actually criminal and will engage in rape and murder. Then there are those who kill innocents and torture people as part of keeping themselves alive. In a war like this, it is inevitable that even good troops are occasionally going to kill innocents or overstep the line of permissible interrogation. I don't hold that against the troops. In their situation, I could easily do the same. It's just the nature of war in general and this particular type of war in particular. Since propaganda is part of war, of course the other side is going to exploit any incident to make it appear as bad as possible.

 

Is the insurgency really made up of Iraqi nationals who will never stop fighting the occupier, or is Al Quada, Iran and Syria successfully inflaming, supporting and fighting in their stead?

 

Again, "yes". Iran has an interest in inflaming and supporting the insurgents. OTOH, there are Iraqi nationals who will never stop fighting the occupier.

 

Is there really no progress being made in stablizing Iraq, or are successes simply undermined by "yellow journalism"?

 

Successes can't be undermined, because they exist independent of the journalism. What you are asking is whether the progress is being kept silent because journalists like reporting bad news. I don't have a full answer. I don't think anyone does. Several months ago I did hear an NPR story that looked into a government report. The report said that many projects were 80-99% complete. The problem was that the final delivery of services needed a 100% complete project. So, although progress had been made, for instance, on repairing sewer lines in Baghdad, the sections not repaired meant that most of the system was still out!

 

I do know, from history, that the tactics being used by the insurgents can't be successfully countered militarily. The only times such insurgencies have failed in the past was when the vast majority of the populace turned against the insurgents. And that isn't happening here.

 

There are just as many stories on either side of those questions, and many, many more. Any position people take in Iraq, at this point it seems, is sheer choice, hope, faith - how could it be factual when facts seem to be absent, contested, changing from day to day or delayed?

 

I don't think it is "sheer choice". A choice is factual because some facts, both current and from history, are available. People can reasonably reach different positions because they place different emphasis on different facts.

 

However, remember my claim of an unspoken contract between civilians and the military. As civilians we have a responsibility to keep raising questions and expecting reasonable answers. It is the responsibility of both critics and supporters of the war to give reasonable answers. If either side ever find themselves unable to do so, then their responsibility is to reassess their position. We owe that to the people at the sharp end.

[bombus]

That still does not negate that Kuwait WAS an independent nation.

 

Yes, but only if you happen to agree that international law is valid, which some do not (including the USA:-))

 

 

Not in the West. However, in the war against Russia, peace was signed in 1917 because Germany did offer to withdraw.

 

Yes, and Russia stopped killing Germans - unlike the US vs the Iraqis.

 

Excuse me, but Iraqi troops DID invade Kuwait. That is not in doubt. So exactly when did the invasion take place? I don't see the relevance of this. If Bush threatened action BEFORE Iraq invaded, then that was clear signal to Hussein that invasion would be opposed! Which would supposedly have deterred him. If he invaded after this, is it any less aggression on his part?

 

So we are told. Some troops probably did invade, but nowhere near the amount we were lead to believe.

 

1. By the start of the air war there were certainly LOTS of Iraqi troops dug in in Kuwait. Exactly when do your sources think they got there? They didn't come in AFTER the air campaign started, did they? So the sources are obviously wrong by testing against the data.

 

They were dug in mostly on the border in Iraq

 

2. The reports dispute whether Hussein intended to continue into Saudi Arabia. Irrelevant. The invasion of Kuwait, IMO, was enough justification to use force to oust him. In military terms (subject to Armygas' corrections), the big thing is capability and not intention. Hussein had the capability to continue by invading Saudi Arabia. In fact, he did so when the Iraqis launched the attack on that coastal town (can't remember the name off the top of my head).

 

He did not at all intend to invade Saudi Arabia! He was willing to leave without a shot being fired, so why did we attack? Why did we kill retreating defeated troops? This against international law, which you think was valid enough to declare Kuwait an independent state, but not valid enough to stop surrendered soldiers being massacred.

 

 

 

Irrelevant. The provocation was the invasion of Kuwait. So Hussein decided to defend his conquests. Which means he never had any intention of withdrawing, does it?

 

Please provide evidence of this. You have seen plenty to the contrary.

 

Sorry, but your arguments are internally inconsistent. First you say Hussein was willing to withdraw but now you tell us he built up forces in Kuwait so as to hold it! Can't have it both ways, Bombus.

 

I can, and do and just have. Re-read my other post!

[Pangloss]

He did not at all intend to invade Saudi Arabia! He was willing to leave without a shot being fired, so why did we attack? Why did we kill retreating defeated troops? This against international law, which you think was valid enough to declare Kuwait an independent state, but not valid enough to stop surrendered soldiers being massacred.

 

I don't believe any of that, except perhaps that first point -- I think that one is possible. The rest I don't buy for a nanosecond. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but mine differs. I don't think he would have left Kuwait until he was forced to do so, and sanctions never had any impact on him at any point in the 12 years after he was forced out, so there's no reason to think sanctions would have ever removed him from Kuwait.

 

You can point to many statements that his people made saying they were going to leave, but of course they said that. They were very good at propaganda (and some people in the west were very good at buying it, even people who like to say they ask questions and don't listen to propaganda, hint hint).

[foodchain]

The war has protracted the common Iraqi into a horrible mess. Think about it, if some nation using some mantra from an event invaded America and was capable of neutralizing our standing forces. What’s left is basically the populous with whatever forces were still alive or released spread into it. Now if you say were just a person looking to protect your loved ones, you might now be so quick to jump into combat. On this note though in Iraq, we cant protect the locals from the "enemy" whatever that happens to be. Another aspect is the war is carried out in urban zones. This can involve the dropping of munitions such as thousand pound bombs, armored vehicle combat and so on. SO basically what’s left for the common Iraqi people caught up is this struggle, does anyone even take into account such? Doubtful really in my opinion.

 

As for a politicians take on the war. Well, we were attacked by a terrorist group that is all over the world and primarily based in say Afghanistan. They attacked and we invaded a nation that to this date does not have anything truly credible to back up the why to it all. Now we have to stay for a plethora of reasons some give, or leave for just about as many. The reality to me though is the stalemate of Iraq is not being broken, the people and the nation happen to be going that route though, to utter destruction slowly. So in say ten years, about what it took for Vietnam to run its course, and about Vietnam, remember if we lost that war the communists would of course conquer the world right:doh: The point is how many Iraqis will die and what will be left of Iraq. IF we took half the money and resources that went into Iraq and initially applied them to Afghanistan, the Taliban and AQ would probably be extinct. If we put the other half of the money into alternative energy resources we would not have to buy oil. I am sorry to say but if the mideast could not sell oil, they would really have no money at all, plus it could combat global warming. Such technology such as hydrogen would sell planet wide, oil would have no value and thus no power and thus no reason to protract monkeys into killing each other over resources and territory.

 

Iraq is not becoming free, its becoming destroyed, that’s all its doing. The U.S won the cold war via economics and diplomacy primarily, I think it could easily be that way with the WOT. Every time bush gets challenged he brings up his support the troops BS. The man tries to make it as if he is the nation, he did not even allow for the recount to run its course, that’s his care of the for the voice of democracy. His cabinet is nothing but big business and big oil, and the amount of corruption leaking from it is notorious anymore, I don’t see how anyone could support anything he does or says, I mean being the decider I guess he simply decided that global warming is false along with all his actions to silence government scientists on environmental issues. I mean to bring up the list of what I could call nothing more then lies or corruptions is so long, actually contrary evident to the things he says is a website, it has the bushco cronies there too, and each character has over ten pages of contradictory statements, from the start of the war until now. Of course the super patriot that got out of Vietnam which our nation direly needed to win for survival of course is the perfect person to drape himself with the American flag and lie to everyone.

[lucaspa]

Yes, but only if you happen to agree that international law is valid, which some do not

 

It's not just international law, bombus. Kuwait had been a functioning independent state for longer than Iraq!

 

Yes, and Russia stopped killing Germans - unlike the US vs the Iraqis.

Irrelevant. Your point was that Germany had not withdrawn from any occupied territory in WWI. The data shows that claim to be wrong.

 

So we are told. Some troops probably did invade, but nowhere near the amount we were lead to believe.

And just how many does it take for the action to be wrong? Obviously enough invaded to defeat Kuwait's military force and occupy the country. Does it have to be more than that?

 

The articles were talking about a possible threat to Saudi Arabia. You seem to be trying to use the alledged small number of Iraqi troops in Kuwait to say the invasion was OK. That position is simply not going to be valid by this argument.

 

They were dug in mostly on the border in Iraq

 

No, they weren't. Someone has told you a whopper here. Remember the Marines fighting on the southern border of Kuwait? Just use some elementary logic here, bombus. IF most of the Iraqi troops were dug in along the border with Iraq, the flanking movement would not have worked! We would never have captured as many Iraqi prisoners as we did.

 

He did not at all intend to invade Saudi Arabia! He was willing to leave without a shot being fired, so why did we attack?

 

I don't know about the intention to invade Saudi Arabia. I talked about capability,but you seem to have ignored the point.

 

As to "willing to leave without a shot being fired", you are re-writing history. Remember the Iraqi attack against Khafji? Before the ground war started:

"At Khafji, the deserted, oil-soaked Saudi coastal town, and at two other points west of there, Saddam Hussein again coldly miscalculated. The Iraqi army made probing attacks that were geared toward drawing the Coalition ground forces prematurely into battle—inflict heavy casualties and the anti-war movement would increase the pressure, leading to a U.S. withdrawal. The Marines and their Arab allies received their baptism of fire, and came out of the experience with more confidence than they had when they went in. It took 36 hours of fighting to push the Iraqis out." http://www.qrmapps.com/gw1/khafji.htm

 

Why did we kill retreating defeated troops? This against international law, ... not valid enough to stop surrendered soldiers being massacred.

 

No, it's not. You may not like attacking retreating troops, but it is well within international law. Unless the troops surrender, they are still combatants. And again, you misstate the facts when you say these were "surrendered soldiers". They weren't. You can argue that it would have been humane to stop the air attacks on the Iraqis fleeing Kuwait City earlier, but you can't argue that it was either against international law or that the toops had surrendered.

 

Please provide evidence of this. You have seen plenty to the contrary.

 

You provided the evidence. From your post "The implication is obvious: Iraqi troops who were eventually deployed along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border were sent there as a response to U.S. build up and were not a provocation for Bush's military action. "

 

1. That contradicts your statement above "They were dug in mostly on the border in Iraq" Nope. They were dug in on the southern border of Kuwait!

 

2. As I noted before, you can't have it both ways. If Hussein intended to give up Kuwait without a shot, then why move troops IN? He would only do that if he intended to fight.

 

3. Hussein launched offensives at 3 places into Saudi Arabia Jan. 29 - Feb 3. The refutes the idea that he was going to leave without a shot being fired.

 

Re-read my other post!

 

I did. In fact, I quoted it. The material YOU posted 1) refutes your position and 2) makes your position internally inconsistent.

 

Bombus, you don't like war. I don't like war. But the sad fact is that some wars just have to be fought. For the simple reason that wars can be profitable for one side, and sometimes you just have to defend yourself and others. If you don't, the end result is a massacre. I obviously don't think that every war the US has fought was justified; I opposed the second Iraq war from the start. But you seem to go whole hog and think NO war the US has ever fought was justified.

 

The problem I'm having, on a science forum, is that you are misstating the facts to support your belief. Why can't you take the attitude of science over to other subjects and try to divorce your personal feelings from the data?

[bombus]

Irrelevant. Your point was that Germany had not withdrawn from any occupied territory in WWI. The data shows that claim to be wrong.

 

My original point was that Iraq and offered to withdraw completely before the US launched their attack.

 

 

And just how many does it take for the action to be wrong? Obviously enough invaded to defeat Kuwait's military force and occupy the country. Does it have to be more than that?

 

Not the point. The point is that the whole affair was designed to destroy Iraq's military and civilian infrastructure for other goals - not just to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

 

The articles were talking about a possible threat to Saudi Arabia. You seem to be trying to use the alledged small number of Iraqi troops in Kuwait to say the invasion was OK. That position is simply not going to be valid by this argument.

 

No I'm not. See answer above.

 

 

 

No, they weren't. Someone has told you a whopper here. Remember the Marines fighting on the southern border of Kuwait? Just use some elementary logic here, bombus. IF most of the Iraqi troops were dug in along the border with Iraq, the flanking movement would not have worked! We would never have captured as many Iraqi prisoners as we did.

 

I didn't see any of the war as I was in the UK and just saw news on TV. There was plenty of misinformation going around.

 

I don't know about the intention to invade Saudi Arabia. I talked about capability,but you seem to have ignored the point.

 

Why did you mention it then?

 

As to "willing to leave without a shot being fired", you are re-writing history. Remember the Iraqi attack against Khafji? Before the ground war started:

"At Khafji, the deserted, oil-soaked Saudi coastal town, and at two other points west of there, Saddam Hussein again coldly miscalculated. The Iraqi army made probing attacks that were geared toward drawing the Coalition ground forces prematurely into battle—inflict heavy casualties and the anti-war movement would increase the pressure, leading to a U.S. withdrawal. The Marines and their Arab allies received their baptism of fire, and came out of the experience with more confidence than they had when they went in. It took 36 hours of fighting to push the Iraqis out." http://www.qrmapps.com/gw1/khafji.htm

 

What was the date of that encounter? If war was by then inevitable as the US had refused to allow the withdrawal of Iraqi troops then maybe Iraq thought it had no alternative.

 

No, it's not. You may not like attacking retreating troops, but it is well within international law. Unless the troops surrender, they are still combatants. And again, you misstate the facts when you say these were "surrendered soldiers". They weren't. You can argue that it would have been humane to stop the air attacks on the Iraqis fleeing Kuwait City earlier, but you can't argue that it was either against international law or that the toops had surrendered.

 

Again you show your complete ignorance. The Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3 outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." It was clearly a war crime. They were retreating,many in civilian vehicles, and put up no resistance. There is film of iraqi troops waving white flags but still being mown down by helicopter gunships. I would guess that if they same happened to US troops you'd be up in arms!

 

Extract:

More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.

 

 

You provided the evidence. From your post "The implication is obvious: Iraqi troops who were eventually deployed along the Kuwait-Saudi Arabian border were sent there as a response to U.S. build up and were not a provocation for Bush's military action. "

 

1. That contradicts your statement above "They were dug in mostly on the border in Iraq" Nope. They were dug in on the southern border of Kuwait!

 

Some troops certainly were, and AFTER the US build up.

 

2. As I noted before, you can't have it both ways. If Hussein intended to give up Kuwait without a shot, then why move troops IN? He would only do that if he intended to fight.

 

Because the US refused to accept it.

 

3. Hussein launched offensives at 3 places into Saudi Arabia Jan. 29 - Feb 3. The refutes the idea that he was going to leave without a shot being fired.

 

As per previous anwer

 

I did. In fact, I quoted it. The material YOU posted 1) refutes your position and 2) makes your position internally inconsistent.

 

No it does not!

Bombus, you don't like war. I don't like war. But the sad fact is that some wars just have to be fought.

 

But this was not one of them. The US could have easily warned Iraq not to invade, as Iraq had been threatening to invade for months. The US chose to do the opposite and suggested that it would not intervene. The question is WHY, but it's not hard to answer.

 

For the simple reason that wars can be profitable for one side, and sometimes you just have to defend yourself and others. If you don't, the end result is a massacre. I obviously don't think that every war the US has fought was justified; I opposed the second Iraq war from the start. But you seem to go whole hog and think NO war the US has ever fought was justified.

 

Some wars are necessary, but most are not!

 

The problem I'm having, on a science forum, is that you are misstating the facts to support your belief. Why can't you take the attitude of science over to other subjects and try to divorce your personal feelings from the data?[

 

I am not deliberately mis-stating any facts. I am merely coming to a different opinion on the meaning of the information.