The kinds of people we're dealing with...

[Sayonara]

"Not only do I find that comment to be racist"

Did I say that all Iraqis were "savages and animals" ?

I was referring to those who fight the Americans in such ways as the Berg killing.

Maybe your quick jump to conclusion is indicative of your own views.

No' date=' I find your implication that we should be pro-American to be racist. I thought I indicated that quite well in the following lines.

 

My point about the Russians is that if America was really there to treat the citizens like shit, then it would be a lot worse. They have to rebuild Iraq now, they know that.

And my rebuttal still stands.

 

Moral/ethical standpoint ?

It is good to get rid of people like Saddam. Is that morally wrong ?

Sorry' date=' I didn't realise Saddam still needed removing?

See above where we got ahead of that and began discussing who would police the power changeover in Iraq if the UK and USA withdrew. Don't worry we'll give you time to catch up.

Seeing as the USA and UK were responsible for installing Saddam and ramifying his position in the first place, we could debate the veracity of calling his removal "moral" for hours. I think we'd probably end up coming to the conclusion that is more "moral responsibility", and would never make up for us putting him there in the first place.

 

I am not American either.

If you're lumping people in the "anti-American" category just because they don't share the views of the Bush administration, and somebody takes issue with you doing this, I don't see what relevance your own nationality has.

 

[edit]

 

Dammit you added more stuff.

 

There will be individual soldiers who wish to abuse the Iraqi people, but these should not be a reflection of American intentions in Iraq.

True. But if we weren't there now - and we shouldn't be - they would have no opportunity to act. Also you might consider that most people are appalled not because they see the abuse as being representative of American intentions in Iraq, but because it happened at all.

[admiral_ju00]

I don't support America being in Iraq, but a lot of people here are siding with savages and animals, due to them being blinded by their anti americanism.

 

and this is why i despise political debates :sarcastic:

[Skye]

Well I doubt Australia, France and Italy are going to put up the troups. The war isn't especially popular in any of the countries as it stands. Australia has an election later this year, and if the current conservative government decided to take the reigns in Iraq they would lose. There will have to be a UN resolution before June 30 to get some third world lackeys in there. N. africans would be wonderful, since then it would Muslims. Unfortunately the Middle Eastern neighbours have wryly said that it would be inappropriate for them to enter Iraq as security forces, lest they were to use it to manipulate the political situation there. At least they have a sense of humour.

[atinymonkey]

Interesting news story:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3739955.stm

 

The memo is critical of the American military approach. It says: "Heavy handed US military tactics in Falluja and Najaf some weeks ago have fuelled both Sunni and Shi'ite opposition to the coalition, and lost us much public support inside Iraq.

[Tesseract]

Hey, the americans lost public support.Thats a new one.If they keep losing public support in Iraq, the Americans might actually be hated there.Wouldnt that be a problem.*cough*

 

I dont see the public support the coalition had in the first place.What are the civilians supposed to do, cheer on the people killing their families, friends.

[blike]

Ah yes of course: call them isolated incidents, and then they just "don't count".

They count, but only if applied to Americans.

 

The people who committed that act have been arrested, they are not symbolic of an entire nation. There is absolutely no case for damming an entire nation based on the actions of 5 men.

Isolated incidents happen between police officers and civilians in the states all the time. I don't feel the need to defend myself from a police officer. I ensure that I don't become an isolated incident by allowing things to escalate beyond what they need to. Listen, you can go on all you want about how we're in their country and they feel the need to defend themselves by shooting at us, but that doesn't make it so. We're not there to attack civilians. Most Iraqi civilians know that. We're not there to rape the women and steal the family savings. I havn't heard many reports (actually any reports) of soldiers taking part of anything of this sort. Granted, there may be some, but it certainly is a few. And those soldiers will be punished. The Iraqi citizen has nothing to fear. Do you think the soldiers want to be their? Do you think the administration still wants them there? Please. It's horrible for their ratings. They want out as fast as they can.

 

I dont think you can invade a country and expect not to be shot at. But it's besides the point, people are being manipulated by the religious groups to incite violence, and in the middle east that's not a movement anyone can stop with ease. The religious leaders got given pictures of the prision camp victims, and that's about all they needed to sway public opinion.

Shot at by military factions, perhaps. I would not expect to be shot at by civilians, who we're doing our best to help. Besides, it's not ordinary Iraqi citizens doing the shootings, most of them just want to provide dinner for the family. And while the shooters could be termed civilian in that they are not a part of the official military, they are "being manipulated" by radical militant leaders who stand to lose something by either US Presence or an Iraqi democracy.

 

the people you are so quick to label as "anti-americans" are arguing from a moral and/or ethical standpoint.

Listen, this whole thread is about these animals who did this. You cannot argue from an ethical standpoint that Nick Berg's murder was justified in any way by anything anyone else did. He didn't support the war and was there trying to rebuild, remember? I guess it doesn't matter, he was American, and therefore a valid target. Sure sounds like a message of hate to me, and you're defending it.

 

he was decapitated after the images of appalling conditions for Iraqis in an American-run jail, and allegations of similar abuse carried out by British troops. Which incidentally came after our forces invading their country, deposing their leaders, and killing civilians.

And regardless of whether he volunteered or not, he was a combatant. And - by virtue of the USA declaring it's war to be "on terror" - so were they.

Oh, and I still havn't seen evidence of the US government propagating this war using Nick Berg's death.

 

 

Edit: I still wub u sayonara

[Sayonara]

They count, but only if applied to Americans.

Why is that?

 

 

Listen, this whole thread is about these animals who did this. You cannot argue from an ethical standpoint that Nick Berg's murder was justified in any way by anything anyone else did. He didn't support the war and was there trying to rebuild, remember? I guess it doesn't matter, he was American, and therefore a valid target. Sure sounds like a message of hate to me, and you're defending it.

No, I am not. You don't seem to understand what I am talking about. This is all about simple cause and effect.

 

 

Oh, and I still havn't seen evidence of the US government propagating this war using Nick Berg's death.

I don't see how that relates to the post of mine that you quoted. It was atm who was discussing the US Administration's standpoint re: Berg politicking.

 

 

[edit] damn your wubbingly editness mind games

[blike]

And regardless of whether he volunteered or not, he was a combatant. And - by virtue of the USA declaring it's war to be "on terror" - so were they.

 

That's the line that sounds a lot like justification, but I see what you're talking about now. I had misunderstood the whole thing to mean "well its ok because x and y". My apologies.

 

I don't see how that relates to the post of mine that you quoted. It was atm who was discussing the US Administration's standpoint re: Berg politiking.

 

The quote should have been above what I said. The politiking was directed @ atm.

[atinymonkey]

The political use is the old gambit of putting a political candidate next to an issue/person/item to gain support. Basic example would be a 'Candidate and Baby', to indicate family man without saying 'I'm a family man' as he may well not be. Bush touted the Nick Berg issue around in the same manor, to illicit the same response Faf is showing (i.e. lets get stuck into the Iraq dissidents, isn't Bush great, lets re-elect Bush). It's not overt, but it works.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3739955.stm

 

Like the link showed, the increased antagonism from the coalition troops has cost a great deal of public support. It’s my opinion that Bush is attempting to refocus the pubic eye from the heavy handed approach of the military, if it riles up the people into an anti Iraqi fever then that suit the purpose as well.

 

Prior to the invasion, we were going to Iraq specifically to save the Iraqis. Now we are supposed to believe that they are now an object of hate? Maybe the machinations of the politicians are just in my head, but with the impending elections coming up, I doubt it.

 

Any way you look at it, nobody really knows what the motivation is and we can all just guess at reasons. It's just how I see it, it's no more anti American than it is anti British or Pro France.

[Daniel]

"I find your implication that we should be pro-American to be racist"

 

You should be pro american ? Well firstly I didn't say that, and secondly, I think your definition of "racism" is a little stuffed up.

 

Saddam doesn't need removing, but what do you suggest the Americans do ? Jump in there, get rid of him, and have to end up taking out one of his sons in a couple more years ? Leave a huge power vacuum there so that each ethnic group can start fighting for power ?

 

"if we weren't there now - and we shouldn't be - they would have no opportunity to act"

 

Again what do you think should be done ? Why shouldn't the Americans be there to fix up their own mess ? Maybe they did do wrong putting Saddam there in the first place all those years ago, but now that they have decided to take him out (which I do not think can be seen as a bad thing), then they will have to fix the country up.

 

To clear things up, if you think that resistance groups in Iraq are justified in kidnapping non military US citizens and chopping their head off, then you are certainly siding with savages. I don't believe this is a justifiable act, no matter how bad the prisoner abuse was.

[atinymonkey]

To whom is that addressed?

[Sayonara]

You should be pro american ? Well firstly I didn't say that, and secondly, I think your definition of "racism" is a little stuffed up.

No. Stop making rash avatarial replies for the sake of it and try to understand what I said.

 

Saddam doesn't need removing

What?

 

but what do you suggest the Americans do ? Jump in there, get rid of him, and have to end up taking out one of his sons in a couple more years ? Leave a huge power vacuum there so that each ethnic group can start fighting for power ?

Have you read the whole thread, or only replies to your posts? If the latter I'm not going to repeat myself just for your benefit.

 

Again what do you think should be done ? Why shouldn't the Americans be there to fix up their own mess?

Because you keep getting shot at and blown up in revenge attacks ? Seems to me most US troops would prefer that didn't happen. There's a persistent attitude among Americans on the web that European forces are small, provincial and undisciplined and "can't handle" real combat themselves, which might be why the proposed solutions further up the thread slipped by.

 

To clear things up, if you think that resistance groups in Iraq are justified in kidnapping non military US citizens and chopping their head off, then you are certainly siding with savages. I don't believe this is a justifiable act, no matter how bad the prisoner abuse was.

Now you are just showing that you clearly haven't read the thread. I'm not going to invest time in explaining simple things to you if you're going to put words in my mouth and not even bother to read my posts.

 

Also there is no space to the left of question marks.

[Daniel]

"he was decapitated after the images of appalling conditions for Iraqis in an American-run jail, and allegations of similar abuse carried out by British troops. Which incidentally came after our forces invading their country, deposing their leaders, and killing civilians.

 

And regardless of whether he volunteered or not, he was a combatant. And - by virtue of the USA declaring it's war to be "on terror" - so were they."

 

"No, I'm not making an attempt to reconcile or justify those abhorrent actions in any way.

 

What I'm saying is that it's not like they just ran up to someone at random and chopped his head off for a laugh."

 

"When the US or the UK kills such people working for the other side, we call them combatants."

 

Do you really consider Nick Berg a combatant ? Did you know that he did aid work in Ghana and gave nearly everything he had to help those people before he left ? A combatant.................he sounds like the type of guy Iraq needed to be there. And these crazies killed him because he was American and Jewish. I don't know what you are trying to say, you say that such an act was "abhorrent", and yet you call him a combatant and make it out like he deserved what he got.

 

"Do you love your country when it makes war on an entire people to strike the crazies?"

 

If America wanted to make war on all the Iraqi people, there would be many many more dead. Civilians always die in war, that is a fact. No one here is celebrating that, but it is going to happen. If the idea was to invade Iraq to kill Iraqis, then the bodycount would be multiple times more than it is already. If you are condemning the US for killing civilians, then I would agree with you, although I would add that it happens in any war. If you are condemning the US because you think it has the intention to go and make life hell for the average Iraqi citizen, then I would disagree.

 

"I think atm was more referring to the fact that if a civilian defends their home/property/town etc from US or UK troops, they are treated as combatants."

 

What do you expect ? The moment someone takes up arms against you, you have to defend yourself. I don't think that our troops are just shooting people for the sake of it. If these Iraqi citizens do as they are told, then they don't have to worry right ? Nick Berg cannot be compared to Iraqi citizens who take up arms because he was not armed.

 

"Neither the USA or the UK has the right to tell people in Iraq when or where they can be - it's their country, not ours."

 

Not yet. The new government hasn't been set up yet. A war just happened, and is still being fought. How the hell can you expect everything to be back to normal already ?

[Sayonara]

Do you really consider Nick Berg a combatant ? Did you know that he did aid work in Ghana and gave nearly everything he had to help those people before he left ? A combatant.................he sounds like the type of guy Iraq needed to be there. And these crazies killed him because he was American and Jewish. I don't know what you are trying to say, you say that such an act was "abhorrent", and yet you call him a combatant and make it out like he deserved what he got.

I don't necessarily consider him a combatant, and combatant does not necessarily mean the same as "civilian killer", nor does it infer "valid target".

He was a combatant as far as the extreme Iraqi insurgents were concerned, the people who executed him and therefore whose opinions are pertinent to the debate. Do you see the difference?

 

 

If America wanted to make war on all the Iraqi people, there would be many many more dead. Civilians always die in war, that is a fact. No one here is celebrating that, but it is going to happen. If the idea was to invade Iraq to kill Iraqis, then the bodycount would be multiple times more than it is already. If you are condemning the US for killing civilians, then I would agree with you, although I would add that it happens in any war. If you are condemning the US because you think it has the intention to go and make life hell for the average Iraqi citizen, then I would disagree.

All very well, but the quote you were replying to didn't come from me. It came from Phi_For_All. Use the quote function, it's a lot less confusing.

BTW, if America did decide to make war on the civilians of a sovereign nation something tells me the USA would lose a lot more lives.

 

 

What do you expect ? The moment someone takes up arms against you, you have to defend yourself. I don't think that our troops are just shooting people for the sake of it. If these Iraqi citizens do as they are told, then they don't have to worry right ? Nick Berg cannot be compared to Iraqi citizens who take up arms because he was not armed.

Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that I was not making a proposal, but clarifying someone else's, and instead focus on the fact that I said "defend", and it is you who has brought "take up arms" into the mix. Can anyone say strawman?

To defend one's self, property etc can mean anything from refusing to give water or shelter for occupying troops, to parking vehicles in places that make things inconvenient for convoys. You think coalition troops are going to get the message and use a policy of non-interference with regard to civilians? No, of course they are not. But they should - we are not so under-equipped that we need to negatively impact civilians wherever we find them.

 

 

Not yet. The new government hasn't been set up yet. A war just happened, and is still being fought. How the hell can you expect everything to be back to normal already ?

Again, strawman. That wasn't what I was suggesting. And I don't know what planet you are living on but the reason for the coalition forces to remain and help stabilise the area is so that the new government can establish itself to return democracy to the Iraqis, so what you mean by "not yet" I can only guess at.

 

 

The time it took you to throw that reply together does not suggest to me that you took the time to read and digest the whole thread. I think you're doing the "anti-anti-American knee jerk" thing, which isn't any help to anyone, especially if you aren't actually talking to someone with an anti-American attitude.

 

Let me make it easier for you. This summarises my standpoint:

 

1) Nick Berg's execution was an abhorrent act,

2) Nick Berg's execution should not be passed off as a random act of terror committed by crazies for no reason - that is propaganda,

3) Nick Berg was not killed "because he was American and Jewish" - that is propaganda. Those are reasons why he was selected to be killed, not why he was killed,

4) Nick Berg's execution was a consequence of prior military and economic actions that were not altogether necessary, and negatively impacted Iraqi civilians. This is in no way intended to justify the act; it merely explains why it happened,

5) The UK and USA troops' continued deployment in Iraq puts our forces at increased risk of harm, and can not be helping the stabilisation of the area given recent events,

6) There is no good reason why Italian, French, Australian, Spanish troops etc cannot take over the stabilisation role.

[Daniel]

Thanks for the summarisation. I read through the thread, but some things stuck out more to me than others.

 

I can't disagree with the standpoint.

 

I think the US shouldn't have been there in the first place.

But now that they are, they need to finish the job. Or someone needs to finish the job, ideally the United Nations would send a peacekeeping force in while a new government was set up.

People die in war, whether they are innocent or not. I think what matters is the intention of it. If you have troops going into villages, raping and murdering people wilfully, then that should be condemned. If a bomb is dropped and some people die due to mistakes, it is regrettable and deserves condemnation, but I don't put it in the same category.

 

That is why I cannot agree with people who say that Nick Berg's killers are in the same league as an American pilot who drops bombs on a wedding (with the assumption that it was a mistake)

[atinymonkey]

I think the US shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

Well' date=' I wouldn't say they shouldn't have been there. They should have been there bolstering the UN troops in a sanctioned international effort. The US would have avoided a lot of dissent that way. This way the US, UK and Spain have become larger (and somewhat more legitimate) terrorist targets.

 

But now that they are, they need to finish the job. Or someone needs to finish the job, ideally the United Nations would send a peacekeeping force in while a new government was set up.

 

 

I agree, the UN should have stepped in before now. They seem to be set on teaching the US/UK a lesson by not helping out. I'm not sure any singe country can finish the work, but the UN being a anonymous faceless organisation has an advantage in retaining the respect of the Iraqi people. The way it stands, anything that goes wrong leads straight back to Bush, which gives the resentment a face to point at and a country to blame.

[Sayonara]

Was war actually declared against the regime at any point, or is this still classed as a military invasion and occupation?

[fafalone]

I heard one concise yet interesting observation...

 

Bush and the intelligence community has been sharply critized for not doing more to prevent an attack based on vague, generalised, questionable, really weak evidence relating to the 9/11 attacks, and then criticized for acting on vague, questionable, non-solid evidence about the threat Iraq posed.

 

How do you propose handling threats when it's simply not possible to be 100% sure about anything?

[Sayonara]

Bush is not being criticised for acting on vague evidence over Iraq; he's being criticised for circumventing the UN and ignoring international law. So it might be an interesting observation but it's also flippant and inaccurate.

 

How do you propose handling threats when it's simply not possible to be 100% sure about anything?

Who? Me personally?

[atinymonkey]

I heard one concise yet interesting observation...

 

 

You mean a dumbed down pointless comparison. Pulling in the attack on the trade center doesn't pull the sympathetic weight to detract for the situation in Iraq. Its a unwieldy argument to say you can't control the actions of terrorists ,so why should you try and control the actions of US soldiers.

[fafalone]

The point was that we acted based on intelligence that indicated Iraq was an imminent threat.

[Tesseract]

The point was that we acted based on intelligence that indicated Iraq was an imminent threat.

An imminent threat to what?America?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What do you think?

[Phi for All]

Was war actually declared against the regime at any point, or is this still classed as a military invasion and occupation?

I wondered about that myself. In the past, most administrations have been very leery about calling something a war when war has not been declared. I've heard Bush himself call it a war on many occasions, such as when defending Rumsfeld he stated, "He's been Secretary of Defense through two wars..." Apparently Afghanistan was a war as well.

[Tesseract]

What do you think?

 

Oh, remember that time when Iraq came over and attacked America? I dont.