Ignorance is Bliss

[marharth]

Yea, i agree with that girl in the video. What are US troops doing in other countries? Trying to take care of whole planet? No wonder US economy is bad at the moment. Bombing civilians and torturing them doesn't give very good fame. Also stealing all oil in the middle east is so wrong. But after all, any nation trying to take over the world has been failed. So will USA.

You shouldn't be blaming every US troop for that.

[ginnyfizz]

"Wow do you just come on here with the sole purpose of trolling me?"

 

No, but posts on this and other threads are read by lots of other people, so some attempt at clarification of often emotion-driven issues is worth pursuing, as I'm sure you would agree.

 

For example, we see, from your referenced quote, that Al-Q proxies were believed to be operating in Kurdish Iraq, an unstable, trans-border region that Saddam was struggling (often brutally) to control, and who were presumably hoping to take advantage of such instability. The no-fly zone probably didn't do Al-Q any harm, incidentally.

 

The fact remains that the USA's excuse for attacking Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam was, at least by implication, actively encouraging Al-Q; the words "nine-eleven" were thrown in at every opportunity by GWB in just about every speech in the run up to the attack.

 

Well we all know that, I referenced that report specifically because it smashed that idea into orbit. They could not justify the assertion that Saddam was actively encouraging Al Qaeda. But I suspect that was a front for the fact troops were used as a means of trying to to what Saddamn couldn't - quell or keep the lid on warring factions who threatened stability in the entire region, not to mention some significant pipelines. It really hasn't worked well, but the troops themselves cannot be blamed - for once I agree with marharth.

[HeyYou]

Wow do you just come on here with the sole purpose of trolling me?

 

Is the CRS Report To Congress good enough for you? I very specifically stated in that bit of my post that you quoted;-

 

(a) That Al Qaeda were not tied to the regime in Iraq

(b) That there were, nevertheless, affiliates of, or offshoots if you prefer, of Al Qaeda operating in Iraq

 

And I put it that way because I have read that report, which although refuting the idea that Saddam himself had any dealings with Al Qaeda, alludes to ;-

 

"Ansar al-Islam formed in 1998 as a breakaway faction of Islamist Kurds,

splitting off from a group, the Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan (IMIK). Both

Ansar and the IMIK were initially composed almost exclusively of Kurds. U.S.

concerns about Ansar grew following the U.S. defeat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda

in Afghanistan in late 2001, when some Al Qaeda activists, mostly Arabs, fled to Iraq

and associated there with the Ansar movement. At the peak, about 600 Arab fighters

lived in the Ansar al-Islam enclave, near the town of Khurmal.18 Ansar fighters

clashed with Kurdish fighters from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of

the two mainstream Iraqi Kurdish parties, around Halabja in December 2002. Ansar

gunmen were allegedly responsible for an assassination attempt against PUK “prime

minister” of the Kurdish region Barham Salih (now a deputy Prime Minister of Iraq)

in April 2002."

 

It rather seems that Saddam did not have as much control over the whole of Iraq as you would like to think, nor did he ever quite manage to quell the warring factions, despite his brutality.

 

So you can stop tossing in terms like risible now.

 

The only problem here is, it has since been demonstrated that any/all intelligence concerning Iraq, WMD's, and ties to terrorism are highly suspect. George and his cronies cherry picked reports, intelligence, and even PEOPLE that supported their position. Anyone that had a different opinion was ignored, marginalized, or fired. Even Colin Powell resigned, as he wanted nothing to do with a war in Iraq. A fair bit of the intelligence has been proven to have been either flat out manufactured, (pure lies), or garnered from other, OUTDATED reports.

 

Yeah, the kurds could have been defined as terrorists, however, they had been marginalized by their own government (Saddam, at the time), and also had the Turks sniffing up their robes. Given only slightly different circumstances, they would have been defined as "Freedom Fighters".

 

I disagree that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, or anywhere else, have appreciably lessened the terrorist threat here in the united states. If anything, we have given them MORE motivation to want to hit us anywhere they can. We have done some damage to their organization, but, just like the hydra, they will come back. It's a lot like trying to get the Cryps, or the Bloods out of Los Angeles. The more of them we kill, the stronger their recruitment campaigns become. WHY are they so hot and heavy for us in the first place? Because we stick our noses into everyone else's business, and tell them how they "should" live their lives/run their countries. It is america's arrogance that is also its main source of international enmity.

 

You can't FORCE a revolution in another country, if the very people that live there don't have the desire to change anything. That is what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, and we are failing miserably.

[ginnyfizz]

HeyYou, I linked the report that I did, as I said precisely because it was unfavourable to the view that Bush and Bliar were peddling. I'd agree that forcing a regime change where the people of a nation themselves do not want it is apt to boomerang, and also that having boots on the ground has probably made the likes of Al Qaeda WANT to hit us harder because of that. But wanting, and being able to do anything about it, are different matters. The fact of the troops being there means that they are fighting the war over there and not doing so many attacks over here.

[raatorotta]

Yea, i agree with that girl in the video. What are US troops doing in other countries? Trying to take care of whole planet? No wonder US economy is bad at the moment. Bombing civilians and torturing them doesn't give very good fame. Also stealing all oil in the middle east is so wrong. But after all, any nation trying to take over the world has been failed. So will USA.

You shouldn't be blaming every US troop for that.

 

Why to join the army if you know that it will contain killing, bombing civilians and fighting far from home? Isn't it volunteer after all and persons own decision? If a person does that bad choice, can it be blamed on someone else? It would be totally different thing if US had a national service at the army, but military based on freewill is always peoples own decision.

[marharth]

Yea, i agree with that girl in the video. What are US troops doing in other countries? Trying to take care of whole planet? No wonder US economy is bad at the moment. Bombing civilians and torturing them doesn't give very good fame. Also stealing all oil in the middle east is so wrong. But after all, any nation trying to take over the world has been failed. So will USA.

You shouldn't be blaming every US troop for that.

 

Why to join the army if you know that it will contain killing, bombing civilians and fighting far from home? Isn't it volunteer after all and persons own decision? If a person does that bad choice, can it be blamed on someone else? It would be totally different thing if US had a national service at the army, but military based on freewill is always peoples own decision.

Some people don't know about how the military actually works or what they do when they sign up. What about the soldiers that signed up before the wars? It is not fair to blame the little people for what the powerful do.

 

Its pretty unlikely you will be in direct combat in the military. Most troops are stationed in bases and don't get into combat much at all, if ever.

[raatorotta]

If they don't know anything about the military they are about to join, they should watch the news even once. Well, i don't live in USA, and know how is the news there, but in my country the news are reporting about civilians killed all the time in some war. If the news in USA don't tell things how they really are in the world, then there is always articles in internet. Anyway, they should get some information about the military, that will change the life forever, before joining. It's their responsibility about their own lives.

And what you mean "before the wars"? History had have wars all the time, and joining army means a change to joining a war. Time "before the wars" simply don't exist. Read history a little. Army = change of going in war, whatever is said.

[marharth]

If they don't know anything about the military they are about to join, they should watch the news even once. Well, i don't live in USA, and know how is the news there, but in my country the news are reporting about civilians killed all the time in some war. If the news in USA don't tell things how they really are in the world, then there is always articles in internet. Anyway, they should get some information about the military, that will change the life forever, before joining. It's their responsibility about their own lives.

And what you mean "before the wars"? History had have wars all the time, and joining army means a change to joining a war. Time "before the wars" simply don't exist. Read history a little. Army = change of going in war, whatever is said.

Killing civilians in a justified war is not a problem. Sometimes you have to kill a few innocent people to save thousands. Killing them in a unjust war is. That is what I meant by before the wars.

 

Our main stream media does not ever reports civilian being killed. I doubt most of the US even know it is happening.

 

 

Either way there is still not a very large chance they will be in direct contact, and a even smaller chance they will have to kill civilians.

Edited November 25, 2011 by marharth

[raatorotta]

"Killing civilians in a justified war is not a problem."

 

Killing innocent people is always a problem!

 

edit add: What would you think, if some foreign army with "justified war", would invade your home and kill your family thinking they are enemy just because where they they live in?

Edited November 25, 2011 by raatorotta

[marharth]

"Killing civilians in a justified war is not a problem."

 

Killing innocent people is always a problem!

 

edit add: What would you think, if some foreign army with "justified war", would invade your home and kill your family thinking they are enemy just because where they they live in?

That is not what I meant by killing civilians and your example is not justified. If you have to carpet bomb an area to kill a target and the bombs end up killing civilians that is not a problem. Killing a single person can save thousands of others.

 

Invading someones house and killing them makes no sense at all.