Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - "support our troops" offensive to troops?

Slims · 02-03-2007, 10:20 PM

I will try to respond, though I am tired and a bit rushed now.

First: Enlistments are not down: The army exceeded it's recruiting goal for 2006 and the national guard (or reserves, not sure) hit 99.6%. People are not being required to extend their tours. Sometimes soldiers get stoplossed, which sucks, but it is only temporary and they automatically get discharged from the army as soon as they return home (unless they reenlist, which most do). Meeting the enlistment goals will go a long way towards making stoploss unecessary.

Soldiers are required to obey lawful orders, however, no international law will superseed the constitution for as long as our government continues to exist. There is absolutely no way we should allow potential enemies to decide the fate of US soldiers or the justness of US actions. To do so would be to totally surrender our national Sovereignty. There is a big difference between participating in a military action that many people feel shouldn't have been undertaken and committing genocide. Also, since you brought nuremburg into the discussion I would like to point out that saddam hussein has, like those who were tried originally, committed genocide. Why would you accuse the soldiers who took him out of power and liberated his people of committing war crimes? I am in a crash Arabic course right now and one of my teachers was on the Iraqi soccer team and you can see the burns Uday left on his hands for losing games. Another fled Iraq in 1994 and his family was tortured and jailed to punish him and were not released until US forces let them out. But we are the bad guys?

Yes, it is my duty to refuse an illegal or unjust order. But it's also my duty to not be retarded. There is a big distinction between an unjust war and a war that is perfectly just but not quite in our national best interest.

The UN inspectors did nothing. It seems that Saddam sabatoged himself by killing everybody who brought him bad news. He really honestly thought he had a strong chemical weapons program because nobody was willing to tell him the bad news... We made the mistake of believing him when he told us he had them. He disclosed his chemical weapons and agreed to destroy them but never destroyed anything. It followed that he still had them. Also, he purchased chemical weapons suits and atropine injections for his army and issued them to troops surrounding baghdad shortly before our invasion. Why would he do that if he wasn't honestly planning on using chemical weapons he thought he had?

I really don't care what we should have done. I don't want to get into a protracted debate about justification as I don't think either of us are going to turn 180 and switch sides. So regardless of what we should have done, what is done is done and now we have a country to either rebuild or abandon. Pulling out is equal to abandonment regardless of any excuses or 'aid' that would be offered. Lots of people would die.

We are hated over there because we exist. It really has nothing to do with Iraq perse. Most of the insurgents are coming from other countries because now, for the first time, do they have the opportunity to kill some americans without coming to the US. Also, have you noticed that most of the insurgent attacks are not aimed at Americans but at other muslims? They are not so concerned about where our bombs hit so much as how many people they can kill with theirs. We preach tolerance, they (insurgents, not all muslims) want to get along with everybody by eradicating everyone who dares to disagree with them, even other muslims. Look at Somalia for a perfect example of this: Radical Wahabis (Sunni extremists) tried to convert the country at the point of a sword. They even went so far as to execute people for the immoral offense of watching soccer games. Do you really think we can teach them to hold hands and sing songs with us? How often did you get beat up as a kid? Did explaining your feelings afterwards ever keep you from getting beat up again?

"empowering both sects" would mean arming the Shia against the Sunni's who were already very empowered. It was tried, lots of people died in the Shia rebellion following the first gulf war. Saddam had an absolute stranglehold on his country and ruled through sheer terror and ruthfulness.

There is absolutely no way we are making the situation in Iraq worse. Things are better now than they were under saddam. There are dozens of cities on Iraqi maps that were wiped of the face of the earth because saddam considered them to be...less than completely loyal. He would have all the men and children killed (sometimes buried alive to save bullets) and dumped in mass graves, the women taken off and raped before joining their husbands, and would then bulldoze the entire city to totally erase it. He had honest to god card carrying rapists who were tasked of raping the family members of men who spoke badly of saddam. Saddam gassed his own people. The Iran Iraq war cost over a million lives. The Shi rebellion ended very badly for the Shia. Were you an Iraqi speaking about Saddam the way you now speak about Bush you would have been tortured and your family would suffer as well.

We do have the manpower to stop the civil war and our general in charge (who has some experience with army matters, being a general and all) has requested 20,000 troops to put the matter to rest. Who are you or I to question him considering that we know comparatively little about the subject?

Our soldiers are targets, but we are fighting those who would do us harm on their side of the world rather than ours. Also, we are keeping millions of Iraqis safe (relatively speaking) by our presence. Kuwait has no real ability to defend itself against anything and it is a very rich country. If it weren't for us, they would have been sacked long ago. And we are preventing that because they are an ally, which means we are willing to help defend them.

That's all for tonight, hope it is at least mostly coherent. Will check back in tommorrow to clarify or repost.

Edit: I was never under the impression that we established a link betwen 911 and Iraq (aside from Saddam paying the families of the hijackers 20,000 dollars each, of course). I just figured we had had enough with saddam and in light of current events decided to go ahead and get rid of him before he had the opportunity to do more damage.

02-03-2007, 10:20 PM	#90 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I will try to respond, though I am tired and a bit rushed now. First: Enlistments are not down: The army exceeded it's recruiting goal for 2006 and the national guard (or reserves, not sure) hit 99.6%. People are not being required to extend their tours. Sometimes soldiers get stoplossed, which sucks, but it is only temporary and they automatically get discharged from the army as soon as they return home (unless they reenlist, which most do). Meeting the enlistment goals will go a long way towards making stoploss unecessary. Soldiers are required to obey lawful orders, however, no international law will superseed the constitution for as long as our government continues to exist. There is absolutely no way we should allow potential enemies to decide the fate of US soldiers or the justness of US actions. To do so would be to totally surrender our national Sovereignty. There is a big difference between participating in a military action that many people feel shouldn't have been undertaken and committing genocide. Also, since you brought nuremburg into the discussion I would like to point out that saddam hussein has, like those who were tried originally, committed genocide. Why would you accuse the soldiers who took him out of power and liberated his people of committing war crimes? I am in a crash Arabic course right now and one of my teachers was on the Iraqi soccer team and you can see the burns Uday left on his hands for losing games. Another fled Iraq in 1994 and his family was tortured and jailed to punish him and were not released until US forces let them out. But we are the bad guys? Yes, it is my duty to refuse an illegal or unjust order. But it's also my duty to not be retarded. There is a big distinction between an unjust war and a war that is perfectly just but not quite in our national best interest. The UN inspectors did nothing. It seems that Saddam sabatoged himself by killing everybody who brought him bad news. He really honestly thought he had a strong chemical weapons program because nobody was willing to tell him the bad news... We made the mistake of believing him when he told us he had them. He disclosed his chemical weapons and agreed to destroy them but never destroyed anything. It followed that he still had them. Also, he purchased chemical weapons suits and atropine injections for his army and issued them to troops surrounding baghdad shortly before our invasion. Why would he do that if he wasn't honestly planning on using chemical weapons he thought he had? I really don't care what we should have done. I don't want to get into a protracted debate about justification as I don't think either of us are going to turn 180 and switch sides. So regardless of what we should have done, what is done is done and now we have a country to either rebuild or abandon. Pulling out is equal to abandonment regardless of any excuses or 'aid' that would be offered. Lots of people would die. We are hated over there because we exist. It really has nothing to do with Iraq perse. Most of the insurgents are coming from other countries because now, for the first time, do they have the opportunity to kill some americans without coming to the US. Also, have you noticed that most of the insurgent attacks are not aimed at Americans but at other muslims? They are not so concerned about where our bombs hit so much as how many people they can kill with theirs. We preach tolerance, they (insurgents, not all muslims) want to get along with everybody by eradicating everyone who dares to disagree with them, even other muslims. Look at Somalia for a perfect example of this: Radical Wahabis (Sunni extremists) tried to convert the country at the point of a sword. They even went so far as to execute people for the immoral offense of watching soccer games. Do you really think we can teach them to hold hands and sing songs with us? How often did you get beat up as a kid? Did explaining your feelings afterwards ever keep you from getting beat up again? "empowering both sects" would mean arming the Shia against the Sunni's who were already very empowered. It was tried, lots of people died in the Shia rebellion following the first gulf war. Saddam had an absolute stranglehold on his country and ruled through sheer terror and ruthfulness. There is absolutely no way we are making the situation in Iraq worse. Things are better now than they were under saddam. There are dozens of cities on Iraqi maps that were wiped of the face of the earth because saddam considered them to be...less than completely loyal. He would have all the men and children killed (sometimes buried alive to save bullets) and dumped in mass graves, the women taken off and raped before joining their husbands, and would then bulldoze the entire city to totally erase it. He had honest to god card carrying rapists who were tasked of raping the family members of men who spoke badly of saddam. Saddam gassed his own people. The Iran Iraq war cost over a million lives. The Shi rebellion ended very badly for the Shia. Were you an Iraqi speaking about Saddam the way you now speak about Bush you would have been tortured and your family would suffer as well. We do have the manpower to stop the civil war and our general in charge (who has some experience with army matters, being a general and all) has requested 20,000 troops to put the matter to rest. Who are you or I to question him considering that we know comparatively little about the subject? Our soldiers are targets, but we are fighting those who would do us harm on their side of the world rather than ours. Also, we are keeping millions of Iraqis safe (relatively speaking) by our presence. Kuwait has no real ability to defend itself against anything and it is a very rich country. If it weren't for us, they would have been sacked long ago. And we are preventing that because they are an ally, which means we are willing to help defend them. That's all for tonight, hope it is at least mostly coherent. Will check back in tommorrow to clarify or repost. Edit: I was never under the impression that we established a link betwen 911 and Iraq (aside from Saddam paying the families of the hijackers 20,000 dollars each, of course). I just figured we had had enough with saddam and in light of current events decided to go ahead and get rid of him before he had the opportunity to do more damage. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 02-03-2007 at 10:24 PM..