Operation Iraqi Freedom
 

Operation Iraqi Freedom?

That's not what it looks like to me. So if there aren't any (and never were) any so-called "weapons of mass destruction", and coalition forces have no interest in instilling freedom of speech in the region, can Bush apologists remind me why we are there again?

Things are getting really tense over there.

I would imagine that the American soldiers are seeing their friends and comrads killed and maimed and are getting pretty sick of it. So much so that they have hairline tempers.

It makes for a dangerous situation, explosive even.

Oh man. It's sad when people are so desperately in hope of a US failure in Iraq, that they point out when a soldier swears in front of children. Give me a fucking break.

Re: Operation Iraqi Freedom
 

Yes I'm sure this 100% accurate story shows it is all a lie.

I bet they are taking him for execution.

Give me a break too.

Yes, breaks for all.

After he is cattle prodded, his family will never see him again.

That will teach them.

How do we know that he wasnt enciting more killings?
Maybe shouting "help me kill all the infidels"

Arabs spreading bad vibes and soliders cursing in front of children! Really, I must protest, the cruelty of this war must end. We cannort accept such evil deeds to proceed.

Hmm, I'm sure the digust comes more from the soldiers who "handcuffed and firmly wrapped masking tape around an Iraqi man's mouth" than whatever words they used in front of the teachers and children.

I think, regardless of the circumstances, that incidents like these are teaching Iraqi people the value we place on free speech. Go ahead and argue that he was saying some dangerous slogans--it doesn't even matter to me. It shouldn't take too much intelligence to deduce that the children probably won't make such a distinction.

What an unbiased article! I wonder what was left out...

It's more likely that a guy who would point out that the evil american pig dog soldiers cursed in front of children (who are masters of the english language) would leave this part out to insinuate that America is out to squash free speech rather then leave it in and allow readers to say "Oh, they're trying to not die."

I think those present could have made such a distinction.

I thought it was O.peration I.raqi L.iberation? My bad.

2Wolves

I love the Right's reaction when they can't provide a justification for something outrageous such as duct taping the mouth of someone who has a dissenting viewpoint.

Your repsonses made me laugh, thanks. :)

It's rediculous is why, what's funny is it's an absolute impossibility that the guy is bias (because he's saying the U.S. is evil?).

I think its a total waste of money, we never should have gone in the first place. its not going to do any real good. But thats a whole 'nother can o worms.

When will we be leaving, does anyone know, and how much money will we give them after this 87 billion runs out?

Shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, "fuck the police" in a police station, or "bomb" on an airplane if you want to see how free that Americans are to say whatever we want. You need to remove your rose-colored glasses. :rolleyes:

Even though I didn't know it, my post implies that I'm wearing "rose colored glasses."

Ah, yes. What a perfect analogy. We should start duct taping the mouths of political dissidents over here, too :crazy:

forgot to add this because you missed it the first time:

"Go ahead and argue that he was saying some dangerous slogans--it doesn't even matter to me. It shouldn't take too much intelligence to deduce that the children probably won't make such a distinction."

How about freedom from ending up in a mass grave?

Freedom not to have your ears cut off?

Freedom from electric shocks?

Freedom from being tortured if you didn't perform well in the Olympics?

Freedom from being forced to invade a neighboring country?

Freedom from starvation?

Freedom from rape?

Freedom from religious oppression?

I guess they don't matter. The "reaction" from the right that gives you such glee is actually just a reaction to how much weight you seem to give to an obviously biased story.

Was this guy trying to incite a riot that may have killed the soldiers that detained him? Nahhh that couldn't be it. Should the soldiers stand by while someone encourages others to kill them? Should they not protect themselves if there's a chance that this guy has a bomb strapped to himself, a grenade, or is signalling others by his actions?

If an Iraqi is temporarily restrained in order to improve the chances that an American survives the conflict then I'M ALL FOR IT.

I love the left's reaction when they find some information that makes Americans look bad. Do you need a cum rag?

Frankly, FEL, you're making all Americans look bad enough--and if I EVER have sexual thoughts about you, I'll shoot myself.

As for you, onetime2, do we in the U.S. have:
freedom from being forced to invade a country <i>on the other side of the world</i>? (hint: conscription)

How about freedom from rape? (there are tens of thousands every year)

Starvation? (one in five children here are undernourished; besides, you failed to acknowledge that our sanctions harmed everyone in Iraq, except the elite leadership.)

Freedom from electric shock? (Florida's "Old Sparky")

Freedom from religious oppression? (So far intact, but the forceable introduction of Christianity into government, as Judge Moore attempted to do, would change that in a hurry.)

Freedom from torture? Not if you're an "enemy combatant" and your "interrogation" gets outsourced to one of our new allies, like Pakistan.

onetime2, I can't point to an equivalent situation for each of your supposed "freedoms," but I can state with absolute certainty that Saddam Hussein was engaging in all of those activities when the U.S., under Reagan and Bush Sr., was his ally and chemical weapons supplier. If you weren't outraged then, you haven't a leg to stand on now when you produce a list of atrocities that the U.S. has "ended" by invading another sovereign nation without provocation.

If the man was actually trying to incite violence, why not say so when questioned about the reason for his detention? If he was "trying to incite a riot," what reason could there be to behave in a manner that is itself inflammatory? This "anti-coalition" bullshit is like some Roman sedition charge. Fortunately, our troops only duct-taped his mouth, rather than crucifying him in public, like the legions did. I wonder...would you (FEL, onetime2, seretogis, Phaenx) support the crucifixion of dissidents if it meant that fewer American soldiers would die? Our own restrictions on free speech are based on the premise that they are imposed by a government of the people, in order to protect those people. To restrict the free speech of a person whose government you have overthrown, who has no means to "petition for redress of grievances," who is giving vent to their frustrations in public, is called repression. It is not remotely the equivalent of prohibiting the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theatre.

I see that moral relativism is not the sole prerogative of cultural anthropologists.

DukeLeto your arguments are ridiculous.

Government sponsored rape and starvation that occured in Iraq is not the same as private occurences. It was Saddam's regime that took the money that was SUPPOSED to feed his people it wasn't the sanctions that starved them.

Executing someone after exhaustive trials is not the same as grabbing them off the street, torturing them, and burying them in a mass grave.

Conscription? Where have you been for the last 30 years? There is no draft in the US and even if there was, elected politicians in the US determine who we go to war with. The people you choose to represent you in Congress are the ones that you give the power to decide your fate in times of a draft.

To say that Judge Moore tried to oppress other religions in the same way that they are repressed in Iraq is a joke.


For the first part, I am outraged by these actions no matter the time frame and the alliances struck at the time. Unfortunately that is the nature of the world, sometimes you have to deal with sadistic bastards. I'll leave the "without provocation" BS alone since there has been ten years of provocation on the part of Hussein's government.

As far as the second part, nice strategy, rather than have an intelligent discussion just throw in a bunch of crap.

Can only Bush apologists reply?

I believe we are there to bring stability to the Middle East. A democratic stability. Saddam's regime was quite stable. Tyranny is very stable. A democratic stability, although messier at first, provides a better chance for its people to represented properly and this is in everyone's best interest.

Ah, Conclamo Ludus, a man of sense. I praise you for seeing why we are now there. A stable Iraq will mean a more stable Middle East. Iran will soon fix itself because the people over there are demanding democratic reforms within the nation. People in countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. will see the prosperity that Iraq will have, and hopefully Iran too. This is a domino effect, but it is one of the people.

Soldiers swearing?! I've never heard of that in my entire life, these guys should clearly be court martialed! Look, if these guys did in fact arrest this man, simply because he was saying anti-coalition things (by that I mean things like, "I do not want you hear, go away"), then they will more than likely go through at least a preliminary court martial to determine what should be done next. However, I see this as very unlikely. This guy was probably yelling something to the extent of "If I had a gun/bomb/RPG, I would martyr myself for the Allmighty Allah just so I could kill infidels, etc. etc. etc."

Don't mention the draft please, that's only used in times of dire emergency, because, militarily speaking, the draft does not help that much in a situation like the one in Iraq. The draft gives less time to train all these greenhorns that signed up, and then they go off to wherever, thinking they're gonna be heroes, and more than likely get killed.

Under Reagan and for most of the tenure of Bush Sr. there was one enemy, and one enemy to concern ourselves with, that was the Soviet Union. Yeah, we did things that came back to bite us in the butt, that's life, and hindsight (which is 20/10 by the way).

Do I think the way we got to Iraq was questionable? Yes. Do I think we should leave? No, because if we do, there will be a power vacuum that more than likely Saddam will just refill. I do not want to see that, because the people of Iraq will suffer even greater than before.

Well put. I think it is very important we are there. Regardless of how we got there. I do support an investigation into how we got there, but I am afraid that it is just going to be a runaway train of political grandstanding. If we are truly arresting people for anti-coalition statements then wouldn't most of the entire press corp be at Gitmo right now? :D

Conclamo, archer, thanks for the sensible replies. Seriously.

Although I think I'm a little less forgiving toward Bush's handling of the situation. I mentioned my thoughts in another thread, but the discussion went elsewhere, so I'll try it again here. I understand the overall benefits of ousting Saddam, installing a democracy, etc. But were all of the negative consequences neccessary for this operation? Did Bush have to belittle the UN? Was polarizing citizens of both the US and the world unavoidable? As well as the continued violence in Iraq? And also the fiasco with WMDs is/was a definate mistake...

So do people just view these as neccessary evils leading to a greater good? I'm not convinced of that. A better leader would have avoided these problems. Which is why I won't be voting for Bush in '04.

Constructive feedback would be welcomed. :)

p.s. damn, FEL got banned... I'll reserve my comments ;)

Iraq is very much a question of "Do the ends justify the means?"

If you're a Bush supporter, they probably do. If you're not, then they probably don't.

I do consider myself pragmatic, ie Hiroshima OK, My Lai NOT OK. And I think that Iraq is ... somewhere in the middle.

I just wish this crap would hurry up and get in the history books so I can talk about something else.

I'm obviously gonna be pegged as a "leftie" but hey, whatever.

I went to the mall today and was presented with the illusion of choice.

there were 2 cell phone companies there.

but alas, I know the truth.
they are owned by the same company.

what does that have to do with this thread?

you think democrats and republicans are choices?
heh.
bottom line is the way this government functions is not what was put in writing.

wasn't it for the people?

I thought it was for the people of the US?

I find it strange that a nation would involve itself in other nations affairs.

maybe they shouldn't have been funding iraq.

hrm.

i dont know.

I lack the patience to convey all my viewpoints in but one post.

so i'll just say this much.

hypothetically, would you not expect better behavior from someone representing the land of the free?

would you not expect a proper debate?

I wonder if he was even speaking english.

hell even our most scummy criminals dont get tape wrapped around thier heads like that.

sorry, i dont care, humans should really act more civilized than this barbaric show of invasion and pacification.

Do me a favor and read up on Uday's favorite activities... it'll make you sick what this guy did, and Saddam encouraged him.

His favorite thing to do was drive around Baghdad and pick up whichever girl held his fancy. He'd rape her continually for 2 weeks, if she ever made any noises that he didnt like, or made it difficult she, and her husband or father would die. If she blead down there (from period or simply being rubbed dry) she would be handed back to her parents or husband.... in shoe boxes.

Yes, America is so horrible people. Our soldiers cussed at a civilian that was giving our soldiers a hard time. What that doesnt say was if the house they were raiding belonged to him, if so that'd make him an accomplise. Or what he was saying, or ANY details. This story is worthless without showing all the facts.

Basically, if Gore had been elected in place of Bush, the US would certainly have skipped the whole Iraq war, liberation, etc...at least they probably wouldn't have gone without the UN's backing.

Now the real question is the following, ultimately, the choice of the American people was obviously more important for the Iraqis than whichever choice they could have taken (you can tell me they had no choice, I'll tell you that they had, anyway the point is moot).
The definition of liberty is that individuals choices shouldn't infringe on other individuals choices, in the way that my choice is purely mine and not yours.
You see the dilemna, American people voted the regime of the Iraqi people.
How could that be Operation Iraqi Freedom...
You can say that the ends justify the means, but this is not the rule in a state of law, point and fact, when you go to a trial and swear to tell the truth, you are expected to tell the truth even if it protects someone who doesn't deserve it.
In a state of law, the ends never justify the means, when you want to enforce liberty, you have to respect the established laws, else you set a precedent that nullify your efforts.

That's how I see it at least. Breaking the law to bring freedom is something I just fail to understand.

"be skeptical of government!!!

dont trust what they say without PROOF

without proof, you have nuthin"

this is what my vietnam teacher says anyhow