I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy

[billvon 2,990]

>but you still cannot discount our attempts to limit civilian deaths.

Nor am I trying to. We do try to limit civilian deaths. But as in any war, they happen. They are the predictable result of our decision to invade - and since we made that decision, we are responsible for them.

>>So you think a returning soldier who praises the job his fellow
>>soldiers did should be silenced?

>Does this put his fellow soldiers in danger? There's your answer.

If he praises a man who killed a potential insurgent's daughter? You bet it does.

On the other hand, if a returing combatant speaks out for peace, and as a result troops are withdrawn - he might have just saved thousands of US lived.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

and since we made that decision, we are responsible for them.

I'll agree that we're partially responsible, but putting even the majority of the blame on the US? Please...

Quote

If he praises a man who killed a potential insurgent's daughter? You bet it does.

That's not praising 'the job', that's praising a specific incident. I agree, this would be irresponsible to publish in the media.

I also feel the sniper kill being glorified in another thread is irresponsible. He's not only increasing the danger to himself, but to his spotter, and anyone who's associated with him.

J

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[billvon 2,990]

>but putting even the majority of the blame on the US?

You don't think the US is responsible for its decision to invade? I think that's a pretty indefensible position.

>That's not praising 'the job', that's praising a specific incident. I
> agree, this would be irresponsible to publish in the media.

>I also feel the sniper kill being glorified in another thread is
> irresponsible. He's not only increasing the danger to himself, but to
> his spotter, and anyone who's associated with him.

Agree with both of those (at least in terms of giving details.) I do not agree that soldiers should be silenced on political matters, though. They have to live with the decisions of politicians; they should be allowed to give their opinions of those decisions (when they are able to do so, of course.)

[jeiber 0]

Quote

I do not agree that soldiers should be silenced on political matters, though.

Their employer sees it differently though. When you're in charge, you can make new rules for soldiers. Until then, the military isn't flexible when it comes to soldiers and politics. Maybe someone else knows the reg? I forget... been too long...

Quote

You don't think the US is responsible for its decision to invade?

No, I was responding to your question. I don't feel that the US is solely responsible for civilian deaths, even if we did invade.

If I'm understanding your logic: If a country is invaded, it's citizens no longer have any social responsibility. Any crime committed is the sole responsibility of the occupying force, even if that force was not involved?

An insurgent detonates a bomb in a market that has no military or police presence. Insurgent's hold no responsibility, it's the US's fault for the resulting deaths???

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[billvon 2,990]

>No, I was responding to your question. I don't feel that the US is
>solely responsible for civilian deaths, even if we did invade.

The US is responsible for the DEATHS WE CAUSE, even if we don't mean to cause them. This isn't defending our country from an invader. This was a voluntary decision to invade, knowing it would cause innocent deaths and collateral damage.

As to the deaths we don't directly cause? We took on responsibility for the government of Iraq the moment we toppled the old one. We bear some of the responsibility for its failure. Not all of it; we are trying to do the right thing and set up a stable government. But it was OUR decision to topple the old one. It is OUR responsibility to fix what we broke.

>If I'm understanding your logic: If a country is invaded, it's citizens
>no longer have any social responsibility.

Not at all.

If you kill every cop in a city, and the city descends into lawlessness, and 1000 people die at the hands of rioters, you are not directly responsible for those 1000 deaths. The rioters are. But you bear some responsibility for allowing them to happen through your actions.

>An insurgent detonates a bomb in a market that has no military or
> police presence. Insurgent's hold no responsibility, it's the US's fault
> for the resulting deaths???

See above. The US is not directly responsible. They do bear some of the responsibility for destroying a stable (albeit tyrannical) government and not fixing what they broke.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

I do not agree that soldiers should be silenced on political matters, though.

Their employer sees it differently though. When you're in charge, you can make new rules for soldiers. Until then, the military isn't flexible when it comes to soldiers and politics. Maybe someone else knows the reg? I forget... been too long...

Quote

You don't think the US is responsible for its decision to invade?

No, I was responding to your question. I don't feel that the US is solely responsible for civilian deaths, even if we did invade.

If I'm understanding your logic: If a country is invaded, it's citizens no longer have any social responsibility. Any crime committed is the sole responsibility of the occupying force, even if that force was not involved?

An insurgent detonates a bomb in a market that has no military or police presence. Insurgent's hold no responsibility, it's the US's fault for the resulting deaths???

International law places 100% of the responsibility for governing an occupied country on the occupying forces.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Well ...damn Who pissed in your corn flakes?

A percentage of the population simply functions better in hightly structured environments characterized by clear-cut tasks and instructions. I think it's great these people have found such situations. In all honesty, there are many others who could benefit from it.

Mellow out, anger boy.

Did you write this, or did you do a quick copy-paste from someone else's writings?

. . =(_8^(1)

[jeiber 0]

Quote

The US is responsible for the DEATHS WE CAUSE, even if we don't mean to cause them.

I agree. I can't help but ask, along the same lines, 20 years from now, will we be responsible for the lives we've saved as well, or will the Iraqi's claim they're responsible for the success of their future government?

Seems that if bad things are happening, blame the US. If good things are happening, claim credit yourself.

Sadly, the price of 100 lives comes at the cost of 10. Bad deal if you're one of the 10, but not so bad if you're among the 100 that are saved. Yes, it'll take a few years for the return on lives invested to be realized. Again, people are unhappy because we're a society of immediate gratification.

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[billvon 2,990]

>I can't help but ask, along the same lines, 20 years from now, will
>we be responsible for the lives we've saved as well, or will the Iraqi's
> claim they're responsible for the success of their future government?

If we stop a violent government from killing its citizens? We are responsible for the lives we saved. If we just see the government in a place we once invaded stop someone else from killing its citizens? Then we're not (although we might say that we helped it happen.)

Unfortunately the situation we are in is not so clear-cut. If the government _we_ install kills its citizens? If the government we install is overthrown, and the new government starts saving people's lives? Or killing people? Is it our "fault" or not?

There are no clear cut answers.

>Seems that if bad things are happening, blame the US. If good
>things are happening, claim credit yourself.

Some people do that, yes. Some people take the opposite approach and blame everyone and everything BUT the US for what's happened in Iraq. Heck, we even have people here who blame the minority out-of-power party, the press and the peace protesters for what's happened in Iraq!

The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

>Sadly, the price of 100 lives comes at the cost of 10. Bad deal if
> you're one of the 10, but not so bad if you're among the 100 that
> are saved.

Right. But if you kill those 10, then cause a civil war that kills 100? Not so good to be in either group of people.

>Again, people are unhappy because we're a society of immediate gratification.

They are also unhappy because we have
a) not done what we set out to do
b) not finished in the time we said we would
c) seem to have kicked off the beginnings of a civil war
d) seen 2500 american soldiers killed and
e) don't have a plan to end it.

It takes a tremendous amount of optimism to look at all that and be happy about it. (BTW, most people would not consider a three year time period "instant gratification.")

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Well ...damn Who pissed in your corn flakes?


Mellow out, anger boy.

Did you write this, or did you do a quick copy-paste from someone else's writings?

,,,or not.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[bob.dino 1]

I dislike the Telegraph, primarily for its reporting on Northern Ireland, but it's almost always factually accurate. It's also the most conservative non-tabloid newspaper, and lampooned as the Torygraph.

To Americans: this is the equivalent of a paper long regarded as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party publishing this story.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I dislike the Telegraph, primarily for its reporting on Northern Ireland, but it's almost always factually accurate. It's also the most conservative non-tabloid newspaper, and lampooned as the Torygraph.

To Americans: this is the equivalent of a paper long regarded as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party publishing this story.

So, is the implication that conservatives almost always tell the truth?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

Unfortunately the situation we are in is not so clear-cut. If the government _we_ install kills its citizens? If the government we install is overthrown, and the new government starts saving people's lives? Or killing people? Is it our "fault" or not?

I agree. Time will tell whether this war is worth the price many have paid. Although I'm a conservative that supports our reasons for going to war, I'm not particularly happy with the way things have been going.

Quote

Right. But if you kill those 10, then cause a civil war that kills 100? Not so good to be in either group of people.

Again, we agree. Liberals don't seem to 'get it'. We can't leave right now. We have a resonsibility to stabilize the country. Unfortunately this is taking much longer than any of us anticipated.

Quote

They are also unhappy because we have
a) not done what we set out to do
b) not finished in the time we said we would
c) seem to have kicked off the beginnings of a civil war
d) seen 2500 american soldiers killed and
e) don't have a plan to end it.

a) we're still working towards it though. A ruthless dictator has been removed from power. Although we're not done, it's a damn good start. Yes, I know there are other objectives. Not going to cover them all.
b) yes, it has taken much longer than anticipated.
c) I don't believe it's a civil war. I think it's more along the lines of gang violence.
d) nobody is happy about this, including me. My 'brothers in arms' (as Kallend put it) are scattered across the middle east. One was killed in Afghanistan, one in Iraq. I'm sure there are more I haven't gotten word on yet.
e) there is a plan. Building a stable country takes time. How long did it take the US to become a stable nation? We went through numerous wars on our turf, including a civil war.

Alas, we can lead the horse to water, but we can't make it drink. Like an organ transplant (bad analogy, I know - best I can come up with at the moment), sometimes the body just rejects a good thing, with fatal results. Hopefully Iraq will eventually accept their new government, and prosper to be a strong, democratic nation.

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

I dislike the Telegraph, primarily for its reporting on Northern Ireland, but it's almost always factually accurate. It's also the most conservative non-tabloid newspaper, and lampooned as the Torygraph.

To Americans: this is the equivalent of a paper long regarded as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party publishing this story.

So, is the implication that conservatives almost always tell the truth?

Non sequitur. The implication is that it cannot simply be discounted by the neo-cons as a lie of the "liberal media" when this particular medium is a well documented as conservative.

Maybe it's a lie of the conservative media.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I was aiming for. Thanks for pointing it out.

Gee kallend, you sure know how to take all the humor out of anything. You must have missed the wink.

I knew what he meant.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

Gee kallend, you sure know how to take all the humor out of anything.

You don't see him in 'The Bonfire' much, do ya?!

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[skykittykat 0]

Unfortunately when someone joins the military, they are told to do what their Superior orders (in most countries the Government are the Superiors).

I lately asked a friend of mine who had been posted to Iraq about the morals of that war and could he justify killing an Iraqi when the invasion was wrong. He said that if someone was shooting at him, then he had a right to shoot back and save his life along with his mates' lives.

Fair point.

Another point he made was that the Kurds were incredibly grateful to the Americans and the British for toppling Saddam Hussein as they could now live without fear.

After hearing that argument, it did make me think, in that, how many other people are being persecuted by other countries (eg, Nepal by the Chinese and various African countries) and the USA and the UK are doing nothing about it?

The answer is simple - there is no monetary gain to be had by stepping into those situations. Iraq has oil and is a lynch pin of the Middle East.

Also, about the time of the invasion, domestic policies in America and Britain were not going very well, so the best way to divert the public's attention is to concentrate on a foreign policy. Margaret Thatcher would not have been in power as long as she had if the invasion of the Falkland Islands had not have presented itself or the sabre rattling with Libya.

I just feel sorry for all those troops and their families having to go through what they are now due to greed and a need for power from a few individuals.

Governments were created for democracy and to hear the wants/needs of the people, rather than the priveliged few and unfortnately, the US and the UK do not have, at the moment, fully democratic governments (although on paper they do).

Those familiar with George Orwell's Animal Farm will understand what I am saying - rather than me go into a thesis of Monarchy, God's Will and Absolute Power

Liz

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Unfortunately when someone joins the military, they are told to do what their Superior orders (in most countries the Government are the Superiors).

The precedent for "Following Orders" was set at The Nuremburg War Crimes Trials.

"Befehl ist Befehl" and "Ich folgte nur Aufträgen" wasn't accepted as a defence then... And thus can't be accepted as a defence now.

Perhaps that is why the US DoD is SO WILLING to promote the idea that The US Army is a disorganised vicious criminal rabble whose private soldiers & junior NCOs have neither discipline nor conscience!

That way, the trials & punishments stop at the poor SOBs who're stupid enough to follow unlawful orders & unfortunate enough to be identified.

Like the latest "massacre" where a squad of US Marines killed 15 Iraqi civilians (youngest 2 years old) after one of their number was killed by a roadside bomb! I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the roadside IED was identified as a "Command-Wire-Detonation" with the "Landscape-Feature" leading to the village.

Or the incident with the British Light Infantry battalion chasing & beating civilians after their compound was mortared. I remember training with 3LI for a deployment to NI back in '77, and that footage, ALL OF IT, took me right back to the Riot-Control-Training.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[mikkey 0]

At least Condi admites that many errors have been made!

Quote

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has admitted the US has made thousands of tactical errors in Iraq, but said it was right to remove Saddam Hussein.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4865344.stm

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

At least Condi admites that many errors have been made!

Quote

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has admitted the US has made thousands of tactical errors in Iraq, but said it was right to remove Saddam Hussein.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4865344.stm

Maybe someone will tell rushmc about the errors.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

The answer is simple - there is no monetary gain to be had by stepping into those situations. Iraq has oil and is a lynch pin of the Middle East.

This cracks me up every time I hear it. What was the price of oil before we invaded, and what is the price after we invaded?

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[narcimund 0]

Quote

This cracks me up every time I hear it. What was the price of oil before we invaded, and what is the price after we invaded?

It's clear the war is not being faught to lower retail oil prices. Does anyone think the US government acts for the benefit of consumers?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

The answer is simple - there is no monetary gain to be had by stepping into those situations. Iraq has oil and is a lynch pin of the Middle East.

This cracks me up every time I hear it. What was the price of oil before we invaded, and what is the price after we invaded?

You can't be that naive:

IRVING, Texas Oct 27, 2005 (AP)— High prices for oil and natural gas propelled Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC to their best quarterly results ever on Thursday, with Exxon becoming the first U.S. company ever to ring up quarterly sales of $100 billion.

To put Exxon's performance into perspective, its third quarter revenue was greater than the annual gross domestic product of some of the largest oil producing nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. The world's largest publicly traded oil company also set a U.S. profit record with net income of almost $10 billion, according to Standard & Poor's equity market analyst Howard Silverblatt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

This cracks me up every time I hear it. What was the price of oil before we invaded, and what is the price after we invaded?

See thats what happens when you are eating the Administrations Pie in the Sky...

PERHAPS..

IF...
the Iraquis had actually greeted us in the streets ALL over Iraq as LIBERATORS instead of Invaders....we might have had a chance at a more stable world oil price...

Instead we have destabilized the world oil supply and the prices have risen dramatically... the insurgents are making sure to attack anything that is rebuilt to make our job just that much more expensive.... and so we cant steal their oil because its unable to get out( some is but the production is pitiful compared to before our war of liberation)....

[jeiber 0]

Quote

You can't be that naive

And you can't be such a conspiracy theorist to think this whole war is just to boost Exxon's dividends...

Are there people banking on the war? Of course. There are also people banking on hurricane Katrina, and the Tsunami the wiped out tens of thousands in Asia. Let me guess - Republicans are also to blame for this... they have a top secret weather machine and they're creating situations that they can profit from, even though it kills tens of thousands.

I'm going to start selling foil hats on eBay.

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!