The war in Iraq

OP
john2054

john2054

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
111
Reaction score
4
Location
Derby, UK
Thanks Tez, I appreciate your contributions to this discussion. As for whether I have ever met any Iraqis, well besides from the high number of Kurds who used to live in the city district where I was (and made friends with a couple of them), I also once met an Iraqi officer, who fought Saddam, and fled Iraq after the war started, only to return again before it had finished (presumably to fight FOR his people, and AGAINST the invaders.) I never heard from him again, he's probably now sixty feet under! I also once met an Afghani, who had fled Afghanistan, because of all of the death and destruction 'we' brought to them, along with our carpet (cluster) bombs and napalm (Well they used that in Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan), and he fled for his life. Well I met him in a locked rehab mental health ward, 'S'. No there was nothing wrong with him in my eyes, but then who am I to discern. And with regards to my own checked history, it is true after I had the RTA in 1997 I was a violent sod with my family. I do not deny this. But then don't you think the past seven years in and out of intensive care wards for mental illness (allegedly), somewhat goes to mitigate these crimes. I'm just saying.
 
Last edited:

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
It's fine you sitting there pontificating and lecturing to us. I find it extremely odd too that John with his self confessed criminal record of violence also chooses to lecture us on war etc.

The rest of the post was good. This part was entirely unnecessary. And ad hominem. You can argue effectively. There is no need to go after the messenger if you can thwart the message effectively. And if you CAN'T thwart the message effectively, going ad hominem won't help that, and demeans the conversation.

It's low-brow, it's crass, and it's repugnant. I think this took away from your message rather than adding to it.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,385
Reaction score
4,697
Location
England
The rest of the post was good. This part was entirely unnecessary. And ad hominem. You can argue effectively. There is no need to go after the messenger if you can thwart the message effectively. And if you CAN'T thwart the message effectively, going ad hominem won't help that, and demeans the conversation.

It's low-brow, it's crass, and it's repugnant. I think this took away from your message rather than adding to it.

Actually I refute what you are saying, someone who practically boasts of his violence who then tells us that our soldiers kill thousands of innocent civilians should be told the truth, it's not an attack, it's hypocracy on his part. You think what I said was repugnant yet you don't think painting the military as mass murders of innocent children at all off? If you don't like my plain speaking fine, I don't like hypocracy. If you had read any of his posts you will remember what they said, I'm not attacking him in the least just repeating what he himself wrote.
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,244
Very few wars are justifiably fought as self defense. Most of them in our history were fought to expand our power and influence. Most of them were sold to the public with various levels of propaganda.

Listen to Major General Smedley Butler on this matter.


I'll second his opinion.

So in your opinion what was the correct reaction to 9-11?

P.S. Ill see your Marine and counter with some modern day Marine Warriors
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
OK - lets take a look at some of the...

It's fine you sitting there pontificating and lecturing to us.

Most of this thread, I've just been asking questions. For the rest of it, I've been pointing out the terrible costs of these wars and saying that it wasn't worth it. I know you don't want to hear that. I know you have a lot invested in the war and you want to make something good happen, especially because you've seen so many good men and women go in there and get ground up, but it is the unavoidable truth. When you look at how much this costs us now and will cost us in the future, and if you look at this war like an investment, it's hard to find a single good thing that this will bring to us. It's time for all of the nations involved wake up and smell the fecal matter they stepped in and clean it off their boots.

I find it extremely odd too that John with his self confessed criminal record of violence also chooses to lecture us on war etc.

There are about four fallacies packed into this statement and I'm not going to bother pointing them out. However, I find it ironic that people can put on a costume, kill a whole bunch of people, and come home and be called heroes. Meanwhile, in a different time and different place, this makes a person a monster. This is completely irrational...and unfortunately it's how our society works. I think if people were exposed to philosophy more, we'd probably start to address some of these contradictions.

The people in Afghan, well the men at any rate have probably got more say so in the running of their country than we have in ours, there are weekly shurias with the village elders, the triable elders and others where they get there say, what they want to happen, they discuss what's happening and what they want to happen, permission is sought from them for various things and they are being led to take more and more responsibility for their country all the time, we are gearing up to leave and we are trying to make sure that when we do we leave a structure behind that will survive.

It's starting to look as if the politicians are trying to find a way to leave and make this look like a win. The truth is that any government we leave behind in Kabul is going to collapse the moment we exit. The politicians are going to blame it on the Afghans and all of those dead people will still be dead. Afghanistan is going to be whatever it's people decide. When we get out, this process will finally sort it's way out. We're going to have very little say in the end. All of our supposed control is an illusion.

If the UK and it's people are such an anathema to them I wonder why we have tens of thousands of Afghans here are immigrants, legal and illegal as well as thousands waiting in the EU to smuggle themselves over here?

Maybe because we're over there bombing the **** out of them.

I listened to Naomi Wolfe speak the other day. She shared a story about how she keeps in touch with friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan with social media. They regularly beg her to do whatever she can to stop the drone attacks, stop the bombs, and stop the war because it's so dangerous and it's so hard to have any kind of life at all. That's amazing power of the internet because now we can actually connect with people on the other end of our foreign policy.

The bottom line is that if you lived there, you'd want to move somewhere that was more peaceful as well. Our presence is what is making it not peaceful.

When you say you would have terrorists over anything else you really don't know what you are talking about, you clearly have no idea what it's like to be in a community where the terrorists run free, there is no safety for your children, there is no security,no freedom, you are forced to hand money over to them, you will be forced to hand your children over. No, you saying such a thing reeks of the worse kind of naivety going.

We don't need video cameras watching us every where we go. We don't need to pass through checkpoints and strip searches just to board a plane and soon to go shopping or just go down the highway. We don't need a massive police state to protect us, especially if we're not inciting terrorists all around the world with our foreign policy. We don't need to sacrifice our civil liberties for safety.

Also, I think you are projecting some other situation or experience on what is happening now. It's good bet that if we got the rest of the story behind your experience, we'd find some significant differences.

You think you are the only one who knows the 'truth', the only one who 'understands', well the opposite is actually the truth you show a huge amount of naivete and lack of understanding how the world works. You know nothing of Iraq and nothing of Afghanistan and I venture to suggest you don't actually know much about your fellow Americans if you think they are all so stupid they believe every word that your governments say.

There's no argument here, only a silly rant. This set of statements is complete nonsense. Let me point out an obvious contradiction. If we can't believe every word about what the government says and you work for the government, we can't trust what you have to say about Iraq and Afghanistan. You've been parroting out propaganda this entire thread. Out of one side of the mouth you say that you don't support the war and out of the other you justify it. That is what propaganda does. It helps you rationalize your inconsistencies. It helps you doublethink.

Blaming the military for the wars etc is incorrect, the military serve your country, The governments can be blamed because they send the troops out but if the military were to refuse you would be in big trouble because then you will have a military dictatorship. No, support your troops and look to the politicians if blame is needed. Don't rant at us, rant at them, go out to Afghan and see for yourself before you decide the rest of us is evil.

More nonsense and propaganda. You are the government. You joined it. You are responsible for it's actions.

Afghanistan was a hellhole before we invaded, living hell for a good many people, this doesn't make invading there right but it does show that the country wasn't a shining example of peace and tranquility. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, drug warlords all operated out of there bringing misery to hundred of thousands worldwide. When you look at the war there you can't just take the view that they are totally innocent and we corrupted them, we invaded when we shouldn't, can't do anything about that now but what we can do is hopefully leave the place a bit better than we found it. Hopefully the drugs that came out of there will have been cut down by some and hopefully women might stand a chance of a better life , not perfect not ideal but a darn sight better than some have done by whinging on a martial arts forum.

More propaganda and it's all based on revisionist history. Every single statement in this paragraph is cut off from the context of history. Just leave those people alone. You have no right to take a gun and force them to live the way you want them to live. In the end, you're going to fail because that kind of control is always an illusion. Its the kind of magical thinking that government regularly engage in.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
So in your opinion what was the correct reaction to 9-11?

Terrorism can be more properly described as anti-Americanism. It's a reaction to our global empire. It's a reaction to the evil that has been done by our government in that region for generations. My response would be to stop supporting evil dictators, pull out our troops, close down our bases and let people peacefully arrange their lives the way they please. That is the long term solution to what we call terrorism.

The correct response to 9/11 is to call the government on its BS.

P.S. Ill see your Marine and counter with some modern day Marine Warriors.

How is recruitment propaganda a response to what Smedley Butler had to say about the truth of war?

Check this out for a different perspective.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,244
Terrorism can be more properly described as anti-Americanism. It's a reaction to our global empire. It's a reaction to the evil that has been done by our government in that region for generations. My response would be to stop supporting evil dictators, pull out our troops, close down our bases and let people peacefully arrange their lives the way they please. That is the long term solution to what we call terrorism.
So do nothing?


How is recruitment propaganda a response to what Smedley Butler had to say about the truth of war?
Because its AWSOME and AWSOME trumps old guy speech all day long.
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,244
I didnt see you video clip until I posted already. So you found a few out of the Millions of military people that regret enlisting. There are FAR more military service men that are Proud of what the did, and would do it again in a heart beat. FAR more military members that would say the few people in that clip are just cry babies and knew what the truth was when they enlisted.

PS. Cry baby was the term my partner just used when he watched the clip with me and hes been to Iraq twice in the last 6 years.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
So do nothing?



Because its AWSOME and AWSOME trumps old guy speech all day long.

I didn't say do nothing and AWESOME is cooler with an E. LOL!

I'm just joking about the spelling, btw.

I am curious as to what you really think about what Smedley Butler had to say.
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
Actually I refute what you are saying, someone who practically boasts of his violence who then tells us that our soldiers kill thousands of innocent civilians should be told the truth, it's not an attack, it's hypocracy on his part. You think what I said was repugnant yet you don't think painting the military as mass murders of innocent children at all off? If you don't like my plain speaking fine, I don't like hypocracy. If you had read any of his posts you will remember what they said, I'm not attacking him in the least just repeating what he himself wrote.

Read up on ad hominem personal attacks and why they aren't conducive to rational debate. Whether or not an argument displays hippocracy is irrelevant to whether or not an argument is sound. And had you not included the ad hominem personal attack, I would have been behind you 100%. As it stands, I am behind you about ninety percent, and for the rest I will point out that our forum rules don't favor personal attacks. At all. Ever.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
Terrorism can be more properly described as anti-Americanism.

No, of can be more properly be described as murder. Protests, complaints lodged with the UN, ETC. can be more properly described as anti-American. Hammas is anti-American. A number of anti-American protests are anti-American (obviously). Hussein could have been described as anti-American.

Al-qaeda is a TERRORIST organization, judged as such by their stated goals and beliefs, and their tactics, techniques, and procedures. And the proper method for dealing with terrorists is not to reason with them, not to give into their demands, but to KILL them.

Save reason for reasonable people. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, killing thousands, and in response, we joined in a war we were originally staying well out of, because because we were "too proud to fight".

Al-qaeda repeatedly attacked the us, killing thousands, and so we killed them right back. Al-Qaeda has no interest in peace, and has stated that its goal is the utter destruction of the US, regardless of any changes we make.

Yes, Al-Qaeda is a demon of our own making. That doesn't change the fact that this fight is zero-sum.

Frankly, one of my big issues with the war in Iraq is that not only did it hinder our ability to wipe out al-qaeda through the dilution of our forces,it gave them a new foothold in a country that was previously hostile to them.

I am not at all opposed to taking out a Nazi scumbag like Hussein. But we had much more pressing issues at the time.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,244
I didn't say do nothing
Your answer was how to prevent them from happening. We didnt do that I agree what you said for the most part but My question was what should our reaction should have been since it did happen.

I am curious as to what you really think about what Smedley Butler had to say.
Alot of what he has said has some points but his isolationism I think goes too far. Sometimes we need to step in and help people. He was against the US entering WWII. I think we do get too involved in some matters that we shouldnt but there are times where we should step in. I think we should have invaded Iraq in 1988 when Saddam gassed and killed thousands of his own people not in so much in 2003. I dont however think we need to get involved in Syria since in my opinion its a civil war. However when one side has been clearly defeated and the other then starts to kill off thousands of innocent civilians from the loosing side then we need to step in and stop it. The world is far to complicated to just say we need to stay out of everything. It should be delt with on a case by case basis BUT involvement should also be done correctly by an act of congress not by presidential order. No one person should have that much power.
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
To piggyback on ballen, Rwanda was a prime example of a time we could have and should have stepped in, but did not. I believe that was a moral failure on the part of our nation. (And I cannot prove it, but I strongly suspect that the fact we stood to gain nothing financially had a lot to do with it).

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
 

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
While I agree that basically ignoring genocide in Rwanda was and is shameful, I have to disagree with your attributing financial gain as a motive in Iraq and or Afghanistan. We've spent a couple of TRILLION dollars in the last decade, where is this financial gain?
 

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,318
Reaction score
481
Location
Staffordshire, England
Not being party to the internal decision making of the American government, I can only ascribe to it the motives that are commonly perceived from the outside. I think the gain, to respond to Don, was supposed to be in political influence in the region with a view to obtaining more secure oil supplies. That's only a guess, of course, looking for a rationale as to why so much effort should be expended against a target regime that, altho' reprehensible, was hardly unique in that regard.

The twister with that one is that similar investment in research and development would probably have gotten alternative energy sources a couple of big steps forward in viability or even gotten us onto the verge of fusion.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,385
Reaction score
4,697
Location
England
Read up on ad hominem personal attacks and why they aren't conducive to rational debate. Whether or not an argument displays hippocracy is irrelevant to whether or not an argument is sound. And had you not included the ad hominem personal attack, I would have been behind you 100%. As it stands, I am behind you about ninety percent, and for the rest I will point out that our forum rules don't favor personal attacks. At all. Ever.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

It's not a personal attack, if someone is glorifying his own violence he cannot then make unfounded allegations against others. if I were to attack him on a personal basis there would be no doubt it was a very personal attack but I cannot see that someone who boasts about his own violence has the right to then smear others for what he perceives as their violence. I didn't make personal remarks about him, unlike his about me, I haveing insulted him, unlike his posts calling me a liar, I haven't called BS unlike others. I am pointing out the fact that someone who boasts on here of his own violence who then accuses me and others of violence against innocence civilians is an unfounded allegation and smear. His is the persoanal attack that needs questioning which I notice you don't even when his outbursts against me were personal. Mine wasn't a personal attack, believe me you'll know when and if I made one of those, I'm sorry you thought it was but it wasn't.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,385
Reaction score
4,697
Location
England
Malakumu, I have nothing invested in any war, you always think you have people and things sorted out and that's why you make these personal attacks. You think you are the only one against the war so things must be how you hear they are, you heard Naomi Wolfe, I've heard the Afghans, I've been there you haven't, war is hell, the soldiers want out, no arguments there however all your bluster against me doesn't change anything. Your assertation that terrorism is anti Americanism is more than paranoid, there's terrrorism going on in countries that have nothing to do with America and never will. Anyway this is a short answer, I'm off to work.
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
59
Location
Seattle, WA
While I agree that basically ignoring genocide in Rwanda was and is shameful, I have to disagree with your attributing financial gain as a motive in Iraq and or Afghanistan. We've spent a couple of TRILLION dollars in the last decade, where is this financial gain?

Long term: continued access to Iraq's oil supply, plus the prospect of having helped rebuild a nation's political infrastructure increases the potential for favorable trade relations in a country that has historically tense relations with our country. High initial investment that could lead to even higher rewards in the much later future. (Though I don't think that will pan out as well as planned.)

Short term: lots of money to the arms industry, service industry, etc. War is historically good for business. Not that great necessarily for the country, but the potential benefits for business are certainly there.
 
Top