Killing Civilians in Iraq
- Thread starter brewer12345
- Start date
Ron, why not talk about it? I didn't have a combat MOS but I sure learned how to lock and load, run for the bunker and hit the wire. And all in III CTZ, IV CTZ, and Phu Quoc Island.. Personally I have had a real hard time over the last 37 years choking back the anger and bitterness. I find it beyond belief that in 1969, I was drafted with a wife and son on the way and at the end of 19 months service the money I was given for pay was so little my extended family had to support my immediate family. So now the first termers are making thousands. Why?
Because you can't draft them. You have to pay them enough to make them interested.
My own career NCOs taught me a new term I'd never heard till I got incountry...the word was fodder.
Because you can't draft them. You have to pay them enough to make them interested.
My own career NCOs taught me a new term I'd never heard till I got incountry...the word was fodder.
bosco
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2005
- Messages
- 987
Lazarus said:
Spoken like a true Yank. And then Americans wonder why they are unpopular in the rest of the world. If the world is based on "might makes right" then don't be surprised when the bully is resented. NEWS FLASH!! Most people (and nations) prefer a cooperative stance rather than a unilateral one.
UN is convenient, however, for providing false rationales for illegal invasions. Convenient, but not necessary.
alphabet soup
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 105
Your comment makes no sense. Unless you prefer letting mad cowboys and other chickenhawks be able to invade other country's with impunity.
They decide who the despots are. The despots always seem to be the ones sitting on vast oil reserves.
I don't see the chickenhawks invading North Korea. Makes you go hmmm...
Oh, I forgot. You're gonna tell me how Iraq was involved in 9/11.
They decide who the despots are. The despots always seem to be the ones sitting on vast oil reserves.
I don't see the chickenhawks invading North Korea. Makes you go hmmm...
Oh, I forgot. You're gonna tell me how Iraq was involved in 9/11.
alphabet soup said:
It is your comment that does not make sense. It implies there's some kind of higher authority that "lets" nations do things. There is not. Nation states do things (including cooperating with other nations) based on self-interest--and that's all. International law: Nations abide by it when it is in their self interest (just like people obey the law of their government when it is in their self interest). The only difference is that individuals are subject to the laws of their country--no effective international body exists to enforce laws (or "majority opinion" of world nations) over nation states. At least not yet.
bosco
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2005
- Messages
- 987
samclem said:
in large part because the big kid on the block refuses to support or abide by said international body and insists on behaving in a lawless manner.
It's really pesky when the U.N. doesn't do your bidding. Best to just ignore them. But not anyone else. Iraq, Iran, North Koreas--by god they'd better listen to the UN.
Leonidas
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bosco said:
The UN is corrupt beyond all repair. France, all the way up to the president, was neck deep in profiting from trading black market Iraqi oil that Saddam used to buy more RPGs and AK-47s while his people starved and lived in the dark. Then, when France wants to stand in the way of US requested UN resolutions to keep Saddam in line we should go along with it? Please.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
You guys see that red sox game?
Nords said:
Just catching up on this thread. Spouse feels the ROEs are great... its educating the Marines as to what they really mean that is the hard part. There's a misconception on the part of a lot of grunts that the ROEs are more restrictive than they really are. In my husband's unit they spend _a lot_ of time going over scenarios, but I suspect the level of training on this varies by unit and command philosophy.
alphabet soup
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 105
Lazarus,
I'm beginning to regret you were raised from the dead.
I'm beginning to regret you were raised from the dead.
bosco
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2005
- Messages
- 987
Leonidas said:
Equivalent logic: Tom Delay was neck-deep in profiting from influence peddling. Therefore Congress is corrupt beyond all repair. Therefore, let's ignore Congress and do whatever we want. And kudos to Bush for ignoring the legislative branch when he feels like it! We should go along with Congress?
Leonidas
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bosco said:
Not equivalent - just a straw man argument. Although, you do get points for the bullseye on the corruption in Congress.
But Congress Critters get elected by the people they are supposed to represent, and those same people can unelect them. They are also subject (ostensibly) to the same laws as everybody else - ala Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, and William Jefferson. The laws passed by our representatives are incumbent on the citizens.
The UN is an association of governments designed to faciliate cooperation in a number of areas - including global security. It's not a governing body of elected representatives and does not pass laws - it tries to gain a consensus. The member states are free to agree or disagree on issues based on what they believe are their best interests. Nothing they pass is incumbent on any member nation unless it agrees by treaty or agreement.
Why pay attention to an organization that has a human rights council, whose members are elected based on "...[the candidate nation's] contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights", and winds up with members that are champions of human rights like China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Azerbaijan? The sadly humorous thing is that Human Rights Watch said they thought this group was better than the outgoing council, whose members included Sudan, Libya and Zimbabwe - which the New York Times reported had all used their seats to sidetrack investigations of their governments' human rights violations.
Back in October 2002 - how did your representative and senators vote on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq? If you don't like how they voted, work to unelect them. Try that with the French Ambassador to the U.N.
(I'll save you the Google time - Young, Murkowski and Stevens all voted in support of the JR)
bosco said:
You miss my point. The U.S. or any other nation for that matter is not subject to United Nations authority. You may disagree with what the U.S. or other nations do but U.N. permission is not required for their actions. All nations hold their own self interest first. No nation should be taking a poll to determine what actions to take for their national security. It’s not a popularity contest.
If you are against the war, that’s your prerogative. But the U.S. “disobeying”, the U.N. is not a factor in the argument.
bosco
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2005
- Messages
- 987
Lazarus said:
then why is Iraq (or for that matter, Iran) "disobeying" the U.N. a factor in all sorts of arguments? Let's quit the facade and just openly admit that we, through the use of force, will take whatever the #$#$$* we want.
Leonidas
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bosco said:
Well, can't speak for Lazarus, but I think the point is not that Iraq "disobeyed" the UN. How does one "disobey" a cooperative where membership is voluntary and whose decisions do not carry the weight of law? Peaceful cooperation, compromise and cooperation are clearly more desireable than solving disagreements through war, but it did not work out that way. Iraq chose its path based on what its government thought was in its best interests and the US and its allies chose a different path.
As an aside, I'm not going to post any more on this thread. We're way off the topic and I didn't come here to talk politics (although sometimes that is difficult to avoid). Seriously though, regardless of how or why the war started, we are in a war and as citizens we should be discussing what to do with the situation we find ourselves in, as opposed to bickering about how we got here. The latter is like arguing whose fault it is that the boat is sinking rather than bailing the water out.
bosco
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2005
- Messages
- 987
Leonidas said:
understanding how one gets someplace, and the (possibly erroneous) decision process that led to it might be a useful exercise. Assumming, of course that one is open-minded enough to realize that a mistake was made and has an interest in avoiding future similar mistakes.
This idiocy was totally foreseeable. What is discouraging is the large percentage of Americans that fell for the spin during the sabre-rattling phase. Now it's a mess and there is no easy answer. On the bright side, at least the man who tried to kill Bush's daddy is in custody.
I agree that a discussion about what to do about the situaiton is also important. It does not follow from that, however, that a discussion of how we got there should not be held. That is a typical tactic used to stifle debate. Fortunately, it rarely works.
bosco said:
You are right. We can't have it both ways. Iraq doesn't have to obey the U.N. either. And in fact did ignore many resolutions.
I think it’s unfair though to say the U.S. takes whatever we want though. After WWII we had the Worlds only nuclear weapons. Clearly the U.S. could have taken over if it wished. The U.S. has its own goals and they may or may not be in alignment with what other countries want but I don't think World domination is one of them. It’s more security, both militarily and economic. After all oil is what makes the World go round.
lets-retire
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,798
There is a big difference between what Iraq did and what the US did. As a participating contry to the UN we subject ourselves to the restrictions of various sections of that body, especially the security council. When a country invades and attempts to take over another, obviously the invaded country will ask for help. What is the security council supposed to do, sit back and say sorry even though we all agree they are the bad guys, we can't help because they aren't voluntarily submitting to our will. No they vote for action then take the action required. Iraq SIGNED a treaty saying if you stop beating us up we will submit to your (the UN's) requirments. The UN stopped beating them, but they never submitted to the UN's will. For you lawyers otu there would one party of a contract be held to the requirements of the contract if the second party refused to be held by it? So Iraq vountarily said they would submit to the UN's control, but never actually submitted.
For those who say the reason we are where we are is relevant to what we do next. I disagree. While it is relevent to other discussions, it is not when it comes to future actions. The deed was done now the question is how do we deal with the aftermath. Cut and run? That would definately leave the area in worse shape than before the deed was done. Stay the course? That will cost more American lives, but could leave the area in better shape than when we started. If we leave before the job is done we will create another country that hates the US. If we stay until the government of Iraq asks us to leave or the jobs is done (probably the former) we make more friends.
For those who say the reason we are where we are is relevant to what we do next. I disagree. While it is relevent to other discussions, it is not when it comes to future actions. The deed was done now the question is how do we deal with the aftermath. Cut and run? That would definately leave the area in worse shape than before the deed was done. Stay the course? That will cost more American lives, but could leave the area in better shape than when we started. If we leave before the job is done we will create another country that hates the US. If we stay until the government of Iraq asks us to leave or the jobs is done (probably the former) we make more friends.
