iraq

While I won't discuss my opinion on the war, I will say that I am proud of all our soldiers. They are the bravest, toughest, smartest people in the world and they are the finest men and women that this generation has to offer. My sister is married to an Iraq vet, and I'm honored to have him in our family.

Your opinion is your opinion that's why we fight... not voicing your opinion is wasting what we are fighting for. thanks all the same though.

Well, the problem with voiceing your opinion on a forum like this is that it starts a flame war that gets no where. Check out this thread.

As much as I'd love to participate I've already been shot-down in this thread: http://www.webmaster-forums.net/showthread.php?t=36470 .

So, whilst it's not appropriate for me to comment, I am looking forward to reading others comments. Glad to see you're not afraid of starting a debate blackhawkpowers!

*** EDIT
Lol, matt beat me to it.

Nothing to be afraid of....... like I said on my way over again so a debate doesn't worry me... but i'm always interested in other people's opinions on such matters. especially people from other countries.

What is your service? Judging by your handle, I'd guess Army. Regardless of our opinions, I hope you'll return safely home.

I disagree that US soldiers are "the bravest, toughest, smartest people in the world". It's a ridiculous and patronising statement, really. There are plenty of brave(r), tough(er) and smart(er) people outside of the US military, including many US civilians and civil servants, let alone those across the world. Get a grip.

yes army........

MonkeyBoy wrote: What I will say though is that the sad thing is that it is impossible to win against the masses. What I mean by that is, you remove a cruel dictator and people complain that you're interfering.

No, people are not complaining about having removed a cruel dictator. They're complaining because we were told that Iraq had WMD's, that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Queda and the Taliban, that Saddam had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. We were lied to, that's why people are annoyed.

The reason we went into Iraq (and by 'we' I mean the US and UK) is because of our desire to secure the worlds largest untapped oil reserves for our companies[1][2]. Afghanistan is a similar situation: there it's an oil pipeline that needed to be secured[3].

Neo-conservatives in the US (read up on the 'Project for the New American Century' or PNAC) wanted to expand the US empire and were also interested in exporting 'freedom' around the world. The UK naturally wanted to be involved in securing Iraq, it's record of Imperialism is well known. The potential of securing such riches, at the expense of butchering a few natives, has never been a problem for the UK before (they'll probably be beating us at cricket in a few years time). You must have seen the film: Zulu?

The very reason there was a cruel dictator in charge of Iraq is because of the US and UK. The back-story follows: -

In 1953 the UK gained assistance from the US in overthrowing the democratic government of Iran because they nationalised the countries oil industry, which up to that point was dominated by the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. After the tyranical Shah--we installed into power--was forced into exile in 1979, a new government was formed that started nationalising industries again[4][5].

The Guardian wrote: The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy, with Iran's new hardline theocracy declaring undying hostility to the US.

Luckily the CIA had already helped the Ba'ath party into power in Iraq by this time[6]. They supported Saddam in leading the party and his anti-Iranian stance. They wished to use him as: 'Our Man in the Gulf Region.'[7]. Saddam went to war with Iran, and was supported in this enterprise by the US.

So you call him a cruel dictator, and it's great that we removed him from power. But if he's so awful, why did we ignore him gassing 5,000 Kurds[7], supply him with more chemical weapons and send Donald Rumsfeld to shake his hand (see attached image)?

BBC wrote: When 5,000 Kurds were gassed at Halabja in 1988, Kurdish leaders turned to America for help. Mahmoud Osman was one of them:

'I couldn't get any of my friends in the State Department to return my calls,' he said.

'They told me we cannot listen to you when you talk about chemical weapons because we do not want to jeopardise our relations with the Iraqis'.

The trend continues: the US is annoyed with leftist Hugo Chavez for nationalising Venezuela's oil industry. A good film to watch on the subject is: 'The Revolution will not be Televised'. About the failed US-backed coup in Venezuela back in 2002. Luckily some Irish film-makers were in the country when it all happened and caught the whole thing on camera.

---- References ----
[1] - Farenheit 911 (note: very biased viewpoint).
[2] - Why We Fight.
[3] - BBC - Afghanistan: the pipeline war?.
[4] - BBC - Iranian timeline.
[5] - The Guardian (note: biased viewpoint).
[6] - Representative Press (note: biased viewpoint, but mostly good sources).
[7] - BBC - from our own correspondent.

MonkeyBoy wrote: That's one big no-comment... interesting read though

What can I say, the injustice of your rambling compelled me to reply.

Anyway, I wasn't commenting. That post is more of a history lecture.

*** EDIT

MonkeyBoy wrote: Once again this is not aimed at any comments made here but I just feel that quite often the US/UK issues cloud out the role of other nations in the conflict.

Yes, good point. Won't dispute that.

I'm going to (try to) say only a few things:

Firstly, whatever people think of Iraq it's got very little to do with the people who are actually serving over there. It's their job to go over there and do what they're told. They don't have a choice, and you can't invalidate their efforts.

Secondly, one of my biggest problems with Iraq is that they started it while there was still a big mess in Afghanistan. It's a bit like a little kid making a mess in one room and leaving to start another mess in the next room without cleaning up the first one. Of course, they argued that it was necessary but I think it's been proven that Saddam was not an imminent danger at the time. Now the Canadians and others are over there trying to clean that up (Afghanistan) and it doesn't sound like they're winning.

So now they've basically admitted that there were no weapons of mass distruction in Iraq and start to paint it as a liberation of the people. But what about all the other countries being led by mean dictators? What about the ones in anarchy? Iraq at least had a stable government which is more than you could say for most of Africa.

One of the questions was what we think of the USA. Canada has always had a complex relationship with our neighbours to the south. I think a lot of Canadians would say that they dislike American culture and american values being forced on us (as we see it). We especially don't like American governments trying to pressure us into doing something we don't want to do. We are generally more left wing over here and often disagree with the current government's policy. However, that is the government, not the people. Many Canadians cross the border often to go shopping or visit friends and relatives. We like the people as individuals (well, mostly ). In a lot of ways we don't see that border as being such a hard line.

I am hopeful now that things will change in America. I see a better future now, especially after the recent elections

(I hope this all isn't too controversial!!)

good points megan and you really hit on one of things I wanted to see which is the view on the soldiers. I've experienced both sides of it after coming back when that tan uniform is still on.... some people want to come up and shake your hand or even hug you and some want to come up just to tell you that you're a murderer..... it's a weird situation here but now I think most of the people support the soldiers, it's the descision of why we're there they aren't sure of.

dare I open the can of N Korea with these harsh comments?..

Quote: I disagree that US soldiers are "the bravest, toughest, smartest people in the world". It's a ridiculous and patronising statement, really. There are plenty of brave(r), tough(er) and smart(er) people outside of the US military, including many US civilians and civil servants, let alone those across the world. Get a grip.

You say that in America and you'd get your *** beat . But seriously, we're in this war and these soldiers are fighting it for us. It is the duty of the American people to have faith in them and have the most optimistic view of them. Yeah, you could find a stronger guy outside the military than some 5’ 2” 120lb soldier, but that’s not the point. One of the reasons we are having a tough time in Iraq is that so many people aren't supportive of the soldiers. It’s ok to be against the war and the administration, but when you see a soldier, you go up to him (or her) and say “thanks.” It is discouraging when soldiers come home, and the people like John Kerry call them terrorists (can’t find the direct quote yet). Good thing soldiers have a good sense of humor.

Megan wrote: Iraq at least had a stable government which is more than you could say for most of Africa.

This is very true, but we should not mention Africa without noting that DR Congo has just had a free and democratic election. That's thanks to a multi-national UN peacekeeping mission that held the country together while elections happened (and continue to now the results are in).

It seems to have worked (fingers crossed). It's important to mention successes like these, they're significant and an example of how we can effect change in a positive way.

blackhawkpowers wrote: dare I open the can of N Korea with these harsh comments?..

It's hard to see what's actually happening in this situation. There are known knowns, unknown knowns... Errr, anyway I did read this article, which whilst horribly biased, and on a ghastly background at least tells an alternative story. A story that seems to make an alarming amount of sense. Even a dictator like Kim Jong Il ('Oh, hewwow Hans Bwix!' Sorry, couldn't resist the Team America quote) doesn't start annoying everyone with nuclear tests for no reason. Whilst he's a complete tyrant, he's apparently not stupid, his tactics seem to have worked as we're now seeing a possible return to negotiations between the West and North Korea. North Korea comes to the table from a stronger bargaining position than previous rounds of talks.

A good indicator of British opinion is this poll, in which more people believe George W. Bush to be a threat to world peace than Kim Jong Il.

My opinion on iraq is generally my opinion on war. I seem to equate war with economics, the more there is war happening, the need for guns and military equipment increases, not only will a countries budget for war increases, the demand for the enemies to buy military equipment for themselves also increases.

In countries, power officials get a cut over those military equipment releases, orders and whatnots. Its a business venture for them. And guess what? The enemy buys there own equipment from the enemy state too. Whats caught in the middle are the innocent civilians.

I dont have qualms for the men and women who are inside the war, I think they are brave to defend the country, but its no use when the government uses them as pawns on a war that maybe has no bearing at all, only at an economic standpoint. I just hope the war doesnt escalate to become a world war...

Quote: For what? Telling the truth? Exercising freedom of speech?

For being a punk, that's why. I'm kidding, jeez! Look at John Kerry, he isn't getting beat up by anybody, nothing to worry about.

Quote: It is also the duty of the American people (and government) to respect them by not lying to them and not being patronising.

Telling them they aren't the best and the brightest sure wouldn't be very respectful IMO. I can just imagine at marine's graduation, "I know we aren't the best, toughtest smartest... soldiers in the world but we're pretty good."

Quote: So they aren't superhuman; no one's perfect. Try not to generalise unrealistically.

Sure my statement was a generalization, sure there are a few bad apples, but it wasn't unrealistic. Who has a smarter, tougher, braver military?

Quote: You didn't just say "thanks", though, is what I'm saying.

Being honored to have a soldier in the family, rightly calling them the best and the brightest, that isn't saying thanks??? What???

Quote: Firstly, if so many people aren't supportive of the soldiers being in Iraq, perhaps the soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place.

People should be supportive of the soldiers in Iraq regardless, and many people aren't!!! Don't be supportive of the administration, but give the soldiers stationed there all the support you can. They didn't have a choice, so don't take your frustrations out on them by not being supportive. Just 'cause you don't like the war doesn't mean you shouldn't send a soldier a tooth brush and some cookies.

Quote: Secondly, they're supposed to do their job regardless of morale at home

I agree 100%, but if you have the people behind you, it makes things a lot easier. Constantly being criticized, made fun of, and being the butt of lame jokes, doesn't help.

Quote: Thirdly, it's not really a big reason for their difficulties in Iraq

You're right, it's not a big reason, but it is causing more difficulties, and the soldiers don't need any more difficulties.

Thanks a lot Reddy, because I have to respond to your posts I don't have very much time to do my homework!!! I knew I should have stayed out of here, lol.

teammatt3 wrote: Thanks a lot Reddy, because I have to respond to your posts I don't have very much time to do my homework!!! I knew I should have stayed out of here, lol.

Haha, don't worry about it (the thread, I mean).

Quote: Telling them they aren't the best and the brightest sure wouldn't be very respectful IMO. I can just imagine at marine's graduation, "I know we aren't the best, toughtest smartest... soldiers in the world but we're pretty good."

Actually, "we're pretty good" is a rare compliment for a military, or indeed any organisation. Working for a military in particular is not an easy job for anybody, and being pretty good is quite an accomplishment.

Telling them they aren't brave, tough or smart would be hugely disrespectful, mainly because it would be a lie. Similarly, showering them with unrealistic superlatives would also be disrespectful.

Quote: Who has a smarter, tougher, braver military?

I didn't mean to compare militaries. I was trying to suggest we avoid simplifying like that. There are elements of various militaries (say, British SAS) whom I would subjectively consider "tougher" than most of the American military. And there are civilians like artists, engineers, scientists and academics whom I would consider smarter -- of course you could say folks like DoD researchers are among them, but they aren't soldiers. And there are other professionals whom I would call brave or braver, like, say, many firefighters, rescuers and law enforcement people.

In a different sense, I might consider someone struggling to survive or support a family in the face of poverty, famine, and diseases like AIDS, in large parts of Africa or elsewhere, braver or tougher. My point is the world is far more nuanced than you seem to appreciate, hence your unrealistic generalisation.

Quote: Being honored to have a soldier in the family, rightly calling them the best and the brightest, that isn't saying thanks??? What???

Well it's not just saying thanks. Maybe if you said, "thanks, most of you do a fine job and hopefully uphold your uniform's values and name", it would seem reasonable.

Being honoured to have someone in your family who has done something you appreciate is not a bad thing, I wasn't referring to that at all.

You can say what you like, of course, I was only pointing out what I thought was ridiculous.

Quote: I agree 100%, but if you have the people behind you, it makes things a lot easier. Constantly being criticized, made fun of, and being the butt of lame jokes, doesn't help.

Ok, yeah, that's never nice, and that applies to anyone going about their business. But surely your people have a right to do that. It's not a happy thing for a soldier, but as blackhawkpowers said, that's what they fight for, ironically.

Quote: They didn't have a choice, so don't take your frustrations out on them by not being supportive.

That's a tough one. They did have a choice when they signed up. Isn't a large part of your military's service -- or at least army's -- voluntary? Nevertheless, I can see your case for not being rotten to them.

Also, a lot of people aren't supportive of militaries, period. For them, it's not just this war they're objecting to but all wars. Surely they have a right to express that opinion, too?

Anyway, I agree with you for the most part about being supportive, except that I wouldn't like anyone's rights compromised in the process. I believe it's possible to be supportive and critical at the same time; qualified faith rather than blind faith. In my experience talking to vets (including US ones), that sentiment is not lost on them; many of them appreciate people understanding their position accurately.

Demonhale - you should see the documentary Why We Fight - I think Jeevesbond linked to it in his post. It's all about Iraq and the Military Industrial Complex.

Thanks for the link meg, yup I heard that term before, but not until you get involved that you really get the whole picture. My old uncle, a retired Military man was once caught in between, what affected his family was the whole racket. I was the youngest in a series of nephews and nieces, and my cousin didnt know his father was involved in deep military tactics wherein they create war. Lets say he get in deep that his family needed to lose their names.

In the film/documentary perspective, I think what caught my attention was the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" by michael moore which was countered by the governments own documentary entitled "Fahrenhype 9/11" , I think people need to watch both...

First and foremost, why would you come here and start a discussion on the conflict in Iraq? There are literally thousands of forums dedicated to this subject in which you could have this debate.

I am all up for a good debate, but it just seems a bit like baiting to me.