DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> A soldier's response to criticism of war on terror
Pages:  
Showing posts 176 - 197 of 197, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/25/2008 12:16:56 PM · #176
Originally posted by citymars:


Originally posted by neophyte:

Funny how no one seems to blame the terrorists and the environment that produces them.

I've never heard anyone aver that those forces are not to blame. I think what people are saying is that the world is complicated.

Where in this thread have they blamed the 9-11 attackers? Shouldn't they be held to the same scrutiny as the US?

Originally posted by neophyte:

... All the ideology expressed in this thread didn't stop the 9-11 attacks and it makes me sick to see some trying to blame the US for these acts of aggression. God bless America.

As said previously in this thread, the sad and scary fact is that acts of terrorism will happen, regardless. You are right, "ideology" (I assume you mean ideology different that your own) did not stop the 9/11 attacks; neither did jingoism or any thing else you could mention.


It happened, regardless of my ideology or anyones, no? I didn't mention jingoism either. You didn't need the dig. Your assumptions show your own limitations, not mine, and worse have no basis.

The problem is that in these countries, 99% of the wealth is in the hands of a very few. More skewed even than than the US. The State is too poor to educate the population. Therefore the church has taken this task. As a result you have many young men who are frustated by the lack of economic opportunity and only are knowledgable in religious doctorine. In, what to them may be logical, they blame their problems on the west (infidels) instead of their own ruling class. This is the environment that produces terrorists.
10/25/2008 01:07:13 PM · #177
Originally posted by TCGuru:


Iraqi women are among the most educated women in the Middle East. Their numbers boast doctors, lawyers, judges, and even a member of parliament (WFI). Three very educated women were appointed to the recently established Iraqi governing council. These three women entered these positions at great risk to their lives. Tragically, one was shot and killed in September (Iraqi Governing Council Member Shot).


By 1980 women could stand for election to Parliament and local government. Laws were enacted making education mandatory for girls and boys between the ages of six and 10, and providing literacy programmes for adults. Labour and employment laws introduced provision for equal opportunities in the civil service, equal pay for equal work for women, maternity benefits, and freedom from harassment in the work place. During the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war ( For which Iraq was backed by 'the West' even during the worst of chemical warfare ), women’s emancipation suffered setbacks primarily as a result of the overall deterioration in the human rights situation. amnesty

That Iraqi women are more educated than say, Kuwait (which enjoyed full US support) is mostly due to pre-existing legislature, not the after effects of Gulf War II

Originally posted by TCGuru:

Risk, however, sharpens resolve for these women. They desperately want an Iraq where women do not need to fear anything. Despite failure, tyranny, and threats, they continue to push forward. Failure was defined for them in 1991 when the U.S. attacked and failed to remove Saddam from power. From that point, women were removed from their high position jobs. Iraqi women were also forced to halt their education. Prior to 1991, a working mother would be the recipient of five years of maternity leave (Katz). In the United States, women only dream of such wonderful employers.

They are very very brave, but to me this reinforces the notion that war is the least likely path that leads to positive change.

Personally I think women have been stuck between a rock and a hard place in the religious and geo-poitical scheme of things.. Here is a link to a statement by RAWA, Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan who have been fighting oppression for decades... Neither the US nor Jehadies and Taliban, Long Live the Struggle of Independent and Democratic Forces of Afghanistan!

Originally posted by TCGuru:

With all of the destruction, women in Iraq cringe when they give birth because of the child death rate. Their children under the age of five are dying from diarrhea, typhoid, pneumonia, and malnutrition. It is happening in astounding numbers. UNICEF reported in 1998 that there were 40,000 such deaths from these minor afflictions due to lack of water sanitation. Saddam sold all of the chemicals to treat the water (Al-Souhail).


The UN sanctions themselves did more damage in this regard than even a monster like Saddam could have:

From the horse's mouth: //www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

SUBJECT: IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES (U)
AS OF 18 JAN 91 KEY JUDGMENTS.

1. IRAO DEPENDS ON IMPORTING-SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT-AND
SOME CHEMICALS TO PURIFY ITS WATER SUPPLY, MOST OF WHICH IS
HEAVILY MINERALIZED AND FREQUENTLY BRACKISH TO SALINE.
2. WITH NO DOMESTIC SOURCES OF BOTH WATER TREATMENT REPLACEMENT PARTS AND SOME ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, IRAO WILL
CONTINUE ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS TO
IMPORT THESE VITAL COMMODITIES.
3. FAILING TO SECURE SUPPLIES WILL RESULT IN A SHORTAGE OF
PURE DRINKING WATER FOR MUCH OF THE POPULATION. THIS COULD LEAD
TO INCREASED INCIDENCES, IF NOT EPIDEMICS, OF DISEASE AND TO
CERTAIN PURE-WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES BECOMING INCAPACITATED,
INCLUDING PETRO CHEMICALS, FERTILIZERS, PETROLEUM REFINING,
ELECTRONICS,PHARMACEUTICALS, FOOD PROCESSING, TEXTILES, CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION,AND THERMAL POWERPLANTS.
4. IRAQ'S OVERALL WATER TREATMENT CAPABILITY WILL SUFFER A
SLOW DECLINE, RATHER THAN A PRECIPITOUS HALT, AS DWINDLING
SUPPLIES AND CANNIBALIZED PARTS ARE CONCENTRATED AT HIGHER
PRIORITY LOCATIONS. ALTHOUGH IRAQ IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING A LOSS
OF WATERTREATMENT CAPABILITY, IT PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST SIX
MONTHS (TO JUNE 1991) BEFORE THE SYSTEM IS FULLY DEGRADED.
5. UNLESS WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE
UNSANCTIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS, NO ADEQUATE SOLUTION
EXISTS FOR IRAQ'S WATER PURIFICATION DILEMMA, SINCE NO SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING LOOTING SUPPLIES FROM KUWAIT,
SUFFICIENTLY MEET IRAQI NEEDS.)

There are 28 points in total.

Message edited by author 2008-10-25 13:13:07.
10/25/2008 02:03:22 PM · #178
Originally posted by neophyte:

Where in this thread have they blamed the 9-11 attackers? Shouldn't they be held to the same scrutiny as the US?

Yes, at the very least. I think it's a given, even among liberals, that the attackers are to blame foremost. However, I repeat, the world is complicated. Besides, the point of the thread is not about 9/11, it's about Iraq, isn't it?


Originally posted by neophyte:

It happened, regardless of my ideology or anyones, no? I didn't mention jingoism either. You didn't need the dig. Your assumptions show your own limitations, not mine, and worse have no basis.

What did I miss? Weren't you referring to American liberal ideas when you said "all the ideology" didn't stop 9/11? Surely you weren't saying "all the terrorist ideology didn't stop 9/11" -- that wouldn't make sense. I was merely making the point that NOTHING stopped the 9/11 attacks. And no, I didn't say that you mentioned jingoism, I implied that you were being jingoistic. I thought you were one of those people who use phrases like “the blame America first crowd.” Sorry if the dig didn't fit.


Message edited by author 2008-10-25 14:16:06.
10/25/2008 02:07:53 PM · #179
Originally posted by TCGuru:

Those who signed up to make an easy buck have the option to GET OUT when their contract is up.



Unless they get stop-lossed and sent back to the sandbox for another year.
10/25/2008 02:38:31 PM · #180
Originally posted by Iraklis:


By 1980 women could stand for election to Parliament and local government. Laws were enacted making education mandatory for girls and boys between the ages of six and 10, and providing literacy programmes for adults. Labour and employment laws introduced provision for equal opportunities in the civil service, equal pay for equal work for women, maternity benefits, and freedom from harassment in the work place. During the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war ( For which Iraq was backed by 'the West' even during the worst of chemical warfare ), women’s emancipation suffered setbacks primarily as a result of the overall deterioration in the human rights situation. amnesty

That Iraqi women are more educated than say, Kuwait (which enjoyed full US support) is mostly due to pre-existing legislature, not the after effects of Gulf War II


Where exactly do I refute this? Actually, I believe that little paper backs this up, sweetie :) Where is it challenged? Because you quoted the EXACT place below that I said where we screwed them with the first Gulf war... (bolded for emphasis) I am hoping that they can get that back after OIF... ahhh to dream...

Originally posted by TCGuru:

Risk, however, sharpens resolve for these women. They desperately want an Iraq where women do not need to fear anything. Despite failure, tyranny, and threats, they continue to push forward. Failure was defined for them in 1991 when the U.S. attacked and failed to remove Saddam from power. From that point, women were removed from their high position jobs. Iraqi women were also forced to halt their education. Prior to 1991, a working mother would be the recipient of five years of maternity leave (Katz). In the United States, women only dream of such wonderful employers.


Originally posted by Iraklis:

They are very very brave, but to me this reinforces the notion that war is the least likely path that leads to positive change.


You have another way to remove their dictator? What would you have done? They tried other methods. Some of them even tried just leaving Iraq. Guess what he did. He hunted them down and killed their families. *shudder*

Originally posted by Iraklis:

Personally I think women have been stuck between a rock and a hard place in the religious and geo-poitical scheme of things.. Here is a link to a statement by RAWA, Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan who have been fighting oppression for decades... Neither the US nor Jehadies and Taliban, Long Live the Struggle of Independent and Democratic Forces of Afghanistan!


I tend to agree with this statement... Maybe we should give the country to them... they seem pretty driven :)

Originally posted by TCGuru:

With all of the destruction, women in Iraq cringe when they give birth because of the child death rate. Their children under the age of five are dying from diarrhea, typhoid, pneumonia, and malnutrition. It is happening in astounding numbers. UNICEF reported in 1998 that there were 40,000 such deaths from these minor afflictions due to lack of water sanitation. Saddam sold all of the chemicals to treat the water (Al-Souhail).


Originally posted by Iraklis:

The UN sanctions themselves did more damage in this regard than even a monster like Saddam could have:


Again, the work cited is from an e-mail that I received from an Iraqi woman who lived under the tyrant Saddam. He killed many members of her family. If you would like to read her entire e-mail to me, I would be happy to send it to you. She stated that instead of treating the water, he sold the chemicals. What you have referenced below is nothing but a citation about how the water needs to be treated and what could have been done. I know this. She told me. :)

Originally posted by Iraklis:

From the horse's mouth: //www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

SUBJECT: IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES (U)
AS OF 18 JAN 91 KEY JUDGMENTS.

1. IRAO DEPENDS ON IMPORTING-SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT-AND
SOME CHEMICALS TO PURIFY ITS WATER SUPPLY, MOST OF WHICH IS
HEAVILY MINERALIZED AND FREQUENTLY BRACKISH TO SALINE.
2. WITH NO DOMESTIC SOURCES OF BOTH WATER TREATMENT REPLACEMENT PARTS AND SOME ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, IRAO WILL
CONTINUE ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS TO
IMPORT THESE VITAL COMMODITIES.
3. FAILING TO SECURE SUPPLIES WILL RESULT IN A SHORTAGE OF
PURE DRINKING WATER FOR MUCH OF THE POPULATION. THIS COULD LEAD
TO INCREASED INCIDENCES, IF NOT EPIDEMICS, OF DISEASE AND TO
CERTAIN PURE-WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES BECOMING INCAPACITATED,
INCLUDING PETRO CHEMICALS, FERTILIZERS, PETROLEUM REFINING,
ELECTRONICS,PHARMACEUTICALS, FOOD PROCESSING, TEXTILES, CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION,AND THERMAL POWERPLANTS.
4. IRAQ'S OVERALL WATER TREATMENT CAPABILITY WILL SUFFER A
SLOW DECLINE, RATHER THAN A PRECIPITOUS HALT, AS DWINDLING
SUPPLIES AND CANNIBALIZED PARTS ARE CONCENTRATED AT HIGHER
PRIORITY LOCATIONS. ALTHOUGH IRAQ IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING A LOSS
OF WATERTREATMENT CAPABILITY, IT PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST SIX
MONTHS (TO JUNE 1991) BEFORE THE SYSTEM IS FULLY DEGRADED.
5. UNLESS WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE
UNSANCTIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS, NO ADEQUATE SOLUTION
EXISTS FOR IRAQ'S WATER PURIFICATION DILEMMA, SINCE NO SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING LOOTING SUPPLIES FROM KUWAIT,
SUFFICIENTLY MEET IRAQI NEEDS.)

There are 28 points in total.


Originally posted by Spazmo99:


Unless they get stop-lossed and sent back to the sandbox for another year.


They still signed that little paper... you gotta read the fine print when signing any contract... doesn't matter if you claim stupidity after the fact.
10/25/2008 02:44:51 PM · #181
Originally posted by TCGuru:

You have another way to remove their dictator? What would you have done?

Originally posted by JMart:

So, are you arguing that the US should be intervening in every country in the world where such atrocities are occurring? Where was the US when the Hutu Militia killed nearly a million Tutsis in Rwanda?
10/25/2008 02:51:35 PM · #182
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by TCGuru:

You have another way to remove their dictator? What would you have done?

Originally posted by JMart:

So, are you arguing that the US should be intervening in every country in the world where such atrocities are occurring? Where was the US when the Hutu Militia killed nearly a million Tutsis in Rwanda?


LOL!! Still not arguing, asking for other opinions/actions preferred :)

What would you have done? Simple question. But one I think requires a lot of thought.
10/25/2008 04:20:25 PM · #183
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Ignorance is showing on the other side of this discussion for sure. Anyone who thinks the USA truly has a representative democracy operating is sort of misinformed. I got a thread on that somewhere, but it isn't drawing any responses, presumably because it flies in the face of long-held beliefs...

R.


No, I meant this thread referencing a Harper's magazine piece on the nature of "democracy" . It did not receive much attention, which is a shame IMO.

R.
10/25/2008 04:30:39 PM · #184
Originally posted by TCGuru:



Originally posted by Spazmo99:


Unless they get stop-lossed and sent back to the sandbox for another year.


They still signed that little paper... you gotta read the fine print when signing any contract... doesn't matter if you claim stupidity after the fact.


So all the soldiers that get stop-lossed and complain about it are stupid? Glad to see you hold them in such high regard.

It amounts to nothing more than a "backdoor draft". Just because they "can" doesn't make it right.
10/25/2008 04:37:38 PM · #185
Originally posted by TCGuru:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by TCGuru:

You have another way to remove their dictator? What would you have done?

Originally posted by JMart:

So, are you arguing that the US should be intervening in every country in the world where such atrocities are occurring? Where was the US when the Hutu Militia killed nearly a million Tutsis in Rwanda?


LOL!! Still not arguing, asking for other opinions/actions preferred :)

What would you have done? Simple question. But one I think requires a lot of thought.

In the case of Iraq I would not have invaded in the first place. I participated in marches and demonstrations, wrote letters to my representatives and debated with friends and colleagues about it to try to get people to wake up to the mistake we were about to make. Instead I would have kept up the UN inspections to protect the US/allies from WMD. That was the pressing issue of the time and the US population would never have agreed to invading Iraq without the threat of WMD.

If the issue is what we should do about human rights abuses outside of the US, then that is another huge topic that probably deserves its own thread. As I said, the US would never have invaded Iraq if it was just to stop the human rights violations just as we have not invaded countless other countries for human rights violations that are happening right now as we surf the web. Does that mean the US shouldn't be the world's policemen? Should the US military go around the globe deposing every dictator and evil regime that commits horrible atrocities? Well, that's another rant/debate entirely than what this thread is about. I personally don't believe the US can stomach the loss of life, blowback and high economic cost of actually becoming global police, but again, that's another debate.
10/25/2008 05:15:52 PM · #186
Bear, your thread is in the rant category. Doesn't appear in the main menu.
10/25/2008 06:04:58 PM · #187
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by TCGuru:



Originally posted by Spazmo99:


Unless they get stop-lossed and sent back to the sandbox for another year.


They still signed that little paper... you gotta read the fine print when signing any contract... doesn't matter if you claim stupidity after the fact.


So all the soldiers that get stop-lossed and complain about it are stupid? Glad to see you hold them in such high regard.

It amounts to nothing more than a "backdoor draft". Just because they "can" doesn't make it right.


Yes. They are. They are complaining about having to do their job. One they are paid for. If they didn't expect to go fight a war, they shouldn't have signed up in the first place.

Think of it as a wedding photography business. You sign the contract saying you will be at the wedding and produce images. Do you go there and complain? It is, after all, what you were trained for. You are also being paid for it.

I might be better able to understand if they made no money or were forced to sign the contract in the first place.
10/25/2008 06:12:02 PM · #188
Originally posted by JMart:


In the case of Iraq I would not have invaded in the first place. I participated in marches and demonstrations, wrote letters to my representatives and debated with friends and colleagues about it to try to get people to wake up to the mistake we were about to make. Instead I would have kept up the UN inspections to protect the US/allies from WMD. That was the pressing issue of the time and the US population would never have agreed to invading Iraq without the threat of WMD.

If the issue is what we should do about human rights abuses outside of the US, then that is another huge topic that probably deserves its own thread. As I said, the US would never have invaded Iraq if it was just to stop the human rights violations just as we have not invaded countless other countries for human rights violations that are happening right now as we surf the web. Does that mean the US shouldn't be the world's policemen? Should the US military go around the globe deposing every dictator and evil regime that commits horrible atrocities? Well, that's another rant/debate entirely than what this thread is about. I personally don't believe the US can stomach the loss of life, blowback and high economic cost of actually becoming global police, but again, that's another debate.


How would you have kept up the UN inspections? Saddam wouldn't let them in to look for them for a long while. I think he was just seeing how far he could push...

As far as WMDs go, I think Ms. AlSouhail had it right when she stated that Saddam himself is a WMD. If we leave there now, before the country has the power to govern itself, another will just take his place.

I agree about the human rights issue in another thread but was just trying to show one of the things (collateral, yes) that happened to happen when this war did start. Even if nothing else good comes of it.
10/25/2008 06:30:33 PM · #189
Originally posted by Jac:


And I was gaining respect for you OO. You just blew that all away dude.


Damn!
10/25/2008 07:55:09 PM · #190
Originally posted by TCGuru:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by TCGuru:



Originally posted by Spazmo99:


Unless they get stop-lossed and sent back to the sandbox for another year.


They still signed that little paper... you gotta read the fine print when signing any contract... doesn't matter if you claim stupidity after the fact.


So all the soldiers that get stop-lossed and complain about it are stupid? Glad to see you hold them in such high regard.

It amounts to nothing more than a "backdoor draft". Just because they "can" doesn't make it right.


Yes. They are. They are complaining about having to do their job. One they are paid for. If they didn't expect to go fight a war, they shouldn't have signed up in the first place.

Think of it as a wedding photography business. You sign the contract saying you will be at the wedding and produce images. Do you go there and complain? It is, after all, what you were trained for. You are also being paid for it.

I might be better able to understand if they made no money or were forced to sign the contract in the first place.


I'd better understand if the fact that the end date of their contract means nothing was made clear when they signed up.

If you agreed to shoot a wedding on one Saturday is it fair to be expected to document their first anniversary as well?
10/25/2008 08:00:47 PM · #191
Originally posted by TCGuru:

Originally posted by JMart:


In the case of Iraq I would not have invaded in the first place. I participated in marches and demonstrations, wrote letters to my representatives and debated with friends and colleagues about it to try to get people to wake up to the mistake we were about to make. Instead I would have kept up the UN inspections to protect the US/allies from WMD. That was the pressing issue of the time and the US population would never have agreed to invading Iraq without the threat of WMD.

If the issue is what we should do about human rights abuses outside of the US, then that is another huge topic that probably deserves its own thread. As I said, the US would never have invaded Iraq if it was just to stop the human rights violations just as we have not invaded countless other countries for human rights violations that are happening right now as we surf the web. Does that mean the US shouldn't be the world's policemen? Should the US military go around the globe deposing every dictator and evil regime that commits horrible atrocities? Well, that's another rant/debate entirely than what this thread is about. I personally don't believe the US can stomach the loss of life, blowback and high economic cost of actually becoming global police, but again, that's another debate.


How would you have kept up the UN inspections? Saddam wouldn't let them in to look for them for a long while. I think he was just seeing how far he could push...

As far as WMDs go, I think Ms. AlSouhail had it right when she stated that Saddam himself is a WMD. If we leave there now, before the country has the power to govern itself, another will just take his place.

I agree about the human rights issue in another thread but was just trying to show one of the things (collateral, yes) that happened to happen when this war did start. Even if nothing else good comes of it.


Invading Iraq was the US doing a HUGE favor for the Iranians. They're the ones who will benefit the most from this U.S. blunder in the Middle East.

One way took at it is if you think Iraq was a good idea, you must support Iran.

WTG Bush!
10/25/2008 08:17:38 PM · #192
TC,

You dont refute it and can see why you called me on it. I was further stressing that involvement in the past, either funding an 8 year war with Iran , Gulf war I (in defense of a country with even grosser violations of human rights against women) and the sanctions exacerbated the problem. The assertion that war and occupation will result in their betterment is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by TCGuru:

Again, the work cited is from an e-mail that I received from an Iraqi woman who lived under the tyrant Saddam. He killed many members of her family. If you would like to read her entire e-mail to me, I would be happy to send it to you. She stated that instead of treating the water, he sold the chemicals. What you have referenced below is nothing but a citation about how the water needs to be treated and what could have been done. I know this. She told me. :)


What wass referenced is not a citation on how water needs to be treated but a report on what is to follow as a result of the embargo imposed. Point 5 refers to this as do many others thereafter:

5. UNLESS WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE
UN SANCTIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS, NO ADEQUATE SOLUTION
EXISTS FOR IRAQ'S WATER PURIFICATION DILEMMA, SINCE NO SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING LOOTING SUPPLIES FROM KUWAIT,
SUFFICIENTLY MEET IRAQI NEEDS.)

Message edited by author 2008-10-25 20:26:58.
10/25/2008 10:01:54 PM · #193
Originally posted by Iraklis:

TC,

You dont refute it and can see why you called me on it. I was further stressing that involvement in the past, either funding an 8 year war with Iran , Gulf war I (in defense of a country with even grosser violations of human rights against women) and the sanctions exacerbated the problem. The assertion that war and occupation will result in their betterment is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by TCGuru:

Again, the work cited is from an e-mail that I received from an Iraqi woman who lived under the tyrant Saddam. He killed many members of her family. If you would like to read her entire e-mail to me, I would be happy to send it to you. She stated that instead of treating the water, he sold the chemicals. What you have referenced below is nothing but a citation about how the water needs to be treated and what could have been done. I know this. She told me. :)


What wass referenced is not a citation on how water needs to be treated but a report on what is to follow as a result of the embargo imposed. Point 5 refers to this as do many others thereafter:

5. UNLESS WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE
UN SANCTIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS, NO ADEQUATE SOLUTION
EXISTS FOR IRAQ'S WATER PURIFICATION DILEMMA, SINCE NO SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING LOOTING SUPPLIES FROM KUWAIT,
SUFFICIENTLY MEET IRAQI NEEDS.)


This report is from 1991...?
10/25/2008 11:22:30 PM · #194
Originally posted by TCGuru:


How would you have kept up the UN inspections? Saddam wouldn't let them in to look for them for a long while. I think he was just seeing how far he could push...

Yes, the inspections were hampered by Saddam, but they ultimately were allowed to inspect and they were far more successful than Bush was willing to give credit for. In fact, the weapons inspectors were in Iraq and had to evacuate the country at the outset of the war. Doing things through diplomacy is often a long and difficult route and it's sad that Bush (and no thanks to congress either) was too impetuous and ended up making such a monumental mistake in starting a war before diplomatic options were exhausted (as he had promised).

Originally posted by TCGuru:


As far as WMDs go, I think Ms. AlSouhail had it right when she stated that Saddam himself is a WMD. If we leave there now, before the country has the power to govern itself, another will just take his place.

Saddam is dead and calling him a WMD is hyperbole. If we call Saddam a WMD then perhaps we should also invade North Korea to take care the WMD there, A.K.A. Kim Jong Ill. While we're at it I'm sure we can call many of the world's despots WMD, but unless they have oil you can bet we won't invade their countries.

Now that we've broken Iraq, it would be nice if we could fix it (and perhaps we should have considered how that would happen before we broke it). I'm not confident about when or how the US should exit Iraq, but the Republicans have totally lost my trust on the issue. I have more trust that Obama would get into office and be willing to stretch the stay in Iraq within a reasonable limit if he believed the Iraqis need it to sustain their own security. I'm also confident he'll get the US out if it's a no win situation or to motivate the Iraqis if they're just dragging their feet.

Originally posted by TCGuru:


I agree about the human rights issue in another thread but was just trying to show one of the things (collateral, yes) that happened to happen when this war did start. Even if nothing else good comes of it.

I think we can all hope for more along these lines. We are irrevocably at this point in history and we can use all of the good news stories we can find.

My only hesitation at this point in cheering too loudly for the stories you've cited is, well, it feels to me like having someone say, "Hey, I just saved someone by rushing him to the hospital!" and wanting everyone to ignore that fact that his reckless driving cost several lives in a multi-car pile up. So, while I appreciate the good news in Iraq, in the context of a debate like this it starts sounding more like an excuse to cover up a terrible and costly decision. I understand that was not necessarily your intent and it's just the context of the larger Iraq debate that makes me react negatively to news that, in isolation, I welcome and am very happy about.
10/26/2008 08:28:49 AM · #195
Originally posted by TCGuru:

What wass referenced is not a citation on how water needs to be treated but a report on what is to follow as a result of the embargo imposed. Point 5 refers to this as do many others thereafter:

5. UNLESS WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE
UN SANCTIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS, NO ADEQUATE SOLUTION
EXISTS FOR IRAQ'S WATER PURIFICATION DILEMMA, SINCE NO SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING LOOTING SUPPLIES FROM KUWAIT,
SUFFICIENTLY MEET IRAQI NEEDS.)


This report is from 1991...? [/quote]

Right, I think the point being that after the first gulf war, when we did NOT invade & occupy Iraq, terrible damage was done to the "innocent civilians" via this embargo (which was WMD-motivated) and it is hypocritical to act as if that was somehow more humane than the current occupation.

I'm not sure though, to tell the truth, if that's the point he was making by referencing this report...

R.
10/26/2008 09:32:07 AM · #196
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


I'd better understand if the fact that the end date of their contract means nothing was made clear when they signed up.

If you agreed to shoot a wedding on one Saturday is it fair to be expected to document their first anniversary as well?


What if it clearly states that if they need you in an emergency they are able to call on you and you can't say no? Would you have still signed it in the first place? If you did sign it without reading it and they called on you, would you go and complain about it?
10/26/2008 09:55:59 AM · #197
Originally posted by TCGuru:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:


I'd better understand if the fact that the end date of their contract means nothing was made clear when they signed up.

If you agreed to shoot a wedding on one Saturday is it fair to be expected to document their first anniversary as well?


What if it clearly states that if they need you in an emergency they are able to call on you and you can't say no? Would you have still signed it in the first place? If you did sign it without reading it and they called on you, would you go and complain about it?

Hmm, it seems like the stop loss arguments have truth on all sides. Yes, it serves as a sort of back-door draft that enlistees didn't anticipate given the historical use of the national guard, but yes, they did sign up and should have realized they were taking a serious gamble that they could be used for long term duties.

I don't blame some of them for complaining and I'm no fan of the Iraq invasion or the stop-loss "back door draft", but at the end of the day the arguments sort of sound like someone who just lost what they thought was a good bet and perhaps they shouldn't have gambled if the possibilities were too much for them. I remember when I was younger seeing the attractive National Guard commercials that touted being a civilian professional during the week and getting paid for the excitement of defending your country on the weekends. Even 20 years ago it was no mystery to me that people who chose to do that were also risking being put on the front line of a real war. We all take our risks, we are free to complain when they don't go well for us, but ultimately risk choices like this one are ours to make or not to make.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/24/2020 11:28:52 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/24/2020 11:28:52 AM EST.