Obama and Iraq

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Obama and Iraq

 The President is stating "No Quick Fix". Not sure how well that is going to go over to be honest :

www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28725908

Iraq crisis: No quick fix, Barack Obama warns

US President Barack Obama has warned it is "going to take some time" to help Iraqis overcome the jihadist-led Sunni rebellion and stabilise their country.

It would be a "long-term project" to revamp and resupply the military and build support among Sunnis, he said.

Mr Obama stressed that progress would depend on Iraqis coming together and forming an inclusive government.

The Islamic State (IS), formerly known as Isis, has seized swathes of northern and western Iraq in recent months.

Mr Obama said air strikes on Friday - the first time US forces have been directly involved in a military operation in Iraq since they withdrew from the country in late 2011 - had destroyed IS arms and equipment.

They had also prevented attacks by the al-Qaeda breakaway on thousands of members of the Yazidi religious minority group stranded on a mountain in the north-west, the president added.

'Safe corridor'

The Yazidis fled to Mount Sinjar a week ago after IS fighters overran a nearby town where many had been sheltering over the past two months.

Earlier, the UK said it had sent a cargo plane to help with the relief operation that has seen US aircraft drop thousands of bottles of water and ration packs in the area over the past two days.

One C-17 and two C-130 transporters dropped 72 bundles of supplies, according to the Pentagon. They were escorted by F/A-18 Hornet jets launched from the USS George H W Bush aircraft carrier in the Gulf.

"We feel confident we can prevent [IS] from going up the mountain and slaughtering the people who are there," Mr Obama said.

"But the next step, which is going to be complicated logistically, is how do we give safe passage for people down from the mountain and where can we ultimately relocate them so that they are safe."

France would begin deliveries of first aid equipment to Iraq in the next few hours, President Francois Hollande's office announced.

IS fighters meanwhile began hoisting their black flags at the Mosul dam, Iraq's largest, and patrolling its perimeter, days after seizing the facility.

Mr Obama said a long-term strategy was needed to confront the jihadists.

He would not give a timetable for US military involvement, saying it would depend on Iraq's religious, ethnic and political groups forming an inclusive government.

"I don't think we are going to solve this problem in weeks,'' he said. "I think this is going to take some time."

"The Iraqi security forces - in order to mount an offensive and be able to operate effectively with the support of populations in Sunni areas - are going to have to revamp and get resupplied and have a clear strategy. That is all going to be dependent on a government that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi military can have confidence in."

Iraq's politicians have been unable to form a government since April's parliamentary elections, which were won by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's State of Law Coalition.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 Everybody talks about how

 Everybody talks about how we shouldn't have left but Bush signed an agreement to leave at a specific time. Obama tried to extend the deadline but Iraq said no. So now they want our help again? How about giving up some oil for free?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think preventing this

I think preventing this group from taking Iraq and Syria are a greater reward than oil. This is the first military action the US has taken part in since the 90's that I can support in any way. Unfortunate that it was the same US that allowed it to happen in the first place, but that doesn't change the current scenario. The US military is actually saving civilians who need and want their help. That's kind of amazing, even if the motive is self interest.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I think

Vastet wrote:
I think preventing this group from taking Iraq and Syria are a greater reward than oil. This is the first military action the US has taken part in since the 90's that I can support in any way. Unfortunate that it was the same US that allowed it to happen in the first place, but that doesn't change the current scenario. The US military is actually saving civilians who need and want their help. That's kind of amazing, even if the motive is self interest.

I agree with the action. I say bomb the shit out of the ISIS. Bomb them just like what happened during Desert Storm in the 90's.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I think preventing this group from taking Iraq and Syria are a greater reward than oil. This is the first military action the US has taken part in since the 90's that I can support in any way. Unfortunate that it was the same US that allowed it to happen in the first place, but that doesn't change the current scenario. The US military is actually saving civilians who need and want their help. That's kind of amazing, even if the motive is self interest.

I agree with the action. I say bomb the shit out of the ISIS. Bomb them just like what happened during Desert Storm in the 90's.

 

Then what? Bombing has never worked in history short of nuclear. You can't win a war with bombing alone. This is what I meant in the other thread on Gaza. War sucks and if you want to win it you have to go in with the attitude that you are going to completely annihilate all of the enemy, you have to be completely ruthless, totalitarian and not give a shit about any civilians caught in the crossfire. If you do, this is what happens and you will lose. This is why the US hasn't won a war since WW2 despite having a vastly superior military.

William Tecumseh Sherman wrote:

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

He was right, and we are now seeing the results of trying to be nice in war. We should have two modes, all out war and peace. This inbetween shit we get involved in has never improved anything for anyone. 
 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:War

Beyond Saving wrote:
War sucks and if you want to win it you have to go in with the attitude that you are going to completely annihilate all of the enemy, you have to be completely ruthless, totalitarian and not give a shit about any civilians caught in the crossfire.


 

  Should the distinction between combatant and non-combatant be eliminated ?  Would the UCMJ be discarded ?  Would the prosecution of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity"  and "genocide" become irrelevant ?

  I don't deny the effectivesness of wholesale destruction in warfare.  Killing civilians is effective.  It achieves an end.   Dead people can't fight back.  If the US ever openly embraced these military doctrines then our government should issue an official apology to Germany and Japan. They absolutely led the way in this type of warfare and they were punished for it.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
War sucks and if you want to win it you have to go in with the attitude that you are going to completely annihilate all of the enemy, you have to be completely ruthless, totalitarian and not give a shit about any civilians caught in the crossfire.


 

  Should the distinction between combatant and non-combatant be eliminated ?  Would the UCMJ be discarded ?  Would the prosecution of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity"  and "genocide" become irrelevant ?

  I don't deny the effectivesness of wholesale destruction in warfare.  Killing civilians is effective.  It achieves an end.   Dead people can't fight back.  If the US ever openly embraced these military doctrines then our government should issue an official apology to Germany and Japan. They absolutely led the way in this type of warfare and they were punished for it.

I don't see a benefit to specifically targeting civilians, but when you are passing on legitimate military targets because you want to avoid civilian casualties, the other side learns that. All the IED attacks in Iraq, we knew who the people were who were planting the IEDs, but instead of giving them a new hole in their head, we arrested them and they faced trial where they were inevitably found not guilty and planting IEDs next week on the same route. They would go home and sit with their families and because they were with civilians, we wouldn't do anything about it. This is an enemy without a country, that doesn't wear uniforms and sure as hell doesn't care about the rules. 

Also, we need to stop the whole idea of trying to build a democracy in a country that doesn't have the groundwork. The colonial model worked. If we go take over a country, take the damn thing over. You don't put in low level hacks from the previous government you just conquered. Put in our government, tax them for resources and don't let them be their own country until they have the organization to demand it. If you aren't willing to do that, you shouldn't go to war in the first place.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:William

Beyond Saving wrote:

William Tecumseh Sherman wrote:

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

 

   Okay, your ROE seems to fall well short of advocating what General Sherman seems to with his apparent emphasis on cruelty.   The incidental deaths of civilians, while perhaps a necessary by-product, is still a far cry from using cruelty itself as weapon, such as was done by the Nazis and  Imperial Japan.    If we accept that we will be forced to kill the innocent in order to kill the guilty then we forfeit the right to criticise other nations who already employ these methods. It's only logical unless the US wants to look like a nation of hypocrites.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
To be honest, there is a

To be honest, there is a tactical benefit to killing civilians. The benefit of killing civilians is horror and terror. Or, if you can kill all or the vast majority of them, instant victory.

I think the loss of Nagasaki & Hiroshima was secondary to the evaporation of a couple hundred thousand people, with witnesses. If Japan could have returned the favour, I have little doubt they would have. Since they didn't have the technology, all they could really do is be terrorised at the possibility of a repeat, without knowing where or when it might happen.

The tactical flaw in killing civilians is that once you do it, any enemies or potential enemies you have left will start doing the same thing (if they can). It is because of this that the Geneva Conventions came to be. A promise that no nation will target civilians, so that no nation will target civilians. Because no nation wants to see their backbone get obliterated.

In this day and age, barring the discovery of a new weapons technology that would render nukes as obsolete, there is no feasible way for one nation to target civilians in a true rival without experiencing the same tactic being used on them. But I have absolutely no doubt that should such a weapon be discovered, it will be used. If you can target civilians without having to be concerned with your own, targeting civilians is the quickest and surest way to victory.

Even the US would surrender in a heartbeat if Somalia blew up New York, L.A., and Washington without warning using technology that was unknown to the US and its allies. I use Somalia to illustrate the irrelevance of standard methods of measuring power between nations when a weapons technology is owned by one side that completely outperforms the weapons technology on the other.

The morality of the action will always be secondary to the effectiveness of the action. There probably aren't many people in a military command structure who would be held back from such an action by ethical concerns. Even I, with no formal training in weapons or warfare, can see how effective such a move would be. I can see myself approving such an action if it were in my power, simply because destroying the enemy and saving my friends trumps the potential for my name to be dragged through the dirt for all time. The whole idea repulses me on an emotional level, and if I were ever responsible for doing so I don't think that I could live with it. But that wouldn't be enough to stop me from doing it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Then

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then what? Bombing has never worked in history short of nuclear. You can't win a war with bombing alone. This is what I meant in the other thread on Gaza. War sucks and if you want to win it you have to go in with the attitude that you are going to completely annihilate all of the enemy, you have to be completely ruthless, totalitarian and not give a shit about any civilians caught in the crossfire. If you do, this is what happens and you will lose. This is why the US hasn't won a war since WW2 despite having a vastly superior military.

My understanding is that we bomb them and use the ground forces from Iraq to handle them.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Keep in mind what happens

Keep in mind what happens when civ's die during a battle. Keep in mind how it flames the fire of anger and revenge. Recruitment goes up. Children grow up hating the country which bombed their family.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then what? Bombing has never worked in history short of nuclear. You can't win a war with bombing alone. This is what I meant in the other thread on Gaza. War sucks and if you want to win it you have to go in with the attitude that you are going to completely annihilate all of the enemy, you have to be completely ruthless, totalitarian and not give a shit about any civilians caught in the crossfire. If you do, this is what happens and you will lose. This is why the US hasn't won a war since WW2 despite having a vastly superior military.

My understanding is that we bomb them and use the ground forces from Iraq to handle them.

What ground forces? Iraq has no competent army, and most of the army isn't willing to die for their government. Hence, why ISIS trounced them so easily. 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Keep in mind what happens when civ's die during a battle. Keep in mind how it flames the fire of anger and revenge. Recruitment goes up. Children grow up hating the country which bombed their family.

 

That is a nice theory, but it isn't supported by history. The idea that the people in any country are going to support any invader if you are just nice to them has been proven wrong time and again. Even though we were "nice" during our invasion, far more civilians died than soldiers. Most from displacement, starvation and lack of medical care. Our intense bombing of Germany, while on the surface was at "military targets" killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands of civilians. If we had solely carried out surgical strikes in Japan, we would have been at war with them for another 5 years and a few million more deaths on each side. What war has ever been won in history avoiding civilian deaths?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

William Tecumseh Sherman wrote:

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

 

   Okay, your ROE seems to fall well short of advocating what General Sherman seems to with his apparent emphasis on cruelty.   The incidental deaths of civilians, while perhaps a necessary by-product, is still a far cry from using cruelty itself as weapon, such as was done by the Nazis and  Imperial Japan.    If we accept that we will be forced to kill the innocent in order to kill the guilty then we forfeit the right to criticise other nations who already employ these methods. It's only logical unless the US wants to look like a nation of hypocrites.

Sherman didn't target civilians themselves. He destroyed and foraged everything in his path, which caused great problems for civilians as their economic means of livelihood were destroyed, but it wasn't a mass slaughter try to kill as many of them as you can. War is a little different now that there is no need for our army to forage, but infrastructure is definitely fair game. It also depends on the situation. In Iraq, I don't think there is a lot of benefit targeting civilians because ISIS doesn't care about them. If we were to go to war with China, we had better be ready to completely level their cities to the point they can't produce anything ASAP and force their citizens to go back to an agrarian society, because if we don't, we lose. 

For the record, I don't think we should fuck with Iraq. There simply isn't a good side, and whichever side we support is going to turn on us in the future. Let them kill each other and let them figure things out themselves. I'm not willing to lose any more friends over the barbarians. I think we should only go to war when there is a direct and immediate threat to us and when we do, we should be extremely ruthless to the point that no country wants to fuck with us again. If I was President, I would want every country to think I was batshit crazy enough to fire our whole nuclear arsenal. But overall, I'm a pascifist who doesn't even want to fire a Tomahawk. The US has gotten way too involved in the 20th century over little pissant wars and none of them have turned out good for us, or for the people we were supposedly helping. Then a few years later blowing up the weapons we sent over there.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: What

Beyond Saving wrote:

What ground forces? Iraq has no competent army, and most of the army isn't willing to die for their government. Hence, why ISIS trounced them so easily. 

That is a nice theory, but it isn't supported by history. The idea that the people in any country are going to support any invader if you are just nice to them has been proven wrong time and again. Even though we were "nice" during our invasion, far more civilians died than soldiers. Most from displacement, starvation and lack of medical care. Our intense bombing of Germany, while on the surface was at "military targets" killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands of civilians. If we had solely carried out surgical strikes in Japan, we would have been at war with them for another 5 years and a few million more deaths on each side. What war has ever been won in history avoiding civilian deaths?

I am not sure if that is completely true. We have 300 troops there doing something, not sure what, but they are there.

Each country has a different result. We are talking a country of extremists, but also we were the good guys in Germany. Look at the crimes the Germans did and the response from the French, Polish and others did to create some of the single most powerful combatants during WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement#World_War_II

The Germans were not like for their brutality.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:For the

Beyond Saving wrote:

For the record, I don't think we should fuck with Iraq. There simply isn't a good side, and whichever side we support is going to turn on us in the future. Let them kill each other and let them figure things out themselves. I'm not willing to lose any more friends over the barbarians.

 

   I agree.  BTW, American soldiers haven't "defended" American freedom since 1945.   All subsequent wars have been simply about asserting our presence in trying to offset the influence of the  former Soviet Union and to a lesser degree China.   Our military presence in the Middle East, at least to the present degree, is completely out of proprtion to the actual threat.  Get the hell out and let the Muslims do what they do best, kill each other over religious differences.  They aren't worth a single drop of American blood.

 

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
I think we should only go to war when there is a direct and immediate threat to us and when we do, we should be extremely ruthless to the point that no country wants to fuck with us again. If I was President, I would want every country to think I was batshit crazy enough to fire our whole nuclear arsenal. But overall, I'm a pascifist who doesn't even want to fire a Tomahawk. The US has gotten way too involved in the 20th century over little pissant wars and none of them have turned out good for us, or for the people we were supposedly helping. Then a few years later blowing up the weapons we sent over there.

 

    My military doctrine would be Fuck The World (  and maybe a miltary patch saying "pedicabo ego mundo" ? )  To other nations, leave us alone and we'll leave you alone, otherwise we'll smash you like an egg under a sledge hammer.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

 

The Germans were not like for their brutality.

 

    Neither were the Romans, but one would assume  armies that employ brutality probably aren't too concerned about being liked,  ..... being feared was good enough.     And suppressing uprisings and rebellions  was probably just thought of as simply the price you pay for ruling with an iron fist.   Business as usual, so to speak.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Keep

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Keep in mind what happens when civ's die during a battle. Keep in mind how it flames the fire of anger and revenge. Recruitment goes up. Children grow up hating the country which bombed their family.

 

1: Assuming there are sufficient numbers of survivors to be considered a population. Or any survivors at all.

2: Assuming you don't make damn sure any survivors are subjugated. After they are subjugated you rebuild the country and make sure there's a good education system, economic system, and government system at the very least. After a generation or two you start to pull out. As long as you aren't unnecessarily brutal and hypocritical while you're in complete control, the people won't seek revenge anymore than Germany or Italy or France or Japan or etc. have.

The reason the middle east has never gotten over it is because it's all been half assed bullshit fucking everything up decade after decade after decade after decade. Puppet dictatorships and puppet revolutions and even the outside instalation of a foreign state supported by one world power or another in increasing frequency since Napoleon first took Egypt just a bit more than 210 years ago.

It really goes a lot further back but so does it for everywhere. Most of the world outside Africa and the Middle East has seen mostly peace since the 1800's, spattered with an occasional war or revolution, and of course the war of 1812, which probably should be considered the first world war, and WW's 1 & 2.

But neither the Middle East nor Africa has ever received the same kind of treatment the rest of the world has. They've been a stomping ground for the world powers for more than 200 years straight. France, England, the US, Russia, Italy, and Germany have all meddled around in the Middle East during that time. Africa has even more countries meddling than that.

South America is really in the same boat, except that they somehow have managed to bind together to reject outside influence and are starting to approach being first world type nations despite all the crap thrown their way. They've a ways to go yet but all signs are pointing to success. It may be because the interference wasn't as heavy, since the interfering countries were much further away for the most part.

Half the problem with all the recent wars is that the actual invasion force is beyond insufficient. After Vietnam the US stopped committing itself full force to a war, and does it's damndest to ensure as many soldiers survive as possible. That's great for the average lifespan of a soldier, but you cannot conquer a nation with drones and airstrikes. You need boots on the ground. LOTS of boots on the ground. As many as possible. For a long long time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Desperate plea

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

William Tecumseh Sherman wrote:

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it.

 . .  is still a far cry from using cruelty itself as weapon, such as was done by the Nazis and  Imperial Japan.

  Desperate plea

 

    Ruin . . Hope lives on  . . .

 'War' of Currents (the sin is on your head)

  I was looking up something I ran across early on today. Rising real-life tensions between Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla and the dark horse later on a Mr. George Westinghouse  was all too real,  I'm afraid.  In the ominous passage in the preview of "Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla". In it, from which I will quote, the work highlights something of great  ''cruelty'' .. Not your least humane but torturous charges for charges for onlookers direct one's gaze "to the horror of it all presented, the chest began to heave, foam literally issued from the mouth, with spasms, and that from the condemned man gave evidence still of reviving" This is about the Electric Chair, where execution method was created by employees of Thomas Edison the first execution by electrocution in history was ironically a true Public Relations Snafu... After he was strapped in, a charge of approximately 700 volts was delivered for bring a charge with the intent to end him. It didn't quite do the job from all accounts on the scene. I need not go on. What am I thinking about in this? But, I say too much!!

  '' ..for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner ''  --Henry V,  Act 3

 

 



  All set then ?  In my words, '' . . Idet den optukter oss til å fornekte ugudelighet og de verdslige lyster og leve tuktig og rettferdig og gudfryktig i den nuværende verden . . '' 



  Addressed to 0ff-site -- 

    0ff-site:: 0ff-site::

  '' ..for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner ''  --Henry V,  Act 3

  

 

   NOT THIS TIME !!  Again, To  reiterate to the chronically clueless among us.    So you understand .. I did this to protect and certainly not hurt.    Oh, Elders --  To reiterate. I say, Pray tell me WHEN WAS THIS EVER ABOUT YOU, care to explain yourself ?!!  That'd be great, I think ?!! What's it like to never be wrong, that must be something, huh ?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

What ground forces? Iraq has no competent army, and most of the army isn't willing to die for their government. Hence, why ISIS trounced them so easily. 

That is a nice theory, but it isn't supported by history. The idea that the people in any country are going to support any invader if you are just nice to them has been proven wrong time and again. Even though we were "nice" during our invasion, far more civilians died than soldiers. Most from displacement, starvation and lack of medical care. Our intense bombing of Germany, while on the surface was at "military targets" killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands of civilians. If we had solely carried out surgical strikes in Japan, we would have been at war with them for another 5 years and a few million more deaths on each side. What war has ever been won in history avoiding civilian deaths?

I am not sure if that is completely true. We have 300 troops there doing something, not sure what, but they are there.

Sites I have read are reporting more around 750-800. Mostly protecting the embassy and prepared to evacuate the American citizens that are still in Iraq. Plus probably a few recon Marines running green ops, painting targets for the air strikes. Maybe a few SF teams running black ops, but you won't hear anything about them unless shit goes really bad. Rumor has it that a contingent of Green Berets has also been attached to "advise" the Iraqi military.

 

Quote:
 

Each country has a different result. We are talking a country of extremists, but also we were the good guys in Germany. Look at the crimes the Germans did and the response from the French, Polish and others did to create some of the single most powerful combatants during WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement#World_War_II

The Germans were not like for their brutality.

We were only the good guys in our eyes. The Germans didn't think much of us when we were firebombing them, and we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians before we even got around to going nuclear with Japan. We killed some 25,000 civilians by burning them to death in Dresden alone. The only reason we are the "good guys" is because we won and history is written by the victors. When it comes to civilian casualties, the Allies shit doesn't exactly smell like roses. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

 

The Germans were not like for their brutality.

 

    Neither were the Romans, but one would assume  armies that employ brutality probably aren't too concerned about being liked,  ..... being feared was good enough.     And suppressing uprisings and rebellions  was probably just thought of as simply the price you pay for ruling with an iron fist.   Business as usual, so to speak.

I'd say it is just the price you pay for ruling a foreign land. The British Empire faced its fair share of uprisings and rebellions, and it was hardly a tyrannical ruler. Every country that was ruled by the British Empire was far better off than their neighbors in nearly every measure. Hell, even democracies have their share of domestic uprisings. Government is always implemented through force, even the relatively benevolent ones. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Sites I

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sites I have read are reporting more around 750-800. Mostly protecting the embassy and prepared to evacuate the American citizens that are still in Iraq. Plus probably a few recon Marines running green ops, painting targets for the air strikes. Maybe a few SF teams running black ops, but you won't hear anything about them unless shit goes really bad. Rumor has it that a contingent of Green Berets has also been attached to "advise" the Iraqi military.

We were only the good guys in our eyes. The Germans didn't think much of us when we were firebombing them, and we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians before we even got around to going nuclear with Japan. We killed some 25,000 civilians by burning them to death in Dresden alone. The only reason we are the "good guys" is because we won and history is written by the victors. When it comes to civilian casualties, the Allies shit doesn't exactly smell like roses. 

I didn't know it was that high of a number. I thought it was just for "advisors", but it makes sense if they need to evac people who are in harms way.

There should be a military base north of Baghdad with full service for planes, tanks and troops. However based on events in the Asian theatre I think we Americans often overstay our welcome.

The fire was an accident, I blame a cow for knocking over a lantern.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The fire was an accident, I blame a cow for knocking over a lantern.

*chuckle*


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lol

Lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.