Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Americans must respect Islam
salaam al-aqaaid    5/13/2004 10:18:35 AM
The outrageous atrocities commited by Americans at the Abu al-Grayyib prison complex speaks to a need for the United States Americans to give sensetivity training to its entire military so that they will no longer offind Muslims with the contemptious use of women as prison guards and unsavery adiction to homosexual pornographies. These things are offinsive to the Muslims community. Have you no shame? You must remove all women and homosexuals from contact with Muslim prisoners. This is offinsive.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Uchiita    RE:This will make it Simple - We invaded Iraq - Because We Could    9/30/2004 8:55:44 AM
There are many similarites between this war and WW2. And this is not unlike what we had to do with Japan and Germany.The three major regimes supporting terror in the M.E. Syria, Iran and Husseins Iraq. By invading Iraq not only did we take the fight away from America and the terrible ground in Afghanistan, we separated these three regimes.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the UK and US continues to shore up equally evil and dangerous men in the Central Asia republics. Until, presumably they stop cooperating with us ( or we use their appauling human rights record as an excuse for taking over those countries as well, but naturally, only when it suits us). In a sence we grapsed "the lowest hanging fruit". As I recall, President Bush never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat but a growing threat>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strategic move perhaps, but not if you try a 'budget' war, the result of which created lasting bitterness and resentment in global islamic populations. If the real reason really was to give an Arab country - any Arab country - a bloody nose (although I dislike metaphors like - this kind of langauge does not even come close to the seriousness and severity of war) in response to 9/11 then this strategy is completely flawed. It's like bombing Mexico because Chile has attacked... I suppose that paralelles can be drawn between any conflict, since all international conflict involved geopolitics. However, I think that the political wrangling and abuse of language to justify flimsy pretexts in a era where nothing is as cut-and-dried as we want it to be resemebles more Vietnam than World War Two. Only this time it is not one country in South East asia. Inept handling of the population, the ignoring of our respective nations experts on the region, the sacrifice of long term honourable strategy for short term political gain, and a fundemental fear and contempt for Islam has produced a highly volatile tail accross the whole of the Islamic world. I think it was Churchill who said that no one could predict the outcome of a conflict once the wheels have been set in motion. But what can be predicted are the inevitable outcomes of human folly. History, you understand, being an extremely patient teacher.
 
Quote    Reply

Uchiita    RE:Post-9/11 Assescessment Who we really should ahve invaded   9/30/2004 9:17:58 AM
If the Marine Capt engaged to my niece doesn't come back from Falluja, that yours is the face my niece should spit in? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, one of the hazards of becoming romantically involved with someone in the Military is that they have certain occupational hazards. Like getting shot at when they are sent off to war. My brother-in-law is there too. And the husbands, lovers, fiances of my friends. But I will spit in no ones face if they do not come home. Except perhaps the face of the architects of this monstrosity. And I will do it not because "my people" are dying. It is because they have refused to count the civilian dead. Allowed "informers" to run extortion rackets on the local population, raped and sexually assaulted prisoners under their care, and sanactioned torture. I must consider the life of a protected person more important than the life of a soldier of an occupying army in an unjust war.
 
Quote    Reply

chemist    RE:This will make it , well, less complicated-uchiita   9/30/2004 10:05:19 AM
First, welcome back. Guess life has settled down into enough of a pattern for you to post again. Now, the row(a respectful one, but a row none-the-less. A loud one at the pub during darts, so to speak). ""However, the UK and US continues to shore up equally evil and dangerous men in the Central Asia republics. Until, presumably they stop cooperating with us ( or we use their appauling human rights record as an excuse for taking over those countries as well, but naturally, only when it suits us)."" Ouch. So, with this reasoning the best thing to do is nothing apparently. Going through an intermediate step(think reagents up to activation energy going to products) seems to be a crime against humanity. This is overly simplistic Uchiita. Even simple systems take time to evolve. It also ignores one very important aspect: to effect change you need a lever. No lever, no change(give me a lever and I can change the world). Realpolitick(the phenomenon and not the poster) may surely and trully suck, but it is something that must be confronted and accepted. It may seem callous or arbitrary looked at through the prism of absolute morality, but, on the human level, is it so clear? Effecting real change takes time, requires some means of pushing/pulling the system, and the will to live through something like energy state vs. time plot of a reaction( the system will become more energetic, frantic and chaotic, before it gets to the end). ""Strategic move perhaps, but not if you try a 'budget' war, the result of which created lasting bitterness and resentment in global islamic populations. "" I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "'budget' war" so I'l largely leave it alone. Query: are you refering to wars of total national commitment or not? I could be really off, and so I'm making sure before I unload. Resentment to some degree was ineveitable. But that's not what you're talking about. I hate to continue the trend of drawing analogies from past conflicts, but it does cut down the time and words used. The Japanese generations raised just before, during, and just after the close of ww2. Let's look at this group. Very polarized. Some loved the US. Others hated the US immensely. Fast forward to today. These generations no longer have hot or cold feelings about the US. The relationship just IS. Present generations oscilate in their feelings toward the US. This is what the US/UK lead coalition is pushing for. Resentment is a by-product that we may have to stomach to get to the point of neutrality. That pesky time factor again. There is little reason, as I see it at least, to think that if there had been instead a UN coalition vice a US/UK/AUS coalition that the same insurgentcy wouldn't be proceeding for exactly the same reasons. There is nothing, same caveat, to indicate that the same resentments wouldn't have arrison in the Islamic region. The only difference as I see it is the resentment comming from other regions in the world(S. America, Europe, etc.). But that wasn't your point. Islamdom would still be pissed off in the worst way for Westerners being there either way. I say this because they attack NGO workers, and have done so for a great while(the Phillipines crisis a few years ago is a great example). Non-moslems comming into moslem regions telling moslems what to do. That's their complaint. It matters not whether it is GI Joe with an M-16, Father MacKenzie with Cathecism, or Greenpeace Sally with secular humanism since the Islamic rallying cry really is, "They're telling us what to do." Achebe's Things Fall Apart is a decent piece of fiction on this point. The anger and resentment of the affected culture isn't because of HOW it is being affected so much as that it IS being affected, altered, made unlike it was when Papa was a boy. The Islamic fundementalist reaction to this is very different than most other responses. Very few tried to take the war back to the expanding. But that's what they've done. It wasn't just saying, "Don't enter our area." They took their anger to our homes. Now, if you're willing to sy that their anger should just be weathered whatever the cost(which I don't think you are) then fine. Casualties be damned. But I don't think you are saying that their anger, even if justified(which I don't think it is, but you probably do), absolves them of taking the fight to Europe and the West(which it has for a while, Lockerbie, German discoteques, the taking of hostages in a London requiring SAS action, Madrid, etc.), but instead that our actions should be different. Well, I don't think it matters given that the anger is from Western influence altering their culture. Ah, history the cruel teacher, the test first and the lesson after. Angering such a teacher can be. Yet, I don't think it applies in this case. It's a repeat or cumulative exam this time. History is checking to see if we learned from before(prepare for WW2 analogy). Las
 
Quote    Reply

chemist    RE:Post-9/11 Assescessment Who we really should ahve invaded   9/30/2004 10:09:42 AM
"Allowed "informers" to run extortion rackets on the local population, raped and sexually assaulted prisoners under their care, and sanactioned torture. I must consider the life of a protected person more important than the life of a soldier of an occupying army in an unjust war." Yeah, I saw that one. It came through the grape vine. Rough deal. But that's what happens sometimes. Not an excuse. What happened is criminal, but is that really a case against the original morality pertaining to the decision to go/not go?.
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:Post-9/11 Assescessment Who we really should ahve invaded   9/30/2004 11:10:29 AM
" But I will spit in no ones face if they do not come home. Except perhaps the face of the architects of this monstrosity." That WAS the context of the comment. ElCid was writing as if he had influence over this error. An interesting point to note is about what the troops are saying to whom. I read the breathless paens to the troop morale that are part and parcel of articles published here, but one thing goes unsaid. That is, that the troops are unlikely to express their reservations to those who don't want to hear them. Would you, if you were under military law and your career was on the line? What Colonel Bey hears from the troops, and what I've heard are two very different things. It really is like Vietnam in the beginning stages, where many of the troops would tell you they didn't think we could win it but told the brass whatever they wanted to hear. But Haji don’t surf.
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:Post-9/11 Assescessment Who we really should ahve invaded   9/30/2004 11:37:02 AM
“… and sanactioned torture. I must consider the life of a protected person more important than the life of a soldier of an occupying army in an unjust war… Yeah, I saw that one. It came through the grape vine. Rough deal. But that's what happens sometimes. Not an excuse. What happened is criminal, but is that really a case against the original morality pertaining to the decision to go/not go?” Policy and attitude from the top influenced Abu Ghraib. For internal political reasons we have the propaganda that it was a “few” morally challenged individuals. The rest of the world doesn’t buy, even if we do. More importantly, the Arabs don’t buy it. Our “war” is really with the Arab population. The Kurds take care of themselves, except for the threat of the Turks. The Shias can take care of themselves, if we let them. Sistani could call out a huge militia at a moments notice if he so chose. Bottom line is we have a problems with Arabs and they have a problem with us. The present Administration’s policies do not seem to be very effective with dealing with this so it will not continue to be a problem. That isn’t so hard to see, if one is not blinded by partisan political considerations.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Iraqi occupation   9/30/2004 3:12:39 PM
Analogies are both necessary as shorthand for discussion but also counter-productive. Bearing this in mind I would like to illustrate the sitution in Iraq with experience of British in Northern Ireland. In 1968/9 the catholic community was most in favour Briitsh Army's intervention- since they had lost all confidence in the ability of local law enforcement agencies. This honeymoon period lasted less 18 months By early 1970s the catholic community was the most hostile continued British (military0 presence. Given the promixity of Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK in terms of language, geography, culture history it is amazing the soldiers of democratic governmemt were able to transform a sitution from 'old catholic ladies making cups of tea for British squadies on patrol to their grandchildren hurling stone a la Gaza/West Bank. Put guns in the hand of young men- and they will create friction with local population especially when the local population has no means of regulating these young men. The American army operates in Iraq under conditions of judicial extra-territoriality even with the best will world the occupation would have been difficult- however, the policies of CPA did little to make things better. One big difference between Iraq and Japan/Germany occupation is that choice the Germans and Japanese faced was one between US or Soviet control. The Iraqis do not face this choice- there is no likelyhood of the return of Saddam or the Baath- hence its difficult to present the Americans as the lesser evil. They other problem being that as most Iraqi believe (not without good cause) Saddam Hussein and his regime were supported by the Western Allies inc the USA- look at the congressional records and see how many people spoke out against the gasing of the Kurds in Halabja or gassing of the Iranians before that...
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:By the Name of Allah - Najaf Hawza pronoucement    9/30/2004 3:42:49 PM
Are you deliberately being difficult (Rebrooku)? Iraq invaded Kuwait, got counterinvaded, and LOST the war on TERMS. It FAILED to honor those terms - so the proper recourse is to restart hostitlies. That is what an armistice means.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Post-9/11 Assescessment Who we really should ahve invaded   9/30/2004 3:48:51 PM
Yes, she should spit in my face. For I am morally responsible for the policy of my government, which I support. And yes, I do participate in policy debate. While I happen to have argued AGAINST invading Iraq in 2003, I not only lost the argument, I also was (and remain) persuaded that the grand strategy involved was in our national interests. I am an East Asia specialist (see the China board), not a Mideast specialist, and I wanted the US Army to go into Korea FIRST: but that is a different can of worms no one has stomach to face (and won't until AFTER we lose a city or two in a mushroom cloud, I fear). But the administration was focused on the war on terror - Korea feeding nukes to terrorists is a longer term threat it cannot today implement. It had serious strategic reasons involving Israel, Syria, Iran, Saudi and even Iraq itself, and it was morally and legally justified to move on Iraq (not anyone else). Iraq sent 60 teams of terrorists to attack the USA, and attempted to assassinate a US president: do you need any more justification?
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:This will make it Simple - We invaded Iraq - Because We Could    9/30/2004 3:54:53 PM
Rebrooku, you are apparently listening to partisan progaganda. There are a large number of wealthy who support leftist political causes, and a significant number of corporations who fund both left and right. It is not the right alone who is able to fund massive and negative political campaigns. [Alaska has a US senate seat up for grabs - you want to see nasty Democratic attack adds come here - where 2 million buys a lot more impact than in a big state]. I have a news flash for you: in all administrations, policy is not decided on the basis your remarks imply. Indeed, US policy is remarkably evolutionary, and does not change much according to which party is in power. This administration did not start the war on terror, and does not like it or the prospect of its long duration one bit. You are as much on the AQ hit list as the rest of us: why not act like we are on the same side?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics