I expect to see worse in the future, with American soldiers being hurt. The administration says we’ll be out of Iraq in a very short amount of time, but imagine these kinds of incidents happening for months. Or, going by less optimistic estimates, for five years straight, and escalating all of the time. Besides the immediate human casualties, consider what this does to our foreign relations. Will we have any moral authority with which to apply pressure in the Israel/Palestine conflict when we’re now facing the same type of situation as the Israeli military describes. Remember, that little old conflict that every crackpot anti-Western religious freak uses to gather followers?
Indeed. The neoconservatives who predicted widespread pro-Americanism were either clueless or deliberately lying. Many anti-American demonstrations have been seen in Iraq, and there are many people calling for Islamic law. Many of even those who cheered for Hussein’s downfall are now calling for Americans to get out as soon as possible. Chalabi appears widely loathed, and it’s likely that free elections would result in an anti-American, possibly religious government.
Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana Indeed. The neoconservatives who predicted widespread pro-Americanism were either clueless or deliberately lying. Many anti-American demonstrations have been seen in Iraq, and there are many people calling for Islamic law. Many of even those who cheered for Hussein’s downfall are now calling for Americans to get out as soon as possible. Chalabi appears widely loathed, and it’s likely that free elections would result in an anti-American, possibly religious government.
And that brings up the question: Will the said neoconservatives accept that?
Originally posted by Nulani If this is how a liberation army acts; I think I’d prefer to not be liberated.
Yeah, well Norway doesn’t do much liberation. I think you should check your anti-Americanism until someone proves that those soldiers were lying about being fired upon. Considering that the area was overwhelmingly pro-Baathist ( I’m not sure if the article revealed this ) and that the crowd was a group of protesters, you don’t have much to go on yet.
I don’t have a problem with the way the soldiers responded - they’re stuck in Iraq doing someone else’s dirtywork. Blame the people who deserve it - the officials back in America that pushed this war as something it wasn’t. As it is, it’ll always be American soldiers being attacked, pretty much - due to some bad diplomacy, we don’t have many allies providing troops to help serve as an occupation force.
Not that this in any way changes that it’s good that Saddam’s gone. It’s just another piece of evidence that we went about it in the wrong way.
Obviously if you are being shot at then they are not unarmed…
To the other posts, There is anti-Americanism everywhere. It isn’t going to go away if we let other countries push us around. Heck, there is anti-Americanism in America. Go figure. That is why this country is so great, simply because America and anti-Americanism can exist in the same place.
And lets face it. Any government that is set up in Iraq is not going to be pro-American. That really isn’t the point. The government is going to be Pro-Iraqi. And since it is the recent fad to hate America (Comon man! Everyone is doing it!) it will come as no surprise if the new government doesn’t end up as a mini-America.
I may be in Iraq myself in 6 months or so. Does it bother me? No. Am I afraid to go? No. Am I angry at my leaders for getting involved in a situation that could put me at risk? Not at all. As a matter of fact I am quite pleased with thier actions. Let it be known though if someone starts shooting at me, though, I will shoot back. This is war.
Originally posted by Xwing1056 Yeah, well Norway doesn’t do much liberation. I think you should check your anti-Americanism until someone proves that those soldiers were lying about being fired upon.
Your first comment is irrelevant, since America does no more liberation than Norway, given the indisputable fact that the war is illegitimate, unprovoked and based on deception on the part of the administration, some of it exposed as such by others, and some admitted to now by the administration itself. Nulani made no claim that the soldiers were lying; rather, her post illustrates that to the Iraqis, the invading force is a hostile one to be resisted, and that they are unconvinced of our nonexistent noble intentions. Your comment about “anti-Americanism,” the preferred way of discrediting anyone with opposing views these days, is unfounded.
Trying to make America better is vastly different than being anti-American. The “love it or leave it” sentiment completely ignores the “radical” idea that things can be improved upon.
To the other posts, There is anti-Americanism everywhere. It isn’t going to go away if we let other countries push us around.
No, but it may go away if America stops pushing other countries around, with threats of not trading with certain countries and renaming various foodstuff that contain the name of another country.
Heck, there is anti-Americanism in America. Go figure. That is why this country is so great, simply because America and anti-Americanism can exist in the same place.
Yes, it’s wonderful that the leader does not listen to his own people, or the world, for that matter.
And lets face it. Any government that is set up in Iraq is not going to be pro-American. That really isn’t the point. The government is going to be Pro-Iraqi. And since it is the recent fad to hate America (Comon man! Everyone is doing it!) it will come as no surprise if the new government doesn’t end up as a mini-America.
Ha! Fad. I guess punishment for breaking of a law is also a “fad”, then, since “everyone is doing it”? You’re making it seem that this resentment of this decision by Bush is unbased and simply a trend, when it is obviously not.
I may be in Iraq myself in 6 months or so. Does it bother me? No. Am I afraid to go? No. Am I angry at my leaders for getting involved in a situation that could put me at risk? Not at all. As a matter of fact I am quite pleased with thier actions. Let it be known though if someone starts shooting at me, though, I will shoot back. This is war.
Yes, and an illegal one at that. I simply don’t understand how you can be pleased with their actions. Accept, maybe, but not pleased with.
I would think any soldier put into a situation where he might have to shoot non-combatants would be a little annoyed…if I remember right, soldiers who violate the rules of war are still held responsible even if they were directly ordered to do so, right? Infonick, if you’re there, please clarify. You or the other military-types should have a better understanding of this subject than me.
Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana Your first comment is irrelevant, since America does no more liberation than Norway, given the indisputable fact that the war is illegitimate, unprovoked and based on deception on the part of the administration, some of it exposed as such by others, and some admitted to now by the administration itself.
Say, for a moment, that removing Saddam Hussein from power does not constitute ‘liberation.’ In that case, we don’t need to look back too far to find other liberation-based conflicts. The most obvious: Gulf War I. Was that illegitimate too? No doubt. In fact, I’d probably have to go back to World War II to find an act of liberation that you’d support ( e.g. we saved France, for all their government cares ).
Nulani made no claim that the soldiers were lying; rather, her post illustrates that to the Iraqis, the invading force is a hostile one to be resisted, and that they are unconvinced of our nonexistent noble intentions.
Oh, but she implicated it. “If this is how a liberation army acts,” she said. That is to say, our army - not even our politicians! - our army acted wrongly by firing, when they may have been fired upon. I think I’ll wait and see whether they were attacked before I leap on them. Of course, for people of ‘nobler intentions,’ that waiting period may not be necessary.
Your comment about “anti-Americanism,” the preferred way of discrediting anyone with opposing views these days, is unfounded.
How dreadful of me; to call an unfounded jab at American troops anti-American. Far be it from me to shoot down free speech. Pardon me, do I smell a vulture?
Originally posted by RoguePaladinTrian
[b]I don’t have a problem with the way the soldiers responded - they’re stuck in Iraq doing someone else’s dirtywork. Blame the people who deserve it - the officials back in America that pushed this war as something it wasn’t. As it is, it’ll always be American soldiers being attacked, pretty much - due to some bad diplomacy, we don’t have many allies providing troops to help serve as an occupation force.
Not that this in any way changes that it’s good that Saddam’s gone. It’s just another piece of evidence that we went about it in the wrong way. [/b]
Doing the right thing for the wrong motives can have dire consequences… Kicking Saddam’s butt because of their own greed will make them hated and despised by the rest of the world. Who’s paying the price? The soldiers, while the oil company CEOs and the sadistic generals stay at home acting all brave and mighty and counting the cash they’ll be laying their hands on. I think the UN should have led this intervention, not Mr. Cowboy Wannabe.
Originally posted by RoguePaladinTrian I would think any soldier put into a situation where he might have to shoot non-combatants would be a little annoyed…if I remember right, soldiers who violate the rules of war are still held responsible even if they were directly ordered to do so, right? Infonick, if you’re there, please clarify. You or the other military-types should have a better understanding of this subject than me.
I don’t think America has yet allowed itself to submit to The Hague or those sort of things.
Originally posted by Xwing1056 Say, for a moment, that removing Saddam Hussein from power does not constitute ‘liberation.’ In that case, we don’t need to look back too far to find other liberation-based conflicts. The most obvious: Gulf War I. Was that illegitimate too? No doubt. In fact, I’d probably have to go back to World War II to find an act of liberation that you’d support ( e.g. we saved France, for all their government cares ).
You saved France after realizing that you wouldn’t get paid after the Germans kicked their asses. The same way the Americans interfered in World War 1. In WW1, the Americans had loaned a crapload of money to the Franco-Anglo-Russian alliance, and thus decided to interfere as if they would have lost the war, the Americans would have lost the money they invested. It was the same with the Allied forces. Check how american society worked at around the beginning of the war (Give two or three years, meaning 1939-1942) and find out for yourself if the Americans cared about the situation in Europe. Let’s just take the Holocaust as an example. In NA, a LOT of people were antisemists around the beginning of WW2, near the end, it was the antisemists that were prosecuted. It’s not mentioned in the history books (of America at least, however, over here, it’s mentioned that North America, and with that, I include Canada and ESPECIALLY Quebec) because it would make the American people look evil. The only reason the Americans got fully into the war was because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and believe me that the Americans did not care much about the European theater of operations. Granted, they had to war against the Japanese, but as they were part of the Allied forces against the Axis forces, and said Axis forces had enlisted the Japanese, they could have paid more attention to the war in Europe instead of breeding hate for the U.S.S.R (I can hear a lot of people say : “Damn commies!”).
Therefore, they did not “save” France. If it had been their goal from the beginning (which it wasn’t), then I would be agreeing to your point where you say Americans saved France. Their goal was to ensure that the investments they had in the Allied countries, they would see the payment of it and interest, as they had loaned a crapload of money…once again. Granted, I don’t have as much history on WW2, but I do have a lot on WW1, as it was a period of contemporary history we have studied a lot, and these notes are backed up by an history teacher which I can always contact if need be (that is, if he isn’t retired). If he is retired and I can’t contact him, I have the document with me.
