End of Iraq War

[Anonymous]

Fund

[TheManWithAUsername]

jsteele wrote:A New York Times reporter discovered a stash of classified US documents in a dump in Iraq. The documents provided detailed information about a massacre in which US troops killed over 20 Iraqi civilians. This article reminds me of the role of the Times and other media in getting us into this war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/world/middleeast/united-states-marines-haditha-interviews-found-in-iraq-junkyard.html

Despite this trove of information which includes first-hand accounts, pictures, and drawings of the scene, the article offers scant detail of what actually occurred. The article hides reality, saying things like: "Within a few hours 24 Iraqis — including a 76-year-old man and children between the ages of 3 and 15 — were killed, many inside their homes." Noticed, these people "were killed", as if by a falling meteor. The journalist knows a lot more about these killings, but refuses to tell us.

Rather than provide details of what is likely a war crime, the journalist concentrates on what he things is truly important:

"But the accounts are just as striking for what they reveal about the extraordinary strains on the soldiers who were assigned here, their frustrations and their frequently painful encounters with a population they did not understand."

Yes, the real story is not that 24 Iraqis were killed in cold blood. The real story is that US troops ware frustrated. Therefore, the truth of their deeds does not need to be exposed.

As for the US military, it refuses to discuss the matter because even though the reporter has the documents in his hand, they are "classified". The Times, showing who calls the shots, has not published the documents.

Interesting.

We'd all like the moral judgments - and reporters would like their stories - to be simple, but they're not. Some enlist out of patriotism and/or other ideals, and one might criticize that basis in this context while still acknowledging that it was a principled decision. Others have strong economic incentives, which complicate things further.

After enlistment, we put these young and inexperienced people into highly stressful situations, with the full knowledge that a certain percentage will lose their shit in all kinds of ways, including for some by becoming - hopefully temporarily - terrible people. We know this because of Vietnam and controlled social psychology experiments.

It's infantile to portray all soldiers as wholly heroic, or all as wholly victimized, or all as wholly immoral or foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if I were denied a job at McD's, I wouldn't decide it was time to kill someone in another country....I would still have my morals.

Tough talk from someone who's probably never had to make a truly difficult decision.

Give your children the poor nutrition and healthcare, nonexistent education, greatly increased risk of assault and abuse, terrible role models and peer influences, and countless deprivations of poverty in this country and then tell us what an "idiot" you'd be to consider all alternatives. I guess your ethical system makes letting your children suffer an easy choice.

Many of our men and women DO have options. Yet they CHOOSE to serve. My oldest will graduate from college at the end of the year. His college was fully funded. He spent eight months in Iraq. And is now in Afghanistan for the next ten months. He didn't have to serve. He chose this life. He'll graduate from college as an Officer in the US Army, and I couldn't be prouder.

My second child is also in the military. He chose a different path. Again, his college was fully funded. He could have got straight to college. Instead, he felt it was his obligation to serve. He leaves for Afghanistan in January. Again,I couldn't be prouder.

I feel really sorry for you and for your children. Your "morals" are obviously very different from mine.

Would they have chosen this life if it didn't pay for college?
You'd probably get a lot fewer people who would be proud to serve without that incentive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:since we are already over there we should just have them attack iran, pretty close by would cost less money. Once we get rid of iran the world will be better and oil should be cheaper.

Oh yeah,and that logic worked so well for the Iraq war.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:A New York Times reporter discovered a stash of classified US documents in a dump in Iraq. The documents provided detailed information about a massacre in which US troops killed over 20 Iraqi civilians. This article reminds me of the role of the Times and other media in getting us into this war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/world/middleeast/united-states-marines-haditha-interviews-found-in-iraq-junkyard.html

Despite this trove of information which includes first-hand accounts, pictures, and drawings of the scene, the article offers scant detail of what actually occurred. The article hides reality, saying things like: "Within a few hours 24 Iraqis — including a 76-year-old man and children between the ages of 3 and 15 — were killed, many inside their homes." Noticed, these people "were killed", as if by a falling meteor. The journalist knows a lot more about these killings, but refuses to tell us.

Rather than provide details of what is likely a war crime, the journalist concentrates on what he things is truly important:

"But the accounts are just as striking for what they reveal about the extraordinary strains on the soldiers who were assigned here, their frustrations and their frequently painful encounters with a population they did not understand."

Yes, the real story is not that 24 Iraqis were killed in cold blood. The real story is that US troops ware frustrated. Therefore, the truth of their deeds does not need to be exposed.

As for the US military, it refuses to discuss the matter because even though the reporter has the documents in his hand, they are "classified". The Times, showing who calls the shots, has not published the documents.

How about the siege of Fallujah, and the estimated 4000 to 6000 civilian deaths it caused, to avenge the deaths of 4 Blackwater mercenaries?
By some accounts, the US and GB used up to 9000 tons of depleted uranium weapons in that battle, resulting in a staggering increase in congenital malformations, cancers and reduction in the number of baby boys born in the years after that "battle", which a lot of people refer to as a massacre.
Pretty ironic, since we started the war under the guise of looking for WMD...

[Anonymous]

and then we attacked libya...wtf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there was a draft there never would have been an iraq war.

You are so right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and the we attacked libya...wtf?

Actually, in the case of Lybia, the rebels asked for international help. I'm not aware that anyone was seriously rebelling inside Iraq when we took advantage of 9/11 to invade it as part of a neo-con plan laid out in the mid 1990s entitled "Project for the New American Century."

[Anonymous]

8:35, I was in the streets against this war, but I am from the Rustbelt and have "idiot" family and friends who had NO other option but to enlist. Oppose the war, but your vitriol should be directed at the armchair warriors, such as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, not the grunts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and the we attacked libya...wtf?

Actually, in the case of Lybia, the rebels asked for international help. I'm not aware that anyone was seriously rebelling inside Iraq when we took advantage of 9/11 to invade it as part of a neo-con plan laid out in the mid 1990s entitled "Project for the New American Century."

I have been thinking this morning what the Arab spring might have meant for Iraq if we had never invaded. Back before we invaded, I thought Iraq had more of the qualities that could lead to democracy than most Arab nations - with a sizable educated middle class, some industry, water, and a government that while not actually secular (Sunnis were favored) at least pretended to be secular. While Saddam's brutality and iron grasp on the political system can't be denied, on the other hand, this is a society that had the human resources necessary to build a civil society that could have supported an effective uprising. Maybe Saddam, like Assad in Syria, would have brutally repressed the protests but on the other hand, Gaddafi, also a brutal and wily dictator is now gone. But, I'm afraid that probably a lot of the people who could have been the backbone of an Arab spring in Iraq have left the country. I am not confident at all that democracy will thrive there and the destruction of the middle classes through the war and the subsequent chaos under the occupation will partially be to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:since we are already over there we should just have them attack iran, pretty close by would cost less money. Once we get rid of iran the world will be better and oil should be cheaper.

Oh yeah,and that logic worked so well for the Iraq war.

I can't remember: is it "insanity" when you do the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Or is it "dumbfuckery"?

Either way, I think Mr "We Should Attack Iran" should be the first motherfucker drafted for the new expedition. Along with every right-wing chicken-hawk fuckwit who cheered us on to war from the safety of their basement computer desk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:since we are already over there we should just have them attack iran, pretty close by would cost less money. Once we get rid of iran the world will be better and oil should be cheaper.

Oh yeah,and that logic worked so well for the Iraq war.

I can't remember: is it "insanity" when you do the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Or is it "dumbfuckery"?

Either way, I think Mr "We Should Attack Iran" should be the first motherfucker drafted for the new expedition. Along with every right-wing chicken-hawk fuckwit who cheered us on to war from the safety of their basement computer desk.

I like your term better.

[Anonymous]

Actually, in the case of Lybia, the rebels asked for international help. I'm not aware that anyone was seriously rebelling inside Iraq when we took advantage of 9/11 to invade it as part of a neo-con plan laid out in the mid 1990s entitled "Project for the New American Century."

The Kurds were not seriously rebelling and never asked for help, Wow! If you could hear some of the stories I heard while over there…

Go to the three Kurdish provinces in N. Iraq and say that. The Kurds up there all love Americans and America. I try to tell them that the typical American is about as knowledgeable as you are but they won't listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:since we are already over there we should just have them attack iran, pretty close by would cost less money. Once we get rid of iran the world will be better and oil should be cheaper.

I can already imagine Al Qaeda licking its chops at the prospect of the Great Satan attacking a Shiite country. W and his band of lunatics already played into their hands far beyond anything they'd imagined when they planned 9/11, but it seems that the loonie crowd won't be satisfied until we are brought down to our knees by useless wars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, in the case of Lybia, the rebels asked for international help. I'm not aware that anyone was seriously rebelling inside Iraq when we took advantage of 9/11 to invade it as part of a neo-con plan laid out in the mid 1990s entitled "Project for the New American Century."

The Kurds were not seriously rebelling and never asked for help, Wow! If you could hear some of the stories I heard while over there…

Go to the three Kurdish provinces in N. Iraq and say that. The Kurds up there all love Americans and America. I try to tell them that the typical American is about as knowledgeable as you are but they won't listen.

I know about the Kurds and frankly that's a different situation. The Kurds are an ethnic minority on the northern border whose population straddles three countries and who just want an independent state and no amount of rebelling on their part would ever have made a difference. This is different from the majority of the population rebelling against a dictator. Also, the PKK and its sympathizers aren't exactly the most savory characters around.
If you think the Kurds' interests are on par with those of the Lybian population, perhaps you would also argue that we should invade Israel to help the Palestinians achieve statehood or invade Spain to help the Basques, etc?