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.
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.
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah,and that logic worked so well for the Iraq war.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'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 wrote:Oh yeah,and that logic worked so well for the Iraq war.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 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 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."
Anonymous wrote:and the we attacked libya...wtf?
You are so right.Anonymous wrote:If there was a draft there never would have been an iraq war.
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.
Oh yeah,and that logic worked so well for the Iraq war.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.
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.
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.