Maybe we deserve what we get

[Perd Hapley]

There are plenty of tyrants all over the world, always have been.  How come we aren't taking them out for the same reasons you cited?

Manedwolf, your straw man is needed again. 

[Jamisjockey]

I'm jumping into this fray a little late...but....
Count in me in the "Get out now!" crowd...but....
The actions of a few criminals in the military do not justify the actions of the terrorists in Iraq.  We hold people accountable for thier crimes (sans the rich and politicians).  We try them fairly, and if found guilty we punish them. 

It ain't perfect, but it sure beats having our women run around in Burkhas and chopping the hands off suspected thieves.

[grampster]

"We are most assuredly an occupying force from the point of view of the locals, be they peace loving civilians or bloodthirsty terrorists.  They look at our soldiers as single oppressive force, not as individual people.  Kind of the same way that some of us condemn any and all Muslims-nevermind that there are-what?- 1 billion of them in the world and only a fractional percentage are involved in anti western terrorism."  (inter alia)


Riley,

How do you know this?  In fact, you sound so sure of yourself in all of the comments you make that I keep wondering how you seem to always have all of this knowledge?  What is your source?  Who lets you inside?   Or is it just an observation, or an opinion?  Even at that, it seems to me that you'd have to have some sort of source of information that causes you to have the conclusions you have. 

[Paddy]

It's an opinion, Grampster, like 99% of everything else you read or hear.

"we're winning the war" - opinion
"we're losing the war"  -opinion
"we must 'stay the course' it's worth it"  - opinion
"we should leave tomorrow, it's not worth it"  -opinion
"algore won the 2000 election"  -opinion
"gwb won the 2000 election"  -in the opinion of SCOTUS (still just an opinion)
"global warming is a fact"  - opinion
"global warming is a joke"  -opinion

Opinions become fact when they agree with our individual bias.

[The Rabbi]

Actually, no.

[James Fitzer]

Maybe we deserve what we get?

MAYBE WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET?


So let me get this straight... Next time I drive through Mahmudiyah, if i get abducted, tortured and killed, then maybe i deserve what I got?

I mean, after all, I'm an american soldier... the rapists were american soldiers. Never mind that I've treated iraqis with dignity and respect. Never mind that my unit had great relations with the locals when we were at the RP... never mind all that...

We deserve what we get. What a load of *expletive deleted*it.

So, turning the situation around... next time an iraqi bombs my convoy, I have license to level the place, because it will be them "deserving what they get"

*expletive deleted*ck

[Paddy]

I don't mean that any American soldier deserves to be beaten and tortured.  They are just as much victims as the Iraqi family who was murdered.  I will say again, we have absolutely no reason to remain in Iraq.  I (for one) don't want another U.S. soldier to die there.  This so-called 'war' is what's bullshit.

[grampster]

Opinions become fact when they agree with our individual bias.

Your statement couldn't be further from accurate, Riley.  Opinions become facts when opinions happen to be found true.  Facts are truths.  Truth is immutable not variable.  One does not have to believe truth to be immutable, but that disbelief does not alter the facts.  Truth is also not a consensus as some would have us believe. 

I don't happen to like this war either Riley.  But what we are engaged in is a lot more complicated than packing our bags and saying oh well and coming home.  This thing didn't just start overnight because George Bush had an overload of testosterone either.  It has been ramping up for 50 years and a line needed to be drawn sooner or later.  It just happened to occur on our watch.  The reasoning may be questionable, but it was inevitable.  So now we need to see it through. There is much at stake.  The lives of our warriors are sacred.  America continues to be a nation that has given more to save many than any other nation in history.  We are a noble people and we have done and are taking many noble actions.

Personally, I'm not sure if our tactics are always correct.  If an error is being made, sadly, it is on the side of trying to be humane.  America has the means to destroy on a grand scale and do it in a rather short time from a distance.  If we are ignoble, we would use what means we have.  Who could stop us?  But we do not and yet we are reviled for trying to do good.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Riley.  But opinions are like another part of the anatomy; everyone has one.  Opinions may not be truth and I don't see you being in the loop on information that drives strategic decisions. 

In the meantime, I honor you, I honor your bravery, I honor your commitment in the face of disagreement.  God Bless you and your men and women that you lead into harms way.  We could not exist as the noble nation and people that we are without the sacrifices that are made by you and your fellow warriors.

[Perd Hapley]

Speaking of America-haters and terrorist-sympathizers.   

Riley, I know you want to be a patriotic person, and you don't want to carry water for terrorists.  But in your original post, you failed on count one and are guilty of count two.  It may be time to edit that post and apologize.  You swallowed the terrorist's rationale that kidnapping American soldiers is OK because some other soldiers raped a girl.  You accused the US of going to Iraq and raping and killing innocent people.  As has been pointed out, the US went to Iraq to make war on the Baathist regime.  Any war-crimes were the decisions of individuals, not the intent of the US govt. or its people.  We should be able to agree on these things regardless of what you think about our reasons for invading. 

[Paddy]

The thread title is ambiguous.  Unfortunately, it was interpreted to mean "the three captured U.S. soldiers deserve what they get because of the criminal actions of 5 other U.S. soldiers".   Well, I didn't say that and that's not what it meant.

Back on 9/11/01, 19 Saudis committed a heinous attack on this country that took nearly 3000 innocent lives and did economic damage into the hundreds of billions $$.  It was quickly determined that a former Mujahadeen named Osama bin Laden was the mastermind and financier.  OBL was most probably in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban who ruled the country.  This information was readily available because it was in intelligence reports that had largely been ignored prior to the attack.

The counterattack on Afghanistan that began within one month was for the purpose of 'bringing those responsible to justice'.  In other words, to capture OBL, destroy Al Queda, and remove the terrorist sponsoring Taliban.  We failed the first objective, but had some partial success with the second and third.

Then began our government's overreaction in unprecedented proportions.  What was apparently faulty intelligence led us to believe that the Iraqi dictator Saddam possessed 'weapons of mass destruction'- ie, chemical, biological and possibly nuclear.  Furthermore, he was not cooperating with international weapons inspectors. Many are of the opinion that Saddam did indeed possess WMDs and that he moved them out of the country, probably into Syria, during this time.   Our government bungled again. 

So, long story short, the overreaction began, one thing after another.  The so-called 'Patriot Acts', the invasion of Iraq, the abrogation of parts of the Constitution, etc.   Prior to the invasion, the WMD hype was intense; advancing U.S. forces would be destroyed in the tens of thousands by WMD's, etc, et yada.

It became clear that WMD's in Iraq weren't a threat.  Our CIC declared 'mission accomplished'.  It was at this point we could have, should have simply withdrawn.  Instead the goal shifted; it became 'regime change'.  We had to get that evil bastard Saddam.   Well, we did get the evil bastard, so the goal again changed.  Now it became 'democratization'.   All this while our troops were being killed in the onesies, twosies, threesies, etc. by an enemy who wore no uniform and fought in a cowardly manner, hiding behind women and children and in places of worship, etc.  Our ROEs were so tightly limited that our troops could not adequately defend themselves, in addition to not having enough equipment, armored vehicles, personal armor, etc.   

Now, then, there can only be two possible reasons for the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq:

1)  Iraq's huge oil reserves.
2)  Iraq's central middleeastern location is an ideal place from which to project power.

Indeed, the timing of our invasion may very well have more to do with oil and money than anything else.  Prior to the invasion, there were strong indications that Saddam was preparing to abandon the petrodollar as the medium of exchange for sale of Iraq's oil.   Since the petrodollar provides an enormous reserve currency for the U.S. (accounting for an artificially high standard of living), this was a serious threat.  Not so much that Iraq alone would trade in some other currency (probably the Euro), but that the other oil producing countries would follow.  The U.S. economy would take a hit from which it would perhaps not recover.

Our government's complete lack of foresight with regard to the invasion had now placed us in an untenable situation; with Saddam now gone, we could not abandon the country without the threat of hostile, violently anti western terrorist forces taking over and controlling Iraq's oil.  Such an outcome would be extremely dangerous for the entire western world.   The really smart thing to have done at the time would have been to re-instate Saddam and withdraw..........

continued later; I have some business to take care of...............

[Perd Hapley]

Is anyone fooled by this? 

[roo_ster]

I am not.

I love the following:

Now, then, there can only be two possible reasons for the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq:

1)  Iraq's huge oil reserves.
2)  Iraq's central middleeastern location is an ideal place from which to project power.

There can can be only TWO?  There can not be just one and three is sheer lunacy?  No room for any other possibility? 

grampster asked you earlier about your sources of information.  Is this another example of a RileyMc McFact*? (To be distinguished from actual, you know, FACTS)?


* "Opinions become fact when they agree with our individual bias."

[Perd Hapley]

Iraq's central middleeastern location is an ideal place from which to project power.

Is that not a legitimate reason? 

[Paddy]

Not to get sidetracked, but there are a couple of flat out wrong statements above:

Facts are truths.  Truth is immutable not variable

  An opinion, but from a really limited perspective.  Only God and the laws of physics are 'immutable', and the latter only until the next collapse and big bang, which will restart everything, including time.

You swallowed the terrorist's rationale that kidnapping American soldiers is OK because some other soldiers raped a girl.

  No, it is you who swallowed the lie that this 'war' is somehow for the purpose of combatting international terrorism. 

We should be able to agree on these things regardless of what you think about our reasons for invading. 

  Again, we will not agree because these things are only opinions, not facts (unless, of course, they agree with your own personal bias).

And in more recent news, I see GWB is invoking the name of OBL again (to keep everyone terrified?)  Who knows, maybe then didn't kill or capture him because he's of more use alive....................

[Perd Hapley]

More distractions, I see.  Thank you.

[Manedwolf]

There are plenty of tyrants all over the world, always have been.  How come we aren't taking them out for the same reasons you cited?

Manedwolf, your straw man is needed again. 

Sorry, I'd bailed on this one early...when there's so many strawmen being presented in one thread, it makes me sneeze. 

And I see some red herrings now, too.

[Paddy]

...........There we were with our ass hanging out because there were no WMD's in Iraq.  What's worse, there was no evidence connecting Iraq or Saddam to 9/11.  GWB was still in his first term and didn't want to blow re-election over something as inconsequential as the invasion of another country due to bad intel.   Soooooo, what to do?   Next chapter is entitled "Tall Tales from Texas".  Tell a whopper big enough and often enough and (some) folks will believe it.   This is where incompetence becomes dishonesty.  Take the spotlight off your own series of screwups by overselling the threat of terrorism.  Make al-Queda the biggest, baddest, most cunning, sophisticated adversary in the history of the world.  Nevermind that on 9/11 it was our own failures that allowed 19 losers (with boxcutters, can it get any more low tech?) to do the damage they did.

I could go on, but I think I made my point.  Let's get to the 'we' in the thread title.  The 'we' are not the three who were captured and may very well be tortured and killed. (and how can we be so incompetent as not to be able to find them?)  The 'we' are not the unknown number of U.S. troops who will be killed or maimed or tortured as long as this folly continues.  "We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them on the streets of........(insert favorite city)"  Riiight.  After all, there are a finite number of terrorists and when they're gone we win.  Uh, no, the madrassas in Iran and Saudi Arabia and who know where else are churning them out as fast as you can say 'allah akbar'.  We will run out of brass, copper and lead before they run out of terrorists.

In the meantime 'we' are not affected by this conflict.  'We' continue to drive our fat asses around in our SUV's slamming down greasy cheeseburgers and buying unlimited amounts of cheap Chinese crap from Walmart.   All the while 'we' are being manipulated by our own government into believing it's 'unpatriotic' to question the motives for this continuing 'war' (that will never end until the oil in Iraq runs out).  'We' remain silent while our government transfers millions of $$ to private 'contractors' operating secretly in order to avoid the lawful constraints placed on our military.  'We' look the other way while the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and the human rights of foreign nationals are abrogated.

'We' have failed to protect our own borders, and that is where the next attack will come from.  It will cross over the southern border with Mexico. (it probably already has).  'We' will have some of the most horrific pain inflicted on us that we can imagine.  'We'  'We' may very well deserve what we get.  

So, y'all continue to be naive suckers as long as you want.  Continue to swallow the official line; eat up the predigested pap served up by this adminstration and the likes of that exploitive opportunist Hannity (for example) who makes tons of money off your gullibility.   Then think ahead about what kind of world and country you're leaving your children.  If you're happy with what you see, then 'stay the course' until 'mission accomplished'.

Rubes.

[James Fitzer]

If i misunderstood your original post, i apologize for taking it personally, but you must admit, it sounded different than you later explained it. As to your last post, I agree.

You know, there are private contractors doing the same mission as my platoon... They make 120,000 a year

[Perd Hapley]

What's worse, there was no evidence connecting Iraq or Saddam to 9/11.

How is that worse?  How does that even matter?  Nevermind, you probably don't understand those questions.


You know how people keep demanding that the reasonable Muslims speak out against the extremist fringe?  I think we need the reasonable people who oppose the war to speak out against the lunatic rantings of the rest of their side.  Because so far, I haven't seen a well-reasoned case against the war that doesn't have at least a few slips in logic or fact.  And then people like Riley show up, and make me feel like a genius, just for being pro-war.

[Paddy]

And then people like Riley show up, and make me feel like a genius, just for being pro-war

Then maybe you'd care to explain, in cogent terms, just how this war is in the interests of our national security?  If you can do that, you would in fact be a genius, because nobody else has.

[Perd Hapley]

Can you define "cogent" without consulting a dictionary? 

[Laurent du Var]

Just my two cents:

Of course Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. No doubt about it.
He fired missiles into Israel during Desertstorm 1. That was the time he should have been offed.
Can anyone tell me why it wasn't done back then ?   

Thruth is only the individual perception of reality, no ?

 

[Matthew Carberry]

No.

Truth can be objective.

[grampster]

   

Thruth is only the individual perception of reality, no ?

No, the above statement is closer to situational ethics and is grounded in...well...nothing at worst and variable experiences at best.

Truth is a fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.
Truth cannot change because it is true.  Just because someone believes something, doesn't make it true.  Many believed the world flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.  That belief did not make it true. 

I'm not personally attacking Riley here but unfortunately Riley appears to live in a world in which he has decided to mirror those he detests.  He accuses Bush, inter alia of inventing reasons to put us in a war.  This accusation flies in the face of facts that have been accumulating for years that continued to add up to the inevitability of this conflict.  Yet Riley invents as much in opposition.  He denies the mountain of evidence that is true which confirms the inevitable. He minimizes the problem by focusing only on one aspect of the problem.  He is letting his anger about that distort his view of the facts; the bigger picture.  History is replete with examples of people who willed themselves into denial of the obvious.  We have  another example of that thinking today regarding the position of and goals of apostate Islam (Wahhabism), and the violent tension between Sunni and Shia as they relate to Western culture and themselves.  Most of the violence in the world today is related to Wahhabi Islam.  If the Sunni and Shia could learn to look forward rather than continue to let the past drive their future, Iraq would quiet down.  That will be difficult because government being run by religion is the culture there.  The problem is that we can't bring them peace.  They need to decide to do that on their own.

I'll repeat what I said in my other post.  America has the means to totally destroy the region and not be interfered with in any meaningful way.  If "we" are so bad and guilty as Riley says we are, then why haven't we done so?
We don't have to like this war or even approve of it.  We do have to understand that we need to defend our interests, be it energy or trade or any number of things that allow us to remain free.  America would rather trade than be at war.  That is a fact.

[Paddy]

I'm not personally attacking Riley here but unfortunately Riley appears to live in a world in which he has decided to mirror those he detests.  He accuses Bush, inter alia of inventing reasons to put us in a war.

  Not only did I not make that accusation, I don't even believe it.  Now, there are allegations that GWB had designs on Iraq even before 9/11, but I've never seen any evidence to support that.  Everyone at the time was misled by what later proved to be faulty intel, not by GWB.  GWB did, however, act prematurely when he invaded Iraq.  Then, not having discovered WMD's (the reason for invasion, remember?)  he began to invent reasons to continue. That charade continues to this day.

This accusation flies in the face of facts that have been accumulating for years that continued to add up to the inevitability of this conflict.  Yet Riley invents as much in opposition.  He denies the mountain of evidence that is true which confirms the inevitable. He minimizes the problem by focusing only on one aspect of the problem.  He is letting his anger about that distort his view of the facts; the bigger picture.

  I don't even know what this means.  None of this conveys any idea(s) whatsoever.  It sounds like you just strung a bunch of words together.

History is replete with examples of people who willed themselves into denial of the obvious.

You just restated my point.  Some of you are in total denial of the truth about this war.  Rather than thinking independently and with your own minds, you choose to swallow whatever you are told.  It matters not to you how improbable the ever changing reason, or the convoluted manner in which it is delivered.  You're quite ready to continue to throw young American men and women into that meat grinder while you wave the flag and think of yourselves as patriots.  You're really just sheep. 

This 'war' provides us nothing in the way of increased national security.

We don't have to like this war or even approve of it.  We do have to understand that we need to defend our interests, be it energy or trade or any number of things that allow us to remain free.

Again, restating my point.  The purpose of this 'war' is not to protect America from terrorism, nor is it to bring 'democracy' to Iraq.  Those are just excuses that many of you are willing to believe, because you think it's 'patriotic'.   The primary purpose of this war is oil.  Iraq's huge oil reserves are largely untapped, unlike those in Saudi Arabia.   So it's extraordinarily cheap to produce compared to other oil producing countries.  That translates into huge profits for somebody, and we just want to make sure that somebody is us.

War is a serious matter.  Sending our young men and women into war is a grave responsibility.  Neither should happen unless there is no other option; only as a last resort.  The reasons for such a decision must be well articulated and the goal well defined.  (Notice I did not say unanimously approved, that's not required).  The Bush Administration has utterly and miserably failed to articulate any compelling reason for continuing this 'war'.  (ie. 'stay the course' is not a reason)  It has changed the goals several times during the conflict while our young men and women die.  I challenge any of you to explain how this war serves our national security to the point it is worth what it's costing in terms of lives and money.

and finally,

Truth is a fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.

  translation: You're interpreting your own self-delusion as 'truth' when it is really just your own perceived reality.