At last, victory in Iraq...

Spc Nobody Special

Join Date 08/2004

+10

At last, victory in Iraq...

We came, we saw, we went back home...

I was listening to NPR this morning, and I once again heard the inevitable discussion of the withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq. Surprisingly enough (did you know that sarcasm comes from the greek, sarkasmos, the biting of ones lips in anger?) the interviewer suggested that the best we could do in the war was to withdraw our troops with a modicum of dignity.

However, having listened to a former Great talk about "peace with honor", (and no, really, he is not a crook!), I know that it is possible to withdraw from a war years before it seems feasible and be victorious. Hell, even Bush and Stephen Colbert both declared the war a victory (grant you, it was six years apart.....).

As a veteran of this war, I am glad to know that we are finally turning over Iraq into the competent hands of the Iraqi police and military security forces, whom I would without a doubt trust my lives to. After all, we know they're able and free of insurgents. They must be after we've arrested and purged so many of them time and time again. Friendly fire incidents do happen, but I completely understand how they could have made so many mistakes, seeing as how US forces and your common insurgent appear so much alike. I've been back in the States now for over a year, and in that time, I haven't personally seen one Iraqi detainee that has been tortured by Iraqi security forces.

Everyone knows that the majority of the funding and training for the insurgencies (which no longer exist, right?) come from outside the country anyways, (I'm looking at you, Iran, and while I'm thinking about it, you lead the world in rhinoplasties, and the entire region in other plastic surgeries, could you please do something about Ahmadinejad's ears? I mean seriously, they're messing up my broadband connection.)

And of course, without US troops present, these countries will naturally return their influence and power seeded throughout the Iraqi government, back over to the Iraqi people. Thank God their influence will finally pass, and Iraq will be able to reach the same levels of peace, dignity, and human rights as other Islamic countries, like Palestine, Pakistan, or well, Iran.

Mostly, I'm glad that I served well, and meaningfully, and I think of what the victory will mean to Iraq. Just imagine, for example, all the insurgents that will die once we've turned it over. Al-Qaeda will once again be able to slay Shia insurgents, and vice-versa. If it keeps up long enough, someday, Iraq may be as prosperous and democratic as Cambodia or Vietnam. After all, we're sending it on exactly the same road to stability.

V for victory!

Nbs

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't see the comparison to the situation after the invasion in Iraq to your example with the swimmer. If I (looting criminal) throw a nonswimmer in a lake (commit acts of random violence and distruction) and those standing around (Us military) applaud and do nothing, who is to blame?

I believe it was you who introduced the metaphor of the US army being the "police". Why are they suddenly "applauding bystanders"?

Do you really believe that the US army applauded the terrorists?

I was more thinking of the pro-terror "peace activists" who vilify the US and celebrate the terrorists as "freedom fighters" or "resistance".

Hmm you actually admit that those standing around (the US military) are also responsible, and even more so since they made a rescue by the lifeguards impossible in the first place.

It is a completele mystery to how you managed to read the story like that.

"I will blame first the perpetrators, then their supporters in the west, and last those who were trying to stop them and failed."

Successfully updated karma reason!

Do you really believe that the US army applauded the terrorists?

those are the applauding bystanders from your example of the nonswimmer thrown into a lake, not intended to sound like applauding terrorists in iraq.

I was more thinking of the pro-terror "peace activists" who vilify the US and celebrate the terrorists as "freedom fighters" or "resistance".

eww, nasty. That's not me though.

It is a completele mystery to how you managed to read the story like that.

my brain works in mysterious ways it seems..

Successfully updated karma reason!

"I will blame first the perpetrators, then their supporters in the west, and last those who were trying to stop them and failed."

The looters in spring 2003 weren't terrorists but mostly just regular Joe's wanting to blow off steam and take revenge on the elite.. but those things always develop their own dynamic. They didn't have supporters in the west and nobody understood why nothing was done to stop the anarchy.

HAD the US military done more to contain that mess in the beginning, public chaos and violence might not have spread as they did, and the islamic terrorists would not have had it as easy to gain power. So lack of planning caused 6 years of war and violence and daily bloodshed. And those looters are not the only ones who are to fault but also those who did nothing to stop them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't really consider museum lootings a big problem. Saddam also destroyed ancient sites all the time. That was presumably worse. Or not. It doesn't matter. The museum looters didn't kill many people. And while the loss of artefacts is tragic it hardly compares to the other effects of tyranny and war.

To me it's obvious that there was simply too much anarchy to do much about it.

The looters are also not the source of six years of violence. And _IF_ the US had stopped the looters, who would have stopped terror attacks against civilians elsewhere?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The museum was just one example. They looted hospitals, ministaries, private homes, shops and businesses, and those are the incidents that caused anarchy. Violent behaviour spreads like a virus. Had it just been the museum that would not have been so bad. The looters caused widepsread lawlessness which prepared the ground for the rest.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The ground was already prepared for the rest.

It's not like anybody really expected there to be peace immediately. I personally thought that the US would have to stay for a good few decades.

And I am convinced that a Republican administration would do exactly that

Note that there was almost no looting in the Kurdish areas and not much violence either. Coincidence?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The looters are also not the source of six years of violence. And _IF_ the US had stopped the looters, who would have stopped terror attacks against civilians elsewhere?

Iraqi military? They had to step up and learn sometime. I honestly feel that we wait way too long, but then again I'm not any of the higher ups in the military.

I was more thinking of the pro-terror "peace activists" who vilify the US and celebrate the terrorists as "freedom fighters" or "resistance".

One man's terrorist is indeed another person's freedom fighter, it all despends on who you are. I'm not saying that the terrorists who've bombed innocent people are justified or right, but that other people have other eyes and not always are we the good guys. Such is the world.

Successfully updated karma reason!

One man's terrorist is indeed another person's freedom fighter, it all despends on who you are.

Only if you have a sick and twisted mind.

A terrorist is defined by his strategy, not his objective.

A terrorist can be a "freedom fighter" but that doesn't change the morality of the means he employs.

And I think that if your cause requires or justifies terrorism, the cause is immoral too. It can hardly be "freedom".

Freedom is defended against tyrants, not against kindergarden children. Terrorists, by definition, do not fight tyrants. They fight a civilian population (which is possibly supporting the tyrant).

"One man's terrorist is indeed another person's freedom fighter," is one of those cheap intelligent-sounding statements used by people who think that they have understood a simple ironic truth that somehow escaped everybody else.

In reality it's just that their minds are very simple and they have not yet learned about the difference between means and ends.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Only if you have a sick and twisted mind.

A terrorist is defined by his strategy, not his objective.

A terrorist can be a "freedom fighter" but that doesn't change the morality of the means he employs.

And I think that if your cause requires or justifies terrorism, the cause is immoral too. It can hardly be "freedom".

Freedom is defended against tyrants, not against kindergarden children. Terrorists, by definition, do not fight tyrants. They fight a civilian population (which is possibly supporting the tyrant).

"One man's terrorist is indeed another person's freedom fighter," is one of those cheap intelligent-sounding statements used by people who think that they have understood a simple ironic truth that somehow escaped everybody else.

In reality it's just that their minds are very simple and they have not yet learned about the difference between means and ends.

Not necessarily; think about it this way(Not implying any specific country):

A country invades, people in the invaded country start blowing things up, etc. in an effort to drive the invaders out. Now, some may call them terrorists.

Perception, it all comes down to perception.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A country invades, people in the invaded country start blowing things up, etc. in an effort to drive the invaders out. Now, some may call them terrorists.

If they blow up mosques and schools, they are terrorists.

What's so difficult about that? It has nothing to do with why they believe they are doing it.

The ONLY WAY this strategy could work was if the voters of the invading country could be scared into withdrawing. Otherwise the American troops would hardly be weakened when Iraqis kill each other and blow up their mosques.

I might have to explain this in simpler terms.

A man driving a taxi is a "taxi driver". Got it? It's simple.

If somebody invades his country and somebody decides to drive taxi as a means to fight the invaders, that somebody is, can you guess, a _taxi driver_. Because he drives a taxi.

It doesn't have anything to do with WHY he drives the taxi or WHETHER anybody invaded his country, it ONLY has something to do with the ACT of driving a taxi.

As you can see the term "taxi driver" is defined by what the subject does. If he drives a taxi he is a _taxi driver_. Get it?

The same applies to terrorists.

If someone commits acts of terrorism, he is a _terrorist_.

It has NOTHING, but really abolutely NOTHING to do with why he is doing it.

It's impossible really to use terrorism as a means to fight tyranny because terrorism is BY DEFINITION an act of violence NOT against a tyrant or his military but against a civilian population.

Whatever real tyrant there might be to fight, the terrorist is someone who decides to fight innocent civilians instead. That's why terrorism is a crime. Attacking civilians (who are not used a human shields) is a war crime. Terrorism is a strategy that makes use of war crimes. It works because the other side might not, giving the terrorist an advantage.

It's a strategy for fighting asymmetric wars. And it's a crime against humanity. There is no excuse for it and neither does terrorism become non-terrorism depending on the objective of the terrorist.

(Another strategy for fighting asymmetric wars is guerilla warfare, where uniformed rebels fight police and military installations of the tyrant. That strategy is perfectly acceptable according to the laws of war. But a terrorist who attacks school children is not a guerilla. And if a guerilla removes his uniform and hides among innocent civilians he is in breach of the law of war and is committing a war crime.)

Can we get this clear for once?

A "terrorist" is someone who "commits acts of terrorism", REGARDLESS of why he commits them.

A "terrorist" is NOT someone who has a certain objective that I might agree or disagree with.

I realise the media today have an unfortunate tendency to use these words in new ways (for example the BBC rarely refers to someone who murders a Jew as a "terrorist"), but the point here is that the word "terrorist" has a specific meaning which is NOT and NEVER changed by the terrorist's objectives.

The stupid idea about terrorists and freedom fighter is just a means to claim that one's political enemies are just as low as oneself, implying that they also would support terrorists if those terrorists happened to commit acts of terrorism for their benefit.

Unfortunately it is working and you fell for it.

But when some guy blows up a school (that is not used as a base to shoot at him) it has little to do with "perception" when I say that he is a terrorist because WHY he did it doesn't change anything.

Successfully updated karma reason!

*Sighs* ...And this is why i cannot stand shit that is absolute, it leads to ignorance, among other things. I will try to get this across one more time...if i fail, im done. What you, I, and others may say...doesn't matter. There are those who view your claimed terrorists and others as heros, freedom fighers, etc. I don't care if you don't agree, but the fact is there are those who do.

Be well, ~Alderic

Successfully updated karma reason!

There are those who view your claimed terrorists and others as heros, freedom fighers, etc. I don't care if you don't agree, but the fact is there are those who do.

What does that have to do with whether the word "terrorist" has a subjective meaning or not?

I am sure there are people who don't believe that a taxi driver drives taxis. Yet it doesn't change the facts.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What does that have to do with whether the word "terrorist" has a subjective meaning or not?

I am sure there are people who don't believe that a taxi driver drives taxis. Yet it doesn't change the facts.

It's all about beliefs, history, connotation, etc. To some, those that WE claim are terrorists, are their freedom fighters; that is their perception of the matter. Why? I don't know, but there are those who do.You can't really say that ALL are terrorist when you talk about varying cultures, groups, et al. because then you're just looking at it narrowly. You may think they are, I may think they are, but say joe blow in africa may not. You dig?

Be well, ~Alderic

Successfully updated karma reason!

Btw, I'm not talking about semantics Leauki; I'm talking about the world.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's all about beliefs, history, connotation, etc. To some, those that WE claim are terrorists, are their freedom fighters; that is their perception of the matter.

Yes. And those people have criminal minds.

There are also people who believe that blacks are inferior to whites, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept that racism is subjective.

I'm not talking about semantics Leauki; I'm talking about the world.

I know you do. It's still irrelevant.

It's still a stupid statement.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes. And those people have criminal minds.

Not necessarily.

There are also people who believe that blacks are inferior to whites, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept that racism is subjective.

Granted, and you're right we don't have to accept it, but that doesn't change the fact that in other parts of the world - people do.

I know you do. It's still irrelevant.

It's still a stupid statement.

Stupid, how so?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. Anybody who thinks that murdering school children is OK if done for the right cause has a criminal mind. Such people are scum. They are not OK. They are hateful, self-righteous, insanely arrogant, and evil. And they are a big problem for the rest of the world.

Now, as long as they target Jews (and other middle-eastern minorities nobody has ever heard of) the world can live with them, perhaps even celebrate them. But they remain scum.

Stupid, how so?

Shall we go through it again???

Successfully updated karma reason!