First if all you need to distinguish between illegitimate violence such as indiscriminate car-bombings and legitimate guerrilla warfare against coalition troops. I wish no ill-health to anyone, but the line between terrorism and warfare has become so blurred that terrorism is more used more often as a political tool than for analytical purposes.
British and American work is not necessarily unjustified, and I apologise if I did not make that clear. Rebuilding Iraq is an important part of the peace-process in Iraq, although a lot of the damage was unnecessarily caused by coalition bombings. Resistance sabotage is too justified under certain conditions, because disrupting the Iraqi infrastructure is a necessary part of their war-effort just as it was sometimes necessary for the removal of the Baathists.
I agree that Afghanistan was justified, although I too have certain qualms about the removal of the Taliban – although in reality such action was inevitable following the September 11th attacks and the Taliban’s failure to hand over Bin Laden. It was really a catch-22 situation for the Taliban. They neither had the power to hand over Bin Laden nor the mandate to remain in power if they did not hand him over. But their removal did not necessarily mean that American could claim credit, as they attempted to, for ‘democratising’ Afghanistan. The war in Iraq has not only diverted attention from Afghanistan, but has made Iraq a new haven for terrorism. But I also hold similar qualms over Iraq – the war was completely unnecessary. Even if Saddam did posses WMDs, they could have easily been destroyed with air-strikes (as in 1998) and an invasion was not necessary. Even was Saddam’s removal is a ‘good’ thing, killing 30,000+ Iraqis in the process was not justified and was completely disproportionate.
The war, and subsequent occupation, can not be justified on humanitarian grounds because humanitarian intervention requires a humanitarian end. The war was unnecessary, disproportionate and unjustifiable. The fact that Iraq now has a chance, slim as it may be, to democratise doesn’t justify either the war or occupation. Regime change was the easy part but Iraq has now, using President Bush’s rhetoric, become the ‘battleground of terror.’ What can only be called an experiment by the White House to defeat the root causes of terrorism has only led to unnecessary slaughter and destruction. Recent research has disproved claims that democracy defeats terrorism and the current violence in Iraq was inevitable – remember that it took most European countries centuries to democratise. Iraq has become a conflict between Iraqi resistance and their Arab allies and occupying forces and their allies, with the Iraqi people caught in the middle. Extremists groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq and the criminal gangs play a small but significant part in the violence, but the overwhelming majority of activity takes place in the form of legitimate guerrilla attacks against coalition troops.
I’m not saying that democracy in Iraq is a bad thing, but democracy is not the only necessary end – nor, in my opinion, can democracy be sustained inn Iraq. The best end for Iraq is stability, and that can only be achieved by a complete coalition withdrawal – at best they should be replaced by Muslim peace-keeping troops. If American troops withdraw, along with British and other nationalities, the Arab Mujahideen would fade away. Extremists groups and criminal gangs would become the common enemy, and Iraq (although it may split politically) would be able to unite to defeat these groups. Sunni’s and Extremists are presently united in their opposition to American troops. We withdraw and this unity will break.
Like I have said, it has not yet come to the point whereby I would have to chose between British and American troops and Iraqi resistance. But events in Falluga, Samara and Najaf, among others, have proven, in my honest opinion, that the occupation is flawed. Simply hiding behind this fact with claims of democracy, morality and freedom – which amounts to nothing more than political rhetoric – will not benefit anybody. If I join the Marines and I get sent to Iraq I would have to accept that my opinion doesn’t mean a thing. But that does not mean I would have to be happy about it.
I wont go into detail, but I would believe that a permanent UN force would be beneficial – events such as Rwanda, Kosovo, etc, took place because the international society – not simply the UN – were not prepared to intervene. A UN force could intervene in such affairs while debate takes place. (Read Saving Strangers by Nick Wheeler).
I don’t know what to make about the second part of your post. I’m not against globalisation and ive never said that. Quite honestly I don’t know much about that to make a decision. Ive been bombarded by emails about fair-trade, nestle, caterpillar, etc, but I don’t like to get involved in things that I know little of. Im not a marxist or anything like that, I yes I agree that democracy is a good thing.
Share This Page:
dilema
the status quo wasn't inevitable, it's the result of piss poor planning by the US military for the reconstruction of Iraq. And they should never have disassembled the existing police force.
secondly the 'arab mujahadeen' would not fade away because they are not the main problem. the problems are
a) foreign insurgents/terrorists etc
b) greedy criminals vying for power
c) an internal conflict between different ethnic groups because they are both afraid of losing out in the political process.
none of the above would be solved by the coalition withdrawing, and it certainly wouldnt be helped by a muslim force, because the muslim force would have to be made of countries supportive of the new iraq and willing to help, and who would they be? countries friendly with the coalition and already being attacked by terrorist groups, it would be a blood bath
secondly the 'arab mujahadeen' would not fade away because they are not the main problem. the problems are
a) foreign insurgents/terrorists etc
b) greedy criminals vying for power
c) an internal conflict between different ethnic groups because they are both afraid of losing out in the political process.
none of the above would be solved by the coalition withdrawing, and it certainly wouldnt be helped by a muslim force, because the muslim force would have to be made of countries supportive of the new iraq and willing to help, and who would they be? countries friendly with the coalition and already being attacked by terrorist groups, it would be a blood bath
Right, you only came close to answering just one of the questions I asked, so I find myself having to ask them again. FYI, kindly don't patronise me by assuming that my problem is ignorance and that merely explaining your statements in greater detail will satisfy me; footnotes recommending books are for academic works, I've been through university and most likely read more of the things than you; and finally I'm not yet so old that I'm forgetting things, so no need to tell me to 'remember' basic history. That said...
1. Distinguishing between 'illegitimate' violence and 'legitimate' guerilla warfare is exactly what I did two posts ago, you don't need to explain the difference. Somewhat later on, along the same topic, you assert...
As for the 'justification' of British/American troops, you haven't addressed the fact that the democratically elected Iraqi government have requested them to remain. No matter what the justification and legality of the invasion, their current prescence is both legal and justified, at least according to the sovereign state of Iraq. You clearly disagree.
2. I have a fairly good handle on what you think about events in Fallujah et al and political rhetoric, my question was, however: if you join the RM and are in your unit facing insurgents will you switch sides?
3. Neither of us want to go into the UN debate, so lets not.
4. Once again you say Afghanistan was justified. My point, once again, was how do you rationally believe Afghanistan was justified while Iraq isn't. I'm not asking for an opinion or gut feeling, I want you to explain you reasoning. Simply citing Catch-22 or saying the invasion was inevitable doesn't cut it. You think that the Iraq invasion was unjustified, but no matter what the politically given reasons for both invasions, the fact is that the actions were both exactly the same. We toppled national governments in the name of attacking non-national forces within their borders. In black and white: rationally, if you think occupying Iraq was unnecessary, you have to think occupying Afghanistan was unnecessary.
Two more quick points:
As for the second part of my post, it was a general criticism on the political philosophy to which most of your argument belongs, and from where your ideas come, not a specific attack. Do with it what you will.
The stupid thing about this is that I actually agree with most of the points you are making, however they a) completely lack any reasoning behind them, thus are b) drawing illogical and sometimes plain wrong conclusions, and c) you cannot lecture about justification, legality, and the moral high-ground unless you are standing on it. If you want to take anything from my second post, please take the part which showed that none of us are on the moral high ground, and bad things tend to happen when we pretend to be, or worse, believe we are. Like, to take two topical, opposing examples, you and Dubya.
1. Distinguishing between 'illegitimate' violence and 'legitimate' guerilla warfare is exactly what I did two posts ago, you don't need to explain the difference. Somewhat later on, along the same topic, you assert...
This is clearly disagreeing with my statement in two posts ago, (where I said that the majority of violence by resistance/criminal elements was unjustified), but luckily I have the advantage that your statement is patent bollocks. Taking again statistics the clearly left-wing and anti-war http://www.anti-war.org, in this publication http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_doss ... 3-2005.pdf, so these are as sympathetic as statistics will get to your argument. On pg.10, statistics of Iraqi civilian deaths, deaths by resistance/terrorist/criminal elements amount to 56% or 14,023 killed. Coalition forces combined have lost around 2,300. That is quite some difference if you want to claim that the 'majority of activity takes place in the form of legitimate guerrilla attacks against coalition troops'. I suppose it is conceivable that these guerrilla attacks were all aimed squarely at coalition forces, but 14,023 bombs or bullets went off target and killed civilians; however, not only would this surpass the number estimated (same source) that the US has killed (9,270), but surely no matter how justified the resistance itself:but the overwhelming majority of activity takes place in the form of legitimate guerrilla attacks against coalition troops.
?killing 14,023+ Iraqis in the process is not justified and is completely disproportionate.
As for the 'justification' of British/American troops, you haven't addressed the fact that the democratically elected Iraqi government have requested them to remain. No matter what the justification and legality of the invasion, their current prescence is both legal and justified, at least according to the sovereign state of Iraq. You clearly disagree.
2. I have a fairly good handle on what you think about events in Fallujah et al and political rhetoric, my question was, however: if you join the RM and are in your unit facing insurgents will you switch sides?
3. Neither of us want to go into the UN debate, so lets not.
4. Once again you say Afghanistan was justified. My point, once again, was how do you rationally believe Afghanistan was justified while Iraq isn't. I'm not asking for an opinion or gut feeling, I want you to explain you reasoning. Simply citing Catch-22 or saying the invasion was inevitable doesn't cut it. You think that the Iraq invasion was unjustified, but no matter what the politically given reasons for both invasions, the fact is that the actions were both exactly the same. We toppled national governments in the name of attacking non-national forces within their borders. In black and white: rationally, if you think occupying Iraq was unnecessary, you have to think occupying Afghanistan was unnecessary.
Two more quick points:
Really? Show me. I wonder what fictional country they constructed under laboratory conditions to prove the interaction between terrorism and democracy, and how they persuaded human guinea-pigs to die for the former. In the name of science I suppose!Recent research has disproved claims that democracy defeats terrorism and the current violence in Iraq was inevitable.
You have absolutely no basis for supposing that, it is pure conjecture, not fact, or even reason. This is debate, not prophecy. In the interest of debate, however, I would be eager to hear how you imagine a country splitting politically but uniting at the same time?If American troops withdraw, along with British and other nationalities, the Arab Mujahideen would fade away. Extremists groups and criminal gangs would become the common enemy, and Iraq (although it may split politically) would be able to unite to defeat these groups.
As for the second part of my post, it was a general criticism on the political philosophy to which most of your argument belongs, and from where your ideas come, not a specific attack. Do with it what you will.
The stupid thing about this is that I actually agree with most of the points you are making, however they a) completely lack any reasoning behind them, thus are b) drawing illogical and sometimes plain wrong conclusions, and c) you cannot lecture about justification, legality, and the moral high-ground unless you are standing on it. If you want to take anything from my second post, please take the part which showed that none of us are on the moral high ground, and bad things tend to happen when we pretend to be, or worse, believe we are. Like, to take two topical, opposing examples, you and Dubya.
-
Bliartheliar
- Guest
Right mate, I couldnt give a toss about what you wrote a f@#k day ago never mind what you have written in the past. Like ive said in previous posts, half the stuff I right on here is palying davils advocate. I dont necessarily believe in half the shit I write, but I do it for pure sake of argument. Basically these forums are a bit quite recently and a few comments here and there spice things up a little I think. There a good place to let of steam and have an argument purely for arguments sake. SOme of the things I write I do believe in - I wouldnt mind dying for the sake of a firend, a complete stranger or an oppo, but I wouldnt even think about dying for some f@#k politician who hasnt even got the bollocks to cast aside political rhetoric when asked to expalin himself. And no way would I be prepared to fight for what amounts to nothing more than a fecking crusade and then please nmyself by claiming that I am fighting for democracy or some other political experiment. I believe thatd emocracy is a good thing - not necessarily just for the right to vote but for a free civil society, the freedom of opinion and movement, the freedom to stand up against authority. But in no f@#k way do I for one second believe that democracy can be forced upon someone or can a country beforced to democratise overnight. The current Iraqi government may be better than the previous regime, but only just and it amounts to nothing more that a puppet government - democracy in any other country as unstable as Iraq would be annuled.
How can the occupation be legal? The war was completely unjsutified, and the present government was installed after the invasion - by some peoples accounts the invasion was always jsutified and becasue Saddam was going to go any subsequent occupation was going to be jsutified.
What then? Oppose the war and I must be supporting Saddam? Oppose the occupation and I must be supporting al Qaeda? Oppose American hegemony and supporting authoritarian regimes? Well then, it seems im f@#k either way. I genuely oppose the occupation - becasue I believe that Iraq was stabalise. Im not going to pretent that I give a f@#k about the Iraqi people. I wish them no ill harm, but the false-empathy that some people posess is a load of defensive, self-satisfying bollocks that I do not want to share. Im not fundamentalist, but im not prepared to accept for one muinute political rhetoric as fact. Nor do I believe that all polticians are liars. But the fact of the matter is that in the current climate, western politicians can do whatever the f@#k they want and they will always be able to pick up the pieces and claim the moral highground - and people are willing to play into thier hands.
Sarastro, dont think for one second that you know what I believe in or what I am agianst. Quite frankly, you dont know me or anything worthwile about me. So keep your judgements to yourself. Im playing devil's advocate. This isnt a think-tank. If I wanted to I could explain my opinions further than I wanted to, but it isnt worth it. Only a dozen or so people are going to read it anyway and who gives a shit what we write? Dont pass judgement on people when its not required.
Im quite happy to have arguments and debate, plus answering and asking questions. But im not prepared to try and get personal with people who I have never met or know nothing about. If you dont like my politics then fine, but the fact is you dont know me, I dont klnow you so leave it as that.
How can the occupation be legal? The war was completely unjsutified, and the present government was installed after the invasion - by some peoples accounts the invasion was always jsutified and becasue Saddam was going to go any subsequent occupation was going to be jsutified.
What then? Oppose the war and I must be supporting Saddam? Oppose the occupation and I must be supporting al Qaeda? Oppose American hegemony and supporting authoritarian regimes? Well then, it seems im f@#k either way. I genuely oppose the occupation - becasue I believe that Iraq was stabalise. Im not going to pretent that I give a f@#k about the Iraqi people. I wish them no ill harm, but the false-empathy that some people posess is a load of defensive, self-satisfying bollocks that I do not want to share. Im not fundamentalist, but im not prepared to accept for one muinute political rhetoric as fact. Nor do I believe that all polticians are liars. But the fact of the matter is that in the current climate, western politicians can do whatever the f@#k they want and they will always be able to pick up the pieces and claim the moral highground - and people are willing to play into thier hands.
Sarastro, dont think for one second that you know what I believe in or what I am agianst. Quite frankly, you dont know me or anything worthwile about me. So keep your judgements to yourself. Im playing devil's advocate. This isnt a think-tank. If I wanted to I could explain my opinions further than I wanted to, but it isnt worth it. Only a dozen or so people are going to read it anyway and who gives a shit what we write? Dont pass judgement on people when its not required.
Im quite happy to have arguments and debate, plus answering and asking questions. But im not prepared to try and get personal with people who I have never met or know nothing about. If you dont like my politics then fine, but the fact is you dont know me, I dont klnow you so leave it as that.
-
Artist
- Guest
The facts are these:
You join up and sign on the dotted line. From then on you do as your told.
If you cannot get your head around that then don't even think about joining the Royal Marines. You may do your time and never see action. Conversely you could find yourself right in the deep stuff one week after passing out.
Try arguing the toss with your Troop OC or even worse your Troop Sgt and you can expect a rather short reply along the lines of Tough Tittys Sunshine! Do as you told or your bollox are mine!
You join up and sign on the dotted line. From then on you do as your told.
If you cannot get your head around that then don't even think about joining the Royal Marines. You may do your time and never see action. Conversely you could find yourself right in the deep stuff one week after passing out.
Try arguing the toss with your Troop OC or even worse your Troop Sgt and you can expect a rather short reply along the lines of Tough Tittys Sunshine! Do as you told or your bollox are mine!
-
Hostage_Negotiator
- Member
- Posts: 1186
- Joined: Wed 08 Jun, 2005 12:42 pm
- Location: Stick a pin in the map!
Well that's a relief! because we don't either. You may well enjoy using this forum to get your kicks from arguing with faceless others however there is a fine line between constructive lively debate and ramming your often ill informed political opinions down peoples throats! You have a reputation on these forums for turning any thread you post on into a political soapbox for you to climb upon and spout forth your rhetoric, in short I'm personally bored with it! You are entitled to your opinion like any other resident of this here nation ( a luxury afforded you due to British Servicemen and women having laid down their lives to ensure that you have this right!) however you have become a bit of a standing joke around here due to your excessive political postings. Normally I don't even bother to read any post of yours longer than two lines as I know that there'll be a political statement in there somewhere, however I'm glad I took the time to read all of this thread else I would have missed Sarastro's rather clinical dissection of you which in your attempt to reply to, you have revealed the real you! A petty little person who when challenged is unable to provide a reasoned argument from an informed position. This would lead me to believe that you replied before searching the web for someone elses opinion which you could then post as your own!Bliartheliar wrote:I dont necessarily believe in half the shit I write.
Maybe you should take your political leanings and fervour and use them to good effect on a "Political Forum" as that would be the appropriate place for them or does the prospect frighten you? Maybe you prefer to remain here posting nonsense in the hope that you may get a response from someone you think is ignorant and reads the wrong tabloids! Perhaps you would be better off refraining from posting on a political forum seeing how you failed so miserably to reply with any substance when challenged by Sarastro. However if you insist on staying here and trying to pass yourself off as some self proclaimed academic please consider making use of "Spell Check" as your last post was not of the quality we've come to expect from an "academic "such as yourself!
Was going to post a whole thing here about how the Gorgeous George School of Demagoguery isn't actually Argument and Debate as you seem to think, but H_N summed it up rather well! By the way, nobody here is going to think less of you for your opinions, so at least stand by them instead of the pretty transparent devil's advocate claim.
PS My book recommendation for you is Plato's The Republic, I have a well-worn copy if you like.
PS My book recommendation for you is Plato's The Republic, I have a well-worn copy if you like.
-
Artist
- Guest
Lots of books have been read about this and that as far as I can make out. All boils down to one thing really. There are some right boring PRONGS alive and well on MF&T.
If you cannot get your point across in one sentence then you may as well wrap your hand in. Spouting off about stuff you have never witnessed but just read in some book, or seen on some TV programme is not in any way shape or form clever in my view.
This is a forum about military matters not the why and wherefores of when you would be prepared to fight for your country. As I said before in my last post. You sign up and you do as you are told.
If Godforbid the Armed Forces ever get to the stage where the Troops debate as to if it is a good idea to do this or do that then thats the end of a Displined Force as far as I am concerned.
Do you think the Average Roman Soldier ever considered the rights and wrongs of invading the British Isles 2000 years ago? Did he Bollox! He did as he was told and took the rough with the smooth. Thats the way of all Forces ever since. You do as you are told. No more, no less. As to if you agree with what you are ordered to do..........Quite Frankly who cares, I didn't.
I was in the Oman in the Seventies basically fighting for a foreign country whilst wearing my RM uniform. Went down South. Served in NI for nearly four years off and on. Went to other places nobody had ever heard of and more then likely never will hear of again on quite a few occasions. At no time did I ever stop to consider the rights and wrongs of what I did. I just did it, along with my fellow Marines.
So if you have even a hint of worry about going to places your not happy about then don't join up. Because the one overiding fact about the Corp is that they go everywhere. And I do mean Everywhere. I even spent three months in Iran when the Shar was still the ruler.
If you cannot get your point across in one sentence then you may as well wrap your hand in. Spouting off about stuff you have never witnessed but just read in some book, or seen on some TV programme is not in any way shape or form clever in my view.
This is a forum about military matters not the why and wherefores of when you would be prepared to fight for your country. As I said before in my last post. You sign up and you do as you are told.
If Godforbid the Armed Forces ever get to the stage where the Troops debate as to if it is a good idea to do this or do that then thats the end of a Displined Force as far as I am concerned.
Do you think the Average Roman Soldier ever considered the rights and wrongs of invading the British Isles 2000 years ago? Did he Bollox! He did as he was told and took the rough with the smooth. Thats the way of all Forces ever since. You do as you are told. No more, no less. As to if you agree with what you are ordered to do..........Quite Frankly who cares, I didn't.
I was in the Oman in the Seventies basically fighting for a foreign country whilst wearing my RM uniform. Went down South. Served in NI for nearly four years off and on. Went to other places nobody had ever heard of and more then likely never will hear of again on quite a few occasions. At no time did I ever stop to consider the rights and wrongs of what I did. I just did it, along with my fellow Marines.
So if you have even a hint of worry about going to places your not happy about then don't join up. Because the one overiding fact about the Corp is that they go everywhere. And I do mean Everywhere. I even spent three months in Iran when the Shar was still the ruler.
And you're seriously saying you want to join the Corps ? After that admission I wouldn't give you the time of day.But, if its a choice between support british and American troops or resitance fighters i chose the latter.
[i]‘We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat’ - Queen Victoria, 1899[/i]
-
unnamedfeelin
- Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed 07 Dec, 2005 5:05 am
- Location: uk
Hey everyone,
Firstly, Aritst... you have my respect man. You've served and i haven't so im not gonna preach about shit i don't know anything about. No i haven't ever held a gun or followed an order so i won't say i know what goes through a soldiers head. But whats with the name calling man? As a civvie i can have whatever damn political opinion i want. Thats my right. And actually, most rights were not won by the gun, but by long and drawn out peacefull movements... like the women's rights movement... the racial equality movement... the labour movement... almost all of your rights were won by civies who engaged in long peacefull movements.
Thats not to say that nothing positive can come from war. WW2 against hitler was righteous. If he had won the world would be a f@#k up place. Going into zimbabwe would be great, but suprise suprise, we haven't.
Soldiers have my respect. I dont blame the soldiers even if they are fighting for a bad cause... they are just doing what they are told. And that is the trajedy of war. Its just ordinary people being told to fight eachother on both sides.
The real criminals are mostly the leaders who send the troops into wars for selfish interests. People are arguing that Iraq wasn't about making money or oil. I know that it WAS. General Garner, the man who was at first in charge of Iraq after the invasion, was given an economic plan which detalied how he was to re-structure the Iraqi economy. And the plan, which has been leaked, called for the privatisation of EVERY industry in Iraq. However, the general refused to follow those orders, and he publicaly said 'that is not a fight you want to take on...its their oil'. He was fired quickly.
So the man who replaced him, Paul Garner, did follow that economic plan. He passed 100 CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) orders which privatised every industry in iraq. Now US corporations own all iraqi banks, iraqi ports, media rights, agriculture rights, EVERYTHING. Nothing was spared for the Iraqi people. Even iraqi seed rights were given to US seed merchants... its now illegal for iraqi's to plant their own seeds! They have to buy seeds from US merchants now... and those goes against 10 thousand years of tradition in Iraq, in which iraqi's would save up their own seeds from the previous years harvest for next year. However, the y can't afford the US seeds! So guess what, its starvation time. Here is a trueism: where there is profit to be made, there was a CPA order to transfer those profits to US corporations.
As for the oil, that too, is going to be ripped off. Over the next 50 years US oil corporations stand to gain trillions of dollars from iraqi oil. Current plans detalied in the Iraq Petroleum Law have it that the Iraqi government will own 15% or the oil, with US corporations owning the remaining 85%. What a great deal eh! How is that democracy? One man, Paul Bremer, with no accountability to the iraqi people, privatises everything in Iraq. That is what you call social and economic re-ajustment at gun point.
So money is being made left right and centre by the US corporations in Iraq. It is, sadly, about making money. That economic plan that General Garner refused to obey, but which Paul Garner did, was drafted by elite US corporate lobbyists. And there is absolute proof of this.
Now just because i hold the above political view, doesn't mean i don't respect the individual soldier. I think the leaders who lie and send young kids to their deaths for profit are human scum, as low as humanity can go. But a soldier who believes in what he is doing is way above man. In a f@#k up world, i'd rather be that soldier than a piece of shit politician.
On this issue of a soldier obeying orders... thats a hard issue. Vietnam for example, was all about f@#k up that country beyound all recognition so that it wouldn't become an example of indepedent development for the rest of that region which was traditionally under french control. The US propped up a small denationalised minory government in south vietnam which was a puppet US government. The enemy in that war, the vietcong, also known as the National Liberation Front, were just poor and ordinary peasants fighting for their own freedom. They had been controlled by the french and then the americans came and wanted to be in charge. So millions of vietnamese peasants die, the country is f@#k up beyond hope, because of a selfish US agenda. Yes yes, you'll hear that it was to stop communism spreading... but communism is a word which is used to justify everything the elite want to do, just as terrorism is the word used today. The communist threat was really the treat that ordinary people would control their own country. God forbid! Because ordinary people don't have the elite's interests in mind.
And so how did the Vietnam war end? It ended because the US leaders realised that the war would no longer be profitable... there were too many US casualties, over 50 thousand. And also the US military in vietnam broke apart because the young soldiers started to frag their own officers. Thats a horrific thing to do, but if the military hadn't collapsed, who knows how many million more vietnamese peasants would have died.
Thats an example of where soldiers disobeying is the right thing to do. Why in the hell should young american kids napalm innocent vietnamese peasants? As Mohammad Ali said 'Aint no vietcong ever called me nigger'.
Like i said, i haven't experienced war. But i know that the war machine has some crazy people at the wheel and i know it can desend into insanity and sometimes a reality check is needed.
Anyway, just my .02. Agree or disagree, do you own research if you want to understand whats going on, dont take my word for it.
Firstly, Aritst... you have my respect man. You've served and i haven't so im not gonna preach about shit i don't know anything about. No i haven't ever held a gun or followed an order so i won't say i know what goes through a soldiers head. But whats with the name calling man? As a civvie i can have whatever damn political opinion i want. Thats my right. And actually, most rights were not won by the gun, but by long and drawn out peacefull movements... like the women's rights movement... the racial equality movement... the labour movement... almost all of your rights were won by civies who engaged in long peacefull movements.
Thats not to say that nothing positive can come from war. WW2 against hitler was righteous. If he had won the world would be a f@#k up place. Going into zimbabwe would be great, but suprise suprise, we haven't.
Soldiers have my respect. I dont blame the soldiers even if they are fighting for a bad cause... they are just doing what they are told. And that is the trajedy of war. Its just ordinary people being told to fight eachother on both sides.
The real criminals are mostly the leaders who send the troops into wars for selfish interests. People are arguing that Iraq wasn't about making money or oil. I know that it WAS. General Garner, the man who was at first in charge of Iraq after the invasion, was given an economic plan which detalied how he was to re-structure the Iraqi economy. And the plan, which has been leaked, called for the privatisation of EVERY industry in Iraq. However, the general refused to follow those orders, and he publicaly said 'that is not a fight you want to take on...its their oil'. He was fired quickly.
So the man who replaced him, Paul Garner, did follow that economic plan. He passed 100 CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) orders which privatised every industry in iraq. Now US corporations own all iraqi banks, iraqi ports, media rights, agriculture rights, EVERYTHING. Nothing was spared for the Iraqi people. Even iraqi seed rights were given to US seed merchants... its now illegal for iraqi's to plant their own seeds! They have to buy seeds from US merchants now... and those goes against 10 thousand years of tradition in Iraq, in which iraqi's would save up their own seeds from the previous years harvest for next year. However, the y can't afford the US seeds! So guess what, its starvation time. Here is a trueism: where there is profit to be made, there was a CPA order to transfer those profits to US corporations.
As for the oil, that too, is going to be ripped off. Over the next 50 years US oil corporations stand to gain trillions of dollars from iraqi oil. Current plans detalied in the Iraq Petroleum Law have it that the Iraqi government will own 15% or the oil, with US corporations owning the remaining 85%. What a great deal eh! How is that democracy? One man, Paul Bremer, with no accountability to the iraqi people, privatises everything in Iraq. That is what you call social and economic re-ajustment at gun point.
So money is being made left right and centre by the US corporations in Iraq. It is, sadly, about making money. That economic plan that General Garner refused to obey, but which Paul Garner did, was drafted by elite US corporate lobbyists. And there is absolute proof of this.
Now just because i hold the above political view, doesn't mean i don't respect the individual soldier. I think the leaders who lie and send young kids to their deaths for profit are human scum, as low as humanity can go. But a soldier who believes in what he is doing is way above man. In a f@#k up world, i'd rather be that soldier than a piece of shit politician.
On this issue of a soldier obeying orders... thats a hard issue. Vietnam for example, was all about f@#k up that country beyound all recognition so that it wouldn't become an example of indepedent development for the rest of that region which was traditionally under french control. The US propped up a small denationalised minory government in south vietnam which was a puppet US government. The enemy in that war, the vietcong, also known as the National Liberation Front, were just poor and ordinary peasants fighting for their own freedom. They had been controlled by the french and then the americans came and wanted to be in charge. So millions of vietnamese peasants die, the country is f@#k up beyond hope, because of a selfish US agenda. Yes yes, you'll hear that it was to stop communism spreading... but communism is a word which is used to justify everything the elite want to do, just as terrorism is the word used today. The communist threat was really the treat that ordinary people would control their own country. God forbid! Because ordinary people don't have the elite's interests in mind.
And so how did the Vietnam war end? It ended because the US leaders realised that the war would no longer be profitable... there were too many US casualties, over 50 thousand. And also the US military in vietnam broke apart because the young soldiers started to frag their own officers. Thats a horrific thing to do, but if the military hadn't collapsed, who knows how many million more vietnamese peasants would have died.
Thats an example of where soldiers disobeying is the right thing to do. Why in the hell should young american kids napalm innocent vietnamese peasants? As Mohammad Ali said 'Aint no vietcong ever called me nigger'.
Like i said, i haven't experienced war. But i know that the war machine has some crazy people at the wheel and i know it can desend into insanity and sometimes a reality check is needed.
Anyway, just my .02. Agree or disagree, do you own research if you want to understand whats going on, dont take my word for it.
-
Artist
- Guest
Did I mention names? I think not so bin the paranoia. Bliartheliar was my aiming point.unnamedfeelin wrote:Hey everyone,
Firstly, Aritst... you have my respect man. You've served and i haven't so im not gonna preach about shit i don't know anything about. No i haven't ever held a gun or followed an order so i won't say i know what goes through a soldiers head. But whats with the name calling man?
Artist
-
unnamedfeelin
- Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed 07 Dec, 2005 5:05 am
- Location: uk
ohh,
so 'Sprog with PC leanings' as you called me, isn't a name? You might as well have just called me an immature kid who doesn't understand the real world. Thats unfair man, i try to understand whats going on. I read alot about current events and history for someone of my age group. Is that such a crime?
You want truth? I wasn't going to say this because i thought it would offend everyone here, which it will. But, on the subject of corporate contracts coming from the new Iraq, Britain only got one major contract in Iraq!
And what contract was that? It was a contract to fix the Baghdad sewage system. I'm sure the hawks in Washington are laughing all the way to the bank, thinking 'the brits come along and all they get to do is clean up the shit!'
Thats sad but a fact man. I didn't plan the war, or monger for it, or decide who would get what during the carving up of of Iraq afterwards, so don't get mad at me for spreading some facts.
Another sad fact, is that the only reason british troops are there is for political cover for washington. The american's don't need any military support they have more than enough troops, but politically it would look terrible if there wasn't a 'coalition of the willing'.
No offence intended in anything i said, just exercising my right to free speech and all that.
so 'Sprog with PC leanings' as you called me, isn't a name? You might as well have just called me an immature kid who doesn't understand the real world. Thats unfair man, i try to understand whats going on. I read alot about current events and history for someone of my age group. Is that such a crime?
You want truth? I wasn't going to say this because i thought it would offend everyone here, which it will. But, on the subject of corporate contracts coming from the new Iraq, Britain only got one major contract in Iraq!
And what contract was that? It was a contract to fix the Baghdad sewage system. I'm sure the hawks in Washington are laughing all the way to the bank, thinking 'the brits come along and all they get to do is clean up the shit!'
Thats sad but a fact man. I didn't plan the war, or monger for it, or decide who would get what during the carving up of of Iraq afterwards, so don't get mad at me for spreading some facts.
Another sad fact, is that the only reason british troops are there is for political cover for washington. The american's don't need any military support they have more than enough troops, but politically it would look terrible if there wasn't a 'coalition of the willing'.
No offence intended in anything i said, just exercising my right to free speech and all that.
-
Artist
- Guest
Get your soapbox and go away BOY! 
Could not give a toss about the whys and whens of where the Royal Marines go, or who gets the jobs after the event. You miss the point. You sign up and you do as your told. Thats it in a nutshell.
The pros and cons are for politicians not Bootnecks. So stop whingeing at me and try writing to your MP. Thats why this is a free society. Anyone can say ought they like. So say it to someone who can do summut about it. But lay off the Why pick on me crap. You started this bleeding thread (which to me is stupid anyway) so expect flak from the Owd and Bold.
As I have said I have been to places you would never have heard of and all because foreign governments paid our goverment loads of Dosh to use the Expertise of the Royal Marines to sort out problems they could not sort out themselves. In fact the Corp used to make money for our country believe it or not.
Could not give a toss about the whys and whens of where the Royal Marines go, or who gets the jobs after the event. You miss the point. You sign up and you do as your told. Thats it in a nutshell.
The pros and cons are for politicians not Bootnecks. So stop whingeing at me and try writing to your MP. Thats why this is a free society. Anyone can say ought they like. So say it to someone who can do summut about it. But lay off the Why pick on me crap. You started this bleeding thread (which to me is stupid anyway) so expect flak from the Owd and Bold.
As I have said I have been to places you would never have heard of and all because foreign governments paid our goverment loads of Dosh to use the Expertise of the Royal Marines to sort out problems they could not sort out themselves. In fact the Corp used to make money for our country believe it or not.
-
Doc
- Guest
