Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While you have some reasonable points, the way you choose to express them is an obstruction to friendly communication about them.

It also doesn't help when you mix in mischaracterizations like "torture camps". It just gets people angry at you and obscures your better points.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I'm sure plenty of soldiers were convinced that they were doing the right thing there, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes there is, it's a tragedy. They've been sold a lie by their government, and if they die for nothing they won't even realise it. Their misplaced pride and righteousness prevents them from seeing that lives are being thrown away by cynical governments for profit margin increases, the dictates of ivory-tower thinktanks or the absurdities of religion.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I had no idea the scale to which they hated us.

You could probably have made a decent guess based on the fact that you invaded their country, slaughtered tens of thousands of their citizens, set up torture camps, detained hundreds of people in defiance of international law, subjected them to sanctions which led to mass starvation and had the audacity to demand their grattitude in the process based on the fact that you overthrew a dictator you put into power in the first place.

It's amazing more of them don't hate you. And by "you" I mean us, since our lickspittle labour government decided it'd be a great idea to hurl our servicemen and women into the mess as your dogsbodies getting hundreds of them killed or injured for absolutely no benefit to our national interests.

Honestly, how can anyone be surprised or indignant that they hate us? How would you react if someone invaded the your homeland? would you believe them if they told you it was "for your own good" and you should be grateful? I'm guessing you'd fight them tooth and nail and hate them for every bomb dropped, every countryman killed, and every inch of your soil they left their bootprints in. I certainly hope you would, that's the normal response to being invaded unless you happen to be Vichy.

If my country was being ruled by a brutal dictator who threatened its neighbors, conscripted people to war, used chemical weapons on its own people, imprisoned political opponents and fomented religious bigotry I'd actually be pretty happy with another country coming in and taking him out.

If a minority religious group then used that as an excuse to start a quasi-religious war and terrorize innocent civilians under the name of resisting the 'occupiers' - particularly by means of foreign mercenaries - I'd like to have those guys stick around.

Even if the occupiers were the ones who put the guy in power in the first place (or some rumors support that interpretation) I'd appreciate their help.

In contrast, if I were one of the ones who were in power before the invasion and was subject to retaliation for my acts of torture and murder during the dictator's reign, I'd probably try to convince others that the 'occupiers' were imperial oppressors, rather than people helping to free us. And given that I'd have had no compulsions against killing innocents before, I'd keep it up during the occupation to gain support against the foreign invaders. I'd probably also pay attention to the anti-war movement in the occupiers' home country and play into their hands.

Of course, the Anti-War movement in the home country would insist that they're completely immune from criticism. After all, useful idiots simply don't exist.

biccat wrote:Of course, the Anti-War movement in the home country would insist that they're completely immune from criticism. After all, useful idiots simply don't exist.

You had a lot of reasonable points. But characterizing the anti-war movement as one monolithic thing which insists "that they're completely immune from criticism" was not one.

Mannahnin wrote:While you have some reasonable points, the way you choose to express them is an obstruction to friendly communication about them.

True.

Mannahnin wrote:It also doesn't help when you mix in mischaracterizations like "torture camps". It just gets people angry at you and obscures your better points.

I don't think it's a mischaracterization at all - that's exactly what Abu Ghraib and the salt pit were and calling them anything else is self-censorship at best and outright sanitization of history at worst. Nobody would flinch at calling similar institutions in, say, North Korea the same thing.

It may be a mischaracterization of some of the things caught under the umbrella of the term, though, sure. I was deliberately using provocative language.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Even if the occupiers were the ones who put the guy in power in the first place (or some rumors support that interpretation) I'd appreciate their help.

You'd seriously be ok with living under foreign military occupation? I can't get my head around that. I don't understand how that could be acceptable to anyone, let alone people in a nation that fought a costly war for its independance.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:
You could probably have made a decent guess based on the fact that you invaded their country...

Reasonable.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:
...slaughtered tens of thousands of their citizens...

Not reasonable. Kill, sure. Slaughtered, no. Slaughter implies systematic action. We did not systematically kill Iraqi citizens.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:
...set up torture camps...

I wouldn't say torture camps, but committed acts of torture. The purpose of US detention wasn't universally torturous.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:
...detained hundreds of people in defiance of international law...

This is basically a Western problem.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:
...subjected them to sanctions which led to mass starvation and had the audacity to demand their grattitude in the process based on the fact that you overthrew a dictator you put into power in the first place.

We didn't put Saddam into power, he did that on his own. He was quite talented in the brutal arts.

The sanctions also weren't merely our responsibility.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:
It's amazing more of them don't hate you. And by "you" I mean us, since our lickspittle labour government decided it'd be a great idea to hurl our servicemen and women into the mess as your dogsbodies getting hundreds of them killed or injured for absolutely no benefit to our national interests.

You don't have a national interest in being a close military ally of the United States?

What a bunch of ungrateful wretches. We illegally invade them, bomb the brown stuff out of them, maim thousands, allow Iran to sneak through the back door, and kill the guy who was lovingly oppressing them. Scum! Every man jack of them!

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I'm sure plenty of soldiers were convinced that they were doing the right thing there, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes there is, it's a tragedy. They've been sold a lie by their government, and if they die for nothing they won't even realise it. Their misplaced pride and righteousness prevents them from seeing that lives are being thrown away by cynical governments for profit margin increases, the dictates of ivory-tower thinktanks or the absurdities of religion.

I have to ask, do you know many soldiers?

Or are you just one of these anti-war hippy types who thinks that the vast majority of professional soldiers are lackwits at best, and murdering baby rapers at worst?

Many soldiers thought that Iraq was a war too far considering AQ were the main reason for our (quite rightly) entering Afghanistan. Modern soldiers are products of a modern age. Contrary to what you may think about military training, it doesnt mean you arent allowed to think for yourself. Many soldiers had reservations, but you signed on the dotted line, you knucjle down and do to job to the best of your ability anyway. Thats what being a professional is all about, be it playing to win against your favourite football team, carrying out compliacted surgery on the bloke who has been shagging your wife, or deciding to become a professional soldier.

But why then does that mean we have "misplaced pride and righteousness"

I don't understand what one has to do with the other.

I'm proud because I earned by green beret. You can buy one for 8 quid, but its worthless unless you earned it. Thanks to gritting my teeth and forcing myself through 32 weeks of commando training, I can stay awake for three days and then push my body so hard I gak blood and puke. And if you ARE faster, stronger, fitter and more mentally robust than the average Joe, how is that pride misplaced?

And don't even start me on the self righteousness thing, because I think you really are in cloud cuckoo land if you think that is why the majority of people join the armed forces. I mean really.. do you think we actually care about being right?!

We care about winning!

biccat wrote:
If my country was being ruled by a brutal dictator who threatened its neighbors, conscripted people to war, used chemical weapons on its own people, imprisoned political opponents and fomented religious bigotry I'd actually be pretty happy with another country coming in and taking him out.

That's nice and all, but what you would be given a particular state of affairs is not relevant to what someone else is. Particularly when that someone else lives in a place in which the terms and concepts we conventionally apply to living in a place are largely imposed, and therefore significantly different from our conventional usage of them.

The country of Iraq is a Western concept, not an indigenous one, this cannot be emphasized enough.

biccat wrote:
If a minority religious group then used that as an excuse to start a quasi-religious war and terrorize innocent civilians under the name of resisting the 'occupiers' - particularly by means of foreign mercenaries - I'd like to have those guys stick around.

You think the insurgency in Iraq was primarily religious, one group, and that the collected groups can be dismissed as a minority?

I suppose that's one opinion, not one based on reason mind you, but an opinion of sorts. The Iraqi insurgency was, and remains to the extent that it still exists, quite a diverse group. Even the religious classifications that we used to describe certain segments of it are not wholly accurate regarding the motivations of their members.

biccat wrote:
Even if the occupiers were the ones who put the guy in power in the first place (or some rumors support that interpretation) I'd appreciate their help.

I sincerely doubt that, especially given your nominal position regarding small government.

biccat wrote:
In contrast, if I were one of the ones who were in power before the invasion and was subject to retaliation for my acts of torture and murder during the dictator's reign, I'd probably try to convince others that the 'occupiers' were imperial oppressors, rather than people helping to free us. And given that I'd have had no compulsions against killing innocents before, I'd keep it up during the occupation to gain support against the foreign invaders. I'd probably also pay attention to the anti-war movement in the occupiers' home country and play into their hands.

Of course, the Anti-War movement in the home country would insist that they're completely immune from criticism. After all, useful idiots simply don't exist.

This presumes that Iraq was, and remained, a useful venture which all people should support.

Of course, this is not the case, as it is perfectly reasonable to value other things (minimal expenditure on warfare, soldiers deployed in non-hostile places, family members not being at risk, etc.) over any particular set of victory conditions in Iraq.

In essence, you are not making an argument so much as baiting on the basis of ideologically Republican principles.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I'm sure plenty of soldiers were convinced that they were doing the right thing there, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes there is, it's a tragedy. They've been sold a lie by their government, and if they die for nothing they won't even realise it. Their misplaced pride and righteousness prevents them from seeing that lives are being thrown away by cynical governments for profit margin increases, the dictates of ivory-tower thinktanks or the absurdities of religion.

Take a chill pill man, you're being way too hostile about this. I'm not entirely disagreeing either. I can just feel the venom in your words. There are other ways to get your point across besides gaking on the sacrifices our men and women have made for our country, righteous or not.

biccat wrote:
threatened its neighbors, used chemical weapons on its own people, and fomented religious bigotry I'd actually be pretty happy with another country coming in and taking him out.

These have happened recently in the US, not to mention religious bigotry is an American staple...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: As I've said before, I did two tours of Iraq convinced it was a good idea, with age and hindsight I now think it was pretty pointless. I lost some good friends over there as well, so I cant help but feel like maybe it was a waste of time. I also feel aggrieved that one of the main reasons we may have went was because Bush thought Jesus would have liked the idea.

Although, no actually I'm really glad I went because I was desperate to go to a proper war, and that was the first time I got to do a cool fast roping assault in a chopper and fire a machine gun at someone, so I definitely got something out of it.

I didn't get to stab anyone though, or run anyone over with an armoured vehicle.

.......

That was what Afghanistan was for!

When does the Mattyrm action figure come out?

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:
threatened its neighbors, used chemical weapons on its own people, and fomented religious bigotry I'd actually be pretty happy with another country coming in and taking him out.

These have happened recently in the US, not to mention religious bigotry is an American staple...

I'm also wondering where, in Arab nationalism (The Ba'ath Party is an Arab nationalist party), religious bigotry fits in. Saddam's Iraq was many things, but religiously intolerant was not one of them (at least as goes the state).

Samus_aran115 wrote:Thought this was interesting. I had no idea the scale to which they hated us.

Yeah, all few hundred of them.

kill the guy who was lovingly oppressing them.

I'm sure using Chemical Weapons on his people was 'lovingly oppressing' them, amirite?

Sure we freed them. We're also responsible for (by some estimates) the deaths of perhaps a million or more of them. Even if ONLY the people who lost immediate family members due to our actions were angry enough at us to protest, that would be what? Five million, ten million, more?

And how many died under Saddam's regime, by his actions? Will we ever find out?

Holding a protest is "animalistic behavior"? The mere fact that so few of them are cheering our departure is a sign that the vast majority of them recognize that we came into it with good (if musguided) intentions, and are trying to move on with their lives rather than holding onto their hate. Dismissing them as animals would be deeply stupid and thoughtless.

Animalistic behaviour = killing each of their own people like dogs. But then; not even animals kill each other for such stupid reasons.

I'm going to do you the favor of assuming that's internet hyperbole. If it's actually true, then you need to grow up and become a better person.

It isn't. We came in and got rid of Saddam for them. Yes, we had to stay, but it was to try and make the region safer and better for them. Yet what did we do the moment we left? they went back to blowing each other up. They completely tossed away their one chance. Thats why I couldn't give one flying feth what happens to the people there; all of them.

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:
threatened its neighbors, used chemical weapons on its own people, and fomented religious bigotry I'd actually be pretty happy with another country coming in and taking him out.

These have happened recently in the US, not to mention religious bigotry is an American staple...

One needs only to look to the Dakka forums to find evidence of the latter.

As to the former, I'm pretty sure we haven't "recently" used chemical weapons on Americans. Unless you're talking about chemtrails, of course.

Mr Hyena wrote:
And how many died under Saddam's regime, by his actions? Will we ever find out?

In 2001 42,196 people died in motor vehicle accidents, but the US did not go declare war on motor vehicle operators.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Animalistic behaviour = killing each of their own people like dogs.

Yes, humans do behave as the animals that they are. I'm glad that you recognize this.

Mr Hyena wrote:
We came in and got rid of Saddam for them.

No, we got rid of Saddam for us.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I'm sure plenty of soldiers were convinced that they were doing the right thing there, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes there is, it's a tragedy. They've been sold a lie by their government, and if they die for nothing they won't even realise it. Their misplaced pride and righteousness prevents them from seeing that lives are being thrown away by cynical governments for profit margin increases, the dictates of ivory-tower thinktanks or the absurdities of religion.

Soldiers are people not robots. That's why it's bad when/if they die...

CT GAMER wrote:

mattyrm wrote: As I've said before, I did two tours of Iraq convinced it was a good idea, with age and hindsight I now think it was pretty pointless. I lost some good friends over there as well, so I cant help but feel like maybe it was a waste of time. I also feel aggrieved that one of the main reasons we may have went was because Bush thought Jesus would have liked the idea.

Although, no actually I'm really glad I went because I was desperate to go to a proper war, and that was the first time I got to do a cool fast roping assault in a chopper and fire a machine gun at someone, so I definitely got something out of it.

I didn't get to stab anyone though, or run anyone over with an armoured vehicle.

.......

That was what Afghanistan was for!

When does the Mattyrm action figure come out?

The mad thing is, Matty isn't unique amongst Royal Marines in terms of a cheerful and jocular attitude towards ultra-violence. All the ones I've met are like that!

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I'm sure plenty of soldiers were convinced that they were doing the right thing there, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes there is, it's a tragedy. They've been sold a lie by their government, and if they die for nothing they won't even realise it. Their misplaced pride and righteousness prevents them from seeing that lives are being thrown away by cynical governments for profit margin increases, the dictates of ivory-tower thinktanks or the absurdities of religion.

Cynically stereotyping an entire groups of people is best left to rednecks making bad jokes about fried chicken.

The motivation of members of the armed forces entering the war depends a lot on when and why they joined. There are plenty that joined/went into Iraq after mission accomplished that did so in the interest of picking up a giant mess that our country made, and plenty of people that joined during the Clinton, Bush 41, or Reagan administration. There are lots of different types of members of the armed forces, lots of different personal motivations , and among them there is a very wide range of intelligence ranging from barely able to score high enough on the asvab to carry a gun, to the best and brightest of a generation.

Mannahnin wrote:You had a lot of reasonable points. But characterizing the anti-war movement as one monolithic thing which insists "that they're completely immune from criticism" was not one.

Are there elements of the anti-war movement that are receptive to criticism that they were being used as tools by the "insurgents"?

Most of the useful idiots during the cold war didn't realize they were being used.

biccat wrote:
Are there elements of the anti-war movement that are receptive to criticism that they were being used as tools by the "insurgents"?

Why is the word in insurgents in quotes?

biccat wrote:
Most of the useful idiots during the cold war didn't realize they were being used.

Do you think that they would have cared?

When you share a goal with a given group, does it matter who makes up that group, or what their other goals might be?

biccat wrote:

As to the former, I'm pretty sure we haven't "recently" used chemical weapons on Americans.

Excluding McDonalds of course.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Are there elements of the anti-war movement that are receptive to criticism that they were being used as tools by the "insurgents"?

Why is the word in insurgents in quotes?

Because the so-called insurgents were supposedly fighting against the US occupation (or so we're led to believe), not against the established government of Iraq, which was the actual authority in Iraq. That makes them something other than insurgents, partisans would be a better label.

If they really are insurgents acting against the legitimate authority in Iraq then it's a mistake for us to leave as it will simply concentrate attacks on the Iraqi government.

biccat wrote:
Because the so-called insurgents were supposedly fighting against the US occupation (or so we're led to believe), not against the established government of Iraq, which was the actual authority in Iraq. That makes them something other than insurgents, partisans would be a better label.

If they really are insurgents acting against the legitimate authority in Iraq then it's a mistake for us to leave as it will simply concentrate attacks on the Iraqi government.

Partisans is another good label, yes. But refusing to accept the label "insurgent" ignores the intimate connection (under the SOFA and otherwise) between US forces and the Iraqi state. Indeed, until recently, US forces effectively were the military and police force of the Iraqi state (though really, the power arrangement went the other way).

Personally I'd prefer to stick with insurgents, and have partisan refer to the spear instead.

CT GAMER wrote:These have happened recently in the US, not to mention religious bigotry is an American staple...

No gak...

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Because the so-called insurgents were supposedly fighting against the US occupation (or so we're led to believe), not against the established government of Iraq, which was the actual authority in Iraq. That makes them something other than insurgents, partisans would be a better label.

If they really are insurgents acting against the legitimate authority in Iraq then it's a mistake for us to leave as it will simply concentrate attacks on the Iraqi government.

Partisans is another good label, yes. But refusing to accept the label "insurgent" ignores the intimate connection (under the SOFA and otherwise) between US forces and the Iraqi state. Indeed, until recently, US forces effectively were the military and police force of the Iraqi state (though really, the power arrangement went the other way).

Which is why I used quotes around the word insurgent.

The insurgents aren't really insurgents. There's not really a very good term for describing them. Even partisan is an imperfect descriptor.

biccat wrote:
The insurgents aren't really insurgents.

Sure they are, they fought against an established civil authority.

biccat wrote:
There's not really a very good term for describing them. Even partisan is an imperfect descriptor.

The fun thing about words is that more than one of them can be used to describe any particular thing.

Do you really think the Japanese are happy we are still there? I mean really...

Did you want them to be sad we left?

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:You had a lot of reasonable points. But characterizing the anti-war movement as one monolithic thing which insists "that they're completely immune from criticism" was not one.

Are there elements of the anti-war movement that are receptive to criticism that they were being used as tools by the "insurgents"?

Here's what you wrote before:

biccat wrote:Of course, the Anti-War movement in the home country would insist that they're completely immune from criticism.

Are you changing what you're talking about, or did you just express yourself badly before? I objected to two ideas you put forward. 1. That "the Anti-war movement" is monolithic. 2. That they "would insist that they're completely immune from criticism". I entirely disagree that anti-war people in general would ever insist that they're completely immune from criticism. I don't think that idea, expressed by you, is defensible. No doubt there are a few self-righteous loons who feel themselves immune to criticism, but most people who opposed the Iraq war aren't self-righteous loons. They're mostly normal human beings, opposing it for real and valid moral and/or practical reasons.

If you're going to just ignore that, and change to a new question based on a more specific and limited criticism, "Are there elements of the anti-war movement that are receptive to criticism that they were being used as tools by the "insurgents"?, then we can move onto that. I think that most thoughtful people who have an anti-Iraq-war stance would not be too bothered by that criticism, as it's one they'd be comfortable disputing. I don't think the insurgents have much impact on the thoughts and opinions of most Americans. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose our military involvement in Iraq independent of any manipulation by the insurgency. Can you point to any examples of insurgents trying to influence American opinion?

dogma wrote:The fun thing about words is that more than one of them can be used to describe any particular thing.

Given a number of your previous comments, I find this a particularly amusing line. Thanks for brightening my day.