CNN & FOX-Al-Zarqawi killed

[dcentity2000]

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.

They are not "peace keepers", although they're often (mis)used that way.

While I believe there is a reason and a purpose to have "peace keepers", the military should not be that group.

When the military is used, it's an "us vs. them" situation. As far as I'm concerned, they should use as much force as necessary (but not more) to do what they have to do to minimize OUR casualties (not the enemy's) and to end the conflict as quickly as possible.

It's nice to sit around, holding hands, and sing Kumbaya, but I'd much prefer to do that AFTER we've annhilated the enemy.

The military should be used extremely sparingly. But, when they must be used, they should kill as many of the enemy as possible, and destroy as much of the enemy's stuff as possible. I guarantee you, that's what they're trying to do to us.

Don't fight wars with your hands tied. It just causes more casualties on your side and prolongs the situation. A quick, decisive victory is much better than a long, drawn out conflict. (For both sides. The quicker you kill the enemy, the less chance of hurting civilians).

I beg to differ.

The motive behind having a military presence in the civilised world is to defend one's own realm; there is no correlation between number of deaths and degree of success.

Ideally, a military in the civilised world is now intended as a deterrent and progressively as an inland security force.

Here in the UK, the army can be called on to do all sorts of things. Last year when the fire services went on strike, the territorials assumed their position and (embarrassingly for the fire service) outperformed the standard service.

The army is also used to help the police in emergency situations and to aid the emergency services; they can set up emergency hospitals, rescue (in co-operation with the RNLI) lives at peril out at sea, airlift people to hospital and so on.

The military in the UK began to mature from the initial 'killing' purpose in the latter days of the Empire when liberal ideals started to proliferate, leading to the devolution of member states and a reduction of occupational roles.

At this stage, the purpose of military x is defined by the executive. The army of the Third Reich was intended as an offencive force, whilst the British army was intended as a defencive and peace keeping force.

I believe that America has matured largely to a state where guns are starting to become secondary and peace missions are starting to be understood. Long may this continue.



Rich::

 

[Galahad]

Ideally, a military in the civilised world is now intended as a deterrent and progressively as an inland security force.

A military can only deter if those they wish to deter actually firmly believe that military can and will kill people and break things. If those we wish to deter believe we are a paper tiger, like Bin Laden said they did after Somalia, then it will not deter anything and will in fact encourage more terrorism that all of the pre-emptive strikes you can think of.

 

[njzieglers]

I believe that America has matured largely to a state where guns are starting to become secondary and peace missions are starting to be understood. Long may this continue.



Rich::

Mighty big of you. Even with all our guns and armies, just how many nations conduct more of these peace missions than the U.S.?

 

[jimmiej]

I beg to differ.

The motive behind having a military presence in the civilised world is to defend one's own realm; there is no correlation between number of deaths and degree of success.

Ideally, a military in the civilised world is now intended as a deterrent and progressively as an inland security force.

Here in the UK, the army can be called on to do all sorts of things. Last year when the fire services went on strike, the territorials assumed their position and (embarrassingly for the fire service) outperformed the standard service.

The army is also used to help the police in emergency situations and to aid the emergency services; they can set up emergency hospitals, rescue (in co-operation with the RNLI) lives at peril out at sea, airlift people to hospital and so on.

The military in the UK began to mature from the initial 'killing' purpose in the latter days of the Empire when liberal ideals started to proliferate, leading to the devolution of member states and a reduction of occupational roles.

At this stage, the purpose of military x is defined by the executive. The army of the Third Reich was intended as an offencive force, whilst the British army was intended as a defencive and peace keeping force.

I believe that America has matured largely to a state where guns are starting to become secondary and peace missions are starting to be understood. Long may this continue.



Rich::

Rich, with all due respect, I'm glad you're not in charge of our military. IA with Rush, er...rayelias.

 

[dcentity2000]

Mighty big of you. Even with all our guns and armies, just how many nations conduct more of these peace missions than the U.S.?

The most relevant figures I could attain related to number of troops specifically deployed for pure peacekeeping exercises and said the following:

First place: Bangladesh (10,172)
Second: Pakistan (9,630)
Third: India (8,996)

Poland has 707 peacekeepers deployed, the largest single western county's contribution. The USA ranks 31st with 393 peacekeepers. The EU combined have 4,421 peacekeepers.

Of course, many countries operate on more local projects. The USA often acts alone, whilst the EU act as a peacekeeping force as does the African Union. Exact figures for specific countries are hotly disputed as numbers are inevitably distorted by politicians (name one thing politicians don't put spin on nowadays )

Perhaps a specific example is in order:

The USA has the largest number and most deadly weapons of mass destruction in the world (although the former USSR remains murky on this point; who knows how many they have/had?)

If the entire point of a military which logically and literally includes military resources is to get into fights, the USA would have created the weapons with a view to using them, however regrettably; the same goes for other WMD rich nations such as the UK.

Instead, they are created so that we may never use them, save in our darkest hour - that's why we officially call nukes a "deterrent".

In the same way, a military's primary objective is to act as a deterrent. It's not as if we have a view to conquering the planet!



Rich::

 

[njzieglers]

I didn't realize you were referring to peace missions solely with troops, Rich.

How many other missions worldwide without troops, money,food,medical care,volunteers, etc?


I'd bet the U.S. is close to the top of that list.

 

[wvrevy]

wvervy- I honestly would like to hear your opinion on the questions I raised. I really wonder how people who have the same line of reasoning as you do think a war can be fought under so many restraints and be won? Forget how we got there for a few minutes and realize we ARE there. What do you tell the young men and women who stare down enemies such as these? Do you send them into battle with a laundry list of "conditions"? I realize there are rules of engagement that need to be followed, but I wonder how we can expect our brave soldiers to fight if they are worried if every move they make is going to be second guessed?

I'll answer your question, since it was actually posed without namecalling

The simple, straight answer is...we fight under "restraints" because we are who we are. Because we are a civilized people (at least, some of us are). The enemy doesn't fight using those same restraints, that's true. But do you want us to become more like our enemy? That is exactly what you are arguing in favor of.

The enemy doesn't mind killing innocents to get the people they want, so we shouldn't either? The enemy tortures, so we should too? The enemy doesn't have to follow silly rules like the constitution, so we shouldn't either?

Is that really the country you want your children to be raised in? One that casts away it's ideals when they become inconvenient?

Yes, innocent people die in war. That's one major reason why war should always be a last resort. Forget how we got there? Not for a second.

And to the people accusing me of hating this country, I would simply say this: you are the people that are showing hatred for the ideals this country has always stood for. The country you want - one that is so frightened of the terrorist boogeymen that any action is excusable so long as it is done in the name of (though not actually accomplishing) protecting you - that country is one that is certainly worthy of hatred. Do I hate this country? No. YOU do. I LOVE what this country stands for...and hate that so many people are so scared that they're willing to destroy the ideals that made this nation great.

 

[lyeag]

I'll answer your question, since it was actually posed without namecalling

The simple, straight answer is...we fight under "restraints" because we are who we are. Because we are a civilized people (at least, some of us are). The enemy doesn't fight using those same restraints, that's true. But do you want us to become more like our enemy? That is exactly what you are arguing in favor of.

The enemy doesn't mind killing innocents to get the people they want, so we shouldn't either? The enemy tortures, so we should too? The enemy doesn't have to follow silly rules like the constitution, so we shouldn't either?

Is that really the country you want your children to be raised in? One that casts away it's ideals when they become inconvenient?

Yes, innocent people die in war. That's one major reason why war should always be a last resort. Forget how we got there? Not for a second.

And to the people accusing me of hating this country, I would simply say this: you are the people that are showing hatred for the ideals this country has always stood for. The country you want - one that is so frightened of the terrorist boogeymen that any action is excusable so long as it is done in the name of (though not actually accomplishing) protecting you - that country is one that is certainly worthy of hatred. Do I hate this country? No. YOU do. I LOVE what this country stands for...and hate that so many people are so scared that they're willing to destroy the ideals that made this nation great.

Of course I don't want us to be like them. I don't want our troops to ignore the innocents and mow them down. BUT, I don't want our troops being accused everytime an innocent gets killed either. It is unrealistic to think it won't happen. I don't want our troops dying because they are afraid to defend themselves. It is bad enough having to defend yourself from an armed enemy, but then having to worry about having to defend yourself from your own for defending yourself and your unit. I don't see our soldiers as being frightened of the terrorist boogeyman, I see it as doing the job they are sent to do. If they follow the rules of engagement and innocents die, while it is sad, they shouldn't be brought up on charges.

I don't want to see innocents killed. Nobody does.

I am glad you came back to post.

 

[wvrevy]

Of course I don't want us to be like them. I don't want our troops to ignore the innocents and mow them down. BUT, I don't want our troops being accused everytime an innocent gets killed either. It is unrealistic to think it won't happen. I don't want our troops dying because they are afraid to defend themselves. It is bad enough having to defend yourself from an armed enemy, but then having to worry about having to defend yourself from your own for defending yourself and your unit. I don't see our soldiers as being frightened of the terrorist boogeyman, I see it as doing the job they are sent to do. If they follow the rules of engagement and innocents die, while it is sad, they shouldn't be brought up on charges.

I don't want to see innocents killed. Nobody does.

I am glad you came back to post.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say (or I just wasn't clear enough), so let me try this again. It is not "unrealistic to think it won't happen," because it isn't happening. Is anyone going to be prosecuted for the kid that was killed? Of course not...nor should they. I simply said that it was sickening to me that we have gotten to a point that some people celebrate the death of one very bad man when it took the killing of several others to accomplish it.

Let me give you a scenario that may help show why so many of us believe that we're causing more problems than we're solving in Iraq. Say you are an Iraqi man living in one of the still contested cities outside of the "green zone." You were never a supporter of Saddam. You simply tried to live your life and take care of your family. Well, one day, you arrive home from work to discover that an American raid has wiped out your house and most of the neighborhood, killing several neighbors and oh, incidentally, your wife and 2 children.

Now, do you think it would make a darn bit of difference to you that the Americans had reason to attack the neighborhood? Maybe there was a "bad guy" hiding in a house behind yours, unknown to you. Maybe it was even one of the 32 "2nd in command of Al Queda" figures we've taken out all ready. Does any of that make one bit of difference? Would you be just the tiniest bit likely to want revenge on those that killed your family?

Now, here's the bad news...this isn't any hypothetical situation. It has played out across that country for the past 3 years. We are creating the enemy, even with otherwise successful operations. It has nothing to do with the ordinary soldier who is just following his orders. It has everything to do with the orders themselves.

Lastly, it's not the soldiers I was referring to as being scared of the terrorist boogeyman. It is the people in this country - particularly in the "flyover" states that have roughly 0% chance of ever being a target of terrorism - that continue to spout nonsense like "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" that are so pee-in-their-pants scared that they aren't thinking coherently. It's the exact same kind of fear that led to the interment of all citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, and it has as little basis. The Republicans know this, and they have taken full advantage of it during the last two elections. Have you not stopped to wonder why there have been no "terror threat" announcements from the White House since the last election, when we had one every couple of weeks leading up to it? How much more obvious can they be?

 

[lyeag]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say (or I just wasn't clear enough), so let me try this again. It is not "unrealistic to think it won't happen," because it isn't happening. Is anyone going to be prosecuted for the kid that was killed? Of course not...nor should they. I simply said that it was sickening to me that we have gotten to a point that some people celebrate the death of one very bad man when it took the killing of several others to accomplish it.

Let me give you a scenario that may help show why so many of us believe that we're causing more problems than we're solving in Iraq. Say you are an Iraqi man living in one of the still contested cities outside of the "green zone." You were never a supporter of Saddam. You simply tried to live your life and take care of your family. Well, one day, you arrive home from work to discover that an American raid has wiped out your house and most of the neighborhood, killing several neighbors and oh, incidentally, your wife and 2 children.

Now, do you think it would make a darn bit of difference to you that the Americans had reason to attack the neighborhood? Maybe there was a "bad guy" hiding in a house behind yours, unknown to you. Maybe it was even one of the 32 "2nd in command of Al Queda" figures we've taken out all ready. Does any of that make one bit of difference? Would you be just the tiniest bit likely to want revenge on those that killed your family?

Now, here's the bad news...this isn't any hypothetical situation. It has played out across that country for the past 3 years. We are creating the enemy, even with otherwise successful operations. It has nothing to do with the ordinary soldier who is just following his orders. It has everything to do with the orders themselves.

Lastly, it's not the soldiers I was referring to as being scared of the terrorist boogeyman. It is the people in this country - particularly in the "flyover" states that have roughly 0% chance of ever being a target of terrorism - that continue to spout nonsense like "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" that are so pee-in-their-pants scared that they aren't thinking coherently. It's the exact same kind of fear that led to the interment of all citizens of Japanese descent during WWII, and it has as little basis. The Republicans know this, and they have taken full advantage of it during the last two elections. Have you not stopped to wonder why there have been no "terror threat" announcements from the White House since the last election, when we had one every couple of weeks leading up to it? How much more obvious can they be?

I really do get your point about the innocent Iraqi people being hurt by all of this and their anger about their lives being out of control, and I am sure there are plenty that are angry and just want the US to leave. I would like to think though, somewhere in the back of their minds it is not all pointed at the US, it is the whole picture of the awful situation.

Haditha ring a bell? We have men in shackles who haven't been found guilty of anything. According to their lawyers, those shackles aren't even being taken off to exercise. Now that is an outrage. So far NOTHING has been proven, but there are plenty who want to paint them as guilty animals. The pilots who got Zarqawi won't be up against charges, but really, look at how many troops are and their accusers are the Iraqis? Of course we don't know anything about their motives. It could be sincere, or they could be the man whose house was accidentally bombed.

Those of us from flyover country aren't just worried about our little section of the country. We worry for everyone. Wvervy, if it happened once it could happen again. Look at what was being planned in Canada. Beheading the PM??????? It is totally crazy. As for no terror threats, is it possible that we have been successful at deterring the threats before they become imminent? Is it possible we have them too busy to plan or execute their plans here?

I really do see some of your point. It is a terrible cycle. I have been mostly questioning the recent attacks in the press and by some on the far left on our troops. They won't wait until the facts are in to scream their guilt and call our troops murderers. I don't hear anyone calling for fair treatment of our troops while they await their day in military court, yet I constantly hear of the guys in Camp V. Why is that? The detainees play soccer, and have so many watching out for them, even when many say openly they want to get out and kill more AMericans. Our troops who say they were doing their jobs, and aren't a threat to anyone are in shackles and being smeared in the press. That really bothers me to my core.

I am sure, just like you, I hope for this to end soon. I don't savor the thought of my husband going back over there. I just feel like we have to fight a pc war and a real war and those two things are in direct opposition to a quick end.

 

[Teejay32]

Let me give you a scenario that may help show why so many of us believe that we're causing more problems than we're solving in Iraq. Say you are an Iraqi man living in one of the still contested cities outside of the "green zone." You were never a supporter of Saddam. You simply tried to live your life and take care of your family. Well, one day, you arrive home from work to discover that an American raid has wiped out your house and most of the neighborhood, killing several neighbors and oh, incidentally, your wife and 2 children.

Now, do you think it would make a darn bit of difference to you that the Americans had reason to attack the neighborhood? Maybe there was a "bad guy" hiding in a house behind yours, unknown to you. Maybe it was even one of the 32 "2nd in command of Al Queda" figures we've taken out all ready. Does any of that make one bit of difference? Would you be just the tiniest bit likely to want revenge on those that killed your family?

In "contested cities" it's likely that insurgents flooded the neighborhoods at some point and seized control. They institute harsh rules and penalties on the people, like the public beheadings at Haditha, and keep themselves funded by kidnappings and God knows what else...point being, the population usually suffers before the US starts shooting up houses. I believe we've come to be seen as the lesser of evils.

 

[wvrevy]

Three points (two for lyeag and one for teejay):

1 - The men that were allegedly responsible for what happened in Haditha are accused of committing what are essentially war crimes. Just as if someone here, in this country, was accused of being a serial killer, they will be treated as criminals by the system until they can be brought to trial. If they are guilty, they should be put under the jail. At that point, they are no better than the insurgent who plants a roadside bomb with no care for who it blows up.

But you simply cannot discount the fact that something happened at Haditha, nor that things happened in Abu Ghraib, nor that something is going on in those secret prisons the Bush government doesn't want you to know about. Are any of those things consistant with American values, as you see them?

2 - Doesn't it strike you as strange that the states most adamantly anti-Bush during the last election are the ones most at risk? Think maybe they've seen something that those of us in "flyover" states haven't? Your argument is pretty much the same as Ann Coulter's slam against the 9-11 widows "acting as if it is their own personal tragedy and not something that happened to America." Well, it was their own tragedy, as it was to a lesser extent for the state of New York itself. But there is no denying (unless you're the clueless fool that made out the "potential target list" for the government and concluded that NY had "no national monuments of importance) that states with major ports and large, visible enterprises are the most likely places for terrorists to attack. They don't want to blow up some farmer's shed in the middle of Iowa. They want to kill as many people as possible with as little cost to themselves as possible...which means large cities, nearly all of which were against Bush in the last election.

Do you seriously think we're more safe now then we were on 9/10/2001? How?

and to TeeJay...

3 - I'm not sure how to respond to that...whether I should point out that we should never strive to be the "lesser of evils" instead of an agent for good, or to point out that there does not appear to be any real evidence supporting that theory. Do you really think that these three disparate religious groups are going to put away their differences, just because we tell them they should? We're talking about people willing to die for their religion, not your average disagreement between Catholics, Episcopalians, and Baptists. The average person in this region is enough of a religious devotee to make James "Spongebob" Dobson look like Alistair Crowley.

 

[cardaway]

In "contested cities" it's likely that insurgents flooded the neighborhoods at some point and seized control. They institute harsh rules and penalties on the people, like the public beheadings at Haditha, and keep themselves funded by kidnappings and God knows what else...point being, the population usually suffers before the US starts shooting up houses. I believe we've come to be seen as the lesser of evils.

If that is being thrown out again and our primary goal in Iraq then let's make that official, pull out, and head to the other countries where it's happening at a much higher frequency.

 

[lyeag]

Three points (two for lyeag and one for teejay):

1 - The men that were allegedly responsible for what happened in Haditha are accused of committing what are essentially war crimes. Just as if someone here, in this country, was accused of being a serial killer, they will be treated as criminals by the system until they can be brought to trial. If they are guilty, they should be put under the jail. At that point, they are no better than the insurgent who plants a roadside bomb with no care for who it blows up.

But you simply cannot discount the fact that something happened at Haditha, nor that things happened in Abu Ghraib, nor that something is going on in those secret prisons the Bush government doesn't want you to know about. Are any of those things consistant with American values, as you see them?

2 - Doesn't it strike you as strange that the states most adamantly anti-Bush during the last election are the ones most at risk? Think maybe they've seen something that those of us in "flyover" states haven't? Your argument is pretty much the same as Ann Coulter's slam against the 9-11 widows "acting as if it is their own personal tragedy and not something that happened to America." Well, it was their own tragedy, as it was to a lesser extent for the state of New York itself. But there is no denying (unless you're the clueless fool that made out the "potential target list" for the government and concluded that NY had "no national monuments of importance) that states with major ports and large, visible enterprises are the most likely places for terrorists to attack. They don't want to blow up some farmer's shed in the middle of Iowa. They want to kill as many people as possible with as little cost to themselves as possible...which means large cities, nearly all of which were against Bush in the last election.

Do you seriously think we're more safe now then we were on 9/10/2001? How?

and to TeeJay...

3 - I'm not sure how to respond to that...whether I should point out that we should never strive to be the "lesser of evils" instead of an agent for good, or to point out that there does not appear to be any real evidence supporting that theory. Do you really think that these three disparate religious groups are going to put away their differences, just because we tell them they should? We're talking about people willing to die for their religion, not your average disagreement between Catholics, Episcopalians, and Baptists. The average person in this region is enough of a religious devotee to make James "Spongebob" Dobson look like Alistair Crowley.

I am really sorry you took what I said that way, becuase that isn't at all what I meant to express. I mean that we in flyover country aren't just worried about ourselves we worry for everyone IN those big cities. If they aren't worried about attacks, why are they up in arms up about their terror funding money being decreased? NY has gotten, from what I have read, half a billion dollars since 9/11. If they don't believe in the threats to our country why do they need so much funding? If they do believe there is a risk that needs so much funding, why be so skeptical towads the terror threats when they are announced?

 

[njzieglers]

don't mean to butt in but, when does the system treat one convicted like a criminal? aren't you innocent until proven guilty?

 

[wvrevy]

I am really sorry you took what I said that way, becuase that isn't at all what I meant to express. I mean that we in flyover country aren't just worried about ourselves we worry for everyone IN those big cities. If they aren't worried about attacks, why are they up in arms up about their terror funding money being decreased? NY has gotten, from what I have read, half a billion dollars since 9/11. If they don't believe in the threats to our country why do they need so much funding? If they do believe there is a risk that needs so much funding, why be so skeptical towads the terror threats when they are announced?

Sorry, but I'm apparently having trouble making myself clear. I don't for a second think that those living near potential terror targets think that there is no threat. I am simply saying that those people are the ones in position to see that nothing is really changing. That Bush, for all his bluster, has not made anyone any more safe than they were before 9/11. Those people have reason to be worried...and they voted almost unanimously to put someone else in charge. Those of us in "flyover country" are the ones that put Bush back in office, against the wishes of those that are actually under threat. Make sense?

don't mean to butt in but, when does the system treat one convicted like a criminal? aren't you innocent until proven guilty?

When you are arrested and booked for a crime, aren't you fingerprinted, handcuffed, and taken into custody? Kept in jail until the time of your trial, particularly if you are a violent offender? That's all I meant by that comment. The soldiers accused in the Haditha killings are being treated just as any other person accused of a crime.

 

[njzieglers]

i don't believe all accused are held in jail until trial. everyone is given opportunity to post bail at the least.

 

[wvrevy]

i don't believe all accused are held in jail until trial. everyone is given opportunity to post bail at the least.

Everyone? Not true. People accused of violent crimes - and Haditha certainly fits the bill there - are often refused bail. Besides, this isn't a civilian court, and the military operates much differently than civilian courts. The UCMJ is MUCH more strict in terms of how people accused of crimes are handled.

 

[JennyMominRI]

i don't believe all accused are held in jail until trial. everyone is given opportunity to post bail at the least.

Nope, some people are remanded into custody..No chance for bail..It's usually for pretty serious charges

 

[Teejay32]

and to TeeJay...

3 - I'm not sure how to respond to that...whether I should point out that we should never strive to be the "lesser of evils" instead of an agent for good, or to point out that there does not appear to be any real evidence supporting that theory. Do you really think that these three disparate religious groups are going to put away their differences, just because we tell them they should? We're talking about people willing to die for their religion, not your average disagreement between Catholics, Episcopalians, and Baptists. The average person in this region is enough of a religious devotee to make James "Spongebob" Dobson look like Alistair Crowley.

I'll say first that I think we should be readying to leave. I don't think our Western, dominant, non-Islamic selves will ever be viewed better than a lesser evil in Iraq. But I know there are other evils at work there. In this country we have gangs, we have the mafia, we understand that there are violent organizations who could very well be religious but that doesn't really explain why they kill people...but people don't see the same thing in Iraq, they call it "civil war" or "acts against occupation." Whatever. It boils down to armed thugs trying to control the neighborhoods, and in that sense by fighting them we are the force for good.

If that is being thrown out again and our primary goal in Iraq then let's make that official, pull out, and head to the other countries where it's happening at a much higher frequency.

we would do that because....?