Recruits

[Loeln]

If you're going to bother to have an opinion, you should bother to support it.

[Rooster]

Why? It's my opinion, and I'm not trying to convert anyone.

I was just pointing out the numbers...I'm not anyone's father, teacher, or preacher...I'm not going to tell anyone what to do with those numbers. Just thought they were worth posting for people to do with them what they will.

Also, I feel that what I said had a lot more relevence than a stupid bloody emoticon, which I assume isn't your opinion either.

[Loeln]

It's my opinion of your decision to speak no further on "the whole god-aweful shitty mess."

[Rooster]

You saying I'm just saying that, and that I'm going to keep talking about it?

Because if that's what you're saying, you're right. Forget me though, I just realised that if I'd joined the army with my friend Benham (we went through TA basic training together) instead of going to Uni right after, that I'd be IN Iraq right now.

But hey, I'm a hypocrit and proud.

[Loeln]

You saying I'm just saying that, and that I'm going to keep talking about it?

Because if that's what you're saying, you're right. Forget me though, I just realised that if I'd joined the army with my friend Benham (we went through TA basic training together) instead of going to Uni right after, that I'd be IN Iraq right now.

But hey, I'm a hypocrit and proud.

I'm wondering why you mutter an opinion then refuse to do anything with it. Obviously you disagree with what all's going on, and yet you'll sit there and tolerate it? "Speaking no further" on something you find incorrect?

What's the point in speaking words if you'll only say them in silence?


"It's a god-aweful shitty mess."

"And?"

"..."

[Bocaj Claw]

Loeln, do you have to stir up trouble? Seriously, is it a compulsion?

[Loeln]

Loeln, do you have to stir up trouble? Seriously, is it a compulsion?

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Just making an aside about a topic serves almost as much purpose as passing a non-binding resolution on the topic.

[Arloest]

No one's trying to "triumph" as it were here. It's a bloody post on a bloody forum, and makes absolutely, positively no difference. Ever. In the whole world.

[Bocaj Claw]

Just making an aside about a topic serves almost as much purpose as passing a non-binding resolution on the topic.

Technically, your argument with Roo is serving to derail the conversation far more than my aside.

And anyway, Arlo is right.

[Rooster]

What's the point in speaking words if you'll only say them in silence?

You want words? Ok bucko, here some words on the war in Iraq right now.

So, 2003 rolled around and the front line set. Forces on both sides geared up and faced each other across the Iraq-Kuwaiti border in anticipation of what the Americans assured would be "like tearing off a bandaid"...however, they must have neglected to mention that said band-aid was covering an artery.

No sooner than the war declared "won", that casualties started to rise on all sides. The "insurgents" kill everyone it seems, and not even Iraqi comunity leaders seem to know who they are. Most are foreign, and don't give a shit about Iraq (The irony of the war is that it set out to irradicate one section of the "axis of evil" but just managed to put all the terrorists in one place)

Also, deals were made allowing companies like Halliburton guarenteed shares in whatever oil and industry Iraq has over the next 25 years...which I guess kind of prooves the war was illigal.

The casualty rates on both sides has been massive when compared to even the first Iraq war. During the actual campaign part, from the start of the push to Bhagdad, to the declaration of "mission accomplished" onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1st 2003, the USA and UK lost 172 Men killed.

The figure today stands at 3519 KIA for the US, 150 UK dead, and 127 fatalities from other international countries.

And for what? It seems that everyone was well aware that the only thing Saddam could launch in 45 minutes was a frisbee, so why are we there?

Also, look at those casualty rates...3796 dead since war started...if you break that down into months it's just over 75 Coalition dead per month...that's worse than some months of the early years of Vietnam for pants's sake.

Another problem I have with the war is that the soldiers being sent there have no idea what it's really like. They get told that nothing will happen, that it'll be like Northern Ireland or Bosnia...low combat, occasional snipers, maybe a mine here and there.

They go in not being told the 100% truth, just like Vietnam, and some react badly...how else would you explain the attrocities carried out at that prison and in other places? Sure, sometimes they were ordered to do it, but most armies teach that moral integrity is more important than loyalty...which in my brief army experience is really not the case...you go against a superior on anything and you're an outcast in the unit. Sort of like a grass in prison, or a tell-tale at School.

Iraq is STILL a war-zone with two sides lined up against each other. Think of it less as Vietnam, but more the Nazi Occupation of France. The insurgents see themselves as the Maqui and the US as the Nazi invaders.

The US see them as "terrorists".

A good parallel is the French occupation of Algeria in the 1950s, and the subsecuent war that ensued for Algerian independence. Looking back at it now, we condem France for their actions there, but at the time there were few protests. Maybe in 50 years people won't believe that the Coalition went in on the evidence they did...falsified accounts and hearsay...

Maybe it was worth it...25,000+ Coalition casualties for a war freeing people that really don't want us there anymore...and I haven't even mentioned the multiple thousands of Iraqi dead that have died in the crossfire....

My point is that surely the time, money, and lives would be better spent figuring out WHY they're angry and pissed off, and then curing that rather than just shooting them and leaving their bodies to bleach in the hot Iraqi sun?

*flexes*

pantsless 'av it!

[Loeln]

That's good, yet why didn't you say it in the first place?

Now, I agree that the war is a mess that hasn't been run properly since Afghanistan, the civilian and military costs are far, far, far too high and is likely to get far far higher before any real positive outcome is achieved, and the guys and gals in charge of the thing (right now) are about as qualified to run the war effort as they are to run the US, which we all now see is not at all.

However,

With the US military, I don't think we should try to cut our losses and leave Iraq as soon as the troops are able. As messed up as everything is in Iraq, as incorrect our reasonings to enter the nation were, and as high the costs keep rising, we, the US have a responsibility to fix what we broke. While yes, things aren't going good for our forces or the civilians of Iraq, if the US were to withdraw it's troops now with things as they are I believe that conditions for the Iraqi people would degrade far worse than what they already are, and after all we've caused happen to them it'd be just as criminal to abandon them as it was for us to bring all this unto them through our lack of foresight, intelligence, and proper planning.

Yes, we have handled and are handling things in Iraq amazingly bad, and yes, we could have done much much better to secure, rebuild, and reconstruct the place. Yet now that we've finally realized just how bad things are, are we (the US) going to give up on the people and leave them to whatever Anarchy brings? Or are we finally going to try to correct our mistakes and get to doing what we originally meant to do for the people -and actually do it right this time?

As it stands, Iraq has become more or less the child of the US. The new administration that takes charge in 2008 will be the parents of that child. Now, as the parent, that Administration will have to decide to either take the responsibility and try and look after the kid until it's well off and goes off to college, or neglect and abandon the kid to whatever happens.
for the people and nation of Iraq, I hope it'll be the former. 'Cause really, no matter what all the advertisements, banners, and catchphrases say about our troops defending freedom and protecting this nation idioticly dubbed the Homeland, the conflict in Iraq is not about US or World security and freedom, at least not anymore. Now, it's just about the freedom and security of the people of Iraq, and whether we like it or not, the US has responsibility.

You, Britain, you can go do whatever you want.

[Doc Sigma]

INTERNET DRAMA IS SERIOUS BUSINESS

[Angstwolf]

Oi, this topic is officially enough to make me ill, though it was well-intentioned in the beginning.

[Doc Sigma]

The ironic thing is, if I hadn't removed the pic I had originally posted, the thread would never have gone down this road... it would have been split between people laughing at the pic and people telling me that it was the most insulting thing in the history of the world.

[nickspoon]

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.