Pages: 1
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 530762.ece
How about this one then?
Link to ATG thread
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=66949
How about this one then?
Link to ATG thread
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=66949
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2007-03-19 06:01:16)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Well, I have had 0% confidence in the Iraqis for awhile. I'm glad when my country was freed from oppresion we didn't go around blowing each other up and dividing. America is the greatest underdog story of all time. You can't force people to be successful. I will say I think it was a mistake to completely dismantle the Iraqi military.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'd say it was a mistake the way the US just blasted in. A bit of discression would have been nice. And I think that a bit of political help would be nice too .D
-konfusion
-konfusion
A wise old guy, a Vietnam vet said to me:Kmarion wrote:
Well, I have had 0% confidence in the Iraqis for awhile. I'm glad when my country was freed from oppresion we didn't go around blowing each other up and dividing. America is the greatest underdog story of all time. You can't force people to be successful. I will say I think it was a mistake to completely dismantle the Iraqi military.
" Soldiers fight for who ever is in charge. We had former Wermark SS troops working for us in Berlin. The very worse thing you can do in a occupation is disband a standing army ."
So, a RV salesman in Corona can see the completely fucking obvious in regards to Iraq, but all the over paid federal hacks in Washington can't.
It all comes down to politics: when you have an administration who is determined to do a certain thing for undiscosed reasons - to invade Iraq - there's nothing to stop it from doing it.ATG wrote:
A wise old guy, a Vietnam vet said to me:Kmarion wrote:
Well, I have had 0% confidence in the Iraqis for awhile. I'm glad when my country was freed from oppresion we didn't go around blowing each other up and dividing. America is the greatest underdog story of all time. You can't force people to be successful. I will say I think it was a mistake to completely dismantle the Iraqi military.
" Soldiers fight for who ever is in charge. We had former Wermark SS troops working for us in Berlin. The very worse thing you can do in a occupation is disband a standing army ."
So, a RV salesman in Corona can see the completely fucking obvious in regards to Iraq, but all the over paid federal hacks in Washington can't.
L Paul Bremmer and Donald Rumsfeld should be tried and executed
Well we are witnessing a change in the political direction of our own Nation as well. Republicans are fighting for their politcal lives and the Dems are trying to blame them into submission. The selfish political motives are what has drove the obvious out of Washington. A solution has been put behind personal gain in both parties. It will reach an even more critical boiling point, and I have faith in the people's ability to demand change. Our nation is what it is now because of that. Everytime I feel the hoplessness of the situation I am reminded of what our grandparents must have felt when the entire world was fighting for their existence.ATG wrote:
A wise old guy, a Vietnam vet said to me:Kmarion wrote:
Well, I have had 0% confidence in the Iraqis for awhile. I'm glad when my country was freed from oppresion we didn't go around blowing each other up and dividing. America is the greatest underdog story of all time. You can't force people to be successful. I will say I think it was a mistake to completely dismantle the Iraqi military.
" Soldiers fight for who ever is in charge. We had former Wermark SS troops working for us in Berlin. The very worse thing you can do in a occupation is disband a standing army ."
So, a RV salesman in Corona can see the completely fucking obvious in regards to Iraq, but all the over paid federal hacks in Washington can't.
What about Mr.SlamDunk?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
L Paul Bremmer and Donald Rumsfeld should be tried and executed
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-19 09:17:13)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
"Only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops, while opinion is almost evenly split on whether to have..."
Are you even surprised by these low figures? How many Iraqis have been killed in the war so far?. And by comparison to Vietnam i presume the figures are almost the same over there as well to this day.
When you invade their country and kill thousands of people i can't blame them for disliking you.....
Are you even surprised by these low figures? How many Iraqis have been killed in the war so far?. And by comparison to Vietnam i presume the figures are almost the same over there as well to this day.
When you invade their country and kill thousands of people i can't blame them for disliking you.....
Last edited by klassekock (2007-03-19 09:17:42)
US forces did not kill thousands of Iraqi's, killing is mostly done between Iraqi's themselves.klassekock wrote:
"Only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops, while opinion is almost evenly split on whether to have..."
Are you even surprised by these low figures? How many Iraqis have been killed in the war so far?. And by comparison to Vietnam i presume the figures are almost the same over there as well to this day.
When you invade their country and kill thousands of people i can't blame them for disliking you.....
The US leaders failed to provide a coherent precedure for post-war Iraq.
While they may not be responsible for the DIRECT killing of thousands of Iraqis -- our decision to invade their country without a doubt puts the responsibility on their safety and security squarely on the occupying forces otherwise you are lead to believe that in a post Saddam Iraq and its government would immediately be able to govern and hold authority right after a war. We failed to do so (protect the civilians) -- it may seem a bit harsh, but then again you need plans for these sorts of things and judging by the way we have handled the war we obviously had no idea how much of an effect a powerless Iraq would do in terms of the power struggle in the ME.Pierre wrote:
US forces did not kill thousands of Iraqi's, killing is mostly done between Iraqi's themselves.klassekock wrote:
"Only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops, while opinion is almost evenly split on whether to have..."
Are you even surprised by these low figures? How many Iraqis have been killed in the war so far?. And by comparison to Vietnam i presume the figures are almost the same over there as well to this day.
When you invade their country and kill thousands of people i can't blame them for disliking you.....
The US leaders failed to provide a coherent precedure for post-war Iraq.
Personally shifting the blames to the Iraqi's is the easy way out and the most convenient way not to commit political suicide. Hence, you will see the current administration for the past few months pushing for more commitment on the Iraqi side. This hasn't been met without question in terms of the Iraqi government since believe it or not they DON'T like the US meddling in their affairs otherwise you are simply admitting that we simply installed a puppet government. And to do that is to concede the reason we went into Iraq in the first place .
Installed a puppet government? You do realize that the Iraqi's voted their leaders in. It's not about shifting blame in my book. There is plenty to go around. Heaven forbid we actually point out the Bad Iraqi's that are targeting their countrymen. If someone were to invade your country would your form of protest be to start driving car bombs filled with chlorine gas into your neighbors cafe? Let's not lose focus. America has made many mistakes in that region, but it is insane not to hold the people who are intentionally targeting their civilians accountable as well. Do you think that the Bad Iraqi's are so ignorant that they can't figure out that the less stable Iraq is the longer it will take the US to get their ass out of their? Let's not be so determined to overcompensate the Iraqi struggle to allow us to tell the difference between those who understand right and wrong. It is not an "easy way out". But rather taking the entire situation in.
As far as the failures in protecting the innocents.
As far as the failures in protecting the innocents.
An extremely good looking bright young man once wrote:
They needed more troops at the very beginning. Presence matters. You must begin occupations with crushing numbers. The defeated population must see their occupiers on every corner. You may be able to loosen restrictions quickly if the situation allows it but it is impossible to tighten up after you have permitted social chaos. We wage war to be politically correct. We use advanced technology and smart bombs to avoid "collateral" damage. This will not just be an American problem, this is the precedent for all wars to come. War's were never meant to be civilized. They must be ugly. The enemy's will must be completely broken. The Human race is evolving and what was acceptable in the past is no longer. Throw in Embedded journalist and 24/7 cable news and the job of the military has severely been impaired.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-19 12:04:08)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How is america the greates underdog story of all time, if they are the world police?Kmarion wrote:
Well, I have had 0% confidence in the Iraqis for awhile. I'm glad when my country was freed from oppresion we didn't go around blowing each other up and dividing. America is the greatest underdog story of all time. You can't force people to be successful. I will say I think it was a mistake to completely dismantle the Iraqi military.
I was referring to their origins. Look at the established great world powers around America when the colonies gained their independence. It was against all odds that we prospered the way we have.privatepyle12415 wrote:
How is America the greates underdog story of all time, if they are the world police?Kmarion wrote:
Well, I have had 0% confidence in the Iraqis for awhile. I'm glad when my country was freed from oppresion we didn't go around blowing each other up and dividing. America is the greatest underdog story of all time. You can't force people to be successful. I will say I think it was a mistake to completely dismantle the Iraqi military.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
To be honest i was answer the question with regards to "blame" to the deaths of Iraqi civilians -- one cannot argue that if we were not to invade these types of attacks would have materialized. So, yes i hold both the American government, that initiated the lead up to the voting in of the new Iraqi government, and the current Iraqi government. ONCE AGAIN I'm stating the obvious that without a war being started by the American lead coalition....then you simply don't get the civilian casualties -- and yes the response of the BAD Iraqis is not self stimulated, but required that external catalyst that was this war.
If anything the second half of your post with regards to the presence mattering only servers to reiterate the failures that have plagued this war, a failure might i add that doesn't rest on the Iraqi governments approach to the war, since it did not exist. And the part about wars not being meant to be civilized simply is at variance with standard practices that have evolved over hundreds of years of wars being fought.
America for example stood at the for front in making wars civilized, one only has to take a look at the result of blood baths that constituted the Civil War and as a consequence to that allowed the US to contribute to multiple conventions with regards to how the sick/wounded would be treated on the battlefield.
--1864 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Soldiers Wounded in Armies in the Field
During this time the US wrote a field Manuel on how to deal with spies, POW, sick and wounded
--1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg
restricted the usage of certain projectiles
Other conventions such as the 1899 Hague convention and the 1907 Hague convention all focused on the civilized means of carrying out wars.
Granted there may exist a General Participation Clause that excludes those that are not members to it from having ti being applied to them (at the time of their creation), but this obviously does NOT exclude the US since it was one of the main contributors to the development of these conventions. And to top it off most of these conventions now fall under General International Law hence it is binding on all International Actors, both state and none state
The only point that i will agree upon with regards to the situation changing for soldiers could be of the people back at home having a greater awareness of the violence that is being carried out in behalf of their country's interest. And if for some reason you find this to be detrimental, because we cannot act as brutish as we could if the public was not aware then you really need to check what you stand for if you seek to condone this type of action towards ANYONE.
If anything the second half of your post with regards to the presence mattering only servers to reiterate the failures that have plagued this war, a failure might i add that doesn't rest on the Iraqi governments approach to the war, since it did not exist. And the part about wars not being meant to be civilized simply is at variance with standard practices that have evolved over hundreds of years of wars being fought.
America for example stood at the for front in making wars civilized, one only has to take a look at the result of blood baths that constituted the Civil War and as a consequence to that allowed the US to contribute to multiple conventions with regards to how the sick/wounded would be treated on the battlefield.
--1864 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Soldiers Wounded in Armies in the Field
During this time the US wrote a field Manuel on how to deal with spies, POW, sick and wounded
--1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg
restricted the usage of certain projectiles
Other conventions such as the 1899 Hague convention and the 1907 Hague convention all focused on the civilized means of carrying out wars.
Granted there may exist a General Participation Clause that excludes those that are not members to it from having ti being applied to them (at the time of their creation), but this obviously does NOT exclude the US since it was one of the main contributors to the development of these conventions. And to top it off most of these conventions now fall under General International Law hence it is binding on all International Actors, both state and none state
The only point that i will agree upon with regards to the situation changing for soldiers could be of the people back at home having a greater awareness of the violence that is being carried out in behalf of their country's interest. And if for some reason you find this to be detrimental, because we cannot act as brutish as we could if the public was not aware then you really need to check what you stand for if you seek to condone this type of action towards ANYONE.
Ok, you claim that most casualities are caused between the Iraqis themselves, but just out of curiousity, exatly how many people have been killed by US troops then?
Do you guys have any statistics on that since i've been hearing very contradictive figures in this matter?
I find it hard to be just a couple of hundred people since you've been at it for four years....
Do you guys have any statistics on that since i've been hearing very contradictive figures in this matter?
I find it hard to be just a couple of hundred people since you've been at it for four years....
Last edited by klassekock (2007-03-19 16:02:26)
Erm, no. The Uk has been invaded by just about every nation in Europe and we rose up to conquor and oppress half the world despite being a tiny country with few citizens. That's an underdog story.Kmarion wrote:
I was referring to their origins. Look at the established great world powers around America when the colonies gained their independence. It was against all odds that we prospered the way we have.privatepyle12415 wrote:
How is America the greates underdog story of all time, if they are the world police?Kmarion wrote:
Well, I have had 0% confidence in the Iraqis for awhile. I'm glad when my country was freed from oppresion we didn't go around blowing each other up and dividing. America is the greatest underdog story of all time. You can't force people to be successful. I will say I think it was a mistake to completely dismantle the Iraqi military.
The US had a vast amount of land and natural resources and all the benefits of the latest technologies as they were mainly all ex-Europeans and had little in the way of outside threats as they boarder a whole 2 countries and the European powers were far more interested in fighting each other and removing their own monarchies.
How could you fail to do well?
How's that e-penis doing?Kmarion wrote:
America is the greatest underdog story of all time.
Despite starting a few hundred years ahead they were still replaced by 13 colonies as the worlds most wealthiest, advanced, dominant nation.. so er no. My ancestors left the old decayed social structure behind them and created a new beginning. From then on they ceased to be European.PureFodder wrote:
Erm, no. The Uk has been invaded by just about every nation in Europe and we rose up to conquor and oppress half the world despite being a tiny country with few citizens. That's an underdog story.Kmarion wrote:
I was referring to their origins. Look at the established great world powers around America when the colonies gained their independence. It was against all odds that we prospered the way we have.privatepyle12415 wrote:
How is America the greates underdog story of all time, if they are the world police?
The US had a vast amount of land and natural resources and all the benefits of the latest technologies as they were mainly all ex-Europeans and had little in the way of outside threats as they boarder a whole 2 countries and the European powers were far more interested in fighting each other and removing their own monarchies.
How could you fail to do well?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The insurgents in Iraq are like bees. The longer where they're, the more they're pissed off. You know what happens when a bee gets pissed off. It attacks you, even if it means it must take its own life. It's kind of hard to defeat an enemy that believes so greatly in his cause as to blow himself and anyone else around him up into a bunch of pieces.
That's not true. Which nations in Europe are these? I can think of 3 incidents. The Danelaw, the Roman invasion and the Norman conquest. Of those only one was a complete invasion.PureFodder wrote:
Erm, no. The Uk has been invaded by just about every nation in Europe and we rose up to conquor and oppress half the world despite being a tiny country with few citizens. That's an underdog story.Kmarion wrote:
I was referring to their origins. Look at the established great world powers around America when the colonies gained their independence. It was against all odds that we prospered the way we have.privatepyle12415 wrote:
How is America the greates underdog story of all time, if they are the world police?
We also invited the Dutch to invade once, but that is kind of different.
I don't condone it, I am explaining the reality of war. It is ugly and if we could all hold hands and sing that would be great. I was explaining how I see the future of warfare. Can you imagine if the Nazi's were allowed to place camera's at the top of Omaha beach during D-Day and film our dieing soldiers, forbidden to interfere. I was demonstrating the difference between now and then. Do you realize there were nearly 180k troops that died during the Battle of the bulge in a 30 day period in WWII? The media would go apeshit over that. (As well they should)Fen321 wrote:
To be honest i was answer the question with regards to "blame" to the deaths of Iraqi civilians -- one cannot argue that if we were not to invade these types of attacks would have materialized. So, yes i hold both the American government, that initiated the lead up to the voting in of the new Iraqi government, and the current Iraqi government. ONCE AGAIN I'm stating the obvious that without a war being started by the American lead coalition....then you simply don't get the civilian casualties -- and yes the response of the BAD Iraqis is not self stimulated, but required that external catalyst that was this war.
If anything the second half of your post with regards to the presence mattering only servers to reiterate the failures that have plagued this war, a failure might i add that doesn't rest on the Iraqi governments approach to the war, since it did not exist. And the part about wars not being meant to be civilized simply is at variance with standard practices that have evolved over hundreds of years of wars being fought.
America for example stood at the for front in making wars civilized, one only has to take a look at the result of blood baths that constituted the Civil War and as a consequence to that allowed the US to contribute to multiple conventions with regards to how the sick/wounded would be treated on the battlefield.
--1864 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Soldiers Wounded in Armies in the Field
During this time the US wrote a field Manuel on how to deal with spies, POW, sick and wounded
--1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg
restricted the usage of certain projectiles
Other conventions such as the 1899 Hague convention and the 1907 Hague convention all focused on the civilized means of carrying out wars.
Granted there may exist a General Participation Clause that excludes those that are not members to it from having ti being applied to them (at the time of their creation), but this obviously does NOT exclude the US since it was one of the main contributors to the development of these conventions. And to top it off most of these conventions now fall under General International Law hence it is binding on all International Actors, both state and none state
The only point that i will agree upon with regards to the situation changing for soldiers could be of the people back at home having a greater awareness of the violence that is being carried out in behalf of their country's interest. And if for some reason you find this to be detrimental, because we cannot act as brutish as we could if the public was not aware then you really need to check what you stand for if you seek to condone this type of action towards ANYONE.
(Second part of my post)
I intentionally pointed out the failures of the plan once we ousted the government. I think you were too eager to display some cleverness and perhaps trying to catch me in some hypocrisy. I was trying to show to you that I am not naive enough to think the US is not guilty as well.
Self stimulating Bad Iraqi perhap?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Nuke, invade, secure oil supply... That's the only way to really win the pre-emptive strike method.
What about the Anglo-Saxon invasion following the Roman withdrawal?Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Which nations in Europe are these? I can think of 3 incidents. The Danelaw, the Roman invasion and the Norman conquest. Of those only one was a complete invasion.PureFodder wrote:
Erm, no. The Uk has been invaded by just about every nation in Europe and we rose up to conquor and oppress half the world despite being a tiny country with few citizens. That's an underdog story.Kmarion wrote:
I was referring to their origins. Look at the established great world powers around America when the colonies gained their independence. It was against all odds that we prospered the way we have.
We also invited the Dutch to invade once, but that is kind of different.
Pages: 1
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops