[séamuis]

Absolutely true. The Iraq war got me reactivated in politics, and I knew several business leaders who switched parties over the cavalier entry into an endeavor that was sure to kill thousands. It was still not enough to get a change, though. Once a battle begins and soldiers die, it is far more difficult to end involvement.

I gave up a service in the army and a possible later career in the police because of my strong stance against the invasion of Iraq. ( I did this as a just graduate of high school. that was 9 years ago) I endured a lot of hardship, struggle and ignorant abuse because of that decision but its one I don't regret.

---

Last edited by séamuis; 01-06-2012 at 09:31 AM.

[GeneV]

I agree with you in principle, but I am not so naive as to see it as a possibility. Your leaders are very good at demonizing whoever they want to spend some bullets on, and stirring up your citizens with fear and hate. As your politicians are very much owned by corporate America,

* * *

You won't start to see the horror of war until it comes to your doorstep. 9/11 wasn't enough to do it, perhaps if the deaths close to home are increased by a factor of 10 or a hundred, your country might change.

I think you are being a bit naive about the psychology of war in the face of history, and you are starting to make the same misjudgment as the Islamists. Tens of thousands of deaths did not really wake us up in Viet Nam, and those deaths were spread among families across economic and racial lines rather than with a volunteer army. The nations of the west endured the deaths of millions in WWII. Deaths just increase the will to fight. Death begets death. It is only by changing the mindset to understand this teaching of history that anything will be accomplished.

It might be good to watch an old, and admittedly jingoistic, movie like Sergeant York. The most accurate part of that movie is how a pacifist American becomes a warrior as soon as enough of his friends die.

[audiobomber]

dont mistake the entire population for those that actually beat the war drum.

The US population appears to be split almost evenly. Half of Americans are sane, caring, thinking, rational people. The other half are easily led, overly patriotic, misinformed, intolerant, bigoted, war-mongering pawns. I couldn't figure out which smiley to put here, so fill in whichever you think is most appropriate.

[GeneV]

The US population appears to be split almost evenly. Half of Americans are sane, caring, thinking, rational people. The other half are easily led, overly patriotic, misinformed, intolerant, bigoted, war-mongering pawns. I couldn't figure out which smiley to put here, so fill in whichever you think is most appropriate.

I'd say it is split in three between rational people, war mongerers and the easily led.

[Ratmagiclady]

I don't think that more soldiers dying is the answer, but more concern about the other lives affected by war. Estimates of Iraqi losses--mostly civilian--go into seven figures.Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is time our leaders start to value the lives of citizens in other countries.

There's that. There's also the fact that Buch&co ...if they were going to invade in the first place, (thus leaving the Afghanistan job undone for all these years) were simply not paying attention to reality when they did it, expecting rose-petal parades, and making key blunders like *firing the Iraqi military,* and leaving the ammo dumps unguarded so they could have a pulling-the-statue-down photo op.

In so doing they pretty much *created* the situation of a well-armed-with-explosives insurgency, factionalism, and civil disorder. And of course all the money we paid to defense contractors and mercenaries in the process.

If instead of disbanding the Iraqi military and all, they'd just *paid them,* we'd be long since done with this conversation, I think.

[Parallax]

DISCLAIMER: The following is in no way a defense of our actions in Iraq. We shouldn't have been there.

Having said that................

Estimates of Iraqi losses--mostly civilian--go into seven figures.

It took them all of one day after we left to openly turn on each other.
You aint seen nothin', yet.

[Ratmagiclady]

DISCLAIMER: The following is in no way a defense of our actions in Iraq. We shouldn't have been there.

Having said that................

It took them all of one day after we left to openly turn on each other.
You aint seen nothin', yet.

Which is kind of what you get when you destroy something you don't understand.

The whole problem about it was that the war and invasion came of Bushco trying to morally-and-politically 'justify' a really bad play. Largely with falsehoods about WMDs and 9/11, of course, but as I've been saying, there just wasn't enough talk about 'What do you expect to happen if we do this?'

Saddam being a bad guy didn't actually mean things would necessarily get better by *invading.* Iraq isn't really a natural *state,* after all: it's old colonial borders that'd been held together as a nation only *by* that dictatorship, one which made itself important *by* playing different groups off each other: it's one reason it was such a blunder to disband the *military:* it mostly took a pretty integrated force (With the exception of certain units like the Republican Guard, if I recall) and instead sent off all the fighters and sent them off to their own factions.

Pottery Barn rule in full effect.

[séamuis]

It took them all of one day after we left to openly turn on each other.
You aint seen nothin', yet.

I think I get what you are saying, but we can't in any way discount that it is directly because of our actions that this is occurring. RML pretty much hit the nail on the head in describing what Iraq was. we destroyed that and left Iraq without the only structure that was holding it together. I have no doubt, many people are happy that Saddam is gone, and I have no doubt many maybe even most want proper democracy, but that has to come from within not from an invading nation. what else could you expect to happen after we leave? you can't blame Iraqi's for what is happening now. the real truth about what the people want will reveal itself in time. Iraq will have to build what it wants, on its ideals and with its rules. there can be peace in Iraq, but it will have to come from within and it will take a very long time. no matter how bad saddam was, I believe statistically Iraq was better off with him in power than they are now. that statement isn't mean to be a nod to an negative view on Iraqi's, just that we did more damage to the people and the nation as a whole than saddam ever did. you don't just invade a nation, kill thousands and thousands and install a government you approve of. thats not a national government, thats a foreign one, and its built on invasion, death, destruction and it was handed to the people who weren't as a nation prepared to move into democracy. imagine invading North Korea, installing a government and saying 'here's your democracy, enjoy!' you think it would work? or would the nation start tearing itself apart after we leave? the people don't even understand democracy. all they know is another nation invaded them and changed everything, killing thousands in the process.

what do you expect to happen...

[GeneV]

Which is kind of what you get when you destroy something you don't understand.

Yes, or put another way, when you have a black and white view of the world and believe that removing a "bad" person necessarily makes the world better.

[Parallax]

but we can't in any way discount that it is directly because of our actions that this is occurring. RML pretty much hit the nail on the head in describing what Iraq was. we destroyed that and left Iraq without the only structure that was holding it together.

No argument on that.

[GeneV]

Kurt von Schleicher probably looked like a pretty horrible if not downright evil chancellor--until the world got to know the leader who replaced him.

[audiobomber]

I believe statistically Iraq was better off with him in power than they are now. that statement isn't mean to be a nod to an negative view on Iraqi's, just that we did more damage to the people and the nation as a whole than saddam ever did. you don't just invade a nation, kill thousands and thousands and install a government you approve of.

I was listening to a CNN correspondent who's been in Iraq through a lot of this. She said there is no Iraqi family that hasn't lost someone, and that Iraqi's en masse feel they are much worse off now.

[Nesster]

I was listening to a CNN correspondent who's been in Iraq through a lot of this. She said there is no Iraqi family that hasn't lost someone, and that Iraqi's en masse feel they are much worse off now.

This would be in the 'of course' category - what society wouldn't feel this way and be affected this way, having been a war zone for more than 8 years.

In the minds of power politicians I suppose the idea would be that if what eventually follows is better, then it all is worth it. That's not how regular people ought to think, most of the time, especially when it isn't their own war.

[pickles]

Personally (and this is NOT an anti American rant), I don't think enough soldiers died in Iraq. If more soldiers had died, or if the threat of more soldiers dying had existed, it is more likely that the war would have been either shorter, or not fought at all.
If the cost in American lives had been fourty thousand rather than 4 thousand, perhaps the war drums would be silenced for the moment, rather than now being pounded for Iran.
It is very easy to go to war when the possibility of surviving it is relatively assured. When the possibility of being killed is greater, the tendency is to be a bit more thoughtful about how necessary the war is, and there is more possibility of exploring peace options.
If your military decides that Iran is the next target, I truly hope it gets it's nose well and truly bloodied. The loss of a few capital ships, perhaps losing an aircraft carrier, some battleships and all the thousands of lives that go along with it would make you people realize that war really is hell. Right now, you've managed to sanitize it so much for your side that no one in America really sees war for what it is.
What your country needs is fifty thousand soldiers to come home in body bags from one short action, and videos of a burning American fleet in the Persian gulf to wake you up again to the realities of war.
It might make you people think a little bit about the morality of what you are doing in the Middle East.

Surely you can't be serious?
The great majority of the World's population do not need the dreadful sorts of "scenarios" that you have mentioned to know that any type of war or combat, violence....ANYTHING of that nature, is to be avoided at all costs.
I would welcome your advices as to how you would resolve the ever increasing "Nuclear Iran" issue, & how you would respond if Iran did actually try their "blockade"......which incidentally, I don't think they will.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Wheatfield]

Surely you can't be serious?
The great majority of the World's population do not need the dreadful sorts of "scenarios" that you have mentioned to know that any type of war or combat, violence....ANYTHING of that nature, is to be avoided at all costs.
I would welcome your advices as to how you would resolve the ever increasing "Nuclear Iran" issue, & how you would respond if Iran did actually try their "blockade"......which incidentally, I don't think they will.
Cheers, Pickles.

Actually. I'm quite serious. The great majority of the world's population didn't need the sort of dreadful scenario that has been Iraq for the past 8 years, and what will be Iraq for the foreseeable future. America is very good at war, she can inflict all sorts of losses on an enemy with barely any loss of life of her own people.
When war becomes too easy and too clean for one faction, it becomes very easy for that faction to wage war capriciously, and to goad other countries into war.
Why not? It's fun, it's good for business, and it makes us feel good that we are so strong that no one can beat us up.
War needs to be dreadful for both sides, not just for one, otherwise there is no pressing reason to avoid war for one side.
I don't have solution for the Iran problem, but I am pretty sure that Iran has spent the past half century being destabilized by certain Western operatives that can find profit from a destabilized Iran.
Don't forget that Iran was a stable, peaceful democratic country up until the CIA undermined the Shah's government back in the mid 1950s. There is no reason to believe the country would have destabilized on it's own, except for that intervention, and there is no reason to believe that destabilizing efforts have been ceased since the mid 1950s.