US Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan

M

Michael Rudd

New member
According to a survey conducted by the Pentagons mental-health advisory team last September when they questioned 1767 troops they found that, one in three believes torture is sometimes justified, and less than half (47% of soldiers and 38%of marines)

Felt that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect as required by the Geneva Convention.,

These findings are of great concern to the US top commander in Iraq General David Petaeus, they also indicated a willingness of a fair proportion of soldiers and marines to not report the illegal actions.

Unfortunately it is this sort of approach that has led to the mess that is now Iraq. I actually supported the war to get rid of Saddam, but was totally aghast at the lack of thought and planning as to how to treat the peace. This together with the trigger happy attitude of the US troops is why the population in general have turned against the USA and its allies, and why they are being killed with such gusto.

 
M

Michael Rudd

New member
The US army this week delivered an apology, and blood money, to the families of 19 Afghan civilians killed and 50 wounded by a special forces unit near Jalalabad on March 4th. This operation is worringly similar to the slaughter of 24 Iraqui civilians in Haditha Western Iraq in 2005.

The killing of large numbers of civilians by American forces, through indiscipline or heave reliance on air strikes, has marked the campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Since March there have been 5 episodes in which western troops have been accused of killing Afghan civilians.

Not the best way to win hearts and minds!!!

 
snafu

snafu

New member
The US army this week delivered an apology, and blood money, to the families of 19 Afghan civilians killed and 50 wounded by a special forces unit near Jalalabad on March 4th. This operation is worringly similar to the slaughter of 24 Iraqui civilians in Haditha Western Iraq in 2005.The killing of large numbers of civilians by American forces, through indiscipline or heave reliance on air strikes, has marked the campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Since March there have been 5 episodes in which western troops have been accused of killing Afghan civilians.

Not the best way to win hearts and minds!!!
Click to expand...
Wars are not supposed to be popularity contests. And not in the history of time has there been one sterile. We do what we can with what we got. And we do the best that we can.

 
M

Michael Rudd

New member
Hi snafu, This was not a war in the ordinary sense of the word, it was partly to help the population in general get out from under a very unpleasent dictator, and not to just replace him with something as bad, I suported the war in the beginning, but the lack of thought as to how to proceed after the initial victory was criminal, and has led to the present situation, and the US troops are bearing the brunt of this stupidity, and the rest of you the financial cost. I have lost track of the cost, How many billion $s is it now?????
 
snafu

snafu

New member
We’ve have always gone in to free the oppressed. This one is nothing new. We can't forsee everything that could happen. And the problem like other wars is that a fighting force has to change tactics and become a police/ occupation force. To add to the problem we have turmoil among the Shiite and Sunni’s but we had to move in when we did. Again we can’t be perfect and we can only try to project the outcome of a war. If you supported it in the begining you are just as to blame as the rest of us that supported it. We have to finish what we started. And it’s not worse than when we went in. Believe it or not.
 
snafu

snafu

New member
If you use the number of deaths every day as a yard stick, then unfortunately it is far worse, that this has degenerated into a conflict between the Shiits and Sunni factions, is in the most part that there was no attempt to enforce any natural rule of law at the end of hostilities, and because of the general desrtuction of certain essential bits of the Infrastructure ie clean water and electricity both of which could have been easily delt with if enough army engineers were available, but due to a lack of thought they were not. The disbanding of the police was also a mistake. What all this inactivity did was give time for the anti US, western brigade to

organise them selves and descend on Iraq, most of the fighting is not against normal Iraqis but insurgents. This would have been easier to combat if we had got most of the Iraqis on side, and at least kept what was left of the Army intact as well as the police force.
Click to expand...
Nope

First: You can't go by a head count. It will get worse before it gets better. In the long term its better.

Second:The Shiites and the Sunni have been fighting amongst themselves long before we intervened. Go back and get that head count.

Third:Clean water, electricity and schools all have been improving drastically since we have been there.

Fourth:The Police were corrupt. They were used to playing by the mighty dollar. And we needed to hand pick and train them. We also needed a mix of Shiite and Sunni's.

Fifth: We were on a timetable due to the U.N. We didn't just decide to go in on a whim.

And back to our misguided troops....

BAGHDAD - Gunmen in two cars attacked a minibus heading to Baghdad from a Shiite town north of the capital Monday, killing seven passengers, including a child, police said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Click to expand...
Hmm... A one liner for these guys? Where is all the out cry for these ********? I don’t see them handing out any reparations.

 
M

Michael Rudd

New member
Hi Snafu. >>First: You can't go by a head count. It will get worse before it gets better. In the long term its better.

Second: Clean water electricity and schools all have been improving drastically since we have been there.

Third: The Police were corrupt. They were used to playing by the mighty dollar. And we needed to hand pick and train them. We also needed a mix of Shiite and Sunni's.

Fourth we were on a timetable due to the U.N. We didn't just decide to go in on a whim<<

A head count is infact the one thing that counts for the normal civilian,

Yes the water and electricity are getting better, but it took far to long to get started,As for the police being corrupt, just what do you call what is happening now, at least the allies would have been working inside an existing infrastructure, I think the lesson from all this is that it is far easier to break and destroy than build, and building inside something that was not perfect would have been easier than starting from scratch.you did not have time to hand pick and train, and if what you now have is an example of hand picking then you definately would have been better of working with what was left.

The so called UN timetable was a joke.

 
snafu

snafu

New member
Ya can’t put in a sewer system when you’re getting shot at! Sure it took time.

We had (the murdered) and have a dedicated Iraqi police and military forces. Don’t under estimate them.

Yes building is much harder. Remember Europe? Remember the Berlin drops? Freedom is never free.

And yes I agree the U.N. is a very bad joke but one we have to play.

 
H

Huskarine

New member
Hi Snafu. >>First: You can't go by a head count. It will get worse before it gets better. In the long term its better. Second: Clean water electricity and schools all have been improving drastically since we have been there.

Third: The Police were corrupt. They were used to playing by the mighty dollar. And we needed to hand pick and train them. We also needed a mix of Shiite and Sunni's.

Fourth we were on a timetable due to the U.N. We didn't just decide to go in on a whim<<

A head count is infact the one thing that counts for the normal civilian,

Yes the water and electricity are getting better, but it took far to long to get started,As for the police being corrupt, just what do you call what is happening now, at least the allies would have been working inside an existing infrastructure, I think the lesson from all this is that it is far easier to break and destroy than build, and building inside something that was not perfect would have been easier than starting from scratch.you did not have time to hand pick and train, and if what you now have is an example of hand picking then you definately would have been better of working with what was left.

The so called UN timetable was a joke.
Click to expand...
Michael, I respect your opinion and I see your frustration...I need to disagree with you in an aspect: you said a very important thing, "A head count is infact the one thing that counts for the normal civilian"...notice who you are and what you just said...Maybe you don't understand what victory is in this case...being I work for the gov't, you should trust me on this; we know what victory is, as well as our objectives...terrorists are defined as people who fight for anything (primarily religion or money, and done as a public demonstration) but their country...remember how President Bush said that this would not be like the victories of old, in which a distinguished officer surrendered his sword on a ship....this is not a country we are fighting, just various people from other countries...head count in this case doesn't matter, it shall not matter...what matters is a rebuilt, stable country that can provide economical exchange, that can possibly offset the boiling turbulence of the middle east...

People often forget that when they define a problem (in this case, terrorism) they need to define their answer (the base of terrorism destroyed)...

I would like to hear the liberal's answer to the problem of terrorism???

according to 97% of democratic candidates, it's letting the terrorists win...it's indirectly sending them a message saying that the terror acts of 9/11 and the USS Cole bombings will go unresolved in the history of the US...it's them saying that they would appeal to the emotion of the US in death in war, instead of appealing to the logic of winning this war by cowboying up and toughing it out...deaths happen all the time, and I believe that we are trying to hide ourselves from the cost of war, from the cost of freedom, from the cost of peace...

never back down:mad:

 
M

Michael Rudd

New member
Hi Huskarine,You seem to tink that I am one of those soft Europeans that tend to side with the enemy, Nothing could be further from the truth, I spent more than 30 years in South Africa, the last 10 of which I was a farmer in an area that was constantly under threat of terrorist attack, I had a 357 almost permantly on my hip, the first shot was infact snake shot, we often had nasty snakes coming into the house, at night out came the pump action shotgun loaded with LG and SSG alternatly. And still I know the value of getting the locals on your side, The way you are playing the game means you will have to kill the whole population to win, Your troops are actively alienateing the civilian population, with out whose help you can never win, when you have lost another couple of thousand men let me know if you think that maybe you should try a different approach.
 
H

Huskarine

New member
Michael, I never understood you to be a liberal...I never even knew you were European...frankly, I don't care for either, I see you as a normal human being...you would be surprised how many conservatives are against the war...I, for one, am one of them...

you are right about the elimination of a race...practically, the enemy's perspective is primarily religion, but they still retain focus on money (honestly)...there is still some hope in changing the economy to offset the turmoil...poverty can make anyone mad, so if we help them experience economic drive, they might be happy about something in life...Now, what I just said is completely irrelevant to those who regard Islam over everything; and in fact this is an overly abundant percentage of the population...this is why I agree with you about our chances of winning this one...we would have to eliminate one side over the other to solidify one Iraq state, and ergo hope to set up an economy without conflict...but they are way too based on religion to even think of economics...

My goal in my last post was to help you understand the different picture of the war...no, I never believe that I can change your focus, just encourage it...I hope you saw my point...

diplomatically, our humanitarian relations could not be better, and we have done many profound things over there (a lot which do not get reported or even credit)...we have to take in conjunction just how long it takes to build a country from scratch (historically, we are building them faster than it took to build us)...

Islamic religious zealots are always going to be out there and against America and Israel...what we are and wanting to accomplish in Iraq is a detrimental reduction in them...

we have to not back down... :mad:

your question probably remains, "well, when is enough?" Frankly, I do not have an answer (even for those people who will never accept one because they always want to remain pessimistic) and most people with concern and complaint over this war don't have one either...

I was always told to not complain about a job you are not willing to do yourself...

I hope I did not offend you in anyway...I totally respect your opinion, emotions, and idealism....

 
M

Michael Rudd

New member
Hi Huskarine, It seems to me that you have no idea how the US is viewed in the Middle Eastern Muslim countries, Your troubles do not stop at Iraqs borders. A recent opinion survey in 4 muslim countries (egypt, Morocco. Pakistan and Indonesia) shows that 79% believe that America aims to weaken and divide the Muslim world. Large majorities want US troops out. Most strikingly, in Egypt one of the USAs closest Arab allies 97% endorse attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your top General in Iraq General David Petreus, has said that he is ''very concerned'' at the attitude (in amongst other things of what is acceptable behaviour towards Iraq civilians) of a large number of US troops. You still have not grasped, how to treat people that are willing to die just so long as more US troops join them.

Google 'Rudyard Kipling' and read his poem 'Arithmetic on the Frontier'.

 
H

Huskarine

New member
Michael, I agree with you that the majority of middle eastern countries don't like the US, but in this case, we need to force feed them on what is good...they will never accept it until they see the light...look at it this way: they never want to seek free will and less control because they are under such oppression from Islam alone, just for measurements sake, lets not even count in their government's overbearing control...they don't understand the concept of liberty, they need to experience it for themselves...

after reading that poem, it became clear to me that the author just plain dislikes war...hey, I do too....but if memory serves me right, FDR said the same thing too; guess what, we had to go to war in WWII...the difference today is that our enemy are terrorists, not to mention that pretty much all of them are radical Islamic jihadists...these are the same (type of) people that executed the attacks on 9/11...and after remembering that, we have justification of fighting them over there instead of over here...

I hate war too, but our armed services were established to ensure the stability of peace in our country...I understand the concept of death in the services...but what means more to me and to all of those who have died for our country, is a love of country over a love of self...

 
M

Michael Rudd

New member
Michael, I agree with you that the majority of middle eastern countries don't like the US, but in this case, .they will never accept it until they see the light...look at it this way: they never want to seek free will and less control because they are under such oppression from Islam alone, just for measurements sake, lets not even count in their government's overbearing control... after reading that poem, it became clear to me that the author just plain dislikes war...hey, I do too....but if memory serves me right, FDR said the same thing too; guess what, we had to go to war in WWII...the difference today is that our enemy are terrorists, not to mention that pretty much all of them are radical Islamic jihadists...these are the same (type of) people that executed the attacks on 9/11...and after remembering that, we have justification of fighting them over there instead of over here...

I hate war too, but our armed services were established to ensure the stability of peace in our country...I understand the concept of death in the services...but what means more to me and to all of those who have died for our country, is a love of country over a love of self...
Click to expand...
Hi Huskrain, >>we need to force feed them on what is good..<< You will find that you catch far more flies with honey than vinegar, and with the troops attitude towards the population in general you are driving them into the arms of the extreemists and jihadists.

>>they don't understand the concept of liberty, they need to experience it for themselves...<<

Then why do you think the first country they look to when trying to get out of their own, is the US, and the EU states next, the bulk of the population in Iran would like to have closer ties with you, but they dont like the force feeding methods used, if you were just trying to go about you business of feeding your family and ran across a number of foreign troops who felt that they had the right to beat the **** out of you, just because you were there.

Kipling was not noted for his dislike of war,Go back and read ''White Mans Burdan', 'Gunga Din', then have a look at 'The Disciple'. In fact there many poems of his you will like , and a number of his short stories. but his most anti war poem was 'Mothers Son'' he lost his son in the first world war,

 
H

Huskarine

New member
have you even been over there??? the Iraqi population likes us over there...the ones fighting us, believe it or not, are not predominantly Iraqi...most are from other countries....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom