NationStates Jolt Archive

1) Allied troops intend only to kill terrorists attacking them. While they occaitonally do kill civilians the only reason for that is the terrorists are the ones bluring the line between civillian and target. Terrorists on the other hand are indiscriminate in targeting civilians and soldiers.

2) When Allied troops capture anyone and there is some sort of humiliation, we are prepared to punish those responsable, the people who were there, at the time, commiting said offence. The idea that Abu-Grave (or however you spell it) is some kind of large scale conspiricy that spreads up the entire American government is ludicrous.

(add your own points at will)

Allied troops are prepared to leave Iraq to it's own elected government.
Insurgents want to take control and stay in control regardless of what kind of government the people choose.

the "terrorists " are legal under international war, the coalition are ILEAGAL INVADERS this gives the insurgents a right to defend thier nation, why not check out the UN website for more info

the "terrorists " are legal under international war, the coalition are ILEAGAL INVADERS this gives the insurgents a right to defend thier nation, why not check out the UN website for more info
Legal or illegal is meaningless. The US forces will do much less harm to Iraq than the insurgents because the US is repairing the damaged infrastructure, and is planning to leave eventually. The insurgents are only killing their countrymen and destroying the infrastructure that their nation depends on.

Remember that "coalition" or 'allies' is a euphanism for "americans"

If anyone wishes to criticize the Iraq war, the politics behind it, the flawed reasoning, go for it. But this thread is about the soldiers only, the ones who are doing their jobs, the guys that die every war so you don't have to.

Im saying this because the distinction is muddied by people on both sides of the debate. Not just people who are dumb enough to place a US soldier on par with a murderous insurgent, but also with the idiot republicans who accuse you of "Not supporting our troops" every time you remark about the war. Personally I think Not Wanting Our Troops to Die is a show of support, but there it is.

Anyway, just heading this off at the pass.

Most of the people fighting the americans in iraq are not terrorists, they are insurgents.

The french who fought the nazis in occupied france were insurgents as well.

There are a small number of "terrorists" in iraq, but because of the nature of the foreign occupation it borders on dishonesty to be too liberal in classifying insurgents as terrorists.

If anyone wishes to criticize the Iraq war, the politics behind it, the flawed reasoning, go for it. But this thread is about the soldiers only, the ones who are doing their jobs, the guys that die every war so you don't have to.

Im saying this because the distinction is muddied by people on both sides of the debate. Not just people who are dumb enough to place a US soldier on par with a murderous insurgent, but also with the idiot republicans who accuse you of "Not supporting our troops" every time you remark about the war. Personally I think Not Wanting Our Troops to Die is a show of support, but there it is.

Anyway, just heading this off at the pass.


Actually as a result of what the american military is doing in iraq there is probably a much better chance that american civilians will be killed.

Remember, we arent in the right anymore, we torture people as a matter of policy and wrecked and invaded and occupied a foreign country.

Most of the people fighting the americans in iraq are not terrorists, they are insurgents.
Are these the "insurgents" from Syria, or the "insurgents" from Chechnya, or the "insurgents" from Pakistan, or from any number of places outside of Iraq?

Or are these the "insurgents" that used to work for Saddam. The ones that ran the mass-murder operations and the rape rooms and gassed all the Kurds?

the "terrorists " are legal under international war, the coalition are ILEAGAL INVADERS this gives the insurgents a right to defend thier nation, why not check out the UN website for more info
Just because the U.N. says something it is automatically true? The U.N. is not consented to by 1/3 of the world. Don't give me that 'insurgent' crap. They are terrorist sandmonkeys and they are fighting for tyranny and bloodshed. The Iraqi National Guard and those Iraqis fighting to establish democracy: those are the true heroes. Those are the men that are fighting to defend their nation, not some pitiful terrorist that would kill his own people.
Quit being such a tool, and for the sake of all humanity: learn to spell.

Actually as a result of what the american military is doing in iraq there is probably a much better chance that american civilians will be killed.

Remember, we arent in the right anymore, we torture people as a matter of policy and wrecked and invaded and occupied a foreign country.

Couldn't agree more. This war is bullshit and the reasons for going in is bullshit.

Im just saying, leave the soldiers out of it, unless they abuse prisoners or terrorize the Iraqi people. Look what happened in Vietnam, everybody came back and instead of being heroes they were a political embarassment. Everyone hated them, called them babykillers, were not sympathetic at all to what they'd been through. That seems wrong, to me, you raise these young men on a diet of patriotic brainwashing and hymns praising america, then you draft them and force them to join the army and get sent to hell, and then basically leave them to their sorrows once they get back.

That's why it pisses me off to hear the whole "Support our troops!" thing abused like that, like unless you agree with the war you couldn't care less about the soldiers.

Remember that "coalition" or 'allies' is a euphanism for "americans"

Yes of course. Lets just forget the British and Japanese contingets. They havent done anything at all, have they. (Interesting point, the British sectors are far less attack ridden than the American ones)

Legal or illegal is meaningless. The US forces will do much less harm to Iraq than the insurgents because the US is repairing the damaged infrastructure, and is planning to leave eventually. The insurgents are only killing their countrymen and destroying the infrastructure that their nation depends on.
not if the presence of the us is what is CAUSING the insurgency, and terrorists are killing their countrymen, insurgents are killing the foreign invaders

Yes of course. Lets just forget the British and Japanese contingets. They havent done anything at all, have they. (Interesting point, the British sectors are far less attack ridden than the American ones)
What do you think about that? Are the Brits just in safer areas, or is it more likely that the terrorists get better press by attacking Americans? The second is probably true, and kind of ironic. Doesn't Britain have a long and kind of bloody history in this part of the world?

Remember, we arent in the right anymore, we torture people as a matter of policy and wrecked and invaded and occupied a foreign country.

Torture is policy. Intersting. Care to prove it

What do you think about that? Are the Brits just in safer areas, or is it more likely that the terrorists get better press by attacking Americans? The second is probably true, and kind of ironic. Doesn't Britain have a long and kind of bloody history in this part of the world?

Seeing as the British sector is A) Larger and B) Manned by less forces than the American sector, it is very intersting.

Seeing as the British sector is A) Larger and B) Manned by less forces than the American sector, it is very intersting.
That's what I'm getting at. Current events make it more favorable to attack Americans. The press really plays it up, even to the point where we don't hear about Brits or Poles or Italians or anyone else that has troops in Iraq. The terrorists really need press coverage to thrive and the US national press is willing to give it to them.

The ironic part is that over the years, the British have historically dominated that region and put down more than a few uprisings. Or maybe I'm getting confused with India. Time to look it up. ... Okay, it might not have been as bloody as in Africa and India, but the Brits certainly had more influence in that area than did the US. And fought more than a couple battles.

Yes of course. Lets just forget the British and Japanese contingets. They havent done anything at all, have they. (Interesting point, the British sectors are far less attack ridden than the American ones)

You forgot Poland.

They are terrorist sandmonkeys and they are fighting for tyranny and bloodshed.

What, all of them? Bullshit. Quit believing all the crap the fat fucks on CNN tell you, these people are not sacrificing their lives to kill you because they "hate freedom". Simplifying the issue down to goodies and baddies may help in securing the moral high ground, but it sure isn't going to make Iraq any more secure. Part of it is that there is no interaction between US troops and the average Iraqi people. The US troops are these fucking scary guys who hang around at checkpoints and street corners, wearing body armor that makes them look huge and carrying rifles which they arn't reluctant to use.

To the US troops, there is no goddamn way of telling which Iraqi wants to kill them and which does not. They are standing out in the open, practically dieing of heat exposure in their body armor, staring at everyone with twitchy eyes. Their arn't enough translators, and no desire to get any kind of rapport going, anyway. They stay in barely secure lodgings lacking the most basic facilities, they've been eating MRE's for too damn long, maybe some of them are wondering what the hell they are doing here, and it must work at your psyche. If someone DOES pull out a gun and start spraying, or blow themselves up next to a group of people, the general policy is to shoot anyone seen firing, and round everyone involved up and send them to Ahu Gharib. This includes insurgents AND people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which wouldn't be so bad if everyone in Ahu Gharib wasn't treated as if they were already guilty, and if their wasn't such a complete ballsup in allowing such abuse to take place.

This is their land, and we are the foreign invaders in service of the Great Evil. And it doesn't have to be this way, this didn't HAVE to be an occupation instead of the "liberation" everyone was talking about at first.

You arn't going to sway the hardcore bastards who are completely opposed to any kind of democracy in Iraq with nice words, of course. But to usurp any government, you have to gain the support of it's people. Well, at least if you want to incite a rebellion or takeover. You CAN just usurp a dictator through superior military might, but it will be the half-successful, bloody takeover you see on the news today.

As an aside, British troops get attacked less because British troops are better trained for MOUT situations and peace keeping operations and have actually been doing a better job of keeping peace in their assigned sectors then american forces. (If anyone accuses me of not supporting the troops because of pointing out the disparities in training, Ill hurt you.) Even things like wearing berets instead of helmets and playing football with the kids help to make the populace, y'know, not hate you.

Wow, I can't believe you guys moved me to saying something that could be construed as patriotic. They may not have the funding or equipment or numbers of the US, but the british army is well trained and good at what it does.

You forgot Poland.

I have little respect for the Polish public after the sudden disprortinate ammount of protest over the death of a single soldier. COME ON! Soliders DIE in war! What do you expect!

the "terrorists " are legal under international war, the coalition are ILEAGAL INVADERS this gives the insurgents a right to defend thier nation, why not check out the UN website for more info
Since when is terrorism legal during an international war?

That's what I'm getting at. Current events make it more favorable to attack Americans. The press really plays it up, even to the point where we don't hear about Brits or Poles or Italians or anyone else that has troops in Iraq. The terrorists really need press coverage to thrive and the US national press is willing to give it to them.

The ironic part is that over the years, the British have historically dominated that region and put down more than a few uprisings. Or maybe I'm getting confused with India. Time to look it up. ... Okay, it might not have been as bloody as in Africa and India, but the Brits certainly had more influence in that area than did the US. And fought more than a couple battles.

Arguably, the British forces just seem less opressive to the Iraqis. They went with the 'hearts and minds' approach, did not suspect everyone to be an insurgent and thus gained the popular support more easily.

Are these the "insurgents" from Syria, or the "insurgents" from Chechnya, or the "insurgents" from Pakistan, or from any number of places outside of Iraq?

There is no doubt that many of the "insurgents" are "foreigners".

Whereas, of course, the Americans and British are "natives".

What do you think about that? Are the Brits just in safer areas, or is it more likely that the terrorists get better press by attacking Americans? The second is probably true, and kind of ironic. Doesn't Britain have a long and kind of bloody history in this part of the world?
Its more a case of Britain having the better soliders.

The coalition forces are trying to make peoples lives better, the people they are fighting just want chaos.

the "insurgents" are killing collaberators with the enemy, as any of us would do in their situation.

You forgot Poland.

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/poland.gif

Seeing as the British sector is A) Larger and B) Manned by less forces than the American sector, it is very intersting.
Also overwhelmingly Shia. The American troops are working in the Sunni areas and thus are subject to attack by disgruntled former regime elements and radical islamist terrorists.

the "insurgents" are killing collaberators with the enemy, as any of us would do in their situation.


So when the "EVIL" Americans leave Iraq, these "insurgents" are just going to put down their guns and explosives and go home? I seriously doubt it.

Hmm, more reasonable, I'm not sure about that.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389549

So when the "EVIL" Americans leave Iraq, these "insurgents" are just going to put down their guns and explosives and go home? I seriously doubt it.
haha leave iraq, thats funny, they will have to literally drive us out of the country to get us out completely, and that still mgiht not work

I have little respect for the Polish public after the sudden disprortinate ammount of protest over the death of a single soldier. COME ON! Soliders DIE in war! What do you expect!

Considering that the majority (big majority) of the Polish people was against the war, and because the reasons provided for the war were false, that Polish soldier died for nothing. Its not the war of Poland.

On the good news:
The crappy 120 Portuguese soldiers that are in Iraq will leave in February 12th! Bem vindos de volta, nunca deviam ter ido! :fluffle:

haha leave iraq, thats funny, they will have to literally drive us out of the country to get us out completely, and that still mgiht not work

The US has no intentions of ever leaving Iraq, they didn't make all those bases to be temporary. They never intended to leave, they wanted a staging ground to attack any nation in the middle east they so wished. It was always their intention, this was a strategic war, has no one figured that out yet?