Baghdad Burning -- Girl Blog

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I don't see your point.

 

Do you have some logic that will impugn sympathizers of the Iraqi people today on the basis of how people would have felt 60 years ago about a bombing raid that killed 80K+ civillians? If so let's hear it.

 

1) The reality of war will always be death and destruction. If the blogger is real, then I am not surprised that things are as bad as she states, but that is always the cost of war - always. Some wars must be fought nevertheless.

 

2) If you compare how we execute wars today to what we did in the past, we have made huge improvements.

[slothrop]

Those improvements have only been made as a direct result of heightened public awareness of the costs of war (i.e., the "whining" that many here like to... uh... whine about). It's obviously much more efficient and cheap to level an entire neighborhood with a few daisy cutters than gather enough intelligence to accurately target a few houses with expensive smart bombs.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Those improvements have only been made as a direct result of heightened public awareness of the costs of war (i.e., the "whining" that many here like to... uh... whine about). It's obviously much more efficient and cheap to level an entire neighborhood with a few daisy cutters than gather enough intelligence to accurately target a few houses with expensive smart bombs.

 

And yet credit for these efforts is few and far between. Rather, the rhetoric is replete with hyperbole claiming the exact *opposite*.

[slothrop]

It's all relative. Warfare is clearly more humane these days than when the only way to win was to kill or enslave all the men and rape the women. Civilian (and some military) leaders have also spewed their fair share of "smart bombs are humane, safe, and clean" rhetoric, which puts people off just the same because it's clearly mendacious.

[chucK]

I agree with your "War is Hell" statement, and I might buy into your belief that our wars are cleaner than they used to be.

 

However, your implication that our elective invasion of Iraq resulting in 10,000 US casualties and 100,000 Iraqi deaths, is justified because everybody knows war is hell and at least we took more than two days to kill 80,000 civilians, doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

However, your implication that our elective invasion of Iraq resulting in 10,000 US casualties and 100,000 Iraqi deaths, is justified because everybody knows war is hell and at least we took more than two days to kill 80,000 civilians, doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

 

One could argue that Normandy was an elective invasion since Stalingrad was actually the turning point of the war, and the Russians would have defeated Hitler without our help. We could have stuck to our efforts in the Pacific Theater, and provided financial assistance to Stalin instead.

[chucK]

So?

 

You're losing me again here Kakslskfjlj(?) Again with the analogies to WWII. Why does your implication that Normandy was a bad move justify invading Iraq in 2004?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

We have not been invaded since the war of 1812. All our subsequent wars have been "elective". All have cost lives on both sides. All have been controversial.

[SnowByrd]

My younger bro left today for somewhere out there... He's been my best bud since I was 4.9 years old. How about we stop fantasizing about this and that and just hope as many of our brothers/sons/daughters/sister/wives/husbands come home okay... It's all fun and games until it is you or yours. Am I the only cc.com-er that has a loved one in the line of fire? Or the only one willing to voice it? Or have I just missed your posts? (and if so, I apologize, my mind has been elsewhere...)

 

Some of you need to adopt a GI, send em a care package, some cookies, whatever... Me? I got one already.

 

thanks.

 

Nope....my 2 year olds father (im mad at him for joining) ships out after the first of the year. Lets just hope they come home safely.

[sexual_chocolate]

Those improvements have only been made as a direct result of heightened public awareness of the costs of war (i.e., the "whining" that many here like to... uh... whine about). It's obviously much more efficient and cheap to level an entire neighborhood with a few daisy cutters than gather enough intelligence to accurately target a few houses with expensive smart bombs.

 

And yet credit for these efforts is few and far between. Rather, the rhetoric is replete with hyperbole claiming the exact *opposite*.

 

That's because war will always be an abomination, a ruthlessly destructive horror no matter how sophisticated its methodologies become. I think the evidence from Iraq supports this view quite clearly.

 

With this being the case, coupled with the fact that this was an entirely illegal and immoral war to begin with (an unprovoked invasion of a foreign country!), you won't get me as a sympathizer for your "new and improved" war.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That's because war will always be an abomination, a ruthlessly destructive horror no matter how sophisticated its methodologies become. I think the evidence from Iraq supports this view quite clearly.

 

What do you consider worth fighting for? Anything?

 

All the abominations of war would accompany the defense of your own homeland. Would that be a battle to be fought?

 

Is it moral to allow for millions to die, while you stand on the sidelines in your purist moral rectitude?

 

If a man pulls an assualt rifle and aims it at a crowd, do you have a right to kill him?

 

Can you knowlingly kill 100,000 to save 1,000,000?

 

With this being the case, coupled with the fact that this was an entirely illegal and immoral war to begin with (an unprovoked invasion of a foreign country!), you won't get me as a sympathizer for your "new and improved" war.

 

Not my point, Sir. I merely assert that our troops are doing their damned best to minimize loss of innocent life. If we really had no concern for innocent civilians we could conduct this war on insurgency / occupation in much more brutal ways.

[Squid]

Maybe you missed the recent news Scooter. There were no WMD's, and there were no connections to OBL.

 

We launched an unprovoked war.

 

I'm sure that many of our military are doing their best to minimize 'collateral damage,' but we lost the war of perception with Abu Ghraib.

 

I believe fighting for what's right, broken eggs and omelettes and all that, but this war is not about defending any principles.

 

Of course, this is dead horse time. I've heard your arguments for months now, and remain unpersuaded, just as I have failed to persuade you.

 

peace-

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Maybe you missed the recent news Scooter. There were no WMD's, and there were no connections to OBL.

 

We launched an unprovoked war.

 

I'm sure that many of our military are doing their best to minimize 'collateral damage,' but we lost the war of perception with Abu Ghraib.

 

I believe fighting for what's right, broken eggs and omelettes and all that, but this war is not about defending any principles.

 

Of course, this is dead horse time. I've heard your arguments for months now, and remain unpersuaded, just as I have failed to persuade you.

 

peace-

 

I'm not arguing the question of whether we should have gone to war in Iraq or not (did I ever on this forum?). What I'd like to see is to reduce the insurgency to a level where we can, in good faith, hand over power to the Iraqis, and withdraw most of our troops over the next year (like 75%).

[sexual_chocolate]

Dude, there are troops right now kicking the shit out of civies cuz they are pissed. Another horror of war. Abu Gharib(sp?), anyone? Rape and torture are seemingly an inescapable part of war once emotions have been unchecked and normal legal and moral frameworks have been rent asunder (every war I'VE ever read about has this "hidden side"). So anyway, a partial response to your assertion about troop concern for civilian life. (This doesn't mean there aren't troops acting in ways deemed "honorable" according to customary morality.)

 

 

And your former point:

 

What do you consider worth fighting for? Anything?

 

All the abominations of war would accompany the defense of your own homeland. Would that be a battle to be fought?

 

Is it moral to allow for millions to die, while you stand on the sidelines in your purist moral rectitude?

 

If a man pulls an assualt rifle and aims it at a crowd, do you have a right to kill him?

 

Can you knowlingly kill 100,000 to save 1,000,000?

 

None of these are applicable to the Iraq situation.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

None of these are applicable to the Iraq situation.

 

That is *your* appraisal, which I can respect, but disagree with.

 

Can I assume that you would feel *some* war is worth fighting for, even though war is inherently an "abomination"?

[Squid]

K-

Agreed. I find the quote below reprehensible; like or not, we're now responsible for safely restoring autonomy to Iraq.

 

"I don’t offer solutions because I didn’t start this war. Like millions of other Americans, I actively opposed Bush’s War. Partisan conservatives demonized us as “unpatriotic” and “peaceniks” and "hippies" without ever listening to our message. It’s helpful to remember that every bad thing the anti-Bush War people predicted has happened, while everything the neo-conservatives promised has failed to materialize. I didn’t shit the bed so I have no obligation to clean it up or sleep in it."

link

 

I'm not sure that 'paving Fallujah' is best method. If you accept the Rivergirl blog as one legitimate voice with Iraq, then it appears that the US presence within Iraq- especially when launching offensives- is galvanzing people to take up arms against the US.

BushCo seems to think that sooner or later we'll have killed everyone who doesn't want us in Iraq, and then we can go about establishing Iraqi self-rule.

 

I'm not really sold on that approach.

[Thinker]

Wow...it looks like I need to 'ignore' Kojak just like I did Scotty. What a bunch of vapid drivel!

[sexual_chocolate]

Can I assume that you would feel *some* war is worth fighting for, even though war is inherently an "abomination"?

 

I don't know. I'm very poor at hypotheticals.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Wow...it looks like I need to 'ignore' Kojak just like I did Scotty. What a bunch of vapid drivel!

 

Go for it - have a circle-jerk with like-minded people. You'll never need to feel threatened - or have to think.

[sexual_chocolate]

K-

like or not, we're now responsible for safely restoring autonomy to Iraq.

 

How might you go about this?

[sexual_chocolate]

Can I assume that you would feel *some* war is worth fighting for, even though war is inherently an "abomination"?

 

I don't know. I'm very poor at hypotheticals.

 

A simple "I don't know" would have also sufficed.

[Peter_Puget]

With respect to current activities in Fallujah let's check in w/ Mao who of course is no stranger to fighting a variety of guerrilla campaigns:

"The guerrilla base may be defined as an area, strategically located, in which the guerrillas can carry out their duties of training, self-preservation, and development. Ability to fight a war without a rear area is a fundamental characteristic of guerrilla action, but ths does not mean that guerrillas can exist and function over a long period of time without the development of base areas."

[slothrop]

PP, in his ever-so-oblique fashion, is suggesting that all we have to do lay siege to every city in Iraq until the entire populace renounces their IED-explodin' ways and spontaneously votes a Republican into office. Optimistic, yes... there is literally nothing but optimism in this assessment.

 

The fundamental problem with fighting against a guerilla force under occupation is that the units do not identify themselves until they are firing RPGs at you. They can melt in and out of the populace and migrate from battlefield to battlefield, resupplying from numerous "base areas" as they move.

 

When is the last time the invading force won a prolonged guerilla war without resorting to genocide? I'm seriously looking for historical examples here.

 

Why did we do so well in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq? There's seems to be a huge fundamental difference: the people in Afghanistan never turned against their occupier with such fury and determination. The warlords never could unite against the US invader.

 

Why did we fight for so long in Vietnam, but still never manage to close off the North's "base areas"? Why are we still unable to do it in Iraq?

[Gaper_Jeffy]

The "Girl Blogger" said this:

 

"I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can- while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We’ll take our chances- just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go."

 

ROFL. She's quite funny!

[cj001f]

Why did we do so well in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq? There's seems to be a huge fundamental difference: the people in Afghanistan never turned against their occupier with such fury and determination. The warlords never could unite against the US invader.

I'm not so sure we're doing well in Afghanistan - last I checked there were large sections of the country we didn't control and couldn't travel to.