But you’re assuming the impossible, the fact that 30-40 years of indoctrination of torturing prisoners, arresting people with lack of evidence, are all going to be easy to get rid of, in the middle of an insurgency, in the middle of hundreds of police officers getting killed.
Of course, but Iraq right now is too violent for any proper monitoring to take place all the time, unless you want to get yourself killed.
Which they did? Where do you think the US would find a new officer class from, experienced and trained in maintaining order better than any other Iraqi out there at the moment?
Well it won’t, I do think we’ll stop it eventually, no laws though have been passed on this, its purely an ethical outlook.
Old habits die hard, you’re dumb enough not to even realise that.
I’m not assuming the impossible, you’re not listening to me.
Any police from SH’s regime, should not be a police officer in present day Iraqi. That way all these assholes that used to torture people, don’t start doing it again
Think of Iraq as a company. We’ve kicked out the old management, and replaced them with new management. In the case of Iraq, the new management is inexplicably the old management.
Well what hte fuck are the 150,000 fucking troops there for? To enjoy the weather? They’re supposedly there to protect the Iraqis, which needs to be done on several levels. Shit man it’s really not that hard to run a police station where you don’t shove foreign objects up the prisoner’s asses. We should be monitoring these stations.
The old murdering regime has experience in controlling people, so let’s hire them? WTF???
How about training some people that weren’t in the old regime, which you’ll remeber we removed a few months prior. IF YOU GIVE THESE PEOPLE THEIR OLD JOBS BACK, THEY’LL PICK UP WHERE THEY LEFT OFF, TORTURING PEOPLE.
Passing a law won’t stop torture you moron. Removing the assholes who torture people will. Making sure that if someone was a police officer in the old regime, you don’t fucking hire them, you hire someone else.
How about hiring some people whos old habits weren’t abusing prisoners?
I can’t even believe we’re discussing something this inane.
Oh come now World Eater, you honestly think that just because we’re there for Freedomtm and Democracy tm and one of the current rationalizations is that Sadaam was a bad man, that we can’t do the exact same things that he did?
Surely you’re aware that when Sadaam tortured people it was bad, but when we do it, Freedom Is On The March! Honestly, Sadaam having his police rape people was bad, but when American soldiers do it we’re aiming for the Anus of Justice!!!
I mean, seriously, haven’t you heard the talking points?
When I’m at work and I fuck a task up, the next time I do it, it’s first and foremost in my mind to not make the same mistake again. I may screw up in a different manner, but I try and learn from my mistakes. If I was running this campaign, it would be front and center that we bend over backwards to instill the notion that we’re not the old regime. I would be monitoring prison detention and treatment like a hawk. Each time one of these knuckleheads pulls some stunt, we take a tremendious PR hit, yet it seems like we don’t do much to prevent similar incidents in the future.
This is hillarious FinnAgain, I ask you a question, and yet you still seem to avoid it. What will it take for you to answer it.
Ok here it is again Finn.
If you’re unhappy about the way the US Coalition is conducting this war and bringing about democracy and representation for the Iraqi people, what do you suggest?
But we did that? We sacked the entire police force, then found out what a fuckup that was, we rehire them, and now you’re bitching on at us about torture?
And what if the majority of the police are like this, then what?
What I’m not allowed to bitch about torturing anymore because of this?
Let me get this straight.
We roll in, and get rid of the crooked police force, and those within it that had links to SH. We then experience problems controiling the country, so we rehire all the old torturing assholes to help regain control?
Don’t you see this is a pretty stupid thing to do?
Well if the majority of the police are torturing assholes that’s a pretty bad problem wouldn’t you say? So our choices are this. Rehire a bunch of goons who have a history of mistreating people, or risk increased chaos due to lack of personel. Pretty shitty choice eh?
I’m serious here, you think rehiring these people is a good idea? What type of message does it send to the Iraqis? “We got rid of SH and all his corrupt security forces that used to beat you, but we just hired them back again, rejoice!”
Pragmatism? Proper management? Intelligence? Cultural sensitivity? Diplomacy? A Humanitarian mission? Enough troops to protect the Iraqis? Dedication to the moral highground and to be better than SH?
You’re kidding, right?
You’ve heard the Glorious Leader. The Iraqis should be damn glad for whatever we do, and we’ve made no mistakes, ever. Besides, the American election was an ‘accountability moment’. Surely the Iraqis aren’t bothered by anything since 51% of Americans who voted weren’t bothered.
If you’re unhappy about the way the US Coalition is conducting this war and bringing about democracy and representation for the Iraqi people, what do you suggest?
Even if thats so, I doubt the majority of the Iraqi police force is as bad as Saddams.
Yes, which would you choose?
Saddam Hussein relied heavily on elements of the Ba’ath Party and minority Sunni Arab tribal alliances to maintain a police state. Consdering considering the amount of Police we’ve hired are more Shia and Kurdish mix, and how Human right abuses were carried out mainly by their Sunni counterparts, I’d claim what you’re saying to be of a mixed variety.
Iraqi police are very brave, regardless, to sign up, train and effectively been facing a large insurgency, they’re heroes.
Where have I denied we’ve made mistakes? Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, but whats coming out of it is a good thing, first and foremost for the Iraqi people, who now get to have the chance of a real democracy.
Why is this all singled on President Bush, isn’t there more than one man in your tiny world? Are you going to disregard the millions of Iraqis who voted purely because you hate this administration and everything that comes with it? If you do, you’re not anti war, you’re a sadist.
Well it’s tough, because most of the steps are aimed at cleaning up the mess we made for ourselves. For example, not blowing up Zarqawi to kingdom come, dividing the international world in half with our stubbornness, and sending probably half the troops we needed.
For starters I suggest nailing anyone who tortures prisoners to the wall, in a highly public manner. Public in Iraq btw, not over here, where it won’t do as much good. Next Bush has to be more high profile about acknowledging these mistakes, even addressing the Iraqi people personally. If bush admitted some humility it would go a long way in helping bring more people on board.
I’ll address more steps when I have more time.
We had a chance for a clean slate here, and the best we can do is create a police force that isn’t as bad as SH’s? That’s pretty weak.
I’d choose chaos over bringing in old elements of SH’s regime, on many levels it’s less of a PR hit in terms of Iraqs hating us. The problem is we have two really shitty decisions to make, both with bad outcomes.
I don’t have time now, so I’ll finish this post later.
Blame
[ol]
[li]Canada[/li][li]Liberals who oppose the war and thus ‘sap our morale’ [/li][li]Insurgents whose culture we don’t understand and who see American troops doing horrible things. [/li][li]Terrorists who’ve flooded into Iraq and attacked our already mismanged and insufficent troops.[/li][li]The Iraqis themselves, if they just wanted security and democracy enough…[/li][/ol]
Nota bene, just this: in response to FinnAgain’s query, “Why just Iraq? Why not Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea?” Ryan_Liamwrites:
Let’s repeat that money quote, just for emphasis:
I’m confused.
Prior to the invasion, the Bush administration told me that Iraq was a terrible, looming threat. It was the most threatening state in the Middle East. President Bush himself said that Saddam was “a threat to the world,” that he continued to possess some of the “most lethal weapons ever devised by mankind.” Those who supported the war argued that we needed to invade Iraq, right now, because Hussein’s regime was so dangerous.
Now you tell me that we chose to invade Iraq because it was “weak,” and “easy to finish off?”
This is where you come off as a dumbass, I said repeatedly within the thread my opinion on the reasons to go to war were wrong and by the Bush administration, but whatever happens now, we must support the Iraqi people build up the state to a point where they can defend it without our help.
Trying to come off as the intellectual superior isn’t good when what you say is dubious at best isn’t it?
What I don’t understand is, that people keep telling me that the US has wanted to invade Iraq for more than a decade at least, blame those people who were whispering into the presidents ear.
Got it in one FinnAgain, but withdrawing will be such a bonus, maybe even a benefit to those innocent Iraqis, who would now be left alone with a bunch of murderous terrorists to confront, wouldn’t it?
My heart bleeds, it really does, for those insurgents. :rolleyes:
It should. How would you feel if you’re country had been invaded by a foreign ideologically-hostile power? People you know, maybe even family members have been killed. If you were in the army, you got made summarily unemployed. You could join the new army, but that would mean embracing the people who invaded your homeland, and it’s hardly the safest job in the world. They say they invaded for your own good (although that’s less what they were saying at the time) and that things will get better, but other than being able to vote for someone who was too scared to tell you their name, you’re not really seeing much concrete evidence. What would you do Ryan? Would you fight to defend your country?
Quite happy if the ideology of the native regime was much more terrible.
The army melted away at Baghdad, you find out in the army you’re in, you have to fight against people who kill you. Thats war, and when an army isn’t needed anymore, it gets disbanded. If they cared about that, then they’d target purely US/Iraqi Defence Force etc. installations and personel and not civilians as they’ve done most of the time. At least in this army you have a choice whether you join or not.
Its an army, army means war? Fighting defending the people from enemies? Figure it out. The army is never the safest job in the world.
Rape rooms no longer existing in a regime based on fear? the entire country liberated from organised terror? At least in post Saddam Iraq this terror is not legitimate where as it’s considered to be legitimate, and in many cases is actually legal in the nation concerned, where tyrannies reign.
If I lived in a country where one ethnic group ruled and oppressed all others, where people were routinely executed, persecuted, gassed, raped, wiped out, economically devastated and under the thumb of a dictator who used their money to build more symbols of his wealth and power, I’d welcome any outsider who promised freedom and liberty with open arms.