# An open letter of apology to the Iraqis **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 2, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102 "2004-05-02T04:09:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/21 "2004-05-03T04:21:17Z")
Just to clarify one statement above, what’s anathma to many Americans is any religion in government, not just Islam. No slight was intended to the Muslems of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/22 "2004-05-03T11:02:01Z")
Perspective please. Aside from mere scope, it is humiliating to be sure, even for a former torturer, to be paraded around naked and forced into sexual positions. But it is a far cry from poisoning whole villages with women and children, institutionalizing statutory rape, and putting people through paper shreaders feet first. ---
**Author:** ![griffen2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ce7236/32.png) [@griffen2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffen2)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/23 "2004-05-03T11:12:11Z")
Cite for the existence of the shredders, please. So far the paucity of evidence for their existence makes me inclined to think that they are an urban legend on par with Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators from Gulf War I. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/24 "2004-05-03T13:07:32Z")
> [@griffen2](#): > > Cite for the existence of the shredders, please. So far the paucity of evidence for their existence makes me inclined to think that they are an urban legend on par with Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators from Gulf War I. If you need a site for that one, you’re not paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/25 "2004-05-03T13:27:34Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > If you need a site for that one, you’re not paying attention. So you _do_ have one then? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/26 "2004-05-03T14:08:25Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > First, what gives you the right to apologize at all, in quite this form?.. But an apology on behalf of the American people is a little presumptuous. When I first read you post I was struck by how differently you saw my apology, and I thought there must be some cultural disconnect going on. That’s when I noticed that you were from the Washington, D.C. area where apologies are loaded with currents of meaning that are found nowhere else. Perhaps that’s it. Let me make it clear that I was speaking for myself, and no one else. Nowhere do you see me say “\*\*we \*\* are sorry”; it’s always “\*\*I \*\* am sorry”. Saying that you are sorry is not an admission of culpability, at least not outside of Washington. I hope even those inside the beltway can see the difference between “I’m sorry I killed your mother” and “I’m sorry for your terrible loss.” Out here in the heartland we have a tradition of saying “I’m sorry” to anyone who has suffered a tragedy. This is often accompanied with a casserole if the tragedy involves the death of a loved one. I’m not sure why we bake casseroles - it’s not as though the bereaved are especially hungry at this time in their lives - it’s just a thing we do. Perhaps we of the SDMB should all send casseroles to Iraq. Yeah, I know it’s a lousy idea. The casseroles wouldn’t ship well, and God knows how the Irqis would interpret the gesture. Still, the idea makes \*me \* feel a little better. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/27 "2004-05-03T14:29:01Z")
Gotcha, **bnorton**. I certainly don’t want to be unfriendly about it. But I don’t see as you have anything to feel sorry about. If you want to express sympathy, that’s one thing. But apologizing is another. And you used the word “apology” in your OP. I agree with **Finagle** , a call for an official apology would be more in order. Coming from the government and all, it would have more of a sense of speaking for us all, something a bunch of individual apologies cannot do. I am a supporter of the war in Iraq, and I see this boneheaded move by some of our soldiers as being extremely damaging to our work there. Throwing them all into Leavenworth for a good long time would be a great way to restore credibility in Iraq. I hope we do it as quickly as the court-martial process allows. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/28 "2004-05-03T15:08:08Z")
From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com): > [@](#): > > a·pol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-j) > n. pl. a·pol·o·gies > An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense. To me an apology is more “expressing regret” than “asking pardon”, but I can see how others might take the word. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/29 "2004-05-03T15:40:44Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Would they commit enough troops so that the US no longer had a majority? That would change things. Otherwise, not. Second, I am well aware that the US dosen’t send troops to UN peacekeeping missions very often, but politics aside, there is a very good reason for that: US involvement is a MAJOR escellation, even if only a handful of soldiers are involved. You said as much yourself Saturday when you were talking about why you chose to study US history. Would the UN need the level of troops that we currently have deployed? I get the feeling if there was a legitimate international force, the people would be fighting as much, hence less troops are required. Just a thought. > [@](#): > > Maybe. When John Kerry brings out a detailed plan for how he would handle the situation differently, then perhaps my attatude will change. Until then, he seems to have pinned his hopes on the UN falling all over themselves to come to our aid if we simply unelect George Bush, and I don’t see it happening. I think it’s important to determine _who_ exactly people are pissed at, America or Bush? Bush has made people look bad, he has alienated other countries, and I’m sure people have grudges against him. Who knows, voting him out may be the exact message we need to send to let the world know we don’t approve of what he’s doing either. Bush is a liability, _people don’t like him_, people don’t want to help him fix the situation because that will make him look good. Frankly I don’t blame them, with his my way or the highway approach and all. Neither Kerry or Bush have a plan with any substance, but at least most of the world doesn’t hate Kerry. We need the help of these people, we probably won’t get it with Bush in office. > [@](#): > > Here’s a silly, stupid story: When I was a kid, I was camping one time and I needed to cross a marsh. I set out to cross it on foot, slogging through mud that came halfway up my calves, with water chest deep. I was about halfway across when some of the kids I was camping with hopped in the fucking canoe that I hadn’t seen, and started paddling across the marsh. I was stuck. The canoe was obviously the better method for crossing, but with the sucking mud it’s unlikely that I could have climbed into it without capsizing it, even if the other kids had been inclined to let me (they were too buzy laughing at and teasing me to let me on board). I gritted my teeth and slogged across, emerging from the marsh tired, muddy and covered in slime. I was teased for being an idiot for the rest of the weekend. You’re right, this is a totally fucking stupid story, and has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq . > [@](#): > > Say what you will about Bush, but I don’t think anyone believes that he’s gonna quit. It’s not about quitting, it’s about being completely out of touch with the situation. He thought we would be welcome with open arms, which is something I could have told you wasn’t going to happen _long_ before we went in. He really believed this though, which to me makes him naive at best, and nuts at worst. > [@](#): > > He’ll keep slogging forward, and sometimes that’s the only way to get to the other side. And more often then not it isn’t. Besides we don’t even know what we’re _slogging_ (stupid fucking word btw) ahead to. Perhaps you can explain that one to me. > [@](#): > > Yes and no. The worldwide outrage and horror and support after 9/11 was extrodinarily gratifying for this American at least. The problem is that it’s easy to be outraged at the sight of two skyscrapers collasing into a pire for thousands of people, it’s a lot harder to get two people, let alone 2 billion, to agree on what to do in response. No it’s not that tough to get people to agree. We attack Afghanistan, the country that harbored the guy who perpetrated 9/11 I don’t know anyone who was against that. > [@](#): > > There are a lot of people who wouldn’t have supported an attack on Iraq absent of videotape showing Saddam juggling 2 canisters of anthrax and a backpack nuke, and some not even then. Strawman, and a pathetic one at that. > [@](#): > > ( No, I am not maintaining that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Good, because he didn’t. > [@](#): > > Iraq was a terrorist state, however, and your admission above: Please explain in clear detail, _what exactly made_ Iraq A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES? Keep these two things in mind before you answer. a) he has no WMD b) he has no connection with AQ Lastly don’t tell me we didn’t know A&B were true until after we went in. MANY of us opposed to the war were not convinced of terror links or wmd in the first place. > [@](#): > > \*(Just over a year ago, many Iraqis were jubilant that Saddam Hussein’s regime had been overthrown (yes, even though i opposed the war, i concede this to be the case)) \* to my mind is enough of a justification for attacking Iraq) Sweet, so when are we liberating those millions in North Korea?. I bet they can’t wait to eat something other then dirt and to be freed from the work camps over there. > [@](#): > > The big failure of US policy in Iraq has been in failing to get structure in place to replace the Baath regime in a timely fashon. What the majority of Iraq needs is not soldiers but policemen, along with a set of guidelines in place on how to handle criminals. (Due process of law, in other words) The US needs to show a greater willingness in incorperating Islamic elements into the new Iraqi government ( something anathma to Americans in general, but absolutely vital for any type of realistic Iraqi government ). We also need a…hmmm, the best way I can think of to put it is: marketing department. The average Iraqi needs to see Americans rebuilding and the insurgents tearing down. When we build a hospital or a school, and they blow it up because it was built by the US, the citizens have to miss that hospital more than they enjoy the US getting egg on their face. Rebuilding is going on right now, quite a bit of it, but all the news talks about is when people are killed in a firefight or ambush. What if after June 30th, the Iraqis tell us to get out now, just go. Would you support their wishes? > [@](#): > > Finally, we all need a sense of perspective that’s hard to come by in this age of instanet gratification and immediate communication. You’re the history guy, how long was the US in Germany and Japan after WWII? Anyone who thought we’d “rebuild” Iraq and leave in less than a year was deluding themselves. It’s a long, hard process. We haven’t done nearly as much as we should have in the last year, but we have done a lot. Leaving prematurely would be a tragedy of monumental preportions, and a bloodbath that would make what has gone on in Iraq to this point seem like a sunday school outing compared to the fighting to fill the power vacuum that would follow. Some of us opted for a course on this war on terror that wouldn’t have put us in this situation. As you failed to listen to reason then, you fail to listen to it now. **Mhendo** made a great point, why should we expect the shortsighted narrow minded pinheads who got us into this to get us out of it? They’ve made mistake after mistake, but if we wait long enough things will be fixed? No, we need a new course, their mistakes are only compounding things. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/30 "2004-05-03T15:53:14Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Well, maybe there is and maybe there isn’t, but lat’s say that the UN puts together a multi-national force that replaces a third of the US troops in Iraq, or roughly 45,000 men. That would be a substantial ammount of troops for the UN to commit, would it not? It would still be outnumbered by US troops 2 to 1. Now tell me this, and forget the US, forget Iraq, forget everything specific about this particular situation. In any multi-national force, if the troops from one country, any country, outnumber the troops from the rest of the countries combined by a 2 to 1 margin, can you see that country not demmanding that one of their Generals be in charge? I can’t. Again, just because you don’t like it, and just because you don’t think it will happen, doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be the appropriate solution. Simply dismissing argument after argument on the grounds that “what is, is right” does not make for a very stimulating discussion of other options. > [@](#): > > But that also dosen’t mean that the US is unique in such an expectation. You can criticize the US for many things, but I don’t think it’s particularly fair to criticize them for acting the exact same way every other country would act in the same circumstances. Actually, the makeup of UN peacekeeping forces shows precisely that many other countries in the world _are_ willing to place their troops under UN jurisdiction for substantial periods of time. Your assertion that every other country would act the same way as America is nothing more than that–an assertion. > [@](#): > > Would they commit enough troops so that the US no longer had a majority? That would change things. Otherwise, not. Second, I am well aware that the US dosen’t send troops to UN peacekeeping missions very often, but politics aside, there is a very good reason for that: US involvement is a MAJOR escellation, even if only a handful of soldiers are involved. You said as much yourself Saturday when you were talking about why you chose to study US history. Now you’re just being disingenuous, and completely misrepresenting my position. I said that i chose to study US history because, for better or worse, the United States is basically the most important country in the world in many ways. Simple US involvement is currently a “MAJOR escalation” not just because the US becomes involved, but because it so often chooses to involve itself unilaterally or in cooperation with only a few other nations. If the United States made a habit of fulfilling its obligations under international treaties (like the one it signed with the UN), and if it habitually sent troops to places in order not just to bomb but to help with peacekeeping efforts, and if it showed itself willing to do this under the auspices of an international body like the UN, then US participation in such actions would not be viewed by the world with the same jaundiced eye that it is now, when it often appears simply as the biggest bully on the block. As for a US majority, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that many people throughout the world have more of a problem with the US government and the US command than they do with American soldiers. If the US government were not calling the shots, and American soldiers were standing side-by-side with other international troops and taking orders from a UN command, this would go a long way to placating many critics of current policy, even if US troops still constituted a majority. > [@](#): > > Maybe. When John Kerry brings out a detailed plan for how he would handle the situation differently, then perhaps my attatude will change. Until then, he seems to have pinned his hopes on the UN falling all over themselves to come to our aid if we simply unelect George Bush, and I don’t see it happening. Here’s a silly, stupid story: When I was a kid, I was camping one time and I needed to cross a marsh. I set out to cross it on foot, slogging through mud that came halfway up my calves, with water chest deep. I was about halfway across when some of the kids I was camping with hopped in the fucking canoe that I hadn’t seen, and started paddling across the marsh. I was stuck. The canoe was obviously the better method for crossing, but with the sucking mud it’s unlikely that I could have climbed into it without capsizing it, even if the other kids had been inclined to let me (they were too buzy laughing at and teasing me to let me on board). I gritted my teeth and slogged across, emerging from the marsh tired, muddy and covered in slime. I was teased for being an idiot for the rest of the weekend. Say what you will about Bush, but I don’t think anyone believes that he’s gonna quit. He’ll keep slogging forward, and sometimes that’s the only way to get to the other side. I certainly believe that you’re right that Bush is going to keep slogging. The problem with your analogy is that you could at least see the other side when you started slogging. Bush barely seems to even have any idea that he’s stuck in the mud, let alone having a solution for getting out of it. He told us over a year ago that it was a case of “mission accomplished” in Iraq, yet right now he still seems unable to see the other side. > [@](#): > > Yes and no. The worldwide outrage and horror and support after 9/11 was extrodinarily gratifying for this American at least. The problem is that it’s easy to be outraged at the sight of two skyscrapers collasing into a pire for thousands of people, it’s a lot harder to get two people, let alone 2 billion, to agree on what to do in response. There are a lot of people who wouldn’t have supported an attack on Iraq absent of videotape showing Saddam juggling 2 canisters of anthrax and a backpack nuke, and some not even then. ( No, I am not maintaining that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Iraq was a terrorist state, however, and your admission above: \*(Just over a year ago, many Iraqis were jubilant that Saddam Hussein’s regime had been overthrown (yes, even though i opposed the war, i concede this to be the case)) \* to my mind is enough of a justification for attacking Iraq) A philosophy that “the ends justify the means” is a rather slippery slope to put yourself on, is it not? As many have pointed out over the last year, does this not now oblige the United States to invade and overthrow every dictatorial regime in the world, including the ones that it has been turning a blind eye to, or propping up? Saddam Hussein is far from the only bad guy out there. You also conveniently ignore that the reasons given for going into Iraq have, for the most part, been either completely or mostly discredited. It’s amazing how unconcerned you seem to be that you were lied to by your own government about the reasons for invasion. > [@](#): > > Currently, about 80% of Iraq is reletively peaceful. The people aren’t happy that the US is occupying their country(who would be?), but we are being grudgingly tolerated and allowed to rebuild the infrustructure and provide humanitarian aid. 20% of Iraq is “hot” as small groups of terrorists fight, not for the future of the Iraqi people, but for their own power. That cleric in Falujia ( I’m blanking on his name ATM ) commands a couple of thousand insurgents. Claiming that they represent 24 million Iraqis, most of whom aren’t even of the same Islamic sect, is as insane as claiming the small number of soldiers who abused their prisoners are indicative of US military policy. Show me where i ever claimed this? But the fact remains that many Iraqis who are not involved in the fighting are becoming increasingly disturbed at the overbearing and even draconian tactics being used by the Amnericans who are in control of their country. > [@](#): > > The big failure of US policy in Iraq has been in failing to get structure in place to replace the Baath regime in a timely fashon. What the majority of Iraq needs is not soldiers but policemen, along with a set of guidelines in place on how to handle criminals. (Due process of law, in other words) The US needs to show a greater willingness in incorperating Islamic elements into the new Iraqi government ( something anathma to Americans in general, but absolutely vital for any type of realistic Iraqi government ). We also need a…hmmm, the best way I can think of to put it is: marketing department. The average Iraqi needs to see Americans rebuilding and the insurgents tearing down. When we build a hospital or a school, and they blow it up because it was built by the US, the citizens have to miss that hospital more than they enjoy the US getting egg on their face. Rebuilding is going on right now, quite a bit of it, but all the news talks about is when people are killed in a firefight or ambush. A marketing department? You already have one of those for Iraq–it’s called the US government. The problem is that you can only tell the Iraqis that you have their best interests at heart for so long before they will start expecting actual results rather than empty platitudes. > [@](#): > > Finally, we all need a sense of perspective that’s hard to come by in this age of instanet gratification and immediate communication. You’re the history guy, how long was the US in Germany and Japan after WWII? Anyone who thought we’d “rebuild” Iraq and leave in less than a year was deluding themselves. It’s a long, hard process. We haven’t done nearly as much as we should have in the last year, but we have done a lot. Leaving prematurely would be a tragedy of monumental preportions, and a bloodbath that would make what has gone on in Iraq to this point seem like a sunday school outing compared to the fighting to fill the power vacuum that would follow. I never claimed that it would take less than a year to rebuild Iraq. I was hoping, however, that the US wouldn’t fuck up so badly that, a year later, the rebuilding has barely even begun and more US soldiers and Iraqis are dying now than during the actual conflict. That’s a pretty impressive level of “improvement.” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/31 "2004-05-03T16:04:15Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Would the UN need the level of troops that we currently have deployed? I get the feeling if there was a legitimate international force, the people would be fighting as much, hence less troops are required. Just a thought. I just wanted to underscore this point, because it’s one that i wanted to make, but forgot about when writing my previous post. So many of the arguments against a UN force tend to assume that the situation in Iraq will be exactly the same with the UN in charge. But those supporting UN involvement are making precisely the point that **World Eater** makes here: that a UN force might well encounter less hostility among Iraqis, and also among the Arab states that are growing increasingly concerned about US tactics in Iraq. Sure, there are militant fanatics who will fight no matter who is there, but the US handling of the situation is making it easier for those militants to garner more supporters. An international force supported by the UN would undermine some of the militants’ arguments, and make them less persuasive to the Iraqi people, most of whom just want to get on with life in a peaceful and safe environment. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/32 "2004-05-03T16:12:36Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Would the UN need the level of troops that we currently have deployed? I get the feeling if there was a legitimate international force, the people would be fighting as much, hence less troops are required. Just a thought. It sure is a thought. You certainly haven’t offered any reasoning behind the thought, or evidence that this may be the case, but it sure is a thought. So is this: You’re a pathetic goat felcher who has nothing better to do than follow me around this message board posting utter tripe. Why don’t you run along and let me talk to mhendo, a poster who, unlike you, is capable of intelegent thought and reasonable discussion, even when he dosen’t agree with his opponent’s position. Just a thought. > [@World Eater](#): > > I think it’s important to determine _who_ exactly people are pissed at, America or Bush? Bush has made people look bad, he has alienated other countries, and I’m sure people have grudges against him. Who knows, voting him out may be the exact message we need to send to let the world know we don’t approve of what he’s doing either. Bush is a liability, _people don’t like him_, people don’t want to help him fix the situation because that will make him look good. Frankly I don’t blame them, with his my way or the highway approach and all. > > Neither Kerry or Bush have a plan with any substance, but at least most of the world doesn’t hate Kerry. We need the help of these people, we probably won’t get it with Bush in office. For Americans there is a huge difference between America and the President, for the rest of the world, particularly in third world countries, not so much. You’re projecting how you see the world onto other countries, the same kind of Ameri-centric view that the White House displays. > [@World Eater](#): > > You’re right, this is a totally fucking stupid story, and has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq . When you get to Junior High School, you’ll learn about the concept of analogies. Try to pay attention in class that day, you might be amazed at what you learn. > [@World Eater](#): > > It’s not about quitting, it’s about being completely out of touch with the situation. He thought we would be welcome with open arms, which is something I could have told you wasn’t going to happen _long_ before we went in. He really believed this though, which to me makes him naive at best, and nuts at worst. Yea, except that we pretty much were, in many parts of the country. Imagine that, people were glad to be free of a brutal dictator! > [@World Eater](#): > > And more often then not it isn’t. Besides we don’t even know what we’re _slogging_ (stupid fucking word btw) ahead to. Perhaps you can explain that one to me. slog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slg) v. slogged, slog·ging, slogs v. intr. To walk or progress with a slow heavy pace; plod: slog across the swamp; slogged through both volumes. To work diligently for long hours: slogged away at Latin. v. tr. To make (one’s way) with a slow heavy pace against resistance. To strike with heavy blows. n. A long exhausting march or hike: a slog through miles of jungle. A long session of hard work: an 18-hour slog in the hay fields. Christ, you’re not even smart enough to use a dictionary, and yet you expect us all to “explain it to you”? Look it up yourself next time. > [@World Eater](#): > > Strawman, and a pathetic one at that. Not particularly, because I didn’t attempt to marry it to another point of view. It was a stated fact, standing on it’s own, nothing more. > [@World Eater](#): > > Please explain in clear detail, _what exactly made_ Iraq A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES? > > Keep these two things in mind before you answer. > > a) he has no WMD > b) he has no connection with AQ > > Lastly don’t tell me we didn’t know A&B were true until after we went in. MANY of us opposed to the war were not convinced of terror links or wmd in the first place. Good fucking Jesus, you are denser than neutronium. Talk about Straw men, I say “Iraq was a terrorist state” and you scream “There were no WMD’s! Iraq didn’t threaten us!” When I mention either of those things, please feel free to bring them up. Until then stuff them back up your ass so they can keep your brain company. > [@World Eater](#): > > Sweet, so when are we liberating those millions in North Korea?. I bet they can’t wait to eat something other then dirt and to be freed from the work camps over there. I’d like nothing better. Unfortunately, the presence of nuclear arms changes the entire situation. If N. Korea had no nukes or other WMD, I’d be all for an Iraq type solution to Kim and his lunatics. See, I have the ability to look at different situations and say “this is the case \here\, but the situation \over here\ is different, and thus may require a different response”. You might want to try it some time, it’s called judgement. Most adults have some. > [@World Eater](#): > > What if after June 30th, the Iraqis tell us to get out now, just go. Would you support their wishes? Absofuckinglutely! As long as it was “The Iraqis” telling us that in a formal, verified setting, and not simply some warlord running off at the mouth, much like you. > [@World Eater](#): > > Some of us opted for a course on this war on terror that wouldn’t have put us in this situation. As you failed to listen to reason then, you fail to listen to it now. As soon as I see any “reason”, I’ll listen to it. Mhendo’s posts are generally full of reason, and I respond apropriately. Yours are the diarrheaic diatribes devoid of any wisdom, sense or knowledge, and so they get treated with the distain they deserve. Post something that makes sense and I’ll be happy to talk. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/33 "2004-05-03T16:38:31Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Again, just because you don’t like it, and just because you don’t think it will happen, doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be the appropriate solution. Simply dismissing argument after argument on the grounds that “what is, is right” does not make for a very stimulating discussion of other options. Actually, the makeup of UN peacekeeping forces shows precisely that many other countries in the world _are_ willing to place their troops under UN jurisdiction for substantial periods of time. Your assertion that every other country would act the same way as America is nothing more than that–an assertion.Now you’re just being disingenuous, and completely misrepresenting my position. Oh, you’re absolutely right, many countries have placed their troops unter UN command for many long periods of time. I have no problem with that, even if they were American troops. And you’re avoiding the actual question I asked. If the troops of one country comprised a _substantial majority_ of an international peacekeeping force, would you or would you not expect that country to want one of their guys in charge? > [@mhendo](#): > > I said that i chose to study US history because, for better or worse, the United States is basically the most important country in the world in many ways. Simple US involvement is currently a “MAJOR escalation” not just because the US becomes involved, but because it so often chooses to involve itself unilaterally or in cooperation with only a few other nations. > > If the United States made a habit of fulfilling its obligations under international treaties (like the one it signed with the UN), and if it habitually sent troops to places in order not just to bomb but to help with peacekeeping efforts, and if it showed itself willing to do this under the auspices of an international body like the UN, then US participation in such actions would not be viewed by the world with the same jaundiced eye that it is now, when it often appears simply as the biggest bully on the block. > > As for a US majority, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that many people throughout the world have more of a problem with the US government and the US command than they do with American soldiers. If the US government were not calling the shots, and American soldiers were standing side-by-side with other international troops and taking orders from a UN command, this would go a long way to placating many critics of current policy, even if US troops still constituted a majority. I think that we could probobly go 'round and 'round on this one all day. I am not disputing your assertation that the US coulkd have sent more troops to more places previously, unfortunately that dosen’t change where we are now. Likewise, placing a hundred thousand American troops under command of an Indian (or whoever) General just ain’t gonna happen, so is there any point in belaboring the point further? > [@mhendo](#): > > A philosophy that “the ends justify the means” is a rather slippery slope to put yourself on, is it not? As many have pointed out over the last year, does this not now oblige the United States to invade and overthrow every dictatorial regime in the world, including the ones that it has been turning a blind eye to, or propping up? Saddam Hussein is far from the only bad guy out there. Actually, I would say it does, in the broad sense. Not the ends justyfying the means, but by refusing to allow nations to support terror on one hand and hide behind the UN on the other, it eliminates a lot of the assumptions that terrorists operate from. If we are going to fight and win the war on terror, it had to be all terrorists, period. The one positive to come out of Iraq is that the US has demonstrated a willingness to come after states it lables terrorist if it dees it necessary. This makes it much less likely to be necessary in the future, because it gives the war on terror credibility. Iran, Lybia, Syria, even N Korea have all been a lot more willing to disarm or to seriously talk with the US since we attacked Iraq. I wonder why? > [@mhendo](#): > > You also conveniently ignore that the reasons given for going into Iraq have, for the most part, been either completely or mostly discredited. It’s amazing how unconcerned you seem to be that you were lied to by your own government about the reasons for invasion. Not in this thread, but I have certainly expressed my displeasure and disgust with Bush’s lies about WMD before. ([or were they?](http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml)Biased source, I know, but you gotta look on all sides of things to find a middle truth) > [@mhendo](#): > > Show me where i ever claimed this? But the fact remains that many Iraqis who are not involved in the fighting are becoming increasingly disturbed at the overbearing and even draconian tactics being used by the Amnericans who are in control of their country.A marketing department? You already have one of those for Iraq–it’s called the US government. The problem is that you can only tell the Iraqis that you have their best interests at heart for so long before they will start expecting actual results rather than empty platitudes.I never claimed that it would take less than a year to rebuild Iraq. I was hoping, however, that the US wouldn’t fuck up so badly that, a year later, the rebuilding has barely even begun and more US soldiers and Iraqis are dying now than during the actual conflict. That’s a pretty impressive level of “improvement.” I think we both agree that more should have been done in the past year, and more needs to be done now, as in very, very soon, or this entire thing could spin out of control. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/34 "2004-05-03T18:14:54Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > It sure is a thought. You certainly haven’t offered any reasoning behind the thought, or evidence that this may be the case, but it sure is a thought. Of course you don’t respond to the point, typical. Do you feel that a legitimate international force would draw less ire from the population? My reasoning? People hate the Americans, it’s possible we’re better off with someone else in there. > [@](#): > > So is this: You’re a pathetic goat felcher who has nothing better to do than follow me around this message board posting utter tripe. Follow you around? Get over yourself, we obviously disagree a lot, so we clash alot. I don’t follow you around any more then I follow around a thousand other posters. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you run along and let me talk to mhendo, a poster who, unlike you, is capable of intelegent thought and reasonable discussion, even when he dosen’t agree with his opponent’s position. Just a thought. I suppose calling someone a _pathetic goat felcher_ is reasonable and _intelegant_😉 > [@](#): > > For Americans there is a huge difference between America and the President, for the rest of the world, particularly in third world countries, not so much. You’re projecting how you see the world onto other countries, the same kind of Ameri-centric view that the White House displays. No, what I’m trying to determine is if Bush is voted out, would bringing in someone who did not create this situation automatically be a step forward? If they hate Bush, yes, if they hate America, then no. I’m also willing to say the guy may very well be 3 steps back in other areas, this is besides the point. I’m trying to determine the the individual benefits of each possibility before I add them up. > [@](#): > > When you get to Junior High School, you’ll learn about the concept of analogies. Try to pay attention in class that day, you might be amazed at what you learn. It was a stupid analogy. Walking though some mud to get to the other side has nothing to do with Iraq which consists of a lot more then vague concepts of “staying the course”. > [@](#): > > Yea, except that we pretty much were, in many parts of the country. Imagine that, people were glad to be free of a brutal dictator! Thrilled with SH out, not thrilled with being occupied by America. Some of the Iraqis may be tolerant of our presence, and if we were _ever_ seen as liberators, I doubt they feel that way anymore. > [@](#): > > slog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slg) > v. slogged, slog·ging, slogs > v. intr. > To walk or progress with a slow heavy pace; plod: slog across the swamp; slogged through both volumes. > To work diligently for long hours: slogged away at Latin. > > v. tr. > To make (one’s way) with a slow heavy pace against resistance. > To strike with heavy blows. > > n. > A long exhausting march or hike: a slog through miles of jungle. > A long session of hard work: an 18-hour slog in the hay fields. > Christ, you’re not even smart enough to use a dictionary, and yet you expect us all to “explain it to you”? Look it up yourself next time. Man are you comprehensively impaired or what? I asked you “slogging towards what”?, aka what are the desired end results of the war? > [@](#): > > Not particularly, because I didn’t attempt to marry it to another point of view. It was a stated fact, standing on it’s own, nothing more. You said **“There are a lot of people who wouldn’t have supported an attack on Iraq absent of videotape showing Saddam juggling 2 canisters of anthrax and a backpack nuke,”** This is a fact? > [@](#): > > Good fucking Jesus, you are denser than neutronium. Talk about Straw men, I say “Iraq was a terrorist state” and you scream “There were no WMD’s! Iraq didn’t threaten us!” When I mention either of those things, please feel free to bring them up. Until then stuff them back up your ass so they can keep your brain company. You’re grasping at straws here, in fact, fuck that, you’re not making any sense. Let’s try this again. You – Iraq is a terrorist state! Me - What makes them a danger us? They don’t have WMD or AQ connections, so are you essentially saying SH is an _imminent_ threat to us because he is an asshole with rape rooms and bad intentions.? I hear this constantly bandied about, and it makes no sense. Bush & Co. keep insisting he was a threat to the world, and the US. Without weapons to strike us, or allies to attack us, I find it silly that his “bad intentions” constituted a threat. > [@](#): > > I’d like nothing better. Unfortunately, the presence of nuclear arms changes the entire situation. If N. Korea had no nukes or other WMD, I’d be all for an Iraq type solution to Kim and his lunatics. See, I have the ability to look at different situations and say “this is the case \here\, but the situation \over here\ is different, and thus may require a different response”. You might want to try it some time, it’s called judgement. Most adults have some. Oh ouch you got me, I have no judgment, time to fling myself off the cliff. :rolleyes: Here’s some judgment, how about going after Libya or Iran, who fit more of the criteria we used for invasion then Iraq. At least they have a aluminum tube or two. > [@](#): > > Absofuckinglutely! As long as it was “The Iraqis” telling us that in a formal, verified setting, and not simply some warlord running off at the mouth, much like you. Well then Houston you have a problem. Condi Rice recently stated that the US would overrule the Iraqis and let troops stay at least for a little longer. She made it with a “they don’t know what they’re doing" sort of implication. > [@](#): > > As soon as I see any “reason”, I’ll listen to it. Mhendo’s posts are generally full of reason, and I respond apropriately. Yours are the diarrheaic diatribes devoid of any wisdom, sense or knowledge, and so they get treated with the distain they deserve. Post something that makes sense and I’ll be happy to talk. Oh the fucking irony. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/35 "2004-05-04T14:37:29Z")
Don’t forget about us funboy. ---
**Author:** ![Earthworm\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Earthworm\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthworm_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/36 "2004-05-05T11:45:54Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > If you need a site for [the existence of the shredders], you’re not paying attention. OK, then I’ll admin I haven’t been paying attention. So where’s that cite? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102/37 "2004-05-05T14:28:40Z")
> [@Beelzebubba](#): > > OK, then I’ll admin I haven’t been paying attention. > > So where’s that cite? Thanks! It seems that the jury is still well and truly out on the issue of Saddam’s human shredders. [This article](http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old§ion=current&issue=2004-05-01&id=4302)\*\* in the UK magazine _The Spectator_ (hardly a raving leftist journal), by Brendan O’Neill, traces the origins of the allegation, and outlines some of the attempts to substantiate it. Even if the story does turn out to be true, it appears clear that many of the world’s media outlets (and politicians) have uncritically reported the story without bothering to do very much in the way of fact checking. O’Neill concludes: > [@](#): > > And there you have the long and short of the available evidence for a human-shredding machine — an uncorroborated statement made by an individual in northern Iraq, hearsay comments made by someone widely suspected of being a “bullshitter” (who, like the Australian Prime Minister, made his comments about the shredder shortly after Clwyd first wrote of it in the Times), and a record book, in Arabic, that mentions “mincing” but whose whereabouts are presently unknown. Other groups have no recorded accounts of a human shredder. A spokesman at Amnesty International tells me that his inquiries into the shredder story “drew a blank”. “We checked it with our people here, and we have no information about a shredder.” Widney Brown, deputy programme director of Human Rights Watch, says: “We don’t know anything about a shredder, and have not heard of that particular form of execution or torture.” As O’Neill also says: > [@](#): > > Nobody doubts that Saddam was a cruel and ruthless tyrant who murdered many thousands of his own people (at least 17,000 according to Amnesty; 290,000 according to Human Rights Watch) and that the vast majority of Iraqis are glad he’s gone. This is true. And if the shredder story did turn out to be true, i don’t think i or many other people would be very surprised. But the evidence marshalled so far is not especially compelling. \*\* _The Spectator_ requires free registration. If you want to read a copy of the article without registering, go [here](http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec36.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-open-letter-of-apology-to-the-iraqis/243102.md?page=1)