No, it’s an important distinction. In a war where governments are waging war not against the other country but the citizens of said country, things get pretty bad. See Hitler’s intentional bombing of civilians in the UK to try and force a surrender, or his more or less wholesale slaughter of Poles and Russians to start making room to the east for ethnic Germans.
In a war against another country we target their ability to wage war, we target their army, and in the process innocents die. That’s a distinction from a war in which we’re actually fighting against the people.
Sure there is, but Japan and Germany seem to be doing just fine these days.
The current Iraqi government has all the tenets of legitimacy. It has external recognition and internal recognition. For that matter Saddam’s government was sovereign and legitimate. There’s a difference between a government being legitimate and a government being popular. Is the current government widely popular? No, but I also see no evidencethat it’s mortally unpopular, either.
Cite?
What the Iraqis want to do to America means little to nothing. For that matter from all I’ve seen you want to smash America to a wasteland and sow salt in the ruins, but just like the Iraqis you are pathetically weak in comparison to American might and have absolutely no ability to do so.
Welcome to the real world.
As it is, many Iraqis are friendly to the Americans, most Iraqis don’t like the idea of foreign troops in their country. That’s understandable, but also very stupid. The Iraqis as a whole are an uneducated very simplistic people. They dislike foreign soldiers without realizing their country would devolve into anarchy without them.
Like most citizens in fact the Iraqis are little more than ignorant sheep. They live in the here and now. They bemoaned Saddam Hussein, they now also bemoan the government that replaced him. If asked if they’d want a return to Hussein-government they’d say no, if asked if they want U.S. presence in Iraq they’d say no. What they don’t understand is you can’t have your cake and eat it too, and to attempt to try here would have the effect of trying to treat cancer by trying to wish it away.
If you recall in late 2005 the insurgency was at one of its worst moments, if you’ve looked at recent casualty reports you’ll see that after a 2-3 month period in 2005 things have settled down again.
I could care less about allusions.
And does the Human Right’s Watch have anything as evidence aside from the claims of people who have every reason to lie, and virtually no reason to tell the truth?
Again, the evidence I’ve seen doesn’t suggest this is policy, especially since there was low-level debate about whether it should be going on. If it’s policy, there is no such debate among grunts, they know the policy and they follow it, simple as that.
Tojo would actually have solid ground for saying that. The target of Pearl Harbor was military, civilian casualties were incidental.
No, it is not located in Washington, D.C. Currently the Iraq government does exist at our pleasure, but you know what, so do most other third world governments.
I’m sorry that you’ve become confused. I wasn’t speaking about any sort of ideology, I was using it as a term to connote party identification in pre-war Iraq. In pre-war Iraq there were Baathists, aka members of the Baath party. That’s a proper use of an adjective, and adjectives are pretty simple as far as English grammar goes.
I’m not really sure your treatise on how Baathism isn’t a real ideology means anything.
It’s like saying there is no such thing as Republicans because there’s no such thing as a true unified Republican ideology. It’s an adjective that denotes affiliation with a political party, nothing more, nothing less.
Well, whoop-te-do. I’m sure it makes an enormous difference to a dead body that it was killed by callous indifference instead of outright malice. Do you really think such distinctions matter to anyone but you and your fellow apologists ?
It was in the news a month or two ago; debated on these boards IIRC. Are you even paying attention ? I’ll see if I can dig up a mention.
The Americans being killed by Iraqis might disagree with you. So will the victims of any Iraqi lead terrorist attacks.
It’s called “lying to your enemies”.
Talk about back to the future. That White Man’s Burden feel heavy ?
Yeah, those ignorant foreigners don’t know what’s good for them. They don’t even thank us when we kill them. Ungrateful bastards.
That is not what the official figures from the US military showed. Between Jan and March 2004 the rate was 25 people per day. Between April and Jun 30 per day. Between June and November 40 per day. Between Feb and August 2005 it averaged 50 per day. And in November of 2005 that average was 63 per day. Thats a huge increase in the rate of Iraqi deaths and injuries due to the insurgency no matter how you choose to spin it. Unless, of course, you consider over 350 casualties (increased from abut 175 casualties) from the insurgents every week to be “settling down.”
…and about the five cases I cited?
Well gosh, I don’t know. They could have been lying. I suppose it would be a good idea if one of the most respected Human Rights Agencies compiled them all into a letter and sent it the the United States Secretary of Defense to ask him if it was true or not. Which, is of course, if you had of read the citation that I provided, is what they did. And Rumsfeld, as far as I can tell, has not responded to the allegations. Which could mean several things: either one, the allegations are not being taken seriously by the Bush administration, meaning the letter was simply ignored, or two, the allegations were not true, and the Bush administration chose not dignify the letter with a response, or thirdly, the allegations were true, in which case a response would either show a massive breach of the Geneva Conventions, or a lie, or fourthly, my google-fu is not as strong as it used to be.
And your insinuation that they had no reason to tell the truth? What a load of complete and utter cows bollocks. People have reason to tell the truth because sometimes they are telling the truth. If you had committed a breach of the Geneva Convention, you would have every reason to lie, wouldn’t you? A US soldier would have virtually no reason to tell the truth if he had been holding hostages, would he not? Your standards for gauging the veracity of the truth are distinctly lacking…
Policy doesn’t have to be widespread, well known, written down or debated by grunts to be policy-any dictionary definition will tell you that. Was it allowed? Did it happen? The chorus of “on the record” denials from the Pentagon for such serious allegations is kinda’ quiet, don’t you think?
Well, the insurgency was more powerful in late 2005 versus right now. In late 2005 coalition deaths were up near 100 a month, now its down again. The fact that the insurgency is killing more of its own people is actually better for us than the converse, because it means it is becoming less able to fight against the military power in the region.
Or, depending on how these stats of yours define “Iraqi” it could just mean Iraqi soldiers are bearing a greater brunt of the blow, which again would be a good situation because if we get to the point where the New Iraqi Army can stave off the insurgency WITHOUT U.S. help, said insurgency will dramatically lose power. When the only people to shoot is yourself, the shooters start coming off more like murderers and less like revolutionaries.
I didn’t read all of your links, but in the HRW report it talks of TWO possible cases in which the U.S. took people for leverage. Their information was entirely based on eye witnesses on the ground, no real facts that I could see. And I also didn’t read anything in the HRW report that convinced me the two in question weren’t the two being spoken about in the OPs original article. People that 1) if they are family members of those detained have every reason to lie about their involvement in the insurgency and 2) if they are casual observers don’t have access to intel and thus really don’t know if the arrests were justified or not.
This is ultimately a moot point, whether the number of these situations in 2, 5, or 50, these numbers aren’t enough to show me it was policy. Soldiers on the ground do things they aren’t supposed to do, we can only hope to try and adjust to that by taking preventative steps and punishing those that do this.
Actually it does when it comes to the military. If we have issue where in specific cases people high up the command are ordering this stuff, then that’s a case-by-case type affair, not standing military policy, and the people involved in issuing those orders would be guilty of crimes under the UCMJ.
And simply because the Pentagon denies something isn’t proof of anything. Most organizations will deny things that may be embarassing to them for as long as they can, no matter how deliberate it was. See a hospital that makes a surgical mistake, for example. Eventhough it could be a simple mistake these types of bureaucratic institutions begin to stonewall until the wall is forced down in virtually all cases.
Why, thank you, bwana.
I hope you would forgive me for observing that you look a bit pale and seem tired, as if you where carring a large burden, you should see a doctor or something.
…I never talked about the Coalition Casaulty rate: that has remained pretty constant since the war began and really is none of the average Iraqi’s concern. And the fact that you consider that the insurgency is killing more Iraqi’s is better for “us” is, with all due respect, downright disgusting. You do not speak for me, and I hope you don’t speak for your fellow Americans.
Nice extrapolation from the figures, but I believe your conclusions are flawed. The figures include the Iraqi Police, but do not include the military. So you conclude that, while the Coaliton Death rate has remained constant since the invasion (at an average rate of 2 soldiers dying per day), and the Iraqi casaulty rate had doubled in a year, that things are getting better? That the Iraqi Army can act on its own? That is your conclusion from those figures? This is supreme spin.
Really. I’m so surprised.
My apologies. Two of those cases weren’t about hostage taking, they were about blowing up Iraqi houses in punishment for crimes committed by somebody else. Do you really want to talk about those cases? And you missed the citation about General Mowhoush.
But regardless, yes, there were allegations. What sort of evidence do you want? Video tape? Co-oberation from soldiers? People claimed bad things happened to them. Those allegations were presented to those in charge. They were not refuted or commented on. And thats pretty much where we are today.
Again. I’m so surprised.
…and the fact that you claim it isn’t policy on a message board doesn’t mean it isn’t policy. If it isn’t policy, and all the myriad of reports are lies, then there isn’t a problem. If it isn’t policy, and hostage taking did happen, then there should be people under arrest right now. If it did happen, and no one is under arrest, and senior people know about the allegations and choose to do nothing about it, then its policy. It may be policy on the fly, but it’s still policy. If this was a court case, it would be the equivilent of the prosecution resting its case, and the defence pleading the fifth.
These accusations are serious. Those that undertook them, if true, are guilty of crimes under the UCMJ. You would be happy if the US investigated the allegations, yes? You would have no problems with that?
You can do better than that. Watch: “We didn’t attack their country, we attacked the air above their country. That the bombs all fell right through and landed on what happened to be Iraq is just bad luck.”
Is this the same entire world that believed the US’s claims regarding Iraq’s arsenal?
How many? And, assuming these Baathists were also in the military (it’s been noted that Baathism was a political party, not an army), that military and the government it served ceased to exist long ago anyway.
Eh, this is a valid stance but one I simply disagree with. I feel that more than likely your feelings on the matter are born out of ignorance concerning military realities.
The death rate has not been constant. The average over the entire affair is around 2 per day, but that is not a constant. The highest death rate was during active military operations, when it was around 4 per day. It’s varied from 2-almost 3 per day during the period of the insurgency prior to the Iraqi elections recently. After those elections the rate has gone down steadily in the 2-3 months since late 2005 when we almost had 100 deaths in a single month.
Anyways, I’ve always said that death rate isn’t a major factor because the insurgency will probably be able to continue killing people for as long as the United States is there. I fully believe that once the current Iraqi infrastructure reaches a certain level, the U.S. will be able to withdraw from major military commitments in Iraq and the New Iraqi Army will be able to hold its own. Once the U.S. is gone much of the Arab anger that fuels the insurgency will no longer exist. I just point out that it is promising that over the past few months things have calmed down somewhat.
If this is the kind of comment you feel fit to respond with then don’t respond at all, it’s counter-productive to GD. I read the articles that I wanted to, and I commented on them. I didn’t comment on articles I didn’t read, as simple as that. After I read the first one I realized you many of the accusations were more or less rubbish factually speaking.
Sure, like I said, soldiers do things they shouldn’t do. I’ve yet to see any proof that it’s policy.
I’d expect something. If these allegations are baseless then we could destroy people’s lives without any reason or cause. It’s a legal matter, and the type of evidence I’d like to see is the type that would be sufficient enough to warrant prosecution and conviction.
So you don’t think it’s possible the family of an insurgent might lie to color his family member in a better light?
You don’t think it’s likely that some guy on the street doesn’t have access to U.S. intel?
The fact that I claim it isn’t policy indeed doesn’t mean it is not policy, the converse is true also. Firstly, the “myriad of reports” are scattered reports and when compared to the fact that 14,000 people are being held in Iraq they represent a non-existant proportion of what’s going on over there. A few of them involving people within the military admitting what happened and saying it wasn’t what they were supposed to be doing, and in one case an officer involved actively protested and secured the release of the person in question. There are “myriad” reports of U.S. soldiers killing German POWs after they surrendered in WWII, as well as vice versa. But in general that was not the POLICY, it was inappropriate action taken by soldiers. Both the Americans and Germans more or less left the actions unpunished (although the U.S. did prosecute some, depending on circumstances) but that’s not “policy on the fly.”
No problem at all. If people commit crimes they should be punished for them. I don’t want to see anyone treated unfairly just to make political hay, though, nor do I want to see people protected just for political reasons.
Nonetheless, I do understand how militarily the brass may be hesitant to punish soldiers for these types of things. If you prosecute a special forces guy from one of those task forces, that’s a lot of training and experience you’re removing from the field.
No one has exact figures but it’s accepted fact that former Ba’ath party members who were successful and prominent in Saddam’s regime are fighting with the insurgency to reclaim lost preeminence.
But the point is, it is still hovering at 2 per day for December and January. That it occasionally spikes upward to nearly 100 is hardly cause to celebrate. Care to speculate on the likelyhood of more such spikes in the future?
Former being the operative word. That regime no longer exists, the military that served it no longer exists. A uniform from that era is just cloth at this point. They are now civilians, fighting off an occupying force as is expected.
I can do better than that; I’ll name two: The Second and Third Cod Wars between the UK and Iceland, where the participants didn’t fire any shots* because both nations were members of NATO and that would have complicated things far too much.
*Wikipedia does claim shots were fired in the 3rd Cod War, but in an offhand way with no cite, while other sources I have read indicate no shots were fired.
Oh, wait - was that supposed to be a rhetorical question?
