Knowing what you know now would you still support the withdrawal of troops from Iraq

BS44325

callen said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?

Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.

I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.

How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/242094/michael-moore-proving-once-again

Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:

"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."

Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.

I did and stand by whatever I said in that thread. I'm not a pussy ass chicken shit who slithers out of what I say. What's your point? I should be proud of someone like Chris? No thanks.

Edit-and if I was a vet, you'd be the LAST person I'd want to be advocating for or thanking me for my services. I'd actually tell you to fuck off, if I was a vet.

Well you are not a vet and I didn't expect for you to back down on your Chris Kyle comments. That's my point. When Callen says he "doesn't know a single person on these boards who isn't proud of the troops" I can tell him that you said otherwise.

Wait, so me not supporting Chris Kyle means I don't support ALL troops? Lol, what does someone say to this delusional post? And since you posted a link to that Michael Moore thread, there's a link in there of an American sniper calling out that same Chris Kyle. Why don't you go re-read that thread.

I swear I might be going crazy. Do you not understand the difference between "proud" and "support"? I really wish you had the ability to follow the flow of these threads. Musky used the term "proud". You and Brian then worked yourself up into a lather on being accused of not "supporting" the troops. I corrected you guys. Callen then said he's never seen anyone say they are not "proud". I showed an instance where you did just that and which you confirmed. Does that mean that you don't support the troops in general? Of course not. It seems you are an expert on the term "ass-clown" but have no clue when it comes to the difference between "proud" and "support".

So now you differentiate words that I used. Okay I hereby change my post from proud to support to better convey my message.

I stand by my post and premise that war mongers fall for the "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops". It's ridiculous and just old.

Well I have certainly been called a warmonger on here but at no time have I ever said "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops".

brianlux

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

It was obviously inferred and we all know that but, no, not specifically stated as such. No use arguing the point though, is there?

Probably not but if we can't even agree on the contents of four clear as day sentences how can we agree on anything else? Musky stated that he was proud of what the troops did over there and that some of you were not. This is not complicated. Most have you have been arguing that you are not proud of the invasion, you are not proud of what our military did, that the US did more harm then good. This doesn't mean you don't support the troops and no one suggested otherwise. It is just another strawman argument built up so that people can play the victim card.

I don't know of a single person on this board that is not proud of US troops putting their lives in grave danger by following orders as they swore to do. It's the orders that are given as to deployment and stated enemy that's deplorable. This though shouldn't even have to be explained. It's so elementary but guess twisting reality to fit ones motivations blinds common sense.

How soon you forget the Michael Moore thread discussing American Sniper.

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/242094/michael-moore-proving-once-again

Lot of people not "proud" of the troop's actions on there. Go back and read it if you like...a number of you including Brian and Badbrains clearly didn't have any pride for the Chris Kyles of this world who were just following orders. You yourself even said this:

"I call those that stand up to invading force that has drones , jets, precision guided missiles and sharks with freakin laser beams Hero's."

Essentially you were supporting any resistance to those Americans who were just following orders. It's a fine position to take if you want but don't expect US veterans to appreciate how proud you are of their service.

Why on earth should I have pride in someone based simply on the fact that they were following orders? I'm reading Bill Zimmerman's book Troublemaker and in that book he talks about soldiers and pilots in Vietnam that he interviewed who had refused to obey orders that they thought were bogus-- in this case it was orders to bomb civilians but that issue is not the point here. The point is, I am far more proud (if you will- I prefer "respectful") of people who follow their common sense and sense of moral judgement far more than people who simply "follow orders". So, yeah, I guess you do have me figured out. I'm OK with that. Definitely OK.

You don't have to be proud. Like I said...that is ok. Again...it is not a criticism...I am simply responding to Callen. This bring us back to my "sensitive much" comment. Don't get mad at me for pointing out the reality of your opinion which you are free to hold.

I'm not mad at you, BS. Also don't see myself as confused about the reality of what I say. I try to only PUI on AMT in the PST PM.

brianlux

A little while back here we were talking about supporting troops but not wars and then just last night I came across this excellent example in the book I'm reading that tells how that can work. This action was organized by Bill Zimmerman, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and others:

"With the November election looming, Fonda and Hayden organized an antiwar entertainment tour. The previous year, Jane had played in a political vaudeville show that traveled to military in the United States and the Pacific to entertain soldiers and sailors, much like the traditional USO tours- but with one critical difference. Instead of performers like Bob Hope who embraced the [Vietnam] war, Jane, her friend Donald Sutherland, and other actors performed satirical skits and songs that criticized or made fun of the war, the brass, and the politicians. It was called the FTA show, which in polite company meant Free the Army but on the bases where it played was also understood to mean Fuck the Army. The troops loved these performances and turned out in droves, despite the officers who tried to steer them away. Seeing entertainers who shared their skepticism about the war and took their side against the hated officers moved even more soldiers to protest and resistance."

Bill Zimmerman, Troublemaker, A Memoir from the Front Lines of the Sixties, , p 288

Dirtie_Frank

you mean Hanoi Jane?

Dirtie_Frank

badbrains said:

And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.

I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Documented civilian deaths from violence
139,207 – 157,741

Dirtie_Frank

Before my post gets taken out of context 1 life lost is too many, I am just rebutting the 1,000,000.

Last-12-Exit

Dirtie_Frank said:

badbrains said:

And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.

I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Documented civilian deaths from violence
139,207 – 157,741

Thank you for that. I've always thought that was a ridiculously high number. I was just way to lazy to research it.

PJ_Soul

callen said:

Also know people that served in Iraq and you will get different opinions from different vets. So one opinion is just that. Do very much appreciate hearing from someone that was there.

I know people that served and they have inherent need to believe what they did was correct and warranted.

At this point knowing what we know now, we should clearly see that US or coalition of western troops has done nothing to help the situation and will not do anything going forward. We could go back in, clear out the baddies then what? Stay for 20 years? As soon as we leave back to square one or actually worse as we will have killed more of the indigenous people.

We are being fed continuos dose of propaganda to make us hate the other guys. Link BS posted above perfect example. Don't be a BS and suck that shit up.

I was thinking this too. To 100% trust a war vet when looking for well-balanced opinions about foreign policy is probably a big mistake. War vets can be just as misinformed as any other random person out there as far as the politics behind the wars go. Many troops are intentionally brainwashed by the military, while others are influenced by related horrors that they have seen or been involved with. Others are getting their info from major news sources combined with rumours among other troops, which probably rage from accurate to complete and utter bullshit. Just because someone has been in a war, it doesn`t mean they are the experts on what that war is all about. They are only experts on the war itself (and really only on the part of the war they were directly involved in, and even then, who knows what their superiors are hiding from them or misrepresenting to them), separate from the politics, etc. Is it possible for a war vet to be very well infomed overall when it comes to a war and the politics behind it? Of course. Is it possibly for one to be completely misinformed and/or totally biased about it? Absolutely.

badbrains

Dirtie_Frank said:

badbrains said:

And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.

I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Documented civilian deaths from violence
139,207 – 157,741

Sorry but you're wrong. This is just one example I found from googling the number. Says over 450,000 Iraqis. This is one survey from national geographic.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013/

badbrains

And let's forget all the shit that's gonna happen to all the Iraqis from uranium depletion. The numbers are staggering.

badbrains

Last-12-Exit said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

badbrains said:

And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.

I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Documented civilian deaths from violence
139,207 – 157,741

Thank you for that. I've always thought that was a ridiculously high number. I was just way to lazy to research it.

Thank you for that? So 400,000 isn't a ridiculous number? Come on Scott, really?

Last-12-Exit

badbrains said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

badbrains said:

And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.

I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Documented civilian deaths from violence
139,207 – 157,741

Thank you for that. I've always thought that was a ridiculously high number. I was just way to lazy to research it.

Thank you for that? So 400,000 isn't a ridiculous number? Come on Scott, really?

I did say I was to lazy to research it myself didn't i?

Drowned Out

Dirtie_Frank said:

I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Documented civilian deaths from violence
139,207 – 157,741

For the lazy folks....the link below references a few different studies. Iraq Body Count is considered the most conservative of all figures. Note the highlighted paragraph at the bottom, explaining that according to IBC, the violent death rate went down when the war started. In other words, their numbers are obviously complete bullshit.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Iraqi health ministry conducted a survey of 10,860 households in 2007. Ministry employees questioned 10 households in each of more than 1,000 clusters across Iraq's 18 provinces, picked to give a representative sample of the country's population. People were asked to list any family deaths in the two years before the invasion and the first three years after. Some 115 (11%) of the clusters, mostly in Baghdad and the mainly Sunni province of Anbar, could not be approached because of insecurity. The organisers decided to calculate the probable number of deaths there.

The results showed that the national rate of killing between April 2003 and June 2006 averaged just over 120 a day. This was double the number killed during Saddam's last two years in power. The study's figures ignored deaths from accident, disease or suicide. They estimated the civilian death toll in the occupation's first three years as 151,000. The true figure could be anywhere between 104,000 and 230,000 allowing for misreporting, they said. But even the lowest figure on this range is more than twice as high as the IBC's figure of 47,000 for the occupation's first three years. In December 2005, Bush gave a figure of 30,000 civilian deaths.[...]

researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and published in the prominent British medical journal, the Lancet [...]The first survey found at least 98,000 such deaths up to October 2004. The second survey, in the summer of 2006, interviewed a separate but also randomly chosen sample of 1,849 households and found an excess of 655,000 deaths up to June 2006, of which 601,027 were said to be from violence rather than natural causes. This amounts to 2.5% of Iraq's population, or more than 500 deaths a day since the invasion.[...]

The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, "We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063."[...]

Estimates of the Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam's regime amount to a maximum of one million over a 35-year period (100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign in the 1980s; 400,000 in the war against Iran; 100,000 Shias in the suppressed uprising of 1991; and an unknown number executed in his prisons and torture chambers). Averaged over his time in power, the annual rate does not exceed 29,000.

Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that- some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure. Those who claim Saddam's toppling made life safer for Iraqis have a lot of explaining to do.

Drowned Out

All the studies are using different methods....and some include combatants....who determines who are civilians and who are combatants? The opportunities for manipulation make this almost pointless. I think it's a bit messed to try to say 'there hasn't been as many innocent people killed as you claim'. If I was caught slaughtering your family, would you give me any leniency when I claimed to only have killed half of them?
Lets not forget that it was widely circulated that deaths due to sanctions in the 90's was pegged at 1mil +.....the Gulf War casualties around a quarter million....toss in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan et al, and some claim the total count approaches 4 million. What were the numbers in Vietnam? Does 4 mil seem outlandish by comparison, when considering the geography and length of conflict? If it's only half, is it any less horrifying?

badbrains

Drowned Out said:

All the studies are using different methods....and some include combatants....who determines who are civilians and who are combatants? The opportunities for manipulation make this almost pointless. I think it's a bit messed to try to say 'there hasn't been as many innocent people killed as you claim'. If I was caught slaughtering your family, would you give me any leniency when I claimed to only have killed half of them?
Lets not forget that it was widely circulated that deaths due to sanctions in the 90's was pegged at 1mil +.....the Gulf War casualties around a quarter million....toss in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan et al, and some claim the total count approaches 4 million. What were the numbers in Vietnam? Does 4 mil seem outlandish by comparison, when considering the geography and length of conflict? If it's only half, is it any less horrifying?

Thank you drowned out.

BS44325

Anyone counting post-withdrawal deaths or do we not give a shit about those?

Aafke

We can count them, but I doubt if we can agree on what caused these deaths...

brianlux

Aafke said:

We can count them, but I doubt if we can agree on what caused these deaths...

Death and illness due to depleted uranium used in weapons there will surely continue for some time to come on both sides.

Aafke

brianlux said:

Aafke said:

We can count them, but I doubt if we can agree on what caused these deaths...

Death and illness due to depleted uranium used in weapons there will surely continue for some time to come on both sides.

Among others, what about the fragile political state this invasion has brought on the Iraqi people, the mess was big when the troops came in, but the mess was even worse when they left...

otter

Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved?
The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?