The blackest hearts: War crimes in Iraq

Cosmo wrote:

unsung wrote:

Well he has the power to end it, like he promised to when he was running for the office. So he is either a big fucking liar like just about every other politician, or he is still in it because of the same reasons. Somebody is still cleaning up, and if he isn't he knows who is, and that makes him just as guilty.

...
How?
It's a simple question... How do you propose to send our guys home... without placing them at risk?
Remember, it's not just the personel... what about all of the vehicles and weapons... should we leave them over there? Who do you send out first... the combat soldiers or their support personel? Do you really believe that Iraq is a safe enough place to leave without a threat to our retreat?
The point is... it is extremely difficult to get out of a military occupation... unless you really don't give a shit if your guys die or not. We should have hasd this understanding when we went in... it is very easy to start a war (we've seen enough proof that any idiot can start a war)... very difficult to end one.

This typically ego-centric attitude doesn’t fly with me – you guys started this mess. Yet your post seems to put more value on the life of an American SOLDIER than an Iraqi CIVILIAN. I don’t want to see Americans die, but if our choices are to stick around and keep killing and terrorizing both militants AND innocent civilians alike, or to pull out and take casualties in doing so….. I think the ‘right’ decision is obvious. Saying “unless you really don't give a shit if your guys die or not” sounds like a ‘for us or against us’, black and white Bushism…it’s a blanket attempt to silence US dissent, and is disrespectful to the innocent Iraqi victims of war (esp in light of the thread topic :( )
And who gives a fuck about your shiny killing toys. Blow ‘em up and order new ones. That should appease your MICMasters.
Your common-sense posts are usually a breath of fresh air around here, but the common sense in this post (minimizing unnecessary deaths) should apply to all people involved in the conflict, not just the US military, esp given the fact that the US should not be there at all. If it were a truly ‘just’ war (possible? an oxymoron IMO), with a definable enemy, it would be different.

Drowned Out wrote:

I agree with your second paragraph, but completely disagree with the bolded line in the first one. If he’s controlled by them, he’s serving them…semantics. And he is profiting from it simply by not standing up to them. He knows he likely will not win a second term without their backing, he knows he will limit his post-presidency career options by opposing, he knows he will damage his position as a power broker if he opposes them….. he might not be profiting as directly or arrogantly as Cheney did with his Haliburton options, but to say he is not profiting from his guilty silence is far from the truth IMO. Still, he shouldn’t be grouped with Bush and Cheney. Most of Obama’s corrupt ties are in the banking world, less oil/defense. Thing is….the banks love both industries. If he’s beholden to them, he’s not much better…

i would also say this is semantics ... again - i don't see obama as a righteous politician by any stretch so if you feel like his unwillingness to stand up to the defence companies is "profiting" then so be it ... my primary point still stands that bush, cheney and rummy should be serving multiple life sentences ... and that if they were running any other country in this world ... they'd probably been attacked and sent to the hague ...

Drowned Out wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

unsung wrote:

Well he has the power to end it, like he promised to when he was running for the office. So he is either a big fucking liar like just about every other politician, or he is still in it because of the same reasons. Somebody is still cleaning up, and if he isn't he knows who is, and that makes him just as guilty.

...
How?
It's a simple question... How do you propose to send our guys home... without placing them at risk?
Remember, it's not just the personel... what about all of the vehicles and weapons... should we leave them over there? Who do you send out first... the combat soldiers or their support personel? Do you really believe that Iraq is a safe enough place to leave without a threat to our retreat?
The point is... it is extremely difficult to get out of a military occupation... unless you really don't give a shit if your guys die or not. We should have hasd this understanding when we went in... it is very easy to start a war (we've seen enough proof that any idiot can start a war)... very difficult to end one.

This typically ego-centric attitude doesn’t fly with me – you guys started this mess. Yet your post seems to put more value on the life of an American SOLDIER than an Iraqi CIVILIAN. I don’t want to see Americans die, but if our choices are to stick around and keep killing and terrorizing both militants AND innocent civilians alike, or to pull out and take casualties in doing so….. I think the ‘right’ decision is obvious. Saying “unless you really don't give a shit if your guys die or not” sounds like a ‘for us or against us’, black and white Bushism…it’s a blanket attempt to silence US dissent, and is disrespectful to the innocent Iraqi victims of war (esp in light of the thread topic :( )
And who gives a fuck about your shiny killing toys. Blow ‘em up and order new ones. That should appease your MICMasters.
Your common-sense posts are usually a breath of fresh air around here, but the common sense in this post (minimizing unnecessary deaths) should apply to all people involved in the conflict, not just the US military, esp given the fact that the US should not be there at all. If it were a truly ‘just’ war (possible? an oxymoron IMO), with a definable enemy, it would be different.

...
I believe you are missing the point I am trying to make. I am taking about withdrawing American troops from occupied Iraq... I'm not talking about evacuating Iraqi citizens from Iraq... why did you think we would want to move the Iraqi civilians to the U.S? My point is... it takes time to get out of a military occupation and does not happen overnight.
I just want someone to explain to me the logistics involved in order to get our troops out of a hostile environment and how long that process would take. You cannot just put everyone on a plane an fly out today. You need to work out a schedule to ship out the hardware and move out the personel. And because there are still hostilities between American Troops and people living in the region, the withdrawal will need some sort of security. Do you take out the combat troops and leave the support personel vulnerable... or do you take out the support personel and leave the combat troops with no support?
As for your suggestion of blowing up our war toys... where? In Iraq? Blow up the stockplied Depleted Uranium ordinances over there... because it will take too long to dispense with them over here? How about we just push all of the Abrahams and HMMWVs into the Tigeris River... you know... to save time? I'm saying it takes TIME to get out of an occupation. Sure, we can leave all of the weaponry there.. in tact. I'm pretty sure the Sunni/Shi'ite thing will resolve itself, once we are gone and niether would even think of using our left behind weaponry against each other... right? Or just blow the shit up and let them clean up the mess... is that what you are suggesting?
Look how long it took to get out of Viet Nam. It took from 1970 to 1974. And we left a lot of our hardware and munitions there... that ended in accidental deaths of their people and polluted their land.
I just want someone, maybe yourself or Unsung... who wants the U.S. out of Iraq today... to explain to me, HOW that is supposed to happen.

Cosmo wrote:

...
I believe you are missing the point I am trying to make. I am taking about withdrawing American troops from occupied Iraq... I'm not talking about evacuating Iraqi citizens from Iraq... why did you think we would want to move the Iraqi civilians to the U.S? My point is... it takes time to get out of a military occupation and does not happen overnight.
I just want someone to explain to me the logistics involved in order to get our troops out of a hostile environment and how long that process would take. You cannot just put everyone on a plane an fly out today. You need to work out a schedule to ship out the hardware and move out the personel. And because there are still hostilities between American Troops and people living in the region, the withdrawal will need some sort of security. Do you take out the combat troops and leave the support personel vulnerable... or do you take out the support personel and leave the combat troops with no support?
As for your suggestion of blowing up our war toys... where? In Iraq? Blow up the stockplied Depleted Uranium ordinances over there... because it will take too long to dispense with them over here? How about we just push all of the Abrahams and HMMWVs into the Tigeris River... you know... to save time? I'm saying it takes TIME to get out of an occupation. Sure, we can leave all of the weaponry there.. in tact. I'm pretty sure the Sunni/Shi'ite thing will resolve itself, once we are gone and niether would even think of using our left behind weaponry against each other... right? Or just blow the shit up and let them clean up the mess... is that what you are suggesting?
Look how long it took to get out of Viet Nam. It took from 1970 to 1974. And we left a lot of our hardware and munitions there... that ended in accidental deaths of their people and polluted their land.
I just want someone, maybe yourself or Unsung... who wants the U.S. out of Iraq today... to explain to me, HOW that is supposed to happen.

I'm not talking about evacuating Iraqi citizens from Iraq...not sure how you got that from my post...? Probably poor writing on my part.
Your last post in this thread is definitely encouraging. I wasn't aware of how many troops had been withdrawn. Of course, if they were just moved to the other war, it's kinda moot...
The point I was trying to make is that the priority should be stopping the loss of life on both sides...the cost of preventing American deaths should not be Iraqi death.


As for the logistics of withdrawal...I realize it's complex and difficult...but let's not use it as a reason to stall.

How about we hire some iraqi’s to clean it up the mess and let them profit from their own misery? I'm betting US contractors take care of that right now.
Round up the DU munitions and bring it home, sure. Let KBR keep that contract. I’m sure they’d be glad to get you the labour needed to do so quickly. Of course I don’t think you should leave weaponry behind. But….you will likely end up arming one side after you leave anyway, so why not just sell it to them now?

(yes, I’m being facetious – trying to say that this shouldn’t be the priority either – this aspect is mostly about $; lives should be more important).

Aaaaand....I don’t align myself with unsung, nor any American political party or movement. I just want the war to end asap. I’m not some libertarian ideologue. Just a naive hippy, apparently