Whoo.

Order will be established as bad people are killed.

..right, but who exactly are "bad" people?

WELL THEN MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T BE A PILOT.

Let's see, where is it...ah yes...

"They make a desert and call it peace"

And ditto to what Horg said.




And sorry to go all the way back to the first page (the second post no less), but really, I hope like hell this was a joke:



Burden of proof. I almost want to become a police officer solely so I can arrest you for every single crime ever committed in your lifespan and keep you locked up until you can prove beyond doubt (not even reasonable doubt, as following on from this whole "prove that you didn't" school of law, being "reasonable" isn't really an issue) that you didn't commit a single one.

Raoul Duke's army:

"Waaaah, hitting the target is too hard :("

"There there Billy, don't worry about it, they were only POSSIBLY innocent anyways."

Mikus, how much of this thread have you read?

All of it, but that was the last post that was actually on topic. *****. KTHX

Well, you may want to read it again before you go off and start throwing around insults.

What insults?

You wouldn't be such a gung-ho humanitarian if you were a marine stationed in Iraq.

And you wouldn't be so flippant about justice if you were rotting in an Iraqi jail (or any jail for that matter) simply because you'd been in the wrong place at the wrong time.




Yes, I can use that smiley too.

And perhaps that's the problem?

Insurgents and terrorists that kill innocent people with car bombs or savagely cut their heads off with dull, rusty knives. Basically, the people that agree with your view that arabs should not have democratic governments that empower people instead of tyranical dictators.

You know, the whole idea that the world can be neatly divided up into "good" people and "bad" people who represent diametrical ideals is pretty damn naive.

What exactly are you talking about? Try to make sense.

I agree with Mort and Freelancer, except I'm completely confident that Iraq could and should have a democratic government. I'm just equally confident that the US can not and will not give Iraq a democratic government.

Duke: Made sense to me.

It's a good thing that I didn't suggest it could be then!

Ok then champ, what were you rolling your eyes about?

They'll give it to themselves just like the Afghanis did. After we remove the obstacles. Numerous countries have democracies as a result of or partially of US action so I'm not sure what the foundation of your comment is.

Wookie: Something tells me the last thing you heard about Afghanistan was from an administration press release six months to a year ago.

Don't read those. They had an election. Over 40% of the turnout were women despite the fact that many faced mutilation by the same type of radical thugs that threaten Iraqis.

Oh, I'm not disputing the success of the GOTV campaign. MTV only wishes it could get 120% of eligible males to register to vote nationwide. Certain districts did even better, reporting nearly twice their male population. Simply amazing. By contrast, less than half of eligible women were registered, even by the best accounts. (1,2)

****ing owned.

It's still a huge improvement over no elections and elections where the women couldn't vote. There isn't a switch you can flip to make a country's first free election problem free. It takes a little bit of time, but it will get there.

I wouldn't go on about 'history'.. Britain and America probably have the worst record for 'nation building'.. All of the dictators in the Middle East are either there directly because of American involvement, or as a result of overthrowing a government with American involvement..



The 'insurgents', the opposition to the American occupation, they are only a short-term problem. No, the real big problem is what we're beginning to see now - internal violence between factions. The Sunnis see the Shi'ite as the "bad guys", the Shi'ites see the Sunnis as the "bad guys", the Kurds see.. pretty much everyone as the "bad guys". Within those, there are tribes, some of which oppose eachother as well.
They are all at war against the "bad guys".

These factions have been at war for hundreds of years, it isn't about to change any time soon. Saddam Hussein prevented these factions from killing eachother, but now they're quite open to do so.
'Democracy' will probably fuel the violence, as the nature of democracy will be putting these factions in direct competition.

Even if we ignore the escalating violence, elections in Iraq would never be 'free'. Shi'ites will vote for Shi'ites, Sunnis will vote for Sunnis, Kurds will vote for Kurds (or Sunnis).

And the tribal identity is very important too. There's about 170 odd different tribes in Iraq. They will vote for their tribe, or their religious faction. Some tribes are naturally 'superior' to others. There is no 'choice' in the matter. You don't 'choose' what tribe you're in, you don't 'choose' to be a Sunni or a Shi'ite (and you obviously can't 'choose' to be a Kurd). Iraqi society, and society throughout the area, is not based upon 'choice'. You are born into a role and you fulfill that role. That's how it works, not dissimilar from the 'caste' system in India, a hierarchy of social status based on ethnic or tribal group.
The Ba'ath party openly opposed tribalism, but not even they could do much about it (and they didn't really bother much either, there wasn't that much to gain from it). 'Tribal equality' is a preposterous idea to Iraqis.

Elections in Iraq are not going to be about 'choice', they are simply going to be different factions fulfilling their 'duty'. A good Shi'ite will vote for the Shi'ite party. The actual policies of that party are largely irrelevant, as long as they convince the Shi'ites that they are a Shi'ite party. This is already being seen in the January elections, a prominent Shi'ite religious leader expressed his support for a particular party, and the Shi'ite support for that party went through the roof. The elections in Iraq are just going to be a facade.

...




I'll bet there's an Iraqi 'insurgent' saying exactly the same thing right now.

See Mort's post for a further (and better) take on your whole "bad people" thing.


And Afganistan: it's just smacks of the whole "we'll blow it up, give them elections and it'll be fine" method of liberation that everyone involved (Blair especially) was so explicit in denouncing...

I went on to further define the bad people I referred to. Do you disagree with them being classified as bad?

They'd classify you as 'bad', so it's a fairly meaningless classification.

Is that really necessary? We're not debating on preschool level.

Still victorious!

O' hallelujah!

Avenger: Elections, in and of themselves, do not lead to democracies. See Wikipedia's lists of single-party and dominant-party states. There is no reason to expect Afghanistan's elections to become less corrupt rather than more.

Morf: Preschoolers don't say ****ing owned. Not in my day, at least. No, I'd say that there is more of a early high school or late junior high level of discourse, with significant nerdy overtones.

HAHAHA

Well you guys did invent 'Friendly Fire' what an ironic oxymoron.

Also every war you've been in you seem to crap up, seriously your military should give up! The time for compulsory war mongering has longed past.

Stupid Burgerboy population.

Also FYI the pilot doesn't go through all that crap, he just flies the damn thing. there is unlikely any enemy planes in Iraq, he is in an expensive plane that I doubt Iraqi's could shoot down, and believe it or not modern planes fly them selves to a large degree, basically he messed up big time.

Necessary or not, the statement is still true.

And how old are you?

Morf: Yes, I know. I'm very ashamed.

Wow, such a sad post. Friendly fire is not an oxymoron. If it were, allies who put you in danger instantaneously become your mortal enemies forever. You don't go on a berserk rampage against allied forces because some dumbass private shoots you in the foot with his M-4. Also, I will ignore the fact that irony is implied for oxymorons. "Ironic oxymoron" is ambiguous.

Let's see.. every war America has been in it has "crapped up", as you put it. And what nation are you from, exactly? Britain? Australia? Canada? Regardless, America either directly or indirectly saved your butt numerous times, so I would be careful about throwing those kinds of accusations around if I was you.

War-mongering.. so you're blaming the American population for one man's decision to go to war? Good job. Next thing you know, you'll be tying your own shoes or something. Damn whippersnappers grow up too quickly. Point #2: at the time the decision was made, those involved agreed that the war was in fact necessary to America's security.

I will ignore your childish insult against all Americans. Consider yourself lucky.

Until you define "crap" in your last paragraph, I will have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Heh, I concur. Anyway, I really don't like the direction of this converstaion.

There is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much to say, I think we need to have THE WAR DEBATE somewhere as a sticky thread, and end it there. It's like a bunch of random battles going nowhere.

I can't let something go:



Examples? Please? Anything? Something?

And as for all of us painting us as the great emacipators, I suggest they read some history books and brush up on the great successes American Involvement has stirred.



And we were only involved in WWII to save our own asses. Since when have we ever went to war to save anyone else? It was an indirect benefit that we 'saved' the allied nations. It's like thanking the gangster who shot the rival gang member who was mugging you. That isn't something to be greatful for decades for. America is not an island unto itself. We need trading partners for our economy. We need some degree of natural resources from other countries (although I belive we shouldn't be so dependent on the whims of OPEC for our oil). And having a rival code as another power in the world never makes us very happy (communism anyone?). So in the end, we did it to save ourselves. Stop saying how damned altruistic we are.

And everything post WWII was botched. EVERYRTHING. Iraq War One did not remove the main problem AND again was not to save anyone, except our own interests.

Let's list our portfolio, shall we:
-Korean War
-Vietnam War
-Numerous installations of dictators, removals of people chosen democracies (from the Shah and Hussein to the bastards in Central America)
-Bay of pigs

Want me to go on? I gladly could! We screw up life for others constantly in war! We do things for ourselves! Stop with trying to make us people who we aren't!

Now, I was a bit harsh. We give aid, and we are caring in times of peace. In war, we are different animals, as the case should be. But we don't go to war for reasons other than our own interestest, a trait that I think is 100% CORRECT. But I hate being painted otherwise, no matter what type of reach-around we give afterwards.

Your unrealistic idea that all pilots should be mistake-free superhumans. Theres mistakes like this in all wars, significantly less now.

So where the hell did the possibly innocent lives part come in? Did I say anything about that? No I didn't.