Author Topic: Iraq war just, or not. If not - who is responsible for the deaths inflicted? (Read 833 times)

yellowtail3 · « **on:** July 09, 2012, 07:00:13 AM »

A hard answer from mr Vance.... A little out of date as the war has wound down, but an interesting perspective still..
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance91.html

Although the U.S. government and the general public don't hold the troops responsible for their actions (unless they do something particularly evil that becomes an embarrassment), U.S. soldiers need to realize that it is they themselves who will ultimately be held responsible when they stand before God Almighty and give account of their deeds. U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq need to recognize some things that are true and some things that are not true:

The war is a crime against the Iraqi people.
The war violates every just war principle ever formulated.
U.S. military interventions are detrimental to world peace.
U.S. foreign policy creates enemies and terrorists.
God never appointed the United States to be the world's policeman.
The war is not in the best interests of the United States.
U.S. forces in Iraq are not retaliating for 9/11.
U.S. forces in Iraq are not defending our freedoms.
U.S. forces in Iraq are not fighting terrorism.
U.S. forces in Iraq are not defending the United States.

Until U.S. soldiers concede that the war was a grave mistake, they will keep on fighting. Until U.S. soldiers accept responsibility for their actions, they will keep on killing. Until U.S. soldiers understand that the state is a lying, stealing, and killing machine they will continue their state-sanctioned death and destruction. Until U.S. soldiers realize that they are but cannon fodder for the state, they will keep dying for a lie. And until young men and women acknowledge that the U.S. military has become — through its wars, interventions, and occupations — the greatest force for evil in the world, they will keep joining the military to get that enlistment bonus or that money for college.

No one is holding a gun to the head of any soldier and commanding him to fight. Yes, it is true that U.S. soldiers who refuse to continue to participate in the state's interventions, invasions, and occupations might be dishonorably discharged, court-martialed, sent to prison, mistaken for a left-wing anti-war activist, called a coward, branded as anti-American, labeled a traitor, shunned by family, termed a quitter, ridiculed by veterans, or ostracized by fellow soldiers. Perhaps all of the above. But doing what's right is oftentimes not an easy thing to do. There are frequently adverse consequences to doing the right thing.

But even if a gun was held to a soldier's head and he was commanded to fight, does that mean he should give in? Don't the negative consequences of refusing to fight that I mentioned above pale in comparison to losing one's life? My answer is still the same: Do what's right. If it's not right to invade and occupy another country, then don't do it. If it's not right to kill people and break things, then don't do it. The consequences be damned.

I have prescribed a bitter pill, and some will have a hard time digesting it. I am afraid that Christopher Levenick is right. The illicit love affair that many Americans — and especially many conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist American Christians — have with the U.S. military means that it all comes down to a uniform. God help us when the absence or presence of a uniform is all that it takes to hold or not hold someone responsible for the destruction of person and property. God help us.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2012, 08:11:03 AM »

I think the question(s) you positioned for us are reasonable but the editorial at the end is so ignorant I'm not going to waste anytime now with this one.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 09, 2012, 08:18:19 AM »

Ignorant... How so? What knowledge or understanding is the authoe lacking?
Do you view the argument as having no rational basis, or... just too uncommon/Not sufficiently PC?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 09, 2012, 08:25:01 AM »

"The illicit love affair that many Americans — and especially many conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist American Christians — have with the U.S. military means that it all comes down to a uniform. God help us when the absence or presence of a uniform is all that it takes to hold or not hold someone responsible for the destruction of person and property. God help us."

This is the ignorant editorial I was speaking of.

Dee · « **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2012, 12:43:25 PM »

Quote from: Cabin4 on July 09, 2012, 08:25:01 AM

"The illicit love affair that many Americans — and especially many conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist American Christians — have with the U.S. military means that it all comes down to a uniform. God help us when the absence or presence of a uniform is all that it takes to hold or not hold someone responsible for the destruction of person and property. God help us."

This is the ignorant editorial I was speaking of.

I am in full agreement. Soldiers "obey orders". The questions though poorly constructed are, accurate albiet where the blame lays. The editorial as Cabin4 stated is indeed an understated show of liberal ignorance, but is also in fact a "left wing FOOL".
Just like the Vietnam vet, this writer is trying to lay blame on the soldier, rather than the "warlord presidents" we have collectively elected in the past 5 decades.

That Bush's 1 & 2 are war criminals is a gimmie. That Clinton is a war criminal is a gimmie. That Obama is a war criminal is a gimmie. All have participated in this and other unnecessary, and unprovoked wars.

gypsyman · « **Reply #5 on:** July 09, 2012, 05:16:43 PM »

Nope, your all wrong. Sadam Hussein is responsible. If the pig headed sob would have let UN inspectors in, when he was asked/told, and he proved he didn't have wmd's, he'ld still be alive today,(unless his own people might have killed him), and running his country. How many other country's reported he had wmd's! Russia,England,France, China,Australia, and no doubt a few more. If Bush11 waited around with a thumb up his butt, and Hussein did to Saudi Arabia or Israel, what he did to Kuwait, everybody would be jumping all over him as to why he waited. He was a mass murderer to his own people, used gas and biological weapons against Iran when they were at war. Unfortunately, many of todays ''bad guys'', don't play by Marquis of Queensbury rules. It's more like a bar fight. If you don't asses the situation, and make the first move, your going to get your a** handed to you on a silver platter. gypsyman

crustylicious · « **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2012, 05:47:26 PM »

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.^[1] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,^[2] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.^[3]
During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.^[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.^[5]^[6]^[7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,^[8] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,^[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[citation needed] and questions of integrity^[10]^[11]^[12] about the underlying intelligence.^[13] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.^[14] Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,^[15] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".^[16] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".^[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Dee · « **Reply #7 on:** July 10, 2012, 12:55:04 AM »

Quote from: gypsyman on July 09, 2012, 05:16:43 PM

Nope, your all wrong. Sadam Hussein is responsible. If the pig headed sob would have let UN inspectors in, when he was asked/told, and he proved he didn't have wmd's, he'ld still be alive today,(unless his own people might have killed him), and running his country. How many other country's reported he had wmd's! Russia,England,France, China,Australia, and no doubt a few more. If Bush11 waited around with a thumb up his butt, and Hussein did to Saudi Arabia or Israel, what he did to Kuwait, everybody would be jumping all over him as to why he waited. He was a mass murderer to his own people, used gas and biological weapons against Iran when they were at war. Unfortunately, many of todays ''bad guys'', don't play by Marquis of Queensbury rules. It's more like a bar fight. If you don't asses the situation, and make the first move, your going to get your a** handed to you on a silver platter. gypsyman

So your for "nation building", and forcing your will on other countries, even though they end up hating you, and have done nothing to you, in the first place? As far as a "bar fight"? We started the "bar fight". Also, did you fight in this war, or just agree with others fighting it for you, because you felt like it needed fighting?

gypsyman · « **Reply #8 on:** July 10, 2012, 01:11:59 AM »

We are exiting Iraq, and Germany and Japan, (these last 2 from WWII) so I don't think nation building was our objective. If nation building was our goal, every president since Truman is guilty. No I did not serve in the military, but I believe I'm still entitled to my opinion. And yes I was in several ''bar fights'' in my younger days. And yes, I was handed my butt on a platter, which is why, I learned the hard way. Asses the situation, and strike first if neccesary. gypsyman

Dee · « **Reply #9 on:** July 10, 2012, 02:17:41 AM »

So financing dictators (Saddam Hussein included), propping them up with money, and arms, is not "Nation Building? Saddam Hussein, and Manual Norriego both went to the "School of the Americas" located at Ft. Benning, Ga. under the direction, and support of then CIA Head George Herbert Walker Bush. Both were aided in getting into power of their prospective countries, Panama, and Iraq. Both were brutal dictators, from the beginning, and both were supported by the United States.
Both were taken out by the United States when they quit doin business with the United States. Egypt also has, and is, being propped up by the United States. How could this be considered anything less. Vietnam? Trying to build up a government that the people DID NOT AGREE WITH.
Are you in denial, or do you have a different definition of "nation building" than I.
After my youngest son's "1st combat tour" with the 82nd Air Borne in Iraq, he said: Dad, the Iraq people have no interest in democracy, and think we are heathen fools. They are not worth the American blood. His "2nd combat tour" brought him back with an even more animate opinion of the same. When the last boot is off Iraqi soil it will return to what it was. We are not rehabilitating their government. It is called: "Forced Compliance".
As far as Germany and Japan. We have propped up their economies, and have since WWII, more and more become the "EMPIRE of The United States". Like it or not, the definition "Empire" fits.

lakota · « **Reply #10 on:** July 10, 2012, 10:49:18 AM »

I will not argue that these wars are unjust, unneeded and pointless because they are. The state is corrupt...But what does this psuedointellectual outfit propose that the American Soldier do when given an order to ship out? Should they refuse? Should they all go AWOL so that these highly refined cultural geniuses at lewrockwell can look down their noses at them for those actions too? I get the feeling that nothing the US military members engaged in war could do would meet with their approval.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 10, 2012, 10:52:44 AM »

Should people who take an oath, follow it?

Should soldiers follow orders?

Dee · « **Reply #12 on:** July 10, 2012, 10:53:58 AM »

Quote from: lakota on July 10, 2012, 10:49:18 AM

I will not argue that these wars are unjust, unneeded and pointless because they are. The state is corrupt...But what does this psuedointellectual outfit propose that the American Soldier do when given an order to ship out? Should they refuse? Should they all go AWOL so that these highly refined cultural geniuses at lewrockwell can look down their noses at them for those actions too? I get the feeling that nothing the US military members engaged in war could do would meet with their approval.

They don't have to support them, nor does the soldier need their approval. I support the soldiers. Always have, always will, and to the last breath. I'm an old man now, but I don't think I alone on this attitude, and those that feel the way I do, are the ones I want to be around anyway. The rest aren't worth being around anyway.

hardertr · « **Reply #13 on:** July 10, 2012, 12:59:16 PM »

Quote from: yellowtail3 on July 09, 2012, 07:00:13 AM

No one is holding a gun to the head of any soldier and commanding him to fight. Yes, it is true that U.S. soldiers who refuse to continue to participate in the state's interventions, invasions, and occupations might be dishonorably discharged, court-martialed, sent to prison, mistaken for a left-wing anti-war activist, called a coward, branded as anti-American, labeled a traitor, shunned by family, termed a quitter, ridiculed by veterans, or ostracized by fellow soldiers. Perhaps all of the above. But doing what's right is oftentimes not an easy thing to do. There are frequently adverse consequences to doing the right thing.

But even if a gun was held to a soldier's head and he was commanded to fight, does that mean he should give in? Don't the negative consequences of refusing to fight that I mentioned above pale in comparison to losing one's life? My answer is still the same: Do what's right. If it's not right to invade and occupy another country, then don't do it. If it's not right to kill people and break things, then don't do it. The consequences be damned.

These 2 statements make things a little tricky.

In my 20 years, I assisted in getting TWO "conscientious objectors" out of the Army. You better believe we saw them as deserters! Did THEY care.....not a bit. They got the last laugh as they held their Honorable Discharge paperwork in their hands. Not only did they walk away scott-free, but they took some very expensive training with them as they went to their civilian jobs doing essentially the same thing they did in the military.

I was completely against the war in Iraq, BUT, I went for 15 months. Why? Because I gave my country my word that I would do whatever they asked me. I felt like a mercenary (it's a much prettier word than whore), and focused on protecting my fellow Soldiers rather than killing make-believe "terrorists".

ON THE OTHER HAND...... had the Army told me we were going to conduct operations in the US and enforce marital law because of a situation I didn't believe in, I would have to weigh my options.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 10, 2012, 03:05:26 PM »

Yes, those who take an oath of office should follow it

Yes, soilders should follow orders

Yes, these wars are wrong and thats why the first two yes answers matter so much.

gypsyman · « **Reply #15 on:** July 10, 2012, 03:18:42 PM »

Dee, I can't argue the point with the US supporting the wrong person. Hussein,Norriego, and Castro, were like stray dogs. We feed them and helped them out, and they turned around and bit us. On the other hand, if Jimmy Carter would have stepped up and backed the Shah of Iran, and helped him stay in power, would we be in the mess we're in with that country?? Woulda,coulda,shoulda. gypsyman

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 10, 2012, 03:51:19 PM »

Quote from: gypsyman on July 10, 2012, 03:18:42 PM

...on the other hand, if Jimmy Carter would have stepped up and backed the Shah of Iran, and helped him stay in power, would we be in the mess we're in with that country?? Woulda,coulda,shoulda. gypsyman

still be in a mess... The shah was unpopular,and the Islam revolution was a real popular revolt. It was huge. Back Palahvi was a losing deal.

BBF · « **Reply #17 on:** July 11, 2012, 06:18:00 AM »

Quote from: Cabin4 on July 10, 2012, 03:05:26 PM

Yes, those who take an oath of office should follow it

Yes, soilders should follow orders

Yes, ...............................

That didn't work out all that well for those that went on trial in Nuernberg.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 11, 2012, 08:29:39 AM »

Quote from: BBF on July 11, 2012, 06:18:00 AM

Quote from: Cabin4 on July 10, 2012, 03:05:26 PM
Yes, those who take an oath of office should follow it

Yes, soilders should follow orders

Yes, ...............................

That didn't work out all that well for those that went on trial in Nuernberg.

Thats true and thats why the operative word I used was "should".

BBF · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2012, 03:51:57 AM »

....and they did, perhaps against their own better judgement.