Why are they still joining the Army

[RedCeltic]

If you think about it… those guys and gals who joined the US military four years ago, in bravado to go fight and die in Iraq, have now served four years. Four years is the most common first term enlistment. (many times just 2 years.) So it stands to reason that opposed to the onset of his war in Iraq, where most were there out of some bravado about 9/11 etc… most people serving there now, must have joined after all that. Nowdays this war has become increasingly unpopular, even the most venomous pro war hawks have recanted and called for a troop withdrawral.

Yet, they keep coming to the recruitment centers. They keep joining!!! Maybe not as many as before the war, but still… they are coming.

I’d like to follow this up with my own personal story here… when I was a kid, I kind of thought that joining the military would be silly, since the next war would most likely be against the Soviet Union and involve Nuclear missiles. However the Berlin wall fell in 1989, shortly after I graduated high school, and a couple years after that… there was no such thing as the USSR. I was failing out of college at the time and having problems with my girlfriend and deceded that what I really needed was some adventure and to see the world. If I had some money I would have taken a vacation in Europe or something, but instead I joined the Navy.

Right away I had realized my mistake, yet also noticed that most people there in the Navy also seemed of the sort that joined while the U.S. just finished the Cold war, and the war in Iraq (1991) and were not likely to get into a major scrap soon. Heck…. Think of the mindset of the day…. No more USSR!!! No more COLD WAR.So, to see people joining during a prolonged war, that seems to have no defined end… well that seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

They're joining for the money (often it's as simple as getting college money), or because they're desperate and the military is the only apparent solution to their problems.

I doubt it's bravado; it's more like "I had nowhere else to go, and they pay good money".

[TC]

The loyal-left (rather than the anti-imperialist left) likes to imagine that soldiers join with good intentions or are doing it for money for college and are just as much victims of the war as the people they murder, but in reality, a lot of them join, shockingly, because they're patriotic rightwing americans who honestly feel that its in the american national interests to preserve American strategic interests and they have genuinely racist attitudes to middle eastern people.

Believe it or not, there are genuinely bad people in this world with genuinely reactionary politics, imperialist soldiers who volenteer to fight a war knowingly are among them. These are the people who massacre civilians and sexually torture detainees, these people have no redeeming qualities, they are our enemy.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 11, 2007 09:05 pm
They're joining for the money (often it's as simple as getting college money), or because they're desperate and the military is the only apparent solution to their problems.

I doubt it's bravado; it's more like "I had nowhere else to go, and they pay good money".
That's like most of the people (like 90%) when I was in the Navy in the early 90's. Still seems pretty odd to me of why someone would want to join these days and risk going over to that hell hole.

I suppose however, that those social/economic problems that faced people back when I was in the Navy, still face them in the modern militery, and still reason enough to join up.

[TC]

thats such a bullshit explanation because the military doesn't even pay as well as domestic civil service jobs do, it doesn't pay as well as working in a coffee shop does.

[RedCeltic]

I don't recall a coffee shop having a college fund, GI Bill or even benifits close to they give in the militery. Your right in a way though. Surely back in '92 when I joined the Navy I should have been smarter and known I had other options... but I didn't.

Still, I don't know if that answer serves in today's militery. Is the GI bill really worth risking your life for? Hell I went to college on it and I can tell you that all it did was pay my rent for 3 years. It's not worth all that militery bullshit for, and surely not worth being shot at for.

Maybe I'm nieve, but I just can't see bunches of people gung ho about kiling Middle Easterners, lined up to take the A.S.V.A.B. or go into MEPS. Perhaps you are right though as all other reasons seem to be crazy at this point in the war.

Maybe they should all see my latest YouTube Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1KUyPGaLM) or more like "slide show" with Phil Ochs singing "Cops of the World."

(Shameless ad for my youtube vid there hahaha).

[Atlantean]

It's not any one single factor. It's a combination of them.

[Phalanx]

The loyal-left (rather than the anti-imperialist left) likes to imagine that soldiers join with good intentions or are doing it for money for college and are just as much victims of the war as the people they murder, but in reality, a lot of them join, shockingly, because they're patriotic rightwing americans who honestly feel that its in the american national interests to preserve American strategic interests and they have genuinely racist attitudes to middle eastern people.

Even though I'm pro-military, I hold no illusions. Most soldiers enter the service because of college money or adverse conditions back home. Regardless of what you wish to believe, that's the fact. But you wouldn't know those kinds of things because your parents had enough money for you to go to college in London, one of the most expensive cities on earth.


thats such a bullshit explanation because the military doesn't even pay as well as domestic civil service jobs do, it doesn't pay as well as working in a coffee shop does.

But they pay for college. Which is why many people join.


It's not any one single factor. It's a combination of them.

Exactly. Some join for the college money, some join out of patriotism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:13 am
The loyal-left (rather than the anti-imperialist left) likes to imagine that soldiers join with good intentions or are doing it for money for college and are just as much victims of the war as the people they murder...
I didn't say that. I do believe that many working class young people are pressured into the military by economic circumstances (hell, I have an American friend who hates the government with a passion, but joined the military anyway because it was either that or living out in the street; he says his primary objectives are to stay alive and keep his sanity).

But, of course, the military also has more than its share of reactionaries, fascists and disturbed sadists who just love the opportunity to kill people legally.

As in most cases, however, the problem comes from the institution, not the people. The military is not bad because it is made up of bad people. The military is bad because it is an authoritarian organization designed to kill large numbers of human beings for the purpose of expanding imperial power. It doesn't matter very much whether you put good people or bad people into it - the end result will stay mostly the same.

[colonelguppy]

some get a sense of pride from the military regardless of the war. some do it for the money.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

There's some jingoism, there's some monetary need, and there are those blasted millitary families that make a career out of it.

[Demogorgon]

Because they are patriotic Americans who love freedom and are willing to sacrifice everything to fight the evil doers :lol:

Seriously I asked a guy who was in the US marines why people are so keen to join up, and he said that most of them (including himself at the time) just did it because they were jingoists who were too dumb to do anything else. Probably a harsh explanation but it is straight from the horses mouth. He also said that in the military you will find about a 50/50split between people who were bullies at school and are looking for more opportunities to cause trouble and people who were bullied looking for a chance to toughen themselves up and get back at them. THere's probably an interesting bit of psychology there.

On a slightly more generous note, in America, higher educaion is very expensive and the military offering to pay for it must be tempting. I don't know why people would join the military here though.

[Tommy-K]

Has anyone seen Farenheit 9/11? When those guys go around recruiting for the army and they almost force people into it, saying, "Oh it pays realy well and you shouldn't have to do anything to dangerous." so they sign up and immediately get shipped off to Iraq. The people who recruit new soldiers mislead them into joining just so they can ship a whole load more people over to the Middle East.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

which is amazingly telling about the state of American education today. need to go to war to get education, LOL, starship troopers anybody?

[Tower of Bebel]

Because people want to keep up with society's high standards while the US keeps looking for ways to lower wages, etc. ? If the army pays much, then for many people from the suburbsbeing a soldier is a very attractive job indeed.

[BreadBros]

I would say the majority join up for the reasons TC laid out in her post. Particularly during this War on Terror era. Nearly every person I've met in my neighborhood who have joined either the Army or Marines are pretty fiercely conservative.

Some people do join for economic factors. Not so much paying for college or straight up money though, since you could probably easily make more working a blue-collar job. However, being a veteran does often come with a certain "social prestige", creates connections, makes you more likely to get certain jobs, etc. so for some people it can serve as an economic boost I suppose.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:13 am
The loyal-left (rather than the anti-imperialist left) likes to imagine that soldiers join with good intentions or are doing it for money for college and are just as much victims of the war as the people they murder, but in reality, a lot of them join, shockingly, because they're patriotic rightwing americans who honestly feel that its in the american national interests to preserve American strategic interests and they have genuinely racist attitudes to middle eastern people.

Believe it or not, there are genuinely bad people in this world with genuinely reactionary politics, imperialist soldiers who volenteer to fight a war knowingly are among them. These are the people who massacre civilians and sexually torture detainees, these people have no redeeming qualities, they are our enemy.
Although I find this exagerated, there is some truth. But let's not forget that people are made.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 12, 2007 03:37 am
Has anyone seen Farenheit 9/11? When those guys go around recruiting for the army and they almost force people into it, saying, "Oh it pays realy well and you shouldn't have to do anything to dangerous." so they sign up and immediately get shipped off to Iraq. The people who recruit new soldiers mislead them into joining just so they can ship a whole load more people over to the Middle East.
it's kind of true, the majority of our armed forces isn't actually in iraq.

[TC]

Don't be idiotic guys, the military doesn't pay for soldiers to go to college thats the stupidest propaganda. The GI bill never gives anyone enough money for college (the maximum pay out is much less than college tuition), and to even apply for the minimal benefits, soldiers have to pay into the GI bill 1200 US dollars which is non-refundable, and of those people who apply by paying the army 1200 dollars, 57% of them are denied any payment at all and don't get their money back. In other words, you are literally more likely to lose money to the army GI bill than you are to get money for college, and its impossible to get full tuition. Most people who join the army dont' meet the qualifications for the GI bill and most of those who do don't get payed a dime anyways. Its just a scam.

http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/thinking-of-e...ting/GIBill.htm (http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/thinking-of-enlisting/GIBill.htm)


Mostly the myth i think, is an excuse to allow the demented sadistic bastards who join the military to justify it to themselves and their friends when they really just want to rape murder and torture Iraqis.

In any case, if anyone actually did join the army because they were so stupid that they didn't do any research into the GI bill and believed incorrectly that it payed for college, they would still be absolute sick fucks to think they deserved to go to college more than Iraqis deserve to live as thats the trade off it proposes.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Most people don't want to die. Therefore most people would rather not have to fight for their lives, all other things being equal. Therefore most soldiers would prefer not to be shot at. Therefore most American soldiers hope they'll never be sent to Iraq.

Therefore it's not a simple question of "I get money for killing people". I expect that many fresh recruits hope they will never have to fire their guns in combat.

I know that there are many sick fucks out there, but I find it very hard to believe that psychotic killers are so easy to come by that you can build an entire army out of them. We're talking hundreds of thousands of people here.

[Pilar]

Some people join the army because it's part of a family tradition. There are many army families throughout United States history.

There was a great influx of joining after 9-11.

The "education" reason (I agree w/ Tragic Clown here) is a joke, and hardly every exploited to its full potiential. Most make agreements w/ the Army to put in x dollars, and get back x times .5 dollars. But then they find they can't save squat, and they're back at square one.

Unlike education, the TRAINING insentive is great: You get to learn a skill for free, such as flight, or RADAR, or communications, or such, that can translate to a real job when the 4 years are over.

Where I disagree w/ Clown is this notion that THEY are the enemy. There are plenty of people in the army who are probably good people, and not necessarily choosing the army out of "no other choice". The world, the United States, and peoples' minds are far too complicted to try and sum up choices in a wholesale statement.

[Phalanx]

Don't be idiotic guys, the military doesn't pay for soldiers to go to college thats the stupidest propaganda

ROTC does pay for most of college tuition, but I'm not sure about the GI Bill. The military pays for most, not all, of the tuition, but it's definately a major reason why people join.


Mostly the myth i think, is an excuse to allow the demented sadistic bastards who join the military to justify it to themselves and their friends when they really just want to rape murder and torture Iraqis.

I think that's definately what you want to believe, but those kinds of soldiers are definately in the minority. And what happens when the military finds those kinds of people? They throw them in jail. Look at the Haditha killings. It's definately not your little fantasy where soldiers are encouraged to pillage Iraq while nothing's done about it.


In any case, if anyone actually did join the army because they were so stupid that they didn't do any research into the GI bill and believed incorrectly that it payed for college, they would still be absolute sick fucks to think they deserved to go to college more than Iraqis deserve to live as thats the trade off it proposes.

I do think they deserve to go to college more than baby-killing terrorists deserve to live.

[bezdomni]

I do think they deserve to go to college more than baby-killing terrorists deserve to live.

Give me a fucking break! The United States kills loads of innocent Iraqis (including babies).

This is what your fucking heroes are doing. (http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/3201/29276zt.jpg)

Your line would quickly change if the United States invaded Israel for killing Palestinian children.

[Phalanx]

Give me a fucking break! The United States kills loads of innocent Iraqis (including babies).

It's extremely regrettable that civilian casualties occur, but you don't seem to understand that the US Military does avoid civilian casualties. The baby-killing insurgents, on the other hand, intentionally target civilians. And people here have the gall to say they're "freedom fighters".


Your line would quickly change if the United States invaded Israel for killing Palestinian children.

I don't agree with Israel on every issue, and I think they can be overly harsh at times, but sometimes they need to be just to survive.

I think it's funny that criticism of America and Israel are so high here but not a whisper when it comes to Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Darfur.

[bezdomni]

You're full of shit. I don't even want to waste any more time with you.

Go join the military.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I think it's funny that criticism of America and Israel are so high here but not a whisper when it comes to Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Darfur.



People say that to us all the time, but there is something called a non-response bias.

If a magazine sends out surveys on different products and about 9% of the readers actually do the bloody thing, and then the magazine promotes the results, as truth, despite the fact that not everyone actually did it, it's intelectual dishonesty. (that shampoo companies can nevertheless get away with)

What you're saying is exactly the same thing. Assuming something when we haven't even responded to the subject is intellectual dishonesty.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:10 am

Give me a fucking break! The United States kills loads of innocent Iraqis (including babies).

It's extremely regrettable that civilian casualties occur, but you don't seem to understand that the US Military does avoid civilian casualties.
Do they fuck!

They intentionally killed civilians for kicks in Vietnam and now it's exactly the same in Iraq.

[yulives]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:36 am
If you think about it… those guys and gals who joined the US military four years ago, in bravado to go fight and die in Iraq, have now served four years. Four years is the most common first term enlistment. (many times just 2 years.) So it stands to reason that opposed to the onset of his war in Iraq, where most were there out of some bravado about 9/11 etc… most people serving there now, must have joined after all that. Nowdays this war has become increasingly unpopular, even the most venomous pro war hawks have recanted and called for a troop withdrawral.

Yet, they keep coming to the recruitment centers. They keep joining!!! Maybe not as many as before the war, but still… they are coming.

I’d like to follow this up with my own personal story here… when I was a kid, I kind of thought that joining the military would be silly, since the next war would most likely be against the Soviet Union and involve Nuclear missiles. However the Berlin wall fell in 1989, shortly after I graduated high school, and a couple years after that… there was no such thing as the USSR. I was failing out of college at the time and having problems with my girlfriend and deceded that what I really needed was some adventure and to see the world. If I had some money I would have taken a vacation in Europe or something, but instead I joined the Navy.

Right away I had realized my mistake, yet also noticed that most people there in the Navy also seemed of the sort that joined while the U.S. just finished the Cold war, and the war in Iraq (1991) and were not likely to get into a major scrap soon. Heck…. Think of the mindset of the day…. No more USSR!!! No more COLD WAR.So, to see people joining during a prolonged war, that seems to have no defined end… well that seems absolutely ridiculous to me.
I agree with what some others said, those people that are joining, most of them probably hope that they wont get sent to Iraq. According to wikipedia, the military of the United States has about 1.400.000 active personel at the moment, and less than 200.000 are currently in Iraq. Though I beleive that there are some fanatics that join the army because they want to "defend their country"(at least thats what the propaganda wats them to believe).

[yulives]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+April 13, 2007 12:27 pm--> (Tommy-K @ April 13, 2007 12:27 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:10 am

Give me a fucking break! The United States kills loads of innocent Iraqis (including babies).

It's extremely regrettable that civilian casualties occur, but you don't seem to understand that the US Military does avoid civilian casualties.
Do they fuck!

They intentionally killed civilians for kicks in Vietnam and now it's exactly the same in Iraq. [/b]
I agree! And if blowing yourself up and killing a couple dozen civilians is cowardly, bombing civilians from modern military airplanes is even more cowardly. Oh, wait I forgot, the Holy US military doesnt do that! No theyre an army of saints... yeah right. Just remeber Abu Graibh and Guantanamo...

[Pilar]

I think it's funny that criticism of America and Israel are so high here but not a whisper when it comes to Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Darfur.

This is a valid point, but understand that at all "revoultionary left" groups there are always 2 things going on.

1. Discussions on the destruction of capitalism.

This is to be expected. That's the main purpose of most leftist forces.


2. Anti-United States discussions, and more or less no discussion of other nations doing similar things if those nations are opposed to the U.S.

This is due to the views of some or many leftists that the United States must "fall" for the interests of socialism to advance. This can be taken to the extreem, and has the effect of implying that Stalinist USSR was a better place to be than the United States in the similar time-frame (say the 1940's). This can sometimes be anti-Smericanism for the sake of anti-Americanism, and can imply that EVERYTHING the United States does is wrongful or bad somehow. For a debating and discussion point of view.

[Phalanx]

What you're saying is exactly the same thing. Assuming something when we haven't even responded to the subject is intellectual dishonesty.

It's completely different. What happens here is complete silence on the subject. I've been here for two years, and the two countries that dominate the political discussions are Israel and America. You're being selective, plain and simple.


They intentionally killed civilians for kicks in Vietnam and now it's exactly the same in Iraq.

Rogue soldiers did intentionally kill civilians but the military's policy is definately not to target civilians.


I agree! And if blowing yourself up and killing a couple dozen civilians is cowardly, bombing civilians from modern military airplanes is even more cowardly. Oh, wait I forgot, the Holy US military doesnt do that! No theyre an army of saints... yeah right. Just remeber Abu Graibh and Guantanamo...

Civilian casualties are unavoidable, especially in modern warfare, where the enemy hides amoung civilians. But you guys couldn't bring yourselves to admit that your beloved insurgents intentionally kill civilians and hide among them as human shields.


Discussions on the destruction of capitalism.

Right, but shouldn't you be focusing on yourselves just as much, especially when your fellow comrades are committing horrible atrocities?


You're full of shit. I don't even want to waste any more time with you.

Go join the military.

Ah come on, you can do better than that.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+April 13, 2007 07:27 am--> (Tommy-K @ April 13, 2007 07:27 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:10 am

Give me a fucking break! The United States kills loads of innocent Iraqis (including babies).

It's extremely regrettable that civilian casualties occur, but you don't seem to understand that the US Military does avoid civilian casualties.
Do they fuck!

They intentionally killed civilians for kicks in Vietnam and now it's exactly the same in Iraq. [/b]
they also get court martialed for things like that. it's not encouraged by anymeans by the leadership.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+April 13, 2007 08:48 pm--> (colonelguppy @ April 13, 2007 08:48 pm)
Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 13, 2007 07:27 am

[email protected] 13, 2007 02:10 am

Give me a fucking break! The United States kills loads of innocent Iraqis (including babies).

It's extremely regrettable that civilian casualties occur, but you don't seem to understand that the US Military does avoid civilian casualties.
Do they fuck!

They intentionally killed civilians for kicks in Vietnam and now it's exactly the same in Iraq.
they also get court martialed for things like that. it's not encouraged by anymeans by the leadership. [/b]
Aye, look at Haditha. The killers didn't get away, as the commies'd like to believe. But I guess it's easier to hate someone or something when you believe them to be evil incarnate.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:40 pm
It's completely different. What happens here is complete silence on the subject. I've been here for two years, and the two countries that dominate the political discussions are Israel and America. You're being selective, plain and simple.

Different boards have different topics that come up more often than others. You find regular posters settle into regular discussions where the arguments can be rolled out easily without too much effort. Happens on just about every board. Topics to do with Israel and America have achieved that status here.

That doesn't mean the posters don't have views on other issues. It just means they choose not to post about them on this particular board because it might get drowned out a bit by more popular and well rehearsed topics.

I know for example with the case of Zimbabwe I care deeply about that, I mean I have a personal interest and all, a large portion of my family having had to relocate to South Africa. And I am sure everyone else cares too. However there is another issue here too. Everyone knows Mugabe has gone Senile and his Government is atrocious these days and spectacularly fucking up the country. You won't find anybody defending him anywhere. So what is the need to discuss it? However with the case of issues like America and Israel, people insist on defending the indefensible so we need to talk about it more. We need to push our side.

[bezdomni]

Ah come on, you can do better than that.
I could, but it would be a waste of my time.

Revolutionary politics are clearly not within your class interests or even deductive abilities.

[Phalanx]

I could, but it would be a waste of my time.

Revolutionary politics are clearly not within your class interests or even deductive abilities.

Alright then, but I really wanted you to prove me wrong.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:40 pm

They intentionally killed civilians for kicks in Vietnam and now it's exactly the same in Iraq.

Rogue soldiers did intentionally kill civilians but the military's policy is definately not to target civilians.
Why don't they put a stop to it then?

Oh I know, maybe it's because they encourage it, although they obviously aren't going to put that in their 'policy' because it wouldn't look 'democratic'.

[yulives]

[QUOTE]they also get court martialed for things like that. it's not encouraged by anymeans by the leadership.

They are only being court martialed at those cases that come out. Who knows how many "Abu Graibs" and "Hadhitas" have happened so far, and it didnt come out in the public.

[QUOTE]Rogue soldiers did intentionally kill civilians but the military's policy is definately not to target civilians

Maybe. But it is happening, wheter it is their policy or not. Doesnt sound like the "Army of Saints" as some are trying to present the US army.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It's completely different. What happens here is complete silence on the subject. I've been here for two years, and the two countries that dominate the political discussions are Israel and America. You're being selective, plain and simple.

That's because firstly, many members here are American or British and as such will have had more exposure to these issues. Secondly, though it sounds cold to say, many members simply feel that what's going on in Iraq is more important as regards first-world politics, and most of our members reside in the first world.


Rogue soldiers did intentionally kill civilians but the military's policy is definately not to target civilians.
...
they also get court martialed for things like that. it's not encouraged by anymeans by the leadership.
This is true, but it shows the appalling lack of discipline of the occupying forces. The troops being sent over are obviously not sufficiently disciplined or responsible enough for the mammoth task of occupying a country.


Civilian casualties are unavoidable, especially in modern warfare, where the enemy hides amoung civilians. But you guys couldn't bring yourselves to admit that your beloved insurgents intentionally kill civilians and hide among them as human shields.

First of all, many of the insurgents fight legitimately against US oppression. You are, not surprisingly, stereotyping all Iraqi men, women and children who disagree with US foreign policy as murderers.

However, one cannot deny that many insurgents do kill civilians in order to assist in fighting the US occupation. I wonder why that is? I wonder would the number of civilians being killed to get the US out of Iraq increase[/i or [i]decrease if the US left, or if they had never come?



Right, but shouldn't you be focusing on yourselves just as much, especially when your fellow comrades are committing horrible atrocities?
Our comrades? Atrocities? More distortion of reality. I don't have time for childish games I'm afraid, and as such I am going to ignore any attempts to initiate them.

[Phalanx]

Why don't they put a stop to it then?

They did. They court-martialed the criminals.


Secondly, though it sounds cold to say, many members simply feel that what's going on in Iraq is more important as regards first-world politics, and most of our members reside in the first world.

Fair enough.


This is true, but it shows the appalling lack of discipline of the occupying forces. The troops being sent over are obviously not sufficiently disciplined or responsible enough for the mammoth task of occupying a country.

Not really. Such instances are very rare, which highlights the military's discipline.


First of all, many of the insurgents fight legitimately against US oppression. You are, not surprisingly, stereotyping all Iraqi men, women and children who disagree with US foreign policy as murderers.

Many insurgents could just allow the interim Iraqi government to set up a democracy instead of fucking their country over. And no, I'm not saying every Iraqi man, woman or child, I'm saying insurgents who take part in killing innocents have no right to live.


However, one cannot deny that many insurgents do kill civilians in order to assist in fighting the US occupation. I wonder why that is? I wonder would the number of civilians being killed to get the US out of Iraq increase[/i or [i]decrease if the US left, or if they had never come?

Is this a joke? How are these mass murders 'aiding' the insurgents in kicking the US out of Iraq. And blaming the US for suicide bombers is completely ludicris. It's extremely hard to debate you guys when you're so knee-jerk anti-America.


Our comrades? Atrocities? More distortion of reality. I don't have time for childish games I'm afraid, and as such I am going to ignore any attempts to initiate them.

Are you delusional? How can you say that the crimes of Mugabe are a distortion of reality?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Not really. Such instances are very rare, which highlights the military's discipline.

It's hardly rare enough, especially if the US claim to be bringing peace and stability to Iraq. They simply can't afford to slip up like this.



Many insurgents could just allow the interim Iraqi government to set up a democracy instead of fucking their country over. And no, I'm not saying every Iraqi man, woman or child, I'm saying insurgents who take part in killing innocents have no right to live.

Yes, but of course the insurgents are acting on religious or nationalist motives, two extremely important factors which the US neglected to take into account when considering the potential ramifications of the war. This was a fatal mistake on the Americans' part, and the result is the bloodshed you see on the news every day.



Is this a joke? How are these mass murders 'aiding' the insurgents in kicking the US out of Iraq. And blaming the US for suicide bombers is completely ludicris. It's extremely hard to debate you guys when you're so knee-jerk anti-America.

How the hell would I know how they are "aiding" in kicking the US out? Ask the insurgent leaders, they are the ones committing the acts. The fact of the matter is that these atrocities would not be happening if it wasn't for US intervention.


Are you delusional? How can you say that the crimes of Mugabe are a distortion of reality?
Mugabe is no comrade of mine.

[Phalanx]

It's hardly rare enough, especially if the US claim to be bringing peace and stability to Iraq. They simply can't afford to slip up like this.

Failure to bring peace and stability to Iraq can be blamed fully on those behind the war. They failed to accurate plan what a post-major operations Iraq would look like, and subsequently the country fell apart.


Yes, but of course the insurgents are acting on religious or nationalist motives, two extremely important factors which the US neglected to take into account when considering the potential ramifications of the war. This was a fatal mistake on the Americans' part, and the result is the bloodshed you see on the news every day.

Very true.


How the hell would I know how they are "aiding" in kicking the US out? Ask the insurgent leaders, they are the ones committing the acts. The fact of the matter is that these atrocities would not be happening if it wasn't for US intervention.

That's what you were implying. The US did seriously fuck up when they tried to rebuild Iraq, but putting the blame on the US instead of insurgents for the suicide bombers is insane.


Mugabe is no comrade of mine.

I wasn't necessarily talking about you, I've just seen support voiced for him here.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Failure to bring peace and stability to Iraq can be blamed fully on those behind the war. They failed to accurate plan what a post-major operations Iraq would look like, and subsequently the country fell apart.
Agreed.



That's what you were implying. The US did seriously fuck up when they tried to rebuild Iraq, but putting the blame on the US instead of insurgents for the suicide bombers is insane.
You can say it's insane or ludicrous all you want, but you have yet to address my reasoning. Obviously I'm not saying that 100% of the blame lies on the US, however the insurgents are not solely responsible either. You have to acknowledge that this is a case of cause and effect, the cause being a poorly planned US occupation and the effect being the rise of the insurgent groups in question.

[Phalanx]

You can say it's insane or ludicrous all you want, but you have yet to address my reasoning. Obviously I'm not saying that 100% of the blame lies on the US, however the insurgents are not solely responsible either

I think 100% of the blame can be but on the insurgents for doing the actual suicide bombing, but yes, the U.S. must accept guilt in the failure of Iraq.


You have to acknowledge that this is a case of cause and effect, the cause being a poorly planned US occupation and the effect being the rise of the insurgent groups in question.

Again, the U.S. is definately at fault for not properly planning ahead, but the insurgents' actions can no way be pinned on the U.S.

[Rawthentic]

Again, the U.S. is definately at fault for not properly planning ahead, but the insurgents' actions can no way be pinned on the U.S.
The hell it can't. The U.S. army are the ones that put tribes against tribe and people against people to avoid a large resistance.

The U.S. is the spark, no doubt.

[KC]

It's extremely regrettable that civilian casualties occur, but you don't seem to understand that the US Military does avoid civilian casualties. The baby-killing insurgents, on the other hand, intentionally target civilians. And people here have the gall to say they're "freedom fighters".

To even suggest that the US government or the US military has a shred of decency with regards to Iraqi civilians is a fucking joke. Since the Iran-Iraq war, US foreign policy has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroyed the lives of millions. If you even paid attention to international news sources you would know that your assertion is complete bullshit.


I don't agree with Israel on every issue, and I think they can be overly harsh at times, but sometimes they need to be just to survive.

Yeah, they have to protect themselves against those 12-year-old rock-throwing terrorists, right? :rolleyes:

Give me a fucking break. Israel isn't acting defensively. It's had expansionist tendencies since its foundation, which has resulted in the deaths and displacement of thousands of people and the creation of a resistance movement.


Rogue soldiers did intentionally kill civilians but the military's policy is definately not to target civilians.

Have you ever been put through the propaganda machine to become a US soldier, or even know how it works? They don't teach them to "kill terrorists"; they teach them to kill Iraqis.


Civilian casualties are unavoidable, especially in modern warfare, where the enemy hides amoung civilians. But you guys couldn't bring yourselves to admit that your beloved insurgents intentionally kill civilians and hide among them as human shields.

Well, the problem with your analysis of the situation is that this war is simply between "extremist terrorist insurgents" and "noble US soldiers". The situation isn't that simple at all. If you knew anything about the situation, you would know that Iraqi civilians regularly pick up arms to fight against the illegal occupation, and that these people aren't "terrorists". You would also know that the vast majority of Iraqis is vehemently opposed to the occupation and will work to support the resistance in whatever form it takes. In this sense the entire civilian population somehow becomes "insurgents". So no, they're not using them as "human shields"; they're simply on the same side of the struggle against the occupying forces.


Right, but shouldn't you be focusing on yourselves just as much, especially when your fellow comrades are committing horrible atrocities?

Which "fellow comrades" are those?


they also get court martialed for things like that. it's not encouraged by anymeans by the leadership.

Sure, one or two might. But that's miniscule when compared with the amount of civilians that are actually killed by US forces. What do you mean it's not encouraged by the leadership? Did you already forget Abu Ghraib?


They did. They court-martialed the criminals.

How many were court martialed? Out of how many that actually committed the crime?


Not really. Such instances are very rare, which highlights the military's discipline.

Is that why around 70,000 civilians have died? You're going to term all of those as "collateral damage"?


Many insurgents could just allow the interim Iraqi government to set up a democracy instead of fucking their country over. And no, I'm not saying every Iraqi man, woman or child, I'm saying insurgents who take part in killing innocents have no right to live.

The problem with that is that the interim Iraqi government isn't a government that holds the people of Iraq in its interests. First, it's a Shi'ite dominated government, which means that Sunnis have absolutely no power. Second, it's a puppet government to the US. This is rather obvious by the fact that the elections were a sham and by the fact that all oil contracts were given to foreign companies and none to Iraqi firms, which will lead to a huge export of wealth from the country which will result in an overall impoverishment of the general population while the members of the bureaucracy sit comfortably from their payoffs from the oil companies. Third, the government is promoting Shar'ia law within the country and desires to turn it into a theocracy, which is detrimental to the entire populace.

So really, this government will never create a democracy that represents the interests of Iraqis. The only solution to this is to overthrow this government and set up one that is.

And these people really aren't "insurgents" because that would be implying that these people are resisting "lawful authority" when in reality the invasion and subsequent occupation of the country are illegal and therefore these people are involved in a legitimate resistance movement opposing an illegal occupying force.


Failure to bring peace and stability to Iraq can be blamed fully on those behind the war. They failed to accurate plan what a post-major operations Iraq would look like, and subsequently the country fell apart.

The biggest tactical failure they made was invading the country itself. There was no reason to invade the country other than to gain control of its oil in order to wield political power over China. There really wasn't a legitimate reason to invade, and to say that the problem with the war is that it was simply "mismanaged" is a joke. The US had no excuse going in in the first place and they have no excuse for being there right now. The illegal occupation is what's causing so much sectarian violence by playing the various groups against one another to maintain power in the region.

[yulives]

Judging from the stuff that I hear in the news and the stuff that I read on here, I believe that the words "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are probably the most overabused words in this issue. Im sure that some of the people resisting the US occupation are terrorists, at least those that blow themselves up and intentionaly kill civilians. But if thats terrorism, then the US soldiers that torture prisoners and massacre civilians are also terrorists. Double standards. "Its not terrorism when we do it" propaganda spread by the US government. Many Iraqis that fight against the US in different ways, like the armed miltias of Muktada Al Sadr, wich captured Falujah and defended it for several weeks (if I remeber correctly), are not terrorists, they are simply soldiers, just like the American soldiers. Its history repeating itself again. Those that resist a foreign occupation are always labeled as terrorists, bandits, ect. by the occupiying forces. Invasion of Iraq was illegitimate. And therefore, resistance against such an occupation is completly legitimate, as someone already said here.

What a lot of Americans seem to be forgeting is that it is not only they that are patriots. Many Iraqis also love their country, and they dont want to see a foreign army occupying it. I wonder what would happen if the US was invaded by Iraq? I guess many people would resist occupation, and wouldnt care if they would be called terrorists.

Many timest the US is refering to the insurgents as being "Islamofascists" or "religious fanatics". Well, Ive read a post on one of the other forums, by a US soldier, that is about to go on his second leg in Iraq. He stated that he is doing this because he loves his country AND HIS GOD. Double standards again. If a muslim says that hes fighting the US for Allah, or something like that, he is labeled a religious fanatic. But this guy that is fighting the insurgents for his god, isnt labeled a fanatic.

[Phalanx]

To even suggest that the US government or the US military has a shred of decency with regards to Iraqi civilians is a fucking joke. Since the Iran-Iraq war, US foreign policy has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and destroyed the lives of millions. If you even paid attention to international news sources you would know that your assertion is complete bullshit.

With regards to Iraq, the US government's actions have mainly been mistakes on their part, not a malicious attempt to kill them all. Sanctions set up were supposed to give Iraq enough oil money to give their citizens a sustainable way of life, but Iraq's regime decided to spend the money on other projects instead of the lives of its citizens.


Give me a fucking break. Israel isn't acting defensively. It's had expansionist tendencies since its foundation, which has resulted in the deaths and displacement of thousands of people and the creation of a resistance movement.

This current occupation is a war of greed, that's undeniable. But the war against Hezbollah was a pure defensive war, to try to destroy the threat it faced on the North, and considering the damage Hezbollah rockets did to infrastructure, it wasn't a minor threat.


Have you ever been put through the propaganda machine to become a US soldier, or even know how it works? They don't teach them to "kill terrorists"; they teach them to kill Iraqis.

You sound so sure of yourself. Alright, you caught them, the US militarys' plan is to kill as many Iraqis as they can before they get out of Iraq.

First they were trained to kill Iraqi soldiers, then they were trained to kill insurgents. I guess you're right, because most of the enemy probably holds Iraqi passports.


Well, the problem with your analysis of the situation is that this war is simply between "extremist terrorist insurgents" and "noble US soldiers". The situation isn't that simple at all. If you knew anything about the situation, you would know that Iraqi civilians regularly pick up arms to fight against the illegal occupation, and that these people aren't "terrorists". You would also know that the vast majority of Iraqis is vehemently opposed to the occupation and will work to support the resistance in whatever form it takes. In this sense the entire civilian population somehow becomes "insurgents". So no, they're not using them as "human shields"; they're simply on the same side of the struggle against the occupying forces.

The entire Iraq was a mistake, but the US has an obligation to fix it. I don't see the world in black and white as many members here, but I think currently it would be best for Iraq if it was pacified and some sort of a democracy was set up. If the insurgents won, a number of things could happen, but most likely a tyrant would set up power there, whether that would be a fundamentalist Shia party or a renewed Ba'ath party.


Which "fellow comrades" are those?

Robert Mugabe and other anti-imperialist "freedom fighters".


How many were court martialed? Out of how many that actually committed the crime?

I believe all of the Marines involved were court martialed.


Is that why around 70,000 civilians have died? You're going to term all of those as "collateral damage"?

In modern warfare there will be more civilian casualties. That is a fact. Gone are the days when battles were fought on open plains far away from civilians. When major targets are within built-up areas, it's very difficult to avoid civilan casualties. So yes, most of those civilians lost were collateral damage, but a tiny percent were killed purposely by criminal soldiers.


The problem with that is that the interim Iraqi government isn't a government that holds the people of Iraq in its interests. First, it's a Shi'ite dominated government, which means that Sunnis have absolutely no power.

The government lost much of its crediblity when the Sunnis boycotted the elections. Even so, the Sunni Arabs only comprise 20% of the population, and because they enjoyed a monopoly on power for so long, they knew a democratic form of government would erase Sunni hegemony.


Second, it's a puppet government to the US. This is rather obvious by the fact that the elections were a sham and by the fact that all oil contracts were given to foreign companies and none to Iraqi firms, which will lead to a huge export of wealth from the country which will result in an overall impoverishment of the general population while the members of the bureaucracy sit comfortably from their payoffs from the oil companies.

Obviously the government will have close ties to the US, but I'm not defending the corruption of the interim government. Because of the extreme corruption and a devastating insurgency the US is definately fighting a losing battle.


Third, the government is promoting Shar'ia law within the country and desires to turn it into a theocracy, which is detrimental to the entire populace.

Link please.


The biggest tactical failure they made was invading the country itself. There was no reason to invade the country other than to gain control of its oil in order to wield political power over China. There really wasn't a legitimate reason to invade, and to say that the problem with the war is that it was simply "mismanaged" is a joke. The US had no excuse going in in the first place and they have no excuse for being there right now. The illegal occupation is what's causing so much sectarian violence by playing the various groups against one another to maintain power in the region.

Very true, the US didn't have a right to invade. But seeing as they did, it would've been much better if the US had planned ahead. If they hadn't dissolved the armed forces and the government, the early days of post-invasion would've been much less chaotic. Instead there was widespread looting and the insurgency began to take root.

The US doesn't want to play groups off each other, because they're losing even more political face in Iraq. The US is determined to see a peaceful Iraq, not one split apart by political and religious divides.

[Invader Zim]

I know quite a few people who have joined the military. One joined because he wanted to be an aircraft mechanic and the RAF rather gives him a head start and free training in that department. Another joined because he had no money and no qualifications. Another joined because his dad had done before him and he, from a young age was set upon it. The final one did because... well I don't know and I don't think he does either.

None of them are especially patriotic, at least no more so than any other random Joe on the street. The fact of the matter is, in this country at least, the military offers reasonable wages, low cost of living, a good pention, free training and a chanse to go on what is percieved to be a adventure.

[KC]

With regards to Iraq, the US government's actions have mainly been mistakes on their part, not a malicious attempt to kill them all. Sanctions set up were supposed to give Iraq enough oil money to give their citizens a sustainable way of life, but Iraq's regime decided to spend the money on other projects instead of the lives of its citizens.

Mistakes? These "sanctions" killed 500,000 children alone, which Madeline Albright thought was an "acceptable loss". Here's the problem with this statement. The US bombed the shit out of Iraq, destroying much of its needed infrastructure, then imposed the strictest sanctions ever imposed on a country, and denied them the resources required to rebuild that infrastructure. This wasn't an accident that the US vetoed any financial allowance large enough to rebuild the infrastructure; it was intentional.

Secondly, the Iraqi regime hardly spent any of its money on other projects because it couldn't. The money that was granted to the Iraqi government through the Oil for Food program couldn't be diverted to "other projects" because it never even entered the country!

Moreover, the destruction of necessary infrastructure along with the sanctions caused a massive humanitarian crisis because people didn't have adequate access to food or clean water (again caused by US destruction of infrastructure and a denial of funds). The Iraqi government ended up instituting a massive food distribution program that's nearly been unparalleled anywhere else. It was described as "second to none" by Tun Myat, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq from 2000 to 2002. So all of your claims above are simply bullshit.


This current occupation is a war of greed, that's undeniable. But the war against Hezbollah was a pure defensive war, to try to destroy the threat it faced on the North, and considering the damage Hezbollah rockets did to infrastructure, it wasn't a minor threat.

You obviously don't understand. The creation of Hizb'allah is due to Israeli policy in the region in the exact same way that US foreign policy creates such vehement anti-American sentiment in parts of the globe that it destroys. So you can't say that they're acting "defensively" with regards to just Hizb'allah while their overall policy is expansionist. That's like saying Germany was acting defensively to allied forces.

Secondly, the Israeli occupation is an illegal one, and is the longest illegal occupation in history. By definition the resistance to Israeli occupation is legitimate, which includes Hizb'allah.


You sound so sure of yourself. Alright, you caught them, the US militarys' plan is to kill as many Iraqis as they can before they get out of Iraq.

I hardly think 70,000 civilians dying is typical "collateral damage" and I don't know how anyone could think that.


The entire Iraq was a mistake, but the US has an obligation to fix it. I don't see the world in black and white as many members here, but I think currently it would be best for Iraq if it was pacified and some sort of a democracy was set up. If the insurgents won, a number of things could happen, but most likely a tyrant would set up power there, whether that would be a fundamentalist Shia party or a renewed Ba'ath party.

But the thing is that the US isn't going to fix it. Earlier they were funding Shi'ite groups in order to maintain power in the country, and in doing so the Shi'ites have gained a lot of power, both within the government and through nongovernmental forces. Now the US has started to fund Sunni groups, some of which have known ties to al Qa'ida (some even trained at al Qa'ida training facilities!). Playing these groups against each other isn't going to fix the problem, and the US has never and will never implement a policy that will help solve the problem. The best solution right now is for the occupying forces to leave so that these groups are no longer funded and the violence goes down. Plus you also have to remember that many of the resistance fighters aren't even from Iraq, and simply went there to fight the US forces illegally occupying the country.



Robert Mugabe and other anti-imperialist "freedom fighters".


Not my comrade.


I believe all of the Marines involved were court martialed.

Then you're a fucking idiot if you think every single war crime has been discovered and prosecuted.


The government lost much of its crediblity when the Sunnis boycotted the elections. Even so, the Sunni Arabs only comprise 20% of the population, and because they enjoyed a monopoly on power for so long, they knew a democratic form of government would erase Sunni hegemony.

Actually they chose not to participate in the elections because they knew they would be a farce which would lead to a US puppet regime, which it has. And obviously not giving a significant portion of the population representation in the government isn't going to create a government that represents the interests of Iraqis.


Link please.

Link (http://houzanmahmoud.blogspot.com/2006/04/aljaziranet-interview-with-yanar.html#links)


The US doesn't want to play groups off each other, because they're losing even more political face in Iraq. The US is determined to see a peaceful Iraq, not one split apart by political and religious divides.

If they wanted to see a peaceful Iraq and didn't want to play groups against each other, then why are they? (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh)