Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zar · 03-25-2003, 01:16 AM

It has struck me that the U.S. hopes to win the favor of the Iraqi people and the world by trying to keep civilian casualties low, or so they say. This is not to say that this has succeeded so far, with the U.S. having registered a significant number of dead and wounded civilians already in Iraq and even some in Syria due to a stray missile. (Stray missiles and bombs have hit Syria, Turkey and Iran!!)

But really, what kind of warped mindset thinks that pre-emptive, unilateral military strikes across the globe at will are just dandy, as long as the precision weapons try to "minimize" the inevitable civilian casualties? And do not the people of these nations love their soldiers as brothers, fathers, husbands and friends as Americans do theirs? Do these people really believe this garbage? Do they really expect everyone to dance in the streets as the American machine rolls into town just because there is a smaller than average rate of children getting their heads blown off by this foreign invader? This, of course, does not even consider the sordid history that makes this particular invader potentially even less welcome.

I think this war and the mentality behind it is quite astonishingly out to lunch.

paul30 · 03-25-2003, 07:55 AM

One useful thing to do in thinking about international relations (one which is hardly ever done, alas) is to put yourself in the other nation's position.

How do you think people in the US would react if another country started bombing us and racing through, blitzkrieg fashion, with tanks and troops?

Even the bitter anti-government survivalists would pick up rifles and fight back.

So it is hardly surprising that Iraqis are fighting back--and that the people who lose their fathers and brothers and sons in combat are not welcoming US troops with open arms but with hatred and anger.

To think otherwise shows unbelievable narcissism. But this adminstration is powered by nothing BUT unbelievable narcissism, as far as I can tell.

Hubble head · 03-25-2003, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zar
It has struck me that the U.S. hopes to win the favor of the Iraqi people and the world by trying to keep civilian casualties low, or so they say. This is not to say that this has succeeded so far, with the U.S. having registered a significant number of dead and wounded civilians already in Iraq and even some in Syria due to a stray missile. (Stray missiles and bombs have hit Syria, Turkey and Iran!!)

But really, what kind of warped mindset thinks that pre-emptive, unilateral military strikes across the globe at will are just dandy, as long as the precision weapons try to "minimize" the inevitable civilian casualties? And do not the people of these nations love their soldiers as brothers, fathers, husbands and friends as Americans do theirs? Do these people really believe this garbage? Do they really expect everyone to dance in the streets as the American machine rolls into town just because there is a smaller than average rate of children getting their heads blown off by this foreign invader? This, of course, does not even consider the sordid history that makes this particular invader potentially even less welcome.

I think this war and the mentality behind it is quite astonishingly out to lunch.

The problem, as has been stated so many times before, is the media. I just moved this weekend and no longer get my cheerleading corporate cable news channels. But one PBS station here in Dallas, channel 2, is broadcasting the BBC feed 24 hrs a day. HUGE difference in how I see things unfolding. Huge. Thank you, BBC for at least giving me a reach around while ramming the backside.

It's kind of weird to be introduced to the Brits no nonsense (or commercials) low spin coverage midstream after Faux, CNN and NBC's "rah-rah US great...blah blah...we are lucky - chuckle chuckle.....blah blah raped women...chemical weapons.....blah blah protests weak...everyone for war - coalition growing...blah blah US great! blah..."

Some of my friends who lean closer to being against the war say they are for it because they believe we will liberate Iraq from an asshole dictator and help bring them out of the dark ages. This is the one positive spin I have heard that holds any water but we were the ones who put them in the middle ages in the first place and there are plenty of places in the world right now that make pre invasion Iraq look pretty decent.

US citizens who did not pay attention to world affairs beyond what CNN told them come into this with a huge intelligence deficit and easily shaped opinion. Those of us who thought something was strange with this crew back in 1999 are having our worst fears come true. I want to shout at the top of my lungs "I tried to tell you!" everywhere I go.:banghead:

Ruy Lopez · 03-25-2003, 08:48 AM

From Zar;
Do these people really believe this garbage? Do they really expect everyone to dance in the streets as the American machine rolls into town just because there is a smaller than average rate of children getting their heads blown off by this foreign invader?

They probably do not believe the dancing in the streets, that more fanatical units will surrender. But I think they are warped and deluded enough to believe that:

1)Basrah and environs would surrender readily
2)units along the road to Baghdad would offer only token resistance and give up too
3)general population in Baghdad would be largely supportive; that their propaganda would work.
4)the US military would thoroughly intimidate the opposition

This is what I meant earlier by " US is underestimating the human will to resist". I suspect that is the reason they do not have a larger force. A force of 250,000 does not mean 250,000 fighting bodies; a large part would be logistics and administrative. Does anybody know how many are fighters?

Yes, your political leadership really stink. Were the US occupied more recently or they had to fight for their freedom, the people would think differently and your leaders could not pull this stunt.

LIFE UNDER A DICTATORSHIP OR POLICE STATE

This is connected to the OP and the propaganda and misinformation inflicted by the US gov't on the US public regarding life under a dictatorship. Americans are so ignorant of this topic including many on this board.

Ninety-nine percent of a population under a dictatorship can and often live normal prosperous lives when the economy is properly managed and world economic conditions are favorable. Iraq seems to fit this description at least during the late 70s up to the mid 80s. Oil prices were high are gov't revenue plentiful even after the dictator has skimmed his "management fee". Only those engaged in rival politics or participating in militant movements are miserable because there is very little to no tolerance for them.

I know what I am talking about because I lived under one for 14 years. If one could do a realistic survey, he would probably find out something like this:

1)Twenty percent (20%) are strongly opposed to the dictatorship that they are somewhat willing to manifest some resistance but are generally secretive and fearful. A puny 1% would organize and actively resist. I belonged here, the 19 %.
2)Fifty to 60% percent will publicly say the Dictator is okay but privately they have mixed feelings. But this people are overly preoccupied with earning a living that they do not have strong opinions. The silent majority.
3)The remaining 20% are so uninformed, too far out as farmers and fishermen that the gov't does not touch their lives. They do not know what's going on.

4)Active support for the dictator would be small, probably 5 to 10 percent and they come from nos. 1 and 2 above.

A dictator's life is relatively easy when the economy is doing ok. His problems multiply rapidly when recessions hit.

In Iraq, people blame the US for the 12 year economic sanctions. Who else?

Amen-Moses · 03-25-2003, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hubble head
Thank you, BBC for at least giving me a reach around while ramming the backside.

It's kind of weird to be introduced to the Brits no nonsense (or commercials) low spin coverage

If you think that try to get hold of CCTV-9 the Chinese international (i.e it's in Engrish) channel. They give a totally no spin coverage.

Amen-Moses

Hubble head · 03-25-2003, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruy Lopez

This is what I meant earlier by " US is underestimating the human will to resist". I suspect that is the reason they do not have a larger force. A force of 250,000 does not mean 250,000 fighting bodies; a large part would be logistics and administrative. Does anybody know how many are fighters?

On the math -I was once told as a Marine in a support unit that for every fighting unit you need at least two for support. How far you are extended (damn that's one vulnerable and scary umbilical cord we have coming out of Kuwait) casualties and duration of conflict can change that math dramatically. That's why all Marines are trained as infantry, no matter what their job is.

LIFE UNDER A DICTATORSHIP OR POLICE STATE

This is connected to the OP and the propaganda and misinformation inflicted by the US gov't on the US public regarding life under a dictatorship. Americans are so ignorant of this topic including many on this board.

Ninety-nine percent of a population under a dictatorship can and often live normal prosperous lives when the economy is properly managed and world economic conditions are favorable. Iraq seems to fit this description at least during the late 70s up to the mid 80s. Oil prices were high are gov't revenue plentiful even after the dictator has skimmed his "management fee". Only those engaged in rival politics or participating in militant movements are miserable because there is very little to no tolerance for them.

I know what I am talking about because I lived under one for 14 years. If one could do a realistic survey, he would probably find out something like this:

1)Twenty percent (20%) are strongly opposed to the dictatorship that they are somewhat willing to manifest some resistance but are generally secretive and fearful. A puny 1% would organize and actively resist. I belonged here, the 19 %.
2)Fifty to 60% percent will publicly say the Dictator is okay but privately they have mixed feelings. But this people are overly preoccupied with earning a living that they do not have strong opinions. The silent majority.
3)The remaining 20% are so uninformed, too far out as farmers and fishermen that the gov't does not touch their lives. They do not know what's going on.

4)Active support for the dictator would be small, probably 5 to 10 percent and they come from nos. 1 and 2 above.

A dictator's life is relatively easy when the economy is doing ok. His problems multiply rapidly when recessions hit.

That seems to be oddly familiar to what I see here these days.

leonarde · 03-25-2003, 09:18 AM

Posted:

Quote:

How do you think people in the US would react if another country started bombing us and racing through, blitzkrieg fashion, with tanks and troops?

Depends. And I don't mean the undergarment.

If we were ruled for 20 to 30 years by a one-party dictator the likes of Saddam Hussein, I would welcome the invaders with open arms.

Cheers!

Liquidrage · 03-25-2003, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by paul30
One useful thing to do in thinking about international relations (one which is hardly ever done, alas) is to put yourself in the other nation's position.

How do you think people in the US would react if another country started bombing us and racing through, blitzkrieg fashion, with tanks and troops?

Even the bitter anti-government survivalists would pick up rifles and fight back.

So it is hardly surprising that Iraqis are fighting back--and that the people who lose their fathers and brothers and sons in combat are not welcoming US troops with open arms but with hatred and anger.

To think otherwise shows unbelievable narcissism. But this adminstration is powered by nothing BUT unbelievable narcissism, as far as I can tell.

Yes, very fair comparision. Modern US vs modern Iraq.

Could you try having a little bit of integrity when presenting your point?

If you would like to press the issue I will gladly debate with you the lifestyle of an typical American vs a typical Iraqi.

seanie · 03-25-2003, 09:31 AM

Eh?

What are you complaining about?

It's a fairly straightforward point.

Most people, in most countries, have a degree of national pride.

When invaded, regardless of the motivations of the invader, they frequently take a dim view of it. They frequently put aside their differences and fight.

Not all of 'em. There may be a fair number who actually welcome the invading forces.

But it shouldn't be too suprising if a number of ordinary Iraqis, even those not overly keen on Saddam, may not exactly welcome us with open arms. The sucess of this enterprise may depend to a large extent on how many of them feel that way.

Liquidrage · 03-25-2003, 09:36 AM

Eh? What are you complaining about my complaint for.

The initial comparision ignored any and all differences between the current day standard of living, as well as the treatment of people by their own governments, between the nations.

Your post isn't a comparision but contains valid points explaining why many would fight against the US.

03-25-2003, 01:16 AM	#1
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	Even "Hearts and Minds" aspect of war is arrogant It has struck me that the U.S. hopes to win the favor of the Iraqi people and the world by trying to keep civilian casualties low, or so they say. This is not to say that this has succeeded so far, with the U.S. having registered a significant number of dead and wounded civilians already in Iraq and even some in Syria due to a stray missile. (Stray missiles and bombs have hit Syria, Turkey and Iran!!) But really, what kind of warped mindset thinks that pre-emptive, unilateral military strikes across the globe at will are just dandy, as long as the precision weapons try to "minimize" the inevitable civilian casualties? And do not the people of these nations love their soldiers as brothers, fathers, husbands and friends as Americans do theirs? Do these people really believe this garbage? Do they really expect everyone to dance in the streets as the American machine rolls into town just because there is a smaller than average rate of children getting their heads blown off by this foreign invader? This, of course, does not even consider the sordid history that makes this particular invader potentially even less welcome. I think this war and the mentality behind it is quite astonishingly out to lunch.

03-25-2003, 07:55 AM	#2
paul30 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 870	put yourself in others' places One useful thing to do in thinking about international relations (one which is hardly ever done, alas) is to put yourself in the other nation's position. How do you think people in the US would react if another country started bombing us and racing through, blitzkrieg fashion, with tanks and troops? Even the bitter anti-government survivalists would pick up rifles and fight back. So it is hardly surprising that Iraqis are fighting back--and that the people who lose their fathers and brothers and sons in combat are not welcoming US troops with open arms but with hatred and anger. To think otherwise shows unbelievable narcissism. But this adminstration is powered by nothing BUT unbelievable narcissism, as far as I can tell.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2003, 08:48 AM	#4
Ruy Lopez Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Manila Posts: 5,516	From Zar; Do these people really believe this garbage? Do they really expect everyone to dance in the streets as the American machine rolls into town just because there is a smaller than average rate of children getting their heads blown off by this foreign invader? They probably do not believe the dancing in the streets, that more fanatical units will surrender. But I think they are warped and deluded enough to believe that: 1)Basrah and environs would surrender readily 2)units along the road to Baghdad would offer only token resistance and give up too 3)general population in Baghdad would be largely supportive; that their propaganda would work. 4)the US military would thoroughly intimidate the opposition This is what I meant earlier by " US is underestimating the human will to resist". I suspect that is the reason they do not have a larger force. A force of 250,000 does not mean 250,000 fighting bodies; a large part would be logistics and administrative. Does anybody know how many are fighters? Yes, your political leadership really stink. Were the US occupied more recently or they had to fight for their freedom, the people would think differently and your leaders could not pull this stunt. LIFE UNDER A DICTATORSHIP OR POLICE STATE This is connected to the OP and the propaganda and misinformation inflicted by the US gov't on the US public regarding life under a dictatorship. Americans are so ignorant of this topic including many on this board. Ninety-nine percent of a population under a dictatorship can and often live normal prosperous lives when the economy is properly managed and world economic conditions are favorable. Iraq seems to fit this description at least during the late 70s up to the mid 80s. Oil prices were high are gov't revenue plentiful even after the dictator has skimmed his "management fee". Only those engaged in rival politics or participating in militant movements are miserable because there is very little to no tolerance for them. I know what I am talking about because I lived under one for 14 years. If one could do a realistic survey, he would probably find out something like this: 1)Twenty percent (20%) are strongly opposed to the dictatorship that they are somewhat willing to manifest some resistance but are generally secretive and fearful. A puny 1% would organize and actively resist. I belonged here, the 19 %. 2)Fifty to 60% percent will publicly say the Dictator is okay but privately they have mixed feelings. But this people are overly preoccupied with earning a living that they do not have strong opinions. The silent majority. 3)The remaining 20% are so uninformed, too far out as farmers and fishermen that the gov't does not touch their lives. They do not know what's going on. 4)Active support for the dictator would be small, probably 5 to 10 percent and they come from nos. 1 and 2 above. A dictator's life is relatively easy when the economy is doing ok. His problems multiply rapidly when recessions hit. In Iraq, people blame the US for the 12 year economic sanctions. Who else?

03-25-2003, 09:31 AM	#9
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	Eh? What are you complaining about? It's a fairly straightforward point. Most people, in most countries, have a degree of national pride. When invaded, regardless of the motivations of the invader, they frequently take a dim view of it. They frequently put aside their differences and fight. Not all of 'em. There may be a fair number who actually welcome the invading forces. But it shouldn't be too suprising if a number of ordinary Iraqis, even those not overly keen on Saddam, may not exactly welcome us with open arms. The sucess of this enterprise may depend to a large extent on how many of them feel that way.

03-25-2003, 09:36 AM	#10
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Eh? What are you complaining about my complaint for. The initial comparision ignored any and all differences between the current day standard of living, as well as the treatment of people by their own governments, between the nations. Your post isn't a comparision but contains valid points explaining why many would fight against the US.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.