|
Post by TheCritique on May 12, 2004 20:00:39 GMT
Gentlemen, I think it's time for an update on the Iraq situation, so here goes:
The photos of both British and American troops allegedly abusing Iraqis is causing untold touble in the middle east. Recent events include the beheading of an Amercan contractor, and the vandalism of several graves in the Gaza strip. It is making me wonder whether it was a good thing for the photos to come out: Does the case for justice for the prisoners outweigh the untold trouble it causes for the other Coalition troops.
Some of the photos of British prisoners abusing Iraqis are fakes, but the damage has already been done.
There is one thing people are getting wrong though: There seems to be general opinion that this kind of thing hasn't happened in previous wars. It has. It has happened many times. This is the situation:
A group of enemies has killed several of your fellow countrymen in battle. You are not going to forget that easily. You resent them, you feel bitter for your captives, and so you take out your revenge on them through torture.
It happened in WW2 for example. My grandfather was taken as a POW, and when Europe was liberated by the allied forces many former captives shot their captives through revenge: Captives had been forced to work in salt mines under both horrific conditions and the wrath of Nazi guards. Captives had been through hell, and shooting the guards made them even.
This could be likened to the present day situation. These Iraqis in jails have killed your fellow countrymen in battle. It is natural to resent them, and therefore they carried out the torture.
I am in no way saying that this justifies the situation, but I am saying that this is the probable reason for it. In the old days this treatment of prisoners was not cared about. The political climate is much more sensitive today.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on May 13, 2004 9:57:38 GMT
The situation is growing steadily worse, and now we have these photos of Iraqi prisoners being tortured, by British and American Soliders. Yesterday, an unknown Iraqi rebel cell, executed American civilian contracter, Nick Berg, and then showed the pictures on the web. They claim that this is a direct response for the torture of prisoners. I am personally disgusted with this vile attack on an innocent man, and it has shown that if we do not continue and finish off what we started then there will be more who end up like Nick Berg.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 20, 2004 15:46:56 GMT
Haven't heard much on this subject on the news recently chaps. Does anyone know of any developments? Are there any charges being brought on those responsible for the prisoner abuse?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on May 20, 2004 17:50:37 GMT
I believe I heard the other day the guy responsible for taking the photos has been given a measly one year in prison for his part in the abuse. This is uncomfirmed however, just something i heard in passing.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 21, 2004 1:22:32 GMT
I can confirm that he was given a one year sentence and dismissed from the service on the 19th May. Even more alarmingly, he appears to be the only persecutor likely to get a custodial sentence.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 21, 2004 15:06:34 GMT
Why is this the case? Surely it cannot be lack of evidence (take a look at the photos).
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 21, 2004 17:27:06 GMT
Legislative corruption in the US military. It's a common problem in the army, they always close ranks around most of their people and look after their own, while making do with one or two scapegoats.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 4, 2004 21:45:07 GMT
Gentlemen, this following question is circulating round the media, and I have decided to put it to you:
Is the Iraq war responsible for the increase in fuel prices?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jun 4, 2004 23:42:45 GMT
Indirectly yes. In the longer term, once the USA gets proper control of the supplies in Iraq the prices should start to come down, but in the shorter term, the OPEC countries have heightened security and border controls, and the resulting slowdown of oil exports means that Middle East oil is becoming scarcer in the West. And the scarcer something is, especially something that's in demand, the more money you have to offer to purchase it.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 5, 2004 12:41:27 GMT
Is the assasination of another contractor in Saudi Arabia a few days ago more directly responsible? Is it the war itself or the specific incident?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 28, 2004 18:57:47 GMT
"SADDAM PLAYED NO PART IN SEPTEMBER 11TH, SAYS COMMISSION" - A headline.
The coalition countries now have no justification for invading Iraq in moral terms:
The main part of the pro-war argument was the WMD's. Surprise, surprise, they failed to show up.
Saddam was allegedly collaberating with those responsible for 11/9. This commission has shown that Saddam did not play any part in the attacks.
We went to war to free Iraq from tyranny. Although Iraq will soon have it's new 'interim government', there is still a major terrorist threat.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Jun 29, 2004 12:27:35 GMT
I must admit that I am now completly againist the US's approach in Iraq, which I think shows how badly this conflict has gone for me to perform a complete u-turn on my opinion. But I am not here to question that US's past policy, but to look to the future.
Now that Iraq's new government is in charge, the US finally has an excuse to pull it's major officials out of the battlezone. But putting forward the date of the hand-over the US has made it's first smart move. I hope that the soliders will be able to shift the situation back to stability, but there is still a long way to go before things return to normal for the Iraqi people.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 30, 2004 21:02:43 GMT
...but there is still a long way to go before things return to normal for the Iraqi people. Can't help asking, but how you define 'normal' to the Iraqi people? They have no experience of what we would define as normal. Remember, they have lived under Saddam for decades, and for many it would be their entire lives. Do we define 'normal' as living under the rule of an evil dictator? Or maybe living with the threat of frequent suicide bombings is 'normal'? Maybe...
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 6, 2004 17:53:00 GMT
As much as I hate to drag this overly long topic up from the list then I felt I had a thing or two to add to it. Upon reading a newspaper article a couple of days ago I thought about something a little more seriously. Looking back on this topic as a whole, and yes I have re-read as much of it as is not long ramblings, then there seems very little consideration of the Iraqi people in here. We seem to have decided, as many world nations did with the original decision, that we know what is best for Iraq and its people. This is shown by the huge amount of American attachement to the trial of Saddam. I have seen countless things in the newspapers and on the news of Iraqi people whose lives have been ruined by the war. For example wedding parties, 'suspicious' vehicles and such other incidents where the wrong targets were taken out without much justification. There is the prisoner abuse, although many pictures were fake then the issue itself is very real even if British troops are not the ones involved. One thing that did strike me as a shock was the number of everyday Iraqis who have not actually lost family in the conflict but still think things are worse without Saddam. A good example is a female Iraqi athlete who used to do training runs at night, now thanks to the useless security systems in place it is not safe for her to go out at night and she must do her running in the baking sun. There are many stories like this, a lot of Iraqis did not like Saddam but feel that as long as they kept on the right side of his regime at least they got basic amenities and safety. From their point of view the coalition interference has decreased their standard of living. Have any of us until now actually considered how they feel? Or do you still think that you, our government or the leaders of the coalition know whats best for the Iraqis more than they do?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 6, 2004 18:14:54 GMT
I agree with everything you say, except for one thing: The wedding. Let me explain...
Apparently, the wedding bombing was not a mistake. It was an intentional bombing. However, the coalition was not aware that it was a wedding. They had recieved a report from somewhere (probably nearby troops) about gunfire. Someone, either the reporter, or the 'bomber commanders' thought this was a pocket of resistance and bombed it. Only later did they realise it was a wedding.
The gunfire was due to an old tradition of firing the guns in the air. All you have to do is look at some footage from an Arab country of of victorious Arabs; they're all firing their guns in the air. This is what happened at the wedding. The troops mistakenly thought it was some resistance, and bombed it.
Therefore the coalition could be deemed not to be at fault. I have to criticise the wedding guests here; Iraq is still at war, and the guests were stupid enough to fire their guns! It was inviting trouble.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 6, 2004 19:35:27 GMT
Well your arguement is correct, although why they would be so hasty in bombing. Sending a soldier or two to investigate is a lot less risky, it would have revealed it to be a wedding party and with the exception of a few scared wedding guests then no harm would be done. Instead a huge amount of chaos, loss and grief was called over a mistake. Yes it is a war and the guests were most stupid to do that, and in any war casualties are to be expected but in this case I still feel that bombing just because gunfire was heard was a little bit too hasty. Proved by what it turned out to be.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 6, 2004 20:16:17 GMT
I guess you're right, but the report might have come alongside other similar incidents in the region, which were known to be ingurgents. Therefore the coalition could not waste time confirming every report, and therefore mistakenly assumed the wedding was resistance, and bombed it.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 7, 2004 12:28:00 GMT
Wasting time? How would confirming they are actually attacking the right targets be wasting time? I'm sure that you would understand should a huge number of your family and friends be killed by troops who hadn't even bothered to check they were enemies. Just because they had a lot of reports does not excuse this appalling mistake on the part of coalition troops.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 7, 2004 15:28:13 GMT
NB. I can only confirm things that were in my original post on this particular topic. The rest is speculation.
I am not excusing anything. I was merely trying to suggest why this has happened with regards to the reports and the failed detection of the wedding.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 7, 2004 16:51:10 GMT
Yes but even with that reason, it does not make it acceptable. The wedding party is as good an example of the coalition doing its job badly as anything else.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jul 8, 2004 8:37:22 GMT
True, but I think you will agree that they are not totally at fault in this incident?
Despite the coalition's failings, I repeat, it was incredibly foolish for the wedding guests to fire guns considering the war situation.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 8, 2004 10:56:09 GMT
Yes I do agree, not totally at fault but my no means deviod of fault. Aside from individual incidents though, the coalition have done a poor job as peacekeepers in general. Iraqis know how awful Saddam's reign of terror was, having live under it for decades, and for some of the to genuinely believe they would be better of or even safer under the rule of Saddam just highlights the problems even more.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 12, 2004 10:10:50 GMT
Here's an update on the Shia uprising in Najaf and Kut;- news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3557446.stmApparently, Najaf has now become so torn apart by the fighting that it's almost deserted. Most remaining occupants are presumably Shia militia dug in on the ground. The chances of the US taking the city back without resorting to further bombing attacks seems minimal, but further bombing will probably leave the city a burnt out shell. Is it worth continuing the battle for control of Najaf, or will it perhaps be better to try and come to terms with the Shias, who have only risen up as they feel that they won't get fair representation in the new Government anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Aug 12, 2004 10:24:01 GMT
The US will bomb the crap out of the city. They don't need to come to terms with the Shia militiamen, as they no longer hold any legal claim to the oil business, so Bush will have them all killed. Wiping out a whole ethnic group because they don't fit into the government's plans? Can anyone think of any other brutal right-wing dictators who'd do such a thing in Iraq?
Like I said. Should Bush face the death penalty for his crimes?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Aug 13, 2004 11:35:02 GMT
In answer to your last question, possibly.
There's one thing I still don't understand; The Shia were brutally oppressed under Saddam's rule, yet they won't co-operate with any new government, preferring to uprise against their liberators.
If Sadr city (Najaf) is full of nothing but Militiamen it should be bombed into oblivion, and if that is the case why has the US not already done that? It would be beneficial: The elimination of a threat, including Muqtadr Al Sadr who could spark further uprisings.
And where have all the innocents gone if they're not militiamen?
|
|