1st Person Account from Iraq

[Emerald Aeris]

I would also shoot back, ultimately it's me or them, but how can anyone here, doing something like that for the first time, say that they wouldn't hesitate? I really don't know if that's even possible. Not without hesitation anyway. You're not the Terminator. I doubt you can turn off your compassion just because they're firing at you, especially if you've never done it before!

That article is just sick. I don't understand how someone can hide behind women and children, or make children fight. How the hell can they justify themselves? What can they be thinking? What possible motive could drive them to such acts? Stories like that make me rethink my position against the war.

[escobert]

That article is just sick. I don't understand how someone can hide behind women and children, or make children fight. How the hell can they justify themselves? What can they be thinking? What possible motive could drive them to such acts? Stories like that make me rethink my position against the war.

Exactly they also hide in mosquses where US soldiers wont fire since we feel that churches and such shouldn't be invaded by our troops. Also we don't fight durring their praying times yet they attack whenever however they feel. We "torture" some soldiers and the entire world is on our backs. Yet look how they fight.

[Shadow Nexus]

Stories like that make me rethink my position against the war.

Maybe those children would have never fought if it was not for the war.

We "torture" some soldiers and the entire world is on our backs. Yet look how they fight.

No, no, not "torture", but torture. And you can ask responsabilities to a state or an army. You cannot do that with a terrorist group, because a terrorist group is supposed to- intrinsecally- violate those rights, and thus the denounce occurs because of them being terrorists, not "terrorists that torture".

Um...I don't know if I am explaining myself: It's not the same for an army that claims to defend freedom to torture than it is for a terrorist group. Armies are not supposed to torture.

[escobert]

All I'm trying to say is that no one says good job US for following these rules and doing the right thing by not attacking their holy places and such. All people do is shoot down the US and say how bad we are.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

It's happened several times before, so I falsely assumed it would happen again. Please forgive me.

Of course, it's quite all right. I've known several conservatives to be that way, so I know the feeling quite well.

All I'm trying to say is that no one says good job US for following these rules and doing the right thing by not attacking their holy places and such. All people do is shoot down the US and say how bad we are.

Perhaps because we invaded their homeland? Under questionable pretenses? I can personally understand their anger, if not their methods, but the fact remains, war is an ugly, ugly business, and people will do what they have to to survive. They use women as shields, you would gun down children. It all comes down to survival of the fittest.

If we should ever need an example of humanity at its most primitive state, we have but to look at the way we resolve our differences.

[escobert]

I agree with you about that. War does show the real side of humans I think atleast and I wish there were other ways for countrys to settle things without fighting but I feel that a quote from Gundam wing would be best used here "as long as there is man on Earth, there will always be battles" I think it's just a part of human nature to fight for what we belive in as we are now. We are disputing about what we believe in. I'm sure most others feel the exact opposite of this but well it seems most others see things the exact opposite as me on most things

[Emerald Aeris]

"We "torture" some soldiers and the entire world is on our backs."

Don't put it in quotes. Those soldiers WERE tortured. The world SHOULD be on your back. As far as I'm concerned, the disturbed individuals hiding behind children have been raised on twisted social and religious propaganda, and ignorance, which has profoundly affected their morals. What are the US soldiers' reasons? They should know better. And it was covered up for a year. Don't make it like the incident wasn't equally as disgusting as what the Iraqis did in that article, it just doesn't happen as often. Because the US claims to be invading to improve the country, I'd say it's pretty important we make sure that you AREN'T doing things like what happened in that prison, especially since it was covered up! A lot of people HAD to have known what was going on. I think that shows that there must be a fair degree of corruption somewhere along the lines of command.

Evil acts are evil acts. You aren't exonerated by any means because they're worse.

"Maybe those children would have never fought if it was not for the war."

The attitude behind the acts would still exist even if it wasn't wartime. People would still be mistreated, and human rights wouldn't be upheld. If people are willing to do such things it shows they need change. Different culture or not, universal human rights should be enforced.

"All I'm trying to say is that no one says good job US for following these rules and doing the right thing by not attacking their holy places and such. All people do is shoot down the US and say how bad we are."

You aren't looking very hard then. A lot of people support the war. Yeah, you do do good, but at the same time you do things that deserve criticism. Not waiting for the UN's ok was a bad move. I don't think the issue is being handled as carefully as it should be. It's a very, very volitile situation, for more than just Iraq. A lot of the things we do are against their beliefs, and they have a right to be agaisnt these things. Their hostility can be explained in other ways other than pure ignorance, don't you think? They're not injured animals biting the hand that cares for them, as many Americans seem to think, albeit the ignorance is there to some degree. As someone else said, you ARE invading their homeland. If someone rushed into my country, I'd be pretty ticked too. Constantly shouting about the "war on terror" and how evil they are really doesn't help abate the situation. But hey, it rallies voters pretty well. What a coincidence.

"War does show the real side of humans"

It shows the worst of humanity, but not the "real side". What does that even mean? That sounds as if we're all acting good, but what we really want to do is fight. I don't think that's true at all, most people are terrified of war, and tend to avoid conflict as much as possible. Just because humans are capable of awful acts doesn't make us as a whole bad, and it doesn't negate the good we do.

[War Angel]

Anyone who says they wouldn't hesitate to shoot a child, are either psychopaths, or bulltroutting. Your whole mind-set is programmed to protect a child, not kill it. A child is not something that belongs in war, and certainly not as a warrior. And when you are faced with that surreal vision, of a child with murder in his eyes, holding a rifle up-side down, firing at you... that catches you off-guard, completely. It's something that gives soldiers nightmares... and should they harm that child... well, I'm not envious of them, 'cause they're likely to spend more money on therapy, than they will on fuel, water and electricity together.

That being said... yes, it's horrible. But, that's the way they fight. It may seem like cowardice to you, but that's not where it comes from. It's just that human-life, which is of the highest importance in western culture, has a lesser place in Arab culture. Human lives are to be spared, for a cause. Women and children can be killed freely, if it means the men fighters will survive, to keep the capmaign. So, you can see children flocking around militants, often oblivious to their role as human shields. You could see women holding a baby or two, walking into soldiers' line of fire, to provide cover for their husbands. It's just the way it works. It's that way here, and it's the same over there.

[Shadow Nexus]

The attitude behind the acts would still exist even if it wasn't wartime. People would still be mistreated, and human rights wouldn't be upheld. If people are willing to do such things it shows they need change. Different culture or not, universal human rights should be enforced.

The attitude behind the acts may have been created from war.

Although yes, human rights were violated in Iraq. In fact, human rights are violated everywhere. Yet I do not think war is the way to enforce human rights, because such thing is contradictory to the idea of the declaration itself.

It reminds me to Napoleon invading Europe in the name of Enlightment, when Enlightment is an intellectual idea the individual has to reach from the emancipation of that wich is alienating. It's preety contradictory.

Off topic moment:

OK, so I can take that article even if it comes from a conservative site, but I find this one to be hillarious.

"The portrayal of sex, on the other hand, can and does lead many people to commit sins against chastity, namely, fornication, masturbation, adultery, and the entertaining of unchaste thoughts and desires. It is, therefore, what is known in Catholic theology as an occasion of sin -- a person, place, or thing that is likely to lead one to commit a sin."

I say, let's make masturbation and adultery illegal.

[Emerald Aeris]

"The attitude behind the acts may have been created from war."

I don't see how you can believe that given the social structure of the country. Warfare doesn't instantly turn people into monsters. Are you suggesting that Iraq would be better if we just left them alone? I really don't think so.

[Shadow Nexus]

"The attitude behind the acts may have been created from war."

I don't see how you can believe that given the social structure of the country. Warfare doesn't instantly turn people into monsters. Are you suggesting that Iraq would be better if we just left them alone? I really don't think so.

Or maybe it was both things.

And better if you had left them alone? Yes, I believe it. Iraq with Saddam was crap, sure, but at least they didn't get daily terrorist attacks. The reason USA is such a hated country is because it tends to fall into extreme chauvinism and etnocentrism, believing their democracy and their capitalism is the only correct way of doing things. Yet as you can see, people do not like that as much as USA expects. No one wanted Saddam there, he was an a??hole. But they don't want USA there either.

[Dr Unne]

I didn't say I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a child, I said "shouldn't". He hesitated, and the result was that he still had to kill the child later, and he almost died himself. And had he himself died, then those children would've gone on to kill more soldiers some other day. I would probably hesistate too, and I'd be wrong to do it. What if the child was shooting not at you, but at your wife/husband? Your parents? Your children? I think I might not hesistate at all, in that circumstance. But who knows.

[qq]Iraq with Saddam was crap, sure, but at least they didn't get daily terrorist attacks.[/qq]

You'd prefer hundreds of thousands of people being killed by Saddam, along with daily torture sessions and most of the country in a state of constant poverty and fear, than having a few terrorist attacks? OK, sure.

[Shadow Nexus]

You'd prefer hundreds of thousands of people being killed by Saddam, along with daily torture sessions and most of the country in a state of constant poverty and fear, than having a few terrorist attacks? OK, sure.

So your point is that more people died during Saddam's rule than now? I seriously doubt it, and so do the numbers showned by Amnesty International.

And as far as I know, it's not "a few terrorist attacks", it's a terrorist attack every week. Oh, and they are in constant poverty and fear.

Please stop abusing the swear filter.

[War Angel]

Warfare doesn't instantly turn people into monsters.

Yes, it does. It does. War brings the best, and more often the worst in man.

So your point is that more people died during Saddam's rule than now? I seriously doubt it

Doubt it all you want. Saddam has killed over a million, and probably closer to two - and that's not counting the Iraq-Iran war, started by him. So far, to my knowledge, less than 6000 Iraqies have been killed by foreign forces.

Please stop abusing the swear filter.

It shouldn't be here. If it's here, then we get to abuse it. We're all adults here, and having some auto-censoring mechanism working on my posts is something I, at least, find offensive.

[Shadow Nexus]

Doubt it all you want. Saddam has killed over a million, and probably closer to two - and that's not counting the Iraq-Iran war, started by him. So far, to my knowledge, less than 6000 Iraqies have been killed by foreign forces.

Uh...where did you take the "over a million and probably closer to two" thing from? Because as far as I know, death rate has increased in Iraq, and Baghdad today is not safer than before the war. Well, obviously, it's a war!!! And I find it to be an irony the fact that this war was meant to stop terrorism, not create more. Then again, we all know violence rises violence, but reconstruction rises lot's of money, so it's all fine and dandy. And the whole democracy thing, well, War Angel, you know as well as me that those people are not ready for democracy, or in case of ellections, a fundamentalist chiita (Whatever it's written in English) would rise up as potential enemy of the US, and of course, this is not something USA wants. So allow me to be preety skeptical of the whole liberation thing, in fact I find it to be beautiful demagogy.



Spam removed.