Giving soldiers the respect they deserve

The saga

Published on November 29, 2005 By Draginol In Politics

There's been a very stimulating series of articles written by JoeUser bloggers with regards to the opinions of civilians on the sidelines making claims about what the military should and shouldn't do. I missed some of the first ones (particularly a great one by Texas Wahine) so here's the series so far:

We need to help those Iraqis! (a civilian frustrated with those who oppose the war)

If you love war so much, why not go fight it? (frustration with non-serving civilians who seem to glorify war)

Why aren't you fighting in Iraq? (Bakerstreet responds to the above)

I dont' have to serve to support (same)

Are you a pasty pile of goo? (are people being overly defensive?)

One-Upmanship on JoeUser (whose opinions matter more?)

As a professional jerk, I'm a lot less sensitive to the feelings of soldiers or pro-military or anti-military people. Simply put, I support the war. I support the job the military is doing. The job. Our soldiers are doing a job. I don't really care whether they like the job or not any more than I care whether individual policemen or firemen like the job they're doing. I only care that they do their job.

That said, I can totally sympathize with soldiers and their families who see arm-chair generals, comfy at home, who treat warfare as little more than a sport for their amusement. I have seen this attitude in many pro-war people, a total disconnect from the hellish, dangerous, and staggeringly difficult times our soldiers face. I can totally get what they're saying. But I don't want to be lumped into that. I haven't served in the military. I probably never will. But I feel I do have an appreciation for the job our soldiers are doing even if I cannot even imagine what they've gone through. Therefore, I make no bones that I support the job they've done.

Then again, being a jerk, I don't have any particular sympathy for the Iraqis. I would support bringing troops home IF there was the understanding that if Iraq fell into terrorist hands we would go in there and overthrow what they'd cobbled together. Winning against terrorism doesn't mean we have to set up some sort of peaceful democratic state. Not in my opinion anyway. There's any number of countries that are in states of near anarchy. What we have to work against are states with significant financial and material assets who support terrorism or who allow terrorists to openly organize and plan. Hence, while I agree us leaving Iraq would likely result in a non-democratic government run by Shiites who oppressed minorities or even lead to civil war, I don't really care. I'd rather have our soldiers home. IF that oppressive government started to support anti-US policies, pursue WMDs, sponsor terrorists, then we could go in again and take them out.

Of course, many of you reading what I just wrote probably are shaking your head at my naivete. Because you're right. The US cannot (contrary to what some left-wing fringe Europeans think) just send the military in on a whim to overthrow countries we didn't like. Not until I'm emperor anyway. Therefore, the most balanced course of action is probably to stay until there's enough infrastructure in place that Iraq can move forward on its own and draw down troops gradually as they can.

Comments (Page 2)

rombios

on Nov 30, 2005

>Another good reason to not allow Anon posting..

hypocrite. your version of freedom works when you have echo chambers not when
someone refuses to buy the b.s we are fed on tv daily.

sorry buddy. i refuse to hate Saddam because we are TOLD to

bakerstreet

on Nov 30, 2005

Yes, robios can love third world thugs as long as they oppose the first-world leaders he hates more. Evidently it isn't thugs he hates, just particular cultures.

stevendedalus

on Nov 30, 2005

fuck the soldiers ... they are murderers

Not even the most radical pacifist would stoop to this level.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 01, 2005

fuck the soldiers ... they are murderers

You're welcome, Robios

bakerstreet

on Dec 01, 2005

As a bit of background Rombios lives in a little third world country who he says was covertly fiddled with by the CIA some decades back. I forget which one. If he'd grow a pair and make a blog of his own perhaps he could write about why he thinks he does and people might understand him a bit better.

drmiler

on Dec 01, 2005

Women were walking the streets in JEANS when Saddam was in power.

This by itself is an absolute LIE! Show proof "i,d-ten t" (Sound or write it out!) During Saddams reign any woman caught outside dressed like that would have been stoned to death.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 01, 2005

Women were walking the streets in JEANS when Saddam was in power.

Strange... I was in Iraq for a month in 91, never saw one woman in jeans.. or pants even... just Burkhas and veils.

davad70

on Dec 01, 2005

This by itself is an absolute LIE! Show proof "i,d-ten t" (Sound or write it out!) During Saddams reign any woman caught outside dressed like that would have been stoned to death

Actually it's fairly well known that women were allowed to wear jeans in Iraq before the removal of Saddam. Obviously devout muslim women would not wear jeans before or after Saddam. But to suggest that any woman caught wearing jeans would be stoned is pretty ridiculous. Before you accuse people of stating absolute lies you should do a little research.

"I am Shia, but I don't want to wear a scarf on my head," said al-Taee, dressed in bell-bottom jeans and a tight T-shirt. "And I want to be able to work and travel unrestrained. If I can't do it in post-Saddam Iraq, I will have to leave the country."
Link

Signs near the campus entrance state: "A [new version of the] hijab appeared in Iraq after the year 2000 in which girls leave part of the head uncovered. Although this is called the French hijab, it is made in Iraq and is widespread in institutions and universities. Therefore we address all believers. They should ask representative of the Hawza for their opinions about such hijab and whether it is allowed."

The sign then goes on to provide an answer from Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammed El Yacuby, an expert on social problems. "The woman who wears such hijab is not a real Muslim and she has no belief in Islam. There is no permission for this kind of hijab," the Ayatollah's response reads. The sign goes on to state that pants, jeans, or culottes are also not allowed.
Link

Increasingly, women feel pressured to don veils, both because bareheaded women are favorite targets for rapists, but also to avoid harassment from religious extremists. More and more mosques are turning away women not garbed in a head-to-toe abaya, and the Al Mustansirriye University in Baghdad has posted a sign ordering female students to wear full hijab head scarves and forbidding the wearing of pants, jeans or culottes.
Link

This would put women in Iraq at a disadvantage. Already it's not a good idea for women to walk the streets of Basra wearing jeans. Iraq may be slowly moving toward democracy but it's also edging toward a conservative Islamic state. And Iran is doing what it can to help it along that path.
Link

bakerstreet

on Dec 01, 2005

isn't that a religious problem more than it is a civil problem? Are there laws in the new constitution about women wearing jeans?

WOuld it have been preferable for the US to become a totatlitarian state since it took us a couple of hundred years to iron out civil rights?

Dr Guy

on Dec 01, 2005

Not even the most radical pacifist would stoop to this level.

Unfortunately, Parated2k posted an article where they did exactly that. If you look at one of the pictures in that article, you will notice a brown ring on the butt of one of the protestors. That is Rombios.

rombios

on Dec 01, 2005

davad70 thanks for the response.

Its tiring providing "proof" for some of these idiots who cant bother to do
their own research. MOST ARE LIARS.

This was proved in another thread where some moron claiming to be a soldier
responded that White Phosphorus was HARMLESS

Harmless yet the artillery field manual (of the ARMY not a liberal publication)
sites its destructive properties and that it was used NOT to light the
theatre of operation but to attack the rebels.

Then we find out that in Gulf War 1 we cited it as a chemical weapon that
Saddam used ... so it seems
when we use it its peanut butter
when "they" use it ... its a chemical weapon.

We are all hypocrites and we have lost whatever semblance of "sanity"
we had

rombios

on Dec 01, 2005

Funny thing about the new constitution.

it SEVERLY limits the rights of women. In Marriage Unions, Alimony, Legal
matters, Appearance, etc etc

Do you know under Sharia law a womans testimony is worth less than that of a
man?

Do you know that a man now has the right to impose certain rules on his wife
daughters dress and grooming?

Do you know that a woman (daughter) may not be allowed to inherit land when
its divided up in inheritance issues ..

the list goes on and on

Say what you want about Saddam, that dude bent heaven and earth to keep that
country from being led by religious fundermentalists or people of that ilk.
Women served in government ... EDUCATED women. Remember the lady we fingered
as being head of his Biological Agents management?

So for those of you screaming "we are giving them democracy" please under
stand we are NOT.

ITS A SMOKE SCREEN!

THE ONLY CONCERN that "we" have is that their constitution includes a
provision that would allow our oil contractors access to their oil fields.
That and that we can keep them from forming an army that might threaten
Israel.

Hey whatever happened to those weapons of mass destruction?

rombios

on Dec 01, 2005

oh I almost forgot
FUCK
THE
TROOPS

they are murderers

drmiler

on Dec 01, 2005

This by itself is an absolute LIE! Show proof "i,d-ten t" (Sound or write it out!) During Saddams reign any woman caught outside dressed like that would have been stoned to death

Actually it's fairly well known that women were allowed to wear jeans in Iraq before the removal of Saddam. Obviously devout muslim women would not wear jeans before or after Saddam. But to suggest that any woman caught wearing jeans would be stoned is pretty ridiculous. Before you accuse people of stating absolute lies you should do a little research.

"I am Shia, but I don't want to wear a scarf on my head," said al-Taee, dressed in bell-bottom jeans and a tight T-shirt. "And I want to be able to work and travel unrestrained. If I can't do it in post-Saddam Iraq, I will have to leave the country."
Link

Signs near the campus entrance state: "A [new version of the] hijab appeared in Iraq after the year 2000 in which girls leave part of the head uncovered. Although this is called the French hijab, it is made in Iraq and is widespread in institutions and universities. Therefore we address all believers. They should ask representative of the Hawza for their opinions about such hijab and whether it is allowed."

The sign then goes on to provide an answer from Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammed El Yacuby, an expert on social problems. "The woman who wears such hijab is not a real Muslim and she has no belief in Islam. There is no permission for this kind of hijab," the Ayatollah's response reads. The sign goes on to state that pants, jeans, or culottes are also not allowed.
Link

Increasingly, women feel pressured to don veils, both because bareheaded women are favorite targets for rapists, but also to avoid harassment from religious extremists. More and more mosques are turning away women not garbed in a head-to-toe abaya, and the Al Mustansirriye University in Baghdad has posted a sign ordering female students to wear full hijab head scarves and forbidding the wearing of pants, jeans or culottes.
Link

This would put women in Iraq at a disadvantage. Already it's not a good idea for women to walk the streets of Basra wearing jeans. Iraq may be slowly moving toward democracy but it's also edging toward a conservative Islamic state. And Iran is doing what it can to help it along that path.
Link

You know you really should check your links better "before" you accuse "me" of not doing my research. Every link that you posted is from AFTER the war started (2003 to 2005)and we were in the process of "removing" Saddam. So unless you can provide either a picture or some link from before we went in, my comment about it being a lie stands!

drmiler

on Dec 01, 2005

Say what you want about Saddam, that dude bent heaven and earth to keep that
country from being led by religious fundermentalists or people of that ilk.

Right.....That's why they "had" this. From About.com:

The movement for women in Iraq has greatly suffered due to sanctions and anti-women legislation imposed by Hussein's regime since the mid-90s. Under Islamic law, the punishment for a women who commits adultery is death. But women in Iraq are also being murdered for fighting with their husbands, having a relationship with a man outside marriage, and for being raped, because this brings shame on the family. Women have been stoned to death in public, disabled, disfigured and/or kidnapped. Women have even been kept hostage in their own homes.

According to the Iraq Foundation Web site "The rights of women in Iraq are going down the drain, along with everything else ... In 1998, Saddam ordered all women secretaries working in government agencies be dismissed. Now there are new laws barring women from work altogether."

Many women feel that once Saddam is removed from power, women's rights will return to Iraq. Recently a group of Iraqi women met in a Foreign Press Center Briefing to discuss Human Rights and Women in Iraq. Esra Naama stated "Saddam, right now, is terrorizing women, Iraqi women. He's using the excuse of infidelity. He's using the excuse of women being unfaithful to their husbands and the honor killing -- he's actually allowed honor killing to come back into society, where something that really, for a long time, was not in Iraqi society and I'm sure these ladies here can correct me if I'm wrong. But, once Saddam is gone, I believe that these are all things that will disappear from our society again."

Its tiring providing "proof" for some of these idiots who cant bother to do
their own research. MOST ARE LIARS.

I'm not the liar here nor am I the village idiot! It would seem that the position has already been filled by you.

This was proved in another thread where some moron claiming to be a soldier
responded that White Phosphorus was HARMLESS

NO ONE ever claimed WP was harmless. You "really" should do better research. From wikipedia.

Arms control status
Use of white phosphorus against military targets (and outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The Convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.)). The Convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). Strictly speaking, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity, but its spontaneous ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead. [6]

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. [7] However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III.

Military regulations
US military protocol prohibits the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas, unless approval is received from "above the division level". [8]. On the question of whether white phosphorus can be used against human targets, U.S. military training and doctrine (TRADOC) offers conflicting guidance. Although the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth states that "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets", [9] other training manuals do discuss the use of white phosphorus rounds against personnel. The US Marine Corps is reported to have issued guidance against using "flame weapons" (including white phosphorus) against personnel. [10]

Ongoing debate means it is NOT classified as a chemical weapon.

oh I almost forgot
FUCK
THE
TROOPS

they are murderers

Oh and I almost forgot....the SAME to you!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!