What a Letter

ORIGINAL: inne

But the US shouldn't be killing ANYONE in Iraq, period. This war is not inevitable - the US has choices and it can choose to stop killing Iraqi people. What are these killings accomplishing aside from preventing the deaths of US troops (but ultimately leading to more violence, as evidence shows)?

About being in the middle of a war in Iraq and needing to 'break the resolve of the people', it's not like the US is being bombed by Iraqis and needs to do all they can to 'win' the conflict. America could pull out tomorrow. It would leave a huge mess behind (of it's own creation - a mess America clearly cannot fix), but the American mainland would not be affected either way. George Bush has very effectively tied Iraq to 9/11 but anyone with a cursory awareness of the situation knows that they had nothing to do with it. Almost all those fighting the US occupation are Iraqis fighting an army that has come to invade their country, as much as they're called terrorists, they are a resistance force and not 'terrorists bent on America's destruction'.

Good points right there, thats the reason of my question right after the first post, ask the rest of the world and all of them (maybe not England) would say the same that you are saying right now, actually like i said before, thats exactly what happened when USA went to the ONU for permission to invade Iraq, more than 150 countries were thinking just like you []

so does that also mean it isnt ok for british troops to kill anyone in iraq? how about the UN troops who were initially involved with the invasion of iraq? you point alot of fingers at the US, but this was initially a multi-national war.

What are these killings accomplishing aside from preventing the deaths of US troops

so are our troops to idly stand by and be killed by insurgents without trying to defend themselves? in your previous post you mentioned that we need not use highly imprecise weapons, i assumed as an alternative you were suggesting using smart weapons. instead it seems you would have our troops commit suicide by not defending themselves. i cant see any american getting behind that course of action.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

so does that also mean it isnt ok for british troops to kill anyone in iraq? how about the UN troops who were initially involved with the invasion of iraq? you point alot of fingers at the US, but this was initially a multi-national war.

No UN troops were involved in the initial invasion. Of course it's not okay for the UK to kill anyone in Iraq! They should never have invaded and there is practically no support for the British involvement in the UK (or anywhere aside from the US). As for the "multi-national" war, that's really not true. The US was supported by a joke of a "coalition", the UK, Spain and Australia being the only significant accomplices. The invasion was opposed by the vast majority of the world. The US and UK intentionally didn't ask the UN for permission to invade because they knew it would be rejected and Kofi Annan has explicitly said the invasion was illegal (see this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm ). The US is the only truly important player in the invasion as you can see by policy creation, intelligence, troop presence, etc. and it would never have happened if it wasn't for the US. Spain has withdrawn its troops, the UK currently only has 7,500 troops and never had a very high number to begin with.

so are our troops to idly stand by and be killed by insurgents without trying to defend themselves? in your previous post you mentioned that we need not use highly imprecise weapons, i assumed as an alternative you were suggesting using smart weapons. instead it seems you would have our troops commit suicide by not defending themselves. i cant see any american getting behind that course of action.

I'm suggesting that American troops are to leave.

my mistake... it was a coalition of forces of 40 other countries and the kurdish army in northen iraq. this included and still includes a contingent from canada.

i would like nothing better than to have our troops home, unharmed. but since they are still on the ground in hostile territory i think they should defend themselves at all costs.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

my mistake... it was a coalition of forces of 40 other countries and the kurdish army in northen iraq. this included and still includes a contingent from canada.

Canada had nothing to do with the invasion and never had troops in Iraq. (Once a Canadian contractor was kidnapped and like 12 troops went in to rescue him). Bush was really angry that Canada did not support him. Canada is however part of the NATO force in Afghanistan.

If you care for the safety of the troops, why keep in them in harmful territory? Just withdraw and they won't be threatened anymore and won't have to defend themselves.

if the people in the UK think their troops shouldnt be in iraq, then they have the option to elect new leaders. leaders that will pull their troops, if that is what they want.

we did it here, and it seems that probably sooner than later our troops will be brought home. at least if you believe the news.

if the UN think what bush did was illegal, then why isnt GB facing war crimes charges?

If you care for the safety of the troops, why keep in them in harmful territory? Just withdraw and they won't be threatened anymore and won't have to defend themselves.

unfortunately, i dont get to make those decisions.

edit: i did my best, i voted against bush twice, and have voted against almost all other candidates who are/were pro-war. however, since i was obviously in the minority my opinions did/do not count.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

if the UN think what bush did was illegal, then why isnt GB facing war crimes charges?

No one is currently charging him because it is incredibly difficult to do so and because most people in the West are quite complacent about what is happening. However, some people in Germany are filing suit against Rumsfeld because Germany has very comprehensive war crimes legislation and there are many people and organizations agitating for Bush to be charged as well. But Kofi Annan's personal opinion has no legal bearing - it's not like he can go charge Bush.

It would be fantastic if people in the UK elected someone who would withdraw. I hoped it would happen during the last election. However, the only major party advocating for withdrawal at the time was the Liberal Democrats and not enough people will switch parties for a single issue. The UK election and parliamentary system is quite different than the US and people don't "vote" for Tony Blair, they vote for Labour.

according to wikipedia, canada still has troops on the ground in iraq....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

maybe it is wrong?

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

according to wikipedia, canada still has troops on the ground in iraq....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

maybe it is wrong?

JTF2 Operators are not 'troops'. They're like Delta Force. They're not combat forces and don't interact with the Iraqi people. They are in Iraq to work with with the SAS and Delta Force to rescue Canadian and Christian peace activists that were held hostage. Canada does not support the invasion, never has supported the invasion and has never had a combat role in the invasion. As for the "undisclosed number", it's most likely about 3.

i'm out. my world view is defintely different and apparently inferior to yours since i have never lived in another country.

my world view has/is shaped by what i see on tv, read in books/newspapers/magazines, and learned in history class. apparently i have been the dupe of the propaganda machine. also, it seems that the US is criticized whether they are trying to do a good thing or not (yeah i read some about that green revolution... sorry we tried to help the world feed itself). so at this point, unless there is someone out there that can defeat our army, why should we care what they think?

out.

well good for canada. or should i say good for the english colony known as canada.

really out.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

i'm out. my world view is defintely different and apparently inferior to yours since i have never lived in another country.

my world view has/is shaped by what i see on tv, read in books/newspapers/magazines, and learned in history class. apparently i have been the dupe of the propaganda machine. also, it seems that the US is criticized whether they are trying to do a good thing or not (yeah i read some about that green revolution... sorry we tried to help the world feed itself). so at this point, unless there is someone out there that can defeat our army, why should we care what they think?

out.

Whoa, I don't think I've said anything offensive to you, just stated my opinion on the topics we're discussing and corrected some of the inaccuracies in your posts because accurate histories are important and more information is a good thing. I don't know if you're misreading my tone or what, but I never meant to make you feel like I think your opinion is inferior.

As for why you should care, you don't have to. But there are absolutely consequences to that too. Like people flying planes into buildings.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

well good for canada. or should i say good for the english colony known as canada.

Canada is a former colony, just like America.

And I'm glad you voted against Bush. So did I. I wish the US has proportional representation.

head of state in canada: queen elizabeth II (source: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ca.html)

list of nations currently in the commonwealth of the united kingdom......[linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations_by_continent]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations_by_continent[/link]