• Why the Coalition sucks in the War on Terror.
    232 replies, posted
Americans, Britishers, Canadians, and other nationals whose soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition, put aside your blind patriotism for a while and hear me out. I spent the first thirteen years of my life in the Middle East, and I'm familiar, to an extent, with the way people there think. It's easy for the big rich western empire to brand anyone who opposes them a terrorist, but how many of us, through the veil of news propaganda, are looking at the big picture? Let's look at Iraq in this case, since it's the most obvious example by far. The United States really, really had no reason whatsoever to go into Iraq. The claim that sending thousands of armed troops across a border had the noble intention of dethroning a dictator is so much hot air. Since the United States invaded Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of firefights, accidents with hellfire missiles, explosives, etc. - that's a LOT of women and children. Unless the Western world suffers under the delusion that the lives of brown people are somehow cheaper than those of Anglo-Saxons, I'm sure we agree that something is wrong. What disgusts me the most by far, however, is the fact that in the event we capture some of the militiamen that are attacking US troops, we try them as terrorists or as common criminals. Sometimes - no, most times - they're held for many years without a hope of a trial. And the trials are shams. It's fucking disgusting. War is bad. People die. Get over it. If the United States expects the enemy to form ranks and march like sheep into a hail of their bullets, they've got another thing coming. Look at it from their point of view. A foreign western nation has invaded their country (or, in the case of foreign national militants, the country of an ally or relative.) Hundreds of people are dying every month. They have no army to defend them. Many of them will have lost people they loved to US explosive ordinance fuck-ups. Are they not justified in resisting the invaders? To try them as criminals is just sickening. They should be treated as POWs. Unless you've played too much Call of Duty and think that one guy with an AK47 can kill hundreds of tanks and helicopters and thousands of troops singlehandedly, you'll know that the guerilla hit-and-run tactics they've been employing are the only ones that will work. I don't claim to know who is right and wrong, but I do consider the enemy legitimate combatants, even if white US politicians who are obviously motivated by racial prejudice try to claim otherwise. If you disagree, please tell me why.
huh [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply?" - Benji))[/highlight]
tl;dr USA army is treating the enemy combatants as terrorists and criminals when they should be treated as enemy combatants and put into POW camps and all that shit. You don't put POWs on trial and then execute them for fighting against you do you?
[QUOTE=Kybalt;22771894]tl;dr USA army is treating the enemy combatants as terrorists and criminals when they should be treated as enemy combatants and put into POW camps and all that shit. You don't put POWs on trial and then execute them for fighting against you do you?[/QUOTE] Pretty much what I'm saying, aye.
The coalition's reasons for invading Iraq where definitly mixed up. They tried really hard to establish a link between Al-Queda and local Iraqi fighters. Afganistan and the whole Al Queda business is more of a response to the attack planned and executed by Bin Laden while he was a part of the Islamist movement in the late 80s, America was in Saudi Arabia at the time and Bin Laden saw that as threat to the Islamic nations, thus he started a war against the West and particularity Jews. Bin Laden woke the sleeping giant, now hes paying for it. Edit: Al Queda can be labeled as a Terrorist organization and its member are terrorists, the intentionally spread panic and fear through violent acts against non combatants.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22771836]Americans, Britishers, Canadians, and other nationals whose soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition, put aside your blind patriotism for a while and hear me out. I spent the first thirteen years of my life in the Middle East, and I'm familiar, to an extent, with the way people there think. It's easy for the big rich western empire to brand anyone who opposes them a terrorist, but how many of us, through the veil of news propaganda, are looking at the big picture? Let's look at Iraq in this case, since it's the most obvious example by far. The United States really, really had no reason whatsoever to go into Iraq. The claim that sending thousands of armed troops across a border had the noble intention of dethroning a dictator is so much hot air. Since the United States invaded Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of firefights, accidents with hellfire missiles, explosives, etc. - that's a LOT of women and children. Unless the Western world suffers under the delusion that the lives of brown people are somehow cheaper than those of Anglo-Saxons, I'm sure we agree that something is wrong. What disgusts me the most by far, however, is the fact that in the event we capture some of the militiamen that are attacking US troops, we try them as terrorists or as common criminals. Sometimes - no, most times - they're held for many years without a hope of a trial. And the trials are shams. It's fucking disgusting. War is bad. People die. Get over it. If the United States expects the enemy to form ranks and march like sheep into a hail of their bullets, they've got another thing coming. Look at it from their point of view. A foreign western nation has invaded their country (or, in the case of foreign national militants, the country of an ally or relative.) Hundreds of people are dying every month. They have no army to defend them. Many of them will have lost people they loved to US explosive ordinance fuck-ups. Are they not justified in resisting the invaders? To try them as criminals is just sickening. They should be treated as POWs. Unless you've played too much Call of Duty and think that one guy with an AK47 can kill hundreds of tanks and helicopters and thousands of troops singlehandedly, you'll know that the guerilla hit-and-run tactics they've been employing are the only ones that will work. I don't claim to know who is right and wrong, but I do consider the enemy legitimate combatants, even if white US politicians who are obviously motivated by racial prejudice try to claim otherwise. If you disagree, please tell me why.[/QUOTE] Except that everything you have talked about only applies in a standard country vs. country war. This is not one of them - this is a civil war. Furthermore, they are being tried as terrorists because they are supporting Al Qaeda. If a person supports a group or organisation in some way, then they are automatically associating themselves with them. Also, it's British, not Britisher, dammit.
You say thats alot of woman and children dead. But not all Iraqi men are extremist muslims
Of course it sucks! No one is afraid of Coal.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22771836]Americans, Britishers, Canadians, and other nationals whose soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition, put aside your blind patriotism for a while and hear me out. I spent the first thirteen years of my life in the Middle East, and I'm familiar, to an extent, with the way people there think. It's easy for the big rich western empire to brand anyone who opposes them a terrorist, but how many of us, through the veil of news propaganda, are looking at the big picture? Let's look at Iraq in this case, since it's the most obvious example by far. The United States really, really had no reason whatsoever to go into Iraq. The claim that sending thousands of armed troops across a border had the noble intention of dethroning a dictator is so much hot air. Since the United States invaded Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of firefights, accidents with hellfire missiles, explosives, etc. - that's a LOT of women and children. Unless the Western world suffers under the delusion that the lives of brown people are somehow cheaper than those of Anglo-Saxons, I'm sure we agree that something is wrong. What disgusts me the most by far, however, is the fact that in the event we capture some of the militiamen that are attacking US troops, we try them as terrorists or as common criminals. Sometimes - no, most times - they're held for many years without a hope of a trial. And the trials are shams. It's fucking disgusting. War is bad. People die. Get over it. If the United States expects the enemy to form ranks and march like sheep into a hail of their bullets, they've got another thing coming. Look at it from their point of view. A foreign western nation has invaded their country (or, in the case of foreign national militants, the country of an ally or relative.) Hundreds of people are dying every month. They have no army to defend them. Many of them will have lost people they loved to US explosive ordinance fuck-ups. Are they not justified in resisting the invaders? To try them as criminals is just sickening. They should be treated as POWs. Unless you've played too much Call of Duty and think that one guy with an AK47 can kill hundreds of tanks and helicopters and thousands of troops singlehandedly, you'll know that the guerilla hit-and-run tactics they've been employing are the only ones that will work. I don't claim to know who is right and wrong, but I do consider the enemy legitimate combatants, even if white US politicians who are obviously motivated by racial prejudice try to claim otherwise. If you disagree, please tell me why.[/QUOTE] People must also know that when your family dies, you will most likely do ANYTHING to revenge them. And if you don't have the means to have your revenge with the weapons and tactics that the Coalition can muster (hellfire rockets, bombardments, M1A2/Challengers, machinegun fire etc) then you will improvise, and use IEDs. Iraqis are just as human as the soldiers of the coalition are, trying to fight for their lives, their way of living and trying to cause as much problem for the invaders as possible. I'm almost 100% certain that if the tables were turned and Iraq invaded the US (let's just play along now and make Iraq the powerhouse that the US are/were back in the days, and USA is a poorly armed country) then the US citizens would use IEDs and fight with whatever means they could to repel the conquerors. What's done is done, what the Coalition needs to do now is to help the local people and instill trust in them, not imprison the people while calling them terrorists, because they are not. Al Qaida support was at an alltime low back in 2008 (no idea how it has changed in the latter years, but I don't think there has been a rise atleast) with only roughly 1-3% of the population supporting what Al Qaida have done through the years. The Coalition is the stronger boy, and Iraq is the skinny little kid who's being bullied. You can't expect the oppressed to reach out their hand first, it's the Coalition that needs to start treating the opposition as human beings and treat their combatans as soldiers, because they are just doing what any soldier would do : Fight for their country against the invaders.
[QUOTE=David29;22772038]Except that everything you have talked about only applies in a standard country vs. country war. This is not one of them - this is a civil war. Furthermore, they are being tried as terrorists because they are supporting Al Qaeda. If a person supports a group or organisation in some way, then they are automatically associating themselves with them. Also, it's British, not Britisher, dammit.[/QUOTE] That's a common misconception. Most of the fighters in Iraq have no affiliation with Al'Qaeda whatsoever and are Insurgents, not Terrorists. There is a massive difference between the two, but the media continues to play it off as though they're both the same thing. On a different note, the only tactics I despise that are used against Coalition soldiers are suicide bombs, which tend to inflict damage on the civilian populace as well. IED's, ambushes and sniper attacks are no different from the tactics that the Free French Forces used during WW2 against Nazi occupiers. I'm not saying that the U.S. and Nazi Germany are comparable, I'm simply saying that people of rich, developed nations use these same tactics during times of occupation.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;22772177]That's a common misconception. Most of the fighters in Iraq have no affiliation with Al'Qaeda whatsoever and are Insurgents, not Terrorists. There is a massive difference between the two, but the media continues to play it off as though they're both the same thing. [/QUOTE] Insurgents fighting for the Taliban who support Al Qaeda.
[QUOTE=David29;22772323]Insurgents fighting for the Taliban who support Al Qaeda.[/QUOTE] The Talibans were/is in Afghanistan, and although it's hated I'm going to compare them to the nazis : Were all the soldiers in wehrmacht nazis just by association with the government?
[QUOTE=Gregah;22772373]The Talibans were/is in Afghanistan, and although it's hated I'm going to compare them to the nazis : Were all the soldiers in wehrmacht nazis just by association with the government?[/QUOTE] That is a bad comparison. Two reasons why: 1. As I have already noted, this not a war - this is a civil war. 2. Wehrmacht forces relied on conscription. The Taliban doesn't.
Its not just the US. Britain, Canada, Germany, Poland, and tons of other countries are there.
[QUOTE=Pantz76;22772679]Its not just the US. Britain, Canada, Germany, Poland, and tons of other countries are there.[/QUOTE] "Americans, Britishers, Canadians, and other nationals whose soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition..."
[QUOTE=David29;22772323]Insurgents fighting for the Taliban who support Al Qaeda.[/QUOTE] Look up the word "Insurgent." Princeton Dictionary: -A person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) -Guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment -In opposition to a civil authority or government. Wiktionary: -A rebel, guerrilla, freedom fighter; rebellious, opposing authority. -Insurgency - rebellion; revolt; the state of being insurgent. Do you see the word 'Taliban' there anywhere? Are you saying that if another country invaded yours and killed your family, if you fought against them that would make you a Taliban supporter? Go soak your head. The Taliban ARE involved in Iraq - but the vast majority of Iraqi insurgents have nothing to do with the Taliban OR Al Qaeda.
I shall disregard your post, since you are on about Iraq and I am on about Afghanistan. The reason for this being that the British aren't even in Iraq. :downs:
As much as your reasoning makes sense archangel, they arent technically considered enemy combatants by the Geneva convention, and arent reserved the same rights as such. Deliberatly trying to use you enemies ROE against them by firing indirect weapons from the middles of major civilian population centers or using crowds of civilians for cover is not the tactics of a legitimate fighting force.
[QUOTE=David29;22773772]I shall disregard your post, since you are on about Iraq and I am on about Afghanistan. The reason for this being that the British aren't even in Iraq. :downs:[/QUOTE] You're wrong. Don't spew stuff if you don't know what you're talking about. [editline]09:09AM[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;22772695]"Americans, Britishers, Canadians, and other nationals whose soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition..."[/QUOTE] The rest of the op only talked about America.
Coming from a staunch IRA supporting family I can empathize alot with freedom fighters branded as terrorists.
[QUOTE=Pantz76;22773944]You're wrong. Don't spew stuff if you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Oh yes, of course. So, even though the last British forces were pulled out in 2009, Britain is still fighting in Iraq. Silly me. :downs: I love the irony in your statement. [QUOTE=Pantz76;22773944]The rest of the op only talked about America.[/QUOTE] Then his argument is fundamentally flawed. You can't criticise a group of nations and then only rant about one in particular. That's like calling all Germans evil and then ranting about Hitler.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22771836]The claim that sending thousands of armed troops across a border had the noble intention of dethroning a dictator is so much hot air. Since the United States invaded Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of firefights, accidents with hellfire missiles, explosives, etc. - that's a LOT of women and children.[/QUOTE] You're fooling yourself if you think the US invasion was worse than the actions of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was a small-time Hitler. His documented actions include the slaughter of many tens of thousands of people, and actions ordered by him may have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more. and, of course, there are likely to be countless undocumented brutalities. If you think accidental death from the occasional hellfire missile is worse than the systematic elimination of sections of a populace, you're insane. I don't fully agree with the invasion of Iraq, but I feel the overthrow of Saddam Hussein alone justifies much of what the US has done there. [url]http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm[/url]
Kinda funny how you stand behind the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein when USA helped Saddam Hussein in the first gulf-war (and these actions helped Saddamn become "Mini hitler" as you delicately put it). [editline]04:38PM[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;22772478]That is a bad comparison. Two reasons why: 1. As I have already noted, this not a war - this is a civil war. 2. Wehrmacht forces relied on conscription. The Taliban doesn't.[/QUOTE] You are still basing it all on the assumption that just because they are fighting for the Talibans (who provide for their families if they fight for them) that they agree with their ideals. I sure as hell know that if I was a poor farmer in a country being invaded by a supreme force, I would gladly join whatever faction that would help my family and help me fight back to retake the country I live in. Extreme situations require extreme actions, and I'm pretty sure a majority of all people would pledge their allegiance to someone who would take care of you and your family, without asking too many questions.
[QUOTE=Gregah;22774274]Kinda funny how you stand behind the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein when USA helped Saddam Hussein in the first gulf-war (and these actions helped Saddamn become "Mini hitler" as you delicately put it).[/QUOTE] I in no way support the actions the US took to support Saddam Hussein.
[QUOTE=Gregah;22774274]You are still basing it all on the assumption that just because they are fighting for the Talibans (who provide for their families if they fight for them) that they agree with their ideals. I sure as hell know that if I was a poor farmer in a country being invaded by a supreme force, I would gladly join whatever faction that would help my family and help me fight back to retake the country I live in. Extreme situations require extreme actions, and I'm pretty sure a majority of all people would pledge their allegiance to someone who would take care of you and your family, without asking too many questions.[/QUOTE] But they would still be acting in support of the Taliban. It's like sheltering someone on the run from the law; you may not have committed the crime itself, but you are still aiding the person who did. But at any rate, it is irrelevant. What everyone, especially archangel125, seems to be ignoring is that there is a distinct difference between a [b]civilian[/b] and a [b]professional soldier[/b]. Anyone can grab an AK-47 and claim to be a soldier, but that doesn't make it so. "A soldier is a member of the land component of national armed forces". Insurgents are not soldiers - they are civilians.
[QUOTE=David29;22774108]Oh yes, of course. So, even though the last British forces were pulled out in 2009, Britain is still fighting in Iraq. Silly me. :downs:[/QUOTE] Britain was there for 6 years. Now that they have pulled out, they are free of blame and us is the sole bad guy.
[QUOTE] Britishers [/QUOTE] Were called Britons dumb shit. But otherwise, i completely agree with you. :D
America. Yes. I read it.
[QUOTE=archangel125;22771836]Americans, Britishers, Canadians, and other nationals whose soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition, put aside your blind patriotism for a while and hear me out. I spent the first thirteen years of my life in the Middle East, and I'm familiar, to an extent, with the way people there think. It's easy for the big rich western empire to brand anyone who opposes them a terrorist, but how many of us, through the veil of news propaganda, are looking at the big picture? Let's look at Iraq in this case, since it's the most obvious example by far. The United States really, really had no reason whatsoever to go into Iraq. The claim that sending thousands of armed troops across a border had the noble intention of dethroning a dictator is so much hot air. Since the United States invaded Iraq, many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of firefights, accidents with hellfire missiles, explosives, etc. - that's a LOT of women and children. Unless the Western world suffers under the delusion that the lives of brown people are somehow cheaper than those of Anglo-Saxons, I'm sure we agree that something is wrong. What disgusts me the most by far, however, is the fact that in the event we capture some of the militiamen that are attacking US troops, we try them as terrorists or as common criminals. Sometimes - no, most times - they're held for many years without a hope of a trial. And the trials are shams. It's fucking disgusting. War is bad. People die. Get over it. If the United States expects the enemy to form ranks and march like sheep into a hail of their bullets, they've got another thing coming. Look at it from their point of view. A foreign western nation has invaded their country (or, in the case of foreign national militants, the country of an ally or relative.) Hundreds of people are dying every month. They have no army to defend them. Many of them will have lost people they loved to US explosive ordinance fuck-ups. Are they not justified in resisting the invaders? To try them as criminals is just sickening. They should be treated as POWs. Unless you've played too much Call of Duty and think that one guy with an AK47 can kill hundreds of tanks and helicopters and thousands of troops singlehandedly, you'll know that the guerilla hit-and-run tactics they've been employing are the only ones that will work. I don't claim to know who is right and wrong, but I do consider the enemy legitimate combatants, even if white US politicians who are obviously motivated by racial prejudice try to claim otherwise. If you disagree, please tell me why.[/QUOTE] Hey bro, you're a few years late on this speech. It's also the most generic argument ever as well, it's been used far to many times. Yes we get it, people are held without any rights as prisoners, people get killed (It is war after all, tell me a war that didn't have civilian casualties). It isn't like this is something new to them hell they've been fighting for years killing their own blood. Doesn't make it right though. It isn't like the Coalition is going over there beheading people and raping the women. They're trying to do their best, its hard to do that when you get attacked almost all the time. Taking out Saddam was the best thing anyone could do, people where being killed by the hundreds due to his actions. Sitting around and allowing it to happen more would be just as worse as going in and trying to do something about it. War will always be like this no matter what, you can apply what has happened to any time period, any war, any group of people. People need too stop being so god damn naive and realize talking about it isn't going to do a damn thing. War will never be nice or pretty, this isn't a fucking action movie where the heroes can get all the bad guys and no one else gets hurt.
[QUOTE=Gregah;22772154]Al Qaida support was at an alltime low back in 2008 (no idea how it has changed in the latter years, but I don't think there has been a rise atleast) with only roughly 1-3% of the population supporting what Al Qaida have done through the years.[/QUOTE] Well if you go around asking people "lol do you support Al Qaeda" in a country where people associated with Al Qaeda are punished by the invading force, then of course people are going to say no. I'm just saying those numbers probably aren't that accurate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.