A soldier in Iraq asks in despair: Why are we here?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Pekka
Serb, yeah, but that's the way attacks happens pretty much always. Sometimes they work out and sometimes they don't and I'm talking about the pretext of war.

I can't think of two wars that were the same.

Explain the difference between the Soviet agression vs. Finland and the American agression vs. Iraq.


Do you want to know a right answer?

BOTH WERE THE SAME - AGRESSIONS.

Do you agree with that?

Yes or no?
Simple as that.


p.s. If you disagree - prove your point.

[Pekka]

Well if you want to play it at a general level as in if it is aggression, well it is quite obvious. I thought you were comparing the wars 1:1, which just can't be done.

From the point of view that aggression was done, a 'pre-emptive' of a kind, then yeah, sure. Then again, it still differs in general level, as official goals. By official I mean real goals. Soviet Union was paranoid at the time and thought Finland could be used as a proxy easily, so it was more of a global warfare at that time.

In the case of Iraq, Iraq isn't a proxy country or wouldn't have been one, so what ever the reasons for invasion are... you see, neither of them were about liberation. But they both play differently, many SU soldiers were told they're liberating their fellow comrades who have been pushed down, so they'll be happy to see the liberators. This was believed by many and in some form, maybe some Soviet leaders thought that there's some truth to it, since we had a civil war that was bloody, SU backed reds and Germany backed whites. A class war, so it was somehow misinterpreted by few, that these reds will come to their side and since there's a lot of them, you know, few days and it's over. But we know quite clearly it wasn't so much about liberation of comrades, it was more self interest, geopolitical and all that stuff.

Iraq isnt' the same. It wasn't marketed as 'liberate Iraqis'. It was marketed as a WMD hunt. It turned liberating after that WMD thing failed.

But if you say that both were kind of unprovoked (as in not enough to start a war) and pre-emptive aggression, sure.

[EyesOfNight]

You don't want the military running the government. If you give us money we spend it. Thats why you give it to us after all.

So guess what happens if we get all the money (and the tools to get more...).

Think of all that money that's going into bull**** programs that could go into increasing the American military machine? Look how much money we give to the UN. Look how much money we give to nations in foreign aid. Think of all the bull**** programs and government waste that goes on right now that could go towards advancing military technology. The present government wastes horribly bad and is at the beck and call of special interests. I don't see how the military could waste money any worse than the civillian government is doing now. The difference is that it would be serving American interests every time instead of corrupt politicians and foreign interests.

[Berzerker]

If you're going to try and say Bush lied and got us into the war for oil, then I suggest posting in one of the topics from 2003 or something, or better yet, moveon.org is waiting for you.

We weren't lied into this? Dozens, no hundreds of assertions based on half truths and outright falsehoods all designed to garner support for an invasion and you think these people are honest? Honest people dont smear critics, honest people dont out CIA agents to go after their spouses, honest people come clean when they find out they were wrong, and honest people dont defend people who are lying to them. The proof Bush is a liar is not necessarily that he repeated all these lies (albeit all the evidence I need), the proof is in how he reacted when those lies were exposed. He just kept repeating the lies even after they were exposed while smearing critics.

Do y'all even pay attention?

[EyesOfNight]

honest people dont out CIA agents to go after their spouses

You obviously haven't been keeping up to date on this one. Your comrades at moveon.org welcome you.

[Serb]

Edited:

Originally posted by Pekka
many SU soldiers were told they're liberating their fellow comrades (Serb: liberating Finnish comrades from teh evil opression of the capitalist pigs, etc.)


Iraq isnt' the same. It wasn't marketed as 'liberate Iraqis' (Serb: Really? I though it was the operation "Iraqi freedom" ). It was marketed as a WMD hunt. It turned liberating after that WMD thing failed (it turned to liberate Iraqis from teh evil dictator pig?) Well compare that with posted above .


But if you say that both were kind of unprovoked (as in not enough to start a war) and pre-emptive aggression, sure.

Well, ladies and gentelmen, I have no more questions.

Thank you very much for your time.

[Serb]

Pekka, the official pretext of the Soviet war vs. Finlad (aside Finnish bombardmends of the Soviet frontier installations, etc.) was that Leningrad city was very well in range of your heavy artillery (Sorta WMD of that time). The frontier was 32 km away from the Leningrad - the second Soviet/Russian capital. So, it was a real threat in case of incoming war.
So, the facts are - you could bombard the second most important Russian city from your territory (you did have artillery don't you?), while Iraq had no chance and even a slight possibility to harm a single American village.

So, don't tell me crap. Both wars were the same agressive sh!t. And official reasons (brainwashing campaigns) have nothing common with reality.

[Patroklos]

Think of all that money that's going into bull**** programs that could go into increasing the American military machine? Look how much money we give to the UN.

What exactly do you think we need to spend more money on? I would rearange some of the spending (ahem, come here Air Force...) but we arleady invest so much more than any other country.

You think China is our greatest rival right? Our fighrers are two generations ahead of China (3 more than most of their airframes), our ships 2 gernations ahead and about to be 3 (aready 3 for most of their classes), and our army and marines as ahead as you can be in that sort of thing.

And don't believe this crap about how our military is "broken." That is stupid spin made up by the same people who declared "OMFG 10000 people dead in Katrina!!!"

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You think China is our greatest rival right? Our fighrers are two generations ahead of China (3 more than most of their airframes), our ships 2 gernations ahead and about to be 3 (aready 3 for most of their classes), and our army and marines as ahead as you can be in that sort of thing.

[Serb's berserk mode /on]
There are others whose airframes and missiles are still superior to yours.
[Serb's berserk mode /off]

The time will come.

[Patroklos]

Unlike Mr. Putin, I don't see WWIII starting next week.

So Russia, stay out of this

[EyesOfNight]

What exactly do you think we need to spend more money on? I would rearange some of the spending (ahem, come here Air Force...) but we arleady invest so much more than any other country.

You think China is our greatest rival right? Our fighrers are two generations ahead of China (3 more than most of their airframes), our ships 2 gernations ahead and about to be 3 (aready 3 for most of their classes), and our army and marines as ahead as you can be in that sort of thing.

And don't believe this crap about how our military is "broken." That is stupid spin made up by the same people who declared "OMFG 10000 people dead in Katrina!!!"

That's all great, but I'm a fan of getting as far ahead as possible. Also, what about the development of a greater presence in space? Space is the future, and just as control of the skies became important, space will be the next important battleground. Plus, what's to stop China from stealing our technology? Also, what makes you think they'll be starting from scratch when they do decide to really up their own military spending? As for the broken part, I've never listened to what left wing traitors have to say. What I'm saying is that we can be much stronger than we are. There is so much money being wasted that we could be pouring into developing more technology, and at the very least, not funding our enemies which we seem to be pretty bad at.

[Serb]

edited:

Originally posted by Patroklos
Unlike Mr. Bush, I don't see WWIII starting next week.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Az
To people in the states, generally: Explain this to me, because our army is an army of conscripts. Why the hell is there so much discontent among people in the US military? didn't they volunteer to basically be carriers of US policy?

I don't want to sound, I just really don't understand.

It's a little more complex than that. First, as Patroklos says, it's not as widespread as it's occasionally portrayed to be. In those cases where there is discontent though you need to remember a couple of things:

- The military is often seen as an economic out for people who are in bad situations. Those people often don't care what the mission is going to be when they're signing up, they're only seeing a way out.

- You're not just looking at professional military but also many National Guard units. These are where most of the discontent that exists shows up...they often feel that they signed up to help their local area during disasters or as a part-time educational opportunity (this is how the guard is often portrayed in advertising.) A weekend a month and two weeks a year is a far cry from running a supply convoy through southern Iraq. Extra or lengthened deployments only add to the resentment. This is less of a factor now than it was at the beginning of the war since anybody who signs up now knows what's going to happen, but there is still a big difference between the expectations of a Guard member and the expectations of somebody signing up for regular military.

Of course, this doesn't speak to the people who politically or philosophically just don't agree with the mission...but I don't think those are the people who you're asking about.

(No, I'm not and haven't been in the military; this is mostly repeating my friends that have been.)

[SlowwHand]

The problem is the people who thought they'd be weekend warrioring it for their working life. Guess what?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Dis
we are there for the oil. keep those pipelines open.

I find the 'war-for-oil' to be a bit of a one-size-fits-all analysis, and am not convinced.

Almost every war gets blamed on oil, but this one was probably as much about the US-UK asserting their authority and believing their own hype about how indispensible they are. They thought it would be easy. It wasn't, and they're stuck.

In Blair's case, he always thinks he's an angel, and will instruct his minions to come up with ideas that support that pov until he believes it. He also thought that easy wars were a good way to bolster the domestic authority he was lacking due to weakness and failure at home.