Easy tiger, the original post on this thread is worthy of some rational discussion. If you can’t cope with views counter to your own perhaps this isn’t the best place to loiter, and perhaps the military isn’t the best place to be either. This is a discussion I enjoy, no need to ruin it by flying off the handle like that.
Now, from an ex-infantry, tree-hugger, pinko, liberal, I have to take a little exception to this notion that one must have served to have any idea of the realities of war or Iraq. As I’m sure most would agree, joining the army at age 17 doesn’t exactly expose you to an intellectual environment of discussion, varied viewpoints on the political spectrum, or complex debate on the history or power politics that dictate your daily life. You do what they say in a highly structured, organised environment. Now working with some of the worlds foremost experts on the region, I doubt anyone of them would agree with the idea that they a) must have been in the military, b) their lack of military experience makes them incapable of deciding the morality of beating prisoners to death, or c) this lack of experience similarly makes them incapable of understanding the situation on the ground in Iraq.
As much as I value my military experience, a lot of people I served with are stuck in this mindset and it gets them nowhere in civilian life. The sooner civilian and military alike dispense with this notion of having “being there and know it all”, the better off we’ll all be. In the military you take the rough with the smooth – revered as a hero one minute, demonised the next. Not too dissimilar from civilian life. Likewise, I’m sure many if not most of the folks who use these forums may well have an experience of aeronautics and service life that extends no further than a homoerotic fascination with “Top Gun”. Sadly, behind the cloak of anonymity, one right-wing flow of indignation at apparent attacks on their beloved military doesn’t distinguish the impostor from the genuine article, if you get what I mean.
Anyway, moving right along. We are incredibly selective in which violations of UNSC we chose to take action over now aren’t we, when it concerns Middle Easter/Mediterranean countries. It is especially intriguing that you use these same UNSC resolutions to justify a war – a war that was carried out in flagrant violation of the UNSC majority, and clearly was going to do so from the outset….a point, which in my opinion, makes it a little difficult to then justify on these terms. Yes, Saddam had chemical weapons at one stage. Well, it appears that UN weapons inspectors achieved exactly what they said they would and made damn sure there were none left. In a similar vein, the figures on the effectiveness of the entire GWI bombardment in removing these stockpiles is quite striking when compared with the effectiveness of weapons inspectors – something like 5:95 ratio. If you want to keep pursuing the WMD angle, I have to ask the question: is FOX news network your source of information? If not, I struggle to see how you can keep pushing that line. Your mention of “circumstantial evidence” really pushes the limit that much further. Come’on kids, we’re all big enough to realise WMD wasn’t the real reason for the war.
When it comes to violating these resolutions, we weren’t exactly helping when we used the teams as intelligence gathering units , completely outside their remit. If you want resolutions to be ignored, no better way to do it than use your teams as spies.
I concede though, the language we are using is not allowing just process. Let’s assume these guys are innocent. That would also include avoiding ridiculous claims that the Iraqi accuser must have an axe to grind on this issue, simply because….he’s Iraqi? BUT, I think the thread still remains. If these guys are guilty, is there ANY way this can be condoned? I say no. Period. Rights or wrongs of the WMD claims, left-wing or right-wing, military or non-military. The answer surely must be that simple?
Gotta say, again from my pinko-leftie view: the press pushes the right-wing, pro-military angle every bit as much as they push the left-wing, anti-military angle. In reality they aren\'t much different from society as a whole so it\'s a bit pointless blaming this all on the press.
At the end of the day al they are is conveyers of information. Any conveyence of information carries a "slant" or an "accent". Don\'t think it\'s always against you.