Reading Politics

With the ambush and the burnings of the four civilian americans, what should be our recourse? I believe we should go for the ole eye for an eye route....because I believe that is such a cowardly and horrid act to have done.

"In the name of god, impure souls of the living shall be banished into eternal damnation. Amen."

I believe we should go for the ole eye for an eye route...

Oooh... imagine what happened if everybody in the world did that. The first country to be eradicated by 'just' vengeance would without any doubt be the USA. But I guess eventually the whole world would be destroyed in the process. Everybody'd have so many eyes to scratch out and so many teeth to pull that nobody could possibly keep track of who owns how many body parts to whom.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

The world is on that downward spiral anyway. Do you honestly believe what those people did to unarmed civilians was alright simply because we're the united states, and we should turn the other cheek from them just because we're the united states? Where does that state we have to be morally superior? There are times when diplomacy and tact are needed, but there are times when it is best to revert to the schoolyard bully mentality, and take a punch at those who punch us.

"In the name of god, impure souls of the living shall be banished into eternal damnation. Amen."

Alright. According to todays news, about 24 innocent civilians (16 of them children) were killed when US forces attacked some rebels. Your turn to pick 24 innocent American civilians (16 of them children) and kill them.
Like you said, an eye for an eye.

What do I hear you say, only a monster would go and kill innocent children who have nothing to do with it? That's a great discovery, because the same is (or was) true for the Iraqi children who were killed by US troops today.

Always keep in mind that it's the USA that have started the war and are currently occupying foreign territory by means of military action. The Iraqi people did nothing to deserve the misery and humiliation that this war has brought them.

Oh, and

what those people did to unarmed civilians

What did they do?

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Apr 07, 2004.

What they did to the civilians? According to the San Diego Tribune, they were killed, burned, and mutilated with their charred corpses strung up to hang from a bridge while the villagers cheered.

You have created a good rebutle (SP?) against my comment, and I respect you more now, null. You have reminded me why I have disagreed with the war in the beginning.

"In the name of god, impure souls of the living shall be banished into eternal damnation. Amen."

I'm not sure what to think about the first paragraph, but you have my fullest respect for the second one.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Apr 08, 2004.

So appearantly, according to your post the American Soldiers, most of whom have children of their own or probably on the way, kill children out of spite? Out of Humor? Out of pure sadism?

The word Collateral Damage comes to mind. No matter what, no matter when, if the word "war" is involved, collateral damage is involved.

Now, why is it their fault (or our fault) that the rebels hide behind the civilians? Now, granted, this probably wasn't a war we should have gotten into, but we are in it and pulling out now will only bolster the rebels, giving them courage to strike back. When you have the snake pinned down, do you let it lose? Hell no, that snake is going to come back and give you a nice spoonful of venom!

Always keep in mind that it's the USA that have started the war and are currently occupying foreign territory by means of military action. The Iraqi people did nothing to deserve the misery and humiliation that this war has brought them.

*Cough* Saddam was killing more of people than have died of COLLATERAL DAMAGE! So you are saying we should sit by and watch Saddam continue his sadism and tyranical rule? Last time the US did sit by

6 MILLION JEWS DIED AT THE HANDS OF HITLER

WE DID NOTHING! NOTHING! WE DIDN'T COME INTO THE WAR UNTIL LATE BECAUSE WE DID EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE EVERYWHERE ELSE WANTED US TO DO! While this is not of the same scale, how are we supposed to know how far he would escalate? Do you want to remove the cancer when it is in infancy or when it has become terminal?

Another idea, many many many German civilians and many other on many fronts died due to collateral damage, did they deserve the misery of the war? Hell no, war is hell.

Frankly, I've been in support for a war of this type not for weapons of mass desctruction, but for Saddam's dictator practices that needed to be stopped. Anyone remember Farzad
Bazoft? The British Journalist that was given bogus charges and a bogus trial, then murdered by Saddam? Anyone remember Saddam's gassing of his pepole? There was no freakin' order in Iraq before we came, and while were here, we might as well pick up the pieces and put them back to gether again like we did in Europe TWICE in one century. I learned something in Boy Scouts. When you leave a campsite, you leave it better than you found it.

Question: Did the Iraqi people deserve the misery of a relentless dictator? Do the German people deserve the misery of being assosciated with the biggest, most infamous psycopath in last century? Well, having a german grandmother that lost everything to WWI and later WWII, I think not. No, the Iraqi people did not deserve it, the terrorists and Saddam's regime deserved it, and wouldn't you have wanted help ridding yourself of the Nazi regime if you were living in Nazi era Germany?

Ok, so, you're right. And if you were right, this is what would happen. The US would return to isolationism, withdrawing from the world. All the countries that recieve our federal aid and defense lose much of it, at least all the defense. At first, everyone is happy, especially the anti-US factions. Some place like N. Korea or China wise up to the idea that we aren't patrolling the seas anymore, they start moving. We've scaled down our military, crippling ourselves. We get attack by a vindictive country again. We go down in fire. Better hope the Brits have lots of guns and the Frence have grown spinal cords.

As egotistical as that sounds, it's happened before. We got in WWI, eveyone here in America HATED, I MEAN LOATHED that war. We pulled out, scaled down. Sure enough, 20-30 years later, Pearl Harbor gets bombed, France is crying for it's mother, and Britain is struggling to defend their island while recapturing North Africa.

History can, has, and will repeat itself. Are you prepared?

DISCLAIMER: I do not mean this as an attack on null, but as an attack on what I feel some of the pretentious anti-war statements. I respect what posts of null's I've read, I've just wanted to get this off my chest. I still hate the French though :) Also, I bet I left out a point, so when I get a little more time, I'll put them in the replies. *Wee, takes the one man pro-war stance, ready for the anti-war masses*

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

So appearantly, according to your post the American Soldiers, most of whom have children of their own or probably on the way, kill children out of spite? Out of Humor? Out of pure sadism?

That's what you say. I'm not sure if you're trying to put words into my mouth or really mean this as a question, so let's just assume the latter. So, no, that's absolutely not what I'm saying! The troops are only humans in a really fucked up situation they didn't create on their own.

Last time the US did sit by
6 MILLION JEWS DIED AT THE HANDS OF HITLER

I wonder how many times this (and only this) statement has been used to justify some military or political action with questionable reasons?

Yes, the holocaust was bad. Yes, the Jews (and all the other people, for that matter) shouldn't have been killed. Yes, Hitler was a loonie. But that doesn't have much to do with the current political situation.

Now it's my turn to use big letters:

Last time the US intervened in WWII (Japan)

100,000's were killed by nuclear warfare, and while I'm writing this Hiroshima and Nagasaki still suffer from the consequences

Last time the US intervened in Chile

the democratically elected president was killed and replaced by a cruel dictator who terrorized the country for 27 years, killing and torturing 100,000's of innocent civilians

Last time the US intervened in Iraq

100,000's of civilians died, either during the bombings, because of leukemia caused by the depleted uranium shells used by US forces, or because of shortage of drugs due to several embargos

Last time the US intervened in Vietman

(do I really have to list everything that happened there?)

Tell me if you need more examples, they're nearly countless.

But back to the stuff that really has to do with the Iraqi situation at hand.

These people have a culture way different that the one you (or I, for that matter) know. The reasons why they feel offended (to say the very very least) by US troops are many, the most obvious one being that the US invaded their country and are holding it by means of military force.
But then there's much more to that. The US troops continuously disrespect local customs and important social conventions, they disrespect and humiliate the locals, probably without even noticing it, out of pure ignorance for their culture! Putting a man in chains and pulling a bag over his head in front of his whole family? Heck, this man and his family will never be able to forgive them. (And bombing a mosque, my ass, what kind of utter moron thinks this might be a good idea??)
Think about it. The US bombed their country, killing thousands of innocent people, destroying a great part of the infrastructure and installed a foreign 'administrator' who doesn't know sh*t about the people. The troops run around with their MPs, push the civilians around in whatever way they deem appropriate, leaving them with no rights or way to complain. And all the while they completely disregard the most basic rules of decency and respect. That's how the locals experience the occupying forces.
At best, the impression the US troops leave are those of arrogant infidel assholes.
(Of course the soldiers only do what they're told and probably don't even want to be there, but what can they do about it?)

With this in mind, how many Iraqis do you think will be grateful that the altruistic USA have liberated them from their bad bad dictator? The last thing I've heard is that many people say they had it better under Saddam.

Would you say all this helps fight terrorism?

the Frence have grown spinal cords.

Always remember that if it wasn't for the French, you all would still be driving on the left side and drinking lots of tea each day at 5pm.

eveyone here in America HATED, I MEAN LOATHED that war.

If I may say this, many companies - including some American ones - made a lot of money during both world wars. Ask George Bush where his grandpa (Prescott Bush) got most of his business partners in the early 40's.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Always remember that if it wasn't for the French, you all would still be driving on the left side and drinking lots of tea each day at 5pm.

But we paid back our debt to them. We were faithful and fufilled our obligations while they breathed down our necks for the money we owed, but when we respectfully requested that they pay back the money they agreed to pay back, they said "oops, sorry, we can't" and did nothing.

That's what you say. I'm not sure if you're trying to put words into my mouth or really mean this as a question, so let's just assume the latter. So, no, that's absolutely not what I'm saying! The troops are only humans in a really fucked up situation they didn't create on their own.

My thoughts exactly. Sorry if I was putting words into your mouth.

Now it's my turn to use big letters:

:P

Last time the US intervened in WWII (Japan)

We were at official (sounds so wierd, "official") war with Japan. We weren't intervening, we were already at war. I never understood Trumans decision to drop the bomb on 2 cities, and I don't like that idea. He should have dropped them on say a naval port or something to send the message, dropping Fat Man and Little Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was relatively (I say relatively loosly) stupid.

Last time the US intervened in Vietman

Vietnam was touchy. North Vietnam was invading what (correct me if I'm wrong) and ally, South Vietnam. We intervened on behalf of South Vietnam, who could not defend themselves. The only reson why that was botched was because of the effing Hippies and effing Opium (coupled with a pinch of crazy and incredibly stuipd officers in charge, served with a side of dissenting public). Our own public botched that one, but if you look at the outside reasons for the war, we would have been justified had we had our heads screwed on straight and out of our asses.

If I may say this, many companies - including some American ones - made a lot of money during both world wars. Ask George Bush where his grandpa (Prescott Bush) got most of his business partners in the early 40's.

I was talking about WWI. Thats around the 1910's. Banks and munitions companies prospered, yes, but the American public hated the war and hated Wilson for dragging them into it.

Last time the US intervened in Chile

Havn't read up on the US intervention in Chile. I'll read up on it and until I come up with a rebuttle (if I do *shrug*), you win that point.

Last time the US intervened in Iraq

Don't flirt with number here. The body count is about 7,000 civilians of the recent Iraq invasion. There is no way it could be around 100,000 even if it included desert storm. Want my proof? http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm. You can even read the names of the individuals too.

With this in mind, how many Iraqis do you think will be grateful that the altruistic USA have liberated them from their bad bad dictator? The last thing I've heard is that many people say they had it better under Saddam.

*Cough* The media is biased. There are the voices out there that say "We are happy that Saddam is gone", but you only hear them depending on your source. An anti-western/anti-war newspaper is going to cut out the "Yay" voices, while a pro-war newspaper will ignore the "Nay". Also, don't you think people were still scared to death of Hitler and Mussolini when they left? Hell, many Russians used to think Stalin's system was good because they were still scared to death of the man. Even in his passing the people couldn't rest. Could the same not be true here?

Excuse my big letters when I typed my post, but may I ask that you double check your figures before you post them? 100,000 is nowhere near 7,000.

I'm out, it's been fun.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

My thoughts exactly. Sorry if I was putting words into your mouth.

No offense taken. That's why I've asked you to clarify. :-)

We intervened on behalf of South Vietnam, who could not defend themselves.

You'll have to forgive me for not believing that this has been an out-and-out altruistic action.

We weren't intervening, we were already at war.

Well, my point was that the US probably overshoot the mark with the two nukes. Especially since Japan was close to surrendering anyway. As you said

I don't like that idea.

Banks and munitions companies prospered, yes, but the American public hated the war and hated Wilson for dragging them into it.

You bring up an interesting point that's been bugging me for a long time. Does a country represent all of its citizens (or vice versa), only its government or some in-between thing? You could argue that the government is elected by the people, and thus all is the same, but that's only partially true. So far I haven't found a satisfactory answer. (Example: I think the Israeli government is a bunch of crooks and criminals, but I feel sympathy for the Israeli people. Does that make me anti-Israelian?)
Long story short, I'll have to think about this before I can give you an answer.

Anyway, for more examples you might want to check out this site. I can't guarantee that all information is 100% correct, but those examples I've checked are true.

Don't flirt with number here. The body count is about 7,000 civilians of the recent Iraq invasion.

Oh, I'm talking about the original Desert Storm show, not the current invasion. I'm familiar with iraqbodycount.net (BTW, have you seen iraqometer.com yet? Not as detailled as IBC, but with more figures and nifty graphics).

The media is biased.

Exactly my maxim. That's why I avoid relying on only one source, if possible. This particular piece of information comes from two major radio stations, a Swiss and an Austrian one (DRS and FM4). In this case I believe the information to be credible. (Of course it's up to you which sources you want to trust, and how much.)

[Talking about people being scared even after their leader is gone]
Could the same not be true here?

Yeah, I think that's quite possible to some degree. Saddam has been a ruler you probably wouldn't forget too quickly. On the other hand, there are (at least) three other groups of people -

• The anti-Americans and patriots, who didn't necessarily like Saddam but find the thought of an American invasion infuriating,

• the genuine pro-Saddamists, and

• the people who cheered and welcomed the US troops (yes, there were some) but are now disappointed and bitter because instead of the liberty and prosperity they've been promised, things are steadily getting worse for them. (Saddam may have been an asshole, but at least most people had work, food and a working, un-bombed infrastructure.)

And don't forget that the US troops steadily and sometimes seriously offend these people by unknowingly disrespecting local customs and etiquette. Most of them show no respect for the Iraqi culture - be it out of ignorance, stress or orders. I don't want to blame them (their job is hard enough already), but in my eyes this is a real problem, because I bet pretty much every Iraqi will feel offended by this kind of behavior.

I think this is a very dangerous situation. To plagiate the words of an unknown contemporary -

"Seriously though, when the people you are trying to 'liberate' are joyed at the fact that your soldiers are dying, then I think it's time to pack up camp and go home. That's just me though."

Looking forward to your reply. :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

We intervened on behalf of South Vietnam, who could not defend themselves.

You'll have to forgive me for not believing that this has been an out-and-out altruistic action.

Thank you.
Thank you so much for voicing out what most Asians feel but, being economically tied to America, are powerless to say.

One more time I hear a deluded American say: "We intervened on behalf of __________", I'll ... ... ...

"Constantly talking isn't necessarily communicating." --Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

One more time I hear a deluded American say: "We intervened on behalf of __________", I'll ... ... ...

I'm terribly sorry about the Vietnam quotes (read my newest replie to null's post). The only conflict in Asia which I will stand by my "on behalf of" is the Korean War.

Thank you so much for voicing out what most Asians feel but, being economically tied to America, are powerless to say.

Funny how the world works. We dehuminized and humiliate our President more than those that we oppress/step on/whatever word fits best (I don't know, I live here not there).

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

You'll have to forgive me for not believing that this has been an out-and-out altruistic action.

You'll have to forgive me for using Vietnam for an example. (I'll admit, I shouldn't have... I don't know to much about that war. All I do know is that the hippies came into existence around that era, and they contributed, in my opinion, __________ to society)

Example: I think the Israeli government is a bunch of crooks and criminals, but I feel sympathy for the Israeli people. Does that make me anti-Israelian?

No, it doesn't make you anti-Israelian. Frankly, I hate all the sh** going on up in Washington. If you havn't read, read "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy (I would suggest reading "Debt Of Honor" first, becuase Executive picks up EXACLY where Debt leaves off), the government has to go through a reforming (crazed Japanese man... long story... crashes a 747 [scary, this book was before 9-11] into the capitol building during a joint session of congress and senate [an inaguration]...), and Jack Ryan calls for people, average citizens like Firemen, Lawers, Business Owners, Blue Collar workers, etc, to fill in the positions in the houses. Personally, I would support something like that (though not the deaths), plus the cutting of the wages for senators and congressmen and capping campaign monies and staffers. But no government is perfect.

I can't guarantee that all information is 100% correct, but those examples I've checked are true.

Can't say that I like America being imperialistic, but on principle, I like the idea behind the Iraqi War (set up and leave, basically what we did and what the former Soviet Union were supposed to do after WWII, only the USSR made satillite states... but that's for another discussion). How the politicians defile the principle is not up to me.

"Seriously though, when the people you are trying to 'liberate' are joyed at the fact that your soldiers are dying, then I think it's time to pack up camp and go home. That's just me though."

I call that a vocal minority, or many extremely repressed citizens, but I could be wrong. Frankly, right now, I want us to finish the job (as in don't pull out now, because we will catch all sorts of sh** for leaving right now... like a child who doesn't clean up after himself) and leave. Eff the oil, lets invest some money and time into Russia's siberia for the oil.

I'm finished with this argument. Until next debate...

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

If you havn't read, read "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy (I would suggest reading "Debt Of Honor" first, becuase Executive picks up EXACLY where Debt leaves off)

I'm currently terribly short on free time (and will be for a while), but I've made a note on my almighty do-sometime-before-you-die list.

Can't say that I like America being imperialistic, but on principle, I like the idea behind the Iraqi War (set up and leave)

Yeah, the idea wouldn't be so terribly bad. Only the way it's carried out is a disaster. I'm sure if Saddam had been ousted and within a month the bombed infrastructure would have been repaired to a level where basic supplies are secured for all Iraqis (instead of jumping right to building new pipelines), and the installation of a new (US-independent) government in a foreseeable future had been planned, and the Iraqi civilians had always been treated in an appropriate and respectful manner, then most of the troubles in Iraq could have been avoided.
But as it is now, I honestly just don't see any easy way out. I'm just happy I'm not among those poor bastards who have to face the music (i.e. the troops).

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

But we paid back our debt to them. We were faithful and fufilled our obligations while they breathed down our necks for the money we owed, but when we respectfully requested that they pay back the money they agreed to pay back, they said "oops, sorry, we can't" and did nothing.

They helped our asses in the Revolutionary War, and then after WWI, we sat on our hands and watched as Germany trounced them. Now we sat on our fat asses and make fun of France for getting brutalized by Germany, and argue that because we helped them later, we're even. The most unfortunate part of this whole ordeal now is that instead of justifying the killing of their fellow Iraqis by going for the instigators of conflict, they're killing (assumedly) innocent civilians.

Thbbbbt

I'm new to the site and this Post is 4 pages long and growing and I haven't read all four yet so maybe what I'm about to say has been said, but I'll say it anyways.
Most people know about what is going on in Iraq from what they see on the news, or read in articles. That's what they're there for to spread the news. I'm not going to go into how journalists and newspapers are always wrong and how they like to spread the truth thin, but this does happen. Another point to point is that the medias', the whole lot of it, job is to report the news, it's other job is to make money. If one event occured and every newspaper and t.v station in the world reported from one side of the line A. It'd be pretty boring and they're wouldn't be any competition. B. You'd never hear the otherside of the story, (one side being true, the other being un-true, with a whole lot of gray in between the both of them.
To continue, what concerns me is where people are getting these facts and figures on iraqi kids killed, civillians bombed ect. ect. Alot of it, and please prove me wrong, I don't believe. There have been a few instances where Terrorists in those countries (Iraq) killed there own people and the cause of death was leveled at the U.S. I'm not saying the U.S doesn't kill the "innocent" people of Iraq. But I think it is few and far between in comparison.
Another thing, these "innocent" people of Iraq is what's wrong with Iraq, the reason for where they are today. Regardless of why "we", and i'm assuming we are all Americans (Which we may not be) went to Iraq to begin with the country needed someone to oust Saddam and set the country on course to better itself. As has been said Saddam and the Ba'ath party were vicious dictators and leaders, corrupt as can be feeding off of there fellow countrymen. These people were living, literally, in Hell. And there was nothing they could do to help themselves because of how deep they were. Along comes the U.S, wam bam, a few J-Damns later and the war is over....
This is when the innocent, good people of Iraq should have taken over, and taken control of there own country (with our help of course). But they didn't, they didn't want to help themselves. They only wanted handouts from the U.S, money, food...we owed it to them right? wrong. As the saying goes you can't help someone who doesn't help themselves. These cowards living in Iraq have done nothing to support us being there, even though WE ARE there to help them. They take, take, take and don't want to give.
On the other side of the coin there are the Iraqis who loath the U.S and crave power. They see the weakness of there own people and the prey upon it. They know with a few speeches and a few demonstations the people will be feeding out of there hands. The people of Iraq don't believe these quacks, they just want to be apart of something, something that is uniquely there own people. The problem is these leaders that aren't "shy" enough to stand up and speak for there country, to rally them together, are not Good people. They are the sick and the sadistic the Saddam's, the Laden's, the Al Qadr's.
What Iraq needs is a leader, a fellow Iraqi. Who can rally his people together in unity, not against the U.S (because the U.S is for the prosperity of Iraq) but with the U.S. A leader who coould start a revolution against the terrorists that threaten there daily lives.

I jump around more than the House of Pain, but there it is. Iraq in a nutshell.

The last thing I've heard is that many people say they had it better under Saddam.

Yeah I'm sure the Kurds would agree.

"A broken man of a broken land lives far beyond his brothers." Corrosion of Conformity

To continue, what concerns me is where people are getting these facts and figures on iraqi kids killed, civillians bombed ect. ect. Alot of it, and please prove me wrong, I don't believe.

So you're saying that if you disagree, from the comfort of your home, with what a journalist currently in Iraq reports, you're free to disregard that?

They only wanted handouts from the U.S, money, food...we owed it to them right? wrong. As the saying goes you can't help someone who doesn't help themselves. These cowards living in Iraq have done nothing to support us being there, even though WE ARE there to help them. They take, take, take and don't want to give.

We owe them everything we've given them and more, for putting their lives on the line so that we (and I use we as an American, but just a heads-up: the guy who runs this very site is a Münchener, over yonder pond, not an American) could have our own war. From everything the Iraqi people have seen, this was our war for revenge and oil, and, based on their perceptions of it as such, they are responding in kind. You cannot justify hating them for their reaction without admitting that something has to be done to prove that we're there to help them, not to rob them.

Thbbbbt

To continue, what concerns me is where people are getting these facts and figures on iraqi kids killed, civillians bombed ect. ect. Alot of it, and please prove me wrong, I don't believe.

Oh, you should be sceptic. Scepticism is good when it comes to news. But saying that something is not true because you, say, haven't witnessed it with your own eyes, is certainly exaggerated. If you don't believe that thousands of Iraqi civilians died in the current war, then nothing you see on TV or read in the papers can be credible enough for you to believe.

What worries me is that so many people adapt this simplicistic (yet terribly wrong) view that Saddam was the Antichrist, all Iraqis suffered endlessly and had nothing worth living for, and the USA did them the ultimate favor by Liberating™ them and bringing them Democracy™.

Did it ever occur to those people that the Iraqi people may not be made for democracy, or simply can't handle it? Why do they think so many middle-east experts say that the best thing that could happen to Iraq is a benevolent dictator?

Was Saddam a real asshole who deserves to be punished? Yes. Did he commit crimes against humanity? Yes. Did he imprison, torture or kill some of his subjects without a reason? Yes.
But Iraq was also a stable country (from the simple citizen's point of view), and most people had a job and a place where they could live. The country may have been badly governed, but it was also stable. The US removed this stability and missed the opportunity to preserve or restore it.

It's that ignorant and stupid assumption that bugs me the most (and is really dangerous) that everybody in the whole world strives to have the same culture, political system, and moral concepts as the USA or another part of the western world, and that bringing the western culture to a non-western country always means doing them a favor.
Did it ever occur to Bush and his drinking mates advisors that the Iraqis do not want to live like them, that they did not want to be 'liberated' just to be occupied by troops, lead by a foreign government they did not elect and that is obviously more interested in building new oil pipelines than in restoring the vital infrastructure they destroyed in the process of 'liberating' the country?

Regardless of the reasons for Shrub to start the war, the current situation could have been avoided and Iraq might even be a relatively stable and mostly self-governed country today, if only the occupying forces had concentrated themselves on providing what the Iraqi people really need - clean water, a roof over their head, something to eat and protection from the rioters and looters. That is what matters for the simple man (or woman) on the street. Note that oil pipelines or a stupid foreign War on Terrorism™ are nowhere to be found on that list.

Plus it might also help if the occupying troops wouldn't constantly offend the Iraqis by showing absolute ignorance to the local culture.

and i'm assuming we are all Americans (Which we may not be)

You'll find people from all parts of the world here. I for one am a Swiss. This whole site is maintained by a German. We even have a handful of Aussies (hey Mel!).

Another thing, these "innocent" people of Iraq is what's wrong with Iraq

Of course you know exactly how they feel and what their situation is.
Hey, if a Shrub govt. official says that their life has improved, who are they to disagree? They don't know shit about politics, right?
(Warning, excessive sarcasm)

Yeah I'm sure the Kurds would agree.

Why don't you fly down to Iraq, go to a public place and loudly proclaim that you're American and support the war for that and that reason? Maybe there are a few people who want to thank you for liberating them.

They only wanted handouts from the U.S, money, food...we owed it to them right? wrong.

You've destroyed most of the country's infrastructure (yes, I know I repeat myself) and basically bereft them of their vital basic supplies. Until you restore what you destroyed, you owe everything to them.

As the saying goes you can't help someone who doesn't help themselves.

They are helping themselves, in the way they deem appropriate - or where do you think do the many new militant anti-US groups come from? They're born terrorists or just stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them? Nope, man - for the most part these are people who want the foreign invaders out of their country and are willing to fight for it!
And - between the two of us - I think the fun will really start if they don't get what they want (US troops out if Iraq) pretty soon - right now they're fighting foreign troops occupying their own country, but if they don't succeed they'll look for more effective ways and targets to get what they want. Say hello to thousands of brand-new terrorists who will do anything to hurt the evildoers that stole their fatherland, and who think that the USA are the root of all evil. Good luck when they strike, man.

These cowards living in Iraq have done nothing to support us being there, even though WE ARE there to help them.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe they don't want the kind of 'help' you're forcing upon them?

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Apr 20, 2004.

Why don't you fly down to Iraq, go to a public place and loudly proclaim that you're American and support the war for that and that reason? Maybe there are a few people who want to thank you for liberating them

I did fly down to Iraq and talk to the people. That quote you quoted was about the Kurds. The Kurdish people loathed Saddam and the Ba'ath party. I was in Kurdistan (northern Iraq) for quite sometime and it is my feeling that we (yes I'm biased) the U.S Army was welcome there. Maybe it was a facade, maybe not. If it were how come there haven't been that many attacks on U.S or coalition forces in Northern Iraq.
But your right, the Kurds were a minority in Iraq. We should not have helped them. I mean they were the "black slaves" of the Middle East. Note the sarcasm.

But Iraq was also a stable country (from the simple citizen's point of view), and most people had a job and a place where they could live. The country may have been badly governed, but it was also stable.

That's part of what I did like about the Iraqi people. Those who weren't shooting RPG's at us. They lived day to day in filth. Alot of them did not have jobs and yet on a lot of them you'd see them walking around with a smile. Despite there situation. Of course I can't tell you if they were walking around in a good mood prior to OIF.

or where do you think do the many new militant anti-US groups come from?

Actually alot of the many new militant groups in Iraq are not even from Iraq at all. There from the surrounding Middle East contries that feel we have done them wrong. Furthermore it is safe to say there are millions, 24,683,313 was the July 2003 est, of people in Iraq. All of these people do not share the anti- U.S sediment. It's just the few that do are the ones killing U.S and coalition forces and getting all the air time. That's 24 million people. If there were 24 million terrorists in Iraq, I'd think we'd have a bigger problem than you suggested.
Excuse me though, that est was July 2003's. We've killed some many of them since it's probably down to a few thousand.

You've destroyed most of the country's infrastructure (yes, I know I repeat myself) and basically bereft them of their vital basic supplies. Until you restore what you destroyed, you owe everything to them.

What infrastructure? Iraq was as third world as you get. I'm not saying "it's third world, who cares if we destroy it", I'm saying alot of the destruction was already there.

if only the occupying forces had concentrated themselves on providing what the Iraqi people really need - clean water, a roof over their head, something to eat and protection from the rioters and looters

This was, is, and will contine to be going on.

You'll find people from all parts of the world here. I for one am a Swiss. This whole site is maintained by a German.

I'm glad to hear it. If we were only Americans, these topics would be quite boring. Keep up the good work Null, your posts are some of my favorites. I'm glad I had the chance to disagree.

I am not certain what your reference to WWII is suppossed to show. Sure, Europe and especially Germany should be grateful for what the US did back then (but I think that was not your point), and yes, in that historical situation, entering the war (possibly even earlier) was justified. But how does this apply to the situation in Iraq? Because war was the right answer once, it is the right answer now? Is there any smiliarity between the situation then and the situation now apart from Hitler and Saddam being both "evil"?

If we're talking about justification for a war, we should talk about moral rights, and possibly about the probable outcome.

Now, the US claimed the reasons for the war were
1) the threat from weapons of mass destruction,
2) the general war against terrorism and
3) the liberation of the Iraqi people.

The first reason has (as most knew before) turned out to be a lie, the second was ridiculous in the first place. This leaves only the third point, but now the US has a credibility problem. People in Iraq do not seem to believe in the altruistic nature of this war, which is exactly why the situation is getting out of hand. I do not either. If 3) was the main reason, why invent 1) and 2)? This is just not why wars are usually started.

Talking about outcome is speculative, of course.
It is possible that the people in Iraq will really profit in the long run, I do not want to diminish that. But the war already has created more anti-americanism ("anti-westernism"?) along the way. And that is not only sad, it is downright dangerous.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

If 3) was the main reason, why invent 1) and 2)? This is just not why wars are usually started.

I've no clue *shrug*. I really don't like Bush changing and making up reasons why. There were plenty good reasons to go into it (the British Journalist, etc. etc.) and Bush lost my respect when he made up new ones.

Anti-Westernism will always be here, no matter what. It's the angore you would feel to a rich neighbor (and yes, snooty neighbor). Anti-Westernism is like Anti-Semitism, or Anti-Communism. It won't go away, especially since there is an complete ocean dividing the two landmasses, making it hard for the citizens to understand and respect each other.

My reference is supposed to show that something in the Middle East conflict will come to get us (especially as long as Israel still exists). I personally believe in proactive decisions. So, rather than sitting on our hands and waiting for the snake to bite us, get the snake first and save lives in the long run.

The war was the right answer in the beginning. Now, I don't know. But certain things must come to mind when pulling out. No matter what the US does now, we will recieve flak. If we sweat it out and stand up the government on it's feet, we'll catch flak for being there so long, our officials, "bad neighbor", etc. etc. If we pull out now, we look like cowards in the eyes of the terrorists and catch flak for going in, tearing up the place, and leaving a mess.

I'm to the point where I'm in support for continued occupation because we need to finish what we started.

*sigh* I supported Bush's invasion, but what a folly he's made it now. He bungled the ball. I wish we would ressurrect Patton. He's rough around the edges, but he'd have finish in Iraq a long time ago much more definitely.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

So, rather than sitting on our hands and waiting for the snake to bite us, get the snake first and save lives in the long run.

My fear is, that this is not possible. I am, sadly, rather convinced that you cannot stop terrorism with mere force. Terrorism - in extrem cases, think of suicide attacks - needs hardly any infrastructure and hardly any money. A single man can run amok, a small group can hijack a plane. Security cannot (and should not) ever get tight enough to prevent that.

I believe the only chance is to "battle" the hatred. (A good first step was to seriously try to solve the conflict in Israel.) A war does not do that.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

My fear is, that this is not possible. I am, sadly, rather convinced that you cannot stop terrorism with mere force. Terrorism - in extrem cases, think of suicide attacks - needs hardly any infrastructure and hardly any money.

You are correct, but what I hope (I say hope, I have little faith in what any politician says his reasons are anymore) was the primary goal of Iraq were the large governments giving what little funding is needed and letting letting the terrorists run unchecked. The terrorism problem will never be gotten rid of, only if the local governments would crack down, it would hamper the progress of terrorism (which is a good thing. Not the best, but better than now)

(A good first step was to seriously try to solve the conflict in Israel.)

To the arab population, the conflict is not in Israel, it is Israel. No one in the middle east liked the formation of Israel, 'cause just like (it seems) everywhere else in the world, they hate the jews. That's actually one of the prime and #1 reasons why we are hated so much over there is because we support the jews. They think we are a country run by our jews, making us their enemy.

No war is evergoing to fix the Israel problem I believe. But Israel was not the focus of this war.

I believe the only chance is to "battle" the hatred

Fine, go ahead and battle centuries upon over a millenia of hatred. Talk has gotten us nowhere with the Israel problem. Frankly, talk has solved very little and has proven to be ineffectual in the Middle East (ie: Clinton and his peace talk events. Everyone cheered, wine flowed, and about a week later, a dead palistinian or a dead israli would show up and it was on again.)

Personally, the only way we could quit the quarrel they have with us is if we depart and ignore our longtime allies, the Isralis. That's the only way for us to gain some stability for ourselves and reduce anti-westernism over there. But I doubt any politician is willing to pay that price. Nor am I.

Frankly, I would love it ever so much if we would finish what we came (or claimed) to do in Iraq, and just leave. Oh sure, leave behind some people to train the new Iraqi defense forces and help out, but turn our attention away. Be gone, and ignore the childish middle east. I think we should turn our attention to Russia, get some manpower and money and some new technology and go drill the siberan for oil.

But what do I know.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

To the arab population, the conflict is not in Israel, it is Israel.

There is still a huge difference between a somewhat passive Israel and one that assassinates religious leaders (be they supporter of terrorism or not). (Note that I am not implying, they should just stop responding to palestinian "attacks".)

Fine, go ahead and battle centuries upon over a millenia of hatred.

That sounds so final. Like accepting the hatred as a god-given (how ironic) fact that could never change. I think this is too easy and ignoring that there are a lot of very worldly reasons for the hatred, like the huge gap in living standards, or the arrogant, somewhat imperialistic behaviour of the west (and sorry, but especially the US).

Talk has gotten us nowhere with the Israel problem. Frankly, talk has solved very little and has proven to be ineffectual in the Middle East

I think economical pressure and incentives could be a way. Then again, I might be naive.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

Then again, I might be naive.

I think if you want to change the world, you need to be a bit naive in order to get the necessary optimism to even try. But then again, a naive person can be successful.

Just my .02. :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Remember the troops you accuse of killing innocent children are people like you brother or the decent guy you have a beer with. War is dirty just like what happened on 9/11. I know there may be some evil men in our military, but generally I have found them to be more honorable than most. They put their lives on the line for an ideal and to do a job they have the courage not to abandon when hell brakes loose on them. It is an evil to say we kill innocents as does our enemy. We killed many people, many innocent in our wars, but not the same as the enemy. It is not a clean world we live in as much as we would like it to be. The troops and their commander are in tough spots.

In the United States it is more acceptable to allow a guilty man to go free than not give a innocent man every opportunity to defend himself. That allows many guilty free, but that also says something good of a society. Its ah dirty system and many guilty go free, but at least an innocent man, in an ideal of nobility has a chance here. We all wish every guilty man would be rightfully punished, but we are human and the system is flawed, but it is so far the best humans have been able to do and it is no small achievement when you see what came before it.

Our troops including their commander, and we as represented by our troops kill innocent people. However, it is evil to think horrible men have no regard or consideration for the innocent.

Part of the problem of where to point the finger in this whole ordeal is that too many people haven't learned from Vietnam that there's only so much you can do because of the pressures of society. There were those who spat upon Vietnam vets because they were unwilling to go to jail or flee the country as conscientious objectors. I don't blame the soldiers for killing these innocents in Iraq, because there is only so much they can do to try and prevent the deaths of innocents. However, the blame for the deaths of these women, these children, grandmothers and grandfathers, bystanders; these deaths should lie squarely on the shoulders (and hearts) of those who orchestrated this war, who planned it long before President Bush was even a candidate for the presidency. There are most assuredly many honourable men and women in our military; it is the men who lead them, who bark orders and lie, propagandize to raise their ire, who force them into having to murder by controlling their basest emotions of fraternity, nationalism, outrage. They use that which makes us human to make our fighting men and women, who indubitably mean well, to fight an unprovoked war that has done as much harm to an innocent people as it has helped them.

Thbbbbt

Beautifully put, man.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

The people who are running this country (into the ground) are purportedly Christians.

Jesus said the following:
If you are stricken, turn the other cheek that you may be stricken again
If your enemy takes your coat, give him your robes
It is harder for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven than a camel to enter the eye of a needle
If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword
How dare you turn my father's house [a temple] into a den of thieves [referring to moneychangers and merchants]

Jesus was a pacifist and an anticapitalist, not a warmongering imperialist.

If Jesus is really Bush's "favorite philosopher" then he grossly misinterprets his teachings... or maybe he's just a hypocrite... Most likely the latter, since Bush derided Clinton's "nation-building" a few years ago, and now engages in the same activities.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

The tacit idea is that only Christian conservatism is real conservatism. While it is desirable for America to a fundamentally Christian nation, this is false. Christian conservatism is legitimate and valuable, but it is not the only possible kind. This is so because Christianity, unlike Islam, is not a governing ideology. There is – thankfully – no Christian sharia, and the Bible does not spell out how Christians ought to run governments. This is why Christianity is compatible with a free society, which no Islamic nation has ever produced. Jesus said that Christians should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, (Mark 12:13-17) implying that politics is a sphere of human life it its own right which can be understood and acted in rightly on its own basis.

Christian values should guide our government, but the government itself should not be explicitly Christian as such. The founders got it right the first time, and it worked for nearly 200 years – until the governing class was seduced by the contrary religion of secular humanism, which has produced exactly the mess the founders knew an established religion would.

Anti-Semitism, the Conservatism of Fools By Robert Locke

Thought you might like the quote... not the rest of his stuff though.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

This post was edited by eljefe on Apr 16, 2004.

This is why Christianity is compatible with a free society, which no Islamic nation has ever produced.

That's an extraordinarily simplistic view, imo.

I believe in separation of church and state, obviously, but "Christianity" in one form or another governed the majority of the West for well over a millennium prior to the current age, crushingly and mercilessly. Need I invoke the Inquisition or the Crusades? The church itself has a bloody record in stark contrast to Jesus' teachings. No wonder they endeavored to keep the scriptures shrouded in Latin, Greek, and Aramaic, hidden from the understanding of the majority of the commonfolk.

During many of those years, Islamic society was MORE advanced and MORE tolerant than the theocratic regimes of the West. They developed the base 10 number system as we use it today, as well as the engineering technology that made Gothic cathedrals possible after the cultural exchange that took place during the Crusades, and were far more advanced in all of the sciences. Their rulers wer far more enlightened as well

Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity as well, so it's a little behind, although by now they have passed the point during which the Reformation took place in Christianity.

Religious leaders in Islam claim lineage to Muhammad, who was a prolific father, just like religious leaders in early Christianity claimed to be the descendants of Peter. The pope still claims to be the spiritual descendant of St. Peter.

If Jesus had fathered children, rest assured Christendom would hold them in exceptionally high regard, just like Islam does with the supposed children of Muhammad. Theocracy would most likely result.

Anyway, DESPITE ALL THIS, it is hypocritical to say one thing and to do another, period. Jesus rails against hypocrites more virulently than he does everyone else in the gospels. He cannot abide the hypocrisies of the Pharisees and Saducees and constantly calls them out for it.

Men subdividing their worlds in twain are hipocrites: they are desperately searching for a way in which to justify actions that are decidedly un-Christian. Jesus always negatively contrasted the world, meaning materialism and politics, with spirituality and righteousness. But he never said to suspend abiding by his teachings for any reason. He preached an ascetic, difficult life on earth. A life of constant sacrifice, not coddled comfort. This is not the life the modern Christian seeks.

People can live by whichever story they choose to adopt, and events will coalesce around that reality. We are amazing creatures that way. If we want to bring about the Apocalypse, if we really believe that's the course we will inevitably follow, we are more than capable as a species of bringing it about. It looks like both sides are gunning for that, so dire consequences await, in all likelihood. The pax Americana is a dangerous story that will mean, at best, the end of our free society as we militarize and lock down, and at worst, the end of all things.

Hitler sold his people a mythology that gave them the ability to do the most heinous things imaginable and allowed their country to recover from economic ruin to dominance in a few short years, with world dominance on the way. And it almost worked. The Japanese, though undersized as a nation, have similarly lived a story that allowed them to emerge against all odds from the desolation of war to the strongest economy in the hemisphere. Islam as it is practiced in many states is doing the same thing: allowing its people to perform heinous acts as seen in Falloojah, when combined with political victimization.

The story they're living is antithetical to the stories most of the west lives by. And for that reason, the US will never succeed in any of the Islamic states.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Everybody'd have so many eyes to scratch out and so many teeth to pull that nobody could possibly keep track of who owns how many body parts to whom.

Sorry, i know i shouldn't be laughing about something like this, but all i could think of is this little kid tugging on someone's sleeve going

"excuse me sir, you have my eye" in a pitiful voice.

and for some reason that strikes as hilarious.

it's early in the morning.

i can regret this post in two hours or so

-Mel ;)

Look at me! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!

-=thinks I've created a monster out of this post, and hides behind a pillar.....=-

On further reflection, my first initial post was posted out of anger....or shock, or whichever you wish to call it. I'm impulsive, which can be a blessing or a curse.

"In the name of god, impure souls of the living shall be banished into eternal damnation. Amen."

No problem. It's been a fun intellectual debate with null. (I love these lengthy debates that require me to stretch my mind to the breaking point)

:D

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

No problem. It's been a fun intellectual debate with null.

Peace & respect, man. :-) And it's definitely interesting to argue with you.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Wow. I just read all three pages of this topic for the first time. This is the kind of thing I joined this site for... Thanks!

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

I disagree... The USA would certainly be gone by this [eye for an eye thinking], but think of all the other countries that have spend centuries enslaving and taking advantage of their "colonies." The UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Japan, the former USSR, and the list continues. Although the USA's actions are unjust at times, they are certainly not the worst, which needs to be the issue. Just actions are hard to come by in this world, which is the greatest tragedy of all.

2nd Corinthians 5:7 "for we walk by faith, not by sight" ............I might be wrong...............

This post was edited by artrus on Apr 16, 2004.