Reading Politics

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).

Fond memories

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...

Fond memories

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).

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

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.

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

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.

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

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?

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

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.