Printable View
Heres a hypothetical that I read somewhere else...
It is 1938, and Bush is in office. He feels Adolf Hitler is a threat to the world, so he takes action. He invades Germany under the guise of "Police action," and captures Hitler.
Did he just prevent the starting of World War II and the Holocaust?
You know where this is going:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In doing the same thing in Iraq today, did Bush prevent World War III?
No, hitler > saddam
Interesting question.
It's so hard to make judgements on what could have hypothetically happened.
Actually based off the question, if any president at the time was able to invade Germany as easily as we did Iraq and capture Hitler yes it would of stopped ww2, but the simple fact that trying to invade Germany at that time vs tryin to invade Iraq are two different things
This is a joke right?
seriously........
Tell me your having a laugh.......
Germany in 1938 was a first world country with a pretty powerful military.
Iraq is and was a third world country with no military to speak of, and an airforce that had to be buried in the desert to prevent it being destroyed.
In fact if you look at american foreign policy towards the USSR, China, N. Korea etc etc etc there is no reason to think they would have risked invading a leading military power. America has a history of invading those countries who have already been brought to their knees, and steering well clear of anyone who is actually a threat to them.
Fuck Bush.
That is all.
Yeah, Bush went to war with Saddam because he was the next Hitler. Ohh, and there was something in there about oil too.
Ignore the military capability that Iraq had when the US/coalition invaded a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelion
Instead focus on root causes on how/why future conflicts/wars would break out. Whether it be Germany's military agression (in the past) or major instability in a region that houses the greatest natural treasure in the history of the world.
With no interest in debating the whole Iraq situation right now, I'm not going to say I agree or disagree with what TM has tried to imply, but there certainly is at least some merit to it.
BINGO. BANGO. BONGO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
Here I was trying to think about poker and you guys bring up politics!
Iraq was a fairly stable country that posed little to no threat in comparison to some of it's neighbors. Germany was a technologically advanced country with a very powerful military and a dictator who wasn't hiding his intentions very well.
btw... Iraq hasn't been a third world country in quite some time, but it seems to be on its way back now.
I'm going to cut this short to spare you all, but I'm warning you:
I have lots of strong opinions about politics and especially the almighty US's "foreign relations". For your own sake, please don't tempt me!
In the words on Penn and Teller BullshitQuote:
Originally Posted by dev
Iraq has been and was a threat if not imediate threat to other countrys. And worse off a threat to its OWN people. Sadam has killed thousands of his own people in a mini holocaust of his own.
Just wish it could be handled better, Im pretty happy we went to war just we did a shitty job at it.
This is coming from a person who stronly dislikes Bush.
sometimes you go for a blow to the stomach before you go for the knockout.
Why? If iraq had a powerful military they would not have been invaded, whether or not they were a threat to other countries in the region. The comparison between nazi germany and iraq is rediculous. One was an aggressive,technologically advanced world power and one of the leading industrial powers in the world, the other is an already defeated third world country whos only remaining battlefield weapons are the ones sold by us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
Alot of that instability was caused by most of the countries in the region being artificially created by outsiders (read westerners) after the first world war. Iraq was created by the brittish in 1921. The US is trying to do the same thing now. It didnt bring peace/democracy before and it isnt working now. Surprise!! In fact the reason the US invaded is the same reason the Brittish organised all of those countries in the first place. They want the oil, and dont give a damn about democracy or who gets hurt along the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
Iraq wasnt a third world country before the first gulf war but it has been for some time now. I dont know about your definition but any country where half a million children die of poverty in ten years is a third world country IMO. And guess who's vetos have extended these sanctions against the wishes of the 13 other member of the security council? Yup, US and UK used their veto to prevent the lifting of economic sanctions under humanitarian grounds. These are the guys who apparently care about the people of Iraq? No wonder they dont want us running their country...Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
Is the person capturing Hitler also going to take out Himmler, Goebbels, Eichmann, etc. etc?
More importantly, invading Germany simply wasn't an option. Only a combined simultaneous pre-emptive effort from all the allied nations could have threatened the most powerful military in the world, and even then, how do you destroy the several-million strong Wermacht in order to get to Berlin? It's not even imaginable.
The premise is a manipulative, utterly groundless form of propaganda. Woudl you like to contemplate on what Bush would have done to the civilians, soldiers, prisoners etc? Would 6 million German dead at the hands of an egomaniacal imbecile be an "improvement" on the holocaust? It's a stupid and malicious question.
nh Pelion. I guess we do have different definitions on the term 'third world', but I looked around the net, and so does everyone else.
The US is the cause of a lot of suffering in a lot of different places... Saddam killed his own people under the watchful eye of the US and we did nothing. We could have prevented it. What we choose to prevent is oil getting out of our grasp.
Do your own research on this. Don't listen to the talking heads on the TV or take anything in print for granted. If you give a shit at all about the world you live in, you can look for alternative sources. The UN has tried to pass a number of resolutions against state-sponsored terrorism. The US has vetoed all of them. The reason for this is that those resolutions would have considered the US a terrorist state.
What we are doing to Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, democracy, or stopping terrorist attacks against the US.
That about sums it up for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
also no one has brought up the fact that the US was in many ways built on WWII. Without it the US would never have been what it is today. And if we were to end WWII before it begain, if it were even possible, the ramificatiosn would be unimaginable. Britain would not be our close allie, on the contrary they might actually despise us. There was a lot of nazi sympathy in britain pre-WWII. The cold war might have never happened, we could have instead went into all out war with russia, seeing as we would be occupying germany, a MAJOR player in diplomacy in europe. If you thikn we have alienated ourselves from the rest of the world now... imagine if it wasnt muslim extremest that lack modern militaries. Imagine instead that it was a 'coallition' of european super powers. Britain, France, Russia, Italy, ect ect. We would have been like napolean, but way worse. Atleast he was from europe, atleast he belonged on taht continent. Trust me, america would not have it easy.
And let us not forget the Japanese. They didnt just get phoned by Germany one day, and decided it would be a good idea to go take over the pacific. That was brewing for just as long if not longer them what was going on in Europe. We almost surely would have been involved in the Pacific war still, and without allies backing us in europe, shit woulda got real hectic real fast.
and after they invade and take out hitler, they impose harsh(er) sanctions on the already devastated german economy, creating greater unrest and resentment, and another radical comes to power with similar goals, but technology has progressed enough to allow this 'new hitler' to nuke russia and the UK, as well as the rest of europe. plus, before WW2, noone thought that a preemptive strike was a good idea, so they never would have thought of it. i guess what i am saying is that the neocons werent around, and their guiding principles hadnt been written, so the presidential agenda probably would have been quite different. in fact, bush could not have been elected without the neocons and their fear mongering, so no dice.
I love people who say "This war is all about oil! The US WANTS IT!" Well, we have essentially unfettered access to it. We control the fields. We haven't taken any. Why? Can't safely export it yet? I doubt that.
Look, I voted for Bush. I'll admit to that. And I supported (and continue to support) this war, NOT because of WMDs, NOT because of supposed "terrorist ties", but because the entire middle east had become a massive massive powder keg.
http://www.ggwo.org/images/map-mideast.gif
Someone point to Iraq on the map for me. See how its DEAD CENTER of the "middle east"? Iraq is the centerpiece to stabilizing the region. If we can control the center, we can control the edge. Its military tactics and planning 101 (a class I highly suggest, required for us ROTC brats)
But it also brings every enemy FROM the edge to the MIDDLE -- which for some reason, no one sems to have fucking planned for. I don't know why -- its not Bush's fault. I can tell you with 100% certainty Bush had very precious little to do with the military planning. But as POTUS and therefore CIC, it falls on him - thats how our command structure works.
Maybe they did plan for it, but never told the American Public. So now we're years into it with no end and the citizens are, "wtfbbq"ing.
Essentially instead of dropping in and assaulting a weak edge, we've parachuted into the middle and will fight wave after wave of enemy until there simply aren't any left to fight. Theres no doubt we can win this. We wouldnt have gone straight into the center if we couldn't. Our military is vastly superior and can completely handle wave after wave of enemy. It just takes time.
Iraq is the key to the region. Syria starts acting up? We've got our military about an hours flight away. They'd be squashed before they could mobilize and THEY KNOW IT. Iran? Same. Thats why they're gettin pissy NOW rather than later. As soon as we have a solid base in iraq, they know theyre toast.
Oh, and one last thing, to the people (not necessarily here) that are saying, "We need to withdraw every troop!"
Get. Real.
We ain't leaving iraq. Probably ever. We havent left Korea, Germany, or Japan et al.
let's wait to make sure he didn't start it first.
We're just there to stablize the region. Nothing more. Okay.
There have been far less stable regions in the world throughout the past fifty years that our country has chosen not to go into. Why? Because it would not benefit us if we did, or it'd start WWIII.
I'm not saying oil was the "OMFG 100%" reason for going over there...but it definitely had something to do with it.
Yup. We thought the same way about Vietnam. That went well.Quote:
Essentially instead of dropping in and assaulting a weak edge, we've parachuted into the middle and will fight wave after wave of enemy until there simply aren't any left to fight. Theres no doubt we can win this.
I'm not saying that we should pull out our troops, because if we did that, it would be absolute fucking chaos over there. It'd be 10x's worse than before we showed up. So we can't leave.
Maybe that was the plan from the beginning?
Theres no doubt that the vast oil supply was a CONSIDERATION. Of course it was. Oil is 'black gold', and our country drinks the stuff.
I guess my point is we aren't there to take Iraqi oil. But part of the effort is of course to secure our access to it.
The iraq/vietnam comparison is kind of silly. We lost more people in week one of the vietnam conflict than in the last what three years of the iraqi conflict. We also aren't fighting an organized army, we're fighting pockets of disorganized semi-guerillas.
The comparison to mogadishu and somalia is far more acurate.
do you really think that the US could do to Iran what it did to Iraq?? you must be dreaming. sure they could bomb the shit out of it, but that wont do much without being followed by a ground force. and Iran is a hell of a lot larger than iraq, has double the population, has a strong economy, a highly educated (comparatively) populace and a military. plus it still has an ally in russia. there is just no way in hell that the U.S. could go after iran in the same way they did iraq. and that is why they are attempting to negotiate with iran which they did not do with iraq. that is also why they try to negotiate with north korea. they do not want to attack a country that can fight back.
Comparing the two is an exercise in futility. They aren't remotely the same, for the exact reasons you pointed out. But, if you think our presence on their border doesnt scare them a little bit, you're nuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
If it came to it, I have no doubt that we could take over Iran, but thats just pointless warmongering - we don't want to take over iran, we have no reason to take over iran, we just want iran to play nice in the sandbox.
I have absolutely no doubt that if Iran suddenly does make good on their nuke plan, that we'd put a missle through the construction site in a heartbeat. Yes, its a double standard. Yes, I'd prefer no one had nukes. Yes, if I had to choose between Iran and the US having nukes, I'd rather the US have them. Yes, I think us saying "You can't have nukes" while we have hundreds of nukes is rediculous. So goes being a world economic and military power.
God, please will people start doing some research before spouting off what fox news told them?Quote:
We lost more people in week one of the vietnam conflict than in the last what three years of the iraqi conflict.
Western powers have been mixing and matching new governments in the middle east since WW2. Seriously, why is peace and puppet gov'ts in the middle east is a goal of the western world? You guessed it, black gold.
there is no way the US could 'take over' iran. i do agree that they could bomb the shit out of them, but there is no way that a ground force would be able to occupy and control iran. unless of course they killed everyone first, but i think that some other countries would intervene before genocide occured. because russia needs oil too.
Thank you for your in-depth analysis of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
Well fine, its pointless posturating, but I'd bet that if we really committed our entire military to it, we could control iran. Again, this is just pointless warmongering and is in no way germane to anything :DQuote:
Originally Posted by pgil
OK, so I took a jab at fox news... well calling it news is a misnomer. All I'm saying is do your research.
The US suffered 1080 casualties in Vietnam in 1965.
You backed up an argument by saying something that can't even be close to the truth. If you want to make an argument, do some research first. So many people have opinions on this subject that have absolutely no grounds, because they are not willing to do their own research. Your president lies to you repeatedly. The news skews the truth every day. There are reports that the pentagon is misrepresenting the casualty count in Iraq. Do your own damn research!
Here, your putting the burdon of proof from your argument on me. Well, it's been disproven.
United States Armed Forces
128,000 Wounded
58,238 Killed
~ 230 fraggings
14,000 Missing in Action
> 50,000 Suicides since 1975
Admittedly, euphoricism was exaggerating, but you are being misleading also.
Well, I shouldnt have said "first week" i should have said "average month". His numbers are for the first year of the war, when our involvement was relatively limited (in comparison to the scope that we later took) and yours are for the total.
http://thewall-usa.com/stats/
breaks it down very clearly
edit: nah, even average month doesnt work. We avergaed about 400 deaths/month.
Anyway, the comparison is still silly, theres no reason to try and make it more silly - we lost 18000 men in the first 3 years of vietnam, we've lost 2300 in the first 3 years of iraq.
I didn't make the comparison based on numbers of troops killed/wounded in action, or that the reasons for being in Vietnam/Iraq are even remotely the same. I made the comparison because of this statement:
The same thing was said about Vietnam, that's all I was trying to say.Quote:
Essentially instead of dropping in and assaulting a weak edge, we've parachuted into the middle and will fight wave after wave of enemy until there simply aren't any left to fight. Theres no doubt we can win this.
We're fighting an unwinnable war. Only way we win is if we control everything/everybody over there, and there are plenty of people lining up to make sure that doesn't happen.
you should read up on the russo-afgan war (the russian veitnam), or even just read up on vietnam if you want. Military superiority really doesnt mean all that much. Also in the culture, we have put our big dumb red white and blue fist into, will to fight pretty much starts from birth. And the will to fight is easily directed at us. Our will to fight however is not so endless, its actually very minute(sp?).Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
Also I want to point out that it is pretty silly and simple minded to believe that to control the oil, we need to physically own/control the wells. The mafia didnt always physically own a casino in vegas, but I betchu if they got thier way there. (and dont cry about me comparing bush's administration to mobsters, because most of the world sees us as just that, thugs.)
fyp. my will to fight in the middle east extends until the blind hatred and the determination to crush the west and spread sharia law to the entire world ends. if we have to have iraq act as a black hole to suck these individuals into attacking us there rather than here, so be it. it would also be nice if muslims as a whole would realize that freedom is ok and give up the ridiculous and oppressive parts of sharia law, but i guess i can only ask so much at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by boostNslide
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
1) Why arent you fighting in the middle east?
2) You dont seriously believe that bombing random peoples children is going to actually stop the blind hatred do you?
3) When did iraq ever try to crush the west? like...ever?
1) i don't want to get shot?
2) we don't bomb random people's children and this is no more than a dickhole strawman argument, and i really don't appreciate it
3) the people we are fighting currently in iraq are primarily terrorists of the al qaeda et al variety who are interested in no more than crushing the "infidel", the western view of the world, and establishing worldwide sharia law.
dont be a hypocrite, I as you, never had a will to fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
{edit: I dont have a will to fight for this hollow cause}
i surely have a will to fight, and i would if i needed to. just because i am not fighting means there is no reason to fight? that doesn't make a lot of sense. have you ever gone to public protests of the war or gone to iraq to encourage peace? why not? you must not really oppose the war.
everyone wants freedom, do you honestly believe that these people dont? Just because when they close thier eyes and think of freedom, they dont see an american flag, this doenst make them freedom haters. Hating america != Hating freedom. Yes there are some less the humane practices in the muslim world. There are also less then humane practices in America. And in Rawanda, China, Indonesia, Russia, Columbia, ect ect. If we arent going to fix the shit thats wrong in our country first, why go invade others? And if we are going to invade others, why muslim ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
Also some people think its terrible and sexist and inhumane that its a law that women have to cover thier faces and pretty much the rest of thier body too. Its extreme yes, and I wouldnt want that law. However men can walk around bare chested in this country, and women legally cant. Yes it is less extreme, however accepting one and damning the other is being a hypocrite. People need to stop interpretting the Muslim culture with so much prejudice. Im not saying all thier laws are humane, my example is just one to show how westerners can be hypocritical and it seems to be based on the fact that they are muslim.
And as far as innocent children being bombed. Sure its not our target, however it only takes one innocent child, or one innocent mother, or whatever, being killed to spawn 10 or 20 or more extremist fighters. Its a very delicate situation. If you cant understand a teenager in iraq who was neutral, then had his little brother killed by a US bomb, becoming a Jihad fighter; Im pretty confident you are increadibly bias and completely unaware of it. The kid is not going to say "oh, its colatteral damage. My little brother died from the US bombs, but they are really here helping him and me and everyone else." And hes most definatley not going to say "It was a US bomb, but it was the Jihad fighters fault!! If it werent for them our country would be at peace!!!" (and then proceed to fight on the side of the US.) These are not realistic expectations. Put yourself in his shoes, and if you think you would have either of these thoughts, youre lieing to yourself.
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
Ive spent quite alot of my time fighting against this war because I feel it is unjust and I know our troops, who have promised their lives for our protection, are having to put their lives at risk when we are in no danger. At the same time the iraqi people who we are "freeing" are being killed by the thousands and more and more people are turning to terrorism for revenge. This war has not made any part of the world a safer place and things are still getting worse.
Now we're back to fighting a religion instead of a country. I wish we had a Muslim poster here to set you straight, because I know very little about the Muslim religion. I do know that The regime in Iraq was less fundamentalist than the regime in Saudi Arabia, yet we're in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
You're not serious, are you? There is actually someone who believes Cheney when he says "They hate us because of our freedom!" Come on, really, they hate us because we bombed/shot their father/brother/uncle/mother/sister or aunt or sold weapons to the people who did. Yes, they hate us, and they have damn good reason to. We're not combating terrorism, we're creating more of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
1.sure, inhumane activites go on around the world. i can't really think of any that are acceptable in the U.S., but ok. we are dealing with muslims now because they are bringing the fight to our front door and extremists will not let this issue die down. it got itself into the spotlight and can't just wiggle its way out. i don't believe in cultural relativism: sharia law has things in it which are just plain wrong, whereas U.S. law does not, and anything that is questionable is wrong to such a lesser degree that it is a non-problem.
2. i don't believe in cultural relativism. making people not show genitals/boobs is morally correct, hanging people because they want to change religions/vote is not.
3. what you're saying is different from what pelion said and i completely agree. I just don't think that extra fighters against us gained in this manner are significant. the cause is deep rooted and widespread enough, it isn't going to die out or be significantly weakened if it didn't have these people.
fair enough. what are you protesting against though? you want a full U.S. pullout immediately?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelion
i keep going back to fighting a religion instead of a country for a reason. we all know the facts behind the war in iraq and that our basis for going was all wrong. but that was years ago, now we're in a war and have to deal with what we've got. you can try to hammer down my throat that bush lied and we shouldn't be there all you want, in most ways i agree with you, but that's kindof pointless isn't it, nobody is too far from being on the same page, in this thread i'm moving on and arguing about what to do next.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
I could not disagree with you more, and I think my feelings are backed up by the words and actions of al qaeda. Extremist muslims hate us because we are the infidel, just as they hate and have assaulted all those they consider infidels, american or otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
Muslims are not bringing the fight to our front door. Suicide bombers (mostly from Saudi Arabia, any from Iraq? No. Didn't think so) are bringing the fight to our front door. Trying to punish a religion for that is just plain... I can't think of a word, but you probably get it... Hitler did it, get it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
Abortion, Capital Punishment, It's illegal to grow hemp because of it's relation to cannabis. If you're trying to say our laws are fair, you really need to rethink... you really need to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
BTW, it was acceptable in our culture at one time to hang someone because of the color of their skin. Don't give me that "We're right because we're US" shit.
Which cause are you talking about? Does it really have anything to do with Iraq? We're hurting a lot of people. For what? You don't actually believe this war has something to do with terrorism against the US, do you? I don't blame you, I'll just blame fox news, and you can too, that way you never have to do anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
But thats exactly what is happening to your fellow americans, and iraqi civillians every day. Its very easy to talk about your never ending will to fight when you are 7000 miles away from the action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
Come on... We bombed a refugee convoy because the tractor leading it "looked like a tank". The convoy was strafed several times up and down at low altitude. We've bombed hospitals, embassies, schools, all because they look like chemical weapons factories. Hell, we even bombed the wrong country when we ment to bomb afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
The people we are fighting in iraq are iraqi civillians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
First we were told we needed to attack iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Once that was discredited we were told we needed to save the iraqi people. How can we save them if we are bombing them into the ground.This is not some great humanitarian mission. If it were then we would be dropping food packets rather than cluster bombs. The goverment and media still manage to come out with "well its ok to bomb these guys cuz most of them have just come in from other countries anyway because they hate democracy". Well once again that is a lie. The proportion of the iraqi resistance who have come in over the border is less than 2%. That means at least 98% of the people we are bombing are the ones we are bringing happy happy freedom to.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
The argument all this time has been that we cant pull out because it will start a civil war. Well guess what, we already have one and it is getting worse every day we are still there.
Now even Iyad Allawi, the prime minister of iraq until 2005 has admitted that the country is now in the middle of a civil war.
If the thing we are trying to prevent is already happening, and we are making it worse.... what more reason do we have for staying?
everyone who does inhumane things should be forced to correct it. we can't go after every single person/culture that does inhumane things all at the same time. muslims, most especially extremist muslims, believe in and practice inhumane things and have brought the issue into the spotlight. Just because extremist muslims have brought the broader moral issues into the spotlight doesn't mean it is wrong to criticize them while they are there, sharia law is wrong regardless of your other beliefs, extremist or regular.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
edit, and i wanted to add, i am by no means saying that we should be fighting muslims over sharia law. social pressure to change is appropriate for that. it was merely a criticism while its in the spotlight for other reasons.
oh my. at any given time we decide right and wrong based on everything we know. slavery being wrong is obvious now but wasn't in the past, and it being wrong has nothing to do with the decisions i make on what is right and wrong currently. Abortion, capital punishment, growing hemp, are all things that are questionable as to whether they are immoral. i personally feel abortion and capital punishment are perfectly moral, growing hemp really isn't a moral issue and i'm generally undecided about legalizing weed. stoning people who change religions is wrong. not because "we are the U.S.", but because it is a freedom deserved by all. I would like to add that pretty much your entire statement was refuted or explained in the quote of mine that you wrote this trying to argue against.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
i don't believe that we invaded iraq over terrorism, but i again don't really see how this relates to my opinions about muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
this is called an ad hominem argument and it proves nothing other than i am not currently fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelion
ok you're right we kill little kids on purpose my mistake. i'm done going down this road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelion
The majority of people we are fighting are extremists, where they're from isn't really my biggest concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelion
well, i disagree with you, strongly. i think u.s. presence at this point is 100x better for iraq than lack of it. might be better for the u.s. if we left, but not for iraqis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelion
I totally agree, anyone who does something greedo doesn't like should be punished.
We're not fighting a person/culture that is doing inhumane things. We're fighting people over control of their own government. The US government obviously didn't target Iraq over inhumane acts. Don't bring up the gassing of the kurds, do your damn homework.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
If you were to look at the middle east before this war, and wanted to bomb muslim extreemists, Iraq is the last place you'd go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
If there was a US like there is today back in the time of slavery, people like you would be all about killing our ancestors. You are not god, you are not infallible, and their lives are not for you to decide. Now if only we could get the message to our leaders world peace might actually be a realistic notion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
Are we talking about the war in Iraq or you're oppinions about Muslims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
This thread started when someone posted the very perposterous and very dangerous idea that the Bush administration somehow helped something by going to war.
dev, i've clarified what i mean multiple times. i agree i'm treading a fine line about what i'm exactly arguing about, but its mostly because you and pelion keep twisting my argument back and making it about the war and our reasons for going to/being in it, when i am speaking more generally.
cultural relativism is a pathetic idea. if you beleive in it, i doubt we're ever going to agree on anything.
You just said a scary thing. Slavery was ok because rich land owners/buisnesses could make a massive profit from it. It stopped being ok because people faught for it hard enough. Its should be pretty obvious to anyone that you cant just treat other human beings how ever you want. It was obvious then and it is now, it was just convenient to ignore the morals. Sounds kinda familiar really...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
Most of the time its probably an accident but that isnt the point. Whether its deliberate or just plain incompetent it still happens far too often and doesnt help defeat terrorists... If you make people more desperate they turn to more extremist religions, and they turn to terror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
There have also been many documented cases where coalition troops have opened fire on crowds of people, and even other coalition troops. The point is when you put people into that situation for long enough they do 2 things.
1) They get jumpy and start to shoot at anything that moves.
2) Some of them start to hate the people they have been sent to "free" and shoot at them / beat the shit out of them and film it to show their friends for entertainment.
None of this stuff is going to help your cause, and none of it is going to stop until we get out of their country.
I am twisting nothing. You seem to think the reason we went to war is irrelevent because it is in the past and we cant change it. We just have to do the best we can from now on. But if we have sent people there for the wrong reason, the iraqis arent going to like it and they arent going to change their opinion of us just because we decide to fix it all now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
Have you ever had a fight with your girlfriend?
It doesnt matter how bad you want to fix it. If she tells you to go away you go away.
Sure you can go buy some flowers or some chocolate and try and talk to her later but you gotta let her cool down first...
You have stated it several times... no one else has. You mentioned earlier you were changing the course of the thread to what to do next, and that really never happened. Pelion stated his arguements that we should immediately leave Iraq. Personally, I would like to add massive reparations to that. I'm a dreamer.
It's unfortunate that you want to change the subject before we've come to a conclusion. It's not so much about who's right and who's wrong, but coming to conclusions based on intelligent debate with your peers.
Maybe you believe in pushing your ideas and ideals on other cultures. If that's the case, I'm just going to drop this, because we're mortal enemies.
I would like to think we're all sane individuals, and I just can't stop checking this thread so I'll go with the cultural relativism thing.
Cultural relativism and moral relativism are ideas to help explain points of view. I don't think it is possible for a human being to take a view held by a culture that is far different from his or her own without applying his or her own views. So it's not really possible for a person to be a "Cultural Relativist". No one fully believes in it, but you can't deny the point that people have the right to their own beliefs, and that's what it's about.
Seriously, though, what we're talking about never really had to do with cultural relativism. I think there are certain morals that are agreeable by anyone's terms. Personally, I think anyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't keeping someone else from doing what they like. Can you disagree with that?
I have gone to public protests, I have also put up anti war protest stuff... My life during highschool consisted mostly of not going to school, and writing on thigns late at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
I havent read pelions response yet, but Im sorry if my reply insults him:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
Anyone who would call for an immediate withdrawl from iraq is a complete idiot. That would probably spawn a worse threat to america then sadaam ever was. This is why I think war protests should not be focused on iraq, but "the war on terrorism" and its silly open endedness. It should be quite clear to everyone that a war in Iran is NOT plausable. Its a retarded idea, that just makes no sense. We are stretched thin in Iraq, we dont ahve the means to carry this stupid holy war to another country.
So whats the answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by boostNslide
sorry, but youre an idiot if you think they attack us because we live they way we do in our country. They might not like how we live, they might think we are godless, but they dont attack us because that. Do you really think that they do? Seriously? You have to be joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
They attack us because we put our hands in affairs in thier neck of the woods, somewhere that we dont belong. We put puppet governments in place, we influence if not directly rig elections, we have done some super fucked up shit in the middle east, and the way thier relgion is, it might just be that it gives them drive to stand up and fight back. They consider us infidels and the enemy due to what we have done in thier countries, what we have done to their families. Not becuase of how we live our lives.
And also just because the people we hear from there seem to hate us doesnt mean the majority does. I think this is a huge error that a lot of (conservative) americans make. I understnad how you feel, but dont bend the facts to fit your feelings/beliefs. Cuz that just makes for a fucked up bias world.
bah... if goign there in teh first place on a wild goose hunt was wrong. Leaving the country to self destruct, and out of its ashes rise a possibly muc hworse thing, is just ad bad if not worse then the initial act. Leaving now would be very inhumane. I just dont see how its an option?
bush and co. giving public apologies for thier retardation, and causing all this turmoil in the world would be a start. But leaving would jsut not work.
I've only briefly skimmed through the thread, found some posts that I agree with, others that I disagree with. The norm. Anyway I have a few questions that anyone is free to answer. I just ask that if you choose to do so, you do so in detail and explain your reasoning. If you can't, or simply do not want to, I ask that you ignore this post. Thanks. These can be answered with or without the benefit of hindsight, but make sure you include that in your argument. Also, by long-term, I mean at least a decade after the start of the conflict.
1. Was going to Iraq in the best interest of the United States in the long run?
2. Was going to Iraq in the best interest of the Iraqi people in the long run?
3. To those that oppose the war in Iraq: The simple fact is that we are there. What do you propose that we do about that? Abort and basically piss away thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars? If no, then what?
Thanks for your time.
No. Hindsight or not, war for anything but defence is, well, -EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
No. For starters, a lot of them are dead now. I have read a lot about it, and I've seen quite a few interviews. Not one of them gave me the idea that anyone in Iraq thought it was a good idea. They should be allowed to choose their own fate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
The lives and dollars have been pissed away, staying there doesn't change that and neither does pulling out. It's certainly not a reason to stay and piss some more. I guess our leaders got really drunk or something, there's a lot of pissing going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
It is such a hard question to answer, because even the smallest bit of reparations is never going to happen. The government of the US will not admit it's mistakes and as things stand now, welcome back to Vietnam. We can just leave, but things would be pretty fucked for a while. We could try to kill off all of the people that don't want our idea of a good government and leave that government in place, but this all started when we put Saddam in power a couple decades ago, so that doesn't end well. The point is that we need a way out, and our leaders aren't even considering it. I think what we should do is call a truce, and split the country into provinces that will govern themselves. Just try for the solution that costs the least lives.
CIA operatives mined Nicaragua's main harbor in the 1980s, and until the 1990s. CIA agents created a right-wing group in Haiti that killed hundreds of civilians. in Southeast Asia the United States and its allies slew 1 million, many of whom were civilians. CIA operatives helped overrow an elected leftist leader in the early 1970s, creating the long nightmare of Pinochet's rule. Or recall Iran, where US operatives in the 1950s helped depose an elected government that was threatening Western oil profits. They then installed the Shah, a dictator who relied on torture to maintain control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedo017
from the boston globe, Dec. 23rd, 2000. Authors: James Ron is assistant professor of sociology and political science at Johns Hopkins University. Charles T. Call is assistant professor for research at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
so maybe they dont occur 'in' the US, but they are done by the US. If you want more recent examples look at guantanamo bay, or abu graib (sp?). those are some pretty horrific things done by the US spanning >50 years. and that is just a very small sampling of the wrongdoings of the US. i cant do any more of this, it makes me sick to my stomach.
sorry for the delay in stirring this shit up.
thank god someone who doesn't like the war agrees we should pull out immediately. i actually thought people were kidding the first time i heard dems were suggesting immediate withdrawl. yea, because that doesn't screw over iraq (i'll add, screw over iraq, even more, to pacify everyone). just because the country is civil warish right now doesn't mean pulling out won't clusterfuck them 100 times worse.
dev, i don't believe in pushing all of my ideals on other cultures. i beleive that all humans deserve certain inalienable rights. only certain ones should be forced on other cultures with violence if necessary (no genocide, etc.) However, i have no problem declaring that it is 100% wrong to deny certain freedoms, and i dissaprove of other culture's choice to do it.
Sure, we need to come to a conclusion about the war, and I am changing the topic. Haven't we come to a conclusion about the war though? In hindsight, we shouldn't have gone. Before the war, even given only the information we had then, it was at best a marginal decision to go. moveon.already.
And lastly. The extremists initially got mad at us because we were meddling in muslim affairs too much. At this point though, they could care less what we do. They have declared a jihad with no terms of ending. Regardless of how it started, they have made it perfectly clear the only way it will end is the destruction of the U.S./establishment of sharia law/fall of the west, and i don't see why anyone wouldn't believe them.
bin laden has broken his own religions' rules by declaring a jihad, as there are very specific rules about who can do this, and he can't. he is an outcast from mainstream islam, so to lump all of islam in with him and others like him does a great injustice to the entire religion. let's not forget that christianity went through its dark ages, with popes killing each other, and when christianity was even more intolerant of those that didnt share their exact views. and that during this time all major advances in science were made by muslims. and that the only reason we have any knowledge whatsoever of ancient science, philosophy, and art is because of the openmindedness of the muslims from the middle ages who strove to collect and preserve knowledge while christians wanted to destroy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelion
well said, nh sir.
who told you that we put sadaam in power? Because they were absolutely wrong. The bath (sp?) party gained power through a nearly bloodless coup. This was after the then current president had gained office through a very bloody coup. Sadaam was part of the bath party, he was in charge of 'security'. So that pretty much means he was in charge of eliminating opposition to the party. However this was a huge blunder on the presidents part, because sadaam could jsut point his finger at someone that was his enemy, not the states and have them killed. So he was eliminating his enemies the whole time. Eventually the president 'above' him just stepped the fuck down cuz he no longer had any power and feared sadaam.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
thank you, Im not knowledgable enough on the religions of the world and particularly islam, but I know people are wrong when they lump them all together and call them terrorists. Anyone who says this, to me, just looks like an ignorant fool. I say this because thats the same way that the ignorant hate mongering muslims lump us all together. So if its wrong for those hate mongering extremist to lump us all together as greedy immoral ungodly capitalist pigs, then its wrong to lump them all together as 'freedom hating terrorists'.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
damnit I wish I had a subscription to the times... I might just have to get one. Right now I can only find sources that aren't entirely reliable. As in, if someone decided to start a conspiracy similar to the 'priory of scion' or something like that, it would be possible that these sources grew from such a conspiracy.
I'm sure I've seen better sources for this, so I'll find them and post them when I have time, but for now I ask you to put up with the far leftist stuff:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
http://www.worldwar3report.com/boomerang.html
http://expage.com/notowar20
bah too much reading, summerize plz.
basically says that the CIA helped to coordinate the coup, and then supplied the baath party with weapons and intel.
word son.
I'll preface this by saying I'm a Republican (in the true sense of the word, not in terms of what the Republican Party has said or done in the recent past). So, read into it what you will:
1. Was going to Iraq in the best interest of the United States in the long run?
In hindsight, I think most anyone here can agree what it was not. Make any arguments you want about the gov't misleading the public, etc, but most Dems themselves have said they believed Saddam had capability to build WMDs back at the end of Desert Storm. I'm not going to sit here and make assumptions about whether the gov't deliberately misled us or whether it was just bad intel - mainly because less than 0.01% of the population has even close to the amount of information necessary to know something like that.
2. Was going to Iraq in the best interest of the Iraqi people in the long run?
Unequivocally, yes.
Bluntly put, Iraq is going to suck for another ten years. Any country that is taken over and occupied by an outside force usually takes at least 10-20 years to recover to the point of being self-sufficient. So hunker down, guys, we won't be out of there appreciably until 2020.
With that said, look at the areas where all of the interviews are occurring. Get away from Baghdad a little ways and people are generally highly appreciative of Saddam being deposed. Let's not kid ourselves - we took over a country - people are going to be pissed; however, the areas where the most US opposition occurs are naturally the pro-Saddam Baath-heavy settlements.
(added after initial post) - Some Iraqis spoke out against what they disagreed with in Saddam's regime, too - unfortunately, they're sitting in mass graves right now. If you notice nothing about Iraqis, it's that they're very passionate, opioninated people. Just because we're hearing a fair amount of dissent now (mainly from the areas where bombs are going off every two days - who can blame them?) doesn't mean that there wasn't similar sentiment three years ago.
While some of you logically deduce that leaving eliminates the main problem for Iraqis and will quell the civil war going on over there, I don't agree.Quote:
3. To those that oppose the war in Iraq: The simple fact is that we are there. What do you propose that we do about that? Abort and basically piss away thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars? If no, then what?
The Middle East is such a powder keg because of the many different religions with diametrically opposed belief systems. Most of those systems are what Westerners generally refer to as 'fundamentalist' or 'extremist' - while it's completely incorrect to label these as the same thing, we seem to do so over here without thinking about it. If we leave now, we take a country with no stable, controlling government......and let the religions fight over who has power. I can't see how anyone might argue differently, especially those with even cursory knowledge of the parties involved.
-------------------
Wrapping this all up, are we better off if we just pull out? Yes. Is Iraq? Not a chance.
Whether you think the US should play morality police or not, I don't sit easy at the thought of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying in a civil war that would have happened in any kind of power vacuum. It's not inherently the US's fault that this happened - the tinder has been there all along, and we're just the embers that got the fire started.
the embers or the pyromaniac arsinist?
Haha, point taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by boostNslide
Regardless, what I was getting at is that any power vacuum in the middle east would have caused the same strife you're seeing now in central Iraq. There are just too many factions - look at the situation in multiple countries in Africa and throw some religious fervor on top of the flames.
yah, what do these two places have in common? COLONIALISM!!! The west has fucked these areas of the world over, and we need to start by admitting it. I think that people too often want to say "ok ok we did it, we fucked up, so what its in the past get over it" .. someone said soemthing similar to this about invading iraq. NO!, you cant majorly fuck up and then just try and move on and ignore your horrible blunder. Admitting your guilt and trying to fix the problems youve caused says a ton. Admitting it in a dismissive way, and then ignoring it all together also says a lot. Which one do you think we should be saying?
I think I said we need to admit we fucked up AND fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by boostNslide
The problem here is that it's impossible to come up with a fairly acurate idea of what will happen if we just pull out. Someone, in an earlier post, advocated just sticking around and taking on all comers until everyone who hates us is dead. Both options are extreem and unacceptable to anyone who has thought much about the situation and has any kind of love for humanity. We need to figure out the way that will have the smallest human cost. I really hate saying it like that, but that's how it is.
I think we need to get the UN back involved in the situation so that there can be a more 'middle east' solution. Our leaders wont let that happen, because they had reasons for going to war, and the UN doesn't have the same motives.
Second best, in my mind, is just pulling out. US hands need to NOT be involved in the new Iraqi gov't, in order for it's people to respect it. Without a very strong leader like Saddam, good luck. At least if we just pull out it will be on the people of Iraq to decide their fate. This option is best for the people in the US as well (no more tax money going to war, spending on intel rather than bombs, soldiers back home, etc.).
On the issue of withdrawl from Iraq, there's obviously two things we can do right now. Stay or pull out.Quote:
....We need to figure out the way that will have the smallest human cost. I really hate saying it like that, but that's how it is.
Stricly from a human life perspective, which do you think is better? Complete instability, civil (+outside?) war, anarchy, chaos in the oil-rich Middle East, or having a reasonably stable area with a very dominant (albeit hated) military? Let's be real now. We can think of a lot of reasons for staying, but not many for leaving. Let's be even more real with ourselves now. We're going to be there for a long time. 50 years from now, we're still going to be there. Japan, Germany, South Korea we're still at all of those places...