This attitude is part of the problem I'm afraid! War is only wrong when too many american boys start coming home in bodybags.
I read an editorial (looked for it but can't remember where I read it) that argued Americans don't mind the body bags, as long as we win or are winning the war. The reason people went against the Vietnam war is that it didn't seem like we were going to win, that our strategy was wrong, not that Americans were being killed. I think that's probably true.
I think the same basic prinicple can be applied the points later in this thread. I think the attitude of the Iraqi people and the Middle East in general will depend much more on what happens after the war than what happens during it. If we quickly move to self-determination and a legitimate and fair democratic government, and if the oil truly is used to benefit Iraq, then this war will have been beneficial to Iraq and the whole Middle East, despite the obvious death and destruction caused by the war.
Just to start. When shall we leave and let them liberate themselves? Now you say?
What chance do they really have against Saddam? Especially when he obviulsy does not care about their human rights and fair rules of engagement.
Your first link is a bunch of shit. Your second is a massacre of an ethnic minority, your third link is of a rebellion started by the US the abandoned, it might even have worked.
But rebellion will have to come when the people is ready, not when the US says "jump". Trade, aid and development could accelerate this process ...
Somehow I feel you have lost all attempts of being constructive in your posts.
I read an editorial (looked for it but can't remember where I read it) that argued Americans don't mind the body bags, as long as we win or are winning the war. The reason people went against the Vietnam war is that it didn't seem like we were going to win, that our strategy was wrong, not that Americans were being killed. I think that's probably true.
I think the same basic prinicple can be applied the points later in this thread. I think the attitude of the Iraqi people and the Middle East in general will depend much more on what happens after the war than what happens during it. If we quickly move to self-determination and a legitimate and fair democratic government, and if the oil truly is used to benefit Iraq, then this war will have been beneficial to Iraq and the whole Middle East, despite the obvious death and destruction caused by the war.
Sounds reasonable. But has democracy ever worked in an under-educated, clan-ruled, under-developed country?
And now it's being forced upon them? with the killing of thousands?
Your first link is a bunch of shit. Your second is a massacre of an ethnic minority, your third link is of a rebellion started by the US the abandoned, it might even have worked.
But rebellion will have to come when the people is ready, not when the US says "jump". Trade, aid and development could accelerate this process ...
Somehow I feel you have lost all attempts of being constructive in your posts.
Really, a bunch of shit is it? Care to expand on that?
The second is still an uprising that was brutally put down by Saddam. BRUTALLY.
The third is the same. Do you really think that given time Saddam will be softer on them? Or maybe they should just wait till he dies and his son's take over....
I thought you were in support of a people trying to liberate themselves. Or are you upset that the US tried to assist them? Again, whatever happens, put the bame on the US.
Well, CIA trained revolutionaries have always been a joke among jokes.
Concerning Palestine, which we shouldn't get into in this thread, even though excessive use of force is very relevant in this issue. The US holds the key to peace here. no doubt.
Quote:
Duration doesn't equate to a great level of aggression. During the reign of the soviet union, they were the true empire building, colonialist of the time. They conquered nations and ruled over them, mostly directly. Very different from US policy of encouraging agreeable regimes(even if the encouragement was through military action). Tell me, how many countries did/has the US conquered, colonised and ruled completely over?
Really, a bunch of shit is it? Care to expand on that?
The second is still an uprising that was brutally put down by Saddam. BRUTALLY.
The third is the same. Do you really think that given time Saddam will be softer on them? Or maybe they should just wait till he dies and his son's take over....
Wake up New, the real world is calling you.
shiet as in propaganda. the kurds rebell for their own cause, not to rid iraq of Saddam. The turks are not angels in this area either. I very much support the kurdish cause. But it has nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam.
you mean like we did with germany and japan? as i recall, they seem to be doing fairly well since we re-built them. so is panama and haiti for that matter.
Haiti is doing well?
I used to think Aristide actually could do something good, but my haitian friend tell me they've never seen a richer priest.
Sounds reasonable. But has democracy ever worked in an under-educated, clan-ruled, under-developed country?
And now it's being forced upon them? with the killing of thousands?
Japan? They were clan ruled and the population wasn't very educated as a whole prior to ww2. There were a considerably developed country though. Either way, democracy seems to work well there. Turkey? Obviously clan divisions, if not clan-controlled. Very underdeveloped and relatively under-educated. Democracy is going ok there too. Democracy seems to be taking root pretty well in South Africa. Just because people are poor, undereductaed and clan-dominated, doesn't make them stupid or unable to appreciate democracy. It could hinder their ability to develop a democracy on their own though.
shiet as in propaganda. the kurds rebell for their own cause, not to rid iraq of Saddam. The turks are not angels in this area either. I very much support the kurdish cause. But it has nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam.
Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that. Some examples of this propaganda would be nice.
The kurds were trying to get out from under Saddams thumb, whether they were trying to rid Iraq of him or not they were BRUTALLY put down. Turkey is another issue, not in this equation at all so stop trying to sidetrack it.
I never said it had to dow ith getting rid of Saddam, it has to do with getting out form under his oppressive regime, and they were massacred by him. why would it be any different now even if they were trying to get rid of him directly? Do you really believe it would make a magical difference?
Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that. Some examples of this propaganda would be nice.
The kurds were trying to get out from under Saddams thumb, whether they were trying to rid Iraq of him or not they were BRUTALLY put down. Turkey is another issue, not in this equation at all so stop trying to sidetrack it.
I never said it had to dow ith getting rid of Saddam, it has to do with getting out form under his oppressive regime, and they were massacred by him. why would it be any different now even if they were trying to get rid of him directly? Do you really believe it would make a magical difference?
Wake up! You are still ignoring the issue.
your first link is just a state department quote. get it?
The biggest problem with this thread is the premise that an unbalanced war is an unfair war. New seems to think that because the US has the superior force the war is unfair. Sorry, but no convention or rule of wars says you can't be a bigger, better army that the other guy. being better and bigger may be unbalanced, but it isn't unfair. Best way to end a war victoriously, is to demonstrate so overwhelmingly superior force that the other side surrenders. An I don't mean shock and awe, I mean group troops. Put up the biggest, toughest force you can, demonstrate their ability to defeat the enemy by using as much force as needed.
Again, just because it's unbalanced, doesn't make it at all unfair. Your lawyer friend was truly digging for that one. Ask her how she thinks a war is won, not ended but won, without killing the enemy.
your first link is just a state department quote. get it?
turky is not in the kurdish equation? get out!
On the first part, whatever, don't address the issue. That is fine.
On the second. Turkey's involvement does not speak to your claim that the people of Iraq should rise up and remove Saddam. Because Turkey did bad things does not wash away what Saddam did, which seems to be even worse from what I can see. Turkey is not the focus of this because they are not ruled by Saddam. Stay on topic.
I am done talking to you unless you have anything intelligent to post beyond, "well Turkey is bad too, and because the State Department may have said it, it is shit."
Japan? They were clan ruled and the population wasn't very educated as a whole prior to ww2. There were a considerably developed country though. Either way, democracy seems to work well there. Turkey? Obviously clan divisions, if not clan-controlled. Very underdeveloped and relatively under-educated. Democracy is going ok there too. Democracy seems to be taking root pretty well in South Africa. Just because people are poor, undereductaed and clan-dominated, doesn't make them stupid or unable to appreciate democracy. It could hinder their ability to develop a democracy on their own though.
I admitt Japan is a special case. Yet remember that Japan was very cutivated and developed and intellectual. In post war Japan, it democracy and its pacifist stance is built on very real japanese traditions, like zen buddhism. I don't see the same buildingblocks in current Iraq.
Edit: remember also that Japan was an aggressor. They were never fought to make them democratic. That would never have been justified.
South-Africa is struggeling, but it also had a democratic tradtion, even if it was only for the white. SA is also a prefect example of internal revolution and transformation of society.
Comments
Originally posted by New
This attitude is part of the problem I'm afraid! War is only wrong when too many american boys start coming home in bodybags.
I read an editorial (looked for it but can't remember where I read it) that argued Americans don't mind the body bags, as long as we win or are winning the war. The reason people went against the Vietnam war is that it didn't seem like we were going to win, that our strategy was wrong, not that Americans were being killed. I think that's probably true.
I think the same basic prinicple can be applied the points later in this thread. I think the attitude of the Iraqi people and the Middle East in general will depend much more on what happens after the war than what happens during it. If we quickly move to self-determination and a legitimate and fair democratic government, and if the oil truly is used to benefit Iraq, then this war will have been beneficial to Iraq and the whole Middle East, despite the obvious death and destruction caused by the war.
Originally posted by NoahJ
NEW:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030312-32976.htm
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_125536.html
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/iraq1991.htm
Just to start. When shall we leave and let them liberate themselves? Now you say?
What chance do they really have against Saddam? Especially when he obviulsy does not care about their human rights and fair rules of engagement.
Your first link is a bunch of shit. Your second is a massacre of an ethnic minority, your third link is of a rebellion started by the US the abandoned, it might even have worked.
But rebellion will have to come when the people is ready, not when the US says "jump". Trade, aid and development could accelerate this process ...
Somehow I feel you have lost all attempts of being constructive in your posts.
Originally posted by BRussell
I read an editorial (looked for it but can't remember where I read it) that argued Americans don't mind the body bags, as long as we win or are winning the war. The reason people went against the Vietnam war is that it didn't seem like we were going to win, that our strategy was wrong, not that Americans were being killed. I think that's probably true.
I think the same basic prinicple can be applied the points later in this thread. I think the attitude of the Iraqi people and the Middle East in general will depend much more on what happens after the war than what happens during it. If we quickly move to self-determination and a legitimate and fair democratic government, and if the oil truly is used to benefit Iraq, then this war will have been beneficial to Iraq and the whole Middle East, despite the obvious death and destruction caused by the war.
Sounds reasonable. But has democracy ever worked in an under-educated, clan-ruled, under-developed country?
And now it's being forced upon them? with the killing of thousands?
Originally posted by New
Your first link is a bunch of shit. Your second is a massacre of an ethnic minority, your third link is of a rebellion started by the US the abandoned, it might even have worked.
But rebellion will have to come when the people is ready, not when the US says "jump". Trade, aid and development could accelerate this process ...
Somehow I feel you have lost all attempts of being constructive in your posts.
Really, a bunch of shit is it? Care to expand on that?
The second is still an uprising that was brutally put down by Saddam. BRUTALLY.
The third is the same. Do you really think that given time Saddam will be softer on them? Or maybe they should just wait till he dies and his son's take over....
Wake up New, the real world is calling you.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Bay of pigs?
I thought you were in support of a people trying to liberate themselves. Or are you upset that the US tried to assist them? Again, whatever happens, put the bame on the US.
Well, CIA trained revolutionaries have always been a joke among jokes.
Concerning Palestine, which we shouldn't get into in this thread, even though excessive use of force is very relevant in this issue. The US holds the key to peace here. no doubt.
Duration doesn't equate to a great level of aggression. During the reign of the soviet union, they were the true empire building, colonialist of the time. They conquered nations and ruled over them, mostly directly. Very different from US policy of encouraging agreeable regimes(even if the encouragement was through military action). Tell me, how many countries did/has the US conquered, colonised and ruled completely over?
different tactics, same ends...
You have got to be ****ing kidding me. This is a WAR. We have showed unbelieveable restraint. And your point is that our advantage is "unfair"?
Originally posted by NoahJ
Really, a bunch of shit is it? Care to expand on that?
The second is still an uprising that was brutally put down by Saddam. BRUTALLY.
The third is the same. Do you really think that given time Saddam will be softer on them? Or maybe they should just wait till he dies and his son's take over....
Wake up New, the real world is calling you.
shiet as in propaganda. the kurds rebell for their own cause, not to rid iraq of Saddam. The turks are not angels in this area either. I very much support the kurdish cause. But it has nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam.
Originally posted by SDW2001
New:
You have got to be ****ing kidding me. This is a WAR. We have showed unbelieveable restraint. And your point is that our advantage is "unfair"?
yes?
Have we gotten that settled?
Originally posted by groverat
So is everyone convinced that the original question is idiotic beyond comprehension?
Have we gotten that settled?
Well, I don't know if your comprehension might be overestimated?
Originally posted by running with scissors
you mean like we did with germany and japan? as i recall, they seem to be doing fairly well since we re-built them. so is panama and haiti for that matter.
Haiti is doing well?
I used to think Aristide actually could do something good, but my haitian friend tell me they've never seen a richer priest.
Originally posted by New
Sounds reasonable. But has democracy ever worked in an under-educated, clan-ruled, under-developed country?
And now it's being forced upon them? with the killing of thousands?
Japan? They were clan ruled and the population wasn't very educated as a whole prior to ww2. There were a considerably developed country though. Either way, democracy seems to work well there. Turkey? Obviously clan divisions, if not clan-controlled. Very underdeveloped and relatively under-educated. Democracy is going ok there too. Democracy seems to be taking root pretty well in South Africa. Just because people are poor, undereductaed and clan-dominated, doesn't make them stupid or unable to appreciate democracy. It could hinder their ability to develop a democracy on their own though.
Originally posted by New
shiet as in propaganda. the kurds rebell for their own cause, not to rid iraq of Saddam. The turks are not angels in this area either. I very much support the kurdish cause. But it has nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam.
Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that. Some examples of this propaganda would be nice.
The kurds were trying to get out from under Saddams thumb, whether they were trying to rid Iraq of him or not they were BRUTALLY put down. Turkey is another issue, not in this equation at all so stop trying to sidetrack it.
I never said it had to dow ith getting rid of Saddam, it has to do with getting out form under his oppressive regime, and they were massacred by him. why would it be any different now even if they were trying to get rid of him directly? Do you really believe it would make a magical difference?
Wake up! You are still ignoring the issue.
New, do you have a paper asshole? Are you from the funny papers?
This is a frikkin' war.
People die.
Horribly.
Ain't no other way.
You want to fight fair? You extend the conflict and more people die.
Irresistable, immediate, overwhelming force is what you use.
NOTHING ELSE.
Want fair?
Go watch a Japanese baseball game.
And come to the real world.
Where war is hell and the world is better without it.
Originally posted by New
Well, CIA trained revolutionaries have always been a joke among jokes.
So therefore it was an example of evil US aggression?
Originally posted by New
different tactics, same ends...
Different tactic, different ends. The US won, colonised no one and ended soviet aggression.
Originally posted by NoahJ
Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that. Some examples of this propaganda would be nice.
The kurds were trying to get out from under Saddams thumb, whether they were trying to rid Iraq of him or not they were BRUTALLY put down. Turkey is another issue, not in this equation at all so stop trying to sidetrack it.
I never said it had to dow ith getting rid of Saddam, it has to do with getting out form under his oppressive regime, and they were massacred by him. why would it be any different now even if they were trying to get rid of him directly? Do you really believe it would make a magical difference?
Wake up! You are still ignoring the issue.
your first link is just a state department quote. get it?
turky is not in the kurdish equation? get out!
Again, just because it's unbalanced, doesn't make it at all unfair. Your lawyer friend was truly digging for that one. Ask her how she thinks a war is won, not ended but won, without killing the enemy.
Originally posted by New
your first link is just a state department quote. get it?
turky is not in the kurdish equation? get out!
On the first part, whatever, don't address the issue. That is fine.
On the second. Turkey's involvement does not speak to your claim that the people of Iraq should rise up and remove Saddam. Because Turkey did bad things does not wash away what Saddam did, which seems to be even worse from what I can see. Turkey is not the focus of this because they are not ruled by Saddam. Stay on topic.
I am done talking to you unless you have anything intelligent to post beyond, "well Turkey is bad too, and because the State Department may have said it, it is shit."
What a waste of my time.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Japan? They were clan ruled and the population wasn't very educated as a whole prior to ww2. There were a considerably developed country though. Either way, democracy seems to work well there. Turkey? Obviously clan divisions, if not clan-controlled. Very underdeveloped and relatively under-educated. Democracy is going ok there too. Democracy seems to be taking root pretty well in South Africa. Just because people are poor, undereductaed and clan-dominated, doesn't make them stupid or unable to appreciate democracy. It could hinder their ability to develop a democracy on their own though.
I admitt Japan is a special case. Yet remember that Japan was very cutivated and developed and intellectual. In post war Japan, it democracy and its pacifist stance is built on very real japanese traditions, like zen buddhism. I don't see the same buildingblocks in current Iraq.
Edit: remember also that Japan was an aggressor. They were never fought to make them democratic. That would never have been justified.
South-Africa is struggeling, but it also had a democratic tradtion, even if it was only for the white. SA is also a prefect example of internal revolution and transformation of society.