Iran.

Legat · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Yeah - isnt it amazing how when the US abused prisoners and shoots a wounded Iraqi, shades of grey very quickly fade to black, while the latest Iraqi churchbombing or police recruiting line explosion becomes a beautiful cream colour.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My dear! Please cut it. The Muslims don't present themselves as pinnacles of freedom and leades or the civilized world.
So if you make such claims you have to stand up to your moral standards, otherwhise you are nothing but hippocritical. Im tired about that trashtalk "but the others are so much more bad then me...buhuhu". You would do trhe same in their Situation. I guarantee it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Irrelevant. If you insist that every nation have the best of intentions before it does anything on the international arena, then no one can and will do anything ever. You dont know whether that SWAT sniper who saved you is doing it for truth, justice, love, hope and honor - or whether he gets a kick out of killing people and this was his time to shine, yet that is also irrelevant, he did the right thing, and that's honestly all that matters.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No. It is not irrelelevant. So to stick with your very simplifying analogy, it shall also be the snipers descision whether he sould do his duty or not?
So lets say the sniper has a distate for a certain kind of people. Lets say he hates afro americans. So now he can decide whether he should save that negros live over there or not? (note, I do not accuse anybody of racism)
Your analogy is out of place.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Who cares? This likewise doesnt matter - because they'd either do the right thing or the wrong thing, and that has no bearing on the Iraqi resistance, which is doing the wrong thing. You condemn the wrong thing to do no matter what.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So, fighting in your own country against a foreing occupation force (Which was not approved by UN mandate. If there is anything lose to a justification that international law) which you do not approve is the wrong thing?
Tell that some of the US americans on these boards which are pround about their history and their ancestors war to free their nation from foreing dominance.
Tell them they did something wrong. Wait for the flames. But of course, the muslims don't have the right to do that, they are evil and barbaric and can't decide whats right for them. Do I get your point?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Garbage. The investigations into Abu Grahib began back in March that year, when the US Army started a probe into allegations raised by the Red Cross. This was reported in the small print in papers globally - it wasnt until months later, when everyone involved had been removed from active service, that the media got hold of the pictures and released them. By the time you knew about it, it was practically already over, handled internally by the Army itself - I was quite disappointed the pictures got released, but hey.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

great what the better, so they almost managed to make it never happened. Nice, that realy lightens my mood. Wonder what else there is we possibly never see?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Understanding is good - but I can still hate a man who I understand if his actions are dispicable.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sure. You hit the top of the nail. What do you think is happening down there? Can't you get a grasp of the slight possibility that the muslims, as a whole people, kind of feel really bullied araund since about a century? How do you think muslims feel about bombardments and invasions on their fellow muslims? Can you just not understand that they are feeling threatened by our military presence? Can you not undserstand that this is the reason for increased radicalisation of muslims all over the world?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm sorry - but I dont care. If a man saves another man for money or for fun or for a dare, he is still doing the right thing and should be supported. The only way for the US to ensure a steady supply of oil is to democratise Iraq, the only way for their GMEI to work is to spread said democracy. Its amazing how many people scoffed at the GMEI, saying "only an idiot like Bush could believe that" - and then turn around and claim "Its all for the OIL!". Which is it - GMEI or oil, or both? Interesting that you have now recovered your morality when shades of gray have ceased to be useful, and blacklisting America is the game again.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If you read carefully you would mention that I am very well aware that myself is also
profiting from chap oil. Like you or likely anyone on these board.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>He was dealing with it - didnt you watch the video?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Sir, for this I would ban you. I consider reporting this.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
They resorted to guerillia warfare tactics. Especially shooting officers was a habit considered extremey barbaric. Yet it was darn effective....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Yeah, dirty Americans targeting military personnel - they must all hang their heads in collective shame at the thought of it.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Sir, you should read more careful before replying. If you would have understand my intention, you would understand that I do actually honor the US victory and their declaration of indepence.
I acknowlege their right to determin their own destiny. They did and were successful. Now they have to learn a lesson they tought their former King.
I merely use The US as an example to explain US citizens the current situation in the middle east. They will fight for their self determination. They *have* the right to do so, because they *can* do so. unless you can stop them they will win. Whether you care or is not my concern. It already happenes nothing will stop it we all will be affected.
However, to come back to your statement about military personnel. Officers were at that time a special subject of warfare. They were considered important to keep the war "civilized" and the troops in order (what a surprise). Targeted elimination of officers was frowned upon, as it would render the soldiers without morale leadership and guidiance. Officers were responsible for preventing things like killing prisoners.
Code of war was a matter of importance back then.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I do not understand your moral values. You seem of two minds. You hate the Americans intensely, you leap upon their every flaw, yet you are also highly critical of the insurgency, calling them "beasts". But the strength of your feeling towards the US seems to overpower your hatred of the insurgency, so you find yourself trying to rationalise away the daily events in Iraq caused by insurgents that make US soldiers look like angels.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ok again. I make myself clear. Last time. Write it down and memorize it.
I neither approve bombing children ( whether from a plane or with a belt of dynamite) nor conquering countries for ressources.
I merely try to explain the situation, and why it is like it is.
I try to look over the fence from both sides.

I do not hate The US. I do disaprove their politics. I do not like Gorge Bush.
What angers me, is the high moral standards the US aquire for themselves while disregarding International laws they once set up themselves. I dislike when politicians wash their hands in the waters of freedom when the call to arms, and then "liberate" a country from a dictator they practically installed themselves.

I dislike political dominance of foreing nations. It hinders their culrual development, it makes true progress impossible. It brings up radical sentiments and favours opportunits. I strongly disaprove of any outside intervention in any conflict. It does not serve any purpose exept amintaining political control over the area. You will never establish a lasting peace. History proves it.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You see insurgents deliberately trying to kill Iraqi civilians and disrupt their lives, but you turn that back into "if America wasn't there in the first place this wouldn't be happening".
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes. Exactly. Please don't start up with Saddam ok?. He would not have been there without US support either......
Besides, the attacks on Iraqi civilians by iraqi fighters are overrated like the reports of casualties inflicted by your average left wing student internet news.....
They target people mainly that cooperate with US officials. So did the french Resistance under Nazi occupation, or the Continentals with Royalists. Or the Jews with the civil servants that upheld Roman laws.
Or the Tyrols with the government officials that executed the bavarian taxiation and drafting laws during the wars against Napoleon...The tyrols are damn proud about Andeas Hofer (something like William Wallace for Tyrol) and the fact that he was the first to ever defeat Napoleons troops! Or the scots when we were with braveheart anyway....
Or the partisans on Algeria with the ones that symphatised with the French.....
I could go on endlessly.
See a pattern?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
No matter what the Americans do, in your eyes, they lose. They walk into a building, there is a body on the floor, they sit down and have a philosophical discussion on the ins and outs of shooting potential human bombs, he blows up and kills them, and you point to the American body count and say "QUAGMIRE!". They walk in and pop the guy on the ground, and you call evil heartless Americans.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You know what your problem is? You are Australian right? (no that is not the problem)
Your problem is the same of the US citizens. None of the generations yet alive ever experience war on their own soil. You do not know what war is like. You do not know what being bombed is like.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
My props to that German policeman - no grey areas there for me.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The candidate has hundred credits! He just backfired us 200 years of civilization!
The sad thing is, I possibly would have done the same. Talk about hippocrisy righ?

Special_K · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Really this time... *wipes away tear* since when did the US Government own Shell? Exxon? Since when can probably around 100billion of money sunk into Iraq turn into a profit to a degree which can be used to take on another country? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yeah, since when did Condi Rice have a Chevron oil tanker named after her? And since when was Cheney the ex-CEO of Haliburton? Yeah, and when did Paul Bremer declare Iraq 'open for business'?? No, of course the US government doesn't profit off of American control of Middle Eastern oil!

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However, just because it is justified in their minds does not make it right or justifiable.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Does it matter any more? Doesn't might make right anyways? The search for justification is just a moral and intellectual debate that doesn't help us solve the reality of violence in Iraq.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Our military has advanced too far and our nations resolve is too set for these tactics to deter us. To stop now would mean that all who have died will have died in vain.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't doubt many of your 'insurgents' feel the same way. This kind of philosophy pretty much means that the US is going to beat any opposition into submission. So much for 'civilized world'.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you insist that every nation have the best of intentions before it does anything on the international arena, then no one can and will do anything ever.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
There's a distinction you haven't made here. All nations will and do pursue their own interests and their foreign policies reflect this. However, for most Western nations, these interests are tempered by respect for the needs of the international community and the maintainance of international peace. Bush's foreign policies do not show any signs of this temperance.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You dont know whether that SWAT sniper who saved you is doing it for truth, justice, love, hope and honor - or whether he gets a kick out of killing people and this was his time to shine, yet that is also irrelevant, he did the right thing, and that's honestly all that matters.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This assumes that the US 'saved' Iraq from something. Please elaborate on exactly what. Also keep in mind that before the invasions, Iraq had the highest quality of life in all the Arab world. It had the best health care, the highest literacy rates, and the highest income levels. Sure the people were politically oppressed, but I'd rather not have a say in government than have my country risk civil war. I'm sure that many Iraqis also value their life over their potential for political input.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Its amazing how many people scoffed at the GMEI, saying "only an idiot like Bush could believe that" - and then turn around and claim "Its all for the OIL!". Which is it - GMEI or oil, or both</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This isn't the GMEI at work. The GMEI says nothing about invading countries, occupying them, and replacing the old leader with yours. All the GMEI does is create a space for a dialogue about democracy in the Arab world.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yeah, dirty Americans targeting military personnel - they must all hang their heads in collective shame at the thought of it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If soldiers are so hated in a country that they're supposed to be 'freeing' that the citizens of that country would give their lives in the hopes of injuring those soldiers, they should feel shame.

Timmythemoonpig · November 2004

This has really strayed from the Iran topic...

I definitely think that countries who have experienced war or invasion in recent generations are much more averse to it.

Back to Iraq, if I was an average Iraqi citizen I'd be pretty full of hate for just about everyone....think about it this way....Saddam horrible dictator, tortures people horribly but the world doesn't care, noone seems to notice, its just ignored, but then he steps over the mark and annoys the Western world. Suddenly everyone notices and theres a big war, lots of people die, but Iraqis were bad in the eyes of the West so noone helped, they left Saddam in power who went on a killing spree...

Then there were the sanctions...

Then there was another war, that half the world seemed to be for and the other half against. Alot of people died again. Then things started to look up, but the country fell apart so quickly and it was chaos, worse than before.

Then slowly it was being rebuilt, like the West said it would be but there was a new thing happening, terrorism, bombs going off, police being killed. The Western powers are making mistakes and torture some prisoners, hit houses with bombs and blow up a few weddings....but the insurgents are taking over people's houses, kidnapping hundreds of Iraqi doctors, lawyers...Al Qeada and other fundamental Islamic movements are setting up tent in Iraq....

And really **** off the Western powers who are trying to rebuild but are still hitting houses and families with stray bombs...

This is all the fault of one man, Saddam, and his family, who could have got away with it all...

The moral of the story is, if you are a dictator, and listen, this is the golden rule, never ever ever step over the mark with the West, stay friendly and you can do whatever you want with your own people, acid baths and all.

Marine0I · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My dear! Please cut it. The Muslims don't present themselves as pinnacles of freedom and leades or the civilized world.
So if you make such claims you have to stand up to your moral standards, otherwhise you are nothing but hippocritical. Im tired about that trashtalk "but the others are so much more bad then me...buhuhu". You would do trhe same in their Situation. I guarantee it. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

We do the best we can. We are not perfect - but we are damn well trying. I am more than willing to condemn American mistakes such as Abu Grahib, just like I am willing to criticise the Australian police force for picking on Aboriginals, but at no stage will I say "Well the cops have done some bad stuff, time to throw my weight behind the criminals". I dont give a damn what I would do in their situation - if I was addled on crack and needed your VCR to get my next fix, I'd shoot you and take it in a second, yet it would be wrong. Dont pretend I dont understand whats going on here - I understand how they think, and I want them dead for it. I want US marines to think "this guy is angry because his child died thanks to a poweroutage at the hospital, and his brother died in the Republican Guard, and he blames us, and he hates any member of this country that supports those he blames for his misery, plus he thinks we are fighting against his God and everything he believes in" - then I want them to put 2-3 rounds through his skulk. And then I want them to find his insurgent friends, rinse and repeat.

Why you are doing what you are doing does not change what you will do. And if you will bomb churches, bomb recruiting lines, sabotage power facilities, murder hostages and brag about it, and try desperately hard to prevent your country from being restored to order - then I want you dead in the shortest time possible.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No. It is not irrelelevant. So to stick with your very simplifying analogy, it shall also be the snipers descision whether he sould do his duty or not?
So lets say the sniper has a distate for a certain kind of people. Lets say he hates afro americans. So now he can decide whether he should save that negros live over there or not? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My analogy is perfect. He may hate afro-Americans, he may not, but if he makes the shot and saves me - then he has done well in that situation. If he hates afro-Americans, and fails to take a shot because of it - then he has done poorly in that situation, and should be punished. In every case, his action and result is examined, and he is judged accordingly. Which is why I despise Stormin' "Let those choppers fly, so long Shi'ite revolution" Norman, but still applaud the current American effort.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, fighting in your own country against a foreing occupation force (Which was not approved by UN mandate. If there is anything lose to a justification that international law) which you do not approve is the wrong thing?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yup. Because he is fighting for the continuation of misery - and is willing to kill everyone and anyone to get it. Dont give me mandate - there was a mandate for the Korean war and you doubtlessly wouldnt have supported that. There was no mandate for the Vietnamese to end Pol Pot's reign of terror, no mandate for the French assault that ended Jean-Bedel Bokassa the "Emperor" of the then Central African Empire, renowned for cannibalism in 1980. You are trying to play both heads and tails - you talk UN resolution as though its a 100% neccesity, but I would be shocked if you had opposed these humanitarian interventions. Pick a side and stick with it sir. If you choose "the hell with resolutions", then give up picking on the Americans, if you choose "resolution or bust", then start criticising the above actions, and clear your conscience on Rwanda, because it was obviously the right thing to do nothing - cause we didnt have a slip of paper from corruption centr... uhh the UN.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Tell that some of the US americans on these boards which are pround about their history and their ancestors war to free their nation from foreing dominance.

Tell them they did something wrong. Wait for the flames. But of course, the muslims don't have the right to do that, they are evil and barbaric and can't decide whats right for them. Do I get your point?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

History judged them right. Try congratulating the Russians on their Revolution and see how far you get - remember, the people rose up against unfair oppression, just like the Americans, and it got them even worse. The Americans rose up and got peace, prosperity and freedom. And you are correct, the muslims dont have the right to do that - because they are wrong. Plain and simple. Incorrect. I will argue my correctness all year if I have to. They are not fighting for anything we consider valuable, they are fighting for theocracy, brutality and power vacuums. You are their primary apologist and cheerleader, and as time goes on I am finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish your position from theirs. Your sense of morality is warped to the point at which you cant distinguish between good intentions and bad intentions, you think that so long as you have intentions and are fighting for them, then everything is equal and square.

EDIT - I just realised that once again I'm arguing against relative morality. Please Legat - from now on assume I understand exactly how the Iraqi's think and feel, so only tell me what you believe and think. Do not play devils advocate. Do not give me the Iraqi viewpoint if you dont believe in it firmly yourself.

If a child is going to stick a fork in a toaster, you dont just say "only arrogance would assume that I know better than the child" - you take the fork off him. Politically, these Arabs are children, and a LOT of people get hurt when they play.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>great what the better, so they almost managed to make it never happened. Nice, that realy lightens my mood. Wonder what else there is we possibly never see?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yet Legat. Correct - you were completely and utterly wrong when you said that nothing would have happened without the media. A lesser man would have admitted it - but, in an amazing turn of events, Americans sorting out their own problems in their prison system before world wide scandal also gets turned around into a paranoid "what else have they done"? God alone only knows - correction and policing of their own military forces could be rampant within the US Army and we'd have never known without the newpapers! Do you hear of every drunken marine that gets into a bar fight then arrested by MP's? Nup, because it gets handled quietly and internally.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sure. You hit the top of the nail. What do you think is happening down there? Can't you get a grasp of the slight possibility that the muslims, as a whole people, kind of feel really bullied araund since about a century? How do you think muslims feel about bombardments and invasions on their fellow muslims? Can you just not understand that they are feeling threatened by our military presence? Can you not undserstand that this is the reason for increased radicalisation of muslims all over the world? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I know how they feel, and I dont care - because I cant change that. No one can. These fools have had the wool pulled over their eyes by their leaders to divert their attention from the fact that their misery is currently being caused by their governments, and not day to day interference by the US.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you read carefully you would mention that I am very well aware that myself is also profiting from chap oil. Like you or likely anyone on these board. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Correct - you did dodge the question. How is the US going to ensure a steady supply of oil from Iraq? By estabilishing a democracy. That is something you dont believe is possible, so you spend your time trying to convince people that the real bad guy here is the US.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I merely use The US as an example to explain US citizens the current situation in the middle east. They will fight for their self determination. They *have* the right to do so, because they *can* do so. unless you can stop them they will win. Whether you care or is not my concern. It already happenes nothing will stop it we all will be affected.
However, to come back to your statement about military personnel. Officers were at that time a special subject of warfare. They were considered important to keep the war "civilized" and the troops in order (what a surprise). Targeted elimination of officers was frowned upon, as it would render the soldiers without morale leadership and guidiance. Officers were responsible for preventing things like killing prisoners.
Code of war was a matter of importance back then.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Self determination in and of itself is not a good thing. If you honestly believe that this murdering rabble is going to "self determine" Iraq in the right direction of their own accord - please say so. Its going to go to hell if they get control and you know it. I was of the understand that the British were not above killing prisoners and civilians, so the American partisans had no problem hitting officers. The British saw it as wrong, the Americans saw it as right. History favoured the Americans. If you'd like to argue that history will favour the Iraqi civilian slaughter + hostage execution, again just say so.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I try to look over the fence from both sides.

I do not hate The US. I do disaprove their politics. I do not like Gorge Bush.
What angers me, is the high moral standards the US aquire for themselves while disregarding International laws they once set up themselves. I dislike when politicians wash their hands in the waters of freedom when the call to arms, and then "liberate" a country from a dictator they practically installed themselves.

I dislike political dominance of foreing nations. It hinders their culrual development, it makes true progress impossible. It brings up radical sentiments and favours opportunits. I strongly disaprove of any outside intervention in any conflict. It does not serve any purpose exept amintaining political control over the area. You will never establish a lasting peace. History proves it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

High moral standards are set and attempted to be lived up to. I have high standards and consistently fail them - recognising the right thing to do and doing it are two different things. The Americans do what they can, unlike insurgents, who called evil good. History proved you wrong - Japan after WWII, West Germany after WWII. Italy after WWII. You will now doubtlessly call these different circumstances, and they are, yet it ends your claim that history proves it impossible.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes. Exactly. Please don't start up with Saddam ok?. He would not have been there without US support either......</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

My point exactly - the US set him up, he is the US responsibility. The US dealt with him, now they are dealing with his country.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They target people mainly that cooperate with US officials. So did the french Resistance under Nazi occupation, or the Continentals with Royalists. Or the Jews with the civil servants that upheld Roman laws. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

They are targeting the guys on my side. The cooperaters are on my team, those attempting to kill the cooperators are making a mistake. They need to be stopped - killed if need be. Simple. Previous examples of insurgents fighting just wars do not apply - because these guys are not fighting a just war, they are fighting a war for more misery. Whether they think this or not doesnt really factor in.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Or the Tyrols with the government officials that executed the bavarian taxiation and drafting laws during the wars against Napoleon...The tyrols are damn proud about Andeas Hofer (something like William Wallace for Tyrol) and the fact that he was the first to ever defeat Napoleons troops! Or the scots when we were with braveheart anyway....
Or the partisans on Algeria with the ones that symphatised with the French.....
I could go on endlessly.
See a pattern?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I see. Insurgency for its own sake is good then? Someone better tell the aboriginals, so they can break out the boomerangs and storm parliament house. Oh wait, could it be that sometimes insurgency is a bad idea? Could it be that this is one of those times? Would you have supported a Nazi insurgency after the Americans took control of most of their country in 1945?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You know what your problem is? You are Australian right? (no that is not the problem)
Your problem is the same of the US citizens. None of the generations yet alive ever experience war on their own soil. You do not know what war is like. You do not know what being bombed is like.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

True. And the French have twice in the last century, yet they were firing up wars in Algeria, invading other countries, fighting in Vietnam etc. I fail to see how a recent war on my soil would change my opinion if it didnt change theirs. Still interested in your solution for American troops and wounded Iraqi's - what are they supposed to do?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The candidate has hundred credits! He just backfired us 200 years of civilization!
The sad thing is, I possibly would have done the same. Talk about hippocrisy righ?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Fire up that time machine. I'd threaten a man with torture to get information like that. Hypocracy nothing - I'd do it the same in any situation.

Marine0I · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Nov 19 2004, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The moral of the story is, if you are a dictator, and listen, this is the golden rule, never ever ever step over the mark with the West, stay friendly and you can do whatever you want with your own people, acid baths and all.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Sad, but so damn true.

reasa · November 2004

Damnit, so much text and there’s nothing I can even say, Marine your clearing things up nip tuck and seal.

Carry on. <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Special_K · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Americans rose up and got peace, prosperity and freedom. And you are correct, the muslims dont have the right to do that - because they are wrong. Plain and simple. Incorrect. I will argue my correctness all year if I have to. They are not fighting for anything we consider valuable, they are fighting for theocracy, brutality and power vacuums.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You're saying that all Muslims, that culturally, linguistically, and (yes) theologically diverse group of people is 'wrong' and is in favor of 'theocracy, brutality and power vacuums'. You're also saying that <b>none</b> of them have the right of self determination. It hurts to hear something like this. If I'm misunderstanding this, please rearticulate.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I know how they feel, and I dont care - because I cant change that. No one can.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Until your country is invaded, your home destroyed, and your friends and family killed, you will not know how Iraqis feel. And neither will I.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>These fools have had the wool pulled over their eyes by their leaders to divert their attention from the fact that their misery is currently being caused by their governments, and not day to day interference by the US.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
In fact, the wool is being pulled over <b>your</b> eyes. You are just picking up the popular media opinion on this subject and repeating it without the critical analysis required for proper understanding of such a complex problem. The fact remains that <b>Iraqis are worse off after the war than before</b>. This is undeniable. The justification for war crumbles in light of this.

Just out of curiosity, where do you get your news from Marine01?

edit: added names to quotes.

Marine0I · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're saying that all Muslims, that culturally, linguistically, and (yes) theologically diverse group of people is 'wrong' and is in favor of 'theocracy, brutality and power vacuums'. You're also saying that <b>none</b> of them have the right of self determination. It hurts to hear something like this. If I'm misunderstanding this, please rearticulate.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I insist on rearticulating - you have me completely wrong <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />. Legat was talking about Muslims as though they are the insurgents in Iraq, I responded in kind. What I said applies to any Muslim, Christian, Hindu and atheist in Iraq who thinks that an armed killwhoeverwehaveto insurgency is the best way forward. Clearly not all Muslim's think like this, so it was poor phrasing on my part.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Until your country is invaded, your home destroyed, and your friends and family killed, you will not know how Iraqis feel. And neither will I.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I can only try and fall miserably short. Emotions are rarely helpful things in scenarios like this however.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In fact, the wool is being pulled over <b>your</b> eyes. You are just picking up the popular media opinion on this subject and repeating it without the critical analysis required for proper understanding of such a complex problem.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No wool sullies my baby browns! Well maybe a little, but thats inevitable for everyone. Popular media opinion, at least in Australia, has nothing but criticism for the Americans and "omg vietnam 2 has gone gold!" etc. I am also suspect of people who attempt to add complexities to things, you cant make it too simple, but when people start talking complex its usually a smokescreen. As I said once on another forum:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some of us despise ****/complexities. I could spend all day trying to explain the vast delicate sociopolitical implications, properly ensconced in terms of recent historical events and the relevant sections of international law, along with the economic implications and logistical difficulties to the 900,000 Rwandans that got slaughtered while the world watched - and it wont change the fact that genocide happened and we didnt lift a God Damn Finger.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The fact remains that <b>Iraqis are worse off after the war than before</b>. This is undeniable. The justification for war crumbles in light of this.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Undeniable yes. Justifications crumbling? NO! Say you go to build a man a new house on his land, but you have to knock down his old one to build the new one. You demolish his house, and he says "OMG you fools you destroyed my home nothing can ever make up for this you evil dogs is nothing sacred I hate you all how could you do this". The workmen would just look at him strange and say "How the hell else were we supposed to build a new house if your old one was in the way?" If he waits for a little while, while the workman sweat and labor day by day, he will have a new house. Hell he can even join in and speed up the process - but in the short term its not going to look good. The Americans are in the middle of a process of rebuilding Iraq - of course after you conduct a full scale military assault on a country its going to be worse off, <b>in the short term</b>. Is part of the aforementioned complexities being unable to see the long term benefits?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Just out of curiosity, where do you get your news from Marine01?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There is this excellent service called FOX Ne ... ahahahah gotcha <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> No, we dont even have FOX here, everything I get comes from various newspapers, TV channels and online stuff. I bring most of it here, and then it gets expanded as people attack it or strengthen it - its the best way of getting the greatest understanding possible, plus you avoid the problem of constantly having you source ridiculed that often happens if you just pick one.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Damnit, so much text and there?s nothing I can even say, Marine your clearing things up nip tuck and seal.

Carry on. tounge.gif</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Exams are almost over, HL2 is finished - I got time <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

Deus_Ex_Machina · November 2004

But nobody is getting a new house right now. Contractors are working on oil lines. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />

Special_K · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Undeniable yes. Justifications crumbling? NO! Say you go to build a man a new house on his land, but you have to knock down his old one to build the new one. You demolish his house, and he says "OMG you fools you destroyed my home nothing can ever make up for this you evil dogs is nothing sacred I hate you all how could you do this". The workmen would just look at him strange and say "How the hell else were we supposed to build a new house if your old one was in the way?" If he waits for a little while, while the workman sweat and labor day by day, he will have a new house. Hell he can even join in and speed up the process - but in the short term its not going to look good. The Americans are in the middle of a process of rebuilding Iraq - of course after you conduct a full scale military assault on a country its going to be worse off, in the short term. Is part of the aforementioned complexities being unable to see the long term benefits?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ah, if only reality would adhere to your dream-world scenario. If only we could ignore thousands of unnecessary deaths, the destruction of the Iraqi way of life, the oil politics, the continued trauma to the psyche of the Arab people, the lack of hope for stability and security in Iraq, and the continued fragmentation of the international community, things would be perfect.

The Iraqi house may have been in disrepair, but it was stilll <b>their</b> house and and not anyone else's to meddle in. The United States could offer tools and money to fix the roof or call someone to check the pipes, but <b>ultimately it is no one's right but the owner's to make the decisions</b>. The American people wouldn't have it any other way and neither do the Iraqi people.

Timmythemoonpig · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 18 2004, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Undeniable yes. Justifications crumbling? NO! Say you go to build a man a new house on his land, but you have to knock down his old one to build the new one. You demolish his house, and he says "OMG you fools you destroyed my home nothing can ever make up for this you evil dogs is nothing sacred I hate you all how could you do this". The workmen would just look at him strange and say "How the hell else were we supposed to build a new house if your old one was in the way?" If he waits for a little while, while the workman sweat and labor day by day, he will have a new house. Hell he can even join in and speed up the process - but in the short term its not going to look good. The Americans are in the middle of a process of rebuilding Iraq - of course after you conduct a full scale military assault on a country its going to be worse off, <b>in the short term</b>. Is part of the aforementioned complexities being unable to see the long term benefits?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

lol, thats all I have to say to that <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

I've said this before I know, but remember the UK Guardian newspaper meddling and asking some UK people to write to a few Americans to try and maybe swing a few votes? remember the Vicious backlash to that? the 'how dare you meddle..you limey bastards...navy seals..etc' remarks...bit of a laugh maybe, meddle with a country's people and their lives and their way of living for 30 years and its not such a laugh.

Its called pride, pride in your country, leaders and politics come and go, patriotism, and the shame of being downgraded, searched, occupied, watched...we will blow your city to ****, but look we are rebuilding it, look how good we are, here you go, we took your life and turned it upsidedown, we destroyed your house and everything you own, and by the way all those terrorists that were in your city, they're gonna come back, so we're gonna stay right here and watch you extra extra close, thats right, 20-something guys from Pennsylvania walking all over your grandmother's grave, god bless us..

Its quite obvious rebuilding Iraq is the most basic simple task for the coalition, we're not doing the Iraqi's a favour, we got Saddam for ourselves not for them and they know it, I still can't believe so many people feel so righteous about it...its not a question of left wing or right wing, just common sense and a bit of humility. We are teh suck.

Marine0I · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Special K @ Nov 19 2004, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Ah, if only reality would adhere to your dream-world scenario. If only we could ignore thousands of unnecessary deaths, the destruction of the Iraqi way of life, the oil politics, the continued trauma to the psyche of the Arab people, the lack of hope for stability and security in Iraq, and the continued fragmentation of the international community, things would be perfect.

The Iraqi house may have been in disrepair, but it was stilll <b>their</b> house and and not anyone else's to meddle in. The United States could offer tools and money to fix the roof or call someone to check the pipes, but <b>ultimately it is no one's right but the owner's to make the decisions</b>. The American people wouldn't have it any other way and neither do the Iraqi people.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Well, theres the problem. I disagree with pretty much every statement you made on at a very fundamental level. No pain, no gain.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I've said this before I know, but remember the UK Guardian newspaper meddling and asking some UK people to write to a few Americans to try and maybe swing a few votes? remember the Vicious backlash to that? the 'how dare you meddle..you limey bastards...navy seals..etc' remarks...bit of a laugh maybe, meddle with a country's people and their lives and their way of living for 30 years and its not such a laugh.

Its called pride, pride in your country, leaders and politics come and go, patriotism, and the shame of being downgraded, searched, occupied, watched...we will blow your city to ****, but look we are rebuilding it, look how good we are, here you go, we took your life and turned it upsidedown, we destroyed your house and everything you own, and by the way all those terrorists that were in your city, they're gonna come back, so we're gonna stay right here and watch you extra extra close, thats right, 20-something guys from Pennsylvania walking all over your grandmother's grave, god bless us..</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I thought those Americans were just as silly as the letter writing brits <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> No ones arguing that its easy for them either, they have hell to live with - we aint asking for a liberators banquet and flowers in the street, just for them to hold still while we pull a few rotten teeth.

Legat · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Yet Legat. Correct - you were completely and utterly wrong when you said that nothing would have happened without the media. A lesser man would have admitted it - but, in an amazing turn of events, Americans sorting out their own problems in their prison system before world wide scandal also gets turned around into a paranoid "what else have they done"? God alone only knows - correction and policing of their own military forces could be rampant within the US Army and we'd have never known without the newpapers! Do you hear of every drunken marine that gets into a bar fight then arrested by MP's? Nup, because it gets handled quietly and internally.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Have you ever considered the possibility that this incidends were about to be discovered in the first place? That soldiers directly or indrectly related to this events started to leak information? Maybe threatening to leak information to emphasise their disaproval?

Bad PR is nothing the US military can tolerate at this time. So my assertion remains that without the pressure from the US and worldwide public interest, the US forces would distinguish themselves very little from their enemies. I do not blame the Soldiers, it is not their fault, they are following orders and adapt to the situation.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I want US marines to think "this guy is angry because his child died thanks to a poweroutage at the hospital, and his brother died in the Republican Guard, and he blames us, and he hates any member of this country that supports those he blames for his misery, plus he thinks we are fighting against his God and everything he believes in" - then I want them to put 2-3 rounds through his skulk. And then I want them to find his insurgent friends, rinse and repeat.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I really lack the words to describe my disgust.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My analogy is perfect. He may hate afro-Americans, he may not, but if he makes the shot and saves me - then he has done well in that situation. If he hates afro-Americans, and fails to take a shot because of it - then he has done poorly in that situation, and should be punished. In every case, his action and result is examined, and he is judged accordingly. Which is why I despise Stormin' "Let those choppers fly, so long Shi'ite revolution" Norman, but still applaud the current American effort.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No your analogy is not appropriate and you missed my points. Further discussion on this is futile as you seem to purposely misinterpret my arguentation

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yup. Because he is fighting for the continuation of misery - and is willing to kill everyone and anyone to get it.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
What you say is basically raping a woman and telling her you did her a favor.
They do not need us to end their misery, as we are the ones that put them into it. They are sitting on the most precious ressource on earth. They do not want us, they do not need us.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Dont give me mandate - there was a mandate for the Korean war and you doubtlessly wouldnt have supported that. There was no mandate for the Vietnamese to end Pol Pot's reign of terror, no mandate for the French assault that ended Jean-Bedel Bokassa the "Emperor" of the then Central African Empire, renowned for cannibalism in 1980. You are trying to play both heads and tails - you talk UN resolution as though its a 100% neccesity, but I would be shocked if you had opposed these humanitarian interventions. Pick a side and stick with it sir. If you choose "the hell with resolutions", then give up picking on the Americans, if you choose "resolution or bust", then start criticising the above actions, and clear your conscience on Rwanda, because it was obviously the right thing to do nothing - cause we didnt have a slip of paper from corruption centr... uhh the UN.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I disaprove any outside intervention when it is guided by political interest only
That is a simple thing. Either you prevent all civil wars and do it properly, or you do not do it at all. If you just decide to intervene in courtries that are valuable you become an expansionist. Nothing else.

The point is, you cannot democratize another country. It will not work. Forced obedience is never going to last. Accept it. please. History tells us it never worked out to force ones belives or values upon others, with the exception to brutally break the others will.

Rwanda is avery bad example for your couse. Rwanda was left aside by virtually all UN members because Somalia was fresh in their memory also there was nothing to gain. Especiall the US did harshly deny the genozides, calling them " sproadic acts of genozide" as actual genozide would have required an intervetion according to the UN charta.
Also, you blame the UN, however, you seem to miss the point thet the UN is just a body, the decisions are made by its members.....
Besides, Rwanda is another axample for our civilization leading to desaster.

<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rwanda' target='_blank'>Outside influence never helps the influenced people</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I insist on rearticulating - you have me completely wrong <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /> . Legat was talking about Muslims as though they are the insurgents in Iraq, I responded in kind. What I said applies to any Muslim, Christian, Hindu and atheist in Iraq who thinks that an armed killwhoeverwehaveto insurgency is the best way forward. Clearly not all Muslim's think like this, so it was poor phrasing on my part.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You know what? more and more muslims actually start to think like that. Maybe you do not have so many muslims in your country, but we do. We have many of them and thy are alienetating themselves more and more. They become isolated and radical. we are facing a growing racial and cultural tension all over the world.
4 years ago, you almost did never see an arab women wear a headcrave in public. Nowaday, after 4 years of Bush and the war in, Iraq hundres of arab ninja-women crawl over my city. It's not about womens headgear, its bout muslims taking refuge in fundamntalism and disasociating themselves from us and from democratic values.
Yes, this is affecting all muslime. Especially the children, which grow up with the wester culture as something to be rejected and feared. That is a worrying perspective.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
History judged them right. Try congratulating the Russians on their Revolution and see how far you get - remember, the people rose up against unfair oppression, just like the Americans, and it got them even worse. The Americans rose up and got peace, prosperity and freedom. And you are correct, the muslims dont have the right to do that - because they are wrong. Plain and simple. Incorrect. I will argue my correctness all year if I have to. They are not fighting for anything we consider valuable, they are fighting for theocracy, brutality and power vacuums. You are their primary apologist and cheerleader, and as time goes on I am finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish your position from theirs. Your sense of morality is warped to the point at which you cant distinguish between good intentions and bad intentions, you think that so long as you have intentions and are fighting for them, then everything is equal and square.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Your words mark your ignorance.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Simple. Previous examples of insurgents fighting just wars do not apply - because these guys are not fighting a just war, they are fighting a war for more misery. Whether they think this or not doesnt really factor in.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

See statement above.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>History judged them right. Try congratulating the Russians on their Revolution and see how far you get - remember, the people rose up against unfair oppression, just like the Americans, and it got them even worse.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Russian revolution was doomed to fail because of a flawed concept. The chinese did the same yet their concept is successful despite the fact that they are not democratic or liberal in any sense of the word. They did free themelves from foreing colonial government that almost destroyed their culture which is damn much older than ours.
Besides the Sovjets hardly had a worse live than the people during the last days of the Russian monarchy. They did not starve and could learn to read. You know?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And you are correct, the muslims dont have the right to do that - because they are wrong. Plain and simple. Incorrect. I will argue my correctness all year if I have to. They are not fighting for anything we consider valuable, they are fighting for theocracy, brutality and power vacuums.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Theocracy, brutality and Power Vaccuums? Fot the power vaccuum there is nobody else responsible that we are. Something like a power vacuum does not exist, as there is always another power that takes over. Its the question if this power does like we want or not.
Theocracy? Well considering that half of the american people voted for Bush because he goes to church regularely, and there are still assaults and attempted murders on medical staff of abortion clinics....but hey we are soo civilized aren't we?
Brutality? Violence is a result of violence. If you beat up your dog every day, it will bite you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You are their primary apologist and cheerleader, and as time goes on I am finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish your position from theirs. Your sense of morality is warped to the point at which you cant distinguish between good intentions and bad intentions, you think that so long as you have intentions and are fighting for them, then everything is equal and square.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You should consider your words very carefully when you question other peoples morality. As you seemingly have to resort on direct insults and accusations.
As I have tried to explain you several times I do not take a position at all. I only tell you what the situation looks like.
However, I do strongly represent the muslim point of view on these boards, as there are very few others that do so.
I tell you that their reasons are justified, their methods however, are not.

You Sir are obviously not capable of understanding this, and I will not discuss with you any further unless you retake your accusations from above, especially since your latest posts are so deeply swollen with misguided and insightless comments that you should not dare to talk about other peoples morality. Maybe you should report to the US army if your believes are so firm and your cause is just. Go to Iraq, live your hate. Then you can "put 2-3 bullets in some peoples skull" as you said.

Marine0I · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Have you ever considered the possibility that this incidends were about to be discovered in the first place? That soldiers directly or indrectly related to this events started to leak information? Maybe threatening to leak information to emphasise their disaproval?

Bad PR is nothing the US military can tolerate at this time. So my assertion remains that without the pressure from the US and worldwide public interest, the US forces would distinguish themselves very little from their enemies. I do not blame the Soldiers, it is not their fault, they are following orders and adapt to the situation. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

US army - guilty until proven innocent. Proof? Evidence? Who needs those two funny little fellas when you have suspicion. Always, always assume the worst.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I really lack the words to describe my disgust. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is why everyone in the free world is not my friend - your ideas are so foreign to mine that you hate mine, just as I hate yours.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No your analogy is not appropriate and you missed my points. Further discussion on this is futile as you seem to purposely misinterpret my arguentation</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, thats how I saw it. Maybe if you'd like to reiterate....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What you say is basically raping a woman and telling her you did her a favor.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Uhhh... no - I consider it more like pulling a womans tooth and telling her I did her a favour, hurts like hell but its for the best in the end.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They do not need us to end their misery, as we are the ones that put them into it. They are sitting on the most precious ressource on earth. They do not want us, they do not need us.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Right then, please outline how the Iraqi's were living it up with their precious resource, and were just about to despose a dictator who everyone hated before the Americans showed up and ended it. Yeah, life was fine until we came along, they didnt need us at all....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I disaprove any outside intervention when it is guided by political interest only
That is a simple thing. Either you prevent all civil wars and do it properly, or you do not do it at all. If you just decide to intervene in courtries that are valuable you become an expansionist. Nothing else.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Every intervention ever in history has been politically motivated - never has humanitarian cause been the primary goal, and that includes the "good" wars of liberation. If you intervene for good, even selfishly, then you are doing the right thing for the wrong reason - overall effect = good. I guess we just arent going to agree here.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The point is, you cannot democratize another country. It will not work. Forced obedience is never going to last. Accept it. please. History tells us it never worked out to force ones belives or values upon others, with the exception to brutally break the others will. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Why should I just accept it because you say so? You are going to need evidence first. Japan was democratised - and its doing fine. I dont doubt it will be tough, but the US looks like its going to be there for the long term, so I think there is a good chance. I do not agree that democratisation is impossible.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Rwanda is avery bad example for your couse. Rwanda was left aside by virtually all UN members because Somalia was fresh in their memory also there was nothing to gain. Especiall the US did harshly deny the genozides, calling them " sproadic acts of genozide" as actual genozide would have required an intervetion according to the UN charta.
Also, you blame the UN, however, you seem to miss the point thet the UN is just a body, the decisions are made by its members.....
Besides, Rwanda is another axample for our civilization leading to desaster.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Rwanda is a perfect example - and you keep thinking I have a cause, when I dont. Unless that cause is "what did X nations do at X time, and was it the right thing to do". I call shame on the French, the Germans, and the US for Rwanda - I am not a rabid US fanboy, I used to hate them and as such am vitally aware of their many, many failings in the past. But I do not think the current war is a failing - I judge this war individually on its own merits and come up smiling. Read your wikipedia - it had nothing to do with outside influence, other than to mention the gutlessness of the UN security council (Americans included) in running like girls.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That is a worrying perspective. its not about womens headgear, its bout muslims taking refuge in fundamntalism and disasociating themselves from us and from democratic values.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yeah that is kinda worrying. Taking refuge though? Refuge from what? I take it you are in a civilized country - so unless you are typing from Iraq, those people shouldnt be running from American bombs..... What are they afraid of? If they think that the US is waging a war against Islam - then I question their intellect.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Russian revolution was doomed to fail because of a flawed concept. The chinese did the same yet their concept is successful despite the fact that they are not democratic or liberal in any sense of the word. They did free themelves from foreing colonial government that almost destroyed their culture which is damn much older than ours.
Besides the Sovjets hardly had a worse live than the people during the last days of the Russian monarchy. They did not starve and could learn to read. You know?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And yet my point stands - some revolutions/insurgencies are bad, some are good. I think this one is bad, and you.... well who knows.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Theocracy, brutality and Power Vaccuums? Fot the power vaccuum there is nobody else responsible that we are.

Something like a power vacuum does not exist, as there is always another power that takes over. Its the question if this power does like we want or not.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Historically speaking, so damn true. Good thing we've left those days behind us and actually taken a solid role in the countries we meddle with now. Power vacuums exist when you take out a dictator, and then warlords squabble for the scraps, usually resulting in civil war and mass killings - and then one wins and its more bad news for everyone.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Theocracy? Well considering that half of the american people voted for Bush because he goes to church regularely, and there are still assaults and attempted murders on medical staff of abortion clinics....but hey we are soo civilized aren't we? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Okay, that must have been embarrasing - admitting you dont know the difference between religious members of a functional democracy voting for the candidate of their choice and a theocracy, but hey, it is the first step to enlightenment. Theocracy has the state religion institutionalised (not merely reflected in a nations laws and common morality, but infused into every part of life, and enforced by the government). There is no real democratic process, the state is controlled by the religious leaders, or by a dictator who uses the religious leaders as middlemen. That's a theocracy.

And yes, we are civilized. As in every society, we have our undesirable element, but they form the vast minority.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As I have tried to explain you several times I do not take a position at all. I only tell you what the situation looks like.
However, I do strongly represent the muslim point of view on these boards, as there are very few others that do so.
I tell you that their reasons are justified, their methods however, are not.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I dont think you are telling me the truth. I think you are taking a position that is naturally repellant to Westerners, and when challenged you fall back on "Thats not what I personally believe, its just what they believe" as a way out. Their reasons are given to justify their methods - and reasons with an associated evil action are just a side issue to act as a smokescreen. Reasons mean nothing if you only trundle them out when explaining why Mr's Hassan only has half a head (and yes, they are 80% sure it was her disembowled body they found, they are verifying it as we speak). You talk reasons because you havent got a leg to stand on as far as actions is concerned - yet actions is the most vital and pressing issue we are facing.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You Sir are obviously not capable of understanding this, and I will not discuss with you any further unless you retake your accusations from above, especially since your latest posts are so deeply swollen with misguided and insightless comments that you should not dare to talk about other peoples morality. Maybe you should report to the US army if your believes are so firm and your cause is just. Go to Iraq, live your hate. Then you can "put 2-3 bullets in some peoples skull" as you said.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Aka come back when you agree with me, or dont come back at all. Maybe you should go to Iraq and start fighting the US yourself in your beliefs are so firm - oh wait, they're not your beliefs now that it comes to crunch time, they're someone elses. Alas, the Australian Army wont have me, I'm too tall and consequently underweight for my height. I dont see why you are so offended over my claims about your morality - anyone could deduce my morality from my posts. I merely deduced as much from your post and put it to type. If you think my morality is evil - well, tough. I think you're wrong. Better yet, the majority of American voters thought you were wrong too, and for the next four years, its all going to be going my way.

EDIT

I notice you continue to dodge my question - what is a Marine to do when he walks into a room and encounters a wounded Iraqi? Do you shoot him? Do you run over towards him and potentially get blown up? Do you take cover and wait until he bleeds to death? Do you just toss a grenade around the corner? You have two options - either the Iraqi dies, or you walk in there and up to his body to check if he's trapped. So how do you handle it?

Weazel · November 2004

I vote we attempt to blow up the sun!

Legat · November 2004

Ok I guess that needs to be picked up.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>US army - guilty until proven innocent. Proof? Evidence? Who needs those two funny little fellas when you have suspicion. Always, always assume the worst.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You can only find truth to where the light reaches. Any attempt to hide information is an indication of guilt. People have been senteced because of this. It is called circumstantial evidence.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Uhhh... no - I consider it more like pulling a womans tooth and telling her I did her a favour, hurts like hell but its for the best in the end.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Even if the women is of legal age and does not want your amateur skills in dental surgery?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Right then, please outline how the Iraqi's were living it up with their precious resource, and were just about to despose a dictator who everyone hated before the Americans showed up and ended it. Yeah, life was fine until we came along, they didnt need us at all....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sure, ohh wait, there was an embargo. How could I forget that? Must have slipped my mind. And ohh..wait, Sadams was supported by the US so...maybe they wanted to but could not? Ohh, and yes, they tried to after Desert Storm, but nodoy helped them because we did not want a "power vaccuum"...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Every intervention ever in history has been politically motivated - never has humanitarian cause been the primary goal, and that includes the "good" wars of liberation. If you intervene for good, even selfishly, then you are doing the right thing for the wrong reason - overall effect = good. I guess we just arent going to agree here.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And say that in the same topic where you claim that we are civilized. War out of political/economical reason is never justificalble and not civilized. Not in the context it is used nowadays.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why should I just accept it because you say so? You are going to need evidence first. Japan was democratised - and its doing fine. I dont doubt it will be tough, but the US looks like its going to be there for the long term, so I think there is a good chance. I do not agree that democratisation is impossible.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Japan was battered to oblivion. They were defeated, their spirit broken. They succumbed to the superior force. They had been nuked. They were done.
Germanys democratisaton after WW1 proved impossible. After WW2, the same circumstances applied like in Japans case.
Also, both examples are relative as they had a bigger problem that the US. That were the Sovjets. Common enemys make good friends.

In case of Iraq, the common enemy are the US. that is no a good base to start your democratization. So the only way to establsih peace left is to break their will. The more force you apply, the more enemies you create. Circulus vitiosus.
The US cannot apply the force nessesary to appease the country. The public outcry will prevent this.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yeah that is kinda worrying. Taking refuge though? Refuge from what? I take it you are in a civilized country - so unless you are typing from Iraq, those people shouldnt be running from American bombs..... What are they afraid of? If they think that the US is waging a war against Islam - then I question their intellect.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Why do you think you help anyone by bombing them? Because you are told so.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Historically speaking, so damn true. Good thing we've left those days behind us and actually taken a solid role in the countries we meddle with now. Power vacuums exist when you take out a dictator, and then warlords squabble for the scraps, usually resulting in civil war and mass killings - and then one wins and its more bad news for everyone.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And who is responsible for that? when you realize that, you will see the core of the problem. The arabs were once unified and prosperous. they were able to develope civilization on their own. What has destabilized their political structure to a point where no peace is possible except peace of arms?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Okay, that must have been embarrasing - admitting you dont know the difference between religious members of a functional democracy voting for the candidate of their choice and a theocracy, but hey, it is the first step to enlightenment. Theocracy has the state religion institutionalised (not merely reflected in a nations laws and common morality, but infused into every part of life, and enforced by the government). There is no real democratic process, the state is controlled by the religious leaders, or by a dictator who uses the religious leaders as middlemen. That's a theocracy.

And yes, we are civilized. As in every society, we have our undesirable element, but they form the vast minority.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ever heared of the concept of irony? Exaggeration? Bells ringing?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I dont think you are telling me the truth. I think you are taking a position that is naturally repellant to Westerners, and when challenged you fall back on "Thats not what I personally believe, its just what they believe" as a way out. Their reasons are given to justify their methods - and reasons with an associated evil action are just a side issue to act as a smokescreen. Reasons mean nothing if you only trundle them out when explaining why Mr's Hassan only has half a head (and yes, they are 80% sure it was her disembowled body they found, they are verifying it as we speak). You talk reasons because you havent got a leg to stand on as far as actions is concerned - yet actions is the most vital and pressing issue we are facing.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You accuse me of doging challenges, yet when confronted with the mere and factual statement that western politics are responsible for the desolate state of the middle east due to their actions in the past you always recite the dictators we bring down.
You even acknowlege that we brought them to power in the first place. You then state it our responsibility to correct our failures. Yet it is acceptable for you that we do so only if we feel the need and its appropriate in politcal/economical context.

You basically say any kind of violence is justificable under the right circumstanes, yet the Iraqi are not allowed to be violent because they are just wrong, while they are wrong because they are violent.

You are turning in a circle and bite your own tail.

I have a clear position. I will not recite it again. If you still do not understand have it your way.

TheWizard · November 2004

Personally, I would hate to have a snap decision by me while in a combat zone become the subject of worldwide Monday morning quarterbacking.

Special_K · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why should I just accept it because you say so? You are going to need evidence first. Japan was democratised - and its doing fine. I dont doubt it will be tough, but the US looks like its going to be there for the long term, so I think there is a good chance. I do not agree that democratisation is impossible.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If you're drawing on Japan to prove that democratization from without is possible, you're exposing your own serious lack of historical and political understanding of reality. Japan had previous experience with the institutions of democracy before the 1930s. Post-war, Japan had leaders who were willing to guide Japan towards democracy and had the legitimacy to do so. In Iraq no leadership of that kind exists. Forcing democracy onto a country has never worked. Why should it work now? Your point of view is irrational.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Taking refuge though? Refuge from what? I take it you are in a civilized country - so unless you are typing from Iraq, those people shouldnt be running from American bombs..... What are they afraid of? If they think that the US is waging a war against Islam - then I question their intellect.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
After Mosques were bombed after 9/11 in both the US and UK, I can understand why Muslims would be wary of a society which seems to be able to flare up with hostility at any given point. Iraq is not the only place where Muslims are persecuted. Consider that before you fall back to the refuge of 'questioning intellect'.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Uhhh... no - I consider it more like pulling a womans tooth and telling her I did her a favour, hurts like hell but its for the best in the end.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Please provide the evidence supporting the view that invading a country and killing its citizens heals it. Your blind faith in the US ability to 'help' Iraq doesn't prove anything.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No pain, no gain.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I see a lot of Iraqi pain and very little gain. Is destroying a society worth that pain?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Every intervention ever in history has been politically motivated - never has humanitarian cause been the primary goal, and that includes the "good" wars of liberation. If you intervene for good, even selfishly, then you are doing the right thing for the wrong reason - overall effect = good. I guess we just arent going to agree here.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This makes my realist political science education want to cry. If the United States is in Iraq out of selfishness, then how can you call it a war of liberation? If the US in in Iraq out of greed, then their policies will (and do) reflect this. If your argument is that the United States is [b]inadvertantly[/] doing good, you just shot yourself in the foot.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am also suspect of people who attempt to add complexities to things, you cant make it too simple, but when people start talking complex its usually a smokescreen.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
How nice it would be if we could just solve problems by saying, 'No, no, that's too complicated. Let's just take our best shot and ignore what we don't understand'.

reasa · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 19 2004, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And who is responsible for that? when you realize that, you will see the core of the problem. The arabs were once unified and prosperous. they were able to develope civilization on their own. What has destabilized their political structure to a point where no peace is possible except peace of arms?

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I think it was the British who ruined that on them...or maybe it was the Mongols?

Pretty sure it wasn't the USA, we haven’t helped much in rebuilding that civilization, and I'm sure we get criticized for that, of course now that we are trying, we get criticized for that too.

You don't seem to believe in the whole concept of destroying the old to make way for something newer and better though so you can't really claim you want to help the Middle East because this is what needs to be done.

You rely far too much on the short term and you fail to look ahead to a generation of Iraqi children who will grow up remembering the American troops who gave them candy and hating the fundamentalist Muslim who blew up their friends and killed the nice American. (Which did happen…I bet killing all those kids really helped their cause and pleased Allah!)

Deus_Ex_Machina · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 19 2004, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 19 2004, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And who is responsible for that? when you realize that, you will see the core of the problem. The arabs were once unified and prosperous. they were able to develope civilization on their own. What has destabilized their political structure to a point where no peace is possible except peace of arms?

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think it was the British who ruined that on them...or maybe it was the Mongols?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Yeah, the Mongols were the straw that broke the camel's back. Ironically at Baghdad too.

Marine0I · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You can only find truth to where the light reaches. Any attempt to hide information is an indication of guilt. People have been senteced because of this. It is called circumstantial evidence.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There is also something to be said for not airing your dirty laundry - just putting it in the washing machine. My sister is currently in her 4th year of Law, and works full time in a successful practise in the city, and as she said when I asked her "what good is circumstantial evidence": No good. No one has ever been convicted on circumstantial evidence. You need to convict based on beyond reasonable doubt - circumstantial is the poorest evidence available, one step above hearsay. Its like a man who has a gun in his bag, and its been fired - unless you can pin it on him that he was there and had a motive, then the circumstantial evidence is worthless.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Even if the women is of legal age and does not want your amateur skills in dental surgery?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not legal age - child. As she is a child I feel comfortable making that decision for her, in her own best interests.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They do not need us to end their misery, as we are the ones that put them into it. They are sitting on the most precious ressource on earth. They do not want us, they do not need us.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Right then, please outline how the Iraqi's were living it up with their precious resource, and were just about to despose a dictator who everyone hated before the Americans showed up and ended it. Yeah, life was fine until we came along, they didnt need us at all....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sure, ohh wait, there was an embargo. How could I forget that? Must have slipped my mind. And ohh..wait, Sadams was supported by the US so...maybe they wanted to but could not? Ohh, and yes, they tried to after Desert Storm, but nodoy helped them because we did not want a "power vaccuum"...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Once again you have failed to address the issue. You were supposed to explain to me why the Iraqi's dont need us to end their misery. You seemed to have some insight into the Iraqi mind that I didnt - so please tell me the great Iraqi plan for freedom, peace and prosperity. Tip - if you have to reach back to the 70's and alter time, you are not dealing with the issue at hand.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And say that in the same topic where you claim that we are civilized. War out of political/economical reason is never justificalble and not civilized. Not in the context it is used nowadays. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Wrong. You just claimed that WW2, CAE, Cambodia, East Timor etc were unjustifiable and uncivilized - all of them highly necessary and ultimately lifesaving. Still - twould be entertaining to see you air your sentiments in Tel Aviv, explaining how the way WW2 ended the Jewish slaughter was actually unjustified. You yourself have stated that WW2 was far from altruistic.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Japan was battered to oblivion. They were defeated, their spirit broken. They succumbed to the superior force. They had been nuked. They were done.
Germanys democratisaton after WW1 proved impossible. After WW2, the same circumstances applied like in Japans case.
Also, both examples are relative as they had a bigger problem that the US. That were the Sovjets. Common enemys make good friends. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Iraq has been battered into oblivion. Iraq was defeated. Iraq succumbed to the superior force. The Japanese doubtlessly hated the Americans for nuking them, yet their country and their emperor had surrendered so they left it at that. But the Iraqi insurgents have religious zealotry to drive them, and so they continue to fight, killing both American and Iraqi. They lack a massive support base from the average Iraqi because they are not so stupid as to think the insurgents are fighting for them. The only thing they like about the insurgents is the fact they're killing Americans, because everyone hates the Americans, yet they also fear that the Americans will retreat and leave them to the insurgents/baathists/foreign terrorists.

The situations might be vastly different, I never said they werent, but they go a long way to debunking your claim that history shows democracy cannot be forced. It can. You just think it requires different circumstances. What proof you have of the necessity of these different circumstances is very, very vague and opinion based. Never before has a Western nation invaded an Arab nation with the intention of setting up a functional democracy and restoring it to order. Frequently have they invaded to install dictators, and in these cases nearly always overthrowing a democratising government such as existed in Iraq and Iran earlier in the century. See Afghanistan - it got smashed, and its now on the (bumpy) road to democracy.

History proves nothing here other than a) its happened before, but under different circumstances or b) its never happened before. Neither of those preclude the attempt to set up democracy in the face of hostile opposition.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In case of Iraq, the common enemy are the US. that is no a good base to start your democratization. So the only way to establsih peace left is to break their will. The more force you apply, the more enemies you create. Circulus vitiosus.
The US cannot apply the force nessesary to appease the country. The public outcry will prevent this.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So you say. A common enemy is certainly a good starting point, and when you happen to be viewed as the enemy, it makes it an uphill battle - but I don't believe that makes it impossible. The US is not attempting to break the Iraqi's will, merely the insurgents. Given that Iraqi's number in the millions and insurgents in the thousands, its not as difficult as you make out. The people also realise that their problems with hospitals, water, police and electricity have a lot to do with insurgents and little to do with the Americans trying to build them - as evidenced by reasa's link showing Iraqi civilians killing insurgents.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why do you think you help anyone by bombing them? Because you are told so.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because you dont bomb them, you bomb their terrorist friends. Accidents happen.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And who is responsible for that? when you realize that, you will see the core of the problem. The arabs were once unified and prosperous. they were able to develope civilization on their own. What has destabilized their political structure to a point where no peace is possible except peace of arms?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Type Israel into Google. Then type in Muslim fundamentalist. Then type (France, Britian, Germany, America) + imperialism in. It should give you a good idea. No ones debating why. It doesnt even matter now - we know where they are at, we know why. Now we are attempting a solution.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ever heared of the concept of irony? Exaggeration? Bells ringing? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I would suggest you dont use irony when expressing sentiments typically stated in all seriousness by your side of politics - no one will pick up on it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You accuse me of doging challenges, yet when confronted with the mere and factual statement that western politics are responsible for the desolate state of the middle east due to their actions in the past you always recite the dictators we bring down.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is simply not true. As you yourself evidenced in the following statement.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You even acknowlege that we brought them to power in the first place. You then state it our responsibility to correct our failures. Yet it is acceptable for you that we do so only if we feel the need and its appropriate in politcal/economical context.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes exactly - our fault, our responsibility. You tackle them individually, when you are good and ready. The Soviets were nearly as bad as the Germans in WW2, yet the US didnt attack them both at the same time - it would have been suicide.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You basically say any kind of violence is justificable under the right circumstanes, yet the Iraqi are not allowed to be violent because they are just wrong, while they are wrong because they are violent.

You are turning in a circle and bite your own tail.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No. I have a set criteria for what justifies acceptable violence and unacceptable violence. The Iraqi insurgency breach this and brags about it, the US only do so in error or in harsh self corrected mistakes. There is no circle - my logic remains the same in every situation. Our legal system does not allow criminals to fire on police in self defence, yet it allows police to fire on criminals in self defence. Is this hypocracy? No. The criminals are defined as such because they are willing to fire on the police. Is this a circle? No.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have a clear position. I will not recite it again. If you still do not understand have it your way.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I understand your position - you are the champion of Muslim extremist reasoning. These only ever trundled out when they need to explain why they dont mind hacking off heads - so you are consequently championing Muslim extremist justifications. You then go on to claim that you condemn what they are doing ie you do not accept their justifications. You argue a paradox.

And for the third time in a row you have again avoided my "Marine" question. What is that Marine supposed to do? Does he flee from the dying Iraqi? Does he fire upon the wounded Iraqi? How do you approach a wounded man if you suspect him of being booby trapped?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If you're drawing on Japan to prove that democratization from without is possible, you're exposing your own serious lack of historical and political understanding of reality. Japan had previous experience with the institutions of democracy before the 1930s. Post-war, Japan had leaders who were willing to guide Japan towards democracy and had the legitimacy to do so. In Iraq no leadership of that kind exists. Forcing democracy onto a country has never worked. Why should it work now? Your point of view is irrational.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Uhhhh - no. You are now exposing your own lack of historical and political understanding. Iraq has had several experiments with democracy. <a href='http://i-cias.com/e.o/iraq_5.htm' target='_blank'>Your education starts here.</a>

1925: Elections for a parliament is held. Concessions to search for oil are given to international companies

1953: Direct parliamentary elections. King Faisal 2 assumes throne, as he was only 3 when his father died.

Iraq has had previous experiences with the instituations of democracy - until they were destroyed by British/Pan-Arab efforts.

I believe al-Yawir has the credibility needed - though if you insist on only listening to those wearing facemasks, burning American flags and packing 47's then you'll probably think different. Please show me these countries where we have forced democracy onto them and its been rejected - the closest I can think of is the imperialised Arab and African nations being abandoned by their previous masters and foundering hopelessly. Democracy was forced onto PNG by Australia when it was a protectorate, and its doing fine. Corruption is a big issue, but they cooperate with Australia, and we help them wherever we can.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
After Mosques were bombed after 9/11 in both the US and UK, I can understand why Muslims would be wary of a society which seems to be able to flare up with hostility at any given point. Iraq is not the only place where Muslims are persecuted. Consider that before you fall back to the refuge of 'questioning intellect'.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I dont doubt that there are racehaters around, yet they have been around prior to Sept 11 - all they need is a trigger/excuse, hell half the time they dont even need that. If they think, based around a couple of bombings of mosques, which were promptly prosecuted by the countries police forces, that the world is turning against them, they need a reality check. And like fundamentalism is a "refuge" anyway. You dont fall back on fundamentalism in situations like that - unless you are already a nutjob.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Please provide the evidence supporting the view that invading a country and killing its citizens heals it. Your blind faith in the US ability to 'help' Iraq doesn't prove anything.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

www.worldwartwo.com - we invaded Germany. We killed their citizens. We healed them. You may claim a different circumstance - and you will be right, but that there is hard proof that you can invade a country and kill its civilians and heal it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I see a lot of Iraqi pain and very little gain. Is destroying a society worth that pain?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'd like to say yes, so I could just sit back and let the Iraqi's suffer under Saddam's heel (with Made in the US stamped on it) while the oil flows in. Mr Conscience doesnt let me. I think its worth it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This makes my realist political science education want to cry. If the United States is in Iraq out of selfishness, then how can you call it a war of liberation? If the US in in Iraq out of greed, then their policies will (and do) reflect this. If your argument is that the United States is [b]inadvertantly[/] doing good, you just shot yourself in the foot.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

A tissue for you and your political science education. The US is in Iraq for two reasons - oil and GMEI. Both are ultimately selfish - yet the second option relies upon the establishment of a democratic and peaceful government. The completition of their mission in Iraq hangs around the establishment of a decent government. The US is deliberately doing good because it believes this will help it in its plan for peace in the Middle East. My foot is fine.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How nice it would be if we could just solve problems by saying, 'No, no, that's too complicated. Let's just take our best shot and ignore what we don't understand'.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hey - if you want to start explaining complexities too me, I'm all ears. I'm just tired of hearing that its complex, but not exactly "how" its complex. And then in the rare event I get it explained to me "how" its so damn complex, claims are made that require just as much faith and have just as little if not less evidence then mine.

Legat · November 2004

Doublepost....

Legat · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is also something to be said for not airing your dirty laundry - just putting it in the washing machine. My sister is currently in her 4th year of Law, and works full time in a successful practise in the city, and as she said when I asked her "what good is circumstantial evidence": No good. No one has ever been convicted on circumstantial evidence. You need to convict based on beyond reasonable doubt - circumstantial is the poorest evidence available, one step above hearsay. Its like a man who has a gun in his bag, and its been fired - unless you can pin it on him that he was there and had a motive, then the circumstantial evidence is worthless.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I will tell you something about politics and their dirty loundry. They all have it.
And they all hide it under their bed

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Not legal age - child. As she is a child I feel comfortable making that decision for her, in her own best inter</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is such a typical behavioral pattern that continues to repeat itself over and over again. I wonder when humanity finally grows up.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Once again you have failed to address the issue. You were supposed to explain to me why the Iraqi's dont need us to end their misery. You seemed to have some insight into the Iraqi mind that I didnt - so please tell me the great Iraqi plan for freedom, peace and prosperity. Tip - if you have to reach back to the 70's and alter time, you are not dealing with the issue at hand.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Once again you failed to understand my explanation or did not read it properly.
They have *oil*. Oil is money, money is prsoperity. Money is all they need to build a prosperous nation. Whether that nation is democratic, theocratic or despotic is of no importance. Important is that the people make their mistakes. To remain with you analogy of the child....well every child has to learn that fire burns. They will begin to struggle for their own freedom when the time is appropriate. Like they did In western civilisations. They do in Iran already. Even In Saudi Arabia ,many people begin to question the justification of the Religious police, since the incidents witht the Girls School where Policemen did not allow them to leave the burning house without headcraves... The population got quite upset with this. But that is healthy. It is developement, its process. Its starts with small activist groups, private papers and radio stations...that is democracy. Democracy cannot come from now to then.
Not in such a completely different culture. It must grow and be fought for. You cannot teach them to be democrats. That never worked.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wrong. You just claimed that WW2, CAE, Cambodia, East Timor etc were unjustifiable and uncivilized - all of them highly necessary and ultimately lifesaving. Still - twould be entertaining to see you air your sentiments in Tel Aviv, explaining how the way WW2 ended the Jewish slaughter was actually unjustified. You yourself have stated that WW2 was far from altruistic.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It is funny that you bring up WW2 in favor for your argument, as WW2 is a direct result from failed political descisions of the victorious nations of WW1.
Germanys democratisation after WW2 lead to desaster. The Monarcy was dismantled and the new republic was not able to stabilize the country. Poverty, unemployment, riots and violent uprisings were dayly buisness in Berlin. Radical powers seized control.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would suggest you dont use irony when expressing sentiments typically stated in all seriousness by your side of politics - no one will pick up on it.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Next time I remenmber the [/sarcasm] for you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So you say. A common enemy is certainly a good starting point, and when you happen to be viewed as the enemy, it makes it an uphill battle - but I don't believe that makes it impossible. The US is not attempting to break the Iraqi's will, merely the insurgents.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

How do you want to tell them apart?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Iraq has been battered into oblivion. Iraq was defeated. Iraq succumbed to the superior force. The Japanese doubtlessly hated the Americans for nuking them, yet their country and their emperor had surrendered so they left it at that. But the Iraqi insurgents have religious zealotry to drive them, and so they continue to fight, killing both American and Iraqi. They lack a massive support base from the average Iraqi because they are not so stupid as to think the insurgents are fighting for them. The only thing they like about the insurgents is the fact they're killing Americans, because everyone hates the Americans, yet they also fear that the Americans will retreat and leave them to the insurgents/baathists/foreign terrorists.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The Iraqi resistance was not nearly as heavy as expected. The military did never put up a real fight. Most high ranking officers deserted, However, the underground armies were well prepared and are perfectly organized. The similar uprisings in different citys in the very moment of the falludsha operation show this clearly. Now the US have to hold falludsha, otherwhise they gained nothing. Their forces spread thinner and thinner. They have not succumbed yet. Mision not accomplished.

As for Japan, they did not really like the US long before that. They have never healed the thraumatic experiece of the "Black Fleet". When Perry opened their Harbours by force. This event triggered the Meiji Restoration (a rebelion that wanted to install another shogun at first, later to modernize and strenghen the Nation)The exact happenings are difficult and complex so in short:
The Japanese did fear to become a colony like most other Asian countries and so put all effort in becoming a modern nation. They managed to develope from a feudal Argricultural economy to an imperialistic ndustrial power, that defeated the Russian Sea Power, within barely 50 Years. Without US help. ( Last Samurai is about that area, however it is not historical correct as the Japanese used Preussian/German Officers to train their Army) They became a modern Nation mostly out of their own
strength and became independent. Even though they had no signifficant ressources on their own.
They were not at war with the US because they were not so pretty democratic like we are.....They were at war with US for suppremecy in the asian waters. Nothing else.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And for the third time in a row you have again avoided my "Marine" question. What is that Marine supposed to do? Does he flee from the dying Iraqi? Does he fire upon the wounded Iraqi? How do you approach a wounded man if you suspect him of being booby trapped?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I do not avoid you question I do not see the purpose in it.
As you are so persistant.
The marine was not asking if theres a boobytrap or if he should check it. He saw a survivor and "dealt" with him as you put it so adequately once. That is no behavior a soldier should display. Especially if his country judges others according to the geneva convention.
People do not respect you if you make two laws, one for you, one for the others.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I understand your position - you are the champion of Muslim extremist reasoning. These only ever trundled out when they need to explain why they dont mind hacking off heads - so you are consequently championing Muslim extremist justifications. You then go on to claim that you condemn what they are doing ie you do not accept their justifications. You argue a paradox.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again you acccuse me of approving killing innocents. Repeatedly, you attacked my person, not my arguments. As you cannot dispatch the with other means that your "we are rigth and they are wrong" argumentation, you start dicediting my standing.
Mc Carthy would have liked you. The funny thing is I am not even conidering myself left wing.
I would say it is people like you that are responsible for our world not making any progress, however, that woull charm you, as you are too insignifficant to really factor. It is the lot of your that are the problem.

Marine0I · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I will tell you somethign about politics and their dirty loundry. They all have it.
And they all hide it under their bed</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Agreed. Yet that is still no reason for criticising the US Army for wishing to deal with the Abu Grahib matter privately. Justice was going to be done media or no.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I wonder when humanity finally grows up.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Six thousand odd years of history would suggest that it never does.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They have *oil*. Oil is money, money is prsoperity. Money is all they need to build a prosperous nation. Whether that nation is democratic, theocratic or despotic is of no importance. Important is that the people make their mistakes. To remain with you analogy of the child....well every child has to learn that fire burns. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yet the average citizen in the middle east is defined by poverty. When you have rotten to the core governments, the people cannot access the nearly limitless wealth offered by oil. Sometimes - I'm afraid you are right with your "child must learn that fire burns" analogy, but at other times I consider America as beginning the education.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They will begin to struggle for their own freedom when the time is appropriate. Like they did In western civilisations. They do in Iran already. Even In Saudi Arabia ,many people begin to question the justification of the Religious police, since the incidents witht the Girls School where Policemen did not allow them to leave the burning house without headcraves... The population got quite upset with this. But that is healthy. It is developement, its process. Its starts with small activist groups, private papers and radio stations...that is democracy. Democracy cannot come from now to then.
Not in such a completely different culture. It must grow and be fought for. You cannot teach them to be democrats. That never worked.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Teaching without support and action is fruitless. That is what history has demonstrated. Working for your own freedom is desperately hard when you have interference from Western nations and other Middle Eastern nations. The Shi'ites struggled, and they got slaughtered. It irks me that we didnt help them, and it irks me even more that we encouraged them then just let them die. I think we should help, I think we should take an active role. Sitting back and waiting for the freedom train seems like waiting for a blown up oil well to burn itself out before you cap it. A lot of suffering while we spectate....

Legat · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Agreed. Yet that is still no reason for criticising the US Army for wishing to deal with the Abu Grahib matter privately. Justice was going to be done media or no</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I do not criticize the Army. I said that before. I said I do not blame the soldier as he is vicitm like every boy else fighgting or not fighting in Iraq.
I blame the ones that pushed them into this mess.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Six thousand odd years of history would suggest that it never does.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes. really. sadly so true. Our behavior is so very similar to every period of history that it is truely sad to but impossible to deny. We might have raised our livingstandards, however this is hapening on the expense of other. Like it has ever been before.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yet the average citizen in the middle east is defined by poverty. When you have rotten to the core governments, the people cannot access the nearly limitless wealth offered by oil. Sometimes - I'm afraid you are right with your "child must learn that fire burns" analogy, but at other times I consider America as beginning the education.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is incorrect. Most oil rich countries do pay their people with general wages from state income.
Dubai has even managed to develope its economy completely independent from oil exports (as they dont have much anyway). They are developing a high tech industry where Silicon Walley looks Sid Meiers garage in comparison. Not to mention their enormous touristic industry.

Most people in the middle east don't have to worry about money. The other countries simply have nothing to make money with.....Egypt is relatively poor on ressources for instance, so most of the income is due to trourism and the common people are poor. That however is not a result of oppresionist governments but lack of ressources and development. They are what we are reffering to as "third world". Corruption might factor in strongly, as its like in you typical aftrican "banana-republic"
There is a saying in arabia that goes like: My Grandfather rode a camel, my Father drove a car, I fly a plane and my children will ride camels again.

There is the problem since we make their governments focus on oil exprot, they do not develope alternative future economys. This will drive them into ruin within this century.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Teaching without support and action is fruitless. That is what history has demonstrated. Working for your own freedom is desperately hard when you have interference from Western nations and other Middle Eastern nations. The Shi'ites struggled, and they got slaughtered. It irks me that we didnt help them, and it irks me even more that we encouraged them then just let them die. I think we should help, I think we should take an active role. Sitting back and waiting for the freedom train seems like waiting for a blown up oil well to burn itself out before you cap it. A lot of suffering while we spectate....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, thats what irks me too. However Saddam would probably never have had the chance to establish his firm control before if he had not been supported. The Iran/Iraq
War would not have happened. Kuwait would not have happened.
You see , our point of view is not so diffent than you might think.
The only point where we diagree is, that you say that the effort should be taken to help them, while I say, that that is futile and will lead to another evil replacing the first.
Besides it is unjustificable to decide who should be freed based on the nations ressources. That is the same as only applying medical aid to those who can pay for it.

Iran.

Comments