Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Peanut Gallery: Disallusioned With The American Me Presence?


nivek

Recommended Posts

Amanda,

 

You are swimming in a pool full of historical sharks, all ready to byte your ass off.

Okay, you seem willing to discuss it. Additionally, there are many people that are history sharks that are very divided on this issue, so even though I respect a tenure into political matters... it still has to make sense to me.

Saddam encouraged different factions fighting against each other within his country

 

Saddam and his minions brutally supressed ANY fighting within his borders or protectorates. If there was any fighting done, it was a brief rebellion and the weight of his entire Army on their asses being killed. Then the obtuse exaples of Saddamn and the various chemical and petro-chemical warfare on his "enemies". He didn't "fight fair", nor did he give a fuck about those who would upset his money making machines.

Nivek, then why is there a civil war there now? This seems to indicate to me there were factions with contentions to each other all along, and NOT a new phenomena.

 

I agree he did NOT fight fair!!! However, before he became president, it did seem he was a good guy. That all began to change almost immediately after he became president by default. It seems to me that even the UN supported him in a positive world view of him before he became the leader.

 

You DO realize that 'IRAQ' is purely an Occidental invention, brought forth by the British mapmakers and politicians in the turn of the 19th century after various conquests and a world war? Map now as you see it is various lines of 'protectorates', blended by some treaty and lots of time, of what the politicians 'felt best' back then.

I didn't know this, yet how does this effect anything. It seems to me they didn't have to align with what the west decided. Additionally they have been at war forever. They fight with Iran, and then attack Kuwait on totally unprovoked circumstances, and I see no one coming to his defense except terrorists.

Despite good advise from the Arab and Persians who lives in regions the various goobermints did as they damn well pleased to ensure their hold on the newly discovered exploitable Petroleum, Oil, Lube found in the sands. Despite that advise, the Occidentals drew arbitrary lines in sand, separated families, loyalties, clans and even split exisiting nations for the 'good of the investors'.

Again... I find it difficult that they'd listen to us, or even care what we said... unless it was our effort to help them acquire peace in the area. They've been fighting for millenias on their own, and did quite well at it before we came along.

The various lists of complaints that have been offered by the native people against the Allies isn't a new thing. For most of four human generations meddling and murder have been done to the folks who live there.

The only people who do nothing wrong are people who do nothing. It seems to me that country has been used for those who are attempting to get it back the way it was... the terrorists. Fine, as long as we can get the innocent people out of there and then are able to hold the country accountable for its actions instead of hiding behind innocent people. :shrug:

If you care to see who has been the biggest pot_stirring_meddlers, look no further than London and DC.

 

kL

Respectfully, it's easy to condemn without having a solution. A previous post of mine, I asked about some of these ideas Obama had, concerning transitioning out of that country. Heck, I remember when Daddy Bush was criticized for not invading Iraq during the Gulf War! The president's seat is NOT an enviable place to sit, IMO, and it seems he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vigile

    37

  • Japedo

    35

  • Amanda

    34

  • Grandpa Harley

    31

As I see it, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Perhaps the world is not black or white, or someone is not all bad or all good. I understand the Suffis to say that determining what is wrong or right is elementary. Sometimes we have to choose the best of two evils. We took a complacent stand for a long time as terrorists continued to attack us. And we can just wait for them to come here and use our own weapons... would that seem more peaceful to you? How about the next time you're in a mall and the thing blows up? Would you strike at a country where terrorists hide amongst innocent people?

 

No weapons of mass distruction... you're right. However, the UN deemed Iraq a threat to us, as did just about everyone in congress. Other nations have weapons of mass distruction, yet the UN and the congress has not deemed them an eminent threat to us. Clearly there is a defining difference in this situation. The proof is in the pudding... there has NOT been a terrorist attack on us since 9/11. I have to assume our government is doing something right.

 

Having said that, no one wants to put a solution on the table. I've finally heard one that sounded pretty good from Obama in the Democratic primary debate. Heck, it almost looked to me that Condi is trying to implement it already. Does everyone here want to just put up the white flag to the terrorists and walk away? What's an alternate solution? I'd love to keep our finest American sons and daughters at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There wasnt a foriegn terrorist attack on American soil between the 1st Trade Center attack and the second was there? That was like 7 years or so between them. Just becuase we havent had another one means NOTHING. And dont forget, some of our allies got thier turn at being attacked since we were hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Japedo, I'm curious to know what you suggest? I have posted that I've heard Obama in the Democratic Primary Debates, and in the minute time allotted to him, he had the best solution of a transition out of there... yet I'm unfamiliar with its strategically likelihood to succeed. Anyway, I still find my position on both threads congruent... instead of "hypocritical", yet feel free to point out any inconsistencies. I know I happen to be one of the blind men amongst the others with the elephant. :)

 

 

I told you what I suggested. They need to select their own government, run their own country, and we need to bring our guys/gals home. End of Suggestion.

 

As to the rest, I was merely pointing out that you have no problem defending freedom when it comes to your own country, It doesn't cross your mind that you also support the suppression of others who may wish to be armed, you have them labeled as terrorist whom are to weak minded to even run their own country, It makes you feel better to be a savior to someone I guess, regardless of the fact that they were under oppression in the first place because of us. It is an elitist mentality and also regardless of how you see it, it's a double standard. Freedom for me but not for Thee type of mind set. You also keep ignoring the fact that these poor people would never have had Saddam in the first place if not for the USA. Why would these people trust us to give them another dictator? Why is it our business to be there in the first place? We gave them Saddam, whom we later freed them from, we also armed Saddam. The United States having it's nose in everyone's business is what's causing anger, We are not the UN, we are not the worlds police. No one voted for our country to rule the world by our whims. We are also a sovereign nation and Americans would tell anyone to piss up a rope if they tried to dictate power here, we as a country refuse to grant anyone else that same equal respect. Freedom is not something that can be given, it has to be taken by people that want it.

 

Iraq has ZERO connection to 9/11, so this Terrorist lie is just that. I'd also like to point out that their are Terrorist in Every single country around the globe including the USA, why not clean up our own yard before destroying our neighborhood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the balance of power is completely taken from the people and a madman takes over, the only violence that is going to happen is the violence of a corruptible leader. No one has the right of their own stance, and are subject entirely to one man's decisions. So, how can we hold them accountable? If the COUNTRY makes these decisions, that's a different story. Then unilateral repercussions from the rest of the world will be more ethically imposed, and more effective to change their minds. Our presence in Iraq is to make that happen, NOT to have the power of them ourself! This statement just goes to show the brainwashing that still lingers in that country, IMO.

 

It is not our JOB to hold any sovereign nation accountable by occupying said nation! The reason for WAR is not to hold countries 'accountable'. Amanda, talking about accountability, who's going to hold the United States accountable for lying to the world? For giving these people Saddam in the first place? Why aren't you demanding holding your own government accountable before traipsing across the globe to hold someone else's government accountable? Who the hell voted for the US of A to be the worlds accountability police? Again with the elitist mind set. :banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes we have to choose the best of two evils.

 

Do we? The war hasn't stopped terrorism from happening in Iraq, on not only the Iraqi people but on our soldiers. YOU CANNOT WIN A WAR FIGHTING those who are not in uniform Amanda. So what is the point of the war? Almost daily we are bombarded with news about how the terrorists struck here or there or our soldiers. If terrorists are getting into this country, it is because of lack of security coupled with laziness. We need to handle the problem from here, in this country, with tight security measures. If we fail, then we need to tighten it up some more but heaven forbid our American people have to stand in line and wait a little extra at the airport, train, bus, boat, etc. in order to do that.

 

Since the war, President Bush has said that over 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed (although some sources claim the number to be double that). 30,000, Amanda. Isn't the loss of Iraqi lives just as sad and painful and just as important as those Americans who lost their lives in the World Trade Centers, Pentagons and planes? Or in your view, is it better them than me? We have gun ownership here in America (and I've stated that I am fine with people owning guns, but like you, wish for a way to stop them from getting into the wrong hands), the terrorists won't get near that amount of death toll here in the states.

 

We took a complacent stand for a long time as terrorists continued to attack us.

 

I must've missed that part of my life while we were under continued terrorist attacks here in the US, silly me. The terrorist attacks could've been prevented with better SECURITY! The USS Cole should have had better security, the planes used in 9/11 should have had better security at the airport, embassies overseas should have had better security. The only one that gets away from this is the WT in 93 in which 7 people lost their lives. At LEAST 30,000 Iraqi Civilians KILLED since the war in Iraq!

And we can just wait for them to come here and use our own weapons... would that seem more peaceful to you?

 

What do you mean just wait? If our security measures are in place, that is a proactive initiative to PREVENT terrorists from harming Americans. That isn't *just* waiting, that is *doing*.

 

How about the next time you're in a mall and the thing blows up? Would you strike at a country where terrorists hide amongst innocent people?

 

No, because you are only killing INNOCENT people, not the terrorist...they HIDE Amanda. Are you honestly saying that if a couple of terrorists hide among a crowd of say, 100 innocent people, that it is worth the lives of those 100 to get the two that are terrorists?

 

No weapons of mass distruction... you're right. However, the UN deemed Iraq a threat to us, as did just about everyone in congress.

:vent: Because our government LIED in order to get that approval.

 

The proof is in the pudding... there has NOT been a terrorist attack on us since 9/11. I have to assume our government is doing something right.

 

And before 9/11 we went 7 years without an attack HERE in the US, despite NOT having a war on terror. Not a good thing to make assumptions other than the terrorists are a very patient group of people Amanda. Only strong security measures can help our people in the US, not the war that we are not winning.

 

Having said that, no one wants to put a solution on the table.

 

Gee, I sort of thought that mentioning security was a pretty good start. :shrug:

 

I'm interested in your thoughts about the American companies being contracted and the obscene amount of money they're making at our expense. $25 for a plate of food is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh... Pardon me Vigile Del Fuoco 1... I forgot you know the absolute Truth of all aspects of history and current events, and your opinion is more valuable than mine... because you have a degree in foreign affairs. I'm sure you'll continue to remind me should I forget. Feel better now?

 

We are not dealing with spins of definition here, we are dealing with the facts and your outragious ignorance of them. You can ad hom my provision of the facts all your huffy little self desires, but it won't change the facts as I've presented them.

 

I always try to respect most aspects of others opinions as their right to have it, even if I don't agree with them.

 

I'm fine with differing opinions. I am not fine with the idea that someone would willfully be fine with our support of a monster of a man in order to better one's own position in life.

 

Vigile Del Fuoco, why didn't you tell the United Nations all that before they gave him such a prestigous award earning worldwide recognition for his good work in that country?.

 

why do you insist on promoting the UN as some benevolent and holy organization that can never be muddied by politics?

 

The priority of this country is to protect its people. If you don't like that idea... you might think about it the next time you use your American passport to travel freely around the world..

 

Oh yes, I owe my very well being and my every breath to that damned government. Everything they ever do is in my own best interest. I should be eternally greatful that they "allow" me to travel, yea, call myself by that oh so loved name, "American." :Wendywhatever:

 

Funny how nowadays I'd rather tell people I'm from Canada. And I can list several dozen other countries whose passports I would rather own.

 

I have no problem with the people I grew up with, who I worked with, who educated me, who I have befriended and who I love, but I have a big problem with the government. If that makes me anti American in your eyes, then I don't really give a shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, if you must resort to war...you had better fight it and be the baddests ass there or your just playing with the lives of people. If we are to be at war and terrorism is the weapon of choice for the enemy, then I say NUKE the primary country. ....

 

If you think I am terrible...so be it.....

 

You feel the same way as my husband and I don't think that he is terrible, but that attitude has caused a few *heated* arguments in our home. Funny, that is the exact same attitude that the terrorists have against us, which is probably why they'd love nothing more than to obtain nukes to wipe our country out...many with the backing of Iraqi people who see us as the terrorists in their country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, if you must resort to war...you had better fight it and be the baddests ass there or your just playing with the lives of people. If we are to be at war and terrorism is the weapon of choice for the enemy, then I say NUKE the primary country. ....

 

If you think I am terrible...so be it.....

 

You feel the same way as my husband and I don't think that he is terrible, but that attitude has caused a few *heated* arguments in our home. Funny, that is the exact same attitude that the terrorists have against us, which is probably why they'd love nothing more than to obtain nukes to wipe our country out...many with the backing of Iraqi people who see us as the terrorists in their country.

 

 

Exactly!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. That sums up pretty much the bottom line of it all too!! Outstanding post!! :woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. That sums up pretty much the bottom line of it all too!! Outstanding post!! :woohoo:

:thanks:

 

And with at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, many of which were caused by our government, we've shed far more blood than Saddam and the terrorism on Americans combined...but thats all good because we wear uniforms, its the Iraqi people not us, which makes those killings all legit dontchya know. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You feel the same way as my husband and I don't think that he is terrible, but that attitude has caused a few *heated* arguments in our home. Funny, that is the exact same attitude that the terrorists have against us, which is probably why they'd love nothing more than to obtain nukes to wipe our country out...many with the backing of Iraqi people who see us as the terrorists in their country.

 

If I have failed to tell you recently just know that I think you are a brilliant human being Jubilant. The fact that you don't have a formal education in this area has not in the least retarded your understanding and analysis of the broader issues we are discussing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one late to the party. Funny, I was having a discussion with my father about the current war, and as we are both history buffs, and he a Vietnam Vet, we realized the same uncontrivertable truth....

 

No nation has EVER in the history of human civilization thrived with "help" (occupation by another nation). When you have another people policing the behavior and lives of others, no matter what the altruistic intentions of the occupying force....it ultimately fails. Until the occupyers LEAVE. Then that nation by blood or by diplomacy, sorts it's own shit and comes into it's own.

 

Vietnam is an excellent example. Was the country stabilized by occupation by U.S. forces? No. Things got worse. The U.S. troops left, and Vietnam was left to sort it's own shit. A few months ago, I even saw a travelogue commercial on the Travel channel encouraging people to Travel Vietnam. A tourism industry has blossomed there. Tourism requires a certain level of stability. Vietnam has gotten past it's growing pains.

 

An opposing example:

 

Ethiopia was starving thirty, forty years ago. Various first world countries scrambled all over each other to help the people of Ethiopia. Today?? Ethiopia is still starving. And First world countries are still helping. Without "help" what might have happened? Natural selection would have weeded out the human populace to the point the land could again support fewer people. No, it's not human (moral or ethical to stand by and do nothing), but it is true.

 

Fifty years ago, the world at large started dabbling around in the internal problems and conflicts of the Middle East. A new nation was created, displacing the indiginous poplulation. Has the Middle East benefitted by the meddling? No. They've turned their in-fighting outwards to oppose from their perspective, a common enemy. Which they've been doing for 50 plus years. If the Middle East is ever to stabilize at all, the rest of the world needs to pull back. If the created nation of Israel sinks or swims, the rest of the world needs to let it. Let the nations of the Middle East sort their own shit!! Whoever is left in the end, is simply who is left in the end. And it will be their job to stabilize their own ecomony and begin a relationship with the rest of the world.

 

In short, we need to get out of Iraq if Iraq is ever going to have a chance of being it's own nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have failed to tell you recently just know that I think you are a brilliant human being Jubilant. The fact that you don't have a formal education in this area has not in the least retarded your understanding and analysis of the broader issues we are discussing here.

 

Vigile, I'm humbled, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would The Federation do?

 

Really?

 

I am trying to lighten the mood a little because I see posters that I care a great deal about at each other's throats, so I decided to give a little Star Trek input. :D

 

Prime Directive:

 

The Prime Directive dictates that there can be no interference with the internal affairs of other civilizations. In many respects, then, the prime directive can be considered the galactic analogue of Westphalian sovereignty. It has special implications, however, for civilizations still at a 'primitive' stage of development, since no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or the existence of extraplanetary civilizations, lest this exposure alter the natural development of the civilization. In addition to exposure, purposeful efforts to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept completely secret, are prohibited.

 

In at least one case (TOS episode 'A Private Little War'), where two different factions of one race were at war with each other, the Prime Directive had been interpreted to mean that neither side could have an advantage, that there had to be a balance of power. With this race, when it was found that Klingons were furnishing one portion of the race with advanced weapons, Kirk responded by arming the other faction with the same weapons. This resulted in an arms race on that world, and was seen as a fictionalized parallel to the then-current Cold War arms race, in which the United States often armed one side of a dispute and the Soviet Union armed the other. A similar arms race served as the backstory of the TNG episode "Too Short a Season." Conversely, Voyager Captain Janeway refused to allow the Kazon-Nistrim and the Kazon-Ogla to have replicator technology, believing it would tip the balance of power among the Kazon factions. ("State of Flux").

 

On a planet that had two indigenous sentient species, the more advanced one was suffering from a degenerative genetic disorder. A cure was not pursued because it was determined that the more advanced species was genetically stagnant, and that the lesser one was genetically progressive. It was viewed as contrary to nature to help the dying race. Despite the fact that this event took place in the series Star Trek: Enterprise, before the formation of both the Federation and the Prime Directive, it reflects the views of space-faring humans and their allies in the years leading up to the creation of the Federation (ENT episode "Dear Doctor").

 

In another case, a starship stood by and watched as the loss of a planet's atmosphere was about to wipe out the last remaining members of a primitive civilization, rather than interfere to save their lives (TNG episode "Homeward"). However, the Federation observer refused to stand by, and violated the Prime Directive by saving a small group of that civilization.

 

There are different conclusions as to the purpose of non-interference. One is that the ends do not justify the means. No matter how well-intentioned, stepping in and effecting change could have disastrous consequences. Another conclusion (strongly implied in the ENT episode "Dear Doctor") is a belief that evolution has a 'plan' of sorts, driving species toward purposes. Interference would therefore be unnatural, in that it would go against what is supposed to happen to the species in question.

 

Some may see the Prime Directive as a negative policy, because it prevents introduction of technology (especially medical technology), culture, and resources that may improve quality of life. It also has been considered an attitude of moral cowardice by the Federation — that the Prime Directive gives the Federation an excuse not to act. During the brutal Cardassian occupation of Bajor in the early 24th century, the Federation refused to act on the grounds that the occupation was an internal matter of the Cardassian government and to help the Bajorans would violate the Prime Directive. Many Bajorans resented the Federation for years after the occupation because of this attitude. (TNG: "Ensign Ro"). Those in favor of the Prime Directive have said that no one has the right to impose their own standards on others and it is hardly moral cowardice to keep to a difficult, but ultimately beneficial principle in the face of temptation.

link

 

When can the Prime Directive be broken? When the Omega Directive is given:

 

Because Voyager is separated from Starfleet, the Omega Team (a specially trained group which would normally be tasked with handling situations involving "Omega") cannot be brought in to deal with the problem. Janeway decides to break the code of silence involving the symbol and share information with her senior officers. She announces that she has just received the Omega Directive, an order that permits Starfleet captains to ignore the Prime Directive and destroy the omega particle at all costs. The particle is too dangerous to be allowed to exist - an uncontrolled Omega explosion can make warp travel impossible in a given region of space, and the consequences of this would be disastrous.
link

 

Is there a solution in there? I sure as hell don't see it. It seems to be based on human's understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Many of us agree that what is right isn't an absolute, yet we argue like there is an absolute right answer.

 

I respect all of you!

 

Okay...I'll bow back out. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japedo, although we may disagree, remember... my opinion and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee. That's ultimately all my opinion is worth. This is just a discussion! It seems to me, people need to relax about this, instead of making one's bllood pressure go up for nothing. Like I've said on another post, when the big guys in Washington start calling me for my opinion, you all here will be the first to know. However, don't hold you breath.

 

I told you what I suggested. They need to select their own government, run their own country, and we need to bring our guys/gals home. End of Suggestion.

That is exactly what we want, for them to select their own government and run their own country... to be in control over what comes out of that country towards us and be accountable and responsible for it, whatever that may be, as a nation!

As to the rest, I was merely pointing out that you have no problem defending freedom when it comes to your own country, It doesn't cross your mind that you also support the suppression of others who may wish to be armed, you have them labeled as terrorist whom are to weak minded to even run their own country, It makes you feel better to be a savior to someone I guess, regardless of the fact that they were under oppression in the first place because of us. It is an elitist mentality and also regardless of how you see it, it's a double standard. Freedom for me but not for Thee type of mind set.

You are wrong here. One of the main reasons they got this way, IMO, is because they had no arms, it was against the law. I want them to have arms responsibly. I want to empower them as a people to make their own decisions, to run their own country, and to do what they want as their own nation. I want them to take back control of their own household and do what they deem best for them. If the country wants to embrace terrorism, and to support the ideas of the terrorists... fine! Just do it in a manner that it is the will and support of the people of the nation, not some terrorists that strike at people and run and hide amongst innocent people that are virtually held hostage and hate their leader. Stand up and have the integrity as a nation to be accountable for the actions they want to take... that's all.

You also keep ignoring the fact that these poor people would never have had Saddam in the first place if not for the USA. Why would these people trust us to give them another dictator?

Nor for the United Nations, I suppose... which would just about include every onther nation. And we did not, do not want to appoint anyone to run their country for them. We sponsored FREE ELECTIONS for them to vote in who they wanted. BTW, who was voted in is NOT who we would have liked see in there, but that was NOT the issue.

Iraq has ZERO connection to 9/11, so this Terrorist lie is just that. I'd also like to point out that their are Terrorist in Every single country around the globe including the USA, why not clean up our own yard before destroying our neighborhood?

Who has been the only people coming in and trying to regain Saddam Hussein's position in that country? Terrorists. Why hasn't any of Saddam's neighbbors come to his defense? Why did the UN and almost everyone in our congress deem that Iraq was an eminent threat to us? There are other countries that already have weapons of mass distruction, and why hasn't the UN deemed them to be an eminent threat to anyone? Why only Iraq? :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nivek, would you please summarize this post, tell me what it means ultimately, or highlight the high points, and make it understandable to most novices such as myself, compared to you. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why ask why?

 

We, the "Allies" are nuts deep in a minefield of our own making. Someone forgot the map so we can back out without the whole thing going up around our collective reproductive organs and lower.

 

We, the uS fucked up. Failed to hire the Iraqi Army after end of hostilities. Failed to improve the infrastructure. Failed to get medicine, food, water in order.

 

Failed in by passing the thousands of bunkers Saddam and Ko had set millions of rounds of artillery shells and explosives in, allowing those same to melt into the night unaccounted for.

 

So many particular failures, no stellar sucesses, and now having fired off the Iraqi Civil War, in which we are backing a minority, and in the middle of, doing nothing but police work, which our soldiers and marines are not trained for, is sapping the Treasury.

 

One has to ask "What are we (the People paying for all of this) getting in return?"

 

If your answer is ">less than absolutely fucking nothing", then your math is on right track. If you think at all our kids are accomplishing anything by dying and being torn apart you are not seeing the zillions of 'little pictures' this massive effort of bullet bourne economic redistribution is doing.

 

Simply put, the uS is being bled dry by a deranged and insane policy set, led by people who could care less what The People want, and are seemingly asking us to accept their versions of "TRVTH".

 

"If you aren't FOR US, then you are a sniveling back stabbling cowardly surrender monkey fuckstain un-patriot!"

 

k, un-patriot on those termsFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The previous prime minister was in bed with the Tudeh party and nationalized the oil industry (property of British citizens by the way).

 

Yes, it's obvious that you do not respect the sovereignty of foreign nations. As for the rest of your reply, I ignored it when on scanning through I could see that you insisted on building another strawman of my position by painting it as the emotion based rantings of an uneducated teen.

 

I think nationalization represents a perversity of the concept of sovereignty.

 

I don't get how what I said was a strawman of your "position" but I think it's ironic how you reply with an ad hom. Does knocking me down make you feel better? Assuming i'm uneducated when I have almost the same amount of education you do and that i'm a teen when you don't even know how old I am.

 

You still haven't addressed why the CIA and the British helped the Shah come into power. That's just an evasion of the facts. Don't think you off the hook because you can throw a witty personal smear and run away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional homeland security is a given, no matter what other stance we take.

 

We've been a very immigrant accommodating country, and additionally have about 12 million illegal aliens here... so that is a problem we are addressing... although a hard one. I really appreciate the immigrants' presence and still feel it has been one of the most beneficial aspects of this country. I know that after traveling around the world in a former job, I came home with a whole new appreciation for this country. Many immigrants seem to have that too... and I see that as a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to bow out of this discussion with one final summary of my thoughts...

 

One not need to be a scholar, regardless of what your opinions are, to realize that the loss of innocent human life is a tragedy and WRONG, no matter how you slice it, when done at the hands of other human beings.

 

Imagine if the whole world felt compassion for their fellow man (not just themselves and their loved ones) what a better place our planet would be. That the bad guys will never feel that way is understandable but I'm very saddened that good people can seem so downright cold-hearted. If not even good caring people can see that what is happening is wrong, then we're fucked for all time and all hope of a peaceful world is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to bow out of this discussion with one final summary of my thoughts...

 

One not need to be a scholar, regardless of what your opinions are, to realize that the loss of innocent human life is a tragedy and WRONG, no matter how you slice it, when done at the hands of other human beings.

 

Imagine if the whole world felt compassion for their fellow man (not just themselves and their loved ones) what a better place our planet would be. That the bad guys will never feel that way is understandable but I'm very saddened that good people can seem so downright cold-hearted. If not even good caring people can see that what is happening is wrong, then we're fucked for all time and all hope of a peaceful world is gone.

 

Sure, it's bad to lose innocent lives. But the problem here is that the context is dropped as to why those lives were lost. They only count the numbers of the dead people, and point a finger at whoever has the bigger guns for the blame.

 

How many innocent people died because of Saddam? The media and a majority of the world seem to ignore the question.

 

How many innocent people were killed to spread the Jihad? The media and a majority of the world seem to ignore that question too.

 

For those of you who think that Islamic Totalitariansim is not the reasson these people kill or this entire bloody mess of a conflict was started in the first place i'd advise to read the following...

 

In Iraq, bin Laden's Heydrich, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was reported to have been the executioner of the young American Nicholas Berg in May 2004. His group also murdered an Italian, Fabrizio Quattrochi, who died with a display of great courage. In June 2004 Saudi terrorists beheaded another American, Paul Johnson, and declared 'the infidel got his fair treatment...' In July, terrorists in Iraq murdered a South Korean, Kim Sin Il, and a Bulgarian hostage, believed to be Georgi Lazov. They then captured and threatened to murder a Filipino unless the Filipino government immediately withdrew its small humanitarian contingent from Iraq. The Filipino government bowed to this blackmail, an act of national appeasement that will have further resonance within the Philippines, which faces its own Islamic rebellion, and beyond. In September 2004, terrorists captured and murdered two Americans, Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley, and a British businessman, Ken Begley. Perhaps most stunning of all in its barbarity was the kidnapping and assumed murder of Margaret Hassan, a British woman who had lived 30 years in Iraq, and had dual British and Iraqi nationality. Her husband was an Iraqi, she loved the country, she was the country director of Care International, and she was very much opposed to the U.S.-led invasion. Nonetheless she was targeted. After her abduction a video film of her begging for her life was distributed; her body was not found.

 

Such murders have continued ever since. At the end of April 2005 an Australian businessman was seized and filmed begging for his life and requesting that all foreign troops leave Iraq. The Australian government said at once that it would never negotiate. Happily, he has since been freed.

 

The videos made by the killers have been distributed across the Arab world and North Africa as recruitment tools. They are also intended to terrorize, if not coalition soldiers, at least the foreign civilian workers who are essential to the construction of the new state. Thus a group of Nepalese cooks were captured and murdered. It is hard to imagine anyone more innocent.

 

Emphasis mine

 

http://www.williamshawcross.com/saddamremoval.html

 

No matter how many innocent people die, the blood is on their hands, not ours. It's on Saddams for being the monster he was and forcing the world to think they had to do something about it. It's on the Shiites and Sunnis who have no respect for rights or freedoms of anyone else. It's on the jihadists whose religious delusions are killing people daily in the name of spreading their lies. Drops of it appear on the rest of the world for setting back and watching a violent idealogy kill their own people.

 

 

I can't even say if I support the War in Iraq for sure. But I support killing jihadists who hide behind innocent people to wage their war. When it comes down to it, at least Saddam is dead, he deserved to die not matter if it was because of the U.S. or his own people. Even though Iraq is nothing but sand, blood and chaos, their might be some reconciliation in the fact that Saddam is gone.

 

If the U.S. is going to continue to occupy the country then they, Bush and Co, need to come up with some kind of goal or plan because staying until the "job is done" or "there is victory" is baseless and hollow and only results in more death if there is no defining what the job is or what victory is supposed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think you off the hook because you can throw a witty personal smear and run away.

 

Pot. Kettle.

 

Discussions between the two of us have not been fruitful. Let's leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japedo, although we may disagree, remember... my opinion and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee. That's ultimately all my opinion is worth. This is just a discussion! It seems to me, people need to relax about this, instead of making one's bllood pressure go up for nothing. Like I've said on another post, when the big guys in Washington start calling me for my opinion, you all here will be the first to know. However, don't hold you breath.

 

:twitch: You're right, my BP is Up, way up... My Tax money is going towards the annihilation of another country, Everyone's Blood pressure should be up with the outrageous criminal acts DC is engaging in! My money, My government... Yes I'm Very pissed off with do nothings that tell me to put my head in the sand. If We aren't going to hold them accountable, who will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japedo, although we may disagree, remember... my opinion and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee. That's ultimately all my opinion is worth. This is just a discussion! It seems to me, people need to relax about this, instead of making one's bllood pressure go up for nothing. Like I've said on another post, when the big guys in Washington start calling me for my opinion, you all here will be the first to know. However, don't hold you breath.

 

:twitch: You're right, my BP is Up, way up... My Tax money is going towards the annihilation of another country, Everyone's Blood pressure should be up with the outrageous criminal acts DC is engaging in! My money, My government... Yes I'm Very pissed off with do nothings that tell me to put my head in the sand. If We aren't going to hold them accountable, who will?

 

It's nice to know who exactly are accountable... especially when it is about an attack to kill, especially innocent people. "If we aren't going to hold them accountable, who will?"

 

If there are those that coalesce with goals of implementing harm/death on any person who is an American citizen, just because they are an American citizen, that we aren't who they think we should be.... well okay. They don't like us because we are friends with who they don't want us to be, or that we are not of the religious persuasion they think we should have, or because we don't live up to their moral standards they think are appropriate for us... then if they want to attack us, kill us, for that, have the integrity to do so without then hiding in an orphanage, school, hospital, or mosque. And if they do this, then do it in a country that the people are alligned with their government that condones, supports, and encourages it, instead of in a country held hostage by a madman, and the people of that country hate him. Stand up and be accountable and responsible for the decisions they make. Make sure it means enough to them to show their face, and make a stand... without using children, the hospitalized, the innocent hostage as their shield. That's all. Because those people refuse to do that, is why every country has nothing but disrespect for them. There are those hell bent to keep that country just like that for their own purposes, and Osama Bin Laden is one of them. If anyone here wants to respect them... that's your right to your opinion and I respect your right to have one... even if it is clearly different than my own.

 

If some people here think calling others names and hurling insults and sarcasm to someone ... just because their personal opinions conflict with their own... well, then... enough said in and of itself. When someone is persecuted for only their opinions, beliefs, and ideas... subjected to ridicule by those because they don't agree with their way of thinking... is it a tactic that changes anyone's mind?

 

IMO, it is far more beneficial to discuss, open mindedly, with reason and respect as to why there seems to be a problem with another's perspective of the situation. We don't have to like each other, but we should respect each others right to their opinions, even if we don't agree with it. That is called civility. Everyone can yell at ME all they want. I hope it gets them what they want. If you think insults, sarcasm, or an elitist mentality towards ME is holding the people who are responsible for the Iraq war accountable for it, and going to make a difference... then I suggest you don't hold your breath. I'm amazed you'd think I'm that important.

 

Further, I have attempted several times to interject into these discussions, solutions to this Iraq situation. I agree there is a point we must leave, and I'd like to see it happen as soon as possible... with ALL things considered. IMO, to suggest putting up the white flag and walking away sends the wrong messages to terrorism everywhere. I've mentioned Obama's suggestions. It seems some people would rather put their energy in condemning than identifying possible answers. It seems to me, condemning is far easier, fosters an elitist mentality, and goes no where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you think this is bad, remember...are there people in Iraq who are dying because of them?...Is this not war? I guess I am saying...do something about it rather than just compaining,...wage your own war, don't just do like the people who do nothing and complain....do something about it...

 

 

:twitch: BO

 

Just how do you know what it is I do and don't do? Two wrongs don't make a right number one. Number two, I don't agree with nor engage in the type of tactics you support. I believe there are other ways of changing things, things are grim but they are not in the stages of despair and helplessness. I would never be a party to driving someone to the brink of suicide and the such. It is not ever going to be a viable option for me, It goes against my personal moral code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.