News 2 years later, and bin Laden is winning

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Germany and Japan are "real" countries, not a conglomeration ofr multiple ethnic and religious groups slammed togeth by imperialists at the beginning of the last century.

I'm starting to think every country is willing to be the dictator, and kill if necessary to get it. Pecking orders and what-not.

So the key ingredient in creating a stable new country is homogenaity (sp?)? Gee, so much for tolerance for people not like ourselves. And why should that even matter? Is it just that after a while people lose the desire to kill each other over their differences? Or once prosperity sets in people are fat, happy, and too lazy to kill each other anymore? Why can't the Iraqis learn from our mistakes and do it? What is fundamentally different about them? Why should a Shiite and a Suni hate each other so much that they can't form a government together? They aren't even that different from each other and together they are less different from us than the Japanese were - the Japanese may as well have been aliens and yet they embraced democracy and capitalism.

Zero, you're making it sound like you think Arabs are just fundamentally uncivilized. That some places just can't make democracy work. I can't accept that. I think democracy CAN work there or anywhere.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So the key ingredient in creating a stable new country is homogenaity (sp?)? Gee, so much for tolerance for people not like ourselves. And why should that even matter? Is it just that after a while people lose the desire to kill each other over their differences? Or once prosperity sets in people are fat, happy, and too lazy to kill each other anymore? Why can't the Iraqis learn from our mistakes and do it? What is fundamentally different about them? Why should a Shiite and a Suni hate each other so much that they can't form a government together? They aren't even that different from each other and together they are less different from us than the Japanese were - the Japanese may as well have been aliens and yet they embraced democracy and capitalism.

Zero, you're making it sound like you think Arabs are just fundamentally uncivilized. That some places just can't make democracy work. I can't accept that. I think democracy CAN work there or anywhere.

I don't claim to understand the minds of religions people...I also do think that prosperity plays a huge role in things, or at least allowing a certain amount of indulgence. I am only half kidding, for instance, when I talk about paving Jerusalem and putting a bunch of fast food places in its place, or dropping porn to fix the violence.

I think democracy can work if people want it to. I also think that American-style democracy is a particularly American thing, and each country will have to go its own way to get where it needs to be.

On the other hand, if you think of Islam as being basically the same as Christianity, and see it as a meme, you can look at where it is along a timeline that Christianity follwed, and think that there may be a natural progression towards peace that they haven't found yet. Think about how violent and ruthless Western countries were just a few hundred years ago...I hope that teh Middle East doesn't need as long to wise up.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Zero
And, of course, human nature says that whoever is in power will seek to suppress the other groups.

We see this in America today.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP) So the key ingredient in creating a stable new country is homogenaity (sp?)? (SNoP)

I suspect that that is the ingrediant that is the "time" factor that allowed those countries to recover faster then the Iraqi's seem to be presently able.
Germany and Japan both had some form of stability, stable Governement, prior to their wars, Iraq's governance was much more an "imposed stability" then the willing stability that those others had.

I would like to know how do we, "Western Society" aleviate the fear that is instilled, within people, by mention of the Name of "Osama Bin", how do we rectify the effect that the Mass media had/has in serving, un-intentionally*[/color], Osama's fear mongering way?

*[/color]The are only doing the Jobs we want them to do

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It is quite possible that the Iraqi's themselves recognize that the impedance to their becoming a "Democracy" is the very fact of the lengthy cultural heritage of (psuedo) administration by "Church", or, simply the "Church" having to much influence within the processes.

How can that be "helped" (for lack of a better word) if at all, and if that is what the Iraqi people, themselves, really want?
(And how do we find that out??)

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Your forgetting Japan and the major long standing cultural differences between it and the U.S. after '45. With hard work and lots of perspiration (lol no pun intdended) Iraq can be transformed into a free nation.

Al-Quada knows that if the U.S. succeeds in Iraq then it will have been struck a heavy blow. That's why they are supporting every effort for a guerilla war to be waged in Iraq. The news media has to find a story every day to keep the ratings up but it paints an innacurate picture. The most violent parts are between the cities of Baghdad and Tikrit; two of Saddam's strong holds. The outlying country-side is more peaceful.

The implications of a free and peaceful Iraq in the middle-east are heavy indeed.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Your forgetting Japan and the major long standing cultural differences between it and the U.S. after '45. With hard work and lots of perspiration (lol no pun intdended) Iraq can be transformed into a free nation.

Al-Quada knows that if the U.S. succeeds in Iraq then it will have been struck a heavy blow. That's why they are supporting every effort for a guerilla war to be waged in Iraq. The news media has to find a story every day to keep the ratings up but it paints an innacurate picture. The most violent parts are between the cities of Baghdad and Tikrit; two of Saddam's strong holds. The outlying country-side is more peaceful.

The implications of a free and peaceful Iraq in the middle-east are heavy indeed.

Uh huh...been watching Fox Lies Network much? Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

Iraq is barely a coherent nation to begin with, so buiding a national identity will have to come before building any sort of democracy. Attacking Iraq was unnecesary, and is a boost to world terrorism. Read the thread, man.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

You missed or dodged my point. A stable Iraq would be a stabilizing factor in the middle east. As you know, the majority of hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals *GAH!* After all, life is a web and one regional conflict affects other regions around it.

Iraq has less of a national identity problem than you might think. However, the next target we should go after is Iran. We know Iraq got rid of their **** (yes they did have them at some point). Anyways, thanks to the unreliable intelligence of our quote coalition unquote, we've wasted our energy. We should have gone after Iran or North Korea.

Iranians would welcome the U.S. However, we don't have the manpower.

At the moment we are stuck with Iraq so we better stay the course.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
You missed or dodged my point. A stable Iraq would be a stabilizing factor in the middle east. As you know, the majority of hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals *GAH!* After all, life is a web and one regional conflict affects other regions around it.

Iraq has less of a national identity problem than you might think. However, the next target we should go after is Iran. We know Iraq got rid of their **** (yes they did have them at some point). Anyways, thanks to the unreliable intelligence of our quote coalition unquote, we've wasted our energy. We should have gone after Iran or North Korea.

Iranians would welcome the U.S. However, we don't have the manpower.

At the moment we are stuck with Iraq so we better stay the course.

H9ow about we stop 'going after' countries without UN support.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

Amazing ! I admire your wealth of knowledge...

 

[Njorl]

Iraq's involvement in terrorism was small compared to the state sponsored efforts of Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. Their biggest efforts were the rewarding of suicide bombers ($10k-$20k each) in Israel, and safe haven for some discredited terrorist leaders who were being hunted by their own people. They did have some training facilities, but nothing on the scale of the other countries mentioned. Iraq's attempts at Arab hegemony made them many enemies among terrorist organisations.

If support of terrorism were the criterion for invasion, we'd have invaded several other countries first, but it is also incorrect to state that Iraq did not support terrorism at all.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

OK, I should have said 'Iraq has little to do with terrorism, and no known links to 9-11'...it was never a true threat to the U.S., and claiming that invading has had a positive effect on stopping terrorism is wrong. The opposite is probably true, though, and playing right into the terrorists hands, as is the attempt to force democracy on the region.

 

[Zero]

Did you know that if an Iraqi kills an American soldier in Iraq, it is not terrorism? In fact, it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Did you know that if an Iraqi kills an American soldier in Iraq, it is not terrorism? In fact, it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention...

Actually, you are almost completely wrong. The Geneva conventions among other things are designed to protect civilians. Part of protecting civilians is mandating that soldiers be identifiable as soldiers. If soldiers and civilians are indistinguishable, then civilians are at risk. This is precisely the problem faced in Iraq (indeed, it is the primary MO of terrorists). Terrorsts (in Iraq and elsewhere) are virtually always dressed in civilian clothes and are therefore virtually always illegal combatants.

A good example of this is the problems we've had at checkpoints - a cab driver pulls up to a check point and detonates a bomb. He's an illegal combatant. The rules of engagement get changed to protect the soldiers at the checkpoint and a few days later a van full of civilians gets hosed. According to the Geneva Convention, those deaths are on the head of the terrorist from a few days before.

H9ow about we stop 'going after' countries without UN support.

No. Did you disagree with our action in Yugoslavia too? Clinton got lucky there, but nevertheless it was the right thing to do.

 

[Zero]

So, how do you explain this statement from the 4th Geneva Convention: "People under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces."?


(I'm looking it up to give you the context...in either case it is not terrorism.)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
So, how do you explain this statement from the 4th Geneva Convention: "People under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces."?

Its pretty simple: There is a difference between an army of conquest and an army of liberation. Even the UN, though they were against the war, considers it liberation, not conquest.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its pretty simple: There is a difference between an army of conquest and an army of liberation. Even the UN, though they were against the war, considers it liberation, not conquest.

Uhmmm, agreed sorta, as an army of liberation LEAVES once the liberation is done and the POLICE force replaces them, as that is the "ARMY" (the Police) of CIVIL ORDER, that replaces Warrior's once the War is declared OVER.
Otherwise you have an army claiming to be an "Army of Liberation" that is occupying it's (supposedly) "Liberated" frontier, and as Zero has pointed out, quite rightly, an army of occupation can be met with civilian resistance...

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
So, how do you explain this statement from the 4th Geneva Convention: "People under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces."?


(I'm looking it up to give you the context...in either case it is not terrorism.)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, I've never seen this quote in the Text of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Although this may be relevant:

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

From that site...From Article 2

Originally from; Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

"the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

As I recall the "State of War" is over...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Uhmmm, agreed sorta, as an army of liberation LEAVES once the liberation is done and the POLICE force replaces them, as that is the "ARMY" (the Police) of CIVIL ORDER, that replaces Warrior's once the War is declared OVER.

And exactly how long should that take? The US still has a large number of troops in Germany and Japan, but I doubt anyone would consider them US colonies.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
From that site...From Article 2


As I recall the "State of War" is over...

Erm, I suggest you read the entire text, pay particular attention to the portions concerning occupation, text such as this "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" and this "even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

I'm just wondering where Zero got that quote he posted.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat

I'm just wondering where Zero got that quote he posted.

Some 'Foreign Policy' website, plus several online articles from normally trustworthy sources...


Like I said, I am going to say no more until I track it down one way or the other.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero


Like I said, I am going to say no more until I track it down one way or the other.

Sounds like a good plan, stan!

 

[Zero]

I still stand by the idea that not anyone in Iraq who attacks an American soldier is a terrorist.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
And exactly how long should that take? The US still has a large number of troops in Germany and Japan, but I doubt anyone would consider them US colonies.

Based there, not running the places, right?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by kat
Erm, I suggest you read the entire text, pay particular attention to the portions concerning occupation, text such as this "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" and this "even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

I'm just wondering where Zero got that quote he posted.

The part you have Italicized is the part I had/have emboldened "...even if not recognized..."
BTW Who is the one not recognizing a State of War??