News American freedom, American values

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "of course... extortion creates terrorism... not people fighting for their way of life or as revenge for unjustice, hunger, poverty or whatever they think their enemy has thrown at them... i get it now..."

Terrorism IS extortion.

If someone wants to lead a rebel insurgency, then I understand. You arm yourself and your believers and go into battle. If you can garner sufficient support from the people, you can overcome the government's army and install your own government. If you can't garner the support, then maybe your cause isn't just after all.

That is NOT terrorism. Instead of overcoming an opponent's army, terrorists attack the innocent. They don't shoot the lieutenant; they shoot the children.

Terrorism is an act of desparation. The world considers their cause unjust. The public won't support them because they're a bunch of extremist wack-jobs. So they resort to the last tactic they have -- killing as many innocent people as they can.

RE: "so when did osama and his gang convert from being freedom figthers to being terrorists? you have to help me here..."

I am not sure that Osama was ever a freedom fighter. I am not that privvy to his background.

"...and exactly what was the demands when the towers blew or when about 80% of the suicide bombers killed themselves and someone else? i mean... if it's extortion you'd have to have some clear demands, right? or are most terrorists just really bad extortionists?"

The demands are that the US get out of the Middle East and stop helping Isreal. That has always been the demand.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "i wonder why so few people in wealthy countrys become terrorists?"

Easy. Wealthy countries have stable governments and police forces, and there is no public support for such activity. Also, wealthy countries have top-notch criminal investigators. The few terrorist groups we have had in this country (SLA, the Weathermen, MOVE) never gained public support and were quashed by the police.

RE: "it must be because arabs and their ilk are all evil... i mean... it can't be because their poor and hungry and blame it on someone...

Many parts of Mexico are poor and hungry, but I don't see a lot of terrorist activity. Poverty is no excuse for intentionally killing innocent people.

As for the rest, I will respond once you quit resorting to the Fallacy of Limited Options.

 

[balkan]

perhaps you do not watch the news?

that's the 20% who actually does demand something... rigth now, the majority of the people the us government calls terrorists doesn't make demands... maybe you don't watch the news?

 

[balkan]

Lots of wealthy people become terrorists. Osama was from a rich family.

compared to the amount of poor or compromized people? get real...
and osama lived in a poor and compromized land for many years (palestine)... where do those rich people live that become terrorists? i said in wealthy countrys... not "rich people"

 

[balkan]

As for the rest, I will respond once you quit resorting to the Fallacy of Limited Options.

go back some posts and see who started the Fallacy of Limited Options, m8... i don't bite unless people patronize me. when treated with respect in spite of different oppinion, I'm quite civilized.
typical conservatism (in regards to politics, not personality)... they can dish out, but they get offended when people strike back...

 

[member 5645]

No offense dubya, but can you start using the quote feature? I'd like to respond to you but it's a ***** with the quatation marks everywhere.

 

[member 5645]

that's the 20% who actually does demand something... rigth now, the majority of the people the us government calls terrorists doesn't make demands... maybe you don't watch the news?

So you admit that plenty of terrorist do make demands?
Can you cite me this 20% figure?

 

[JohnDubYa]

go back some posts and see who started the Fallacy of Limited Options,

I did. And you started the Fallacy of Limited Options when you posted

of course... extortion creates terrorism... not people fighting for their way of life or as revenge for unjustice, hunger, poverty or whatever they think their enemy has thrown at them..

it must be because arabs and their ilk are all evil... i mean... it can't be because their poor and hungry and blame it on someone,

 

[JohnDubYa]

Balkan, your first post in this thread was a blatant insult:

lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying... it's always interesting to observe though, but I've had enough of figthing with people like you, to know that it's not worth trying to reason with you... keep it going... people like you, extremists, terrorists and insane people are sure making things better everywhere...

 

[the number 42]

Get off my balls. I already responded.

Sorry about your balls, dude. Send me the bill for any damages

 

[Entropy]

compared to the amount of poor or compromized people? get real...
and osama lived in a poor and compromized land for many years (palestine)... where do those rich people live that become terrorists? i said in wealthy countrys... not "rich people"

Combine, Oklahoma City bombing, that dude from American who joined Osama, The Buffalo Six, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, The Portland Six, KKK, Neo Nazi's, PETA (they ARE terrorists), pro-life extremists, the Mob (and orgainized crime), etc.

I can go on all day. There all American, and America is the wealthest country in the world. And still Osama left his wealth life to go live in Palistine.

(100th post )

 

[balkan]

congratz :D...

the mob? now you're far fetching...

anyway all you need to do is simple math...
btw: 90-95% of neo-nazis aren't terrorists... just stupid...
that dude from america was one guy...
The Buffalo Six, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, The Portland Six ...
divide "all" those people by just the amount of cells in al queda and you'll get a very small number... need i say more?
My point with osama was exactly that his experiences in palestine nurtured the war against usa... if palestine isn't poor and compromized i don't know what is...
again, though... your argument brings us rigth back to the matter... people like kkk and extremists are figthing for something they believe really hard in, and because they're angry and want a change... now, look at the countrys where people really have something to figth for and be mad about, and then tell me they're just simple extortionists... they are people with a cause... just like the ones you mentioned... willing to go use any means to get their case through... not just crazy people who wants to get their hands on some money like previously implied...
the amount of terrorists from wealthy countrys (and don't forget, that 30 million americans get food aid every year, so it's not exactly everyone who's got everything going for them...) compared to the amount from poor and unstable countrys are ridiculously small... it's really not even debatable...

 

[balkan]

Balkan, your first post in this thread was a blatant insult:

damn man... i don't even remember posting that... must have been summer drunk or very tired...
i'm sure i meant what i wrote, but i apologize for the tone... it was completely uncalled for...

 

[JohnDubYa]

It's cool.

 

[JohnDubYa]

the mob? now you're far fetching...

Have you ever heard of Chicago insurance?

I agree with you on one point -- the Mob is not a political organization, and terrorists are normally associated with political activity. But there is no doubt that the Mob uses terror to extort money from innocent people.

My point with osama was exactly that his experiences in palestine nurtured the war against usa... if palestine isn't poor and compromized i don't know what is...

Historically, the Palestinians do not have nearly the same problems as the Russians when it comes to hardship. In fact, Palestinian living conditions are found all over the world, on nearly every continent. To think that such living conditions is an excuse for terrorism is ludicrous.

 

[JohnDubYa]

they are people with a cause... just like the ones you mentioned... willing to go use any means to get their case through... not just crazy people who wants to get their hands on some money like previously implied...

I think we know that money is not their motivation. They certainly have a cause. But their cause is no excuse for the pain they cause others.

Again, they target those that have nothing to do with their problems -- just as long as they are vulnerable. So you are dealing with the type of people who are not going to kick your ass if they feel you caused them harm; they're going to go after your mother because she is the easier target.

By the way, you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist apologist. And that is the type of sentiment that fuels their fire.

 

[studentx]

Id say the major cause of terrorism today is political Islam

 

[balkan]

I think we know that money is not their motivation. They certainly have a cause. But their cause is no excuse for the pain they cause others.

Again, they target those that have nothing to do with their problems -- just as long as they are vulnerable. So you are dealing with the type of people who are not going to kick your ass if they feel you caused them harm; they're going to go after your mother because she is the easier target.

By the way, you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist apologist. And that is the type of sentiment that fuels their fire.

no I'm not... but understanding the background is the first step in solving the problem...

 

[balkan]

Have you ever heard of Chicago insurance?

I agree with you on one point -- the Mob is not a political organization, and terrorists are normally associated with political activity. But there is no doubt that the Mob uses terror to extort money from innocent people.

Historically, the Palestinians do not have nearly the same problems as the Russians when it comes to hardship. In fact, Palestinian living conditions are found all over the world, on nearly every continent. To think that such living conditions is an excuse for terrorism is ludicrous.

those other countrys don't have an invading force that for 50 years have relentlessly tried to dispose of every non-jew in the country... and don't give me any anti-semitist remarks, people, stating the facts doesn't make you an antisemite...
you keep saying I'm excusing... I'm not excusing anything... but if you think you're going to resolve these problems with violence, you're way off base imo...

 

[JohnDubYa]

you keep saying I'm excusing... I'm not excusing anything... but if you think you're going to resolve these problems with violence,

It would be better if you came out and stated that terrorists are really evil people. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that you consider them sentimental favorites.

We will never resolve this problem through any means other than violence and persistence, unless you want to give them what they want. Of course, every terrorist organization on the planet then would gain newfound strength for whichever cause they espouse.

We have to fight terrorism with violence so that other terrorist organizations realize that their attempts to extort the public will only bring pain on themselves. This issue is bigger than El Quada.

 

[studentx]

You have to understand the islamic terrorist goal is to convert us all to Islam, that way they save us from hell in the afterlife. There can be no deals with this kind of terrorist and they don't allow themselves to feel any doubt, because doubt is a sign of shaytan and there is no negotiating about Allahs will.

 

[balkan]

It would be better if you came out and stated that terrorists are really evil people. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that you consider them sentimental favorites.

We will never resolve this problem through any means other than violence and persistence, unless you want to give them what they want. Of course, every terrorist organization on the planet then would gain newfound strength for whichever cause they espouse.

We have to fight terrorism with violence so that other terrorist organizations realize that their attempts to extort the public will only bring pain on themselves. This issue is bigger than El Quada.

that's called treating the symptom... and actually giving them what they want is treating the symptom as well...
you'll never be rid of terrorists unless you treat the problem that causes it... and that is poverty and suppression...
i agree that terrorists should be killed or arrested when possible, but it doesn't solve the problem. neither does killing innocents in the process of killing the terrorists (an act with the agenda to kill all who thinks like terrorists - read: quite similar to what the terrorists are doing)...
there will always be extortionists, of course, but they are quite few compared to the amount of terrorists with a real cause... and a frigthening amount of them don't care if they die, figthing for this cause, so what the hell good will killing them do, other than rid those individuals from the face of the earth? - nothing...

 

[balkan]

It would be better if you came out and stated that terrorists are really evil people. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that you consider them sentimental favorites.

that's such a typical either-or remark...
i consider them sentiment beings, of course... that's the whole problem... if they were rational and calm, they wouldn't be terrorists... they are fuled by emotions and their emotions are fueled by their situation... they need something to direct their feelings towards, and either they'll find it themselves, or someone like osama will point in some direction...

 

[studentx]

Islam is the problem, not poverty. There are poor people all around the planet, they don't turn into terrorists. None of the terrorists that were involved in 911 were poor or uneducated, neither were the men in Spain who killed hundreds.

 

[pelastration]

Islam is the problem, not poverty.

Extreme Islam maybe a problem, just like extreme Juduaism and extreme capitalism and imperialism may provoke extreme reactions. Such problems can not be catched with a oneliner.

 

[balkan]

Islam is the problem, not poverty. There are poor people all around the planet, they don't turn into terrorists. None of the terrorists that were involved in 911 were poor or uneducated, neither were the men in Spain who killed hundreds.

no, they were immigrants from a poor uneducated country, and they came to germany to get an education so they could fullfill their cause...

lemme see... you don't like people wanting to kill people with another religion/idealism or maybe people who try to force their religion/idealism on others? the what exactly do you then feel about the us of a? desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?
and don't get me bull**** about innocent people not getting killed in the process...

it's a two-way street...

 

[member 5645]

no, they were immigrants from a poor uneducated country, and they came to germany to get an education so they could fullfill their cause...

lemme see... you don't like people wanting to kill people with another religion/idealism or maybe people who try to force their religion/idealism on others? the what exactly do you then feel about the us of a? desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?
and don't get me bull**** about innocent people not getting killed in the process...

it's a two-way street...

You're right, if people are living under a dictator we should just butt out. The supposed moral obligation to stop genocide or other human rights abuses is a complete fallacy. That's their 'culture' so let them have it!

While we are at it, there is also no reason to have accountability! I mean, dictators are just nice guys that are misunderstood,and I'm sure that if we just let them be, they will play nice. There's nothing in it for us to have other countries be lead by a population, rather than a single person. No real democracies have ever gone to war against each other, but that is a fluke, a coincidence. DEspite history, dictatorial regimes are just as trustworthy.

Thank you for showing me the error in my ways.
I will go write my congressman to reinstate Saddam, leave Jung Il alone, and offer up nuclear technology to everyone - you know, to level the playing field with all of the rulers of the world, rather it is a population of 1 billion, or a single man who wants to do what he pleases - it's THEIR culture, and we will stay out of it. It'll never come back to haunt us.

 

[studentx]

Extreme Islam maybe a problem, just like extreme Juduaism and extreme capitalism and imperialism may provoke extreme reactions. Such problems can not be catched with a oneliner.

Extreme Islam is the result of moderate muslims being moderate towards extremists.

 

[balkan]

You're right, if people are living under a dictator we should just butt out. The supposed moral obligation to stop genocide or other human rights abuses is a complete fallacy. That's their 'culture' so let them have it!

While we are at it, there is also no reason to have accountability! I mean, dictators are just nice guys that are misunderstood,and I'm sure that if we just let them be, they will play nice. There's nothing in it for us to have other countries be lead by a population, rather than a single person. No real democracies have ever gone to war against each other, but that is a fluke, a coincidence. DEspite history, dictatorial regimes are just as trustworthy.

Thank you for showing me the error in my ways.
I will go write my congressman to reinstate Saddam, leave Jung Il alone, and offer up nuclear technology to everyone - you know, to level the playing field with all of the rulers of the world, rather it is a population of 1 billion, or a single man who wants to do what he pleases - it's THEIR culture, and we will stay out of it. It'll never come back to haunt us.

don't do a johndubya on me and put words into my mouth, will you?
what i was doing is called contrasting! but you obviously don't get it... ... it's about trying to make you fathom the effect your actions have on other people by showing you the effect other people have on you...

i believe dictatorships should be disposed of aswell, but trying to impose another way of life on other people is not the way... you can't force people to think like you, just like muslims can't convert you to islam by threats and violence... just the opposite...
i'm sorry, that i tried to make you think... it won't happen again...

 

[kat]

don't do a johndubya on me and put words into my mouth, will you?
what i was doing is called contrasting! but you obviously don't get it... ... it's about trying to make you fathom the effect your actions have on other people by showing you the effect other people have on you...

i believe dictatorships should be disposed of aswell, but trying to impose another way of life on other people is not the way... you can't force people to think like you, just like muslims can't convert you to islam by threats and violence... just the opposite...
i'm sorry, that i tried to make you think... it won't happen again...

This is the worst sort of racism I know, the brown's/olives etc. don't want to or can't do democracy. Until they've been given a chance to make the choice of who and how they are led, you are taking their voices away with such statements. I know of no country that has become a democracy through any venue that would willingly give up their voices to a dictator.
The right to vote for your leadership is one of the most basic human rights and was voted and supported in UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
The relevant portion:

Article 21

1 . Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

From that piece of paper, I do NOT accept under any circumstances the "democracy is not appropriate for..." and I find racist those who dispute the participation of certain people only in the government of their countries as a full and primary HR, via "genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or the equivalent free voting procedure" as per the UN DECLARATION FOR HR.

This is not my words, it is the most consensuated document on earth, the best signed and the best ratified and the best incorporated, at least in theory in all the legislations in the world.

Piss on you racists who can't grok the universal right TO this universal right and screw those who feel they can take it away from them because they just might not BE LIKE US!

 

[member 5645]

what i was doing is called contrasting! but you obviously don't get it... ... it's about trying to make you fathom the effect your actions have on other people by showing you the effect other people have on you...


i believe dictatorships should be disposed of aswell, but trying to impose another way of life on other people is not the way... you can't force people to think like you, just like muslims can't convert you to islam by threats and violence... just the opposite...
i'm sorry, that i tried to make you think... it won't happen again...

1>Read the thread on why middle easterners 'hate' westerners. Specifically my point about morality and relativism. The fact is, I am very aware of what we have and are doing.

2>Disposing of dictatorships is IMPOSING another way of life.


This isn't just about them either. As I have stated, it's also about the effects for us.

 

[JohnDubYa]

2>Disposing of dictatorships is IMPOSING another way of life.

Yes, a better way of life.

A dictatorship by its very nature removes nearly every possibility for the people to change government on their own. So when the People need help, to whom do they turn?

If there was one group of people that would have been considered unsuitable for democracy, it was the Japanese after WWII. But we installed a democracy and it has worked.

If democracy is going to take hold in the Middle East, it will have to be at the end of a gun barrel, just like with Japan. They're not going to do it on their own because the powers in control have no good reason to allow it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

kat has a good point -- the United Nations has long mandated that freedom is a good thing.

desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?

You can't ENFORCE freedom -- you FREE people. And freeing people was always considered a good thing. Is that now wrong?

This isn't really about taking a stance against freedom and democracy. This is all about George W. If this had been Bill Clinton, every Liberal in the US would be getting misty-eyed about the Iraqis chances for freedom and the removal of brutality. But since this is George W. we are talking about, then there must be something wrong with freedom and democracy, and Saddam wasn't really so bad. So they initiate the idea that some people are just not ready for either freedom or democracy. And kat is right, such notions are blatantly racist.

You have to give freedom and democracy a chance, do you not?

 

[Prometheus]

You can't ENFORCE freedom -- you FREE people.

You seem to have a strange use of pronouns throughout. When you say you, do you mean each reader individually?

And freeing people was always considered a good thing.

Such a simple interpretation.

Is that now wrong?

Is that the only option you are offering? Is it right or wrong to free people, with no other context required?

This isn't really about taking a stance against freedom and democracy. This is all about George W. If this had been Bill Clinton, every Liberal in the US would be getting misty-eyed about the Iraqis chances for freedom and the removal of brutality. But since this is George W. we are talking about, then there must be something wrong with freedom and democracy, and Saddam wasn't really so bad.

Nobody is saying that there is a problem with freedom or democracy. But you know that, don't you. There are other considerations. If Bill Clinton were in office, some of these other considerations might be considered. Since Bush does not have the intellect to consider more than one factor at a time, you tell us that there are no other considerations either.

So they initiate the idea that some people are just not ready for either freedom or democracy. And kat is right, such notions are blatantly racist.

Do you call anything that you don't like racist? I wonder what you mean by racist?

You have to give freedom and democracy a chance, do you not?

Now, you are back to telling us what we have to do. Do you really believe that there is nothing else to be considered than are freedom and democracy good and should we give Iraq a chance at them? Do you really?

 

[JohnDubYa]

You seem to have a strange use of pronouns throughout. When you say you, do you mean each reader individually?

People in general, hardly a strange use of the second person. When someone says "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," I can just picture you sitting on a curb, wondering:

What does he mean by YOU?

And, does the horse have to be a male? Can I make a female horse drink?

Such a simple interpretation.

If you think it is wrong, say so. To call it simple does not indicate whether you agree or not. After all, simple interpretations are often correct.

Is that the only option you are offering? Is it right or wrong to free people, with no other context required?

What other context do you need? In which situations do you think it is better to live under a brutal dictator like Saddam than live freely? Maybe if the population starved to death under a democracy, but that is not likely to happen in Iraq.

Let me guess: If the dictator makes the trains run on time? Is that what you are referring?

Now, you are back to telling us what we have to do. Do you really believe that there is nothing else to be considered than are freedom and democracy good and should we give Iraq a chance at them? Do you really?

Just answer the question.

 

[Prometheus]

People in general, hardly a strange use of the second person. When someone says "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," I can just picture you sitting on a curb, wondering:

What does he mean by YOU?

And, does the horse have to be a male? Can I make a female horse drink?

Wow. If only you could give this depth of thought to the topic of your posts.

If you think it is wrong, say so. To call it simple does not indicate whether you agree or not. After all, simple interpretations are often correct.

I think it is wrong.

What other context do you need? In which situations do you think it is better to live under a brutal dictator like Saddam than live freely? Maybe if the population starved to death under a democracy, but that is not likely to happen in Iraq.

Many Iraqis have died. If you could somehow ask the dead if they are better off now than under Saddam, what do you think that they might say. This wonderful democracy that you sepak of, you consider it a sure thing, don't you? You envision that by next year, the Shiites will vote for the best man, regardless of whether he is Shiite, that the Sunnis will vote for the best man, regardless of whether he is Sunni, and the Kurds will vote for the best man, regardless of whether he is Kurd. The ethnic divisions that divide the country now will disappear completely very soon, and democracy will be the greatest blessing that they ever received. how could any of them resent having an invading army impose a government on them. Historically, this has not worked well, but so what, right? You can tell us all day about how Iraq is identical to Japan at the end of WW2.

Let me guess: If the dictator makes the trains run on time? Is that what you are referring?

Wow, aren't you the guesser? Did you think this up all by yourself?

Just answer the question.

The answer is no.

 

[studentx]

Many Iraqis have died. If you could somehow ask the dead if they are better off now than under Saddam, what do you think that they might say.

It depends on which of the dead you ask, the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam, or the tens of thousands killed by the Americans.
Iraqis don't want to give up their freedom now and let Saddam back in. You are extremely blinded by anger if you believe this Prometheus

 

[Prometheus]

You are extremely blinded by anger if you believe this Prometheus

What a quaint way of making a point. I am not sure what your point is, but your style sure is interesting.

Why do I need to be blind or angry to think that those who died during their "liberation" might not have appreciated their sacrifice toward the greater good, as some people seem to see it.

I don't think that you are necessarily blind or angry merely because you might have an opinion that I do not share. I do think, however, that if I were to call you blind and angry, it might not lead to an increase in the quality of our communication.

So, I ask again, what is your point in this post?

 

[Entropy]

Iraqis don't want to give up their freedom now and let Saddam back in. You are extremely blinded by anger if you believe this Prometheus

Not really. I've seen a lot Iraqis start to question whether they would be better off with Saddam or the US.

 

[kat]

Nobody is saying that there is a problem with freedom or democracy. But you know that, don't you. There are other considerations. If Bill Clinton were in office, some of these other considerations might be considered. Since Bush does not have the intellect to consider more than one factor at a time, you tell us that there are no other considerations either.

Yes, we already know how Clinton brings Democracy to a country, he bombs it relentlessly for months at a time bringing death and destruction to the Balkans that makes Iraqi's deaths from Americans look miniscule. Furthermore, you're probably correct..Bush was too stupid to realize that it would have been far more beneficial to him if he had Bombed the **** out of them for a few months and then "enforced" democracy like Clinton. That way by the time elections came along Iraq would have been old news.

 

[kat]

Not really. I've seen a lot Iraqis start to question whether they would be better off with Saddam or the US.

I had no idea you had been in Iraq, did you get pictures?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Many Iraqis have died. If you could somehow ask the dead if they are better off now than under Saddam, what do you think that they might say.

I don't know. I suppose we will never know, will we?

But as someone else pointed out, Saddam killed far more, and with the US intervention the violence could stop. It definitely was not going to stop without direct intervention, unless you think Saddam's sons were going to be any better than their father in terms of civil rights.

This wonderful democracy that you sepak of, you consider it a sure thing, don't you?

No, but Saddam's terror was a sure thing, wasn't it?

We now have the chance for the Iraqis to maintain a stable democracy. It may not work out, but they at least have the chance.

Your solutions would have given them no chance at all. They would live under a sure thing -- a brutal dictatorship. Frankly, I prefer uncertainty to that form of certainty.

You can tell us all day about how Iraq is identical to Japan at the end of WW2.

If it worked in Japan, it MIGHT work in Iraq. The two are not that dissimilar. Neither country had any history whatsoever of democracy. Both were hotbeds of religious fanatacism and suicide missions. Both lost wars and had to endure US occupation.

Japan is a much more homogenous country, to be sure. Iraq's inhomogeneity will be one hurdle that will have to be overcome. But it is not an insurmountable hurdle.

 

[Entropy]

I had no idea you had been in Iraq, did you get pictures?

Opps, I didn't mean to imply I had been there. Its just what I heard off the news. If you consider that a creditible source.

 

[Prometheus]

I don't know. I suppose we will never know, will we?

True. It is certainly quite possible that the people who died in the US invasion will think that they are better off.

We now have the chance for the Iraqis to maintain a stable democracy. It may not work out, but they at least have the chance.

So, having the chance is everything, is it? We are imposing the chance on them, and if it fails, then at least we gave them the chance.

Your solutions would have given them no chance at all. They would live under a sure thing -- a brutal dictatorship. Frankly, I prefer uncertainty to that form of certainty.

So, are you proposing that we use force to give this wonderous chance to every country in the world that we deem needs it?

If it worked in Japan, it MIGHT work in Iraq.

MIGHT? Again, the possibility is everything. is it? Who cares what our allies think, who cares about the cost, and who cares about the other ramifications? You only care about the well-being of the Iraqi people. You truly are a saint.

The two are not that dissimilar. Neither country had any history whatsoever of democracy. Both were hotbeds of religious fanatacism and suicide missions. Both lost wars and had to endure US occupation.

Japan was not a hotbed of religious fanatacism, and any analogy between Kamikaze suicide missions and what is happening in the Middle East is ludicrous, in my opinion. Do you know about the Kamikaze, and are you making this analogy from a position of understanding, or are you guessing based on generalized assumptions? Also, their background in democracy aside, Japan did have a hsitory of far greater social order than the Middle East, did it not?

Japan is a much more homogenous country, to be sure.

To be sure.

Iraq's inhomogeneity will be one hurdle that will have to be overcome.

That does make them quite dissimilar, does it not?

But it is not an insurmountable hurdle.

And you know this for a fact?

 

[cragwolf]

Yes, we already know how Clinton brings Democracy to a country, he bombs it relentlessly for months at a time bringing death and destruction to the Balkans that makes Iraqi's deaths from Americans look miniscule.

What are you talking about? The NATO bombing of Serbia? According to Human Rights Watch, no friend of the US government, about 500 civilians died in Serbia as a result of NATO bombing. The number of civilians killed in Iraq (according to various sources) is at least 5000, and possibly as high as 10,000. At least a couple of thousand were killed during the initial phase of the invasion (i.e. from the start of the invasion up to the point Bush declared victory). This number is not "miniscule", neither absolutely, nor relative to NATO bombings in the Balkans.

 

[JohnDubYa]

So, having the chance is everything, is it? We are imposing the chance on them, and if it fails, then at least we gave them the chance.

A chance is the best one can ask for. That is why when they call a country "The Land of Opportunity" it is generally agreed to be a compliment.

Opportunity is better than no opportunity, do you agree?

So, are you proposing that we use force to give this wonderous chance to every country in the world that we deem needs it?

Nope, we are under no obligation to help every country, nor do we have the necessary resources. Each situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I have no problem with that.

MIGHT? Again, the possibility is everything. is it? Who cares what our allies think, who cares about the cost, and who cares about the other ramifications? You only care about the well-being of the Iraqi people. You truly are a saint.

Nothing prevented the allies from helping give the Iraqis the chance they needed.

Now, if aiding Iraq caused the people in Germany to suffer, you would have a point. But as it stands, they were not harmed in this situation whatsoever. So why should I be worried about them?

Japan was not a hotbed of religious fanatacism, and any analogy between Kamikaze suicide missions and what is happening in the Middle East is ludicrous, in my opinion. Do you know about the Kamikaze, and are you making this analogy from a position of understanding, or are you guessing based on generalized assumptions?

I am fairly knowledgeable about the Kamikaze, having read Saburo Sakai's autobiography. Are the two situations identical? Are two situations ever identical? Is equivalence the standard that must be reached in order to compare two situations?

Also, their background in democracy aside, Japan did have a hsitory of far greater social order than the Middle East, did it not?

Define what you mean by social order. On the individual family scale, probably not.

J: Iraq's inhomogeneity will be one hurdle that will have to be overcome.

That does make them quite dissimilar, does it not?

To you, any difference between the two cultures is going to be called a huge dissimilarity and thus be considered an insurmountable problem. You simply do not want to entertain the notion that Iraqi democracy has a chance, that's all, because it doesn't coincide with your anti-Bush agenda.

If Iraqi democracy really did take hold, it would ruin your day. Because your stance is not based on what is best for the Iraqi people, but what is worst for George W. Bush.

 

[studentx]

What a quaint way of making a point. I am not sure what your point is, but your style sure is interesting.

Why do I need to be blind or angry to think that those who died during their "liberation" might not have appreciated their sacrifice toward the greater good, as some people seem to see it.

I don't think that you are necessarily blind or angry merely because you might have an opinion that I do not share. I do think, however, that if I were to call you blind and angry, it might not lead to an increase in the quality of our communication.

So, I ask again, what is your point in this post?

My point was this.
Sure Iraqis didnt like the war, they didnt like to lose friends and family. But we weren't talking about the war or liberation. We were talking about democracy , regardless of the way it is implemented or what happened before it, we are talking about NOW.
Today few iraqis would vote to live under Saddam again, they rather be free. And you are blinded by anger over the war if you believe otherwise.

 

[balkan]

From that piece of paper, I do NOT accept under any circumstances the "democracy is not appropriate for..." and I find racist those who dispute the participation of certain people only in the government of their countries as a full and primary HR, via "genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or the equivalent free voting procedure" as per the UN DECLARATION FOR HR.

This is not my words, it is the most consensuated document on earth, the best signed and the best ratified and the best incorporated, at least in theory in all the legislations in the world.

Piss on you racists who can't grok the universal right TO this universal right and screw those who feel they can take it away from them because they just might not BE LIKE US!

i never said that! read once again:
you cannot force it upon people who are not used to it and you don't have the rigth to force it on others, just because it's your perception... what gives you the right?
it's a principle that has to be taught and nurtured, not enforced... democrasys have been created several times with UN supervision when the people were ready for it...

the ideal of a good idea, is that it can be taught, and won't have to be enforced on people... thinking people will just convert instantly and use democrasy for all good purposes is naive...

so piss on you for putting words into my mouth...

 

[JohnDubYa]

you cannot force it upon people who are not used to it

We've done it before, and it worked.

the ideal of a good idea, is that it can be taught, and won't have to be enforced on people... thinking people will just convert instantly and use democrasy for all good purposes is naive...

Tell it to the Japanese.

And Panama is today a democracy. How did that happen? I thought Noriega -- another brutal dictator -- was in power. Oh, we invaded his country and arrested him. Sound familiar? Care to explain how that is possible given your pessimism?

 

[balkan]

And Panama is today a democracy. How did that happen? I thought Noriega -- another brutal dictator -- was in power. Oh, we invaded his country and arrested him. Sound familiar? Care to explain how that is possible given your pessimism?

and what a wonderfull democrasy it is :) everyone is happy :)