Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[Hemel]

Beor:
Now, if the women rose up, they might have a chance, because the women are so held back, that they have an actual tangible unifyed cause, which would be something along the lines of they need to have rights, any rights at all would do.

Alleluia.

Oh the debates I've had over war/peace being merely another binary opposition and therefore symptomatic of patriarchal oppression!

Or perhaps this belongs over in the philosophy thread ...

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Let me take you to ground zero - then you can say whether Bush created terrorism. He didn't create it in our head - it was just that no one really thought it was a big deal before. Bin Ladin declared war on the west long before 9/11 and we ignored it - it was like Pearl Harbor. We ARE AT WAR and it is not just in our heads.

I do not believe that bin Ladin is reacting to iraq - I believe he is merely using iraq as justification. if it wasn't iraq it would be something else. All I can say is at least we haven't had an attack since 9/11.

As for your comment concerning "better iraq than Americans" that is right. Just as I'm sure during world war II - Britons felt better germany and France being bombed than the air raids over London. I would rather fight the terrorists in the Middle East than fight them on the streets of NY and deal with terrorists bombing our grocery store and trains, etc.

I have been to ground zero. I was very impressed with the tone of the memorial. I found it deeply moving. You seem to think that no-one apart from yourself cares about it. On the contrary, we all do.

You simply can't fight a war on terrorism, by definition, and to use that sort of language just plays into their hands. You just make it easier for them to justify their barbarism and recruit more suicide bombers. You have to treat them like criminals.

[Beor]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Very insightful. I think that a plan to bring western democracy to Iraq would require massive security over a great deal of time, combined with huge improvements in the economics because people with something to lose tend to not blow stuff up so much.

Thanks, and I agree, it will take a long time, and a lot of lives, unfortuantaely. On the other hand, it might give me a chance to improve my spelling (see: unfortuantaely).

I agree that they wanted to be liberated from Saddam. It's what they may want to do with that freedom that I find disturbing. It doesn't seem they are bent on building golf courses. (Too many sand traps?)

Ha! Sand traps!!

[Beor]

Originally posted by Hemel
Alleluia.

Oh the debates I've had over war/peace being merely another binary opposition and therefore symptomatic of patriarchal oppression!

Or perhaps this belongs over in the philosophy thread ...

Nah, it belongs here, due to the fact that these women are so opressed by the men (as I understand, mainly because of their religion (now, dont get me wrong, that is how I understand it, however, it may not be how it is)).

Seriously, I do believe we would get cut a lot more slack around here if the women were in charge, because they seem to like us.

[Spock]

JD/C/B...so very encouraging to read all your thoughts on this....finally the meat of the subject is exposed and most of us are on the same page....and sane. Thanks for helping me reduce my Prozac intake.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I have been to ground zero. I was very impressed with the tone of the memorial. I found it deeply moving. You seem to think that no-one apart from yourself cares about it. On the contrary, we all do.

I'm glad that you have been - then you should understand a LITTLE bit of my feelings toward it having to live through it and be only 45 minutes away. I continue to live through it.

Although I'm not sure what Memorial you are talking about since there is no memorial at Ground Zero. There is the one at St Pauls Chapel - which s a collection of some of the stuff that went up around their fence from people that were visiting. The "memorial" around the fence has been down for almost a year now. You can see it on my twin towers site though.... Twin Towers Memorial

You simply can't fight a war on terrorism, by definition, and to use that sort of language just plays into their hands. You just make it easier for them to justify their barbarism and recruit more suicide bombers. You have to treat them like criminals.

No - it is IMPORTANT that we treat this as a war. Why can it not be fought as a war? And how does it play into their hands? Did World War II play into the hands of Germany and Hitler? This is a war - they want to DESTROY the West. Bin Ladin has declared that over and over again. What do you suggest - taking them and bringing them to court. We tried that all during the Clinton Adminstration - did NOTwork. This must be treated as a war becuase that is the way they look and are treating it.

[Spock]

..I agree, again. BTW what's with our military "taking the radical clerics word" that he'll stop fighting and disband his troops...reports are we've stopped advancing and fighting based upon his words---gee that really is dumb. IMO

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Spock
..I agree, again. BTW what's with our military "taking the radical clerics word" that he'll stop fighting and disband his troops...reports are we've stopped advancing and fighting based upon his words---gee that really is dumb. IMO

Well actually very respected cleric (can't remember his name) has made a statement giving our military permission to bomb even the hoiliest sites if Sadr does not adhere to his end of the deal. So it's a little more than just taking Sadr's word - it's also us getting permission from one of the most powerful and respected clerics in Iraq to take action if Sadr goes back on his word or if US troops are fire upon.

In war it's fighting and then trying to work out deals to stop the fighting. So I agree with it - but we need to keep our hands on the trigger.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan

We would not have won without the Dutch or the French. The Dutch provided war materials we were not able to produce in large quantities at the time. Don't bother trying to teach me history. You're only proving my point that it is primarily the responsibility of the indigenous peoples to free themsleves. Do you think the Iraqis will value a democracy they did nothing to bring about? [/B]

Actually most of the military we had fought with was in AMERICA. We melted down King George statues for bullets, we raided store houses for guns, we captured cannons, and so forth. Veyr little of our weaponary in the beginning came from over seas or was supplied by the French and Dutch.

And it isn't proving your point. The thing is though - they had wanted to be liberated. King George was much easier for us to liberate ourselves from. He wasn't the tyranical tyrant and barbarian that Hussein was. There is a slight difference betwen us being able to liberate ourselves and the Iraqis rising up against him. We didn't have the fly overs to protect the Kurds and Shites for the hell of it. They would have been wiped out without us patrolling the no fly zone in northern and southern Iraq.

[Spock]

...I wasn't clear, it was Sadr's word that was given and he's not to be trusted, IMO.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Spock
...I wasn't clear, it was Sadr's word that was given and he's not to be trusted, IMO.

Well I agree he shouldn't be trusted at all. Our military doesn't trust him because this is the 3rd time he has declared this. But most people in Najaf and southern Iraq can't stand him - that works in our favor of making the deal with him. They want peace in the region. The south was peaceful and being rebuilt and because he rose up - he destroyed the rebuilding efforts and the peace there and the people resent that.

Contrary to Cirdan's remarks there are a lot of Iraqis that are supporting us and fighting for their independence. it isn't just us alone and I have a feeling that in the next couple of months (hopefully) things will be getting better. it seems like things are somewhat starting to calm down. Falujah has calmed down and now it seems as if Najaf is going to calm down.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
[B]
...and? Allies are not just good buddies who like us for our principles. Common enemies create best friends amongst their foes.

yes and that's one of the reasons why Europe doesn't really stand with us as closely as they did during the Cold War. With the downfall of the Soviet Union the common enemy is destroyed. The enemy that we protected them from and which was at THEIR doorstep and threatened them no longer exists. They no longer feel a need to be as close to us now. This is also one of the reasons we should not rely on allies for the security of the US. If they aren't with us - then we have to take action by ourselves with what we think is the best way of dealing with a situation. Allies don't make good friends - which is something I basically have been saying for the past 2 years here. Stalin being part of the Allied forces during World War II was not because we trusted him or sided with his ideology - it was a matter of survival.

Europe views Al Qaeda and related terrorists differently than America does - they view it in the same context as dealing with the IRA and the many other terrorist organizations they have had to deal with. But unlike the IRA and the others - Al Qaeda's goal is to UTTERLY destroy the west and create a MUSLIM world. Europe is helping us A LOT in the fight against Al Qaeda - but that is hardly the way to conbat the terrorism that is originating from the Middle East if we don't bother to take hard action in the Middle East to change the situation there.

[Spock]

JD, you are so 100% right on I had to say "Bravo" for such an eloquent post.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
yes and that's one of the reasons why Europe doesn't really stand with us as closely as they did during the Cold War. With the downfall of the Soviet Union the common enemy is destroyed. The enemy that we protected them from and which was at THEIR doorstep and threatened them no longer exists. They no longer feel a need to be as close to us now. This is also one of the reasons we should not rely on allies for the security of the US. If they aren't with us - then we have to take action by ourselves with what we think is the best way of dealing with a situation. Allies don't make good friends - which is something I basically have been saying for the past 2 years here. Stalin being part of the Allied forces during World War II was not because we trusted him or sided with his ideology - it was a matter of survival.

Europe views Al Qaeda and related terrorists differently than America does - they view it in the same context as dealing with the IRA and the many other terrorist organizations they have had to deal with. But unlike the IRA and the others - Al Qaeda's goal is to UTTERLY destroy the west and create a MUSLIM world. Europe is helping us A LOT in the fight against Al Qaeda - but that is hardly the way to conbat the terrorism that is originating from the Middle East if we don't bother to take hard action in the Middle East to change the situation there.

But, JD, can you really blame Europe for that? YOU are the one that is always saying that America should deal with American's problem's first, so surely you can understand Europe's attitude?

[Spock]

RTB, come on now, Europe hasn't been able to handle it's own affairs for decades. Any time it's something violent, the cry goes up "the US should do something". I'd like to see us pull our bases out, remove our foreign aid and assistance and see how well the EU does then!

[Radagast]

[flame deleted -Eärniel]

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
Flame deleted

Are you aware that is an out and out flame?

And I agree with Spock - Clinton wanted Europe to deal with Bosnia - but they couldn't. They wanted and needed the US to lead the war against Meloshevic. [EDIT] The UN had to pull out of Somalia because the US pulled out. No one else in the world stayed to support the UN after we left.

As for your question to me - no I don't blame them for looking after their own interests - just don't bitch and moan when we do the same thing. You can't complain about us looking after our self interests and not being ruled by the world - when you yourselves go with your self interests. I have been saying that also for 2 years.

[Valandil]

OK - watch the flaming, guys. Radagast - if you want to tell him what he said was 'rubbish' or 'nonsense' or some such, that's fine, but no attacks on the person themselves, OK? And Spock - this is just 'Radagast' - not 'Radagast the Brown' - the younger fella from Israel who posts so much in Tolkien forums.

[jerseydevil]

val - I already handled the situation.

[Spock]

Originally posted by Valandil
And Spock - this is just 'Radagast' - not 'Radagast the Brown' - the younger fella from Israel who posts so much in Tolkien forums.

...thanks Val, with all the codine in me "all those browns look alike"