[quote]lixy wrote:
Huh? Did Spain, Turkey, Canada, Sweden, Japan, Egypt, Pakistan, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Argentina, Canada, Germany and countless others all have oil firms “in control of Iraq prior to the war”?
[/quote]
But many of those countries sent us help. The ones that did not, like France, Germany and Russia were dealing with Saddam.
To win in Iraq means to defeat the insurgency, set up a national government and army. You think this is impossible? Saddam did it, didn’t he? So did Tito in Yugoslavia against the same odds. What makes you so sure it can not be done?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
How about the Vietcong? The Sandinistas?
Please kindly explain to me why discussing WWII and Orion’s Nazis here is considered by you to be innapropriate, irrelevant and “the past,” but it is just fine for you to make references like this.
Is there a statute of limitations that you’ve failed to tell the rest of us about?
Don’t we get a few extra bonus years for the sheer numbers eradicated?
[/quote]
Hey, he can bring up Vietnamese and Sandinistas all he wants. He obviously has no clue what the conflict was about, spouting on and on about how America invaded North Vietnam and other ridiculous things.
Hey, what about the people the friggin Sandinistas and Viet Cong and Khymer Rogue killed? Birds of a feather, I guess. Interesting how some civilians matter while others don’t. (Israel, anyone?)
Oh well, coming from someone who denounces cluster bombs while praising suicide bombers it does not surprise me.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
How about the Vietcong? The Sandinistas?
Please kindly explain to me why discussing WWII and Orion’s Nazis here is considered by you to be innapropriate, irrelevant and “the past,” but it is just fine for you to make references like this.
Is there a statute of limitations that you’ve failed to tell the rest of us about?
Don’t we get a few extra bonus years for the sheer numbers eradicated?
[/quote]
Since you use nice words such as “please kindly”, I’ll take the time to answer that.
The point I made stands regardless of era or place. Gkhan’s statement is pretty much absurd. He wrote: “Just because they belonged to whatever group does not give you the right to justify their deaths.”
You don’t need much to assess the silliness (and hypocrisy) in that statement. I mean, Al-Qaeda are a “group”, and so are people who torture baby seals, rapists and others. I am certain Gkhan finds no problem in justifying killing people that belong to Al-Sadr’s militia, Hezbollah or AQI. The Viets and Sandinistas reference was superfluous candy. You can take it out and the argument still stands solid.
On the other hand, I often bring up Godwin’s law because everytime WWII is brought up, it is to shut up criticism of American interventionism. The people that engage in such logical fallacies are always pissed that US foreign policy is under scrutiny, and pull the would you have liked the Nazis to win? card.
It never was about the number of years. You can go back to Julius Caesar or Adam for all I care. It is the we saved your ass in WWII, so shut the hell up and kiss our feet for eternity that irritates me. I encourage bringing relevant historical facts to the table.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
But many of those countries sent us help. [/quote]
Many is a gross overstatement. Some governments did indeed supported that act of aggression on Iraq. Unsurprisingly, in democracies, they all got kicked out for going against the will of the people and caving to coercion/bribery/what-have you.
Don’t be stupid. France took a stand on principles.
“Insurgency” is a poor choice of words. To have an insurgency, you need an established and legitimate authority. I have seen nothing of thet sort in Iraq.
Hush! Saddam had the crushing majority of the country against him. The only reason he was still in power in 2003 was because of the infamous sanctions.
You must have misread my post. It is doable, but you’ll have to kill people at a faster rate. And I’m talking millions! This is not something the American people (or any other people for that matter) will keep quiet about. And even supposing you pull some magic subterfuge to quash any domestic opposition to the war (sending “the hippies” to Gitmo for example), you would run out of money and/or troops before you can put a dent in the resistance anyway. Everybody knows that, and it is the reason nobody wants to set tangible goals.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
But many of those countries sent us help.
Many is a gross overstatement. Some governments did indeed supported that act of aggression on Iraq. Unsurprisingly, in democracies, they all got kicked out for going against the will of the people and caving to coercion/bribery/what-have you.
The ones that did not, like France, Germany and Russia were dealing with Saddam.
Don’t be stupid. France took a stand on principles.
To win in Iraq means to defeat the insurgency,
“Insurgency” is a poor choice of words. To have an insurgency, you need an established and legitimate authority. I have seen nothing of thet sort in Iraq.
Saddam did it, didn’t he?
Hush! Saddam had the crushing majority of the country against him. The only reason he was still in power in 2003 was because of the infamous sanctions.
What makes you so sure it can not be done?
You must have misread my post. It is doable, but you’ll have to kill people at a faster rate. And I’m talking millions! This is not something the American people (or any other people for that matter) will keep quiet about. And even supposing you pull some magic subterfuge to quash any domestic opposition to the war (sending “the hippies” to Gitmo for example), you would run out of money and/or troops before you can put a dent in the resistance anyway. Everybody knows that, and it is the reason nobody wants to set tangible goals.[/quote]
I disagree. The only thing making us kill people at a faster rate is the insurgency which targets and hides amongst civilians. I say it again, had the insurgents not killed the people who were there to rebuild the county and visionaries like Hakim, Iraq would have been rebuilt by now. To simply place all the blame on the US and none on the insurgents just shows your ignorance.
France DID have economic reasons not to go into Iraq.
What domestic opposition are we talking about? Has all of your talk of Vietnam made you delusional?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I can’t speak for others, but my point when bringing up such things has NEVER been what you wrote. [/quote]
Then, I challenge you to find a post where I oppose whatever point you used WWII to make.
No sir. None the vocal Germans, Austrians, British or Muslims on this forum had a hand in any of what their ancestors did. This is a half-assed tu quoque.
Besides, standards evolve. My grandfather died before the Declaration of Human Rights, so I’m sure his standards were shakier than mine for example. Same goes for everybody else. What was acceptable a century ago may not be nowadays.
Waist size, extravagant SUV, doomsday devices or decadent morality are not what you should be measuring civilization with. It’s rather about liberty and global solidarity among the people.
Wrong! I raped nobody. Many of you Yanks are justifying horrors commited your military across the globe in real time.
If my country wanted to attack a weaker nation on the other side of the globe, you can bet your fanny that I’ll be fiercely opposing it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Many of you Yanks are justifying horrors commited your military across the globe in real time.
If my country wanted to attack a weaker nation on the other side of the globe, you can bet your fanny that I’ll be fiercely opposing it.[/quote]
You mean the way you justify the horrors commited by suicide bombers attacking helpless civilians in Iraq in real time?
Why would it have to be an attack on a weaker nation on the otherside of the globe? Why not agression inside of a country against it’s own citizens. You know genocide? Why do you not fiercely oppose that?
Why not a cross border terrorist war between 2 close nations? Because Muslims may be behind it, killing helpless civilians in over 30 countries across the globe?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Many of you Yanks are justifying horrors commited your military across the globe in real time.
If my country wanted to attack a weaker nation on the other side of the globe, you can bet your fanny that I’ll be fiercely opposing it.
You mean the way you justify the horrors commited by suicide bombers attacking helpless civilians in Iraq in real time?
Why would it have to be an attack on a weaker nation on the otherside of the globe? Why not agression inside of a country against it’s own citizens. You know genocide? Why do you not fiercely oppose that?
Why not a cross border terrorist war between 2 close nations? Because Muslims may be behind it, killing helpless civilians in over 30 countries across the globe? [/quote]
Can you quote me justyiing any of these things you talk about?
All I know is the one thread, you brought up a suicide bombing in Iraq as proof of the stabilization failing. To me, that is cheering on a suicide bombing. In my opinion, this says you want the US to fail so much, you can justify the slaughter of innocent women and children by the insurgents who you also said you back.
Saying “If my country wanted to attack a weaker nation on the other side of the globe, you can bet your fanny that I’ll be fiercely opposing it.” narrows down the scope of what you would fiercely oppose.
What you are actually saying is so transparent it is outlandish.
It is like someone saying, “I stick up for all religions equally except the religions who’s followers bow toward Mecca.” We all know the one the example is talking about.
Are you also against agression inside of a country against it’s own citizens. You know genocide? Why do you not fiercely oppose that?
I believe when I brought up Russia’s genocide against Muslims, you claimed that what a country does to it’s own people is it’s own business. The same goes with Sudan.
Are you also against a cross border terrorist war between 2 close nations? Because Muslims may be behind it, killing helpless civilians in over 30 countries across the globe?
Why only bring up an incident that can only be talking about a handfull of countries, including and probably pointing at The USA?
[quote]lixy wrote:
If my country wanted to attack a weaker nation on the other side of the globe, you can bet your fanny that I’ll be fiercely opposing it.[/quote]
Or, of course, maybe I just read it wrong. I see what you really mean. I take back what I’ve written. You attack the US so much, I guess I just overreacted.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Ha ha. That is really convenient (and lucky!) for them (and you!), now isn’t it? Problem is, none of the Americans here have, realistically and pragmatically speaking, had a hand in anything the US government has done either. It’s not like we’re the ones making the decisions (or “going around dropping bombs on people’s heads”), you know. [/quote]
True. I was addressing Gkhan, who is not only a vocal supporter of the war on Iraq, but relentlessly justifies every action of the US as the lesser of two evils or some some other BS.
People are trying harder than you think to change things. Sadly, the politically aware are outnumbered. Most people vote for the cutest candidate or some other asinine reason.
You, as an individual, can’t change things. What I expect from you, is to denounce the horrors committed in your name and on your dime. Most people are too absorbed in the patriot mindset to consider doing so.
What of those that voted for Bush in 2004?
Gee…ya think?
The International Court of Justice itself showed how “bad” the US intervention was. I don’t think it’s much of a secret.
No, mate. I don’t hold you responsible for anything. I just can’t stand the idiots arguing that the US has the right - nay, the responsibility - to fsck up other countries.
I read it. I can’t see these “double standards and hypocrisy” you speak of though. Maybe you can take the time to show me what you mean by that?
[quote]Besides, standards evolve. My grandfather died before the Declaration of Human Rights, so I’m sure his standards were shakier than mine for example. Same goes for everybody else. What was acceptable a century ago may not be nowadays.
What kind of bullshit is this? WHOSE standards? The US’s? Iran’s? The Taliban’s? China’s? Bin Laden’s? Yours? I can’t believe you’re making such a childish argument! You act like there is actually some mutually-agreed upon consensus! [/quote]
Which part of my statement do you consider “bullshit” and “childish”? The fact that standards evolve?
You may be. Others are calling for wars of aggression and other gratuitous acts of violence. They brush off democratic regime topplings and support for bloody tyrant as a necessary evil.
No it ain’t. But it’s awfully close when the actions are carried out with your money.
A chick that gets convicted for out-of-wedlock sex (with a married man) four times is a slut in my book. Iranian law is clear on the matter, so she pretty much had it coming.
And what “rape” are you talking about? Are you under the impression that was sentenced to death by snu-snu?
Again, I have absolutely no control over what those you call my “co-religionists” do. They are not acting in my name, they are not carrying the flag of my country nor are they financed with my tax money.
If you can’t see the difference, there’s no helping you.
Lixy, I actually am against the war in Iraq. But I would rather see the US defeat the Jihadists than it remaining a terrorist center.
You call me a vocal supporter of the war because I am against the insurgents who are constantly targeting civilians not only in Iraq, but in many other countries.
If I am a vocal supporter of the war, you are a vocal supporters of suicide bombers and terrorists.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Again, I have absolutely no control over what those you call my “co-religionists” do. They are not acting in my name, they are not carrying the flag of my country nor are they financed with my tax money.
If you can’t see the difference, there’s no helping you.[/quote]
It is even worse. They are fighting and killing in the name of your God and your religion. You have control over them. Stop aiding their cause by constantly demonizing the US. You deny responsibility, yet are clearly a fellow traveler
A lot of what I took back above was taken back in the context of misreading what you had written. As a whole, it is not incorrect, and is an accurate accessment.
One beat, two beat three beat, sugar beat. Four beat, five beat, six beat, wheat-a-beat. Seven beat, eight beat, nine beat, heartbeat. My heartbeat, my heart is beating for you.