That’s fair. I went overboard with the “Hey hey, U.S.A.” bit and I know it.
I found it very wrong that Rogue57’s first (or was it 2nd?) post on T-Nation would speak of “our great nation” when so many people died, were maimed and made refugees because of the invasion. I snapped.
To you, the dead civilians are not even statistics (Remember? “We don’t do body counts”. Thing is, I personally know Iraqis and have extended family and dear friends over there. Sure, they’re happy that the tyrannical rule of Saddam is over, but all of them would kill the bloody invaders if given half a chance. Rogue57 or his squad buddies are volunteers. They chose to go invade and occupy Iraq. They chose to go shoot at Iraqis. More likely than not, they had to take that job 'cause they’re neither talented, wealthy or skilled, but it’s still a choice. Iraqis not so much. They were farming, raising their kids or going to school when the apocalypse unraveled on their heads. Why? Because Americans bought all the crap the White House was dishing which was, in turn, relayed by the media.
So, like it or not, the mighty USA killed plenty of Iraqi babies. You may not consider bringing that up tactful, and you may even rationalize it or try to forget it, but others will not. You can argue that Americans are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but the truth is that there was no notable Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before 2003. Now, they’re blowing up buses and markets.
Twist it any way you want, but at the end of the day, the US is the bad guy in this story. It maybe taboo for you to even consider it, but that’s the way things are. And when some member of the institution behind the mess registers on this site for the sole purpose of enlightening us about all the wonderful things his great nation has done to the Iraqi people, my reflexes kick in.
Think about it for a second. Do you think I would have reacted the same if an established contributor to this board (re)enlisted (e.g: MickAli) and proposed to share his insight? That self-described Rogue guy went as far as restrict the talk to “the people in the States”.
Put things into their context once in a while. I’m sure it might help.
Welp, I am late coming into the conversation, but I’ll throw in my $.02 anyway.
I am past scripture mining violent passages out of the koran. I don’t know if it is a good book or a bad book as I have never read it and at this point in my life, I have no intention on reading it; I have better things to do with my time.
What I do know is this. A tree is known by it’s fruit and the fruit produced by islam, is by and large, bad. It is the most hateful, deceitful, and intolerant entity on earth religiously and politically. Yet, they demand tolerance from the very people they’d rather see dead and burning in eternal hell fire.
I don’t know if islam is intrinsically evil, or if it is a religion mired in heresy where it’s practitioners have taken the power of religion extricated it onto the ignorant for the purpose of self gain. What I do know is that islam has two choices, it can change or it can go away. It cannot continue as is. As much as they’d like to that cannot kill the rest of the 4.8 billion of us who don’t believe as they do. They can try, but they will fail.
I am speaking of global islam, not individual muslims or even certain sects that do not subscribe to the violence and hatred of greater islam. But those who are not brainwashed have to stand up and do something. There is far to much condoning and far to little condemning of the violence and hatred perpetrated by greater islam. Muslims have to fix it, the U.S. isn’t at fault, Israel isn’t at fault, Denmark isn’t at fault, Holland isn’t at fault, etc. The fault and responsibility lies with in.
Here is open bloodlust and Islamic supremacism, in a film produced by Muslims for Muslims – indeed, for Muslim children. Will the OIC denounce this film? Will Ban Ki-Moon and Louise Arbour?
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Here is open bloodlust and Islamic supremacism, in a film produced by Muslims for Muslims – indeed, for Muslim children. Will the OIC denounce this film? Will Ban Ki-Moon and Louise Arbour?
Ok. If you can’t make the distinction between the actions of a democratic government (with American taxpayers’ money) and a bunch of criminal kooks who claim to be of the faith, I don’t see the point in pursuing this conversation.
You’re challenging what I consider a fundamental truth.[/quote]
You keep talking about taxes. What should we do, not pay them? You said you do not pay taxes yourself, so who the hell are you to talk? Tell us, what should we do?
Iran elects it’s leaders and can you tell me they do not use tax money to spread terrorism to other countries?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You keep talking about taxes. What should we do, not pay them? [/quote]
You don’t have much of a choice with regards to taxes. So, no. I wouldn’t want you to get hurt just to make a point. If it’s a collective effort, then I’ll approve of it. There’s not much you can do besides vote for the people who promise not to use your taxmoney to invade countries and wage wars of aggression. I understand that the two-party system makes that extremely hard since both major parties are hell-bent on dominating the world by force. In this case, you should consider voting third party or independent to make a point.
At the end of the day, I’ll be content if you would just admit that
The US is not God’s given gift to the planet,
Supporting and financing the rule of dictators (or apartheid regimes) is wrong and should be ended,
Supporting, organizing and financing Islamists (while actively undermining Pan-Arabism) may have played a role in the current global problem of radical religious terrorism,
There is such a thing as a legitimate Iraqi resistance to get the invaders out of their land,
It’s good enough for me if you would just acknowledge those points. Being aware that there is a problem and defining it is very important. I can’t possibly demand more from an individual.
Why does it bother you that I have pride in my country? That there were worse regimes in the world which have done a lot worse and have also backed dictators which you say nothing about, since, of course, they are not backed by the US?
If we did not support radicals at one point in our history, a much worse threat would be hanging over the world? We faced tough choices and did some tough things, but the world is a tough place sometimes and those things needed to be done.
Why can’t you admit that defeating Communism was a good thing to the world and they threatened more nations and killed more people than the US has ever done.
That maybe, the Palestinians would have a nation if
They concerned themselves with nation building rather than destruction.
They would have tried to build a state and not stuffed their pockets and bought weapons.
they stopped all terrorism against Israel and worried about themselves, then maybe they would not be living in an apartheid state.
Would you admit that the Iraqi resistance is made up of mostly Saddam’s men, and if they got back into power, Iraq would be a worse place? That the Iraqi resistance is evil for targeting civilians? That the Iraqi resistance DOES target civilians and that they are responsible for their own actions.
Would you admit that the US is not the sole evil in the world?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Why does it bother you that I have pride in my country? [/quote]
Because your country attacks and invades other countries, killing innocents and alienating people.
Of course there were (and still are) worse regimes in the world. But they don’t go about invading countries half way across the world and call it “liberation”, “freedom” or some other buzzword. I say plenty about dictators and tyrants. But there is a fundamental difference between a country that sticks to its borders or represses its own people, with one that sends its military all over the world to bomb and invade others.
Why the interrogation mark?
I can appreciate that. But quite a few of those choices were criminal. For example, what were you thinking screwing over Iraq?
Defeating the Soviets was a good thing. I most certainly can admit that. But it didn’t stop there. You included every nationalist, populist, revolutionary movement under the banner of Communism. From declassified documents of Washington, it is apparent that the amalgam was voluntary. Your government did not like the idea of the people reclaiming their rights. You preferred to deal with a tyrannical leadership that’s easy to bribe. Mossadeq never threatened anybody but the pockets of some fat cats. Neither did Allende nor Ben Barka.
[quote]That maybe, the Palestinians would have a nation if
They concerned themselves with nation building rather than destruction.
They would have tried to build a state and not stuffed their pockets and bought weapons.
they stopped all terrorism against Israel and worried about themselves, then maybe they would not be living in an apartheid state.[/quote]
That ship has sailed.
The Palestinians should have adopted a peaceful attitude from the beginning. They were understandably worried that the creation of a Jewish state would cause trouble, but they went all wrong about it. Of course, Ben Gurion’s inflammatory rhetoric and terrorist actions didn’t help, but the Palestinians should still have welcomed the Jews to share the place. There would have been room for everybody.
Now, however, it is too late. Israelis won’t give an inch (see Condi’s criticism of the new settlements), and the Palestinians will never agree to the bits and pieces plan. There was still a glitter of hope in the 90s, but now, no way! The two sides hate each other too much.
Me want to sample whatever you’re smoking.
Saddam’s men, my eye! 90% of the Sunni population of Iraq approves of the attacks on the Americans. And when confounding all tribes, sects and ethnicities, the majority of Iraqis would still love nothing more than to slit the invaders’ throats.
Saddam’s dead. Deal with it. Also, did you leave Al-Sadr?
First of all, it’s none of your motherfriggin’ business! Iraqis decide what Iraq looks like. If they want to turn the place into a coca plantation, Sharia-ruled land or Disneyland, it’s not for your government to decide.
And in case you haven’t noticed, Iraq is already a worse place than it was before you screwed them over. And that’s quite a feat considering the country lived under a bloody tyrant as well as an embargo.
No argument here.
You’re repeating yourself, old man.
Of course I would. The US has never had, nor will it ever have a monopoly on wars of aggressions, regime topplings or other heinous crimes. What makes it stand out though, is the global aspect of their actions. Where other countries stick to their immediate sphere of influence, the US claims the whole universe as its own. Sitting here in Sweden, there are exponentially more chances that the US will bomb my building than does China, North Korea or Libya.
I just did.
And while I have absolutely no issues admitting most of the points you raised above, you have yet to do so for a single one I posted. I know that the world is dog-eat-dog and that there are plenty of nuances, but some of the issues I raised transcend that. Look at number 3) in my previous post. I just ask you to acknowledge that “supporting, organizing and financing Islamists may have played a role in the current global problem of radical religious terrorism”.
Your response? Commie-red-scare-mushroom-cloud-lesser-of-two-evils. If you can’t even say yes to that one, I don’t see the point in taking this discussion any further.
As a follow-up on my guttural unwarranted reaction to Rogue57, I’ve come across this:
The implication may seem out of whack to you, but as somebody who’s seen the propaganda the occupier has subjected my country to, I get very skeptical when foreigners with guns start to sing praises of their homeland while promising peace, stability, freedom or things of that sort.
The Soviet Union did not stick to their sphere of interest, nor do the Islamists. Nor does China which ships weapons to the Sudanese to use in genocide.
“supporting, organizing and financing Islamists may have played a role in the current global problem of radical religious terrorism”.
Of course it did. But we financed them to help drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
Which I do not feel was a bad thing.
Too bad we do not have a time machine to go back and fix our mistakes.
Chushin was correct by saying “Do you realize how many people here on this very site agree with the basic idea that the US was wrong to go into Iraq, but who have an overwhelming, negative reaction to you and your holier-than-thou, black/white, self-righteous preaching?”
I should know, I am one of them.
You obviously have no idea how I feel about the war in Iraq, and no hope in seeing anyone else’s side that does not agree with your anti-US agenda.
Perhaps if you would see that yes, the invasion of Iraq was a stupid move…BUT since it all went to hell due to bureaucratic b.s, we have a mission to fix our mistakes and make sure Iraq does not remain a failed state.
Once again, too bad we do not have a time machine. But reality is reality and there’s nothing you can do about it.
As much as you want to see Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Iraq fail and join the ranks of Syria, Iran and Sudan, I hope for your sake you do not look back 20 years from now and say, “Damn, I wish the US had succeeded in Iraq because what we’ve got now is a thousand times worse than anything they could have made.”
That maybe, the Palestinians would have a nation if
They concerned themselves with nation building rather than destruction.
They would have tried to build a state and not stuffed their pockets and bought weapons.
they stopped all terrorism against Israel and worried about themselves, then maybe they would not be living in an apartheid state.
Exactly…You know they could very well be collectively the stupidest people on earth.[/quote]
But as individuals, particularly in the Arab lands in which many have been assimiliated, the Palestinians have become engineers, doctors…everything a nation could desire.
Where they are subjected to thuggery, particularly sponsored by their own countrymen, we see the thugs creating more hatred and misery…
[quote]Chushin wrote:
“But there is a fundamental difference between a despotic, autocratic police state that imprisons, tortures and murders its citizens out of greed, power hunger and sheer cruelty, vs. a democracy that sends its military to various countries to unseat the dictators, thugs and criminals that were never elected by their people in the first place.”
[/quote]
And the Soviets invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and controlled half of Europe, spread revolution to China and North Korea, Africa, Central and South America and the Middle East, and Lixy thinks that somehow we are the only ones going half way around the world bombing people?
The little he knows about history is twisted so the US is always evil.