First off, I don't only want to hear bad news about Iraq but I don't equate cell phones and fast food as good news. Good news would be that the Iraqi people aren't dying and living in horrible conditions. But putting money towards giving these people back some sense of normality and decent living conditions isn't going to line anyone's pockets...if it did they'd be all over it. So it makes me quite wary to see people jump at any kind of 'good' news because I feel it may be an attempt at a justification for the invasion. Even if the Iraqi people managed to pull it together with our help and get back to something close to normal and maybe even prosper in the future....it still wouldn't be worth the enormous loss of life and the amount of destruction this war has caused.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
funny, but i've heard that the media is under reporting the violence in iraq.
the fact that you think anything other than violence is mutually exclusive to news is why i think the media has done a bad job.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
First off, I don't only want to hear bad news about Iraq but I don't equate cell phones and fast food as good news. Good news would be that the Iraqi people aren't dying and living in horrible conditions. But putting money towards giving these people back some sense of normality and decent living conditions isn't going to line anyone's pockets...if it did they'd be all over it. So it makes me quite wary to see people jump at any kind of 'good' news because I feel it may be an attempt at a justification for the invasion. Even if the Iraqi people managed to pull it together with our help and get back to something close to normal and maybe even prosper in the future....it still wouldn't be worth the enormous loss of life and the amount of destruction this war has caused.
I don't think that by accepting some good news, regardless of the magnitude of it, is going to lead to a justification of the invasion. To me it's a marker on how bad the situation there really is when more cell phone sales is considered good news.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
First off, I don't only want to hear bad news about Iraq but I don't equate cell phones and fast food as good news. Good news would be that the Iraqi people aren't dying and living in horrible conditions. But putting money towards giving these people back some sense of normality and decent living conditions isn't going to line anyone's pockets...if it did they'd be all over it. So it makes me quite wary to see people jump at any kind of 'good' news because I feel it may be an attempt at a justification for the invasion. Even if the Iraqi people managed to pull it together with our help and get back to something close to normal and maybe even prosper in the future....it still wouldn't be worth the enormous loss of life and the amount of destruction this war has caused.
You're going to have to decide which is more important abook -- a better life for the Iraqis or the fact that some people may use that better life to justify the horrors that preceded it.
You have to face the fact that success in Iraq, measured by the welfare of its people, will require a place wherein pro-invasion people will be able to say "I told you so". You'd also be wise to understand that their ability to say that means very little outside their own self-image.
A better Iraq was possible without the war we see. But a better Iraq now requires the end to that war. An end to that war requires reasons for people to work together as opposed to shooting each other. It was the merchant trade of tea that in many ways led America to better days, so I'd advise you to not dismiss what "cell phones" and "fast food" may accomplish, at least in part.
You're going to have to decide which is more important abook -- a better life for the Iraqis or the fact that some people may use that better life to justify the horrors that preceded it.
Of course the Iraqi livelihood is the most important but why do I have to decide between which to discuss?
You have to face the fact that success in Iraq, measured by the welfare of its people, will require a place wherein pro-invasion people will be able to say "I told you so". You'd also be wise to understand that their ability to say that means very little outside their own self-image.
I'm well aware any good news that comes out of Iraq will be used to support their invasion. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to be right here letting them know we could have always helped these people without bombing their country to pieces and wrecking their lives first. It didn't have to cost us 3,000 American lives, the uncountable loss of Iraqi lives and billions of dollars down the tubes, all for this chaos.
A better Iraq was possible without the war we see. But a better Iraq now requires the end to that war. An end to that war requires reasons for people to work together as opposed to shooting each other. It was the merchant trade of tea that in many ways led America to better days, so I'd advise you to not dismiss what "cell phones" and "fast food" may accomplish, at least in part.
I understand that people can't accomplish anything by shooting each other. But the Iraqi insurgency sees all the destruction around them and act out trying to defend their homeland. We had to result to genocide to to accomplish those 'better' days in America where we took over. Are we going to let that practice continue? Or should we let the Iraqis make their own 'better' days without our involvement if that's what they wish?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course the Iraqi livelihood is the most important but why do I have to decide between which to discuss?
You don't have to decide between which to discuss. You have to decide which you want.
I'm well aware any good news that comes out of Iraq will be used to support their invasion. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to be right here letting them know we could have always helped these people without bombing their country to pieces and wrecking their lives first. It didn't have to cost us 3,000 American lives, the uncountable loss of Iraqi lives and billions of dollars down the tubes, all for this chaos.
Of course it didn't.
I understand that people can't accomplish anything by shooting each other. But the Iraqi insurgency sees all the destruction around them and act out trying to defend their homeland.
:eek:
The Iraqi insurgency now sees a situation wherein they can attempt to sieze control of a nation and its people. To pretend that the Iraqi insurgency are fighting only to "defend their homeland" is ridiculous, particularly considering that the insurgency is just as responsible for attacking that homeland as America is and, furthermore, part of that insurgency can't even refer to Iraq as their "homeland".
We had to result to genocide to to accomplish those 'better' days in America where we took over.
What specifically are you referring to here?
Are we going to let that practice continue? Or should we let the Iraqis make their own 'better' days without our involvement if that's what they wish?
We should certainly allow Iraqis to make their own "better" days without our involvement. The article posted is very much about them doing that.
The Iraqi insurgency now sees a situation wherein they can attempt to sieze control of a nation and its people. To pretend that the Iraqi insurgency are fighting only to "defend their homeland" is ridiculous, particularly considering that the insurgency is just as responsible for attacking that homeland as America is and, furthermore, part of that insurgency can't even refer to Iraq as their "homeland".
Why is it ridiculous? They are blowing shit up inside their homeland because that's where the fight is. If we were invaded how would you defend yourself with the enemy embedded inside your area? Were they doing this before we invaded? Why do they think they can stand up against our military and not Saddam's? I don't think too much of the insurgency comes from outside, honestly. But I'm sure there does exist those who will try to capitalize on the mess we made.
We should certainly allow Iraqis to make their own "better" days without our involvement. The article posted is very much about them doing that.
Again, I'm all for these people having normal lives but I do not accept this as a justification for causing their problems to begin with. What country do we have to blow part next to bring them Cingular and the Whopper?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So I have to accept the justifications for this war and perhaps future wars if I want to see things get better for the Iraqis?
Actually, yes, but not in the way you're implying above. If you want a better future for Iraq, you have to accept the fact that this war happened and it cannot be undone. And you have to accept the fact that, if a positive outcome emerges, supporters of that war will celebrate because they will say the war played a role. And you'll have to accept the fact that they're right, in a way: this war, as a part of history, will have played a role in what Iraq becomes.
What you don't have to accept is that a better life for Iraqis required a war. And you don't have to accept that there are necessary evils in this word. And you don't have to accept the corrupt ideology that peace requires war. And you don't have to accept that replacing one corrupt dictatorship with one corrupt "democracy" is a measure of progress.
Why is it ridiculous? They are blowing shit up inside their homeland because that's where the fight is. If we were invaded how would you defend yourself with the enemy embedded inside your area?
Umm...the key word is "enemy". Certainly I would defend my land if invaded. However, I wouldn't defend my land by killing my neighbors. That doesn't make much sense.
Were they doing this before we invaded?
To a much smaller extent, yes. They also had an established regime that did it to them typically before they had a chance to do it to others.
Why do they think they can stand up against our military and not Saddam's?
For a lot of reasons. First, our military is not, at least on a large scale, going door to door slaughtering or imprisoning suspicious people. Secondly, our military doesn't have the reach that Saddam's had within Iraq. Thirdly, some populations in Iraq did stand up to Saddam and were summarily defeated.
I don't think too much of the insurgency comes from outside, honestly. But I'm sure there does exist those who will try to capitalize on the mess we made.
Yes, but "our mess" doesn't forgive their behavior. Please do not excuse the choices of murderers, regardless of their reasons. It's unbecoming for you.
The Native Americans who lived here before us.
Certainly. But again, such a slaughter was not necessary for the life we lead. It was an unnecessary crime, as is the slaughter of Iraqis by both our military and the Iraqi insurgency.
Again, I'm all for these people having normal lives but I do not accept this as a justification for causing their problems to begin with. What country do we have to blow part next to bring them Cingular and the Whopper?
None, hopefully. But it should tell you something about your own views on this situation to see how quickly you start talking about "justifications".
Again, I'm all for these people having normal lives but I do not accept this as a justification for causing their problems to begin with. What country do we have to blow part next to bring them Cingular and the Whopper?
hahaha
If we were talking about bringing them White Castle and Natty Light, then it'd totally be worth the death & destruction for those left to taste the awesomeness.
You're going to have to decide which is more important abook -- a better life for the Iraqis or the fact that some people may use that better life to justify the horrors that preceded it.
You have to face the fact that success in Iraq, measured by the welfare of its people, will require a place wherein pro-invasion people will be able to say "I told you so". You'd also be wise to understand that their ability to say that means very little outside their own self-image.
A better Iraq was possible without the war we see. But a better Iraq now requires the end to that war. An end to that war requires reasons for people to work together as opposed to shooting each other. It was the merchant trade of tea that in many ways led America to better days, so I'd advise you to not dismiss what "cell phones" and "fast food" may accomplish, at least in part.
If we were talking about bringing them White Castle and Natty Light, then it'd totally be worth the death & destruction for those left to taste the awesomeness.
Well, we know Kumar loves it so that's close!
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Iraq War Results & Statistics as of December 17, 2006
From Deborah White,
Dec 20 2006
2,947 US Soldiers Killed, 22,229 Wounded, 140,000 Remain in Iraq
For your quick reading, I've listed key statistics about the Iraq War, taken primarily from data analyzed by various think tanks, including The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, and from mainstream media sources. Data is presented as of December 17, 2006, except as indicated.
US SPENDING IN IRAQ
Spent & Approved War-Spending - $505 billion of US taxpayers' funds, including $70 billion more approved by the Republican-led Congress and signed by the President in Sept 2006 for Iraq & Afghanistan
Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion
US AND COALITION TROOPS IN IRAQ
Coalition Troops in Iraq (last updated by US as of Oct 2006) - Total 158,000, including 140,000 from the US, 7,200 from the UK, and 10,800 from all other nations (other than Iraq).
US Troop Casualities - 2,947 US troops; 98% male. 90% non-officers; 78% active duty, 14% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 11% Latino. 20% killed by non-hostile causes. 53% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 68% were from the US Army
Non-US Troop Casualties - Total 247, with 126 from the UK
US Troops Wounded - 22,229, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries (total excludes psychological injuries)
US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home
US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 54 total, 27 by enemy fire
IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS AND OTHERS IN IRAQ
Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - 84,105 (NOTE - The US has not updated this count since Oct 2005)
Journalists killed - 77, 41 by murder and 36 by acts of war
Journalists killed by US Forces - 14
Iraqi Military and Police Casualties - 5,871
Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.
Actually, yes, but not in the way you're implying above. If you want a better future for Iraq, you have to accept the fact that this war happened and it cannot be undone. And you have to accept the fact that, if a positive outcome emerges, supporters of that war will celebrate because they will say the war played a role. And you'll have to accept the fact that they're right, in a way: this war, as a part of history, will have played a role in what Iraq becomes.
What you don't have to accept is that a better life for Iraqis required a war. And you don't have to accept that there are necessary evils in this word. And you don't have to accept the corrupt ideology that peace requires war. And you don't have to accept that replacing one corrupt dictatorship with one corrupt "democracy" is a measure of progress.
Where have a said we can undo the war? I accept what has happened because it happened. That's stating the obvious. The second part is point I was making.
Umm...the key word is "enemy". Certainly I would defend my land if invaded. However, I wouldn't defend my land by killing my neighbors. That doesn't make much sense.
So you think the insurgency's goal is to kill Iraqis? That doesn't make sense and that's why I don't believe it.
Secondly, our military doesn't have the reach that Saddam's had within Iraq. Thirdly, some populations in Iraq did stand up to Saddam and were summarily defeated.
I'm still having a hard time seeing how the insurgency is so effective against the largest military in the world and not so much against Saddam's
Yes, but "our mess" doesn't forgive their behavior. Please do not excuse the choices of murderers, regardless of their reasons. It's unbecoming for you.
I don't forgive it for one second but I accept that that's what is happening because of it. It is ridiculous to say I excuse it because I know it's going on. Things happen for a reason. Knowing the cause and effect does not equal agreeing with the means.
Certainly. But again, such a slaughter was not necessary for the life we lead. It was an unnecessary crime, as is the slaughter of Iraqis by both our military and the Iraqi insurgency.
None, hopefully. But it should tell you something about your own views on this situation to see how quickly you start talking about "justifications".
Well, just the thought of more of this happening and being praised as 'the right thing to do' makes me wanna cringe. Everytime I log in on here I see people making the case for military involvement in other countries. Whatever it says about me to be apprehensive about such talks, so be it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I really don't want to get between you two but, Insurgents goals may not be to kill Iraqi's, but they end up killing many many more of their own people than coalition forces.
I accept what has happened because it happened. That's stating the obvious. The second part is point I was making.
The point you're making is that good news is not something you want to hear.
So you think the insurgency's goal is to kill Iraqis?
Of course. Do you think they're killing each other by accident?
That doesn't make sense and that's why I don't believe it.
It doesn't make sense to you because you're trying to portray them as "fighters for their homeland" in your own head. They're not fighting for their homeland. They're fighting for control of that land and the people in it. There's a very big difference between those two things.
No?
Certainly not on the scale that Saddam's government was doing. Iraq, before we got there was very much a police state. Now it is largely a driftless anarchy. Neither is good.
I'm still having a hard time seeing how the insurgency is so effective against the largest military in the world and not so much against Saddam's
Try imagining this: American forces start carpet bombing every arguable source of dissent. We go door to door, executing questionable people who own guns. We pay off informants who are willing to turn in anyone they choose without a question of innocence. We shut down the borders, killing people simply based on a gun's discretion. We put certain influential members of society in high positions of authority and bribe them with resources and power. How effective do you think the insurgency would be then?
I don't forgive it for one second but I accept that that's what is happening because of it.
No. It is happening because of both our actions and theirs. To pretend it is only the former is to forgive it abook.
It is ridiculous to say I excuse it because I know it's going on. Things happen for a reason. Knowing the cause and effect does not equal agreeing with the means.
You don't know the cause and effect if you discount the choices of killers.
Cool. That's what I've been saying.
I don't hear you saying the insurgents are criminals. I hear you saying that the insurgents are victims.
Well, just the thought of more of this happening and being praised as 'the right thing to do' makes me wanna cringe.
But no one is praising it as the right thing to do here. You brought up the "justifications".
Everytime I log in on here I see people making the case for military involvement in other countries.
I've seen you make that case too. You make the case for Iraqi insurgents here. You've made the case for Palestinian insurgents elsewhere. Many times I've heard you defend the actions of killers.
Whatever it says about me to be apprehensive about such talks, so be it.
To be apprehensive of speech is to be afraid of what you might hear. You hearing it or not has no bearing on another thinking it. You might want to ponder that fear you have, and ask yourself where it comes from.
Yes, but "our mess" doesn't forgive their behavior. Please do not excuse the choices of murderers, regardless of their reasons. It's unbecoming for you.
I don't forgive it for one second but I accept that that's what is happening because of it. It is ridiculous to say I excuse it because I know it's going on. Things happen for a reason. Knowing the cause and effect does not equal agreeing with the means.
Again, I'm all for these people having normal lives but I do not accept this as a justification for causing their problems to begin with. What country do we have to blow part next to bring them Cingular and the Whopper?
None, hopefully. But it should tell you something about your own views on this situation to see how quickly you start talking about "justifications".
Well, just the thought of more of this happening and being praised as 'the right thing to do' makes me wanna cringe. Everytime I log in on here I see people making the case for military involvement in other countries. Whatever it says about me to be apprehensive about such talks, so be it.
farfromglorified, are you suggesting there are not people who believe these "positive" things happening are justification for what is happening there? From what else you've been saying, I felt you were discerning the fine lines quite well, excepting your critique of Abook and her purposes here.
I very much see and agree with what you are saying, here, Abook.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
To be apprehensive of speech is to be afraid of what you might hear. You hearing it or not has no bearing on another thinking it. You might want to ponder that fear you have, and ask yourself where it comes from.
I have the same concern Abook has. From a perspective of emotion, this type of thing is regarding being the kind of person who is unhappy with atrocity being excused and justified. Therefore it's a concern based on very real dynamics. Therefore someone like Abook or myself is driven to see inequity that exists that others are comfortable glossing over. We see and understand degrees and values within the happenings that others are unable to sometimes see or to assess accurately.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I have the same concern Abook has. From a perspective of emotion, this type of thing is regarding being the kind of person who is unhappy with atrocity being excused and justified.
I'd accept that as truth if half of the atrocities weren't being defended, and if the fear wasn't mutually exclusive to the professed desired end.
Therefore it's a concern based on very real dynamics. Therefore someone like Abook or myself is driven to see inequity that exists that others are comfortable glossing over. We see and understand degrees and values within the happenings that others are unable to sometimes see or to assess accurately.
I'll say the same thing to you as I did to abook. If a better Iraq is your goal, you'll have to be prepared for the "I told you so's". You don't have to accept them as valid, but you must understand that others will accept them as valid. So you'll have to choose which is more important -- a better Iraq, or the perceptions of fools.
I'd accept that as truth if half of the atrocities weren't being defended, and if the fear wasn't mutually exclusive to the professed desired end.
I actually do not ask you to accept my view, or Abook's as the truth. I would like you to accept it as the truth we see. I realize you and I perceive things quite differently, given that we also have some very big similarities. I am always on the outside of these debates (deliberately), and yet, I see in those who are assessing "standards" there is a difference between those using a quantity-rule and those using a quality-one. I understand both in theory. In practise I naturally understand the Abook side, or in the other debates, the Byrnzie side. I see the validity to what they are saying and I see how it is lost on those using the logic rule. I happen to believe and stand behind this standard, understanding the value and qualitative judgments, personally. With all due respect, your method is different, not better.
I'll say the same thing to you as I did to abook. If a better Iraq is your goal, you'll have to be prepared for the "I told you so's". You don't have to accept them as valid, but you must understand that others will accept them as valid. So you'll have to choose which is more important -- a better Iraq, or the perceptions of fools.
I understood all the rest you were saying, why you were saying it and why it is valid. And I agree with you. I also very much appreciate that for a "conservative" person, that you also openly appreciate the impropriety of taking over countries and killing vast amounts of people in the process.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Of course. Do you think they're killing each other by accident?
I think they are trying to hinder the US military and often take out whoever else may be in the way*and no, I do not condone that practice but it is what I think is happening*. Which is why I think we should pull out. As far as the two religous groups fighting for power, how are we ever going to control that? The same way Saddam did?
It doesn't make sense to you because you're trying to portray them as "fighters for their homeland" in your own head. They're not fighting for their homeland. They're fighting for control of that land and the people in it. There's a very big difference between those two things.
So, you don't think there are insurgents who want the US out? You don't think there are people there angry enough with what has happened to their country to take up arms? You said yourself you would do the same.
Try imagining this: American forces start carpet bombing every arguable source of dissent. We go door to door, executing questionable people who own guns. We pay off informants who are willing to turn in anyone they choose without a question of innocence. We shut down the borders, killing people simply based on a gun's discretion. We put certain influential members of society in high positions of authority and bribe them with resources and power. How effective do you think the insurgency would be then?
I feel that a lot of this is happening and the insurgency is flourishing.
No. It is happening because of both our actions and theirs. To pretend it is only the former is to forgive it abook.
Our actions brought about their actions. That doesn't make me forgive indiscriminate killing of anyone, sorry. All that does is paint me as someone who is cheering on this death instead of the truth which is me seeing their perpsective while not agreeing with the actions they choose as their solution.
I don't hear you saying the insurgents are criminals. I hear you saying that the insurgents are victims.
And I don't see you understanding their perspective and why they are choosing the crime. You just try to pretend that their intentions are all needless and that they have no good reason to rebel. Saying that a poor person robbed me because he needed to feed his family doesn't make me condone his theft. There, of course, could be better ways to go about getting food.
I've seen you make that case too. You make the case for Iraqi insurgents here. You've made the case for Palestinian insurgents elsewhere. Many times I've heard you defend the actions of killers.
No, I understand what drives them to it. I've never praised killing. I've never said 'the palestinians should be able to kill whoever they wish because they have been wronged!' I speak out against demonizing them as animals who deserve what they get. I think there are far better ways of making progress.
To be apprehensive of speech is to be afraid of what you might hear. You hearing it or not has no bearing on another thinking it. You might want to ponder that fear you have, and ask yourself where it comes from.
My fear is people rallying behind the suggestion future wars. I guess I do fear hearing so many getting behind the death and destruction of yet another country. So I speak out when I think it is appropriate to show it wasn't worth it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Angelica, can you explain the underlying differences between these two statements:
"I happen to believe and stand behind this standard, understanding the value and qualitative judgments, personally. With all due respect, your method is different, not better."
"the impropriety of taking over countries and killing vast amounts of people in the process."
The reason I'm asking is this. How is it "improper" to take over countries and kill vast amounts of people in the process? Could one not say that it is simply a "different method, not worse"?
I'd accept that as truth if half of the atrocities weren't being defended, and if the fear wasn't mutually exclusive to the professed desired end.
To see Iraq get any better you have to understand the opposition and why they are rebeling.....so we can work at making it STOP not defend it or excuse it.
I'll say the same thing to you as I did to abook. If a better Iraq is your goal, you'll have to be prepared for the "I told you so's". You don't have to accept them as valid, but you must understand that others will accept them as valid. So you'll have to choose which is more important -- a better Iraq, or the perceptions of fools.
Well not accepting them as valid spurs discussion of those thoughts. You never seem happy with just accepting anyone's beliefs that you view as wrong, whereas I mean, you voice your opposition to those beliefs.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Angelica, can you explain the underlying differences between these two statements:
"I happen to believe and stand behind this standard, understanding the value and qualitative judgments, personally. With all due respect, your method is different, not better."
"the impropriety of taking over countries and killing vast amounts of people in the process."
The reason I'm asking is this. How is it "improper" to take over countries and kill vast amounts of people in the process? Could one not say that it is simply a "different method, not worse"?
This is why I'm not interested in this debate. I'm not interested in proving myself "right" or helping you prove yourself "right". I know what my agenda is and that it is what it is. As yours is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
As a justification for this war and others in the future....you left that part out.
Abook, what you need to understand is that a better life for Iraqis is actually irrelevant to justifying future wars. The failures of the Vietnam War did not prevent us from starting this war. The failures of the first Gulf War vis a vis the Iraqi people didn't prevent us from starting this war.
War is motivated by fear and by hate, not by sideways kindness. Whether or not this war leads to a better life for Iraqis will not prevent a single war in the face of tomorrow's fear or tomorrow's hate.
Furthermore, you're hearing of these these "justifications" is irrelevant to those who believe them. Again, you're placing two things at odds in your own mind: a professed desire to see Iraqis lead a better life and a fear of those who may hold the opinion that the better life justifies a war. You need to embrace the first and reject the second based on its faulty premises. Otherwise, you're going to have to abandon the first in an attempt to dissuade the second.
I think they are trying to hinder the US military and often take out whoever else may be in the way*and no, I do not condone that practice but it is what I think is happening*. Which is why I think we should pull out. As far as the two religous groups fighting for power, how are we ever going to control that? The same way Saddam did?
Us pulling out will not stop the revenge killings and the interfaith violence. Our presense allowed those things to take root -- our removal will not end them.
The Iraqi insurgency targets Iraqis more than it targets coalition forces. The death squads and the militias are not largely hunting us -- they're largely hunting each other.
That said, I do support a complete removal of US forces if those forces cannot be better used (I've explained the correct approach for US forces in another thread), but for different reasons outside the context of this discussion. I do not pretend, however, that a removal of US forces will end any violence. In fact, it will likely increase that violence.
So, you don't think there are insurgents who want the US out?
They all want the US out.
You don't think there are people there angry enough with what has happened to their country to take up arms?
Yes. What I think you're missing is that most of that anger was born before we ever got there. Our actions have allowed that anger to act.
You said yourself you would do the same.
I said myself that I would reject those who attack me, not use those who attack me so I could attack my neighbor.
Our actions brought about their actions.
You can sell that BS to Ahnimus, but not to me. If you want to play this game, I'll simply say that our actions were brought about by someone else's actions.
That doesn't make me forgive indiscriminate killing of anyone, sorry.
It either forgives the killers or forgives everyone, including us. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that our actions caused theirs, but that our actions had no similar cause. You can't hold us to the morality of choice and absolve them of the morality of choice.
All that does is paint me as someone who is cheering on this death instead of the truth which is me seeing their perpsective while not agreeing with the actions they choose as their solution.
I haven't decided if you cheer on death or not. I've seen you go both ways.
And I don't see you understanding their perspective and why they are choosing the crime. You just try to pretend that their intentions are all needless and that they have no good reason to rebel. Saying that a poor person robbed me because he needed to feed his family doesn't make me condone his theft. There, of course, could be better ways to go about getting food.
There are better ways to go about getting food. There are also better ways to go about getting peace. You were smart enought to acknowledge that vis a vis America's war. You might try applying that same logic to the insurgent's war.
No one thinks it was the right thing to do to invade Iraq?
Certainly many people do. My only point was that no one within this thread was saying that the posted article justifies the invasion.
No, I understand what drives them to it. I've never praised killing. I've never said 'the palestinians should be able to kill whoever they wish because they have been wronged!' I speak out against demonizing them as animals who deserve what they get. I think there are far better ways of making progress.
My fear is people rallying behind the suggestion future wars. I guess I do fear hearing so many getting behind the death and destruction of yet another country. So I speak out when I think it is appropriate to show it wasn't worth it.
You're right to speak out against those who "get behind" death and destruction. I just don't think you do that to the extent you think you do. Keep in mind, you're speaking out against an article that shows some Iraqi people choosing a different course than death and destruction.
Angelica, can you explain the underlying differences between these two statements:
"I happen to believe and stand behind this standard, understanding the value and qualitative judgments, personally. With all due respect, your method is different, not better."
"the impropriety of taking over countries and killing vast amounts of people in the process."
The reason I'm asking is this. How is it "improper" to take over countries and kill vast amounts of people in the process? Could one not say that it is simply a "different method, not worse"?
Okay, I'm back at this one. Do you understand that I find violence and killing abhorrent and that I believe that I could not kill another human being? Then do you also understand that alongside that, I became aware of another side of my own nature when I had a stalker? I thought maybe I could kill another. Do you understand that I can comfortably hold the attitude of not supporting killing on one hand, and on the other hand suspecting I am capable of killing?
For example, I've been anti-violence for many years. Probably since around the time I held a knife on my boyfriend 18 years ago. I began to develop and hone a new way--one in which I could not give myself license to harm others in any way. In the process since then, I've had numerous emotionally violent outburts to many degrees. (against my own standard) Can you understand how I am at peace with my own philosophy, and that I am human and also fall short of the ideal when I am lowered on resources? I do not EVER justify my non-ideal acts. But I accept them. Humans are not logical. We can seek progress in the light of perfection, yet rarely are we perfect. Truly understanding the vast ranges of dichotomous behaviours inherent to humans is a very crucial piece of the puzzle in these discussions. It's not one that needs to be changed, but rather the two views need to come into harmony and respect of one another.
This little personal aside here has nothing to do with what Abook is saying. I'm referring in general to the logic standards these world situations are being judged by in certain people's minds, even when logic is not a valid method of assessing variables that are alogical. Those who have a natural aptitude of seeing the alogical, and who can easily understand and cope with it have a valid voice. In particular, I'm applauding Abook and Byrnzie for taking on these issues, and being confronted for a lack of standard when that is not even close to being the case.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Abook, what you need to understand is that a better life for Iraqis is actually irrelevant to justifying future wars. The failures of the Vietnam War did not prevent us from starting this war. The failures of the first Gulf War vis a vis the Iraqi people didn't prevent us from starting this war.
War is motivated by fear and by hate, not by sideways kindness. Whether or not this war leads to a better life for Iraqis will not prevent a single war in the face of tomorrow's fear or tomorrow's hate.
Furthermore, you're hearing of these these "justifications" is irrelevant to those who believe them. Again, you're placing two things at odds in your own mind: a professed desire to see Iraqis lead a better life and a fear of those who may hold the opinion that the better life justifies a war. You need to embrace the first and reject the second based on its faulty premises. Otherwise, you're going to have to abandon the first in an attempt to dissuade the second.
It is my opinion that people would see these types of stories as justifications for the war. The more people see good things coming from war, no matter how foolish that is to think, the more people will get behind similiar ideas once it's pitched to them right. War supporters have been using this tactics to sell the war for some time now. I'm simply rejecting it. Rejecting it doesn't mean I don't welcome a better life for the Iraqis, it means what it means. Both can exist. You always like to tell someone what they think instead of listening to what they say. I reject using good stories for propaganda. .
Yes. What I think you're missing is that most of that anger was born before we ever got there. Our actions have allowed that anger to act .
I said myself that I would reject those who attack me, not use those who attack me so I could attack my neighbor.
Well, if they are not attacking the US forces and only attacking each other then the destruction is their fault. I am under the impression that if they want us out so badly they are probably acting on those thoughts.
It either forgives the killers or forgives everyone, including us. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that our actions caused theirs, but that our actions had no similar cause. You can't hold us to the morality of choice and absolve them of the morality of choice.[/quote]
There are better ways to go about getting food. There are also better ways to go about getting peace. You were smart enought to acknowledge that vis a vis America's war. You might try applying that same logic to the insurgent's war.
You're right to speak out against those who "get behind" death and destruction. I just don't think you do that to the extent you think you do. Keep in mind, you're speaking out against an article that shows some Iraqi people choosing a different course than death and destruction.
The only problem I have with the article is that fast food and buying crap isn't changing the conditions they are experiencing. In no way does that thought equal support for death or destruction....you make big leaps in order to say I'm expressing something I'm not. And to be quite honest, I think it's a weasely tactic.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What's a "Bush person"? I think I have an idea who the Anti-Bush people are...I actually voted against him (twice in 2000) more than I voted for him (once in 2004).
This isn't about that, and reading your posts throughout this thread, you have an understanding of where we are NOW, you are interested in addressing the question "where do we go from here?" I like you, think it's REALLY important.
As for the other folks, I'm not really interested in living 2003 over again b/c I wasn't even for going into Iraq in the first place. What I'm interested in is solving today's problems. I think the media is doing a horrible job at reporting what is going on right now. The fact that most people don't know what "winning" there means is a testament to that.
...
Well... it is tough to address the problems of today without first looking at how we got here. Today's problems have worsened because of the failures or neglects of yesterday. A lot of the options that were available yesterday are gone and will not come back.
Now... with the options that are open to us today... what can we do?
Look at the situation...
We have Shi'ite Iraqis fighting Sunni Iraqis... call it what you want... it is a Civil War. The Good thing is they are not targeting U.S. Soldiers. The Bad thing is U.S. Soldiers are caught in the crossfire.
...
We have a Shi'ite dominated Iraqi Government. The Bad thing is, they are being influenced by guys like Muqtada al Sadr who models himself after the Ayatollah Khomeni who brought about the Islamic Revolution that created Iran. The Good thing is... there is no good thing about the Iraqi Government.
...
We have (according to Bush and Rumsfeld) 320,000 trainned Iraqi Security Force Troops. The Bad thing is, can they be trusted? Are they competent? Is their alligence to their country, their Government or their Religious Sect? They are poorly equipped and carry around old AK-47s and AK-74s and ride around in open bed Toyota pick-up trucks. They don't want to be deployed to places other than their own neighborhoods. The Good thing is... well, they get to wear our old surplus 6 color BDUs.
...
We still have porous borders over there. No Good thing about that.
---
The FIX?
It all depends on what you want. Do you want to "WIN"? If so, define what "WIN" is. What is the ultimate goal? If you want Iraq to look like Saudi Arabia... well, you need to re-hire Saddam Hussein only tells him he can't be such and ass. If you want Iraq to look like Texas... you need to kick everyone that is there, out and move a bunch of Americans in there. If you want something in the Middle... you need to define what it is that you want. Right now... it looks like Iraq is moving closer to Iran than Texas. if you want it to look more like Texas, you will need to pour in a bunch more soldiers (150,000 to 200,000 should do the trick), a bunch of money... like in the trillions... invest a lot of time... and willing to lose 2 to 10 U.S. soldiers per week, on average, for the next few years.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
the fact that you think anything other than violence is mutually exclusive to news is why i think the media has done a bad job.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
I don't think that by accepting some good news, regardless of the magnitude of it, is going to lead to a justification of the invasion. To me it's a marker on how bad the situation there really is when more cell phone sales is considered good news.
You're going to have to decide which is more important abook -- a better life for the Iraqis or the fact that some people may use that better life to justify the horrors that preceded it.
You have to face the fact that success in Iraq, measured by the welfare of its people, will require a place wherein pro-invasion people will be able to say "I told you so". You'd also be wise to understand that their ability to say that means very little outside their own self-image.
A better Iraq was possible without the war we see. But a better Iraq now requires the end to that war. An end to that war requires reasons for people to work together as opposed to shooting each other. It was the merchant trade of tea that in many ways led America to better days, so I'd advise you to not dismiss what "cell phones" and "fast food" may accomplish, at least in part.
Of course the Iraqi livelihood is the most important but why do I have to decide between which to discuss?
I'm well aware any good news that comes out of Iraq will be used to support their invasion. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to be right here letting them know we could have always helped these people without bombing their country to pieces and wrecking their lives first. It didn't have to cost us 3,000 American lives, the uncountable loss of Iraqi lives and billions of dollars down the tubes, all for this chaos.
I understand that people can't accomplish anything by shooting each other. But the Iraqi insurgency sees all the destruction around them and act out trying to defend their homeland. We had to result to genocide to to accomplish those 'better' days in America where we took over. Are we going to let that practice continue? Or should we let the Iraqis make their own 'better' days without our involvement if that's what they wish?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You don't have to decide between which to discuss. You have to decide which you want.
Of course it didn't.
:eek:
The Iraqi insurgency now sees a situation wherein they can attempt to sieze control of a nation and its people. To pretend that the Iraqi insurgency are fighting only to "defend their homeland" is ridiculous, particularly considering that the insurgency is just as responsible for attacking that homeland as America is and, furthermore, part of that insurgency can't even refer to Iraq as their "homeland".
What specifically are you referring to here?
We should certainly allow Iraqis to make their own "better" days without our involvement. The article posted is very much about them doing that.
So I have to accept the justifications for this war and perhaps future wars if I want to see things get better for the Iraqis?
Why is it ridiculous? They are blowing shit up inside their homeland because that's where the fight is. If we were invaded how would you defend yourself with the enemy embedded inside your area? Were they doing this before we invaded? Why do they think they can stand up against our military and not Saddam's? I don't think too much of the insurgency comes from outside, honestly. But I'm sure there does exist those who will try to capitalize on the mess we made.
The Native Americans who lived here before us.
Again, I'm all for these people having normal lives but I do not accept this as a justification for causing their problems to begin with. What country do we have to blow part next to bring them Cingular and the Whopper?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Actually, yes, but not in the way you're implying above. If you want a better future for Iraq, you have to accept the fact that this war happened and it cannot be undone. And you have to accept the fact that, if a positive outcome emerges, supporters of that war will celebrate because they will say the war played a role. And you'll have to accept the fact that they're right, in a way: this war, as a part of history, will have played a role in what Iraq becomes.
What you don't have to accept is that a better life for Iraqis required a war. And you don't have to accept that there are necessary evils in this word. And you don't have to accept the corrupt ideology that peace requires war. And you don't have to accept that replacing one corrupt dictatorship with one corrupt "democracy" is a measure of progress.
Umm...the key word is "enemy". Certainly I would defend my land if invaded. However, I wouldn't defend my land by killing my neighbors. That doesn't make much sense.
To a much smaller extent, yes. They also had an established regime that did it to them typically before they had a chance to do it to others.
For a lot of reasons. First, our military is not, at least on a large scale, going door to door slaughtering or imprisoning suspicious people. Secondly, our military doesn't have the reach that Saddam's had within Iraq. Thirdly, some populations in Iraq did stand up to Saddam and were summarily defeated.
Yes, but "our mess" doesn't forgive their behavior. Please do not excuse the choices of murderers, regardless of their reasons. It's unbecoming for you.
Certainly. But again, such a slaughter was not necessary for the life we lead. It was an unnecessary crime, as is the slaughter of Iraqis by both our military and the Iraqi insurgency.
None, hopefully. But it should tell you something about your own views on this situation to see how quickly you start talking about "justifications".
hahaha
If we were talking about bringing them White Castle and Natty Light, then it'd totally be worth the death & destruction for those left to taste the awesomeness.
well said
Well, we know Kumar loves it so that's close!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
Iraq War Results & Statistics as of December 17, 2006
From Deborah White,
Dec 20 2006
2,947 US Soldiers Killed, 22,229 Wounded, 140,000 Remain in Iraq
For your quick reading, I've listed key statistics about the Iraq War, taken primarily from data analyzed by various think tanks, including The Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, and from mainstream media sources. Data is presented as of December 17, 2006, except as indicated.
US SPENDING IN IRAQ
Spent & Approved War-Spending - $505 billion of US taxpayers' funds, including $70 billion more approved by the Republican-led Congress and signed by the President in Sept 2006 for Iraq & Afghanistan
Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion
US AND COALITION TROOPS IN IRAQ
Coalition Troops in Iraq (last updated by US as of Oct 2006) - Total 158,000, including 140,000 from the US, 7,200 from the UK, and 10,800 from all other nations (other than Iraq).
US Troop Casualities - 2,947 US troops; 98% male. 90% non-officers; 78% active duty, 14% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 10% African-American, 11% Latino. 20% killed by non-hostile causes. 53% of US casualties were under 25 years old. 68% were from the US Army
Non-US Troop Casualties - Total 247, with 126 from the UK
US Troops Wounded - 22,229, 20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries (total excludes psychological injuries)
US Troops with Serious Mental Health Problems 30% of US troops develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months of returning home
US Military Helicopters Downed in Iraq - 54 total, 27 by enemy fire
IRAQI TROOPS, CIVILIANS AND OTHERS IN IRAQ
Private Contractors in Iraq, Working in Support of US Army Troops - 84,105 (NOTE - The US has not updated this count since Oct 2005)
Journalists killed - 77, 41 by murder and 36 by acts of war
Journalists killed by US Forces - 14
Iraqi Military and Police Casualties - 5,871
Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.
Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated - 55,000
Non-Iraqi Contractors and Civilian Workers Killed - 449
Non-Iraqi Kidnapped - 298, including 54 killed, 147 released, 4 escaped, 6 rescued and 87 status unknown.
Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14
Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70
Daily Insurgent Attacks, Nov 2006 - 180
Daily Insurgent Attacks, Dec 2006 - 185
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Nov 2003 - 15,000
Estimated Insurgency Strength, Sept 2006 - 20,000+
QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS
Iraqi Unemployment Rate - 27 to 60%, where curfew not in effect
Consumer Price Inflation in 2005 - 20%
Iraqi Children Suffering from Chronic Malnutrition - 25% in May 2006
Iraqis Displaced by Iraq War, as of Nov 2006 - 650,000
Percent of professionals who have left Iraq since 2003 - 40%
Iraqi Physicians Before 2003 Invasion - 34,000
Iraqi Physicians Who Have Left Iraq Since 2005 Invasion - 12,000
Iraqi Physicians Murdered Since 2003 Invasion - 2,000
Average Daily Hours Iraqi Homes Have Electricity - 10.1
Average Daily Hours Baghdad Homes Have Electricity - 7.3
Number of Iraqi Homes Connected to Sewer Systems - 37%
Percentage of Iraqi Homes with Access to Piped Water - 78%
Water Treatment Plants Rehabilitated - 22%
RESULTS OF POLL Taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense (Source: Brookings Institute)
Iraqis "strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops - 82%
Iraqis who believe Coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security - less than 1%
Iraqis who feel less ecure because of the occupation - 67%
Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces - 72%
Where have a said we can undo the war? I accept what has happened because it happened. That's stating the obvious. The second part is point I was making.
So you think the insurgency's goal is to kill Iraqis? That doesn't make sense and that's why I don't believe it.
No?
I'm still having a hard time seeing how the insurgency is so effective against the largest military in the world and not so much against Saddam's
I don't forgive it for one second but I accept that that's what is happening because of it. It is ridiculous to say I excuse it because I know it's going on. Things happen for a reason. Knowing the cause and effect does not equal agreeing with the means.
Cool. That's what I've been saying.
Well, just the thought of more of this happening and being praised as 'the right thing to do' makes me wanna cringe. Everytime I log in on here I see people making the case for military involvement in other countries. Whatever it says about me to be apprehensive about such talks, so be it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You haven't said that.
The point you're making is that good news is not something you want to hear.
Of course. Do you think they're killing each other by accident?
It doesn't make sense to you because you're trying to portray them as "fighters for their homeland" in your own head. They're not fighting for their homeland. They're fighting for control of that land and the people in it. There's a very big difference between those two things.
Certainly not on the scale that Saddam's government was doing. Iraq, before we got there was very much a police state. Now it is largely a driftless anarchy. Neither is good.
Try imagining this: American forces start carpet bombing every arguable source of dissent. We go door to door, executing questionable people who own guns. We pay off informants who are willing to turn in anyone they choose without a question of innocence. We shut down the borders, killing people simply based on a gun's discretion. We put certain influential members of society in high positions of authority and bribe them with resources and power. How effective do you think the insurgency would be then?
No. It is happening because of both our actions and theirs. To pretend it is only the former is to forgive it abook.
You don't know the cause and effect if you discount the choices of killers.
I don't hear you saying the insurgents are criminals. I hear you saying that the insurgents are victims.
But no one is praising it as the right thing to do here. You brought up the "justifications".
I've seen you make that case too. You make the case for Iraqi insurgents here. You've made the case for Palestinian insurgents elsewhere. Many times I've heard you defend the actions of killers.
To be apprehensive of speech is to be afraid of what you might hear. You hearing it or not has no bearing on another thinking it. You might want to ponder that fear you have, and ask yourself where it comes from.
farfromglorified, are you suggesting there are not people who believe these "positive" things happening are justification for what is happening there? From what else you've been saying, I felt you were discerning the fine lines quite well, excepting your critique of Abook and her purposes here.
I very much see and agree with what you are saying, here, Abook.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm suggesting that their beliefs, abook's fear of those beliefs, and the validity of those beliefs are three very different things.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'd accept that as truth if half of the atrocities weren't being defended, and if the fear wasn't mutually exclusive to the professed desired end.
I'll say the same thing to you as I did to abook. If a better Iraq is your goal, you'll have to be prepared for the "I told you so's". You don't have to accept them as valid, but you must understand that others will accept them as valid. So you'll have to choose which is more important -- a better Iraq, or the perceptions of fools.
I understood all the rest you were saying, why you were saying it and why it is valid. And I agree with you. I also very much appreciate that for a "conservative" person, that you also openly appreciate the impropriety of taking over countries and killing vast amounts of people in the process.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
As a justification for this war and others in the future....you left that part out.
I think they are trying to hinder the US military and often take out whoever else may be in the way*and no, I do not condone that practice but it is what I think is happening*. Which is why I think we should pull out. As far as the two religous groups fighting for power, how are we ever going to control that? The same way Saddam did?
So, you don't think there are insurgents who want the US out? You don't think there are people there angry enough with what has happened to their country to take up arms? You said yourself you would do the same.
I feel that a lot of this is happening and the insurgency is flourishing.
Our actions brought about their actions. That doesn't make me forgive indiscriminate killing of anyone, sorry. All that does is paint me as someone who is cheering on this death instead of the truth which is me seeing their perpsective while not agreeing with the actions they choose as their solution.
And I don't see you understanding their perspective and why they are choosing the crime. You just try to pretend that their intentions are all needless and that they have no good reason to rebel. Saying that a poor person robbed me because he needed to feed his family doesn't make me condone his theft. There, of course, could be better ways to go about getting food.
No one thinks it was the right thing to do to invade Iraq?
No, I understand what drives them to it. I've never praised killing. I've never said 'the palestinians should be able to kill whoever they wish because they have been wronged!' I speak out against demonizing them as animals who deserve what they get. I think there are far better ways of making progress.
My fear is people rallying behind the suggestion future wars. I guess I do fear hearing so many getting behind the death and destruction of yet another country. So I speak out when I think it is appropriate to show it wasn't worth it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
"I happen to believe and stand behind this standard, understanding the value and qualitative judgments, personally. With all due respect, your method is different, not better."
"the impropriety of taking over countries and killing vast amounts of people in the process."
The reason I'm asking is this. How is it "improper" to take over countries and kill vast amounts of people in the process? Could one not say that it is simply a "different method, not worse"?
To see Iraq get any better you have to understand the opposition and why they are rebeling.....so we can work at making it STOP not defend it or excuse it.
Well not accepting them as valid spurs discussion of those thoughts. You never seem happy with just accepting anyone's beliefs that you view as wrong, whereas I mean, you voice your opposition to those beliefs.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Abook, what you need to understand is that a better life for Iraqis is actually irrelevant to justifying future wars. The failures of the Vietnam War did not prevent us from starting this war. The failures of the first Gulf War vis a vis the Iraqi people didn't prevent us from starting this war.
War is motivated by fear and by hate, not by sideways kindness. Whether or not this war leads to a better life for Iraqis will not prevent a single war in the face of tomorrow's fear or tomorrow's hate.
Furthermore, you're hearing of these these "justifications" is irrelevant to those who believe them. Again, you're placing two things at odds in your own mind: a professed desire to see Iraqis lead a better life and a fear of those who may hold the opinion that the better life justifies a war. You need to embrace the first and reject the second based on its faulty premises. Otherwise, you're going to have to abandon the first in an attempt to dissuade the second.
Us pulling out will not stop the revenge killings and the interfaith violence. Our presense allowed those things to take root -- our removal will not end them.
The Iraqi insurgency targets Iraqis more than it targets coalition forces. The death squads and the militias are not largely hunting us -- they're largely hunting each other.
That said, I do support a complete removal of US forces if those forces cannot be better used (I've explained the correct approach for US forces in another thread), but for different reasons outside the context of this discussion. I do not pretend, however, that a removal of US forces will end any violence. In fact, it will likely increase that violence.
They all want the US out.
Yes. What I think you're missing is that most of that anger was born before we ever got there. Our actions have allowed that anger to act.
I said myself that I would reject those who attack me, not use those who attack me so I could attack my neighbor.
You can sell that BS to Ahnimus, but not to me. If you want to play this game, I'll simply say that our actions were brought about by someone else's actions.
It either forgives the killers or forgives everyone, including us. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that our actions caused theirs, but that our actions had no similar cause. You can't hold us to the morality of choice and absolve them of the morality of choice.
I haven't decided if you cheer on death or not. I've seen you go both ways.
There are better ways to go about getting food. There are also better ways to go about getting peace. You were smart enought to acknowledge that vis a vis America's war. You might try applying that same logic to the insurgent's war.
Certainly many people do. My only point was that no one within this thread was saying that the posted article justifies the invasion.
You're right to speak out against those who "get behind" death and destruction. I just don't think you do that to the extent you think you do. Keep in mind, you're speaking out against an article that shows some Iraqi people choosing a different course than death and destruction.
For example, I've been anti-violence for many years. Probably since around the time I held a knife on my boyfriend 18 years ago. I began to develop and hone a new way--one in which I could not give myself license to harm others in any way. In the process since then, I've had numerous emotionally violent outburts to many degrees. (against my own standard) Can you understand how I am at peace with my own philosophy, and that I am human and also fall short of the ideal when I am lowered on resources? I do not EVER justify my non-ideal acts. But I accept them. Humans are not logical. We can seek progress in the light of perfection, yet rarely are we perfect. Truly understanding the vast ranges of dichotomous behaviours inherent to humans is a very crucial piece of the puzzle in these discussions. It's not one that needs to be changed, but rather the two views need to come into harmony and respect of one another.
This little personal aside here has nothing to do with what Abook is saying. I'm referring in general to the logic standards these world situations are being judged by in certain people's minds, even when logic is not a valid method of assessing variables that are alogical. Those who have a natural aptitude of seeing the alogical, and who can easily understand and cope with it have a valid voice. In particular, I'm applauding Abook and Byrnzie for taking on these issues, and being confronted for a lack of standard when that is not even close to being the case.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It is my opinion that people would see these types of stories as justifications for the war. The more people see good things coming from war, no matter how foolish that is to think, the more people will get behind similiar ideas once it's pitched to them right. War supporters have been using this tactics to sell the war for some time now. I'm simply rejecting it. Rejecting it doesn't mean I don't welcome a better life for the Iraqis, it means what it means. Both can exist. You always like to tell someone what they think instead of listening to what they say. I reject using good stories for propaganda. .
Well, if they are not attacking the US forces and only attacking each other then the destruction is their fault. I am under the impression that if they want us out so badly they are probably acting on those thoughts.
It either forgives the killers or forgives everyone, including us. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that our actions caused theirs, but that our actions had no similar cause. You can't hold us to the morality of choice and absolve them of the morality of choice.[/quote]
Everyone's reasonings are not equal.
I've never supported any killing and have always encouraged peaceful, diplomatic solutions.
I did.
Where did I say anyone had said it in this thread? I said what I did knowing what I've read in other threads and have seen elsewhere.
The only problem I have with the article is that fast food and buying crap isn't changing the conditions they are experiencing. In no way does that thought equal support for death or destruction....you make big leaps in order to say I'm expressing something I'm not. And to be quite honest, I think it's a weasely tactic.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well... it is tough to address the problems of today without first looking at how we got here. Today's problems have worsened because of the failures or neglects of yesterday. A lot of the options that were available yesterday are gone and will not come back.
Now... with the options that are open to us today... what can we do?
Look at the situation...
We have Shi'ite Iraqis fighting Sunni Iraqis... call it what you want... it is a Civil War. The Good thing is they are not targeting U.S. Soldiers. The Bad thing is U.S. Soldiers are caught in the crossfire.
...
We have a Shi'ite dominated Iraqi Government. The Bad thing is, they are being influenced by guys like Muqtada al Sadr who models himself after the Ayatollah Khomeni who brought about the Islamic Revolution that created Iran. The Good thing is... there is no good thing about the Iraqi Government.
...
We have (according to Bush and Rumsfeld) 320,000 trainned Iraqi Security Force Troops. The Bad thing is, can they be trusted? Are they competent? Is their alligence to their country, their Government or their Religious Sect? They are poorly equipped and carry around old AK-47s and AK-74s and ride around in open bed Toyota pick-up trucks. They don't want to be deployed to places other than their own neighborhoods. The Good thing is... well, they get to wear our old surplus 6 color BDUs.
...
We still have porous borders over there. No Good thing about that.
---
The FIX?
It all depends on what you want. Do you want to "WIN"? If so, define what "WIN" is. What is the ultimate goal? If you want Iraq to look like Saudi Arabia... well, you need to re-hire Saddam Hussein only tells him he can't be such and ass. If you want Iraq to look like Texas... you need to kick everyone that is there, out and move a bunch of Americans in there. If you want something in the Middle... you need to define what it is that you want. Right now... it looks like Iraq is moving closer to Iran than Texas. if you want it to look more like Texas, you will need to pour in a bunch more soldiers (150,000 to 200,000 should do the trick), a bunch of money... like in the trillions... invest a lot of time... and willing to lose 2 to 10 U.S. soldiers per week, on average, for the next few years.
Hail, Hail!!!