Is Iraq a noble cause?

NCfan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Ultimately (at this point) I believe it's about Christians not liking Muslims. They don't like their language...they don't like how they dress... they essentially don't like their culture period... and especially the don't like their religion. Substitute "don't like" with trust if you will.

Christians are going to teach all the Muslims a really good lesson. Christians are better, so don't mess with them.

Some of that may be true...but is it all just and right?

I guess when words no longer work... violence is the only available option.

I won't disagree that there is tension between the religions, but why is it that you frame this in terms of Christians not liking Muslims, when the case could just as easily be made that all of this mess is due to Muslims not liking Christians? Afterall, I have never heard any politician or soldier say that our war in Iraq or the war on terror has anything to do with Jesus. On the other hand, Allah is central to the fight/cause of Al Qaeda, etc...

polaris

NCfan wrote:

There are LOTS of aggressors from many different places both inside and outside of Iraq. For you to suggest that the Americans are the lone aggressors here just shows your biased rationale.

We came in and defeated the regime that controlled the country and that created a power vacuum. Now there is a fight to gain control of the country again, and lots of different groups have stepped into the ring. The Americans are fighting for a democracy and the only people we are fighitng are those against a democracy.

did i say the 1% were americans? ... did i say the aggressors were all american?? ... no, i did not ... you can continue to discuss based on a perceived reality of my opinion and the situation over there ... neither of which is true ...

NCfan

polaris wrote:

did i say the 1% were americans? ... did i say the aggressors were all american?? ... no, i did not ... you can continue to discuss based on a perceived reality of my opinion and the situation over there ... neither of which is true ...

No, and I didn't claim that you did either. I said you "suggested" American's were the sole aggressors - as you did.

You didn't ask me who the aggressors where and where they come from to get a straight answer from me. You asked that question in terms of implicating Americans. Anybody would draw that conclusion, especially given your stance on the America and the war.

rebornFixer

angelica wrote:

There are "reasons" for this Christians not liking Muslims stuff. And yet at core, it is what it is. If Christians could face the facts of their underlying motivations, beyond the "reasons", rather than pointing the finger at the other guy, then there would be some awareness. At this point, it's been about denial on the Christian side, while demonizing the other side.

So frankly, this is the first time I've personally consciously acknowledged this point--thanks to Roland--and I plan to spread awareness of it when humanly possible. Christians don't like Muslims. There. The history books will show it down the road, no matter what denial or "justification/reasons" take place now.

It's not all Christians* by any stretch of the imagination, and it's definitely , much more than just Christians, but when we're generalizing these topics 1 or 2 hundred years from now, with the perspective, the finer points will be lost.

*I do not refer to the term "Christian" in the ideal sense of the word, but in the very human, practically applied, flawed sense.

Just remember that simplistic views that place all the blame on only one side are not helpful.

rebornFixer

NCfan wrote:

I won't disagree that there is tension between the religions, but why is it that you frame this in terms of Christians not liking Muslims, when the case could just as easily be made that all of this mess is due to Muslims not liking Christians? Afterall, I have never heard any politician or soldier say that our war in Iraq or the war on terror has anything to do with Jesus. On the other hand, Allah is central to the fight/cause of Al Qaeda, etc...

Exactly. Its worrysome to me when someone comes to the conclusion that one side should carry all the blame. That is a prime characteristic of the thinking styles that ultimately make these problems a lot worse. Look throughout history at how many wars and genocides occured because of attribution of blame directed solely at one group of people.

my2hands

to all of those that think our kids over there are the only thing stopping full on genocide

what happened to the 300,000 trained up iraqi army? why cant they police their own country?

my2hands

also, someone remind me how a 19 year old from Kansas is supposed to stop a civil war in Iraq?

NCfan

my2hands wrote:

also, someone remind me how a 19 year old from Kansas is supposed to stop a civil war in Iraq?

They drive tanks, fly jets, tote machine guns, etc... These things usually makes opponents either submit, flee or die.

Flannel Shirt

Freedom is achieved through Revolution....

I say we bring our soldiers home and let them have a civil war.

angelica

reborncareerist wrote:

Just remember that simplistic views that place all the blame on only one side are not helpful.

The responsibility for this war is on the United States of America. Plain and simple. It's simplistic in it's truthfulness.

polaris

NCfan wrote:

No, and I didn't claim that you did either. I said you "suggested" American's were the sole aggressors - as you did.

You didn't ask me who the aggressors where and where they come from to get a straight answer from me. You asked that question in terms of implicating Americans. Anybody would draw that conclusion, especially given your stance on the America and the war.

where did i suggest americans were the sole aggressors??

and again - you can discuss with your own perceived reality but you would be wrong ...

my2hands

NCfan wrote:

They drive tanks, fly jets, tote machine guns, etc... These things usually makes opponents either submit, flee or die.

and none of the above can stop a civil war, and it hasnt.

one thing i notice in my fellow countrymen is they think our military is this magical and all being problem solver. it is always the other way around. i wish some pople would not be so over confident in our military's ability


os... not to mention iraqi's can drive tanks, fly jets, and tote machine guns.

VINNY GOOMBA

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

well Christian bombs and bullets have been flying at them for the past 30 years or so...

Christian bombs haven't been flying at anyone. It is tragic what some people do, and claim to be "Christians." A true Christian doesn't believe in war under any circumstance. Maybe that's what you're saying? If it is, we are on the same page... I truly hate how anyone (politicains) uses this religion to their advantage to gain votes, and never actually understands what it really means to be one, or purpousely ignores their responsibility as a Christian. But yes, there are a lot of very hypocritical people in all religions... Of course, nobody's perfect, and everyone makes mistakes / errors in judgement, but some things really are SO ingrained in an idea/belief that if they are ignored or discounted, what is the sense in claiming to believe in this idea? I feel that War is something that is inherently WRONG and is against all teachings of Christianity. In other words, how can anyone be a Christian and really believe that massive violence, and imposing your influence and will on people is right? It's like being a Vegan and thinking that hamburgers are the only way to get your protein.

Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of peaceful Muslims who look at their extremist brothers the same way I look at some of the people on the Religious Right. They make us look like horrible people... If only people paid attention to what they believed, and were consistent in those beliefs, they'd see the wrong in what they do.

VINNY GOOMBA

angelica wrote:

*I do not refer to the term "Christian" in the ideal sense of the word, but in the very human, practically applied, flawed sense.

There ya go. Unfortunately, there are so many people out there that wave the flag as proudly as the cross, as proudly as their gun, as proudly as their pride that AMERICA, and Especially "Christian" America is better than everyone else in the world!

Ideally, we really believe that we AREN'T any better, and that the rest of the world are our brothers and sisters. Human nature isn't gonna always have us loving them, but we sure as hell don't want to bomb them to pieces. It's very tough to love people that don't love you... Especially when, many people who look like you, and CLAIM to share the same ideas give them reason to hate you.

Cosmo

NCfan wrote:

They drive tanks, fly jets, tote machine guns, etc... These things usually makes opponents either submit, flee or die.

...
Hmmmmm... "Submit... Flee... Die." Which one is 'Freedom' and which one is 'Democracy'? And is the one that's left, 'Nobility'?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Flannel Shirt wrote:

Freedom is achieved through Revolution....

I say we bring our soldiers home and let them have a civil war.

The US should have pulled out after Saddam was overthrown. This is how it's supposed to work...and has (I believe) always been done in the past. Overthrow the dictator and get out. This ongoing year after year after year after year to no end occupation thing is completely and utterly fucked.

They are going to have their civil way anyways no matter when the US decides to pull out. It's all so ridiculous at this point... throwing money, lives, and resources into the fire...(all the while stoking the fire mind you)

I'm with you on this...

Cosmo

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The US should have pulled out after Saddam was overthrown. This is how it's supposed to work...and has (I believe) always been done in the past. Overthrow the dictator and get out. This ongoing year after year after year after year to no end occupation thing is completely and utterly fucked.

They are going to have their civil way anyways no matter when the US decides to pull out. It's all so ridiculous at this point... throwing money, lives, and resources into the fire...(all the while stoking the fire mind you)

I'm with you on this...

...
Actually... a Revolution occurs when the people in an oppressed nation rise against their establishment. The Iraqi people should have been the ones to beging this quest. If they had... and the u.S. backed the rebellion with military might to defeat and vanquish the Hussein regime... then, yeah... that would have been noble.
but, it didn't happen that way. We went in with OUR best intrests at hand... we didn't give a fuck about those god damned towelheaded camel jockeys. It was because our excuses of Weapons of Mass Destruction and al Qaeda trainning camps didn't pan out that we dug up the Spreading Freedom and Democracy excuse.
Maybe this Civil War is in Iraq's best interest. Like, what would have happened in 1770 if France had kept a lid on our American Revolution?
Answer: France couldn't stay here forever... as soon as they left, we'd break out the guns and boot the English Army out... right?

angelica

NCfan wrote:

We came in and defeated the regime that controlled the country and that created a power vacuum. Now there is a fight to gain control of the country again, and lots of different groups have stepped into the ring. The Americans are fighting for a democracy and the only people we are fighitng are those against a democracy.

This is exactly why the US invasion is responsible. The US created not only a power vacuum, but a lack of balance and stability. And which set other necessary variables into play.

WhiteMaleRat

angelica wrote:

This is exactly why the US invasion is responsible. The US created not only a power vacuum, but a lack of balance and stability. And which set other necessary variables into play.

Saddam is to blame more than any one person or country, plain and simple.

angelica

WhiteMaleRat wrote:

Saddam is to blame more than any one person or country, plain and simple.

Saddam did NOT control the actions of the United States of America, therefore it is impossible that he can be held accountable for what he does not control. Saddam is 100% responsible for each and everyone of his own actions, however, including the consequences of his actions.

If you confuse basic accountability, and blend the two parties, rather than hold them fully accountable for their respective deeds, the situation will continue to be distorted, rather than understood.

Again, it is the United States of America, solely, that is responsible for leading the invasion and creating, according to NCfan, "a power vacuum", and the self-evident imbalance that exists to this day.