• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kerry: US troops are terrorists

manny said:
The ones who did were massacred in '91. :(
Click to expand...
Yes and it is tragic, but the horribleness of the government was reason enough to military force to press a country into another way of life, why not China? or Afghanistan under the Taliban? Why wait until we had just cause (in the case of the latter) or at all (in the case of the former)? Do you really think that Saddam was any worse than those others?

If we really think that being a royal bastard is sufficient reason to topple a government and replace it with our preferred system of government, then how can we possibly blame the former Soviet Union for wanting to force communism on us during the Cold War?

Don't you see the double standard in this sort of reasoning to go to war?
 
Just thinking said:
Forcing?

The people in Iraq are having quite a say in that each time an election is held they come out in number, despite the curtain of death over them for such actions. Are you suggesting our force in "getting-out-the-vote" is greater than the threat of death from the insurgents? ... or that there may be other issues at play? Such as the taste of freedom and self rule.
Click to expand...

At the risk of being called a racist again by Rik, there definitely seems to be a strong cultural bias amongst Muslims against freedom and self rule. Much as with evangelical Christians, I might add. I see very little evidence that the Iraqis as a whole really want the kind of democracy that we have.
 
Upchurch said:
Not on the sole issue of forcing a way of life on another people, it isn't.
Click to expand...
Sharansky states that a preferance for freedom is axiomatic in human beings. Since a tyranny is basically a form of slavery on a national scale...and subjects living under a tyrant have no freedom of expression...it can be logically assumed that the people who live in such an un-free state would choose to live in a free state if the choice were available to them.

Therefore if what Sharansky theorizes is true, (and I think it makes good logical sense), we have not "forced a way of life on other people" so much as we have offered them the chance to create a free Iraqi state that will allow the people to govern themselves through their elected representatives.

If we were to follow your logic we could castigate President Lincoln for "forcing" his "way of life" upon the south.

-z
 
Mark said:
... I see very little evidence that the Iraqis as a whole really want the kind of democracy that we have.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it was ever intended to be just like ours.

But they do seem to like the idea of voting. Funny, the numbers aren't coming out in such overwhelming preference for one side like they did with Saddam in power.
 
Mark said:
At the risk of being called a racist again by Rik, there definitely seems to be a strong cultural bias amongst Muslims against freedom and self rule. Much as with evangelical Christians, I might add. I see very little evidence that the Iraqis as a whole really want the kind of democracy that we have.
Click to expand...

You're not a racist, nor did I ever say you were. Your assertion though, which you know to be untrue makes you a ______. (fill in the blank)

-z
 
rikzilla said:
If we were to follow your logic we could castigate President Lincoln for "forcing" his "way of life" upon the south.
Click to expand...

That is a correct and precise description of events, according to a number of people whose opinions matter exactly jack ◊◊◊◊ in the grand scheme of things in the 21st century.

They're wrong, and those who think Iraq cannot (as opposed to will not) become a self-sustaining democracy are wrong. I wonder how many more national ballots it'll take before opinions start shifting?

BTW, no one says Iraq is going to have a system "just like ours." No one has a system "just like ours"! They'll balance their priorities just like any other electorate.
 
rikzilla said:
Sharansky states that a preferance for freedom is axiomatic in human beings. Since a tyranny is basically a form of slavery on a national scale...and subjects living under a tyrant have no freedom of expression...it can be logically assumed that the people who live in such an un-free state would choose to live in a free state if the choice were available to them.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this, assuming the society in question had the tools to cope with self-rule.

Do you not find it odd that democracy took a 1500-ish year sabbatical from world politics*? Do you think there were no opportunities for the peasants to rise up and form a democracy in all that time? Or was there another factor involved?

* eta: or at least western politics. My world history is too spotty to be confident in that claim.
 
Upchurch said:
I would agree with this, assuming the society in question had the tools to cope with self-rule.

Do you not find it odd that democracy took a 1500-ish year sabbatical from world politics*? Do you think there were no opportunities for the peasants to rise up and form a democracy in all that time? Or was there another factor involved?

* eta: or at least western politics. My world history is too spotty to be confident in that claim.
Click to expand...

Given how readily most people in this country are willing to give up their freedoms for the mere illusion of safety, I, too, have to reject Sharansky's notion.
 
Grammatron said:
I missed this post but I would like to comment on it.


This is already happening, seems like a disengenious statement to me.

Another statement devoit of context; what home and why? Are the US troops going in random homes? These are the kind of dumb things one can say to make US troops look bad. If he was trying to say he doesn't want US troops to be enforcing the law he could and should have phrased it far better.

Again, context? Better yed, evidence? Not for scaring, that one is tough to prove, but certainly he could have clued us in which customs US troops keep violating over there.

And they are starting to do that.

I think I did just that.
Click to expand...

I think I don't see interpretation. Show me.

You commented quite a bit, but I am not able to tell if your comments are in regard to Kerry's statement or to my interpretation. Please clarify.
 
Upchurch said:
I would agree with this, assuming the society in question had the tools to cope with self-rule.

Do you not find it odd that democracy took a 1500-ish year sabbatical from world politics*? Do you think there were no opportunities for the peasants to rise up and form a democracy in all that time? Or was there another factor involved?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting Iraq now wait 1500 years before becoming democratic? Or that they presently lack these tools needed for democracy? Or that this other factor you did not mention now plagues Iraq?
 
Jocko said:
Possible; but any action we take is likely to be guided by laser and delivered from 35,000 feet, not on the ground.

It's tricky because no one is going to come right out and say, "holy crap, the US is serious about pushing reform, better get on board before I get steamrolled." But the best evidence is the sheer number of reforms, big and small, all happening in the span of a year and a half. The chances of it all being coincidental are stupefyingly small.
Click to expand...
1 - 35,000 feet is the easy part. The follow-up action on the ground is necessary though, and that is what gets our guys killed. Forgetting about the follow-up on the ground has been previously demonstrated to be a really bad idea.

2 - Coincidence does not imply cause. It does form a basis for research - you know, digging up facts and evidence and stuff. Got any?
Also, how did you figure your odds? How much is 'stupefyingly'?
 
Just thinking said:
Another big difference is that Saddam had made sure that uprisings could not occur -- unless I'm mistaken and the ownership of firearms was a protected right to the citizenry.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 'cause the American Revolutionaries obeyed the law of the land and it is just that hard to get weapons into Iraq. :rolleyes:
 
Upchurch said:
Yeah, 'cause the American Revolutionaries obeyed the law of the land and it is just that hard to get weapons into Iraq. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It was illegal for the colonists to posess firearms?

(PS: You really thought I was serious about the 1500 year thing?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom