Big Brother is Watching- No surprises anymore

[John Uskglass]

You could have... you know... acted like a mature nation and not like a little kid who got tripped in gym class

Have any examples of any country outside of Isreal not going batshit over a massive terrorist action?

Especially on the scale of 9/11?

Trick question, nothing has been on the scale of 9/11. All states devolve with that kind of stuff.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Have any examples of any country outside of Isreal not going batshit over a massive terrorist action?

Especially on the scale of 9/11?

Trick question, nothing has been on the scale of 9/11. All states devolve with that kind of stuff.

How 'bout GB? Spain (Who has proved, BTW, to be much more effective at capturing real terrorists). Shit, not even Russia invaded anybody after Beslan and the Moscow Theatre.

 

[John Uskglass]

How 'bout GB?

They've never had as many constitutional liberties as we do, honestly. And as I seem to recall it was not on the scale of 9/11?

Spain

They elected Socialists. You know I'm never going to be able to see that as a good thing in any situation, ever.

Who has proved, BTW, to be much more effective at capturing real terrorists)

You think that there have been no plots against the USA for the last four years DDD? Hah. I wish.

Shit, not even Russia invaded anybody after Beslan and the Moscow Theatre.

Problem was that Russia was already in a war far worse and far more ancient then our Iraq conflict, and that is what the terrorists seized on in Beslan and Moscow. All the Russians had to do was remove all trappings of Democracy and step up the pace of state sponsored ethnic conflict.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

They elected Socialists. You know I'm never going to be able to see that as a good thing in any situation, ever.

Maybe because they are more effective at this then the right wing?

You think that there have been no plots against the USA for the last four years DDD? Hah. I wish.

Point is that they captured actual terrorist, not German citizens who happen to be of mid eastern background.

Problem was that Russia was already in a war far worse and far more ancient then our Iraq conflict, and that is what the terrorists seized on in Beslan and Moscow. All the Russians had to do was remove all trappings of Democracy and step up the pace of state sponsored ethnic conflict.

And yet again they were pointed towards the real enemy...

ED IT: Oh yeah, and 60 years of terrorism in GB does amount to something. And saying that Britain has less constitutional liberties than the U.S. is a poor argument.

 

[Quantos Leap]

People willing to give up freedom for a little safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.

I like Benjamin Franklin a lot, but that was in the time before thermonuclear devices, 1848 and a century of rightious fighting against revolutions and terrorism.

John, if you are so concerned with the issue of nuclear devices being snuck into the country, so much you even support Bush's fantastic way of canceling civil liberties in attempt to ward against it, why are our borders wide open? With now only recently a few token promises of a few more border guards and security devices.

And didn't you in another thread say that people who want tougher border regulation are racist? Oh yes..."let's not mind having our liberties usurped for the sake of security, but let's keep those borders open and those waves of undocumented foreigners coming." Maybe it's just me, but those two goals seem to be counterproductive with one another.

I'm very surprised people still can't see how ridiculous Bush's campaign of fear mongering is.

Hell, Abraham Lincoln did a hell of a lot worse then Bush is doing.

Ahahahaha!

You make me laugh dude.

 

[Thrincold]

First I just wanna say hello, new to the boards. Now to piss people off I'm sure

We were justified in going into Afganistan. Plain and simple.

Iraq is a good way for Bush and his buddies to make money.

On to other countries. France and Germany both were against Iraq due to multi-billion dollar loans to the gov't of Iraq before the war. Thats pretty much it, no moral high road there at all.

Bush and his policies are backwards and largely wrong. With the countries 2 party elitist form of government though what could one ever expect.

Look at everything that has been done in the past 6 or so years and then read "1984".

All I have to say about Bush is that 4 is not 2, no matter what his regime and the news media he controls tries to say.

Then again if we'd been stuck with Kerry we'd have been really screwed.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

We were justified in going into Afganistan. Plain and simple.

Yeah, and a bang-up job you did there. Congratulations on capturing Osama. And not bombing a wedding. And not making torture camps there...

On to other countries. France and Germany both were against Iraq due to multi-billion dollar loans to the gov't of Iraq before the war. Thats pretty much it, no moral high road there at all.

No they were against it because it was a stupid and useless thing to do, what with it making the region more volatile and making the whole world a more dangerous place to live in and all...

 

[Thrincold]

Yeah, and a bang-up job you did there. Congratulations on capturing Osama. And not bombing a wedding. And not making torture camps there...

Woa there. I never said we've done what we set out to do. I didn't say we went about things the right way. I also didn't say we've succeeded in the least. I just said we were justified for going there.

Mostly all we've done there is get rid of Al-Queda (mostly) and increase the heroin trade in Europe by about 70%. Given the U.S's record in wars in the past 1/2 century that one is a resounding success compaired to our previous attempts.

 

[John Uskglass]

Yeah, and a bang-up job you did there. Congratulations on capturing Osama. And not bombing a wedding. And not making torture camps there...

Considering how high Afghan opinion is of the US presense, you are in the wrong on every detail.

No they were against it because it was a stupid and useless thing to do, what with it making the region more volatile and making the whole world a more dangerous place to live in and all...

Politicians are rarley that black and white. France and Germany had a lot more to loose from the Baathists loosing then the Americans had to gain, as we've lost a lot of prestige, a lot of money and quite a few good men.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Then again if we'd been stuck with Kerry we'd have been really screwed.

Isn't this statement a game of shoulda-woulda-coulda?

I mean, what proof do you have that Kerry would have screwed things up worse than Dubya already had done in his first term?

What politicians say when they're running for office is rarely the same as they do once they're in the office.

In fact, one could say that your statement was...fearmongering.

They [Spain] elected Socialists. You know I'm never going to be able to see that as a good thing in any situation, ever.

Spain's government became Socialist only after al-Quaida made their big terrorist attack in Madrid, an attack made in response to Spain's decision to follow the US into Iraq. The timing of the attack was most likely done to influence the elections that took place only a few days after the attack.

How on earth can anyone say that simply because a country is Socialist, that it is not equal to (or better than, even) the US in preventing terrorist attacks? Spain has been dealing with ETA for decades. A domestically-based terrorist group, to boot.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Considering how high Afghan opinion is of the US presense, you are in the wrong on every detail.

Oh, rly? So, the US did capture Osama, not bomb a wedding and not make torture camps. Public opinion (known to have been skewed by the american propaganda) matters not here.

as we've lost a lot of prestige, a lot of money and quite a few good men.

That you did.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

We already captured Osama a long time ago. He is in a secure bunker under the White House hanging out with his friends.

 

[Ashmo]

Well, the war against Afghanistan was not fully justified, but it was well-founded.

The Taliban have been decimated, but the presence of the Al'Qaida was not fully removed (which is an impossible task for conventional warfare anyway -- even though the US administration doesn't seem to grasp that).

Osama and the Bin Ladens, who, if I remember correctly, were flown out of the US after the November 11th attempt with help of the US administration (unless those reports have been proven wrong at some point in the last four years), haven't been found or killed yet (although there were indicators that he might already have had some fatal disease anyway).

The Iraq war doesn't deserve much of a discussion -- it was an unjustified follow-up that showed off pretty much every single mistake that can be made and most recently ended with Hussein being brought to a LOCAL court for violations against INTERNATIONAL law, a crime for which there already is a nice international court somewhere else (coincidentally, the same court for which the US government has declared that they would "rescue" any US citizen or soldier who might end up at -- teh funny).

I'm not going to feed the CCR any longer, so I'll just end this with a sigh:

*sigh*

PS: If anyone wants to make a book on the second Gulf War, they should call it "Of plastic turkeys and other political blunders" -- I'd buy it.

 

[Brother None]

Your humble opinion is not grounded in American political history. It takes a shitload for an encumbant who has seen three years of war and terror and, frankly, handeled the second very, very well. The Democrats should not have even been close.

Actually, I'm fairly sure Bush has never actually *seen* a war.

Also, handling should be seen in results. You weren't attacked again. Great. But this may surprise you; not getting attacked isn't actually *that* challenging. What else do you have to show on your War on Terror?

By the way, have you won the War on Drugs yet?

Next; War on Ideas!

The founders lived in a diffirent world. Hell, Abraham Lincoln did a hell of a lot worse then Bush is doing.

Uh...huh.

France under the modern UMP or the SP could not lead a Turk to Raki. Need I remind you of the little constitution that failed this year?

Need I remind you that France renounced the constitution as a democratic institution and thus again affirmed its position as leader of the EU, as it soon became apparent that the people of many other countries were just as negative about it. It only got shot down in Holland, but don't think for one second it would've stood a chance in Belgium or Great Britain.

This is not a question of French leadership. This would be a question of its governments efficiency which has nothing to do with its leadership of the EU. France's leadership has only ended now because GB is taking up the rope and Germany is switching sides towards GB, the constitution has dick to do with it.

Germans worry to much about their own economy. Main economic problem in Germany is consumer confidence: hell, even I noticed how down everyone was when I was there.

Hahahahaha. Yeah. Everyone is down in Europe. 'cause, y'know, we're all depressed 'cause we're not Americans and all.

Shit, sometimes you still manage to surprise me.

Also; what does that have to do with the fear-mongering subject at hand, hmmm?

Get the fuck out of your ivory tower Kharn. This is down right insulting. The worst terror attack of all times happens to the most powerful nation in the world and there is going to be a war.

OH TEH NOES! TEH WORST TERRORIST ATTACK OF ALL TIME!

Does that show that;

a) terrorism in general doesn't actually claim that many people's lives and shouldn't be blown up beyond all proportions
or
b) terrorism is teh terrible worst terrorist attack of all time = worst event in human history

Ahm...

I'll be going for a, John, I'll be going for a.

You overreacted, get over it. 2,000 civilians dying is horrible, but it's *nothing* on the face of history. You've killed tens of thousands of civilians in your drive for revenge. How is that supposed to be justified?

I mean, fuck, just look at the history

Ok. I wasn't aware that you were the type of person to use history to excuse yourself, but ok...

Here's a few others:
"Hell, the nazis reacted much worse to economic hardships, so we can shoot a few Jews now!"
"Apartheid was much worse in South Africa, who cares if we beat up these niggers?"
"They were much more strict on religiousness in the Dark Ages, so it doesn't matter if I cut off your penis for masturbating now"

Oh, here's an idea: history isn't an excuse for the present.

The problem here was a matter of economic hardship and historical heritage, not terrorism.

The cause of WW I was an unbalanced power block system coupled with nationalism, a bomb waiting to go off. Not Princip.

Aleksandr II hadn't been the Tsar-Reformer since the first 10 years of his reign and openly admitted regretting the paper he signed the day he was murdered.

Also, Aleksandr III's reaction was not to invade a country.

The American Civil War is a result of terrorism? Enlighten me.

La Bastille!

Not sure what that has to do with terrorism, really.

We went through a lot of fear, a lot of hatred, a lot of anger, and we ended up in two wars against Totalitarian regimes that deserved to be destroyed.

No, you ended up toppling two regimes and then leaving the countries in turmoil.

I don't care about Saddam or the Taliban. Fuck, overthrow them and damned good riddance, but it *might* have been useful if you had actually thought about it more, worked better internationally and, I dunno, respected basic human rights?

Is the world a better place now thanks to the US? I think not. I. Think. Not.

I love this country, and I recognize that our fear after 9/11 was used to rationalize a lot of authoritarian things, but we ARE healing from it: just look at the outrage this stuff is causing.

*looks*

Sorry, I don't see nothing. What Nixon pulled was a lot less worse than Bush's known electoral fraud, spying, torturing, etc.

Yet he's still in office. How come?

Let's wait another twenty years, eh?

Weak. You compared the Germans to the Statesians when I mentioned fear-mongering. I just said the Germans aren't nearly on your level of fear-mongering and perpetual state of being afraid. Can you deny it?

'You people'? The modern world does. You think people like Le Pen and Pim Fortyn come out of thin air? Parties like Vlaams Belang, the NDP and the FPA just grow out of the ground?

Actually Vlaams Belang is quite old.

But yes, you have managed to spread your fear throughout Europe quite effectively. I thank you for turning us all into insane scared rabbits.

Oh, how well we'll remember the good ol' USA, spreader of fear.

Just don't try and take moral positions on us overeacting to 9/11. Terrorism scares people, let alone on the scale seen then.

Whoa, and another jump.

Weak, John, very weak. If you're going to bring up farming subsidies, be prepared to *finish* the subject. Now you're just making yourself look a fool.

 

[John Uskglass]

Actually, I'm fairly sure Bush has never actually *seen* a war.

Iraq and Afghanistan where wars in all but name. Not to mention that his numbers would have gone up after 9/11 IN ANY SITUATION.

By the way, have you won the War on Drugs yet?

There is no winning it, but guess what, THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE FOUGHT.

Uh...huh.

Typical Euro assuming he knows more about American history then everybody.

Lincoln did pretty bad stuff while President. Why? To secure the Union.

Hahahahaha. Yeah. Everyone is down in Europe. 'cause, y'know, we're all depressed 'cause we're not Americans and all.

Shit, sometimes you still manage to surprise me.

Also; what does that have to do with the fear-mongering subject at hand, hmmm?

WTF M8? When did I say any of that? Shit Kharn, stop putting words in my mouth. German consumer confidence is at Weimar lows, just stop reading Das Kapital long enough to pick up the Economist once in a while.

Her, the Spiegel article I linked to even mentioned that IIRC.

I'll be going for a, John, I'll be going for a.

.........
Dude. It was not just 2,000 people. It was billions upon billions of dollars going up with the towers. Three of the most prestigious buildings in the world.

EDIT: After MSNing and cybaring with Lauren for a little while, I'm going to redifine what I was talking about as 'Political Terrorism'.

You overreacted, get over it. 2,000 civilians dying is horrible, but it's *nothing* on the face of history. You've killed tens of thousands of civilians in your drive for revenge. How is that supposed to be justified?

You think you have any right to judge us considering reactions to history in the past?

Oh, here's an idea: history isn't an excuse for the present.

Strawman. You know as well as I do that there are many examples of nations doing much worse because of terrorism then the USA has done after 9/11.

The problem here was a matter of economic hardship and historical heritage, not terrorism.

Reichstagsbrandverordnung, bitch.

The cause of WW I was an unbalanced power block system coupled with nationalism, a bomb waiting to go off. Not Princip.

Terrorism set it off. No one knows what would have happened without that act of terrorism.

Also, Aleksandr III's reaction was not to invade a country.

No, but it basically secured the Empire's trip down Reactionary lane until it's death.

The American Civil War is a result of terrorism? Enlighten me.

Bleeding Kansas, the Pottawatomie massacre, even Fort Sumter.

Not sure what that has to do with terrorism, really.

I don't like French people.

Honestly though, the Reign of Terror and the entire Jacobin strategy was founded upon rather Terroristey goals and strategies.

Actually Vlaams Belang is quite old.

No, Vlaams Belang was founded in 2004.

Ha ha.

But yes, you have managed to spread your fear throughout Europe quite effectively. I thank you for turning us all into insane scared rabbits.

Yeah, cause we forced you guys to accept millions of illiterate immigrants, and we also FORCED you guys to have sucky immigration policies, and FORCED you to be unable to assimilate immigrant populations.

Shit man, you're sounding crazy.

Oh, how well we'll remember the good ol' USA, spreader of fear.

You said yourself that people have been afraid of the end of humanity sense, well, forever, if not 1789.

Weak, John, very weak. If you're going to bring up farming subsidies, be prepared to *finish* the subject. Now you're just making yourself look a fool.

I really think it's impossible to argue that the actions the US Government has taken after 9/11 in terms of foreign policy are exactly 'bad'. Why?

Because if we where not accidentally killing Iraqi civilians, Saadam would be torturing them. If we where not killing insurgents, Saddam would be right now. If we where not sending in massive amounts of food and aid, Saddam would be trading oil for anoter half dozen Mercedes and French guns and jets.

If we had not acted, people would be dying, now that we are acting people are dying. The diffirence is that now there are elections, now there is, inspite of whatever the fuck people say on here, some sembelance of hope.

That's the Principle of double effect in action, Kharn.

While America does stupid actions, it does them with it's heart in the right place, generally, and in the end it's wars tend to. While Europe tends to do nothing, and activley preach doing nothing, so it can maintain it's standard of living.

 

[Brother None]

Iraq and Afghanistan where wars in all but name. Not to mention that his numbers would have gone up after 9/11 IN ANY SITUATION.

No, note, he has never *seen* a war. Him, personally. Personal stab and all that.

And I agree on the last bit. Internationally, too. In fact, it must've taken quite some skill to fuck up his reputation as badly as he did.

There is no winning it, but guess what, THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE FOUGHT.

Yes. Did I say it didn't? No, I just ridicule openly the idea of waging wars on drugs or concepts like Terror. Such declarations just go to show a certain lack of touch with reality.

Typical Euro assuming he knows more about American history then everybody.

Lincoln did pretty bad stuff while President. Why? To secure the Union.

Uh-huh.

WTF M8? When did I say any of that? Shit Kharn, stop putting words in my mouth.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You're going to make me run out of creative ways of firing off that proverb soon.

German consumer confidence is at Weimar lows, just stop reading Das Kapital long enough to pick up the Economist once in a while.

Weimar lows? No it isn't. Consumer confidence is down in Germany, though, yeah. Same goes for most of the EU. What in the name of embleer frith this has to do with fear-mongering is still beyond me.

I've never read Das Kapital. Should, though. I've read Marx' Contribution to Critique of the Political Economy. Once. It was boring.

Dude. It was not just 2,000 people. It was billions upon billions of dollars going up with the towers. Three of the most prestigious buildings in the world.

OH NO, MONEY! Let's spend billions of dollars more on futile international wars and senseless failing manhunts!

You think you have any right to judge us considering reactions to history in the past?

Yes, I do, because I judge those reactions to horrible events as equally horrifying. Just because humanity has a tendency to fuck up doesn't mean you have an inherent right to fuck up. What kind of spineless defaitism is this anyway? Oooh, don't judge us, after all, we're just fucking up as bad as we always did. Tsss. Cowards.

You know as well as I do that there are many examples of nations doing much worse because of terrorism then the USA has done after 9/11.

history isn't an excuse for the present.

Do you need some lessons in reading comprehension? What the hell kind of idiotic reply is that?

Reichstagsbrandverordnung, bitch.

Are you seriously saying that made any difference? That just because the nazis used it as a tool means terrorism was at the root of it?

And are you seriously actually trying to excuse the US' reaction to terrorism by comparing it to Nazi Germany? What is wrong with you, seriously?

Terrorism set it off. No one knows what would have happened without that act of terrorism.

It would've gone off anyway. The tensions on the Balkans between Russia and Austria were way too high, as well as between Germany and France and even Italy and France. Anyone with any historical sense knows the war would've happened one way or the other, Princip had no real influence on it.

Princip was a trigger, yeah, but just a light to a fuse about to burn anyway.

No, but it basically secured the Empire's trip down Reactionary lane until it's death.

Are you that ignorant of Russian history? AS I SAID, Aleksandr II only made major reforms in the first decade of his reign and had long since turned towards reactionary ways. There's some historical discussion how the law passed on the day of his death would've fared with him on the throne, but Aleksandr III and Nikolas II would have happened whether Aleksandr II died then or later.

Bleeding Kansas, the Pottawatomie massacre, even Fort Sumter.

What in the name of Inle does that have to do with comparing the reaction of the US to that of other nations in history? What does the state's reaction to terrorism have to do with the Civil War? Was it caused or even influenced by terrorist acts? Hmmm?


Fort Sumter was a shooting battle at the dawn of a war. How is that terrorism?

Bleeding Texas was an instance of anarchy and dog-eats-dog, not terrorism, definitely not political terrorism.

The Pottawatomie massacre was just that. A massacre. Not terrorism.

I think you either don't understand what terrorism entails or are just grasping around for any example you can think of.

I don't like French people.

I'm sure they'll feel very hurt.

Honestly though, the Reign of Terror and the entire Jacobin strategy was founded upon rather Terroristey goals and strategies.

What in the name of Inle does that have to do with comparing the reaction of the US to that of other nations in history?

Also, you're wrong. The Reign of Terror was an instance horrifying bloody dictatorship. If you call that terrorism, than you can call anything going back to Ghengis Khan terrorism. And that would be cheating, my dear blind rightist friend.

No, Vlaams Belang was founded in 2004.

Ha ha.

Again your glaring ignorance is apparent. I seriously advise you to be quiet before yapping your ignorant bark.

Vlaams Belang was founded in 2004, but it was so only to be the replacement of Vlaams Blok. Everyone who knows anytyhing about the matter knows this was merely a name change to dodge the judge order in 2004, and everybody knows Belang and Blok are identical.

Vlaams Blok was first seen in 1978.

Yeah, cause we forced you guys to accept millions of illiterate immigrants, and we also FORCED you guys to have sucky immigration policies, and FORCED you to be unable to assimilate immigrant populations.

Shit man, you're sounding crazy.

Yes, I'm sounding crazy.

But you have a point.

You said yourself that people have been afraid of the end of humanity sense, well, forever, if not 1789.

Yes, they dread it. That's not the same as having an active fear that every turbanhead is a terrorist brought to your heart. Or a genuine belief that islam is evil and the root cause of the terrorism now spread in its name. That kind of ignorance isn't universal, it's the result of propaganda I can easily mark as fascist.

Because if we where not accidentally killing Iraqi civilians, Saadam would be torturing them. If we where not killing insurgents, Saddam would be right now. If we where not sending in massive amounts of food and aid, Saddam would be trading oil for anoter half dozen Mercedes and French guns and jets.

If we had not acted, people would be dying, now that we are acting people are dying. The diffirence is that now there are elections, now there is, inspite of whatever the fuck people say on here, some sembelance of hope.

That's the Principle of double effect in action, Kharn.

While America does stupid actions, it does them with it's heart in the right place, generally, and in the end it's wars tend to. While Europe tends to do nothing, and activley preach doing nothing, so it can maintain it's standard of living.

You're saying the quality of living in Iraq is now nearly what it was under Saddam? HAH! You've got to be shitting me. Life took a nosedive when you cowboys showed up, it hasn't climbed back up.

And you seem to forget, in your empassioned speech, that you invaded another country. And that that country that has had a declared fraudulent election re-electing the American puppet who now again sits ruling the capital and little else. The Taliban brought these people a mean dictatorship, yes, but they also had peace, education, means to survive. Now it's all gone. Yay America.

Your accusation that Europe kept out because we're corrupt and filthy rich is cute, though, and shows you've been listening well to right-wing propaganda. I applaud that.

Now, as for reality...

Reality would have it terrorism has been documented as on the rise since the 9/11 attack. Historical inevitability? Sure. But it also means you're losing the war.

Life has not improved in Afghanistan or Iraq. Afghanistan's puppet regime is fine with the US staying. Iraq's less puppety regime wants you out, no surprises there.

"People were bad off before." Sure, and I seem to recall that such logic was also behind the colonial invasions and the strangle-hold Europe held on the world for a long, long time. Good going defending yourself there, chappy.

Also, that doesn't excuse anything. Why do you torture people at all? Why did you not spend a longer time and political skill convincing the international community, who was all pro-US right after 9/11? Why did you go in half-arsed rather than with a sufficient force?

See, I don't care that it could've been worse, the important fact is that it could've been better. And I'm fairly sure most any other president could've done a lot better. Right now the world is a lot worse off and a lot more dangerous than it should be. Many political leaders are to blame for this. Putin's second-term craziness, for one, or Schroder and Chirac's pussy-assedness, or Blair's puppy-like asslicking. But I feel fairly confident that the US is once again number one. Number one in sucking.

Go Bush.

 

[John Uskglass]

Further discussion is useless, I give up, we both have our opinions and I doubt either one of us will change it through online means.

 

[TheWesDude]

the worst action of terrorisim started in boston involving throwing some dried leaves into the harbor, and kicking the british government and soldiers out of their territory.

thats far more violent act of terrorisim than blowing up 2 buildings only killing a few thousand people.

but then again im just a stupid american, what do i know about history?

any act in opposition to the current government is an act of terrorisim weather from a source domestic or foreign.

 

[Roshambo]

You're saying the quality of living in Iraq is now nearly what it was under Saddam? HAH! You've got to be shitting me. Life took a nosedive when you cowboys showed up, it hasn't climbed back up.

And you seem to forget, in your empassioned speech, that you invaded another country. And that that country that has had a declared fraudulent election re-electing the American puppet who now again sits ruling the capital and little else. The Taliban brought these people a mean dictatorship, yes, but they also had peace, education, means to survive. Now it's all gone. Yay America.

(Pardon my mostly sarcasm, but it's not really directed at you, Kharn.)

And none of that would make anyone want the invaders to go away, be through suicide bombs or otherwise. Having no job and no running utilities in the entire city rather precludes what most white bread people would consider the basic aspects of life. Imagine if NY city no longer had water. Result: utter fucking pandemonium. I have a hard time believing that people could still think that "normal daily life" wouldn't be interrupted by a complete regime change.

Coating an invasion with "democracy" means jack shit when it throws the country into turmoil - much like how the Viet Namese were faced with civil unrest when first the Commies invaded the country, then "democracy" invaded, but it meant "life is hell and we might be shot for just standing here by either side, so let's just protect our village". Thus a lot of xenophobia started within a lot of Viet Namese villages, because they weren't sure whose village was for whom, or who was just on their own. How the FUCK do you think common business or even the slightest bit of an economy would occur within such a civil unrest?

ANY OCCUPYING FORCE only means one thing for the common people. It means that their life is hell, and if the commoner's life is hell, the country doesn't work. I know most kids today like to believe otherwise, but trust me when I say that it doesn't. I have millenia of empirical evidence.

Imagine what would happen if your local city no longer had working infrastructure or government - those who could afford to have already left, so who is going to hire you? Who is going to keep utilities working? Who is going to be able to afford those utilities without money, because they don't have a job? It is the ignorance of these basic facts - fuck, I could almost agree with the Mid-East hatred of the US if that is the common opinion. The sad thing, it appears it is so. The US thinks it can just go in and send troops, and then everything will be fine.

If anyone thinks that sending troops to occupy a country, and a little bit of food to hand out to publicly look like nice guys, is magically going to make it all better, I really would like to invite them to re-take basic high-school level government and sociology classes. You need them, badly.

Of course, that becomes easy to ignore if you live on another continent entirely, one that hasn't seen anything for wars in a domestic sense for years, to the point of the common uneducated person believing that they have some understanding of years of conflict - to the point of rationalizing an invasion without something called "evidence". Wait, here's the most amazing part yet! The invading force wants to be hailed as heroes! Isn't that something? And damn those Frenchies for not wanting to be purified by the Germans, as they were just trying to bring the better people into power. Kind of like the US' selective brand of democracy, come to think of it. Same kind of destruction and turmoil, different packaging, I suppose.

Saddam might have been an asshole, but at least there WAS a country when he ruled it. He was THEIR asshole, and outside intervention without proof is about as foreign to the people as you could be to them.

Really, if the invading force just took out the previous leader of the country, in the countryman's eyes, what would prevent the invaders from disposing of those in the country who also disagreed with them? They already see how the US "democratically" deals with other countries, in the President taking the country into an invasion of their country. They put the leader of the nation on trial, one that pretty much guarantees that he will be killed, and what historically happens to those who disagree with the new despot, the one who just cut the head off of the last despot?

You either don't say shit, or you say it violently because you life doesn't have meaning anymore. THAT is what the common Iraqi faces. Some people need to put themselves into other people's shoes, and actually learn what life means to them and how it has changed.

Something the propaganda won't tell you is that many of the suicide bombers ARE Iraqis, a message that has become twisted in the US to mean that "the US is fighting Iraqis", and so therefore any casualties on their side is perfectly okay. So now we have uneducated civilians and even servicemen ignoring international law, and then excusing breaches of it, some even intentionally so.

Really, folks, if you can't sit back and look at the basis for something, don't bother. I have actually spoken to someone who lived in Saddam-era Baghdad. It was oppressive, but they had to leave because the FIRST Gulf War was enough to throw Iraq into enough civil turmoil - the second invasion by his estimation has FUCKED the country, especially since even before vote fixing Saddam was voted into office.

So, really, who is going to live like that? (Not the family I know of personally, but one of a few still there.)
Read their War Diary and try to not puke.
Some saviors, indeed. Wake the fuck up, people.

In another article in the newspaper, there is a part of an interview of the American press with Ramesfeild, in Washington, D.C., as he comments on what is happening in Iraq: "It is chaos, and freedom is chaos, they are free even to make mistakes and commit crimes, and act wrongful deeds…."
I don't know how these people think??? Do they live like this in America?? People killing, looting, and committing all sins, is this really The Freedom??

 

[Thrincold]

Robo Santa,

Wow man. That puts into words much of what I wanted to say. I have friends who have died over in both Iraq and Afganistan fighting these wars. What we have done as a nation is inexcuseable and would for any other country in the UN result in sanctions and war trials.

Unfortunately the US and the Bush regime has deemed us above international war and has committed a crime for the oldest reasons. Greed and money.

I know the war was ill thought out and a mistake. I just wish people would see past that now. We're there, we destroyed a country, whether it was a good government or not, we still have destroyed it. But, now it's our job to fix what we broke.

Remember please support the soldiers that are fighting and dieing over there. I know there are atrocities and reasons to hate the people as much as the war, but those are limited incidences of individuals, not a reflection of the whole.

Most of the people over there fighting now are good people. Most of them like me are proud to serve in the armed forces, but not happy about this war.

Invading Iraq, wrong as hell. Staying the course and fixing our mess is our responsibility now.

I've rambled enough, so I'll quit here while this is still barely coherant.