Full Version: Putting The Shoe On The Other Foot
Since the start of the so-called "War on Terror", many things have happened. Many horribly awful, some heartwarmingly good. We read or watch the news daily, and we're inundated with opinions, aspects, points of view, reasons, etc....It is all too easy to keep a closed mind these days, and it would be an interesting study into human behavior and individual human response to understand why. Why is it that people are unable to put the shoe on the other foot? Why can't people reverse what they're saying, why can't they flip it around and see how things really are?
My question is this:
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
My question is this:
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
Moved to casual conversation. The questions wouldn't lend to constructive debate.
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
If another nation invaded America, I, along with a lot of others would fight to the death. I also would do everything in my power to get them out. In Iraq, I can see people being upset if their loved ones have been collateral damage.
But there is a huge difference between that scenario and what happened with Iraq:
1. The US is not sponsoring terrorism. Iraq, along with other, sponsored terrorism and attacked us first.
2. We do not have plans to invade Mexico or Canada or any other nations. We keep good relations and don't provoke others.
3. That I am aware of, no mass murders are taking place in our borders.
4. We don't threaten people with WMDs, whether we have them or not.
Most importantly, a large number of the people resisting in Iraq are not even Iraqi. If they weren't targeting us in Iraq, instead they would be targeting us on our own soil. I didn't think we should have gone into Iraq initially, but that doesn't mean it didn't have its merits. Why would so many Iraqi's be happy, ecstatic even, if our being there was a bad thing for their nation.
If another nation invaded America, I, along with a lot of others would fight to the death. I also would do everything in my power to get them out. In Iraq, I can see people being upset if their loved ones have been collateral damage.
But there is a huge difference between that scenario and what happened with Iraq:
1. The US is not sponsoring terrorism. Iraq, along with other, sponsored terrorism and attacked us first.
2. We do not have plans to invade Mexico or Canada or any other nations. We keep good relations and don't provoke others.
3. That I am aware of, no mass murders are taking place in our borders.
4. We don't threaten people with WMDs, whether we have them or not.
Most importantly, a large number of the people resisting in Iraq are not even Iraqi. If they weren't targeting us in Iraq, instead they would be targeting us on our own soil. I didn't think we should have gone into Iraq initially, but that doesn't mean it didn't have its merits. Why would so many Iraqi's be happy, ecstatic even, if our being there was a bad thing for their nation.
I was thinking more of the Isreal Palestenian conflict
If someone said "you know, 2000 years ago, the american native lived here, and we decided you have to leave and get out of the country because we decided to give your land to them, and don't try anything, because we will kill your family, bulldoze your house, and drop bombs on your friends if you so much as even let out a peep on how our new country deserves to be here- I don't care if your family lived here for a couple thousand years as well- we don't care, our bible tells us to give this land back to the Native americans- and you can like it or lump it.
We have F15s and nukes- you got nothing- whadya gonna do about it?"
Shortly after they kill my family with a stray missle intended for someone else, I will strap some bombs to my chest, and see how many of THEM I can take out, and as long as they are Native americans that took everything away from me, I don't care if they call me terrorist- I just want to see how many I can make dead on my way out- and I don't care who gets part of it.
I think that is about where we are at right now.
If someone said "you know, 2000 years ago, the american native lived here, and we decided you have to leave and get out of the country because we decided to give your land to them, and don't try anything, because we will kill your family, bulldoze your house, and drop bombs on your friends if you so much as even let out a peep on how our new country deserves to be here- I don't care if your family lived here for a couple thousand years as well- we don't care, our bible tells us to give this land back to the Native americans- and you can like it or lump it.
We have F15s and nukes- you got nothing- whadya gonna do about it?"
Shortly after they kill my family with a stray missle intended for someone else, I will strap some bombs to my chest, and see how many of THEM I can take out, and as long as they are Native americans that took everything away from me, I don't care if they call me terrorist- I just want to see how many I can make dead on my way out- and I don't care who gets part of it.
I think that is about where we are at right now.
Well if the country I lived in was run by a dictator I would welcome another country to come in and over throw that dictator and replace him with a democratically elected government.
I consider GW equally as evil as Saddam and OBL or anyother evil tyrant- only saving grace is our diverse system of checks and balances keeps the ovens closed- however- if, say, our old enemy france got a new superweapon that made all of our defenses obsolete and overwhelmed our military and invaded to get rid of King Goerge- I would fight france, no matter how much I hate GW.
And I didn't vote for him, any more than those others voted for saddam.
In fact, I was in that original majority that voted AGAINST him-
And I didn't vote for him, any more than those others voted for saddam.
In fact, I was in that original majority that voted AGAINST him-
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
That's an easy question to answer, I'm just not sure about the context the question is being asked in.
As Sleeper pointed out, if I lived in a fascist police state or some other form of tyrannical dictatorship, I might very well welcome outside intervention to restore or implement a democratic form of government.
Living in the U.S. however, I would fight with all of my body, mind and soul to repel invaders and threats to our way of life.
What I would not do........is what we see so often, especially in the middle east, and probably part of the background to this question.....is intentionally maim and murder my fellow countrymen for no other reason than causing death and chaos.
The excuse we hear from some as to this type of warfare being the only avenue some people have is fallacious.
That's an easy question to answer, I'm just not sure about the context the question is being asked in.
As Sleeper pointed out, if I lived in a fascist police state or some other form of tyrannical dictatorship, I might very well welcome outside intervention to restore or implement a democratic form of government.
Living in the U.S. however, I would fight with all of my body, mind and soul to repel invaders and threats to our way of life.
What I would not do........is what we see so often, especially in the middle east, and probably part of the background to this question.....is intentionally maim and murder my fellow countrymen for no other reason than causing death and chaos.
The excuse we hear from some as to this type of warfare being the only avenue some people have is fallacious.
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
This is a rather simplistic question, if you are attempting to draw a parallell to Iraq and the US. First, "rebuild your country to their liking" implies that the country was of "my" liking before. Few persons living in Iraq today didn't have a friend or family member tortured or killed under the prior dictatorship. So, you aren't comparing apples to apples (or even fruit). I'll oblige you, however, and give my opinion of what I would do if an invasion force came into this country. Rare invasion force which permits its "subjects" a democratic vote, and invests billions upon billions into its infrastructure, but here it goes...
If an invasion force took over my country, I would fight back. Our home is armed. What I would never do is shoot my neighbor's kids to make him angry at the invasion force because they weren't protecting his children well enough. Or, bomb the children when they try to take candy from the invasion force. Or, bomb the international humanitarian agencies coming to bring us aid. Or, house armaments and bombs in my own place of worship or my children's schools, turning them into barracks and military targets.
This is a rather simplistic question, if you are attempting to draw a parallell to Iraq and the US. First, "rebuild your country to their liking" implies that the country was of "my" liking before. Few persons living in Iraq today didn't have a friend or family member tortured or killed under the prior dictatorship. So, you aren't comparing apples to apples (or even fruit). I'll oblige you, however, and give my opinion of what I would do if an invasion force came into this country. Rare invasion force which permits its "subjects" a democratic vote, and invests billions upon billions into its infrastructure, but here it goes...
If an invasion force took over my country, I would fight back. Our home is armed. What I would never do is shoot my neighbor's kids to make him angry at the invasion force because they weren't protecting his children well enough. Or, bomb the children when they try to take candy from the invasion force. Or, bomb the international humanitarian agencies coming to bring us aid. Or, house armaments and bombs in my own place of worship or my children's schools, turning them into barracks and military targets.
QUOTE(Andrew78108 @ Feb 3 2006, 09:30 AM)
But there is a huge difference between that scenario and what happened with Iraq:
1. The US is not sponsoring terrorism. Iraq, along with other, sponsored terrorism and attacked us first.
2. We do not have plans to invade Mexico or Canada or any other nations. We keep good relations and don't provoke others.
3. That I am aware of, no mass murders are taking place in our borders.
4. We don't threaten people with WMDs, whether we have them or not.
1. The US is not sponsoring terrorism. Iraq, along with other, sponsored terrorism and attacked us first.
2. We do not have plans to invade Mexico or Canada or any other nations. We keep good relations and don't provoke others.
3. That I am aware of, no mass murders are taking place in our borders.
4. We don't threaten people with WMDs, whether we have them or not.
Not really...
1. This first point isn't even accurate, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. This has been claimed by the White House, conservative pundits and FoxNews but unfortunately repeating it time and time again does not make it true. Iraq had no association to terrorism, and they had a secular government.
2. Do you have some information about Iraq that the rest of us don't? They invaded Kuwait and they were punished for that. That was over 10 years ago. Do you have some kind of information that they were planning some future invasion?
3. Not recently, but perhaps you should read up on how we treated the American Indians.
4. Sure we do, it is part of what maintains the balance of power. We have nukes and other WMD like chemical and biological weapons. We also hold the distinction of being the only country that has used a nuclear weapon in war. We are also one of the small number of countries that has used chemical weapons in war as well.
There are very big differences between the US and Iraq, just not any of the ones you mentioned.
As far as my answer to the actual question, it would be very similar to what DTOM just wrote
What I would do is hard to say since it depends on too many variables. I'd like to think that I would not welcome any foreign intervention into my country's internal affairs.
But what I can do is to offer some historical perspective: when Napoleon's troops invaded Russia in 1812, Russia still used slave labor (serfdom), and was an absolute monarchy without even a hint of democracy or democratic institutions.
If Napoleon would conquer Russia, one of the first things he would do is to abolish serfdom. He considered serfdom barbaric and he stated his intention several times publicly. So from historical perspective Napoleon's conquest of Russia would bring progress and (a least to some degree more) social justice.
However, Napoleon's troops found very little collaboration during their advance. As a matter of fact, serfs were among the fiercest defenders, employing "scorched earth" policy and burning their own land for it not to fall into French hands.
But what I can do is to offer some historical perspective: when Napoleon's troops invaded Russia in 1812, Russia still used slave labor (serfdom), and was an absolute monarchy without even a hint of democracy or democratic institutions.
If Napoleon would conquer Russia, one of the first things he would do is to abolish serfdom. He considered serfdom barbaric and he stated his intention several times publicly. So from historical perspective Napoleon's conquest of Russia would bring progress and (a least to some degree more) social justice.
However, Napoleon's troops found very little collaboration during their advance. As a matter of fact, serfs were among the fiercest defenders, employing "scorched earth" policy and burning their own land for it not to fall into French hands.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Feb 3 2006, 01:27 PM)
What I would do is hard to say since it depends on too many variables. I'd like to think that I would not welcome any foreign intervention into my country's internal affairs.
But what I can do is to offer some historical perspective: when Napoleon's troops invaded Russia in 1812, Russia still used slave labor (serfdom), and was an absolute monarchy without even a hint of democracy or democratic institutions.
If Napoleon would conquer Russia, one of the first things he would do is to abolish serfdom. He considered serfdom barbaric and he stated his intention several times publicly. So from historical perspective Napoleon's conquest of Russia would bring progress and (a least to some degree more) social justice.
However, Napoleon's troops found very little collaboration during their advance. As a matter of fact, serfs were among the fiercest defenders, employing "scorched earth" policy and burning their own land for it not to fall into French hands.
Interesting, English Horn. I'm not a historian, but here's my thought on this....I would expect those serfs were not well read, and news didn't spread exactly quickly back then. Do you suppose those serfs had no inkling that Napoleon intended to free them? Maybe the monarchy, which owned them and controlled the information afterall, hadn't been exactly forthecoming about Napoleon's intentions?
For example, in WWII, 4,000 women and children jumped off of cliffs to their deaths in Saipan when our Marines landed. It wasn't because they were so opposed to our occupation they had to kill themselves out of despair, but they had been told such tales of our butchery that they "knew" we wouldn't possibly leave a single one of them alive, and they would all be otherwise tortured until death. Women threw their babies off of cliffs because they believed the American forces would torture their babies in front of them before killing them all. They did this even as the Marines were watching in horror and begging them to stop. I don't think the forces that some call "resistance" in Iraq are comparable. I believe some might be, but when they engage in outright terrorist activities, they cross over to something else entirely. If my neighbor was "resisting" by killing my kids and hoping I'd blame the occupation, I would consider him more of an enemy than the occupation.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Feb 3 2006, 12:19 PM)
QUOTE(Andrew78108 @ Feb 3 2006, 09:30 AM)
But there is a huge difference between that scenario and what happened with Iraq:
1. The US is not sponsoring terrorism. Iraq, along with other, sponsored terrorism and attacked us first.
2. We do not have plans to invade Mexico or Canada or any other nations. We keep good relations and don't provoke others.
3. That I am aware of, no mass murders are taking place in our borders.
4. We don't threaten people with WMDs, whether we have them or not.
1. The US is not sponsoring terrorism. Iraq, along with other, sponsored terrorism and attacked us first.
2. We do not have plans to invade Mexico or Canada or any other nations. We keep good relations and don't provoke others.
3. That I am aware of, no mass murders are taking place in our borders.
4. We don't threaten people with WMDs, whether we have them or not.
Not really...
1. This first point isn't even accurate, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. This has been claimed by the White House, conservative pundits and FoxNews but unfortunately repeating it time and time again does not make it true. Iraq had no association to terrorism, and they had a secular government.
2. Do you have some information about Iraq that the rest of us don't? They invaded Kuwait and they were punished for that. That was over 10 years ago. Do you have some kind of information that they were planning some future invasion?
3. Not recently, but perhaps you should read up on how we treated the American Indians.
4. Sure we do, it is part of what maintains the balance of power. We have nukes and other WMD like chemical and biological weapons. We also hold the distinction of being the only country that has used a nuclear weapon in war. We are also one of the small number of countries that has used chemical weapons in war as well.
There are very big differences between the US and Iraq, just not any of the ones you mentioned.
As far as my answer to the actual question, it would be very similar to what DTOM just wrote
1. I'll have to do some more research to back this one up. It's possible I'm wrong on it, and while I don't think I am, I'm not going to dwell on it until I can back it up solidly.
2. A couple weeks ago a top official under Saddam went on the record about plans for a couple different invasions. I can't find the link(the article is a couple weeks old), but the invasion of Kuwait by itself should be enough on this one.
3. I'm not excusing anything done with Native Americans in the 19th century. But times have changed...progress.
4. We threaten retaliation, not aggression with WMDs.
My points weren't well made, I will grant you that, but what I was trying to get across is that the question implied a similarity between Iraq and the scenario that simply does not hold true.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Feb 3 2006, 01:19 PM)
1. This first point isn't even accurate, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. This has been claimed by the White House, conservative pundits and FoxNews but unfortunately repeating it time and time again does not make it true. Iraq had no association to terrorism, and they had a secular government.
No association with terrorism? 
While you can make an argument that Saddam's regime wasn't directly involved in 9/11, your claim that they had no association to terrorism is can most charitably be described as "erroneous." Why don't you just declare the world flat?QUOTE
3. Not recently, but perhaps you should read up on how we treated the American Indians.
aged herring
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Feb 3 2006, 11:14 AM)
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Feb 3 2006, 01:19 PM)
1. This first point isn't even accurate, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. This has been claimed by the White House, conservative pundits and FoxNews but unfortunately repeating it time and time again does not make it true. Iraq had no association to terrorism, and they had a secular government.
No association with terrorism? While you can make an argument that Saddam's regime wasn't directly involved in 9/11, your claim that they had no association to terrorism is can most charitably be described as "erroneous." Why don't you just declare the world flat?Fine, either cite evidence that proves your point or start a topic. I remember being involved quite heavily in topics on this subject previously and there is no proof that has been presented.
QUOTE(Bikerdad)
aged herring
Not sure what you mean by this, are you disputing the fact that the US Army systematically wiped out American Indians and forced them out of their homelands? Are you disputing the fact that we effectively "solved the Indian problem" using biological warfare by giving them smallpox infected blankets.
Go pick up a history book and read it, not the disney version you get in school a real history book written by a professional.
This is Casual Conversation. Let's not get snippy and personal in our responses.
Questions for Debate:
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
Questions for Debate:
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
Why can't people reverse what they're saying, why can't they flip it around and see how things really are?
I try to, but it's hard to just "flip it around" and have it make sense. I live under a consensual government that respects my human rights and civil liberties. That fact informs my response to the next question.
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
Nations are not interchangeable. If I'm in Nazi Germany, hell yes, I'm going to help the US rebuild after they've invaded, overthrown, and occupied my country. If I'm in France under Nazi occupation, I'd like to think I'd have the courage to join the resistance.
You may regret that last line... Let's take this apart:
are you disputing the fact that the US Army systematically wiped out American Indians and forced them out of their homelands?
I do not dispute this. It's well documented and shameful.
Are you disputing the fact that we effectively "solved the Indian problem" using biological warfare by giving them smallpox infected blankets.
Who's this "we" (kemo sabe)? Does it refer to the US Army? If so, I emphatically dispute the "fact" that the US Army distributed smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians. Ward Churchill invented this lie in 1992. Churchill cited an actual historian named Russell Thornton in his tale, but Thornton says nothing of the kind. (Read the link; sorry it's a Google cache page, but the original is offline.)
Earlier, in 1763, a British general called Lord Amherst and his subordinate Captain Ecuyer did intentionally distribute smallpox-laden goods to the Indians. If that incident, 240 years ago, is what you meant by "we," I guess you're off the hook. But I have a hunch you believed the "US Army genocidally spreads smallpox" story...
I try to, but it's hard to just "flip it around" and have it make sense. I live under a consensual government that respects my human rights and civil liberties. That fact informs my response to the next question.
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
Nations are not interchangeable. If I'm in Nazi Germany, hell yes, I'm going to help the US rebuild after they've invaded, overthrown, and occupied my country. If I'm in France under Nazi occupation, I'd like to think I'd have the courage to join the resistance.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Feb 3 2006, 11:17 AM)
Not sure what you mean by this, are you disputing the fact that the US Army systematically wiped out American Indians and forced them out of their homelands? Are you disputing the fact that we effectively "solved the Indian problem" using biological warfare by giving them smallpox infected blankets.
Go pick up a history book and read it, not the disney version you get in school a real history book written by a professional.
Go pick up a history book and read it, not the disney version you get in school a real history book written by a professional.
You may regret that last line... Let's take this apart:
are you disputing the fact that the US Army systematically wiped out American Indians and forced them out of their homelands?
I do not dispute this. It's well documented and shameful.
Are you disputing the fact that we effectively "solved the Indian problem" using biological warfare by giving them smallpox infected blankets.
Who's this "we" (kemo sabe)? Does it refer to the US Army? If so, I emphatically dispute the "fact" that the US Army distributed smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians. Ward Churchill invented this lie in 1992. Churchill cited an actual historian named Russell Thornton in his tale, but Thornton says nothing of the kind. (Read the link; sorry it's a Google cache page, but the original is offline.)
Earlier, in 1763, a British general called Lord Amherst and his subordinate Captain Ecuyer did intentionally distribute smallpox-laden goods to the Indians. If that incident, 240 years ago, is what you meant by "we," I guess you're off the hook. But I have a hunch you believed the "US Army genocidally spreads smallpox" story...
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Feb 3 2006, 01:17 PM)
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Feb 3 2006, 11:14 AM)
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Feb 3 2006, 01:19 PM)
1. This first point isn't even accurate, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. This has been claimed by the White House, conservative pundits and FoxNews but unfortunately repeating it time and time again does not make it true. Iraq had no association to terrorism, and they had a secular government.
No association with terrorism? While you can make an argument that Saddam's regime wasn't directly involved in 9/11, your claim that they had no association to terrorism is can most charitably be described as "erroneous." Why don't you just declare the world flat?Fine, either cite evidence that proves your point or start a topic. I remember being involved quite heavily in topics on this subject previously and there is no proof that has been presented.
No, actually the burden is on you. This lie is over the top even for you. If you are going to re-invent history, you start your own thread. Iraq's connections to terrorists are well documented.
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
Well, since I live in a Democratic Republic, of course I would take up arms against an invader, since they likely would be coming from some authoritarian-style government. Much like the French welcomed American troops in Normandy and Brittany, I would suspect that residents of conquered dictatorships would have a different reaction. Perhaps you could elaborate on your point here, since your question isn't doing it for me.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Feb 3 2006, 10:13 AM)
If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?
That's an easy question to answer, I'm just not sure about the context the question is being asked in.
As Sleeper pointed out, if I lived in a fascist police state or some other form of tyrannical dictatorship, I might very well welcome outside intervention to restore or implement a democratic form of government.
Living in the U.S. however, I would fight with all of my body, mind and soul to repel invaders and threats to our way of life.
What I would not do........is what we see so often, especially in the middle east, and probably part of the background to this question.....is intentionally maim and murder my fellow countrymen for no other reason than causing death and chaos.
The excuse we hear from some as to this type of warfare being the only avenue some people have is fallacious.
That's an easy question to answer, I'm just not sure about the context the question is being asked in.
As Sleeper pointed out, if I lived in a fascist police state or some other form of tyrannical dictatorship, I might very well welcome outside intervention to restore or implement a democratic form of government.
Living in the U.S. however, I would fight with all of my body, mind and soul to repel invaders and threats to our way of life.
What I would not do........is what we see so often, especially in the middle east, and probably part of the background to this question.....is intentionally maim and murder my fellow countrymen for no other reason than causing death and chaos.
The excuse we hear from some as to this type of warfare being the only avenue some people have is fallacious.
Hmmm- even if they were collaboraters? Isn't that the reasoning? Look at the Vichy goverment- to take it away from the middle east or such- those Nazi collaborators- or those in Poland that did the same- and were culpable in the Nazi occupation, whole villages were part of that regime.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 3 2006, 02:05 PM)
Interesting, English Horn. I'm not a historian, but here's my thought on this....I would expect those serfs were not well read, and news didn't spread exactly quickly back then. Do you suppose those serfs had no inkling that Napoleon intended to free them? Maybe the monarchy, which owned them and controlled the information afterall, hadn't been exactly forthecoming about Napoleon's intentions?
Maybe you're right. But here's another example, 100+ years closer to us; Germany's invasion of Soviet Union in 1941. No need to explain that after 1930s USSR was a dictatorship. In fact, Hitler spent quite a bit on propaganda trying to portray his troops as "liberators from communism". Once again - the population rose overwhelmingly against the invaders (of course there were some collaborators, but in statistically negligible numbers).
I guess you would say that Hitler's Germany was a dictatorship worse that that in USSR, and you would be correct. The question is, how would an average citizen know that? Until the invasion, Germany was considered an ally; my grandfather sneeringly showed me the newspaper from 1939 where an official congratulatory birthday telegram to Hitler was printed on the first page. Virtually no information about atrocities was coming in yet. But it doesn't even matter - do you truly believe that if for whatever reason it was United States and Britain invading in 1941 and not Germany, the resistance would be on the lesser scale?
I think those people who say that they would sit by if their country was not a democracy and was invaded as long as invaders are not "some authoritarian-style government" are kidding themselves. I'd like to believe that it's not ONLY about the system of government that Americans love their country for.
I couldn't agree more EH- I don't care who ya are- or what your current goverment is- most will fight, perhaps it is genetic programing?- any "foreign invader"- you know- the Iraqi's that fight there to this day never showed Saddam the same kind of willingness to die that they are against the Americans- what if the Iraqis had risen up against Saddam the same way they fight the Americans now?
I guess everyone prefers thier own corrupt leaders to another countries corrupt leaders.
I guess everyone prefers thier own corrupt leaders to another countries corrupt leaders.
STILL, people here have a mind numbing block as to why a Judeo-Christian nation cannot be accepted by indigenous natives, when they make war on an OIL rich Islamic Nation as some alleged purveyors of Freedom and Democracy, as seen by (US) subjective eyes alone. Really? You cannot grasp it?
A Dictatorship the US put in place ( Saddam Hussein) A Dictatorship the US used to kill many Iraqi citizens in a 7 year war against Iran. A Dictatorship that Iraqis had no control over but the US did. A Dictatorship that is still killing Iraqis, who had no bone in this fight, never held a HAND against the US, In fact in Gulf War I surrendered in droves!
A fight that has USED and ABUSED IRAQ as a nation and a people for two decades through absolutely no fault of their own.
A NATION THAT BY our Esteemed Presidents viewpoint was to take a fight THERE< NOT TO HAVE IT HERE. Is that someone you trust, In Iraq?
And to think we have some right to say they are wrong for finally fighting back?
We carpet bombed them for no other reason than the dictator we supported , and they hated was a BAD GUY, after we supported him for 20 years! Oh By the way, THEY DIDNT!
Now we have Jihad, and suddenly Iraqis are bad people? Iraqis never had a say in over 25 years of usage. Iraqis were never terrorists. Uh, Saudis, remember?
Please! You people drive me insane with your ADD of facts!
Heres the picture, Iraqi standpoint: US supports a tyrannical dictator against Iran that for 7 years takes your sons by force to a losing war. Saddam is bankrupt so decides to invade Kuwaiit. US wins and leaves everyone in the crapper, imposing sanctions that cripple a once booming country, with free education and health care.
US invades and ousts Saddam but youre supposed to trust them to have your best interests at heart, but you know that every Western colonizer has really wanted the oil, and they are as well Judeo- Christian Democratists who supported Saddam Hussein who got you into this entire mess.
Now you tell ME. Bow down or fight for your rights to self determination and control of your "very important" resources? Besides that 'the invader or colonizer' has no beliefs which even resemble your own.
(There is absolutely no precedent for this and much history against. We are going to live Jihad in Iraq forever. They will never give up)
A Dictatorship the US put in place ( Saddam Hussein) A Dictatorship the US used to kill many Iraqi citizens in a 7 year war against Iran. A Dictatorship that Iraqis had no control over but the US did. A Dictatorship that is still killing Iraqis, who had no bone in this fight, never held a HAND against the US, In fact in Gulf War I surrendered in droves!
A fight that has USED and ABUSED IRAQ as a nation and a people for two decades through absolutely no fault of their own.
A NATION THAT BY our Esteemed Presidents viewpoint was to take a fight THERE< NOT TO HAVE IT HERE. Is that someone you trust, In Iraq?
And to think we have some right to say they are wrong for finally fighting back?
We carpet bombed them for no other reason than the dictator we supported , and they hated was a BAD GUY, after we supported him for 20 years! Oh By the way, THEY DIDNT!
Now we have Jihad, and suddenly Iraqis are bad people? Iraqis never had a say in over 25 years of usage. Iraqis were never terrorists. Uh, Saudis, remember?
Please! You people drive me insane with your ADD of facts!
Heres the picture, Iraqi standpoint: US supports a tyrannical dictator against Iran that for 7 years takes your sons by force to a losing war. Saddam is bankrupt so decides to invade Kuwaiit. US wins and leaves everyone in the crapper, imposing sanctions that cripple a once booming country, with free education and health care.
US invades and ousts Saddam but youre supposed to trust them to have your best interests at heart, but you know that every Western colonizer has really wanted the oil, and they are as well Judeo- Christian Democratists who supported Saddam Hussein who got you into this entire mess.
Now you tell ME. Bow down or fight for your rights to self determination and control of your "very important" resources? Besides that 'the invader or colonizer' has no beliefs which even resemble your own.
(There is absolutely no precedent for this and much history against. We are going to live Jihad in Iraq forever. They will never give up)
QUOTE(Artemise @ Feb 4 2006, 06:44 AM)
You people drive me insane with your ADD of facts!
Around the 2004 election, there was a list going around of false beliefs predominently held by Bush supporters and Fox News viewers. This thread has demonstrated that conservatives have no monopoly on false beliefs. Here are some of my favorites from the other side:
Saddam Hussein was installed as dictator by the US. (Where the heck did this one come from?)
Saddam Hussein never supported terrorists.
The US supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
The US was a major supporter of Saddam Hussein, giving him significant money and arms during the 1980s.
Coalition troops were never greeted as liberators in Iraq.
The CIA trained, or funded, or had even heard of Osama bin Laden during the Soviet Afghan war.
The US Army distributed smallpox-infected blankets to Indians.
Why do people believe this stuff?
QUOTE(Artemise @ Feb 4 2006, 08:44 AM)
A Dictatorship the US put in place ( Saddam Hussein) A Dictatorship the US used to kill many Iraqi citizens in a 7 year war against Iran. A Dictatorship that Iraqis had no control over but the US did. A Dictatorship that is still killing Iraqis, who had no bone in this fight, never held a HAND against the US, In fact in Gulf War I surrendered in droves!
Not a shred of truth here. The US never controlled Hussein. If we did, do you really think we would have done the Iraqis the favor of getting rid of him? We may have used him for a while but no one ever controlled him.
QUOTE
A fight that has USED and ABUSED IRAQ as a nation and a people for two decades through absolutely no fault of their own.
A NATION THAT BY our Esteemed Presidents viewpoint was to take a fight THERE< NOT TO HAVE IT HERE. Is that someone you trust, In Iraq?
And to think we have some right to say they are wrong for finally fighting back?
We carpet bombed them for no other reason than the dictator we supported , and they hated was a BAD GUY, after we supported him for 20 years! Oh By the way, THEY DIDNT!
A NATION THAT BY our Esteemed Presidents viewpoint was to take a fight THERE< NOT TO HAVE IT HERE. Is that someone you trust, In Iraq?
And to think we have some right to say they are wrong for finally fighting back?
We carpet bombed them for no other reason than the dictator we supported , and they hated was a BAD GUY, after we supported him for 20 years! Oh By the way, THEY DIDNT!
The blame for the deaths of all the Iraqis fall squarely on Saddams shoulders. The US did not instigate the first gulf war, and it was his ruthlessness that led to the second.
QUOTE
Now we have Jihad, and suddenly Iraqis are bad people? Iraqis never had a say in over 25 years of usage. Iraqis were never terrorists. Uh, Saudis, remember?
The Jihad already existed. That's why we're there in the first place. Also, nobody thinks that the Iraqis are bad people, and the majority of Iraqis don't think that we are bad people.
QUOTE
US wins and leaves everyone in the crapper, imposing sanctions that cripple a once booming country, with free education and health care.
US invades and ousts Saddam but youre supposed to trust them to have your best interests at heart, but you know that every Western colonizer has really wanted the oil, and they are as well Judeo- Christian Democratists who supported Saddam Hussein who got you into this entire mess.
Now you tell ME. Bow down or fight for your rights to self determination and control of your "very important" resources? Besides that 'the invader or colonizer' has no beliefs which even resemble your own.
(There is absolutely no precedent for this and much history against. We are going to live Jihad in Iraq forever. They will never give up)
US invades and ousts Saddam but youre supposed to trust them to have your best interests at heart, but you know that every Western colonizer has really wanted the oil, and they are as well Judeo- Christian Democratists who supported Saddam Hussein who got you into this entire mess.
Now you tell ME. Bow down or fight for your rights to self determination and control of your "very important" resources? Besides that 'the invader or colonizer' has no beliefs which even resemble your own.
(There is absolutely no precedent for this and much history against. We are going to live Jihad in Iraq forever. They will never give up)
So what you're saying is the first time through we didn't stick around to fix the place up and that was bad. This time we are staying to try and make it a better place, which is a bad thing. What would you prefer?
I will agree with you that we should not have gone into Iraq in 2003, but I don't agree with your reasoning. Now that we are there if we just packed up and left the result would be catastrophic for the Iraqi people and the impact would be felt around the world. We are not "colonizing."
Danger Will Robinson, danger...
Ok folks, this is the last warning. This is the Casual Conversation forum. To wit, the conversations here must be casual. I'm sorry to get all paternal, but this thread will either settle down or be closed.
Ok folks, this is the last warning. This is the Casual Conversation forum. To wit, the conversations here must be casual. I'm sorry to get all paternal, but this thread will either settle down or be closed.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Feb 4 2006, 12:27 AM)
Hmmm- even if they were collaboraters? Isn't that the reasoning? Look at the Vichy goverment- to take it away from the middle east or such- those Nazi collaborators- or those in Poland that did the same- and were culpable in the Nazi occupation, whole villages were part of that regime.
You first must define what is a collaborator. My definition includes citizens who willingly aid an invading force to subjugate their own citizens, or who actually take up arms alongside the invading entity.
My definition of a collaborator does not include civil servants and average citizens who would only attempt to avoid torture and death, and wish to continue feeding their families. I understand that not everybody has the intestinal fortitude or will power to lay their life on the line and endanger their family. That means, I as a guerrilla, would not deprive my countrymen of needed services and infrastructure or conduct actions that kill my fellow citizens and do more harm to my cause than that of the invading force.
QUOTE(English Horn Today @ 07:02 AM)
I guess you would say that Hitler's Germany was a dictatorship worse that that in USSR, and you would be correct. The question is, how would an average citizen know that? Until the invasion, Germany was considered an ally; my grandfather sneeringly showed me the newspaper from 1939 where an official congratulatory birthday telegram to Hitler was printed on the first page. Virtually no information about atrocities was coming in yet. But it doesn't even matter - do you truly believe that if for whatever reason it was United States and Britain invading in 1941 and not Germany, the resistance would be on the lesser scale?
I think those people who say that they would sit by if their country was not a democracy and was invaded as long as invaders are not "some authoritarian-style government" are kidding themselves. I'd like to believe that it's not ONLY about the system of government that Americans love their country for.
I think those people who say that they would sit by if their country was not a democracy and was invaded as long as invaders are not "some authoritarian-style government" are kidding themselves. I'd like to believe that it's not ONLY about the system of government that Americans love their country for.
You've left out the fact that after the Wehrmacht rolled through the Soviet Union, the SS and Einsatzgruppen 'mopped up' and summarily executed all political commissars, intellectuals and Jews. Actions such as those would tend to propagate hatred. So yes, I truly believe that if the U.S. or Britain had invaded, as long as they brought up the standard of living for Soviet citizens somewhere above serfdom, the resistance would have been on a lesser scale.
DTOM- I have to say, if you believe that, with all due respect- you are living in freakin' dream land! No way on God's green earth would US be succesful in attacking much less holding a nation like that.
I think you have made the general mistake most american military types do- that, somehow, the other side will believe you are the "good guy" when invading another country. We have a long and brutal oppressive history- and most of the world, except ourselves, seems to know this- and that is why a topic is so hard for an American to participate in. We have been brainwashed into thinking all our actions are somehow for "the greater good" or some claptrap.
It is hard to even find 2 instances were we were even marginally "good" in any action post stalin or Korea - Grenada I would say we were the good guys- after all, the stalinists DID hack up the Bishop , a freely elected figure. Vietnam was probably a wash- both sides equally bad- and we didn't even allow elections because we knew Ho Chi Minh would win! The shah of Iran- one of the main reasons Iranians hate us, if not THE #1 reason, Pinochet, who "disappeared" 27000 poeple- after we helped him with his coup over Allende'.
America is pretty much known for "having the bible in one hand and a gun in the other"-
There is this thing called "believing your own press" that is not healthy either.
I don't think for one second that no matter what the "standard of living" was to be under US or British rule, they would have fought us tooth and nail until we were driven out, at any cost.
Sometimes I think it is completely impossible for most americans to "put the shoe on the other foot".
Like I said, I view GW as our personal Saddam Hussien, a domestic one if you will, and would not cry one tear over this administrations demise- but I would fight ANY foriegn power that tried to bring about that demise outside of our own cultures norms for this change i.e.- the usual lies we call a "campaign" LOL
Happy as I would be to see GW arrested, thrown into jail and eventually put to death over his crimes, would fight the invaders tooth and nail, and anyone playing "appeaser" to that power- by working for the puppet goverment, in any capacity- as a collaborator and a legitimate target.
We have the term, if we didn't come up with it, as "collateral damage"- of course- killing 30K + Iraqi innocent civilians, which I think is very low estimation- I think it is much closer to the John Hopkins 100K- which puts us just about in Saddam territory for killing innocents- is not as bad because they other guys do it on "purpose" but we do it on "accident" would make no difference to me if it were MY family.
Let us not forget our now well known systematic torture of suspects all over the globe.
Can we ever see why others hate us?
It is because we just can't put the shoe on the other foot, atone for our bad behaviors, admit it and punish the guilty- no matter what we claim our "ideals" to be
I think you have made the general mistake most american military types do- that, somehow, the other side will believe you are the "good guy" when invading another country. We have a long and brutal oppressive history- and most of the world, except ourselves, seems to know this- and that is why a topic is so hard for an American to participate in. We have been brainwashed into thinking all our actions are somehow for "the greater good" or some claptrap.
It is hard to even find 2 instances were we were even marginally "good" in any action post stalin or Korea - Grenada I would say we were the good guys- after all, the stalinists DID hack up the Bishop , a freely elected figure. Vietnam was probably a wash- both sides equally bad- and we didn't even allow elections because we knew Ho Chi Minh would win! The shah of Iran- one of the main reasons Iranians hate us, if not THE #1 reason, Pinochet, who "disappeared" 27000 poeple- after we helped him with his coup over Allende'.
America is pretty much known for "having the bible in one hand and a gun in the other"-
There is this thing called "believing your own press" that is not healthy either.
I don't think for one second that no matter what the "standard of living" was to be under US or British rule, they would have fought us tooth and nail until we were driven out, at any cost.
Sometimes I think it is completely impossible for most americans to "put the shoe on the other foot".
Like I said, I view GW as our personal Saddam Hussien, a domestic one if you will, and would not cry one tear over this administrations demise- but I would fight ANY foriegn power that tried to bring about that demise outside of our own cultures norms for this change i.e.- the usual lies we call a "campaign" LOL
Happy as I would be to see GW arrested, thrown into jail and eventually put to death over his crimes, would fight the invaders tooth and nail, and anyone playing "appeaser" to that power- by working for the puppet goverment, in any capacity- as a collaborator and a legitimate target.
We have the term, if we didn't come up with it, as "collateral damage"- of course- killing 30K + Iraqi innocent civilians, which I think is very low estimation- I think it is much closer to the John Hopkins 100K- which puts us just about in Saddam territory for killing innocents- is not as bad because they other guys do it on "purpose" but we do it on "accident" would make no difference to me if it were MY family.
Let us not forget our now well known systematic torture of suspects all over the globe.
Can we ever see why others hate us?
It is because we just can't put the shoe on the other foot, atone for our bad behaviors, admit it and punish the guilty- no matter what we claim our "ideals" to be
QUOTE
Like I said, I view GW as our personal Saddam Hussien, a domestic one if you will, and would not cry one tear over this administrations demise
If you had said or wrote that under Saddam Hussien, you would now be dead. I don't like George Bush and will be happy to see a new president in 2008, but comparing him to Saddam doesn't make any sense.
QUOTE
There is this thing called "believing your own press" that is not healthy either.
I'm not so sure the press is even pro-American or pro-military.
QUOTE
I think you have made the general mistake most american military types do- that, somehow, the other side will believe you are the "good guy" when invading another country.
QUOTE
Sometimes I think it is completely impossible for most americans to "put the shoe on the other foot".
Like I've said before, while I do have a hard time putting the shoe on the other foot, I can understand why some would be upset at losing loved ones as collateral damage. But how much time have you spent talking with people who have actualy been there? The Iraqis are very happy we are there. That's coming straight from the horses mouth. Not through media or any other outlet. The media coverage is shows a lot more bad than good even though a lot more good is being done over there.
Where are you getting your information? If you don't believe the media, then do you have first hand knowledge? I respect your right to have an opinion, but please explain what it is based on.
CR, I'm happy to let you rant away and all, but precious little of what you posted had any correlation whatsoever to what I posted, or in relation to the question posed for us to debate.
I have stated my thoughts in response to the question of If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?. You have essentially responded with diatribes against US foreign and domestic policy throughout our history, with the obligatory 'I Hate Bush', thrown in for good measure. The sad part is this, you have railed against US history, yet seemingly have no compunction in acting in the same manner as current insurgencies who maim and kill indiscriminately, your fellow countrymen. Making you no better than the very people you claim to hate.
You seem to think that just because the US has a sordid past, as all nations do, that US citizens could never or would never act in a respectful and humane manner if we were invaded. I have stated that I would not wish to see my fellow ordinary citizens killed in an attempt to wrest control back of my nation, and you vent against me as if I'm the bad guy. Strange.
Additionally, if your opening sentence was referencing my reply to English Horn (it is kind of hard to tell), then you appear to be saying that the WWII US Military would have acted in the same manner as the German Army concerning invading the Soviet Union. If you wish to draw those hypothetical comparisons based simply on your opinion, that's fine. But if you can't see the fundamental differences, I certainly can't help you.
I have stated my thoughts in response to the question of If another nation invaded your country, would you not fight to repel any and all armed invaders? If another nation invaded your country, would you help that nation rebuild your country to their own liking?. You have essentially responded with diatribes against US foreign and domestic policy throughout our history, with the obligatory 'I Hate Bush', thrown in for good measure. The sad part is this, you have railed against US history, yet seemingly have no compunction in acting in the same manner as current insurgencies who maim and kill indiscriminately, your fellow countrymen. Making you no better than the very people you claim to hate.
You seem to think that just because the US has a sordid past, as all nations do, that US citizens could never or would never act in a respectful and humane manner if we were invaded. I have stated that I would not wish to see my fellow ordinary citizens killed in an attempt to wrest control back of my nation, and you vent against me as if I'm the bad guy. Strange.
Additionally, if your opening sentence was referencing my reply to English Horn (it is kind of hard to tell), then you appear to be saying that the WWII US Military would have acted in the same manner as the German Army concerning invading the Soviet Union. If you wish to draw those hypothetical comparisons based simply on your opinion, that's fine. But if you can't see the fundamental differences, I certainly can't help you.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Feb 5 2006, 10:58 AM)
You've left out the fact that after the Wehrmacht rolled through the Soviet Union, the SS and Einsatzgruppen 'mopped up' and summarily executed all political commissars, intellectuals and Jews. Actions such as those would tend to propagate hatred. So yes, I truly believe that if the U.S. or Britain had invaded, as long as they brought up the standard of living for Soviet citizens somewhere above serfdom, the resistance would have been on a lesser scale.
I have no doubts that British and American military would behave in much better manner than SS troops did. Let's even assume that British and American troops would have had only noble goals in mind such as liberation of Russia from Stalin, etc. With all due respect, I think that the goals of the invaders have little relevance for the invaded. Maybe that's the difference between "Western" and "Eastern" way of thinking - West always puts individual liberties over state's needs. In the East, state elevated over the individual needs and freedoms. That's why "kamikaze"-style personal ultimate sacrifices were so common among Japanese and Russian troops and relatively rare among Western soldiers. It's not because Western soldiers are "less heroic" - it's the difference in cultures.
The defense and liberation of "motherland" is the central theme that goes through many masterpieces of Russian literature, film, and music, from the ancient "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" to "War and Peace" to "Alexander Nevsky" the movie. It's the same kind of thinking that makes someone to buy American-made car even though a similar Japanese car is better designed, has better build quality, and costs less. Imagine this thinking blown over to the N-th degree and meshed over 1000 years of history when your country was under a yoke for hundreds of years, invaded by Lithuanians, Mongols, Poles, Swedes, French, Germans, and God knows who else.
"That's why "kamikaze"-style personal ultimate sacrifices were so common among Japanese and Russian troops and relatively rare among Western soldiers. It's not because Western soldiers are "less heroic" - it's the difference in cultures"
I believe culture has less to do with it than we'd think. I think it's more to do with personal human response. That and the fact that Asians and the WW2 Russians had ideological motivation and dedication unseen in the west.
I believe culture has less to do with it than we'd think. I think it's more to do with personal human response. That and the fact that Asians and the WW2 Russians had ideological motivation and dedication unseen in the west.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.