Why do people hate Americans???

[Kenshin Axel]

Why do people hate Americans?
Sure, there are a hell of alot of people who are against the whole Iraq war and President Bush, butwhat that does that have to do with the American people?
I'm not even American, but when one of my friends started saying stuff like:
"Americans are such faggots!! They think theyre so big and tough!!"
And just started talking all this $hit, I got really pissed off!!
Alot of people don't know this, but thats racism
Alot of people think racism is just between different cloured skin, but it's not.
Man, it just really pisses me off when people bag out Americans, when half the time they have never even met an American person!!

But everybody loves us Australians :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

[Phil-co]

Actually, racism is believing that your particular race is superior to other races, so I don't think it's racism to hate Americans. Those who hate Americans do so mostly because of what the American government is doing, and since the government is elected by the Americans, or so they say, the American public will get the blame. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just explaining how many people perhaps think.

[gsx1100s]

I believe it stems from some peoples inability to seperate the Government of the time from the people in that country.I cannot believe the idiocy of Bush and the people that work with him. Yet I have a great admiration for the American people that I have met. I also believe the current Government in Australia is full of idiots and "yes men" for Bush . I still love my country though.

It's simple to me how can a person hate a people when they haven't met everyone of them?????

cheers Michael

[nodachi]

Good quote I once read on someone's wall, "I love my country, but I fear my government."

The ideals that are supposed to be the pillars of our government are nice, but how politicians apply and often bend laws for whatever purpose tend to not go along with those ideals sometimes.

We also have a habit of sticking our noses in other people's business a bit too much. Yes, it is good and necessary in some cases (and sometimes the rest of the world agrees), but not in all cases (and at those times the rest of you let us know quite clearly:)). Hopefully things will change in the near future.

That is all I'll say. These discussions often get heated so I'm fleeing the kitchen!!! :)

[Kyros Nighle]

well i dont know really, but ive heard a lot of people being resented about how many americans think for example that all the world should speak english, and that all the world should use dollars, that kind of stuff.

i personally hold no grudge, in fact most of my friends are americans

[Kenshin Axel]

Actually, racism is believing that your particular race is superior to other races, so I don't think it's racism to hate Americans..
Well, it's like racism.
Infact, what you said is pretty much saying it's racism, if they hate Americans, and are always complaining about them, you'd think that they think theyre race is better.
:smoker:

[Phil-co]

Well, it's like racism.
Infact, what you said is pretty much saying it's racism, if they hate Americans, and are always complaining about them, you'd think that they think theyre race is better.
:smoker:

Well, you can hate someone without it being a racial matter, can't you? But it doesn't really matter, I think we all agree that it's stupid to judge people you haven't met. Actually it's stupid to judge people. Period.

[KhawMengLee]

Well, you can hate someone without it being a racial matter, can't you? But it doesn't really matter, I think we all agree that it's stupid to judge people you haven't met. Actually it's stupid to judge people. Period.

True, unfortunately it is the easy way to judge a group by the actions of a few. Even more so when the few are their leaders.

I always liked the line from Gettysburg, "Any man who judges people by the group is a halfwit."

BUT...On the Other Hand, I would not call it hate. More dislike and disdain. HATE is something different. HATE is what the victims of coalition brutality, torture, collateral damage and humiliation feel. But that is a whole other issue...we on the other hand, just think Bush is an evil man who puts lining his pockets before the lives of his own people, let alone the ones he sends his people to kill.

I really find it funny how none of the members of his cabinet, save Powell(Yay!), have ever been in Combat, yet, advocate the use of war. It is ironic then, how Powell was also the only voice against it.

VOTE COLIN POWELL FOR PRESIDENT!

[Kyros Nighle]

QUOTE* BUT...On the Other Hand, I would not call it hate. More dislike and disdain. HATE is something different. HATE is what the victims of coalition brutality, torture, collateral damage and humiliation feel. But that is a whole other issue...we on the other hand, just think Bush is an evil man who puts lining his pockets before the lives of his own people, let alone the ones he sends his people to kill.

I really find it funny how none of the members of his cabinet, save Powell(Yay!), have ever been in Combat, yet, advocate the use of war. It is ironic then, how Powell was also the only voice against it.

VOTE COLIN POWELL FOR PRESIDENT! *QUOTE

totally agree!

[Phil-co]

BUT...On the Other Hand, I would not call it hate. More dislike and disdain. HATE is something different. HATE is what the victims of coalition brutality, torture, collateral damage and humiliation feel. But that is a whole other issue...we on the other hand, just think Bush is an evil man who puts lining his pockets before the lives of his own people, let alone the ones he sends his people to kill.

I have to agree with you there!

[indigo0086]

you can't rationalize hate. Whatever excuse is not a good reason. Or they are just a bunch of buggers.

[nalogg]

Just like austrailia everybody loves canada too!

I'm not anti-american or anything but living next door to the yanks, i've seen my share of dumb behavior....

A large number of americans (and canadians i'll concede) being the big boy of the world's nations, seem to have trouble stepping outside the nationalistic thinking that is just stewing down there.

i dont like to generalize but As a result it may make them look ignorant, or arrogant. I think that's why so many people hate them, although i personally know MANY exceptions of this stereotype.

It's a common problem with people outside of their home country for the first time (or who leave rarely) where they are unable to behave properly, or according to subtle social conduct laid down by that country, because they just dont know they're doing anything wrong.

(fortunately Canadian social conduct is a throwback from the brittish commonwealth: extreme politeness in the face of uncertainty)

HOWEVER does the problem lie in the offender, or the offended?
is it not our own fault for not empathizing with these outsiders, and forgiving their social transgressions?

maybe it's everybody's fault

[Kaoru]

True, unfortunately it is the easy way to judge a group by the actions of a few. Even more so when the few are their leaders.

I always liked the line from Gettysburg, "Any man who judges people by the group is a halfwit."

BUT...On the Other Hand, I would not call it hate. More dislike and disdain. HATE is something different. HATE is what the victims of coalition brutality, torture, collateral damage and humiliation feel. But that is a whole other issue...we on the other hand, just think Bush is an evil man who puts lining his pockets before the lives of his own people, let alone the ones he sends his people to kill.

I really find it funny how none of the members of his cabinet, save Powell(Yay!), have ever been in Combat, yet, advocate the use of war. It is ironic then, how Powell was also the only voice against it.

VOTE COLIN POWELL FOR PRESIDENT!
If I may disagree...

No, what is EVIL, is LETTING the insurgents have their way, and not get rid of them. If we do not fight this war, then they win. Understand?

The war has COST money, NOT EARNED money for Bush. Wars don't earn money. He doesn't pocket money. He gets a FIXED salary. Did you know that? And, it is NOT an insane high amount like what a monarchy gets a year. I believe it is $400,000 per year that he earns. Yes, that seems like a lot but it is not, considering the President is the head of state in charge of running a country, which is VERY DIFFICULT. And, there are plenty more who earn twice to three times and much more even that amount here, and they don't even have to deal with stuff like this. I say this, because you make it sound like he is actually earning money off the war, which is impossible. We have laws that prevent it. Our government loses money, not earns it, in a war just like yours does when it goes to war. We haven't taken anything from the country of Iraq, and that is why. When you plunder a country, then yes, you take and line your pockets, so to speak, and get richer because you did. We did not plunder Iraq. Why do you think we handed over the country to an Interim government? We did not want to take over Iraq, that's why. We don't want to take things and money from them.

If you people think it is only about oil, then that is pretty stupid. ALL COUNTRIES have political agenda in ANY war, whether or not you want to realise it. And, it is unfair to call Bush evil, when the ones who ARE evil, are the ones behaving like spoiled brats because they can't have their way, so they cut people's heads off or blow people up, because they are too stupid to see that doing that won't give them their own way. They have been brainwashed since little kids to believe they MUST kill others to get their way. There is a major difference between killing on purpose to make a point and people just getting killed in action because they are fighting against each other. Mind you, getting killed in action isn't nice either, and no matter what country it is who is fighting, people will die in fights, even if it isn't the US involved.

So, what is evil, is the deliberate killings the insurgents and terrorists have been doing.

Being in combat or not being in combat has nothing to do with knowing whether or not to go to war. Just because you were in a war, doesn't make a person smarter about war necessarily. Sure, they know what it is LIKE, but that does not mean they will make a better decision. That is just grasping at straws and looking for someone to blame.

let alone the ones he sends his people to kill.
Excuse me, but our troops are not killing Iraqis on purpose, who are decent people. They are NOT aiming at innocent people. Haven't you worked that out by now? They are after the insurgents and terrorists, If I must spell it out for you. You know, the ones who kill because they want to get their way, and steal from their own people? Oh, and beat their ladies, and kill whatever they see that is in their way, and censor the poor people to death and oh, a ton of things. With them in charge, these people will alway have nothing and are at the mercy of these mean people. The words "kind to others" is not in these bad people's vocabulary. They actually think it is ok to go around killing those who aren't Muslim or who make them angry.(The insurgents, radicals and terrorists, I mean) It is NOT ok. I don't mind if a person is Muslim. Why should people kill someone just because the religion is different then theirs? Geez, it is so arrogant to think one religion is better than another.

So.. If I am to believe what you wrote and to me, implied, you would rather have bad people like the insurgents and terroirists in charge of Irag than fight to get rid of them for the Iragi people who can't do it alone? These bad people are attacking eerybody out of misguided hatred for something they grew up believing, because they knew no other thing to believe, due to brainwashing, and the is NO way to reverse this. You just have to get rid of them. Sad, but true. You can't reason with a crazy person or crazy bunch of people. They will kill everyone if they are not dealt with. If we don't try to do it, what country will? Nobody. Why? They are too chicken and only care about themselves. And, I am talking about the government, NOT the citizens. Citizens of any country will always be divided on issues. My question: If we did not put our foot into this, and left Saddam there, who would have tried to stop him from killing his own people? I doubt anyone would have. No, he'd just still be killing off many more civilians for no good reason while the rest of the world let him. The same goes for Bin Laden, and etc. People by nature, do not like helping others and only help if they are obligated to a lot of the time. This is very unfortunate. Sad, too.

So, before you go call a person evil, consider what is the meaning of evil. Bush is not perfect, but he does not advocate all the bad things these bad people do, and did not advocate the prison abuse.(Which by the way, is not the same as what the bad people are doing.) And, sending off soldiers to war is not evil either. What is evil would be to allow this spoiled brat behavior to continue. If nobody fights, then who wins? These people who love to kill and hold innocent people in terror every day.

Just my humble opinion...

Oh, and so you all know, I hate this war too, because I can't stand fighting. But, talking and negotiating isn't going to work this time, There IS no other choice. It is only wishful dreaming to think we can solve this without a fight.

Kaoru

[not-I]

Hmm, looks like i'm only the second yankee doodle dandy to respond to this (after Nodachi). Why do people hate us? Becasue we're arrogant, loud-mouthed bumpkins with a huge military machine and a crazy government and we're coming to kick your ass!

Seriously though, i agree with KhawMeng's distinction and Nalogg's comments. Big countries tend to be rather self-centered and ethnocentric. Some people dislike the French, Germans, or Chinese for similar reasons. There is, however, another explanation for real hatred, rather than just a dislike of certain nationals behavior abroad. It is simple envy, especially of those who feel their countries should have a bigger say in the world.

People are often suprised to find out i'm American because i don't fit the white anglo-saxon protestant, baseball-cap donning, gum-chewing, kiss-my-ass clichee that many seem to have of us, although i guess there's at least some of that in me. The image of the "ugly American" gains more currency as our government continues to piss off the rest of the world, but take some time to get to know some of us, and you'll find that we can be friendly, honest and open-minded.

Ok, enough of this. I'm missing the European Cup! Go Portugal! (although i'm for the Czechs in the final!)

[Phil-co]

Kaoru, (and everyone else)
I think you're on a dangerous path here. You yourself are talking about who's good and who's bad (as if it's a fact), and then you talk about brainwashed people. To some, the description above fits the USA like a glove; "Bad people attacking everybody out of misguided hatred for something they grew up believing, because they knew no other thing to believe". It all depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Terrorists beheading people and American soldiers bombing weddings, can be the same thing. It's not that the the US troops just made some mistakes, and really were going after the terrorists, they knew damn well what they were doing. Maybe the terrorists thought that their prisoners actually were American terrorists? Maybe what I said is stupid, but I'm just making a point here. The point is, don't be so sure that what the US (or any other country for that matter) is doing is the right, or 'good' thing, and that the enemies are the 'evil' ones. Don't assume that the reason why some other countries don't go to war is that they are cowards. Maybe, just maybe, it is because these countries know that the war is unjust, and that it is not a matter of good vs. bad. If you (Kaoru and everyone else) think that it is a sort of biblical good vs. bad, I think you're sadly mistaken. But what do I know? Maybe I'm wrong and you're right? Now off to the footie I go...

[Skolld]

Kaoru,
wow, talk about brainwashed and crazy,
I would love to respond to your rant but can't seem to find any shred of logic in it. On the plus side though, you have adaquately demonstrated why people hate Americans.

[indigo0086]

Kaoru, (and everyone else)
I think you're on a dangerous path here. You yourself are talking about who's good and who's bad (as if it's a fact), and then you talk about brainwashed people. To some, the description above fits the USA like a glove; "Bad people attacking everybody out of misguided hatred for something they grew up believing, because they knew no other thing to believe". It all depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Terrorists beheading people and American soldiers bombing weddings, can be the same thing. It's not that the the US troops just made some mistakes, and really were going after the terrorists, they knew damn well what they were doing. Maybe the terrorists thought that their prisoners actually were American terrorists? Maybe what I said is stupid, but I'm just making a point here. The point is, don't be so sure that what the US (or any other country for that matter) is doing is the right, or 'good' thing, and that the enemies are the 'evil' ones. Don't assume that the reason why some other countries don't go to war is that they are cowards. Maybe, just maybe, it is because these countries know that the war is unjust, and that it is not a matter of good vs. bad. If you (Kaoru and everyone else) think that it is a sort of biblical good vs. bad, I think you're sadly mistaken. But what do I know? Maybe I'm wrong and you're right? Now off to the footie I go...

well, the american soldiers must be poorly terrorist since we don't use Children as shields and kidnap and murder civilians.

[rainmaker]

America has mixed race, not only white people lives there, but also Asian, African-american, native and many other race. When I say America, that does not mean I hate white falks living in America. Hating American probably means American policy towards other countires. When American soldier murdered Korean girls in Korea, they don't be charged by Korean law, but American law. Such policy will frustrate Koreans or other countries. We do not hate all individual Americans, but we hate ignorant, dumb bastard. This applies not only American, but also other countries or races, including my own race. We hate people who think they are the best and whom they think they can control other people's life. For example, Bush.

I do not hate Ms. Smith or Mr. Robinson who lives in New Jersey whom I have never seen in my life. But I probably hate Mr. Harrison, who lives in Korea and think he can fuck any Korean girls. I hate America when they force Korean government join Iraq war, if Korea does not join, Korea will be forced to get less oil by paying more from Iraq, or less businss from US. See what I mean ? Just like everyone hates Bully....


Why do people hate Americans?
Sure, there are a hell of alot of people who are against the whole Iraq war and President Bush, butwhat that does that have to do with the American people?
I'm not even American, but when one of my friends started saying stuff like:
"Americans are such faggots!! They think theyre so big and tough!!"
And just started talking all this $hit, I got really pissed off!!
Alot of people don't know this, but thats racism
Alot of people think racism is just between different cloured skin, but it's not.
Man, it just really pisses me off when people bag out Americans, when half the time they have never even met an American person!!

But everybody loves us Australians :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

[kenshin13]

wow. You guys are really funny. :) I am American, but I have nothing to say except keep up the good work! You guys are keepin me entertained.

I am not trying to be mean. I really don't care what other peo ple think about groups of Americans, I just care about what people think of me and individuals. But you can rant all ya want, I'm not stoppin ya! :wink:

And sorry that I have confused you with this crappy reply.

[Phil-co]

well, the american soldiers must be poorly terrorist since we don't use Children as shields and kidnap and murder civilians.

I was only making a point. I didn't say that the american soldiers actually are terrorists, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I'm just saying that it all depends on your point of view. American soldiers can be perceived as terrorists, because they are going into other countries and, yes dare I say, murder civilians. Now, of course, if you think that the american soldiers are doing the right thing, they are not terrorists, and their killing of civilians are just mistakes. But if you believe that they are in Iraq for example without having the right to be there, then you could easily believe that they are doing terrorist attacks in the country (terrorist attacks in that sense that their actions are being performed on a sub state level, or perhaps on a state-client level, i.e. states performing terrorist attacks by using 'clients', so the government itself is officially without blame).

Your quote above is a perfect example of what I meant, it is not as easy as black and white. In my opinion. Again, don't be so quick to judge, just because you can't understand it. Just because it seems to you that you are doing the right thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. And vice versa of course, what I say isn't necessarily the right thing.


/Phil-co

[not-I]

Kaoru, I don’t wish to offend you, but I find your viewpoint incredibly naïve and emotional.

First of all, wars always make money, at least for the “victors.” Wars drain government budgets, but that money goes to weapons industries, electronics firms, and all sorts of contractors and sub-contractors, often the same companies that give Bush so much cash for his re-election campaign. I hold the opinion that the Iraq war was mainly about getting oil and securing a foothold in the Middle East to get more oil without having to be dependent on Saudi Arabia. You may think that’s stupid, but to me, it’s simple geo-politics.

As to Saddam Hussein, the U.S. government supported him for years when they were fully aware that he was killing his own people and using chemical weapons. They have never had a problem with supporting awful dictators and repressive governments when it served their interests. A long list of such cases can be supplied on demand. If you think this was about coming to the rescue of the Iraqis, think again.

Thirdly, Bush started the whole “Axis of Evil” rhetoric. He even used the word “Crusade” once, in an age when it looked like we were finally over being absolutely certain about things. You may or may not agree with the religious overtones, but at the very least, that is very bad diplomacy. Don’t be surprised when the “evil” epithet comes back to him because of his policies. Things are not as simple as they may seem (I’m with Phil-Co on this).

Fourthly, of course the insurgents are doing bad things. But, since you asked, are the Iraqis better off after all this? Under Saddam, they could get arrested and killed for criticizing the government or happening to belong to a particular ethnic group. At least they could go to school, pursue normal jobs, and not have to worry about random theft, incarceration, and getting blown up by a bomb in a country that has become a terrorist playground. This is not to say that things can change for the better, as we all hope they eventually will.

Ok, we shouldn’t have gone there, but now we’re there. The insurgents must be stopped and a stable system established so the Iraqis can get on with their lives. I agree with you there. But let’s be down-to-earth about it. Iraq is an incredibly complex place with a long history and it won’t be pacified by moral rhetoric or simple solutions, especially those imposed not only by another country, but by another culture.. There is no reason to expect that Iraq will simply ignore its tribal traditions and embrace American-style democracy.

Fifthly, I venture to say that whether someone in a position of power has seen combat or not seen combat has a hell of a lot to do with his or her decision to go to war or not.

Finally, for someone who “can’t stand fighting,” you seem awfully keen to “just get rid of them.”

Kaoru, I know some of your posts from before. I know you often help people to find dojo and I commend you for that. I just think you shouldn’t let your emotions run away with you and post rants without taking the time to think about what you’re saying. You could be more concise too, but who am i to comment on that? :wink:

[Masahiro]

Dear kaoru,

you are free to think however you want and speak however you wish, after all American is the land of the free where the freedom of speech is given but only to those who are in power, for the less privilidged you are given the same right but often unable to speak freely without being frawned uppon. Often times frawuned uppon by your own Americans. Talk about irony, so please do speak your mind. People are too sensitive these days. As soon as disagreements occurs, fights break out. Wars happen, whatever happened to just having a conversation and agree on what you disagree? I encourage anyone to disagree with me as long as they provide a substantially intelligent logic of reason.

I refuse to comment about hating American's . .. because it's one's action I hate not one's nationality.

[indigo0086]

I was only making a point. I didn't say that the american soldiers actually are terrorists, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I'm just saying that it all depends on your point of view. American soldiers can be perceived as terrorists, because they are going into other countries and, yes dare I say, murder civilians. Now, of course, if you think that the american soldiers are doing the right thing, they are not terrorists, and their killing of civilians are just mistakes. But if you believe that they are in Iraq for example without having the right to be there, then you could easily believe that they are doing terrorist attacks in the country (terrorist attacks in that sense that their actions are being performed on a sub state level, or perhaps on a state-client level, i.e. states performing terrorist attacks by using 'clients', so the government itself is officially without blame).

Your quote above is a perfect example of what I meant, it is not as easy as black and white. In my opinion. Again, don't be so quick to judge, just because you can't understand it. Just because it seems to you that you are doing the right thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. And vice versa of course, what I say isn't necessarily the right thing.


/Phil-co
The thing about iraqui civilians is that many of them tend to cary guns. If a civilian shoots you, would you take a bullet and die a hero, or defend yourself and be a murderer? And I'm sorry if I don't understand the military strategy of surgical, so to speak, beheadings and kidnapping, suicide bombing, and using civilians as shields. Maybe it's just my ignorant american mindset, but so far we haven't been breaking into iraqui houses killing iraqui kids eating their iraqui lollypops.

[KhawMengLee]

If I may disagree...

No, what is EVIL, is LETTING the insurgents have their way, and not get rid of them. If we do not fight this war, then they win. Understand?

Kaoru

1) Before the war began Iraq had no insurgents. Saddam, even tho' he was a dictator, is a Sunni muslim. Meaning he is a moderate and is far from the fanatics that orchestrated the 911 attacks. The idea of him and Osama in the same bed is ridiculous because of the history of Saddam's rise to power.
In fact this war is not stopping terror its increasing it. One will have too look to Iraq's history to understand this.

Iraq has a Shiite majority. One that Iran has been trying for years to control and therefor control the country. Shiites as you my not know are who most of the hardline fanatics(Osama) are.

Iran(pre Iran-Iraq war) was raiding ships indescriminately along the persian gulf in a bid to cripple Iraq's economy as well as trying to raise dissent among the Shiite majority.

It is commonly accepted by most of the mainstream that Iraq started the Iran-Iraq war. But any honest historian will tell you that this is simply not true.

The radical Shiite government of Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini essentially tore up a treaty with Iraq that guaranteed Iraq navigation rights on the Shatt-Al-Arab (A river channel, about 193 km (120 mi) long, of southeast Iraq formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and flowing southeast to the Persian Gulf. The Shatt al Arab forms part of the Iraq-Iran border, and navigation rights to the channel have long been disputed by the two countries).

With the navigation rights gone, the Iraqi economy would suffer greatly. Thus as is typical of Middle Eastern politics, Hussein ordered Iraqi units to make minor incursions into Iran to enhance his bargaining position. However the bargaining failed and thus began the Iran-Iraq war.

It must be remembered that several months before the Iraq invasion (invasion occurred on September 23rd 1980), that the Iranians attempted to assassinate numerous Iraqi officials. A timeline of events shortly before the actual war began is as follows, also included are events shortly after the war began. I also include shortly before the war ended. I apologize for skipping the middle, but the middle of the war was mostly attacks and counter-attacks, and stalemate for the most part.

February 1979, after 15 years of exile, Ayatollah Khomeini arrives in Tehran (capital of Iran), and his Revolutionary forces take over the government
.
June 1979, Revolutionary Regime in Iran urges Iraqis to rise against their rulers.

February 3rd, 1980, Bani Sadr takes office as Iran’s first president.

March 8th, 1980, Iran withdraws its ambassador from Iraq.

April 1st, 1980, Iran attempted to kill Iraqi Deputy Premier Tariq Aziz.

April 15th, 1980, Iran attempted to kill Iraqi Minister of Information Latif Nusseif al-Jasim.

May-August of 1980 clashes begin along Iran-Iraq border.

September 4th, 1980, Iran shells Khanaqin and Mandali.

September 23rd, 1980, Iraq invades Iran.

September 28th, 1980, Iraqi army units halt at the outskirts of Ahvaz and Susangerd (Both are major cities), and readies to accept a ceasefire with Iran.

October 5th, 1980, Iraq requests a ceasefire. Iran rejects the idea.

October 6th, 1980, Iraq besieges Khorramshahr (major city). Street fighting begins.

October 22nd, 1980, Iraq besieges Abadan (major city, very important for oil and flow of exports).

October 24th, 1980, Khorramshahr falls to Iraqi army.

January 5-11th, 1981, major Iranian counter-offensive around Susangerd fails.


Iraq made only minor incursions into Iran. The notion that it only offered a cease-fire because it realized it had “Bitten off more than it could chew” is false, within a few weeks of the first Iraqi offer; they took Khorramshahr and besieged several other major cities. Saddam just wanted Iran to stop shelling Iraqi border towns, to stop arming and stirring up the Shiite and Kurd population within Iraq, and to stop threatening Iraqi commerce on the Shatt-al-Arab. Saddam made no less than 10 declarations of wanting a ceasefire throughout the war. The UN ordered on less than 10 ceasefires. Iraq suggests ceasefires long before the 1981-1982 reversal of fortunes in the war and the invasion of Iraq by Iran.

Shortly after the initial Iraqi attacks Iran counter-attacked, around 1981-1982 Iran drove Iraq from Iranian territory and the war shifted into Iraq, it was mostly a static WW1 style war, with large losses and little appreciable gains.

On July 20th, 1987, UN Security Council passes Resolution 598, calling for withdrawal of Iranian and Iraqi forces back to the internationally recognized boundaries. Iraq welcomes the Resolution, but Iran rejects it.

On July 22nd, 1987, Kuwaiti oil tankers begin to fly the US flag and the tankers receive US Naval protection. Iran threatened to sink all ships in the Persian Gulf, so the Kuwaitis “lent” their ships to the USA.

On September 4th, 1987, Iran fired missiles into Kuwait,

On September 22nd, 1987, US ships attack and capture an Iranian mine-laying vessel with mines on board. The Iranians intended to lay mines in the Persian Gulf.

Through October 8-22 US Naval forces sink 3 Iranian patrol boats in the gulf. Iran fires at unprotected US-owned oil tankers. US destroys an disused Iranian oil platform.
January 14-15, 1988, Iran attacks 3 oil tankers in two days.

March 15-16, 1988, Iraqi forces recapture the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja; the attack was preceded by the use of a large amount of chemical weaponry by the Iraqi army.

April 18th, 1988, US Naval forces sink 6 Iranian warships.

July 13-17 1988, Iraqi forces launch massive counter attacks and drive Iran from Iraqi soil and for the first time since 1982, Iraqi forces hold Iranian territory.

July 17th, 1988, Iran unconditionally accepts UN Resolution 598 and a ceasefire is declared.

Iran basically accepted because 1) Iraq had crossed into Iran again (the war was going badly for Iran at the moment). 2) Iraq threatened to hit Tehran (Iranian capital) with several hundred missiles with chemical weapon warheads unless Iran ended the war immediately.




During the Iran-Iraq war, we must remember that essentially the West, the USA, and the U.S.S.R. all backed Iraq. Basically only Libya, Syria, and North Korea backed Iran. Khomeini publicly spoke of spreading the Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East, he was a man bent on expansionism of Shiite Islamic values. He had to be stopped, and Saddam’s Iraq went to bat and stopped him, but only at great cost to Iraq. From 1980-1988, Saddam had to fight to save Iraq from a massive Iranian invasion, it was a seesaw war for the most part, where one side would make a few small gains, and then lose them shortly thereafter.

In January of 1987, Iran launched a massive assault against Al-Basra (Codenamed Karbala 5). Iraq only managed to hold Basra because they used MASSIVE quantities of Chemical Weapons (Blister and Nerve agents, primarily Nitrogen Mustard and Sarin Gas).

It should also be remembered that during the war Iran violated UN Security Council Resolution 598, and thus the UN placed a general Arms Embargo on them. Iraq however was given all the weapons they needed. Iran was sinking neutral ships in the Persian Gulf in an attempt to strangle the Iraqi economy by hurting their trading partners. Iran was on a warpath and needed to be stopped. Iraq was willing to stop them, and ultimately Iraq’s efforts would be repaid by betrayal from her former supporters in the West.

In the matter with the Kurds and the Shiites in Iraq, they were rebels. Saddam dealt with them in a manner similar to how the Americans dealt with the Indians. Saddam crushed the rebels. The only problem was that he crushed them with chemical weapons, rather than just doing the politically correct thing and simply shooting them(sarc).

It should also be remembered that the US chemical companies that sold Saddam the precursors to make his chemical weapons did so with the approval of the US Government, even though in some cases it was tacit approval. They were sold largely as “Pesticides” and “Industrial Chemicals”. Let us not forget the weapons grade anthrax and botulinum that was delivered to Iraq courtesy of the USA. What did the USA think Saddam was going to use the Chemical Weapons for?

It should also be noted that France sold Iraq a nuclear reactor and that during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was going to use the nuclear reactor to build a power plant to vastly improve the quality of life of her people.

************************************************** *****
End Part 1

[KhawMengLee]

The Iran-Iraq war left the Iraqi economy largely in ruins and Iraq was deeply in debt, by 1988 Iraq owed over 100 billion to foreign creditors. In January of 1990, Saddam asked that one of his largest creditors (Kuwait) erase his debt since the debt had been incurred fighting a war to save nations like Kuwait from Iranian aggression.

Kuwait however refused to help Iraq; the nation that had endured 8 years of war was being snubbed… And that wasn’t the worst part; Kuwait was cheating on OPEC oil deals and producing much more oil than agreed to, the price dropped to $18 per barrel of oil. Iraq calculated that the price of $25 per barrel would really help boost the Iraqi economy, they asked Kuwait to abide by the agreements and cut production so the price would rise.

Kuwait wanted to flood the market with cheap oil so as to delay the development of alternative sources, and to make the world more dependent on Kuwait oil. Kuwait refused to cut production; they refused to abide by the agreement. Iraq simply sucked it up and tried to put a good face on a bad situation. Then it became known that Kuwait was directly stealing oil from Iraq by setting up drilling in the southern section of the Iraqi oilfields at al-Rumalia. Iraq was furious, as any nation would be.

Shortly after the revelations about the al-Rumalia oil thefts, Iraq began to amass soldiers on the border with Kuwait. Iraq demanded 10 billion dollars for the loss of oil from the al-Rumalia oilfields in exchange they would substantially reduce the size of the army on the border. Kuwait basically admitted that it was guilty as charged, but in what proved to be a poor decision, they insulted Iraq by agreeing to pay only 9 billion dollars (The fact that they agreed to pay anything is essentially an admission of guilt. The fact that they agreed to pay slightly less than the demand was a poor attempt at an insult, and it would cost them).

For Iraq, it was the last straw, they had fought and died for these people for 8 long years, and now their oil was being stolen, they were being insulted. They were fed up, they’d had enough, and on August 2nd, 1990 after months of fruitless negotiations, Saddam Hussein ordered Iraqi army units to cross into Kuwait to put a stop to the oil thefts once and for all.

President George Bush Sr, spoke to the American public about how “This invasion will not stand.” Keeping with his earlier espoused ideas about the New World Order of which he so fondly spoke; he amassed a coalition of “Democracies” (Note Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and a few other “Democracies” played major roles in the coalition). It should be noted that Syria and Iraq had the same political party, the Baath Party, why Syria decided to side with America probably has something to do with behind the scenes economic deals combined with well worded threats, the old Carrot and Stick diplomacy.


On July 16th, 1990, Tariq Aziz speaking on behalf of Saddam Hussein demanded Kuwait halt all oil thefts, give Iraq 10 billion dollars, and cut production of oil so the price would rise to at least $25 per barrel. Iraq wanted the 10 billion dollars because between 1981-1990, Kuwait had swindled Iraq out of an estimated $89 billion through secretly producing more than the agreements allowed. Also Iraq demanded a complete moratorium of the repayment of Iraqi debts incurred during the Iran-Iraq war.

On July 17th, 1990, Saddam accused Kuwait on “Conspiring with world Imperialism to cut off the livelihood of the Arab Nation of Iraq. And Iraq will not able to put up with such behavior for much longer.”
Saddam stated, “If the world fails to afford us protection, then we will have no choice but to resort to effective action to put things right and ensure the restitution of our rights.”

On July 18th, 1990, Kuwait resoundingly rejected all Iraqi demand, however they did offer 9 billion of the 10 billion Iraq was demanding. Offering slightly less was an insult, and both sides knew it. The stage was set.

The US ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, said on July 25th. 1990.
“We are not going to do anything until we meet with the Kuwaitis. If, when we meet, we see that there is hope, nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above anything else.”

On August 2nd, at about 1:00 a.m. Saddam Hussein ordered Iraqi military units, spearheaded by the Republican Guard, to invade Kuwait.
************************************************** ****

Saddam in many ways, halted the spread of fanatical extremitism in the Mid East. You say that if we did not go to war the terrorists and insurgents win?

They've already won. They have a stronger foothold in Iraq. They have huge/popular support in places that it never had before(Saudi Arabia). And in light of the Iraq invasion, Al Qaida's recruitment drive has been done for the next 20 years.

You think the war against terror is going well? I think it just got a whole lot worse.

[Phil-co]

The thing about iraqui civilians is that many of them tend to cary guns. If a civilian shoots you, would you take a bullet and die a hero, or defend yourself and be a murderer? And I'm sorry if I don't understand the military strategy of surgical, so to speak, beheadings and kidnapping, suicide bombing, and using civilians as shields. Maybe it's just my ignorant american mindset, but so far we haven't been breaking into iraqui houses killing iraqui kids eating their iraqui lollypops.

If someone invaded your country and shot at you, would you take a bullet and die a hero, or defend yourself and be a terrorist? By the same logic. I KNOW that most people don't consider the terrorists to be defending themselves, but I am just saying that PERHAPS THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE BELIEVING THEMSELVES. And can we really say that that is wrong?

About suicide bombings, beheadings etc. To most people these are disgustingly and cowardly ways of waging war (yes, to me too), but try and understand: if you don't have an army, let alone the technical equipment that comes along with it, how are you going to wage war against a super power that's got all imaginable technical terror at it's hands? It's impossible. And yet, these people feel that they have to defend their country or their kins, and the only way of doing this is by using guerilla/terrorist warfare on an otherwise military superior enemy. Again, I'm not saying that this is right, but then again, I think all sorts of killing is wrong, to me it doesn't matter if I get blown to pieces by a terrorist with dynamite fastened to his body, or get blown to pieces by a missile sent from a battle cruiser, from a non-terrorist country. See what I mean?

Understanding, or rather the lack of it, seems to be at the core of the problem here. And, to make myself clear - I am not defending terrorist actions. Look at the Isreal-Palestine conflict for example. Suicide bombings in Israeli cities are really disgusting, I think, not least because they are targetted at civilians. On the other hand, when Israeli tanks go into to Gaza-strip and kill palestinians, it's equally disgusting. But in the west, the israeli is fighting for their security, the palestinians are just troublemakers out to terrorize israelis. Look at the situation in Turkey and Kurdistan. The Turks are saying that they are defending themselves from terrorist Kurds, and the Kurds are saying that they are getting killed off by the Turkey state.

Now I have spoken with both Isrealis and palestinians, as well as with Turks and Kurds, as well as Iraqis and Americans, and I can understand them all. I can even understand you, indigo0086. But it seems like when a state is fighting against people with no formal state, most people tend to see the state's fight as just, or fair. The people without state is almost always seen as terrorists. Is this fair? Can a war be fare? Isn't war actually about defeating your enemy?

Just because american soldiers doesn't taget civilians, doesn't mean that they fight fairly. I believe more civilians have been killed in wars waged by the US than Americans in terrorist attacks. But since americans aren't targetting civilians, everything is OK, right? It's easy for a super power to demand other countries to fight bravely like they do. When you are desperate and frustrated you sometimes do things that isn't just. Is this right? Of course not. Can you understand it? Of course.

/Phil-co

[KhawMengLee]

The war has COST money, NOT EARNED money for Bush. Wars don't earn money. He doesn't pocket money. He gets a FIXED salary. Did you know that? And, it is NOT an insane high amount like what a monarchy gets a year. I believe it is $400,000 per year that he earns.

If you people think it is only about oil, then that is pretty stupid. ALL COUNTRIES have political agenda in ANY war, whether or not you want to realise it. And, it is unfair to call Bush evil, when the ones who ARE evil, are the ones behaving like spoiled brats because they can't have their way, so they cut people's heads off or blow people up, because they are too stupid to see that doing that won't give them their own way. They have been brainwashed since little kids to believe they MUST kill others to get their way. There is a major difference between killing on purpose to make a point and people just getting killed in action because they are fighting against each other. Mind you, getting killed in action isn't nice either, and no matter what country it is who is fighting, people will die in fights, even if it isn't the US involved.

So, what is evil, is the deliberate killings the insurgents and terrorists have been doing.

Being in combat or not being in combat has nothing to do with knowing whether or not to go to war. Just because you were in a war, doesn't make a person smarter about war necessarily. Sure, they know what it is LIKE, but that does not mean they will make a better decision. That is just grasping at straws and looking for someone to blame.


Excuse me, but our troops are not killing Iraqis on purpose, who are decent people. They are NOT aiming at innocent people. Haven't you worked that out by now? They are after the insurgents and terrorists, If I must spell it out for you. You know, the ones who kill because they want to get their way, and steal from their own people? Oh, and beat their ladies, and kill whatever they see that is in their way, and censor the poor people to death and oh, a ton of things. With them in charge, these people will alway have nothing and are at the mercy of these mean people. The words "kind to others" is not in these bad people's vocabulary. They actually think it is ok to go around killing those who aren't Muslim or who make them angry.(The insurgents, radicals and terrorists, I mean) It is NOT ok. I don't mind if a person is Muslim. Why should people kill someone just because the religion is different then theirs? Geez, it is so arrogant to think one religion is better than another.

So.. If I am to believe what you wrote and to me, implied, you would rather have bad people like the insurgents and terroirists in charge of Irag than fight to get rid of them for the Iragi people who can't do it alone? These bad people are attacking eerybody out of misguided hatred for something they grew up believing, because they knew no other thing to believe, due to brainwashing, and the is NO way to reverse this. You just have to get rid of them. Sad, but true. You can't reason with a crazy person or crazy bunch of people. They will kill everyone if they are not dealt with. If we don't try to do it, what country will? Nobody. Why? They are too chicken and only care about themselves. And, I am talking about the government, NOT the citizens. Citizens of any country will always be divided on issues. My question: If we did not put our foot into this, and left Saddam there, who would have tried to stop him from killing his own people? I doubt anyone would have. No, he'd just still be killing off many more civilians for no good reason while the rest of the world let him. The same goes for Bin Laden, and etc. People by nature, do not like helping others and only help if they are obligated to a lot of the time. This is very unfortunate. Sad, too.

So, before you go call a person evil, consider what is the meaning of evil. Bush is not perfect, but he does not advocate all the bad things these bad people do, and did not advocate the prison abuse.(Which by the way, is not the same as what the bad people are doing.) And, sending off soldiers to war is not evil either. What is evil would be to allow this spoiled brat behavior to continue. If nobody fights, then who wins? These people who love to kill and hold innocent people in terror every day.

Just my humble opinion...

Oh, and so you all know, I hate this war too, because I can't stand fighting. But, talking and negotiating isn't going to work this time, There IS no other choice. It is only wishful dreaming to think we can solve this without a fight.

Kaoru

1) Bush is making money from this war. His VP Cheney was an ex-president of Haliburton. Haliburton has been doing the major rebuilding contracts in Iraq. Now you may argue that they are the best and therefor most fit for the job but I will draw your attention to the numourous incidents of corruption involving Haliburton and not to mention the infamous letter fromt he VP's office informing that his office will handle the contract allocation to Haliburton just after he publically went on air saying he has no ties wit them.

Haliburton has been overcharging the US government on everything froma can of soda to even driving empty trucks across Iraq, putting American lives in danger, so they can charge overpriced transport fees.

2) Yes, the majority of US troops aren't killing civilians on purpose. But they aren't treating them with respect either. typical example:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/dontloot.wmv

And there is the prison abuse in Abu Ghraib, Collateral Damage etc. All of which add to the resentment and hate.

Now, everytime an Iraqi is killed accidentally, you know what the typical coalition response is? Oh, give them money. Now most of these guys live in poverty, so they'll take the money...but inside their pride is hurt. You've just killed a loved one and now this is all I get?!? Why do you think the crowds go wild every time a bomb goes off and kills foriegners?

Even the ones that go off and kill Iraqi civilians. The crowds gather and cheer anti-american sentiment. Its not hard to see where the situation is going.

[Kyros Nighle]

erm............kaoru, i think your a really good guy and all, but i gotta say you appear kind of naive here.

wars dont produce money, guns commerce do, and although *this* particular american war is not based in gun commerce, its generating money alright (or will).

the reason that bush firstly gave to enter the islamic region was "the chase of osama" (yes hes a *&%$ deserves to die,) but that was some time ago, (and thats kind of funny in a twisted way because it was the american goverment that provided osama with his weaponry, there is proff about this, so its non-refutable).

then, the reason was: "to eliminate the threat of possible attacks to the US from a hidden weaponry equipment in the islamic region",

well,........that was some time ago too, they have found nothing in ALL this time, (dont you think that if they held something powerfull enough to "threat" the US, they would have found ANYTHING, by now!!??:confused2 ).

well, all that is forgivable and passed as "the rightfull worry of the president of the US that his country could be in peril or danger of a terrorist attack"

well alright,.... he was worried,...... he searched,....... found nothing...........why are they still there then!!!??? :confused2

why keep young americans in the line of fire, wasting their lives in pointless war!!!??? and what about the people they are killing!!??
answer= petroleum, resources.

and please dont tell me the "the they-are-not-doing-any-harm, they-are-only-killing-terrorists-thing."

this is just naive, and i say this by personal experience, i went to orlando last year, to visit the US for the first time (yes Disney Land yay! :D).
and the whole afganistan thing was on its blow point, we were seeing images of people slaughtered, kids being evaporated, buildings teared apart, screams of dying people that crazy reporters were recording, it was a "live" recording, it was happening right there, we were seeing how the US bombed the city killing lots of people to do preasure on its goverment. ( News Flash! dropped bombs are not "terrorist-homming-missiles" when they were dropped they killed evryone in the area, not just "the terrorists").

I was watching that the week before i went to the US,......

My surprise was huge when i arrive to the states and i see the news,............an unkown singer was entertaining a bunch of soldiers, soldiers sang happily while they marched, people surrender peacefully and cheered the soldiers...... and all the way the kept saying "only terrrosits are being killed".
WHAT ABOUT THE DIYING CHILDREN, THE TEARED BUILDINGS, MASS EXPLOSIONS,AND NIGHT TERROR I HAD WATCHED ONLY DAYS AGO!!!??

i lived that, believe me, they hid all that stuff from the american public, and in variety of forums (including this one) i get to see that most american people havent got a clue of whats happening out there, they give naive opinions based on a good guys image of their government, cause of the manipulated info, when in thruth they got their hands way dirty too.

i only keep hoping that people who read this will open their eyes to reality,

In wars, people die, all the people there, not just "the bad guys", (unless they use squads tactics, and bomb raids are not "squad tactics")
i understand you trying to be patriotic, and its alright, but not blindingly so, so after all this i can only ask that you dont believe evrything you see on tv.

[SOLDIER]

ok , ok lets calm down...no one here knows every american in america..lol

99 percent of the time hatred is brought on by fear and lack of true understanding....i do not know how many americans live in america but for someone to say , and mean it--" i hate americans" is really interesting to me...even as a soldier i have been spit on and picketed in my own country...lol..but this too is interesting...because if the people that did these things honestly knew what they were doing ,,,they would not do it....

to me it takes way more energy to hate than to love..so iam flattered so many spend so much time with sweet old america on their lips...lol.

as far as for racism there are 3 different kinds-individual, cultural ,professional...if any of you dont think so look it up...

i have been all around this world ..with the exception of visiting china and japan....i would like to think i have friends everywhere i went...i used the " me" approach..not the american approach....i mean if someone really likes you--your nationality wont matter.....i speak 3 languages..sign,spnanish,english....a little korean as well. sometimes people peg you wrong......all in all i feel like this.......IF YOU ARE COOL WITH ME ,,THEN WE ARE COOL.....nothing much else to say really ...hatred is a foolish emotion almost as foolish as sympathy.......i have fought in 3 major conflicts in this world..i can honestly say i did not " hate" my enemy....i respected him.....figure it out.....

[Kaoru]

Kaoru, I don’t wish to offend you, but I find your viewpoint incredibly naïve and emotional.

First of all, wars always make money, at least for the “victors.” Wars drain government budgets, but that money goes to weapons industries, electronics firms, and all sorts of contractors and sub-contractors, often the same companies that give Bush so much cash for his re-election campaign. I hold the opinion that the Iraq war was mainly about getting oil and securing a foothold in the Middle East to get more oil without having to be dependent on Saudi Arabia. You may think that’s stupid, but to me, it’s simple geo-politics.

As to Saddam Hussein, the U.S. government supported him for years when they were fully aware that he was killing his own people and using chemical weapons. They have never had a problem with supporting awful dictators and repressive governments when it served their interests. A long list of such cases can be supplied on demand. If you think this was about coming to the rescue of the Iraqis, think again.

Thirdly, Bush started the whole “Axis of Evil” rhetoric. He even used the word “Crusade” once, in an age when it looked like we were finally over being absolutely certain about things. You may or may not agree with the religious overtones, but at the very least, that is very bad diplomacy. Don’t be surprised when the “evil” epithet comes back to him because of his policies. Things are not as simple as they may seem (I’m with Phil-Co on this).

Fourthly, of course the insurgents are doing bad things. But, since you asked, are the Iraqis better off after all this? Under Saddam, they could get arrested and killed for criticizing the government or happening to belong to a particular ethnic group. At least they could go to school, pursue normal jobs, and not have to worry about random theft, incarceration, and getting blown up by a bomb in a country that has become a terrorist playground. This is not to say that things can change for the better, as we all hope they eventually will.

Hi Not-I-san,

Oh no... I'm not offended at all. :)

Well, I'm not exactly sure how to reply, because all I know is that I can't understand why the heck everybody is fighting over so many things and over religion. Well, maybe that might be naive, but I can't help it.

I am still not sure how a war can make money if one country isn't taking over another and taking things from it. I understood what you wrote about money being used for the things you mentioned, but other than that. I am shy to say that I am not sure I really know more than that in terms of wars making money without taking over a country. :confused:

In regard to the oil, I don't really know... All countries want something from another. I really have heard more about the bad things and people than about the oil.

And, this may sound silly, but I am not sure what geo-politics are. What is it please? (To ask a dumb question.)

And, it is hard to make comments on the political side of things, because there are so many different things and ideas and opinions that you all have presented, that I don't know exactly what to say. I actually wasn't commenting so much on that aspect though... Look at my post and what I mainly comment on.

I just think to call a person evil, who isn't beheading people and video taping it all, and doing other really really awful things is wrong. Nobody has to like Bush, but to name call him that, is too much. He hasn't ever said kill them because they are Muslim and stuff like that.

The "Axis of Evil" saying to me, was kind of silly, and I think there could be better ways of saying it. I never heard the "crusade" thing before. Well, the whole religious reasons the bad people have are really stupid to me. It is only a Holy war if you make it one. There really is no point in it. It won't make them win or lose any faster or better. And, it certainly isn't going to make them win. Killing in the name of God is disgusting. That is just trying to find somebody to ok killing. Since when is that ok?


Ok, we shouldn’t have gone there, but now we’re there. The insurgents must be stopped and a stable system established so the Iraqis can get on with their lives. I agree with you there. But let’s be down-to-earth about it. Iraq is an incredibly complex place with a long history and it won’t be pacified by moral rhetoric or simple solutions, especially those imposed not only by another country, but by another culture.. There is no reason to expect that Iraq will simply ignore its tribal traditions and embrace American-style democracy.

I agree with this, because it is hard to adapt to new ideas and systems for an entire country. It will take a while before they get used to actually having choices.


Fifthly, I venture to say that whether someone in a position of power has seen combat or not seen combat has a hell of a lot to do with his or her decision to go to war or not.

Well, the only thing I can think of as a reason, is that somebody in combat has seen a lot of bad things. I was thinking more torward knowing about strategy and intelligence(And whatever else that is pertinent.) that would be important. Well, having seen combat, while that would be good, if you don't understand strategy and intelligence, what good is just having seen combat? So, to me, I think the one who knows more about the intellectual side of it all, would be the best one to deal with it. Now a person who is familiar with both, would be very good. But, that isn't always possible. Just because you set foot in combat does not make you the best person to know what to do. You can't base your decision on whether to go to war or not just because you saw bad things. It goes much deeper than that, and the decision had better be well thought out, whether or not you have seen combat.


Finally, for someone who “can’t stand fighting,” you seem awfully keen to “just get rid of them.”

I can't stand fighting but, what else do you do with really cruel bad people? :confused: You know which ones I mean, I think. I don't agree with killing them all so to speak, but I also do think that the world does not need a bunch of crazy people who like killing and hurting peole on purpose to live on this planet. So in reality, what are we supposed to do with them? :confused: I know what I would do with every single bad insurgent and terrorist person out there if it was possible, and if I say, you'll all laugh at me. So... I guess I won't. Sigh... If you want to know, I'll tell... but you have to promise not to laugh.

If you all look at my previous post again, you'll see that I am mainly mad at what is going on, and I hate what these bad people are doing, which is causing the fighting. Honestly, they really are like spoiled kids not getting their way. They want control of Iraq. They want to run things in a militant and nasty way, where women can't even have a life. I don't mean wearing a veil. I mean the way the women and girls are treated. And, others, too. So, because they can't have their way, they cut people's heads off, and blow things up. They threaten other countries for siding with the US, in this way too, which is bullying. They have the mind of a 2 year old who says "Mine" whenever they see something.

Well, the latest thing I just read, is that now these bad people are debating on whether or not it is ok to behead Muslims for siding with the US or anything related to that. Some think it is ok, other say you shouldn't behead a fellow Muslim. That is twisted, because it doesn't matter if one is or isn't Muslim. It is wrong to do such a thing to anyone!

So, what I am just really hating, is this horrible behavior by these insurgent/terrrorist (Whatever they ought to be called) people. They even cover their heads when they kill. They know they are wrong if they do that.
I just want all this to just stop, and I want everybody to stop fighting and not hate so darned much. It is useless and doesn't solve one single thing. And, to be honest, I just can't understand any of this. Why they can't see that if they are nice to others goes much farther than threatening and bullying, is so beyond me. That is my main issue with all this. I don't really care abiout the oil and the petty squabbling. I care about the horrible behavior shown by these people. WE aren't the ones threatening to kill this or that person and cutting heads off or any of that.


Kaoru, I know some of your posts from before. I know you often help people to find dojo and I commend you for that. I just think you shouldn’t let your emotions run away with you and post rants without taking the time to think about what you’re saying. You could be more concise too, but who am i to comment on that? :wink:

I know... I'm sorry. And, I'm sorry I was not concise, hehehe... I've never been able to be concise when I want to. :P And, I tried to not rant, and think everything through better too. :) Hope I managed...

Kaoru

[Kyros Nighle]

kaoru, i really think your a very cool gal, sensitive and ready to help newcomers (like me!:rolleyes: ).......thats not a very common sight, (unfortunately) and we need more people like you in this world,. now im srry if i offend anyone in this forum with my post, i tend to get into heated arguments when talking about things related to ethics or opinions of that sort, mainly because i believe and behave according to a ethic code somewhat rigid, so im srry if i offended anyone, i apologize if my earlier post seemed agressive:smiley: .........

[Kenshin Axel]

[QUOTE=Kyros Nighle]kaoru, i really think your a very cool gal.QUOTE]

Yes, she is a cool gal, but she's not a gal.
It says on his signature he's not a girl.
I've also been thinking he was a girl. :confused2

[Kenshin Axel]

Oh I am so sorry!!
I misread Kaoru's signature, she is a girl!!!
I am real sorry, :)

[Kaoru]

Ahahaha!! That was so funny Kenshin-san! :D Please don't worry about it. :) Actually, I've had several people wonder which I was, and when Kyros-san was about the 3rd or 4th one over the last year to wonder(Since Kaoru is also a boy's name.), I finally decided to put that up to clear up confusion, hehehe!

Kaoru

[KhawMengLee]

There is no reason to expect that Iraq will simply ignore its tribal traditions and embrace American-style democracy.


True. Iraq is a complex one. Revolution is a flower that must be clasped by the hands of the people of its own soil. Revolution and change will only be accepted by a nation if it is what it's people want. Then all opposition within will crumble because it's people have spoken.

Unforetunately, Iraq's majority are shiites. So you give them democracy and boy, we are going to see Iran part II in the next few years.

BTW, Kaoru's a girl :confused2 ?!? Oops

[Kaoru]

BTW, Kaoru's a girl :confused2 ?!? Oops
Ahahaha!! Yup! :D

Kaoru

[not-I]

Kaoru, thanks for your reply and clarification. I'll try and respond to your questions/comments.

I am still not sure how a war can make money if one country isn't taking over another and taking things from it.
I meant that massive govenment spending (e.g. for a war) will create economic growth and jobs in certain sectors. That is why the post-WWII 50s were such boom-times for the U.S. economy. Now, if the government can afford racking up such huge budget deficits is another question.

I really have heard more about the bad things and people than about the oil.
That is not a coincidence. The Bush administration's original justifications for the war on Iraq were WMDs and Saddam's supposed links with Bin Laden. Now that both of those justifications have turned out to be empty, they are focussing on the terrorist situation (which they helped to create through the invasion and insufficient occupation) and hoping to get voters riled about it enough not to ask too many questions. Of course they're not going to just come out and just say "We went there for the oil, and so that we have access to more oil and gas in the future."

And, this may sound silly, but I am not sure what geo-politics are. What is it please?
Geopolitics is simply politics as determined by geographical features, e.g. mountains, oceans, and where the oil is.

I just think to call a person evil, who isn't beheading people and video taping it all, and doing other really really awful things is wrong. Nobody has to like Bush, but to name call him that, is too much. [...] Killing in the name of God is disgusting.
I just generally don't like the word "evil" getting thrown around so much. It's not necessarily a religious term, but it does imply that the speaker is on a level of absolute good from which to judge. The problem is this. Besides major corporations, the Bush administration is heavily influenced by the religious right. Imo, people like Jerry Falwell are just as fanatic in their opinions as Bin Laden. I don't think the civilized answer to fanaticism is simply fanaticism of a different stripe. Also, Bush himself claims to be religious, but he's quoted as saying he prayed to God after he made his decision to go to war. I find this strange, and anyway think he should have listened more to his real father (who had strong reasons for not invading Iraq during the first Gulf War) before talking to the "Heavenly" one.

Well, the only thing I can think of as a reason, is that somebody in combat has seen a lot of bad things. I was thinking more torward knowing about strategy and intelligence(And whatever else that is pertinent.)
People in high governement positions who saw combat were generally officers, who are trained to use strategy and tactics to achieve military objectives with minimum loss of life. The point is simply that people who have seen the real hell war actually is tend to be more reluctant to go there again (though not always).

Kaoru, again, i am not attempting to justify madmen cutting off innocent people's heads in any way. I'm just suggesting that it is a good idea to step back from one's emotions and try to see things more clearly. It can help keep us out of a lot of trouble, both individually and collectively.

P.S. KhawMengLee, i know you didn't mean it like this, but being a Shiite Muslim does not necessarily make you a religious fanatic advocating theocracy. I think the main problem is that the Iraqi Shiites were oppressed by Saddam and the Sunni minority and less likely to have gotten used to secularism he imposed.

[KhawMengLee]

P.S. KhawMengLee, i know you didn't mean it like this, but being a Shiite Muslim does not necessarily make you a religious fanatic advocating theocracy. I think the main problem is that the Iraqi Shiites were oppressed by Saddam and the Sunni minority and less likely to have gotten used to secularism he imposed.

Agreed, but Shiites tend to be "less" flexible with the interpretation of the Quoran. Sorta like Catholics and Protestants. The Ayatolah in Iran was visibly trying to stir up support from within Iraq with the Shiite majority. One of the main unifying factors was of course their version of Islam.

I'm not saying Saddam is a saint. But he was the lesser of two evils. I forsee that Iraq is going to be worse off in the future...mainly because you give them a democratic government with a Shiite majority and strife ongoing, people are going to vote with what makes them feel secure.

[Phil-co]

I forsee that Iraq is going to be worse off in the future...mainly because you give them a democratic government with a Shiite majority and strife ongoing, people are going to vote with what makes them feel secure.

That's why I think democracy shouldn't be forced upon countries. Democracy isn't always the best answer to everything. Especially not representative democracy. Oops, a bit off topic perhaps... :smiley:

[kenshin13]

I'm a stupid 13 year old, but I'm smart enough to agree with Phil :)

[Masahiro]

I'm a stupid 13 year old, but I'm smart enough to agree with Phil :)
stupid? maybe, but naive. .. that's for sure. don't demise your intelligence.

[Phil-co]

I'm a stupid 13 year old, but I'm smart enough to agree with Phil :)

I think you're really, really smart, since you agree with me... :smiley:

[not-I]

Agreed, but Shiites tend to be "less" flexible with the interpretation of the Quoran.
I realize i'm splitting hairs here and being a smart-ass, but i have a feeling you may be interested... That is not strictly correct.

Historically, Shi'ites have always been more flexible in their interpretion of the Qur'an because their beliefs include so many folk elements like Saint worship, mystical rituals, and magic. Sunnis have always been more focussed on strict monotheism and a literal interpretation of the Qur'an with applications to society (Shari'ah - Islamic Law).

This is partly because Sunnism was developed in cites by the educated middle-class, whereas Shi'ism was mainly practiced in rural areas by illiterate peasants who founded cults around Saints, Martyrs, and living "Holy Men." This can explain why, nowadays, Sunnis have become more reformist and secular and Shi'ites still tend to be more "fanatic."

Although very devoted and loyal to religous leaders Shi'ites were never particularly successful in gaining political power, simply because there were so many different "Brotherhoods" with so many different beliefs. That is, until Khomeini came along. What Khomeini did for Shi'ism was to "Sunnify" it by reintroducing puritanism and scriptualism, stamping out "Low Islam" practices, and uniting believers under a political banner against the Shaw of Iran, who was hated and resented by a majority of Iranians. Khomeini was also clever enough to use media in effecting the Iranian Revolution, e.g. by smuggling cassettes of his speeches while he was in exile (a tip the Islamist terrorists of today have followed with their websites and decapitation videos.)

Now, I agree with you that present Iraq is kind of a no-win situation, unless a miracle occurs. Either the Iraqi Shi'ites keep their old school ways and openly battle each other under various holy men/warlords (civil war). Or they "go Iranian" by following Khomeini's version of Shi'ism and aim for secession (civil war). The miracle would be if Sunnis, Shi'ites & Kurds found a way to keep Iraq together through some kind of federalism based on tribal democracy (which is still very far away from "Western" democracy). Anyway, let's hope for a miricle.

Sorry for being so pendantic, but these are topics i dealt with a lot in my comparative religion-studies.

There is a book by the late anthropologist/philosopher Ernest Gellner that i would highly recommend, and it also has a bearing on this whole tread. It's called Postmodernism, Reason and Religion and compares the three main worldviews of today and their clash: relativism ("It all depends on your viewpoint."), religious fundamentalism ("God commands this."), and rationalism ("This may not be true, but we are committed to it until something better is found.") It's not an easy read, but it is one of the few recent books that i venture to call "great." And i read too many books as it is.

:chinese:

[KhawMengLee]

I realize i'm splitting hairs here and being a smart-ass, but i have a feeling you may be interested... That is not strictly correct.

Historically, Shi'ites have always been more flexible in their interpretion of the Qur'an because their beliefs include so many folk elements like Saint worship, mystical rituals, and magic. Sunnis have always been more focussed on strict monotheism and a literal interpretation of the Qur'an with applications to society (Shari'ah - Islamic Law).

This is partly because Sunnism was developed in cites by the educated middle-class, whereas Shi'ism was mainly practiced in rural areas by illiterate peasants who founded cults around Saints, Martyrs, and living "Holy Men." This can explain why, nowadays, Sunnis have become more reformist and secular and Shi'ites still tend to be more "fanatic."

Although very devoted and loyal to religous leaders Shi'ites were never particularly successful in gaining political power, simply because there were so many different "Brotherhoods" with so many different beliefs. That is, until Khomeini came along. What Khomeini did for Shi'ism was to "Sunnify" it by reintroducing puritanism and scriptualism, stamping out "Low Islam" practices, and uniting believers under a political banner against the Shaw of Iran, who was hated and resented by a majority of Iranians. Khomeini was also clever enough to use media in effecting the Iranian Revolution, e.g. by smuggling cassettes of his speeches while he was in exile (a tip the Islamist terrorists of today have followed with their websites and decapitation videos.)

Now, I agree with you that present Iraq is kind of a no-win situation, unless a miracle occurs. Either the Iraqi Shi'ites keep their old school ways and openly battle each other under various holy men/warlords (civil war). Or they "go Iranian" by following Khomeini's version of Shi'ism and aim for secession (civil war). The miracle would be if Sunnis, Shi'ites & Kurds found a way to keep Iraq together through some kind of federalism based on tribal democracy (which is still very far away from "Western" democracy). Anyway, let's hope for a miricle.

Sorry for being so pendantic, but these are topics i dealt with a lot in my comparative religion-studies.

There is a book by the late anthropologist/philosopher Ernest Gellner that i would highly recommend, and it also has a bearing on this whole tread. It's called Postmodernism, Reason and Religion and compares the three main worldviews of today and their clash: relativism ("It all depends on your viewpoint."), religious fundamentalism ("God commands this."), and rationalism ("This may not be true, but we are committed to it until something better is found.") It's not an easy read, but it is one of the few recent books that i venture to call "great." And i read too many books as it is.

:chinese:

Thanks for that man. Nice to read up and learn :)

I know it sounds very un-acedemic but my opinion on the matter came from personal experience. Malaysia is essentially a muslim country...but, barring only one state(Thanks to recent elections YAY!), it is a moderate islamic country.

The one state which is fundamentalist and the majority of fundamentalists are the shiites. They want to impose hard core islamic law on the country and I've seen first hand their vision of what Malaysia should be.

Hence, my inclination towards the Sunnis.

[not-I]

The one state which is fundamentalist and the majority of fundamentalists are the shiites. They want to impose hard core islamic law on the country and I've seen first hand their vision of what Malaysia should be.

Hence, my inclination towards the Sunnis.
I see what you mean. Thanks for the info. The only things about Malaysia one tends to see in the western media are the happy and beautiful people on beaches, & in posh restaurants & temples in the "Malaysia - Truly Asia" commericials on CNN heavy rotation. :wink:

Shi'ism is interesting though. Because of their "Hidden Imam" tradition, they have historically shifted back and forth between passive political indifference (taqiya) and full-on active rebellion (ta'bi'a). It seems the latter position is popular at the moment, for a variety of reasons, and can be especially virulent with all the emphasis on martyrdom and sacrifice.

Yet it's important to remember that Shi'ism contributed a great deal not only to Islamic, but also to World thought and culture, with Sufism and its art, like the Qawwali music of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. (Now playing: "Taa Deem" (Asian Dub Foundation remix).
:D Salaam!

[nalogg]

Kaoru,

"You just have to get rid of them. Sad, but true. You can't reason with a crazy person or crazy bunch of people."

I think everyone can be reasoned with, it's just that some people would choose to die rather than be reasoned with..... that's pretty much what war is.

Now given that this war was kinda started by SEPT 11th and all, it's happening, and we have to follow it through honourably.

But i think that the decision to go against the united nations, an organization formed specifically to help countries that can't help themselves (like iraq), was a poor one. And though you're right in that "you don't make money in a war", the stable government forced upon iraq will secure long-term financial stability for the US (and canada).

The thing we gotta realize in going to the mid-east is that these are cultures that have been stewing in the same pot for over 9000 years, and there are things, in-bred hatreds, these "insurgents", certain fears, that the north-american govenrment can not understand.

it's truly alien.

Do i think that the US should have gone into iraq on the report of no chemical/W.M.D.s found?

No, the US could have stayed out until it was absolutely necessesarry.

However am I glad about the outcome of that intervention, and the relatively noble way it was handled?
Yes!
so do i have a right to complain? hell yes! i live in a free society!

Let's all be thankful for the freedom we have.

[louisvandalen]

Freedom is a spiritual state, not a given fact. There is no true freedom, not in Iraq, not in Canada and not in the US. We are all subject to law and order and can be searched, held against our will and must go to school and work. 9 to 5, five days a week. Try not to and the system, no matter where, will finish you off rather quickly.

So freedom exist only in our minds and thus is subject to different perspectives making it a very small item to start a war over.

Imagine living in Iraq or Afghanistan, togheter with your family and your dictator. You have a job there, your kids are great and your wife cooks the best sheep ever. You can't piss against Sadams statue (neither can you piss against the white house) so thats a restriction, true. Other than that, you might of been a very happy person untill some crazy ass "free-country" president decides to carpetbomb you. How would you feel? Who is destoying your life at that point and whom would you hate for that?

I spent 3 years in the former Yugoslavia and came to one conclusion, violence must only be used when under attack. Never should it be used as a preventive measure, especially when the real reason is troubled. Agression of any kind only ignites more agression. When I asked any Serb, Croat or Muslim soldier why they where fighting the war only one answer came up: since they attack us we will attack them. A spiral that couldnt be broken for 6 years, violence over violence resolving in people that where only a shadow of what they used to be. Numb and full of hatred against people that they never met before.

Strange world m8, don't get clouded by the general opinion, it's to general.

Regards,

Louis
www.uiteindhoven.nl (http://www.uiteindhoven.nl)

[mingshi]

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[KhawMengLee]

Imagine living in Iraq or Afghanistan, togheter with your family and your dictator. You have a job there, your kids are great and your wife cooks the best sheep ever. You can't piss against Sadams statue (neither can you piss against the white house) so thats a restriction, true. Other than that, you might of been a very happy person untill some crazy ass "free-country" president decides to carpetbomb you. How would you feel? Who is destoying your life at that point and whom would you hate for that?
www.uiteindhoven.nl (http://www.uiteindhoven.nl)

Haha, reminds me of the line from Kubrick's film FULL METAL JACKET:

US Marine, "Shit man! they took away our freedom and gve it to the gookers. But I guess they'd rather be dead than free...poor dumb bastards."

Yeh, the war is the most stupid thing I've seen to date. Oh yeah, bomb a country to give them "freedom".

[BakaDeshi]

It saddens me to see this.We live in a world where hate and war and everyday,ordinary things.As long as there are people,there will be arguements and fighting.The way I see this,the reason is because we as humans assume that the winner of a war is right,never to see things from another's perspective.Around September 11th of 2000 (It really was 4 years ago,huh?Time passes quickly...) I just stopped watching the news,too disgusted by what hate has done and why innocent people are the ones who suffer.And yet,despite this,I still hold true to 'hate the crime,not the criminal'.I don't hate anyone,just disagree with the desisions they make.But I also respect their opinions and try to see things from their point of view.
As for hating Americans,I see it unjust that all are judged by the actions of our goveronment.

[SOLDIER]

iam sure alot of people hate war...hell iam a soldier and i'd rather be fishin...lol

but fact of the matter is this...regardless of religion,race,geography and financial stability...when you are being threatened you have three options...

1. do nothing--maybe it will stop(very costly is cowardess)
2. fight back--if you have the ability and backing of your fighters.
3.hope someone helps you-- figure it out....

no most countries have been in all 3 configurations...but almost all get help...and who does the helping-----???

i just think it is funny to hear people being so "loud" over our little war...i tell my own family to sleep good and not to worry...

"until you gotta face the enemy with nothing more than a good knife and a bible , fix my dinner and shine my shoes..otherwise pick up a gun and join me my brother" ----quote from a movie--meaning be content in the fact that you are not fighting .....

[Karaken]

iam sure alot of people hate war...hell iam a soldier and i'd rather be fishin...lol

but fact of the matter is this...regardless of religion,race,geography and financial stability...when you are being threatened you have three options...

1. do nothing--maybe it will stop(very costly is cowardess)
2. fight back--if you have the ability and backing of your fighters.
3.hope someone helps you-- figure it out....

no most countries have been in all 3 configurations...but almost all get help...and who does the helping-----???

i just think it is funny to hear people being so "loud" over our little war...i tell my own family to sleep good and not to worry...

"until you gotta face the enemy with nothing more than a good knife and a bible , fix my dinner and shine my shoes..otherwise pick up a gun and join me my brother" ----quote from a movie--meaning be content in the fact that you are not fighting .....It's easy to say " I hate WAR". But the question is what have we done to prevent it? What will we do when the time comes we're attacked. Even worse, what will you do when when our loved ones are threatened. I heard from my friend who went to Vietnam that he didn't really hate anyone till one of his friends got shot and died in front of him. It's cold world out there. It's not about who's right or wrong. If you are attcked in the middle of the night with no apparent reason, what will you do - try to talk to them?
I'm not a war monger but I believe everyone is entitled to protect their loved ones from aggression, don't you? BTW, Americans are not the only one who starts war but I think Amricans are hated only because they're ballsy enough to say what they're doing and why.

[not-I]

BTW, Americans are not the only one who starts war but I think Amricans are hated only because they're ballsy enough to say what they're doing and why.
The problem is when the reasons "why" turn out to be utter bullshit.

[Skolld]

(begin rant)

squeezing the trigger of your rifle is not courage nor does it automatically make you a patriot.
Example:
A man is walking toward you, You think that he might have a weapon and might want to kill you, but you aren't sure. Your options might be as follows;
A. Do nothing, allow the man to keep walking
B. Prepare yourself in case he does pull a weapon and be ready to defend yourself
C. Shoot the man in the head just to be safe.

Option C. is not courage it is criminal and it is motivated by fear. There is no such thing as a "Pre-emptive Strike (sp)", you are simply striking.
Courage in my opinion is taking the time to understand the situation before attacking, waiting until it is absolutely necessary to fire, that's courage.

Firing a weapon does not qualify you as the only patriot. Patriots are people who care about their country and the people in it. I personally don't want my soldiers being killed because of a percieved threat. And i'm willing to do something about that.

War is the least creative, least productive means of dealing with a situation. Yes it gets results, but at what cost, If I beat the crap out of every person that ticked me off, sure less people will be inclined to tick me off but i'm also never going to have real good relationships, think about it.
Why do we not hold our government to the same standards that we hold our citizenry? This war has set precedents that we are even now beginning to see the results of, the Patriot Act, illegal searches and incarcerations come to mind.

Old Ben Franklin once said
"Those who are willing to give up liberty for safety, deserve neither"

(end rant)

[louisvandalen]

Man I found a brother!

Utter bullshit, and thats how every war is started. It's a matter of convincing the general opinion that a war is necessary. And in every case in history this was mainly a matter of financial interests (this includes geographical interest since this would raise domestic profits).

In many cases I witnessed this " utter bullshit " from happening, things like this: Dutch television showed major Serb agression in the territory that I was in at that time (Knin). I was out in the sun, working at a comcen and nothing was going on. As the territory I was in was occupied? by the serbs, for the last hundred years or more, and I guessed afterwards certain plans ruled their existence there (or occupation as they called it) out. Couple of months later the Croats attacked the region and "cleared it". Operation storm. Next thing where the dayton agreements, and as the regions where taken at that time (more or less) the plans turned out to be. The UN was there but did not intervene in many cases, while they could in many cases - ??? -

All Yugoslav media had constant nationalistic content in their broadcasts. Day to night. Many down there didn't even speak english so CNN was nothing more as some pictures showing a bit of rage. Neither did they have many satelite dishes to receive independant? broadcasts. I must say that I used as CNN as my main source of media "intelligence" (other than my work in a communicationcentre) and that was rather accurate (no cause for the us i suppose). The last war turned out to be more media sensitive then the balkanwar.

And more happend, more and more. And for all of them whom where there: it should NOT of been. Neither should of been the last one. And the one before that. Look at CNN and see them people there. Not in a bar having a party, ripping down a statue or whatever exiting time, but during the attacks, during the losses and during the burdon of fixing things up later again.

I know this is naive, there's gonna be small states that possibly could cause a treaht, in all cases these are little groups of complete dickheads. Waste them, no problem. The first one won't help, maybe the second one neither, but the third one will start to think. But don't go and attack towns or villages these kinds of attacks are out of proportion. Especially against "goat states".

Make love not war !

Louis

But keep bashing into the men !

[nalogg]

Around September 11th of 2000 (It really was 4 years ago,huh?Time passes quickly...)
No the falling of the towers was in 2001 actually.... and i'm not even american

I agree though that you shouldn't be held personally accountable for the actions of your government.

[Karaken]

The problem is when the reasons "why" turn out to be utter bullshit.I'm not with Bush camp but I don't think sufficient time has been passed to judge the consequences. Just for a simple counting, who killed more people, Hussein or Bush? Was Bush counting on killing minimum number of people or soldiers ( more the better )? I know Sadamm did when he attacked his own people.

[Phil-co]

who killed more people, Hussein or Bush?

Bush?

/Phil-co

[not-I]

I don't dig the numbers game or the bodycount contest.

Killiing is killing, regardless of its possible justification.

Think about this:

Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld openly said that the objective in Afghanistan was to "kill as many Taliban and Al Qayida fighters as possible." After a few weeks, he even publically complained of having "no good targets anymore."

In democracies, war is supposed to be seen as a last resort, and its goal to stop an otherwise unstoppable problem with extreme means, not to complicate it or kill as many people as possible.

Clausewitz said that war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means.

Sun Tze said that the best way to win a war is without battle.

[mingshi]

Just for a simple counting, who killed more people, Hussein or Bush?
"The death of one is a tragedy. The death of a million is just a statistic."

[bullet08]

it's more of a nationalism than racism.

it's all because america has it so easy compare to other nations. beside, americans take things very easy.. and we are easy to pick on. we could actually laff off things like.. 'all americans are fat, and lazy'. see how that goes down if you say that to french for example..

i'm a korean with american citizenship. i gotta say i love america. funny thing that i have noticed growing up in US is.. how non-american's complain about america.. but, they won't leave!

[ultimatix]

A wise man once said:

"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State."

:spchless:
...
I do not hate americans, once they shared the same dream and vision as me..

[Munnin]

A wise man once said:

"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State."

:spchless:
...
I do not hate americans, once they shared the same dream and vision as me..

A wiser man once wrote: that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

If you truly believe that no state is the best system try moving to Somali, there are sections that are still untouched by government for the last 13 years.

[ultimatix]

A wiser man once wrote: that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

If you truly believe that no state is the best system try moving to Somali, there are sections that are still untouched by government for the last 13 years.
Try reading a little between the lines, will you..? I didnt say that, "the wise man" did. And I agree with what you wrote as well. If the average man/woman in the US can have those things, you tell me -you are the one living there.. If you can have it all, then great for you! But I just don't think it's right to force others to become like oneself.
I, for one, believe that free will is a greater thing than "happiness"... Yes, for me free will is greater than life itself. But different cultures, different opininions, right? :)

[KhawMengLee]

I'm not with Bush camp but I don't think sufficient time has been passed to judge the consequences. Just for a simple counting, who killed more people, Hussein or Bush? Was Bush counting on killing minimum number of people or soldiers ( more the better )? I know Sadamm did when he attacked his own people.


I think this has always been used to potray Saddam in the worst light(not that he's a total sweetheart). Remember, he was killing Shiites and Kurds rebels, who were essentially being influenced by the Iranians to revolt. Remember people, this was the beginnings of civil war. In the eyes of a Unified Iraq these people were rebels or traitors. Let's not forget the penalty in the US for treason is death as well.

I always find it amusing how Saddam is potrayed as a madman and the invasion of Kuwait as unprovoked. Study a bit of history and you'll find a lot of dirty laundry on the Kuwaiti side...

As for the who has killed more argument...a murder is still murder. Even worse when you do it for money and then qoute "Freedom" as a reason.

[Munnin]

Try reading a little between the lines, will you..?

Try using a few more lines so there is something to read between :)

I, for one, believe that free will is a greater thing than "happiness"... Yes, for me free will is greater than life itself. But different cultures, different opininions, right? :)

Yes but the line specifically identifies the ability to exercise that free will. If you are stuck in a cage, you may still have free will but what good is it.

[nalogg]

all these GW bush haters around, but we gotta understand....

in the american governmental system the president does NOT have ultimate power...

this term A LOT of other people have screwed up just as much as he has.
maybe we hate him because he represents it all...

[Apostrophe]

(begin rant)

squeezing the trigger of your rifle is not courage nor does it automatically make you a patriot.I am sorry but "Squeezing the trigger" takes great courage. Any less is a insult to all men and women who have served in hostile situations, in any nation. It is not just the act of squeezing the trigger, but having to live with that decission for the rest of your life. (Granted there are always the sicko's that get off on the power, but you cannot condemn the many for the few.




Example:
A man is walking toward you, You think that he might have a weapon and might want to kill you, but you aren't sure. Your options might be as follows;
A. Do nothing, allow the man to keep walking
B. Prepare yourself in case he does pull a weapon and be ready to defend yourself
C. Shoot the man in the head just to be safe.Big difference in dealing with Joe criminal versus international terrorism.


Option C. is not courage it is criminal and it is motivated by fear. There is no such thing as a "Pre-emptive Strike (sp)", you are simply striking.
Courage in my opinion is taking the time to understand the situation before attacking, waiting until it is absolutely necessary to fire, that's courage.Only in a ideal world. Some of the most brave acts have been driven by fear. We do not live in a ideal world. Maybe only in the internet can ideals such as these have metal.


War is the least creative, least productive means of dealing with a situation. Yes it gets results, but at what cost, If I beat the crap out of every person that ticked me off, sure less people will be inclined to tick me off but i'm also never going to have real good relationships, think about it.
Why do we not hold our government to the same standards that we hold our citizenry? This war has set precedents that we are even now beginning to see the results of, the Patriot Act, illegal searches and incarcerations come to mind.On this I agree with you, war is a horrible act that has been sanitized by the media. If all men knew the actual terror and horror of war, I would hope people would be less apt to jump into a situation blindly that put people in harms way.

This is no way intended to be a flame or to belittle your rant. I am a veteran who has seen the horror first hand. I have also had to live with the consiquences of my actions. I do not know your background but thought it may be helpful to see a veterans view. Also I had to put my two cents in on the whole courage issue.

Respectfully

T

[Kenshin Axel]

Jesus Christ,

I didnt think this topic would get so many replies, I've only read a few posts and their short ones, To be quite honest, I couldnt be bothered reading all these replies.

Ah well, I'll just let you guys keep posting really really long replies, even though I wont even make an effort to read them.

[Washington]

ok.. a short reply then so you can read it :)

Until all the countries of the world can finally stand up and tell the U.S....

" See ? We finally have our act together and can take care of our own business in our own backyard.. "

Then we'll have to keep going in and take care of business for them and give more people reasons to hate Americans.

If country " X " were to step on up to the front and tell us .. hey yanks.. take a break.. we'll take over the " Arsenal of Democracy " policy for ya and be the world's police force then this forum would be named ... " Why do people hate country X ?"

Simply put.. someone's gotta do it :)

[KhawMengLee]

ok.. a short reply then so you can read it :)

Until all the countries of the world can finally stand up and tell the U.S....

" See ? We finally have our act together and can take care of our own business in our own backyard.. "

Then we'll have to keep going in and take care of business for them and give more people reasons to hate Americans.

If country " X " were to step on up to the front and tell us .. hey yanks.. take a break.. we'll take over the " Arsenal of Democracy " policy for ya and be the world's police force then this forum would be named ... " Why do people hate country X ?"

Simply put.. someone's gotta do it :)

No.

No one has the right to come onto my property and tell me how to run my household. One can advise but not intrude. That is the principle of Liberty. Your own country believed in this principle Mr Washington and acted thus so with the British.

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

"Arsenal of democracy?" oh,please...

The UN is there to do that job. The US decided to invade Iraq without the world's concent. It based the war on a lie.

Police derive their power from trust. If you break the trust then you are no more than armed nazi criminals invading a land.

If you really believe in your words then go to Israel right now and tear down the barrier they are building. the world has spoke against their injustice...

You talk the talk. Now walk the walk.

[Washington]

That's true.. no one has the right to walk on your property and tell you what to do.

1) The rights of the majority shall not infringe upon the rights of the minority

2) It is your right to live your life how you want as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of the people around you

These are the 2 principles of Liberty... not " my property is my kingdom and what I want goes from that picket fence to the alley in back "

However.. when what your doing on your property is infringing upon my rights then you've given up your right of privacy and your activity is now communal.

It's your property so you can dump your waste on it if you want. When that leaches to my property and infringes upon my rights then I gather the police force and put an end to your activity.

And with the Brit's .. that is not how we acted. We had a tax dispute and instead of going to the bargaining table troops were sent to force the colonist peasants to comply with their king's wishes.. thus forcing the situation. Revolution was not what we started. It's what landed in our laps and the French showed up and saved the day for us. So now we are our own country.

"Give me liberty or give me death!" ..... Standard propaganda.. and has been used in countless conflicts for thousands of years.

Police derive their power from the ability to enforce the laws, not trust. Trust in a police force is derived from the belief that the policy in witch the police enforce is sound and true. Not trusting that the guy on the street has the funding or political policy to make the correct choice.

War in Iraq was based on a lie ??????????????????????

I'm apparently the only person who remembers Saddam writing checks to the families of suicide bombers? Openly funding terrorism? And as far as the WMD debate goes just hold your horses a few more. Once Libya spills the beans on what's been going on you'll see we were justified. You do not keep out weapons inspectors and suffer hundreds of millions of dollars annually in embargo's if you don't have anything to hide. Common sense.

Personally a wall in Israel is the best idea I've heard yet. Worked well for Berlin till we could all calm down and play nice with each other over there.

Don't put Israel at the U.S.'s feet.. talk to the Brit's on this one. Notice the U.N. went right in after they left and has been there since maintaining calm eh? Where was the U.N. when hundreds of thousands of Rwandan's were butchered? Genocide in Somalia? Where was the U.N. ? Nice to see the U.N. taking charge in central and South America over the last 50 years.. no genocide or slaughter going on there huh. Killing fields of Cambodia? Glad them U.N. peacekeepers were they’re making sure no one got hurt. Turn on your TV. news or look up Sudan on the net. Going on right now right here before your very eyes.. and where's the U.N. ??? It is sorta sad that I could keep going on and on here... people out there do allot of bad stuff to other people and it's very sad.

Like I said.. any country out their wants to stand up and be the Arsenal of Democracy please feel free. But until someone else does or the U.N. becomes the organization we wish it could be then we gotta do it. Doesn't mean we like it, we just have to.

The Reoccupation of the Rhineland, 1936, in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles wasn't that big of a deal at the time on the world stage. But 9 years later, 70 million people dead and hindsight give us a different perspective.

Someone's gotta do it and for that reason people will always find an excuse to hate Americans.

:)

[D'Artagnan]

This is without a doubt the most boring thread I have ever read on this forum.

I can't beleive everyone is at each other's throats over the ill thought words of some kid...

it's pretty funny actually.

[Washington]

Any reason to rant and I'm there :) give me a podium and a cause!

[D'Artagnan]

Any reason to rant and I'm there :) give me a podium and a cause!

Fair enough!

[Kenshin Axel]

This is without a doubt the most boring thread I have ever read on this forum.

I can't beleive everyone is at each other's throats over the ill thought words of some kid...

it's pretty funny actually.
Yeah,
I only started this thread cause I was bored and had 5 minutes before I had Ju Jitsu Training.
It is very boring, I have barely read any posts, theyre to long and boring, I can't believe someone would bother reading 5 pages of meaningless crap.

Tsk Tsk Tsk...........

[Phil-co]

Like I said.. any country out their wants to stand up and be the Arsenal of Democracy please feel free. But until someone else does or the U.N. becomes the organization we wish it could be then we gotta do it. Doesn't mean we like it, we just have to.Oh, so you have to do it? Then it's our mistake, we shall immediately back off and stand quietly while you run things from now on. See, we did'nt think you had to do it. Please forgive us for our ignorance. If you have to do it, you have to. A man's got to do, what a man's got to do. :tired:

/Phil-co

[not-I]

This is without a doubt the most boring thread I have ever read on this forum.
I can't beleive everyone is at each other's throats over the ill thought words of some kid...it's pretty funny actually.
No one gives a rat's ass about the starting post. If you had actually read the thread, you would find that most of it is devoted to a discussion of U.S. foreign policy, especially in Iraq, not to the question of why Axel's mate hates Americans. If it's so boring, why do you bother posting? Just to tell the participants that you're bored, amused and above it all?

I'm not saying that the contibutors here represent the cream of political journalism, but the debate was occassionally thoughtful and informative, regardless of political stance. Some people are interested in politics and current events and enjoy discussion and ranting about it. Like you said, fair enough.

It is very boring, I have barely read any posts, theyre to long and boring, I can't believe someone would bother reading 5 pages of meaningless crap.If you have barely read any posts, then how can you tell they're all meaningless crap? Are you basing this assumption on your original post?
Part of the problem is that hardly anybody actually READS anything these days, but everyone feels qualified to express uninformed opinions.

[D'Artagnan]

If it's so boring, why do you bother posting? Just to tell the participants that you're bored, amused and above it all?



Jesus Christ!! meow!!

hahaha it is boring and i'll post what i like! (unless the moderators tell me off, then i will apologise profusely ;) ) until then, i say what i like. I also don't give a rat's @$$, however, i provoked a response so i am happy!

[Skolld]

I am also a Veteran and have been in hostile situations.

My point was not to condemn those who have fought but only to say that it does not always take courage to fire a weapon.
I appreciate your thoughts and your service.

[Apostrophe]

I am also a Veteran and have been in hostile situations.

My point was not to condemn those who have fought but only to say that it does not always take courage to fire a weapon.
I appreciate your thoughts and your service.
Then its was my misunderstanding. I took what you wrote incorrectly and apologize if my post was alittle curt. Please forgive.

Respectfully

[Skolld]

Then its was my misunderstanding. I took what you wrote incorrectly and apologize if my post was alittle curt. Please forgive.

Respectfully
no worries, and your response was anything but curt compared to some of these guys :wink: