I've said as much in the past, but I may as well dig up an article detailing the goals of the Radical Islmists. This one is by Amir Taheri (get used to that name, I'll be using him in the future) and it outlines a conflict of sorts on the general STRATEGY of Radical Islamists and their spreading of their views of Islam throughout the world.

Along with some insight as to why London was bombed, and the usual way those who should know better simply don't get it, there are two trains of thought on how to spread Radical Islam throughout the world. The opposing views oddly enough work together.

The first idea is that ghazi's, which means holy raiders, should work to win power in as many Middle Eastern countries as possible, then moving on to other parts of the world. They have identified Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt as the countries most vulnerable to their brand of Islam and the easiest to take. Drive Western troops out of places like Iraq and Afghanistan, seek to control of those countries first, which would mean a cessation of attacks against Western nations ala 9/11 and 7/7, build a stable foundation of nations, THEN export their brand of Jihad against the West.

Amongst those in favor of such an idea is one Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the man welcomed with open arms by one Ken Livingston, a leftist London Mayor who welcomed the very man with open arms. I've detailed al-Qaradawi's ideas in the post "Human Rights Gone Stupid."

The second strategy is the one promulgated by the likes of Bin Laden, though there are others who share his view, that is to stage spectacular attacks against Western nations in the hopes of "terrorizing" the "infidels" into leaving the Middle East. Without Western troops or support of any kind, the ghazis can then take power in the Middle East, secure a base of support and take their jihad to other parts of the world.

You can see, that though both ideas are polar opposites, their implimentation has been scoring some major points. Iraq is being attacked by terrorist right left and center, Afghanistan suffers attacks every now and again and the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks have indeed shaken up both London and the U.S.

As you look back on previous posts here, you will see that their is some question as to whether or not Iraq is part of the war on terror and whether or not Bush, and Blair, for that matter have conducted this "war on terror" in the correct way. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the attacks in Britain and London have truly "terrorized" either nation, as Bin Laden had hoped, but they have caused doubt, both on these boards and throughout the U.S. and England, as to whether or not we should be in the Middle East, in Iraq in particular.


Then there is the question of the cost of the war, both in treasure and in lives. About 1700 of our servicemen and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus about 20 to 30 thousand civilian deaths in both countries. Is the cost worth it? Again, doubt and dismay have reared their ugly heads in the minds of many here and elsewhere.

The reason I keep hammering on the idea we can't afford to lose this war on terror is to, hopefully, wake some people up on what truly is going on over there. Either the West wins in Iraq and Afghanistan, democracy and peace begin to flower in the Middle East or the Radical Islamists are going to take those countries, then the Middle East, then move on the rest of the world.

I've mentioned, in past posts, that this war is truly about the clash of two very different cultures. One, the West, is open, democratic, innovative where a person can choose his or her own beliefs and morality. The other is about Theocracy. The belief that people should be ruled by Allah's decrees set forth in the Koran which is the source of universal truth and justice. The problem is that, between the West and Radical Islam, there can be no truce, no peace, no coexistance. One IS going to win over the other.

This is the problem I have when people start posting about all the horrible things that the U.S. is doing in Iraq. It plays into the hands of Muslim terrorists. Unintentionally, they are futhering the cause of Muslim Terrorists.





Terrorist's Global Ambition (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/17435)

Nothing like a good ol fashioned blame the messenger accusation...
I guess it never occured to you that maybe the US shouldn't be murdering, torturing, and stealing from the people of Iraq and that it is they who are responsible for "aiding terrorists"... Actually they are not aiding terroists, they are creating them.

BTW "aiding terrorists" is one of the stupidest accusations I've even heard (assuming of course someone isn't knowingly giving them money or shelter). Its like saying "I don't know why Internal Affairs is so intent on aiding cop killers" or "I dunno why the GAO is so intent on aiding tax dodgers"

Until you can get this simple bit of logic into your head it seems to be comletely useless to have any sort of debate.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I've said as much in the past, but I may as well dig up an article detailing the goals of the Radical Islmists. This one is by Amir Taheri (get used to that name, I'll be using him in the future) and it outlines a conflict of sorts on the general STRATEGY of Radical Islamists and their spreading of their views of Islam throughout the world.


You are right in that most 'commentators' on recent acts by and against the terrorists show little or no knowledge of these people, and do not seem too enthusiastic to learn about them.
This four-part series of articles is one of the best:

Asia Times Online 2002
Islamism, fascism and terrorism
By Marc Erikson

(Part 1) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK05Ak01.html

(Part 2) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK08Ak03.html

(Part 3) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL04Ak01.html

(Part 4) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL05Ak01.html

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I guess it never occured to you that maybe the US shouldn't be murdering, torturing, and stealing from the people of Iraq and that it is they who are responsible for "aiding terrorists"... Actually they are not aiding terroists, they are creating them. While the US hasn't always acted like a saint, the fact remains that the Bin Laden types are driven as much by their ideology of religious supremacy as by their hatred of the US.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
As you look back on previous posts here, you will see that their is some question as to whether or not Iraq is part of the war on terror and whether or not Bush, and Blair, for that matter have conducted this "war on terror" in the correct way.

That is the question isn't it.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the attacks in Britain and London have truly "terrorized" either nation, as Bin Laden had hoped, but they have caused doubt, both on these boards and throughout the U.S. and England, as to whether or not we should be in the Middle East, in Iraq in particular.

The attacks have caused no doubt whatsoever for me. The daily attacks in Iraq however cause me to doubt the wisdom of staying there much longer.


Then there is the question of the cost of the war, both in treasure and in lives. About 1700 of our servicemen and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus about 20 to 30 thousand civilian deaths in both countries. Is the cost worth it? Again, doubt and dismay have reared their ugly heads in the minds of many here and elsewhere.

I don't think anyone is qualified to judge the worth of someone else's life.


The reason I keep hammering on the idea we can't afford to lose this war on terror is to, hopefully, wake some people up on what truly is going on over there.

I agree that we can't afford to let the terrorists win, but I don't see that our policy in Iraq is a successful one.


Either the West wins in Iraq and Afghanistan, democracy and peace begin to flower in the Middle East or the Radical Islamists are going to take those countries, then the Middle East, then move on the rest of the world.

This sounds distressingly similar to "If we don't defeat Communism in Vietnam, pretty soon the Commies will be marching down Main Street USA"

I'm surprised at you Darth....ressurrecting the Domino Theory...shame on you. :)


I've mentioned, in past posts, that this war is truly about the clash of two very different cultures. One, the West, is open, democratic, innovative where a person can choose his or her own beliefs and morality. The other is about Theocracy. The belief that people should be ruled by Allah's decrees set forth in the Koran which is the source of universal truth and justice. The problem is that, between the West and Radical Islam, there can be no truce, no peace, no coexistance. One IS going to win over the other.

Darth, you state that this clash is a clash of two cultures and then you state that the conflict is between the West and "radical Islam". Radical Islam is not a "culture" and is not representative of any particular culture. You can find radical Islamics in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, two widely disparate cultures. Radicals are by definition extremists who do not follow mainstream ideas. You say that you know the difference between the radicals and mainstream Islamics, but you seem to favor culture war with the entire Islamic world based on the actions of extremists. Why?


This is the problem I have when people start posting about all the horrible things that the U.S. is doing in Iraq. It plays into the hands of Muslim terrorists. Unintentionally, they are futhering the cause of Muslim Terrorists.

I could say that accepting the notion that we are in a war against Islam plays into the hands of the terrorists too. Stop helping them Darth. :D

While the US hasn't always acted like a saint, the fact remains that the Bin Laden types are driven as much by their ideology of religious supremacy as by their hatred of the US.
Still doesn't make any sense to say "well, they can recruit 10 guys so if our murderous, tortureous ways allow them to recruit 100 it doesn't matter"

Religion is a motivater, not a cause. Religious dominance of the middle east might be one of their goals. Religious dominance of the world isn't. They have not been attacking churches and temples. They are attacking banks, military and transit. Their goal is revenge for the terrorism the west has enacted on the middle east. More US terrorism will not solve anything no matter what Bin Laden does.

Notice the horror of 9-11 and 7-7. It works the same way the other direction.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
They have not been attacking churches and temples Oh yes they bloody have, in areas which they wish to 'cleanse' of 'non-believers'. They've attacked churches in Pakistan and Kosovo, and in Iraq over 70 were killed in the hideous bombing of the Shias during their religious festival.

Work on your reading skills
Religious dominance of the middle east might be one of their goals. Religious dominance of the world isn't.

becasue we all know there are so many religions in the middle east

Did anyone just feel that?

The stupidity on the boards just shot through the roof.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Work on your reading skills
Nyet, Ne Nada!. Work on your thinking skills. You can't airbrush from history several murders, simply because they don't support your over-speculative conclusions.

Religious dominance of the middle east might be one of their goals. Religious dominance of the world isn't. You wanna try that again...


You can't airbrush from my post several words, simply because they don't support your over-speculative conclusions.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
You wanna try that again...
OK. This bit:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Religious dominance of the middle east might be one of their goals.
2 Religious dominance of the world isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't airbrush from my post several words, simply because they don't support your over-speculative conclusions.
I didn't post conclusions, over-speculative or not. The goals of the Islamists under discussion are somewhere inbetween 1: 'the middle east' and 2:'the world' - You are right if you meant that they couldn't give a toss about N & S America, Antarctica, Finland etc but they certainly want dominance of much more of the world than just the middle east, hence the attacks on churches, synagogues, temples, from Indonesia to Kosovo. Any land they see as 'Moslem Lands' - including areas where the local Moslems hate the sight of them (eg Iraq, Turkey, Chechnya) - is 'fair game' for hate crimes.

There is some discussion that the world is devastated when a terrorist attack happens on American soil but these happen every day overseas. Is the media coverage fair? Or does the title First World mean that these countries actually come first when it comes to showing support?

Check out the story "It's terror no matter where it happens" on www.speakfreewithjb.com (http://www.speakfreewithjb.com)

Vile,

I should've replied sooner, but I needed a bit of time to think and the hot weather kept me from firing up the computer.


First off, to believe that what the U.S. is doing in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter, whether or not it's worth the cost the U.S. is paying, both in treasure and in blood, you are going to have to come to grips with the fact that there is an Islamic ideaology out there that hates the West and absolutely refuses to live in peace with Western culture/ideaology. I've read books on the subject and I've come across articles and I believe it. I can't help you there, either you'll come to that belief or not.

Your quote

This sounds distressingly similar to "If we don't defeat Communism in Vietnam, pretty soon the Commies will be marching down Main Street USA"

I'm surprised at you Darth....ressurrecting the Domino Theory...shame on you.

Well let's see, the communists DID take all of Eastern Europe after the Second World War, all of China fell to communism, South Korea almost wound up in communist hands, Vietnam was certainly lost to communism, as was Cuba; South America, Africa and Greece certainly saw communist activity, Afghanistan came within a hairsbreadth of falling into the Soviet empire and now the Chi-coms want Taiwan for themselves. I think you are looking at history from too comfortable of a perspective. There certainly was a global war between communist and Western Ideaology in the second half of the twentieth century. And people did have justification of being vigilant against its spread.

But the subject at hand is Radical Islam. While it is quite the threat communism was, there has been an element within the Middle East that wishes for those Middle Eastern countries to embrace 14th century Islam, scattered reports of anti-semetic activities in Europe spurred along by Islamists, anti-western hate speeches given in Mosques throughout Europe, Britain came into the spotlight in the regard recently. As I've said, I've read about radical Islamist aims, I've witnessed the 9/11 attacks, the London attacks, the attacks in Spain, the Cole, Dan Pearl and so forth. This isn't something I take lightly, and neither should you.


Your quote:

Darth, you state that this clash is a clash of two cultures and then you state that the conflict is between the West and "radical Islam". Radical Islam is not a "culture" and is not representative of any particular culture. You can find radical Islamics in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, two widely disparate cultures. Radicals are by definition extremists who do not follow mainstream ideas. You say that you know the difference between the radicals and mainstream Islamics, but you seem to favor culture war with the entire Islamic world based on the actions of extremists. Why?


I've pointed out the differences between Western and Islamic cultures, and I've pointed out why the Bin Laden types hate us. I may do yet another posting on the particulars of why the Radical Islamists hate us, but I'm not about to engage in hair splitting over the definition of culture and what's a culture or what isn't a culture. Call it an ideaology if it makes you feel better, dammit.

As for this thing about me wishing to go to war with Muslims in general. I've said no such thing and have no idea where you picked up that idea at. I have pointed out in past posts (and I'm repeating myself and it's getting to be rather irksome) that there are two differing ideas going on the the Muslim world. The Muslim world is well aware that they have fallen behind the Western world in just about any category you care to name. Human rights, culture, wealth, education, medicine, technology. The ENTIRE Muslim world is aware of that. There are two competing strategies for catching up with the West. One side wishes to embrace more Western ideas and institutions. They see the West as a role model of sorts. They are open to ideas on how to improve their lives. When I say we are in a culture war with Islam, THIS is the side I'm trying to aid, protect and allow to grow. This side of Islam is why I'm so vehement in wanting to win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The other side of the argument, the Bin Laden types, KNOW that at one time the Islamic culture had a vast empire, a common language, a common faith and was one of THE centers of culture and learning in the world. The Bin Laden types believe, sincerely, that because Muslims have strayed from their true faith, have begun picking up Western values, that straying from their true faith is what has allowed their homeland to crumble and their culture to lag and sink into irrelevence. The Radical Islamists wish to rid the Middle East of ANY Western influence, return to the true 14th century style of Islam and then, and only then, will the Middle East recapture the glory that Islam was in centuries past. Naturally, this is NOT the group of people I want to have controlling the Middle East. Not only does government by religious decree not work, the Bin Laden types feel that they have to bring down Western culture in order for Islam to thrive. There is no way of stopping Western ideas and influence (ideas that often run counter to the Islamic religion) from coming into the Middle East. So, by default, the Radical Islamists that the West must be destroyed.

I honestly hope you get an inkling of the problem we here in the West are going to have with the Radical Islamists. Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
First off, to believe that what the U.S. is doing in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter, whether or not it's worth the cost the U.S. is paying, both in treasure and in blood, you are going to have to come to grips with the fact that there is an Islamic ideaology out there that hates the West and absolutely refuses to live in peace with Western culture/ideaology. I've read books on the subject and I've come across articles and I believe it. I can't help you there, either you'll come to that belief or not.

First off, an ideology can't hate, it can be one of hatred however. It takes individuals to hate. I have no problem believing that there are individuals, and groups of individuals who believe your hypothetical ideas.


Well let's see, the communists DID take all of Eastern Europe after the Second World War,

You mean Russia did...after driving out the Germans.


all of China fell to communism,

Except of course, Taiwan.

South Korea almost wound up in communist hands, Vietnam was certainly lost to communism,

Both of these countries were fighting wars of reunification after being artificially partitioned after WWII by the Allied Powers.

as was Cuba; South America, Africa and Greece certainly saw communist activity,

You forgot Central America. :D

Afghanistan came within a hairsbreadth of falling into the Soviet empire

Mmmm...not so much...the Soviets never really came close.

and now the Chi-coms want Taiwan for themselves.

You mean they want it back.

I think you are looking at history from too comfortable of a perspective. There certainly was a global war between communist and Western Ideaology in the second half of the twentieth century. And people did have justification of being vigilant against its spread.

I find the use of the term "war" to describe the Cold War somewhat disingenuous. It was mainly an economic struggle.

The point here is that you've taken a bunch of wars that were fought for a variety of different reasons, and decided that they were part of the "Communist Conspiracy".

But the subject at hand is Radical Islam. While it is quite the threat communism was, there has been an element within the Middle East that wishes for those Middle Eastern countries to embrace 14th century Islam, scattered reports of anti-semetic activities in Europe spurred along by Islamists, anti-western hate speeches given in Mosques throughout Europe, Britain came into the spotlight in the regard recently. As I've said, I've read about radical Islamist aims, I've witnessed the 9/11 attacks, the London attacks, the attacks in Spain, the Cole, Dan Pearl and so forth. This isn't something I take lightly, and neither should you.

I assure you Darth, I think it's a serious problem.


I've pointed out the differences between Western and Islamic cultures, and I've pointed out why the Bin Laden types hate us. I may do yet another posting on the particulars of why the Radical Islamists hate us, but I'm not about to engage in hair splitting over the definition of culture and what's a culture or what isn't a culture. Call it an ideaology if it makes you feel better, dammit.

You're the one who said we were engaged in a war of cultures. If you can't or won't define a culture, I'm afraid I must regard your supposition that we're engaged in a culture war with some suspicion.


As for this thing about me wishing to go to war with Muslims in general. I've said no such thing and have no idea where you picked up that idea at.

I have pointed out in past posts (and I'm repeating myself and it's getting to be rather irksome)

You needn't be irked, and you needn't repost, I'm familiar with your ideas vis-a-vis the Radical Islam problem.

I honestly hope you get an inkling of the problem we here in the West are going to have with the Radical Islamists. Dammit.

I have an inkling Darth...the question is, why do you think you can eliminate a very small group of radical Islamics who are living in several different countries intermixed with the civilian population, using the full might of the US military?

Oh, and let's not forget problem #1...we don't really know who these people are...

If he says &@##17 one more time i am going to flip out, its getting annoying and overly repetitive, like the F word in Pulp Fiction or Boondock Saints.

One problem with referring to the ideology in question as "Western culture" is that it makes it much harder for that ideology to take hold in Islamic and third-world countries. There are many in those countries who oppose democratization, industrialization, and liberalization simply because they view such ideas as being "Western." Consequently, they feel that adopting such ideas would entail abandoning their own culture and heritage.

This is also why any movement towards such an ideology must come from within the country where it is being implemented, and not simply exported by the West.

Originally posted by Evakian
If he says &@##17 one more time i am going to flip out, its getting annoying and overly repetitive, like the F word in Pulp Fiction or Boondock Saints.

If you're referring to Darth's "dammit", that's just a signature of his.

yes, that was in reference to that.

Geez, someone here hates my "dammits," dammit, how about that?

On to Vile's post.

About the Communism bit. I won't go so far as to say that Communist countries could work together, closely anyway, to take over the world. China and the Soviet Union really didn't like each other at all. But they can and did (and do) work together to try and stop American influence from spreading. The Korean War is a prime example. China supplied air bases for MiG Fighters and training for Korean pilots, while Russia supplied MiGs, ground support, air traffic control and even had Russian pilots flying against the American Sabre pilots. Vietnam was the same thing, the Soviet Union supplied just about everything the Communist North needed to fight the Americans. Most notably, the MiGs and air defense systems in and around North Vietnamese cities. Cuba went communist and the Soviet Union turned up to plant ICBMs on Cuban soil. America did much the same thing, the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union was a prime example. The U.S. supplied stinger missles to the Mujahideen. The point being is that the Soviet Union and America did wage a fierce war in an effort to turn a country either Communist or a Democracy. By the way, I absolutely hate the idea that the cold war was about two competing economies. The Soviet Union didn't have an economy, it was ideaology. The cold war was a confrontation of communist ideaology against a liberal and free Western society.


To satisfy your little fixation on the definition of culture, I perused the online dictionary and found a term that fits. Culture: "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group." This definition fits my thesis to a "T." Dammit. This culture war, and it is one, is pitting one group of people who believe that societies should be ruled by the decrees of Allah himself as laid down in the Koran, which in their eyes is universal truth, against a culture where church and state are seperated and people are free to choose what faith they wish to practice, what moralities they choose to live by and in what way they wish to live. I've pointed out that the entire Middle East is by now, well aware that they are lagging way behind the Western world. I've pointed out Muslim awareness of this problem and two very different ideas on how to catch up with the West in economics, culture and innovation. I've also pointed out that Western ideas, Western Culture, has been seeping into the Middle East and there is no stopping it. The mission of the Bin Laden types, the very purpose of their actions, is to resurect a true Islamic culture in the Middle East. To do so, they have to stem the flow of Western influence and ideas in the Middle East. The VERY least the Radical Islamists have to do is to get the West out of the Middle East. Which means, AS A START, they have to see to it that all Western troops leave the Middle East. Bin Laden went on his little Jihad because U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia. This is THE reason why you have Muslims willing to go and blow themselves up in order to kill as many people as possible. They are fighting for their religious principles/ideaologies. The Radical Islamists are defending their very core beliefs. The Radical Islamists know they can't stand toe to toe with U.S. troops and win a battle. They have to resort to terrorism, the weapon of the weak.

Vile's quote:

...the question is, why do you think you can eliminate a very small group of radical Islamics who are living in several different countries intermixed with the civilian population, using the full might of the US military?

I believe that Radical Islamists are a minority, but they are far from being weak and without influence. They used to rule Afghanistan, they were known as the Taliban. Iran is fully in the grip of a relgious theocracy. It's run by Mullahs. Saudi Arabia allows the Radical Islamists to run their schools and to export terrorism then pretends it does no such thing. Syria is in bed with the Bin Laden types, they are the ones fueling Hezbollah and their war against Israel. The radical islamists are woven into the cultural fabric of the Middle East.

It's not our armed forces that are going to win this battle of ideas with the radical islamists. This war on terror. All our armed forces have done to date is win a toe hold in two Middle Eastern countries where democracy can be given a chance to flourish in a region that has known brutal dictatorships and harsh theocracies for most of its history. It's going to be Western ideas, culture and wealth. Iranians have called the U.S. "the Great Satan," satan isn't a conqueror, it's a temptor. Given the chance, if it can be got to that point, it's not going to be easy, given the chance for Arabs to see the benefits of Western ideas, -private property, capitalism, democracy, human rights, the right to choose what one wishes to do with their lives- most of the Arabs will embrace Western culture and the wealth, plenty, rights and high standard of living that comes with a democratic nation. I believe that this war on terror, this culture war can be won. Keep in mind that jihadists have to be imported into Iraq to fuel the "insurgency." Also, NOBODY has evered conquered Afghanistan. The British couldn't do it, the Soviet Union couldn't. But the U.S. did. Not by strength of our military, but because we went to Aghanistan to import freedom. The Afghanis knew this. They know it know. The Afghanis biggest fear now is that the U.S. will leave and the Taliban will take back their country. If you've ever wondered why their isn't a lot of news coming out of Afghanistan, this is it. IF Afghanistan and Iraq flourish as democracies, IF those two nations acquire the wealth, human rights and dignities we take for granted here in the States, IF that happens it could cause a domino effect where the entire Middle East could break the chains of thoecracy and embrace Western culture, institutions and ideas. But, the U.S. can't falter. We can NOT afford to give the Bin Laden types the victory, we can't be seen as weak. As I've said before, this is why I've so vehement about the U.S. winning in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are a few other points that have flitted around in my mind, but I'll leave those for another post.

Dammit. (whoops said it again!)

Correct, apart from:
Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Also, NOBODY has evered conquered Afghanistan. The British couldn't do it, the Soviet Union couldn't. But the U.S. did. Not by strength of our military, but because we went to Aghanistan to import freedom. The Afghanis knew this. They know it know. The Afghanis biggest fear now is that the U.S. will leave and the Taliban will take back their country.
Afghanistan is under control of the Afghan Warlords, as always, and they will support whoever pays them the most - that is how the Taleban took power, and how we overthrew them.
The USSR actually had control of more of Afghanistan than the US or the Taleban, but were worn down from years of Guerilla attacks out in the sticks by well-financed Mujahideen.
The US could leave now and keep the Taleban out of power, the Warlords only need US air support if it flares up again, but the US are looking for a certain man - which is why they are still there.

Except the US doesn't really want to catch him because a constant boogie man to keep the masses in fear is exactly what they want. It allows those in power to remain there no matter how bad they fuck everything else up.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." --Adolf Hitler

Darth

This culture war, and it is one, is pitting one group of people who believe that societies should be ruled by the decrees of Allah himself as laid down in the Koran, which in their eyes is universal truth, against a culture where church and state are seperated and people are free to choose what faith they wish to practice, what moralities they choose to live by and in what way they wish to live.
To force other people around the world to conform to our way of life and ideals is not only wrong, but also imperialistic. Do you honestly support American imperialism? How would you feel if another culture invaded our land and tried to force their morals upon us? Would that be fair and justified? Can't you allow people to choose how they want to live their lives? And I bet you're going to come back and say it's everyone's right to have freedoms. But if you think about it, in order to let people be free we must allow them to either A. fight for change on their own, freely or B. allow them to keep what they have, even if we disagree with it. For that is allowing them to be free in the way they choose to live their lives. If they truly wanted what you want for them, they would revolt and die for change. How do you think America gained its independence? This is not a war to spread our culture, this is a war to defend our culture. We are fighting this war to prevent another 9/11 and prevent America from falling. Forcing others to conform to Americanism will only create more enemies for America, globally and domestically. Showing that this war is indeed doing the opposite of what we wanted it to do, which is to preserve the land of the free. Forcing the Middle East to follow in our footsteps, will not only aggravate the religious fanatics more, but will also create more radicals. Do you really think that the families who have been torn apart by our war are going to thank us, or now join the radicals in their fight against America? Please, be realistic about it. The 2004 terrorist report shows an increase in terrorism, which means there are, indeed more terrorists. Proving the Iraq war has done the opposite of what we wanted it to do, which was to make our nation more secure. The greatest thing about America is us allowing people to be free, so please, Darth, allow the people of the Middle East to be free, and let them fight to change on their own, or allow them to live their lives with cruel dictators and religious fanaticism, for that is their choice, to make as an individual person and their choice to make as a people. And please, stop supporting a war that is making our nation and my family less secure and hated around the world.

Originally posted by Overdose

The 2004 terrorist report shows an increase in terrorism, which means there are, indeed more terrorists. Proving the Iraq war has done the opposite of what we wanted it to do, which was to make our nation more secure. But terrorism cannot survive under truly oppressive regimes, as Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein demonstrated.
Logically, by ending an oppressive regime in Iraq, it made an increase in terrorism more likely. Had someone somehow toppled Josef Stalin in 1946-9 it would surely have been morally justifiable, but would have led to an explosion of violence from Kyrgyzia to Ukraine.
If we agree with your President that the past policy of supporting murderous dictators was wrong, should we accept that an increase in terrorism is inevitable?

I've said all along you cannot force freedom down peoples throats. They have to want it bad enough to revolt and die for it. If they don't want it bad enough to fight for it then they wont be willing to fight to maintain it. Freedom must come from social and cultural change, even if it takes a revolution. It cannot be forced at gun point by an outside invader.

ya, like the germans and japanese rose up and overthrew their oppresive regimes in the 40's and are still democratic to this day

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, like the germans and japanese rose up and overthrew their oppresive regimes in the 40's and are still democratic to this day

Like I said, they have to WANT IT bad enough.

in case you didnt know, the gernams and japanese did not overthrow their oppresive regimes, I was being sarcastic. the US and our allies overthrew the nazis and the imperial japs. Their citizens were not overthrowing then from within. Thats not to say they didnt want to be free, becasue they probably did, just like the Iraqis probably wanted to be free but they could not overthrow the entrenched dictator on their own. so, basically, youur parroted line of shit gets shot down, again

Once again....THEY HAVE TO WANT IT BAD ENOUGH TO FIGHT AND DIE FOR IT.

And how do you know the Iraq's want what we call freedom? Or for that matter the Germans and Japanese in WW2.

echo, the human way is to be free. nobady wants to live in fear of their government. answer me this, waht freedoms do tyou have that the iraqis lok at and say "na, I dont want that" they are not aliens from another planet, they are human beings, and human beings have a thing called free will. key word is free.

Originally posted by Echo2
Once again....THEY HAVE TO WANT IT BAD ENOUGH TO FIGHT AND DIE FOR IT. Many of them have fought and died for it, and many have demonstrated that they are willing to do the same.

Additionally, there are times when people just aren't able to revolt, usually because they are prevented from organizing and staging an effective rebellion. There are also those who simply prefer not to risk their lives for their beliefs. But that doesn't mean that they don't WANT freedom.

Additionally, there are times when people just aren't able to revolt, usually because they are prevented from organizing and staging an effective rebellion. Which is the entire reason that government looking to turn oppresive spy on their citizens constantly. They impose such measures when most people still agree with the government becuase blind nationalists allow them to do so in order to catch dirty ____s (arabs/jews/blacks/whites/indians/etc so long as its a minority in the population) Then when they tire of listening to the people they employ such means against the population as a whole.

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."

--Pastor Martin Niemöller


"Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."
-- Albert Einstein

Originally posted by Jester
Many of them have fought and died for it, and many have demonstrated that they are willing to do the same.

Additionally, there are times when people just aren't able to revolt, usually because they are prevented from organizing and staging an effective rebellion. There are also those who simply prefer not to risk their lives for their beliefs. But that doesn't mean that they don't WANT freedom.

to echo all the iraqi NG guys who have dies fighting and volunteetring dont count. they are only doing it because tehre are no jobs.

Its as if shew thinks every single person ina coutnry has to activly participate in the fighting. Echo, not all americans fought in the revolution, some even supported the british, does that mean we didnt want freedom either?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I believe that Radical Islamists are a minority, but they are far from being weak and without influence. They used to rule Afghanistan, they were known as the Taliban. Iran is fully in the grip of a relgious theocracy. It's run by Mullahs. Saudi Arabia allows the Radical Islamists to run their schools and to export terrorism then pretends it does no such thing. Syria is in bed with the Bin Laden types, they are the ones fueling Hezbollah and their war against Israel. The radical islamists are woven into the cultural fabric of the Middle East.

Agreed, and I emphasized that last part because they don't just exist in the Middle East. You find them irrespective of the background culture.

It's not our armed forces that are going to win this battle of ideas with the radical islamists. This war on terror.

I agree 100%.

All our armed forces have done to date is win a toe hold in two Middle Eastern countries where democracy can be given a chance to flourish in a region that has known brutal dictatorships and harsh theocracies for most of its history. It's going to be Western ideas, culture and wealth.

I guess time will tell.

I'm not stalking you, Mr Guerilla, but this little myth has to be corrected whenever it appears:

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew...

--Pastor Martin Niemöller


http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/article/0,2763,194413,00.html#article_continue
"Peter Novick explains in his brilliant and provocative new book, The Holocaust in American Life, "First they came for the Communists" - a circumstance acknowledged by Niemöller, who continued, "but I was not a Communist - so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat - so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew - so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me." The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC is just one of those who, in Novick's phrase "prudently omits" Communists from Niemöller's homily.

Wow there sure are a lot of things that have turned out to be twisted or lies in relating ot the holocaust. I've heard of 2 or 3 'autobiographical' books that have been debunked as well. Seems like everyone just wanted to profit off the thing one way or another.

"First they came for the Communists
but I was not a Communist -
so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Social Democrats,
but I was not a Social Democrat -
so I did nothing.
Then came the trade unionists,
but I was not a trade unionist
[so I did nothing].
And then they came for the Jews,
but I was not a Jew -
so I did little.
Then when they came for me,
there was no one left who could stand up for me."

- Pastor Martin Niemöller

There thats better.

First they came for the Arabs
Then they came for the protestors
Then they came for the "activist" judges...

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Which is the entire reason that government looking to turn oppresive spy on their citizens constantly. They impose such measures when most people still agree with the government becuase blind nationalists allow them to do so in order to catch dirty ____s (arabs/jews/blacks/whites/indians/etc so long as its a minority in the population) Then when they tire of listening to the people they employ such means against the population as a whole. Well said, though the scapegoat is often another country or an ideology as well.

Of all the arguments that have come out against the Iraq, dose's last post are the most intelligent and well thought out. He's said as much before, in preivious arguments and I usually don't bother to reply. It's tough to hack together a good reply, but I'm going to try yet again, dammit.


To force other people around the world to conform to our way of life and ideals is not only wrong, but also imperialistic. Do you honestly support American imperialism?

I find it somewhat funny the idea of "forcing" a system of government on the Iraqis that has allowed rights and freedoms of expression that are unprecedented in history. But there is a point that is a good one buried in overdose's statement. I believe what dose is trying to say is that I think that not only does Iraq has to absorb American style democracy, it has to embrace American culture. Neither of these statements are true. My way of thinking is this, I want to add what the Iraqi citizens have and take nothing away. I already know that the Iraqis aren't going to go with the idea of seperating church and state (though it would be a very good idea if they did) and I'm pretty sure that most Iraqis are uncomfortable with the somewhat looser American morality, which is OK with me. THE thing I'm hoping for with Iraq is to give the citizens their a voice in their goverment and a right to dissent without being tortured, executed or thrown in prison. I'd also want the Iraqis to have, along with free speech, free press, and a lack of hostility to religions other than Islam, is private property. The idea that the average Iraqi CAN make a business, home or living for himself without his assets being seized by the Iraq government. Basic human rights, the right to dissent, and the right to own property would be the three biggest things I can hope for in that country. Hopefully from their, the next two lessons is that it's a bad idea to have a person or government organization that speaks on behalf of Allah, as that would automatically give that person or governmental body the right to squash political opposition and you are right back at a theocracy, which would be a disaster. Also, another little lesson the Iraqis-and all of the Middle East has to learn for that matter- is that the Koran isn't going to cover every single dispute between people or parties. The thing the Iraqis have to learn is to take the rights granted by Allah, and manage them amongst themselves. This is something our Founding Fathers did and it's a good thing to pick up on. But I'm dreaming about those two little ideas at this point, my life will, in all likelihood, be over by the time the Arabs come to that particular conclusion.


How would you feel if another culture invaded our land and tried to force their morals upon us? Would that be fair and justified? Can't you allow people to choose how they want to live their lives?

Well there is no question about how I'd feel if a foreign power came to the U.S. and tried to impose THEIR way of life on us and won't discuss that issue. This idea has to be looked from a more practicle standpoint. The "insurgency" in Iraq did NOT stop the Iraqis from voting, the haven't succeeded in fomenting a civil war in Iraq, they don't control any Iraqi territory, the "insurgency" has flat out failed to stop the Iraqi government from taking the steps to form a Constitution and is entirely dependent on foriegn personell, both the leaders and the grunts to keep Iraq from embracing the kind of government we here in America wish the Iraqis to have. This is in spite of all the terrorist attacks that have been ripping throughout all of Iraq, all the disruptions to ordinary life in Iraq, all the deaths caused by the "insurgency" and an American invasion. The Iraqi "insurgency" does NOT enjoy popular support amongst the Iraqis. This has to tell you something. The Iraqis wish to have a better way of life. This kind of thing can't be done all the time, most people of the world would resent an invasion by American forces for any reason, but between living with Saddam and maybe a better way of life.........

The 2004 terrorist report shows an increase in terrorism, which means there are, indeed more terrorists. Proving the Iraq war has done the opposite of what we wanted it to do, which was to make our nation more secure.

Well, no doubt that invading two foreign countries and trying to set up democracies in the very heart of Islam is going to motivate a LOT fence sitters into becoming full fledged terrorists. The Bin Laden types are fighting against a culture that is completely anathema to their very existence. Bin Laden said that Islam is facing its greatest danger since the time of Muhammad himself, he knew what he was talking about. The Islamists wish to have muslim theocracies all through the Middle East. And they sure as hell want Western ideas OUT of the Middle East. And, they WILL die to see that their ideals are carried out. It would be nice if we here in the States could live the way we wanted to, and the Islamists, they way they wish to. But 9/11 happened, and that changed everything.

Dammit.

Darth Be'lal

My way of thinking is this, I want to add what the Iraqi citizens have and take nothing away. I already know that the Iraqis aren't going to go with the idea of seperating church and state (though it would be a very good idea if they did) and I'm pretty sure that most Iraqis are uncomfortable with the somewhat looser American morality, which is OK with me. THE thing I'm hoping for with Iraq is to give the citizens their a voice in their goverment and a right to dissent without being tortured, executed or thrown in prison.
Darth, if you truly wanted to allow them to have their own voice, you’d allow them to fight for the right to gain this voice you speak of. To force them to have these freedoms isn’t allowing them to have their own voice, it’s forcing them to have their own voice. Which is, indeed, incorrect. How dare we force our morals upon a group of people who may or may not agree with us. If they truly wanted a free voice, they would fight for this voice. However, they didn’t fight for this voice you speak of, so, we must conclude that they are choosing to live their lives in a way that is against democracy.

I'd also want the Iraqis to have, along with free speech, free press, and a lack of hostility to religions other than Islam, is private property.
That’s what you want for them. However, just because you want it for them, and just because you think it’s the best way to function as a government and people, does not mean everyone agrees with you. And to force these people to agree with you, is not giving them the freedom to live their lives in a way they want to live them. Maybe they want to live under an oppressive government, where woman are considered second class. Maybe they agree with harsh punishments. Maybe they agree with blind loyalty to ones government. Who are you to tell them they are wrong to choose to live this way? But this brings me back to square one, this isn’t a war about spreading democracy, this is a war about protecting democracy. And forcing a nation that is religiously against democracy and forcing a region to conform to western ideals, when they have been taught from day one to hate our ideals, is only going to create more hate and disgust for America.

Basic human rights, the right to dissent, and the right to own property would be the three biggest things I can hope for in that country.
Hoping that the people of Iraq choose to want the things you want for them is fine, but forcing them to want the things you view as “basic human rights” is incorrect.

This idea has to be looked from a more practicle standpoint. The "insurgency" in Iraq did NOT stop the Iraqis from voting, the haven't succeeded in fomenting a civil war in Iraq, they don't control any Iraqi territory, the "insurgency" has flat out failed to stop the Iraqi government from taking the steps to form a Constitution and is entirely dependent on foriegn personell, both the leaders and the grunts to keep Iraq from embracing the kind of government we here in America wish the Iraqis to have. This is in spite of all the terrorist attacks that have been ripping throughout all of Iraq, all the disruptions to ordinary life in Iraq, all the deaths caused by the "insurgency" and an American invasion. The Iraqi "insurgency" does NOT enjoy popular support amongst the Iraqis.
Darth, the only way in which a democracy will last is if the people of that nation fought to gain democracy. Right now they are being handed a democracy. They are being force-fed a democracy. Do you think they’d fight for something they didn’t have to die for? I highly doubt it. Not to mention, most of their nation is in one party and voted for one single party to run their nation. How do you think that’ll work out? I’m betting it will turn into another dictatorship.

Well, no doubt that invading two foreign countries and trying to set up democracies in the very heart of Islam is going to motivate a LOT fence sitters into becoming full fledged terrorists.
Yes, no doubt it will. And no doubt the cycle will never end. And no doubt they will have children who are raised to hate and have disgust for America. We are not improving the situation for America.

And they sure as hell want Western ideas OUT of the Middle East. And, they WILL die to see that their ideals are carried out. It would be nice if we here in the States could live the way we wanted to, and the Islamists, they way they wish to. But 9/11 happened, and that changed everything.
Darth, of course they want our ideals out. Do you understand how much history has been placed in the Middle East? How many religious wars have been fought? And to now all of a sudden bring “democracy” to ancient lands of religion, where democracy is viewed as incorrect…do you really think us putting our views in the Middle East will help anything? The only reason Osama started to hate the United States was because we put air bases in Saudi Arabia, and that then signaled that we were trying to invade and replace the ideals of Islam. If we had stayed out of the Middle East, they would have continued to live their lives in a way we found wrong, but they would have never came after us. Yes, many hated the west. But it was because we put Israel in the Middle East, because we supported Israel with money that fueled their military, and we started putting military bases in the Middle East. Had we done none of that, I think none of this would have happened.

Yes, Saddam was a cruel dictator. Yes, he was playing some games with the UN in regards to the WMDs. Yes, he may have had some links to terrorism. But, we were the ones who put him in power, gave him weapons, and supported him while he was killing his own people. And, other nations were far crueler to their people and had more weapons then he did. All in all, Iraq was hardly a threat to us. And the war in Iraq has made our nation less secure. All in all, I find this war creating more enemies for our nation, and making us far less secure.

Originally posted by Overdose
Yes, Saddam was a cruel dictator. Yes, he was playing some games with the UN in regards to the WMDs. Yes, he may have had some links to terrorism. But, we were the ones who put him in power, gave him weapons, and supported him while he was killing his own people. [/B] Surely, since 'we' put him there and supported him, all the more reason why 'we' should depose the bastard.

overdose thinks there are different freedom for different races of people. in fact, there is only one freedom for all. no who lives under oppression actually thinks they are free. you are either free or you are not, there is no multi cultural definitons of reedom. thats the chickenshit way to say you want them to live under oppresion so we dont have to do anything about it. "oh how do we know they dont like living under a dictator?" it so fucking stupid to even comprehend its not worth replying to anymore.

Originally posted by Travh20
overdose thinks there are different freedom for different races of people. in fact, there is only one freedom for all. no who lives under oppression actually thinks they are free. you are either free or you are not, there is no multi cultural definitons of reedom. thats the chickenshit way to say you want them to live under oppresion so we dont have to do anything about it. "oh how do we know they dont like living under a dictator?" it so fucking stupid to even comprehend its not worth replying to anymore.
Trav, since when is it America's job to spread freedom around to other nations? Since when do we have to fight for other people's independence? Didn't we fight for our freedoms on our own? Didn't we work and die to gain this nation of ours? Did the Iraqis die for these "freedoms" you speak of? No, they didn't. They were handed these freedoms, which proves they really don't want them.

And how the fuck do I think there are different freedoms for different races? There are Arabs who are free in the good ol' US of A.

I just don't think we should force people to conform to our way of life, Trav. And this isn't a war about spreading democracy; this is a war about protecting it. And we are NOT protecting democracy by going to Iraq and making our nation less secure. Period.

But it's funny because most of what you're saying was refuted in my last post, you just didn't take the time to reply to it because it blows your "opinion" out of the water. Good job Trav, but I guess I'm so "stupid" to argue with now. Haha

again you completly overlook all the iraqis who brave suicide bombers to volunteer to join the Iraqi military and police force. and if you do mention them you pretty much spit in their face and say they only do it for money.

answer me this OD, if there were a group of crazed maniacs blowing up gas stations and shopping centers in your town, wouldnt you like to sign up for something to try and make you and your familys life a little safer? or would you hid in fear and let better men then yourself do it for you?

how would you feel if you did go volunteer to protect your family and some arrogant asshole who lives the life of luxury and safety in a foreign land belittled you by saying you only did it for money. that protecting your family and community never played into your decision? well thats what you are doing. by continuing to tow the "they are not fighting for it" line you continue to ignore everyhting these iraqis are doing. tehy are fighting for it OD, and they are dying for it. if you could get off your high horse for a while you would see that.

Originally posted by Travh20
again you completly overlook all the iraqis who brave suicide bombers to volunteer to join the Iraqi military and police force. and if you do mention them you pretty much spit in their face and say they only do it for money.
Trav, I’m sure there are some Iraqis who value the ideals we do here in America. However, if they valued these ideals as much as we do they would have been the ones to actually overthrow Saddam Hussein. A democracy won’t last unless the people of ones country fight and die to gain it.

Originally posted by Travh20
answer me this OD, if there were a group of crazed maniacs blowing up gas stations and shopping centers in your town, wouldnt you like to sign up for something to try and make you and your familys life a little safer? or would you hid in fear and let better men then yourself do it for you?
That isn’t a fair question, Trav. You don’t bring in all the other factors. Why are the crazed people blowing themselves up? Because America is in Iraq and we are drawing in terrorism to their country and creating massive chaos across their lands.

Originally posted by Travh20
how would you feel if you did go volunteer to protect your family and some arrogant asshole who lives the life of luxury and safety in a foreign land belittled you by saying you only did it for money. that protecting your family and community never played into your decision? well thats what you are doing. by continuing to tow the "they are not fighting for it" line you continue to ignore everyhting these iraqis are doing. tehy are fighting for it OD, and they are dying for it. if you could get off your high horse for a while you would see that.
I never said they do it for the money Trav…what the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by Overdose
Trav, I’m sure there are some Iraqis who value the ideals we do here in America. However, if they valued these ideals as much as we do they would have been the ones to actually overthrow Saddam Hussein. A democracy won’t last unless the people of ones country fight and die to gain it. Firstly, there are several examples of countries where people didn't fight and die for democracy, but democracy still took root and lasted. Secondly, there have been attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but they were crushed like glass under a pile driver. But regardless of what they tried before, the fact remains that many Iraqis are fighting for democracy today, and many more have willingly participated in the choosing of their government. I would say that's a pretty good indication that they would want democracy in their country.

Additionally, though democracy may have originated in the West, it is by no means a Western or American ideal or way of life. It is something that can be adopted by any country or society, and will be molded to fit the culture to which it is being applied. Perfect examples of this can be seen in Asian democracies, as well as in the differences betwen American and European democracies. So if democracy took hold in Iraq, it would in no way equate to that country adopting American ideals and culture.

As for America's role in all of this, this certainly isn't the first time that one country has helped another to gain independence or freedom. For example, the French helped us win independence, and we helped them to regain theirs. You could say that our primary objective should be to protect democracy for ourselves, but we now have a chance to protect it for others as well. To not do so would be exceedingly self-centered and egocentric on our part.

I would also like to ask you -- If a democratic government is not the form of government that people in Iraq want, then what type of government do you believe that they would like to have? And how would they go about establishing it?

Originally posted by Overdose
Trav, I’m sure there are some Iraqis who value the ideals we do here in America. However, if they valued these ideals as much as we do they would have been the ones to actually overthrow Saddam Hussein. A democracy won’t last unless the people of ones country fight and die to gain it.

well, not all Americans wanted to break away from england either, some even sided with them during the war for independence. Guess what? some iraqis want a saddam return, some want a taliban style islamic theocracy, and some want a western style democracy, what side are you on? there is no such thing as an impartial observer while your country is at war.

and tell me overdose, is the democracy in japan lasting? they didnt rise up and overthrow the military dictatorship, niether did the germans. If I recall, they had to be liberated, adn if I am not mistaken, they are both still functioning democracys who are our allies.


Originally posted by Overdose
That isn’t a fair question, Trav. You don’t bring in all the other factors. Why are the crazed people blowing themselves up? Because America is in Iraq and we are drawing in terrorism to their country and creating massive chaos across their lands.

this has ben brought up in anothe thread, but I will say it again: how is blowing up your fellow countrymen going to drive a foreign power out of your country? if the chinese took over america, would you go blow up your local gas station packed with americans to drive out the chinese? the car and suicide bombers are crazed, as they have no rythme or reason to their tactics, all they want to do is cause panic and fear.

Originally posted by Overdose
I never said they do it for the money Trav…what the hell are you talking about?

you have not but it is the most common answer from the anti war crowd trying to explain the long lines at recruiting centers in the midst of rampant suicide bombers targeting those very recruits

Jester

Firstly, there are several examples of countries where people didn't fight and die for democracy, but democracy still took root and lasted.
If you could please, give me some examples. And if they didn’t die for this democracy, were they forced to have it? Such as Japan being forced after WWII.

Secondly, there have been attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but they were crushed like glass under a pile driver.
Because the attempts were not driven by the full support of the people in Iraq. If the majority of people in Iraq wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they could have.

But regardless of what they tried before, the fact remains that many Iraqis are fighting for democracy today, and many more have willingly participated in the choosing of their government. I would say that's a pretty good indication that they would want democracy in their country.
Really? The people who have joined the police force in Iraq are very limited, and not meeting the amount needed to secure Iraq, which is why our troops are scheduled to be there for at least another 4 years. As for the “voting” thing, most voted for one party. Proving it will most likely just turn into another dictatorship or a government run by one party with one view. Many Iraqis say their lives were better before we came. I believe they conducted a survey and found that most Iraqis thought their lives were better before we came.

Additionally, though democracy may have originated in the West, it is by no means a Western or American ideal or way of life. It is something that can be adopted by any country or society, and will be molded to fit the culture to which it is being applied. Perfect examples of this can be seen in Asian democracies, as well as in the differences betwen American and European democracies. So if democracy took hold in Iraq, it would in no way equate to that country adopting American ideals and culture.
Of course it can be adopted. But it must be adopted through a cultural change that is made by the people of that culture. Forcing people to change their culture, does not go over well.

As for America's role in all of this, this certainly isn't the first time that one country has helped another to gain independence or freedom.
And this isn’t the time for America to help countries gain independence or freedom. This is a time to make our nation more secure and free from terrorism. Do you honestly think it’s time to be “saving the world” when we were just hit hard on 9/11? How about we defend our independence and freedom, before we go around spreading it to an area of the world that really does not want it.

For example, the French helped us win independence, and we helped them to regain theirs.
France helped us gain our independence, but we were the ones to begin the fight to gain the independence. That isn’t the same case with Iraq.
You could say that our primary objective should be to protect democracy for ourselves, but we now have a chance to protect it for others as well. To not do so would be exceedingly self-centered and egocentric on our part.
That’s incorrect. We don’t have a chance to spread democracy when our democracy is under attack. Not to mention, we don’t even have enough troops to bring a sufficient democracy to another nation, and we are making our nation less secure and more vulnerable to another attack by “spreading democracy” Which I find very unethical. This is a war to make us safer, not less safe. Do you even understand how imperialistic you sound?

I would also like to ask you -- If a democratic government is not the form of government that people in Iraq want, then what type of government do you believe that they would like to have? And how would they go about establishing it?
They would go about establishing it, by doing whatever they feel is the correct way in which to run a government?

----

Trav

well, not all Americans wanted to break away from england either, some even sided with them during the war for independence. Guess what? some iraqis want a saddam return, some want a taliban style islamic theocracy, and some want a western style democracy, what side are you on? there is no such thing as an impartial observer while your country is at war.
Enough of America or the majority of America wanted to break away. If the majority of Iraq wanted to break way, they would have defeated Saddam.

how is blowing up your fellow countrymen going to drive a foreign power out of your country? if the chinese took over america, would you go blow up your local gas station packed with americans to drive out the chinese? the car and suicide bombers are crazed, as they have no rythme or reason to their tactics, all they want to do is cause panic and fear.
It’ll cause so much chaos democracy won’t be functional?

again overdose shows his naievity, thinking the iraqis could have just overthrown saddam at the drop of a hat, all they had to do was want it. basically he is saying the iraqis wanted to live und saddam, or they would have just got rid of him. its not that easy overdose. I suggest you read the book 1984. That was similar to saddams Iraq, where even your kids could turn you in for a thought crime. you could trust nobody because anybody could turn you in and you could be strung up and dimembered or fed through a wood chipper at the slightest hint of any dissent. It was illegal to meet in large groups or to organzie anything, and of course all the loyal Republican guard units with the best training and equipment who could squash anything before it even started, and a state run media to stop the spread of any ideas or news that an uprising had started somewhere. Saddams whole government was set up to stop any sort of dissent. you make it sound like the iraqis could just meet in a big soccer stadium and demand changes. like you said, it was a differnet place, that you obviously know nothing about, or you wouldnt just pass off a lack of a revolt for a lack of desire to have one.


and if someone is willing to blow up their own people to stop a democracy, how great do you think a country that those people establsih will be? it would be in all of our best interest to make sure those people dont get control over iarq, dsont you think? or are you going ot pretend none of this concerns you? I hate to break it to you, but it does concern you, and by pretending to be objective and open minded about suicide bombers you are only braiding your own rope to hang on.

naievity

Quit making up words boy!!
I do believe you mean Naivety

whatever

Originally posted by Overdose
If you could please, give me some examples. And if they didn’t die for this democracy, were they forced to have it? Such as Japan being forced after WWII. Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, Canada... to name a few.

Because the attempts were not driven by the full support of the people in Iraq. If the majority of people in Iraq wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they could have. Having already discussed this earlier in the thread, I'll just repost it:
There are times when people just aren't able to revolt, usually because they are prevented from organizing and staging an effective rebellion. There are also those who simply prefer not to risk their lives for their beliefs. But that doesn't mean that they don't WANT freedom.

You might even say that Iraqis didn't hate Saddam enough to overthrow him, but that still doesn't prove that they wouldn't have preferred something else. As an analogy, I would rather be drinking a Dunkaccino than the Coke that I'm drinking right now, but that would entail driving all the way to Dunkin Donuts and back. I don't think it's worth the effort, so I'll stick to my Coke; but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a Dunkaccino.

Really? The people who have joined the police force in Iraq are very limited, and not meeting the amount needed to secure Iraq, which is why our troops are scheduled to be there for at least another 4 years. As for the “voting” thing, most voted for one party. Proving it will most likely just turn into another dictatorship or a government run by one party with one view. Many Iraqis say their lives were better before we came. I believe they conducted a survey and found that most Iraqis thought their lives were better before we came.Actually, the United Iraqi Alliance won only about 48% of the vote. But even if they do choose to have only one party in power then that's how it should be, since that would be the will of the people. What's important is that they are able to make that choice, and democracy is nothing more than the vehicle that allows them to do so.

Of course it can be adopted. But it must be adopted through a cultural change that is made by the people of that culture. Forcing people to change their culture, does not go over well. It's quite the opposite actually... it's democracy that changes and adjusts to the culture, not the other way around. That's why American democracy is not the same as British democracy which is not the same as Japanese democracy. But what they all have in common is the core idea that people choose their own government.

That’s incorrect. We don’t have a chance to spread democracy when our democracy is under attack. Not to mention, we don’t even have enough troops to bring a sufficient democracy to another nation, and we are making our nation less secure and more vulnerable to another attack by “spreading democracy” Which I find very unethical. Well we broke it, so now we gotta fix it. What's unethical is to leave Iraq in a worse condition than it was before we went in.

Do you even understand how imperialistic you sound? Advocating freedom and liberty for another country is imperialistic? :@@: Did the sun rise in the west this morning?
I'll have you know that imperialism is the antithesis of everything I believe in.

They would go about establishing it, by doing whatever they feel is the correct way in which to run a government What kind of government do you think it would be? And how specifically would they attain such a government?

think of freedom like a big plasma TV. you may not be willing to bust your ass day in and day out to get one, but that doesnt mean you dont want it, and if you got it, and someone tried to take it from you, you would probably try to keep it.

Good rebuttal Jest, although i would rather have a Coca Cola than a Dunkaccino ;)

Originally posted by Evakian
naievity

Quit making up words boy!!
I do believe you mean Naivety

Actually, it's naivete...

na·ive·té or na·ïve·té ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nv-t, nä-, n-v-t, nä-)
n.
The state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated, especially in being artless, credulous, or uncritical.
An artless, credulous, or uncritical statement or act.
_____________________________________________
na·ive·ty or na·ïve·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vt, nä-, n-v-t, nä-)
n.
Artlessness or credulity; naiveté.
_____________________________________________


Humbug! ;)

The thing you have got to keep in mind is that the Sunnis, which are a minority in Iraq, actually ran the country-with Saddam being patriarch/godfather. Also, the point was made that Saddam was very, very alert, to the point of paranoia, to any threat to his rule in Iraq and squashed dissent with a ruthless cruelty reminiscent of Stalin. Poison gas was used against the Kurds in the mid 90s. Saddam very publicly had random members of his assembly arrested and tortured, killed. The culture of Iraq was simply two things, fear and Saddam. It's a tall order for dissent to rise up under such circumstances.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the "insurgency" that has sprung up in Iraq is fueled by foreign jihadist types. Without support from Iran, Syria and perhaps Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the "insurgency" would've ran out of steam months ago. The citizens have risked their very lives to vote. The jihadist would've loved to have executed those who did so. Remember those stained fingers of Iraqi voters? It wouldn't have been too hard for the Islamists to figured out who diobeyed them. Yet the Iraqis haven't turned against U.S. troops en masse, they haven't shown support for the "insurgency" the Kurds, shiites and sunnis haven't started fighting amongst themselves. This has got to tell you something about Iraqi wishes, I think.

So, is it arrogant for the U.S. to assume everyone wants a democratic government? Is it a form of "cultural imperialism?" Maybe it is. But the U.S. has trouble keeping illegal aliens OUT of America, while despotic regimes have to worry more about keeping their subjects IN their respective countries. Remember the Berlin Wall? It's also one of the problems with Africa, actually, people with brains and a skill LEAVE that continent and don't come back. The ideals, the rights, the freedoms, the wealth we have in America are universal in appeal. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan have had their lives turned upside down by the U.S. juggernaut of invasion have had their governments crushed and they are working to try and adopt Western style government. THEY are working, America is NOT forcing them to. Afghanis has a long history of making their little country too hot of a potato to hold on to, yet American troops aren't bothered by the local populace. The Iraqis could've been welcoming the jihadist from foreign countries, gotten more overt support from the Iranian mullahs and from Syria to oust American troops and they could've been fighting amongst themselves over who gets what. They haven't. I think we should give these guys the chance to embrace the very things they so apparently want.

Rush Limbaugh said it best. The insurgency in Iraq, their greatest successes, pretty much their only successes have been with the mainstream media and the Micheal Moore/moveon.org types. The jihadists aren't making headway in any other category.

Dammit.

Rush Limbaugh said it best. The insurgency in Iraq, their greatest successes, pretty much their only successes have been with the mainstream media and the Micheal Moore/moveon.org types. The jihadists aren't making headway in any other category And you know...54%+ of the American population who thinks this war is BS.

Oh but you don't let little things like facts get in the way right?

BTW Its looking like the only secular state in teh middle east was blown up by the US to reveal another Islamist theocracy where women have no rights...USA USA USA!!!!

guerilla,

Do you really want me to think of the polls as some kind of Rosetta Stone of what America thinks when I know good and well that such polls go up and down like a roller coaster depending on the news? Public opinion is rarely carved on rock.

To be honest, I'm NOT happy about the war in Iraq. I don't think there is enough being done to squach the "insurgency." I wonder how many other Americans feel that way, dammit.

suddenly 54% is a vast majority.

Last i heard it (rose!) to 39% on CNN tonight

Trav

again overdose shows his naievity, thinking the iraqis could have just overthrown saddam at the drop of a hat, all they had to do was want it. basically he is saying the iraqis wanted to live und saddam, or they would have just got rid of him.
Umm, actually that is what I believe. And if you don’t think 80% of the Iraqi population fighting against Saddam would unseat him as their leader, you’re insane. Weather they wanted to live under him or not, it isn’t our job to fight for the wants of the Iraqis. It’s our job to make us more secure, and we are not doing that.

Saddams whole government was set up to stop any sort of dissent. you make it sound like the iraqis could just meet in a big soccer stadium and demand changes. like you said, it was a differnet place, that you obviously know nothing about, or you wouldnt just pass off a lack of a revolt for a lack of desire to have one.
If I recall correctly the Kurds were trying to revolt against Saddam and we were supplying him with weapons to wipe them out…hmmm and weren’t the Kurds making a dent? I believe they were.

and if someone is willing to blow up their own people to stop a democracy, how great do you think a country that those people establsih will be? it would be in all of our best interest to make sure those people dont get control over iarq, dsont you think? or are you going ot pretend none of this concerns you? I hate to break it to you, but it does concern you, and by pretending to be objective and open minded about suicide bombers you are only braiding your own rope to hang on.
As of right now I think we can’t let Iraq go down the tubes, because we made a mistake by going there in the first place and we now must fix it. However, looking at the war now, how it’s made our nation less secure, given the Iraqis a worse life, and is creating more terrorism, I can say I don’t agree with us going into Iraq in the first place.

-----------------

Jester

Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, Canada... to name a few.
So, because other nations have had it work out means we should keep spreading it? I disagree with whoever forced those nations to conform to ideals that those people may or may not have agreed with. And again, you fail to understand that although spreading democracy is a great “idea” and may be fathomable, it isn’t fathomable when we were just attacked and at a time when we need to put our people and country above all others. And if you don’t remember this war was because of “WMDs” which no one talks about. No one gave a flying fuck about Democracy for Iraq until the other reasons for the war were proven invalid.

There are times when people just aren't able to revolt, usually because they are prevented from organizing and staging an effective rebellion. There are also those who simply prefer not to risk their lives for their beliefs. But that doesn't mean that they don't WANT freedom.
If the people wanted freedom so badly, they would have died for it. Period. If they aren’t willing to risk their lives for freedom, then I don’t think it’s worth giving them to begin with.

You might even say that Iraqis didn't hate Saddam enough to overthrow him, but that still doesn't prove that they wouldn't have preferred something else.
Who is to know if they wanted something else? We will never know. However, this is not a war about helping other people, this is a war about protecting our people.

As an analogy, I would rather be drinking a Dunkaccino than the Coke that I'm drinking right now, but that would entail driving all the way to Dunkin Donuts and back. I don't think it's worth the effort, so I'll stick to my Coke; but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a Dunkaccino.
That analogy is so pathetic. Do you honestly think I’ll take this analogy and compare it to decisions that cost life and change your entire government and culture? Give me a break.

Actually, the United Iraqi Alliance won only about 48% of the vote. But even if they do choose to have only one party in power then that's how it should be, since that would be the will of the people. What's important is that they are able to make that choice, and democracy is nothing more than the vehicle that allows them to do so.
Why is it important that they have this choice? How is it important to securing our freedoms and rights? Us being in Iraq is weakening us, not making us stronger. I really don’t see how giving them this choice is benefiting the United States. And, I remember hearing that one party took all, and that that was that. But even if it wasn’t, do you think democracy will work in a country that is in complete chaos and we don’t have enough troops to commit to making it a democracy? That is because of poor planning and changing the reasons in which we went to Iraq in the middle of the game.

It's quite the opposite actually... it's democracy that changes and adjusts to the culture, not the other way around. That's why American democracy is not the same as British democracy which is not the same as Japanese democracy. But what they all have in common is the core idea that people choose their own government.
It depends on if a nation is forced to change or they gradually change on their own. I’m not in favor of forcing others to change their government just because we find their old government incorrect.

Well we broke it, so now we gotta fix it. What's unethical is to leave Iraq in a worse condition than it was before we went in.
I never said to leave Iraq in a worse condition, I just disagree with going their in the first place.

Advocating freedom and liberty for another country is imperialistic? :@@: Did the sun rise in the west this morning?
Forcing others to live in a governmental system that you find better then all else is being imperialistic and forcing your views on a foreign nation.

What kind of government do you think it would be? And how specifically would they attain such a government?
I don’t see why this question would serve any purpose.

overdose the islolationist. you would have fit in nicely with the America of the late 1930's, except for the cross dressing part

Originally posted by Overdose
So, because other nations have had it work out means we should keep spreading it? I disagree with whoever forced those nations to conform to ideals that those people may or may not have agreed with. If you remember correctly, I cited those nations as examples of countries where they didn't fight and die to gain democracy, but democracy still took hold and lasted; something that you said could not happen:
"A democracy won’t last unless the people of ones country fight and die to gain it." - Overdose

And no, none of those countries were forced to have democracy; they took to it willingly.

Now, instead of replying to each of your responses individually I'm going to explain my views on the subject since you seem to have some misconceptions as to where I stand.

Let me start by saying that democracy is simply the process by which the people of a country choose their own government, and thereby their way of life, and not have it imposed upon them by anyone, foreign or domestic. Democracy is not an American or Western ideal or way of life; it is the right of all people to choose their own government, though many are unable or unwilling to excercise that right. If the people as a whole choose not to put a government of their choice into place (ie. if they do not want democracy) then the only option is for someone (again, foreign or domestic) to impose a government upon them.

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a majority of the people of Iraq have indicated that they are willing to take the route of democracy and choose their own government. However, there are those in Iraq who would like to prevent the majority from doing so and to impose a government of their liking upon them. Since our military is currently in Iraq, we have two choices:
1. to help remove the obstacles that would prevent the will of the majority from being carried out, or
2. to stand back and offer no assitance, knowing that there is a good chance that the anti-democracy, government-imposing minority will be victorious.

As you might guess, I would go with option #1. I did not agree with the decision to go to war in Iraq, but the fact remains that we did go to war and did remove Saddam Hussein. It is therefore now our moral obligation to assist the country in establishing the government and society that they want, unless they specifically ask us not to. If we were to allow a some to impose their form of government on the people, against the will of the people, then it would be no better than if we did the imposing ourselves. That is something I am not willing to accept.

You earlier accused me of being imperialistic. Imperialism is to impose one's own government upon another nation, or to install a government of one's choosing in that nation. What I would like is for nations to have the opportunity to install a government that the people of the nation want. That's quite the opposite of imperialism, which is why I thought it was a bizarre accusation.

Originally posted by Travh20
overdose the islolationist. you would have fit in nicely with the America of the late 1930's, except for the cross dressing part

Trav...what's up with your mild obsession with homosexuality and cross-dressing?

Trav...what's up with your mild obsession with homosexuality and cross-dressing?
His wife wonders why her pantyhose end up missing on friday nights.

He goes out clubbing with Loki ;)

Jester

If you remember correctly, I cited those nations as examples of countries where they didn't fight and die to gain democracy, but democracy still took hold and lasted; something that you said could not happen
Then I retract what I’ve said earlier and I now understand that a democracy can last if the people don’t die to gain it. However, the nations you used I don’t believe were as religiously extreme as the people in the Middle East are or in Iraq for that matter. People are killing themselves and innocents to stop democracy, whereas in those other nations I don’t think the people were as religiously against or as violent against these new ideas that were being placed upon them as a people. Which is why I don’t see it spreading or lasting in the Middle East. These places that turned into a democracy were either isolated, near other democracies, or didn’t have nearly the amount of religious fanatics surrounding them. In Iraq, they are surrounded by terrorism, terrorists, people who are religiously and will always be religiously against freedom and will die to prevent it from spreading. The only way it will last is if we were to go into many other nations and form democracies there. I doubt America would go for that, and we don’t have the manpower, money or support to do it. Nor do I think it’s our business to do it.

And no, none of those countries were forced to have democracy; they took to it willingly.
You see, they took it willingly Many Arabs and Iraqis aren’t taking it “willingly” and are revolting against these ideals.

Let me start by saying that democracy is simply the process by which the people of a country choose their own government, and thereby their way of life, and not have it imposed upon them by anyone, foreign or domestic. Democracy is not an American or Western ideal or way of life; it is the right of all people to choose their own government, though many are unable or unwilling to excercise that right. If the people as a whole choose not to put a government of their choice into place (ie. if they do not want democracy) then the only option is for someone (again, foreign or domestic) to impose a government upon them.
I disagree. Democracy is not a right everyone should be granted at birth. I believe it is an ideal and it is something that the west, for the most part, invented. You can’t say everyone deserves or wants democracy when many are religiously against freedom and a government such as democracy. If they truly don’t believe people should be free, then that is their choice. You personally, believe everyone should have the right to a “choice” and a right to “freedoms” but not everyone shares your views.

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a majority of the people of Iraq have indicated that they are willing to take the route of democracy and choose their own government. However, there are those in Iraq who would like to prevent the majority from doing so and to impose a government of their liking upon them. Since our military is currently in Iraq, we have two choices
I’m sure the majority of people do want these “freedoms”, however, why is it our duty to spread democracy to them?

As you might guess, I would go with option #1. I did not agree with the decision to go to war in Iraq, but the fact remains that we did go to war and did remove Saddam Hussein. It is therefore now our moral obligation to assist the country in establishing the government and society that they want, unless they specifically ask us not to.
Jester, I’ve never once said we shouldn’t stay in Iraq to create a stable democracy. I agree with #1 as well. So, I guess I don’t understand your argument. I just personally don't see it lasting, even if we make their nation stable.

You earlier accused me of being imperialistic. Imperialism is to impose one's own government upon another nation, or to install a government of one's choosing in that nation. What I would like is for nations to have the opportunity to install a government that the people of the nation want. That's quite the opposite of imperialism, which is why I thought it was a bizarre accusation.

Imperialism- the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=imperialism

Seems as if we are occupying their nation. We’ve built bases, and other things in Iraq. We are going to be there for at least 4 more years, if not more.

We have domination and power over their economic life and we are forcing them to have a democracy, which his forcing them to change their political life.

We have extended our power, authority and influence across Iraq.

anyone who continues to post homosexual crossdressing images in their signatures and avatars will get comments about it. end of story. that swhy he does it is it not? to get comments? Notice I never say anything about pagans homosexuality, or 500lbguerillas for that matter.

Originally posted by Travh20
anyone who continues to post homosexual crossdressing images in their signatures and avatars will get comments about it. end of story. that swhy he does it is it not? to get comments? Notice I never say anything about pagans homosexuality, or 500lbguerillas for that matter.
Ahh yes, I do, do it for the comments. However, it's funny because you attack me for bringing it up all the time, but you bring it up just as much. If you can bring it up as much as you like, so can I. That's the only issue I think people are having. Sure, make comments about homosexuality etc. But then don't turn around and tell me to stop, when you do it a lot yourself.

when did I tell you to stop?

Originally posted by Travh20
anyone who continues to post homosexual crossdressing images in their signatures and avatars will get comments about it. end of story.

Why? What is it about those images that puts you in attack mode?

pagans homosexuality, or 500lbguerillas

please tell me this is a joke(as i trust it is), i would have never in a million years thought they were homosexuals

Get a whiff of this latest tripe from Moveon.org:

"(T)he Republican Party has far fewer worries than it deserves.
It is showing signs of becoming an exhausted volcano. Regarding Iraq, it is mistaking truculent asperity and tiresome repetition for Churchillian wartime eloquence. Regarding domestic policy, intellectual anemia has given rise to behavioral patterns not easily distinguished from corruption, as with the energy and transportation bills."

Terrorist sympathizers! Traitors to our country! When will these leftists realize that our saintly president is above criticism and anointed to govern, and if you disagree with him in the slightest then you hate America and are in bed with Osama and al-Zarqawi, and you must be sent posthaste to the Gitmo reprogramming facility along with Cindy Sheehan and...

Oh, wait a second. George Will wrote that. Sorry.

Originally posted by Evakian
pagans homosexuality, or 500lbguerillas

please tell me this is a joke(as i trust it is), i would have never in a million years thought they were homosexuals

I'm pretty sure that was a jab at 500, since Trav knows I wouldn't be insulted at being called a homosexual...

suddenly 54% is a vast majority. Since when was 51%?

And I was commenting on the idiocy of this comment
The insurgency in Iraq, their greatest successes, pretty much their only successes have been with the mainstream media and the Micheal Moore/moveon.org types. Your idea of "sucesses with" then must include 54% of the population.


I'm pretty sure that was a jab at 500, since Trav knows I wouldn't be insulted at being called a homosexual... Was it? I thought it was just more inane one line ranting to be overlooked because most of those posts of his hold no value what so ever. If you have any doubt just look through this thread (or any thread for that matter).

Besides averyone already knows that Travhs a closet homo. He just can't wait for the day when OD offers him an invite to the bar "for some drinks...manly drinks." His constantly bring sexuality up is merely a passive invite.

Originally posted by Overdose
Then I retract what I’ve said earlier and I now understand that a democracy can last if the people don’t die to gain it. However, the nations you used I don’t believe were as religiously extreme as the people in the Middle East are or in Iraq for that matter. People are killing themselves and innocents to stop democracy, whereas in those other nations I don’t think the people were as religiously against or as violent against these new ideas that were being placed upon them as a people. Which is why I don’t see it spreading or lasting in the Middle East. These places that turned into a democracy were either isolated, near other democracies, or didn’t have nearly the amount of religious fanatics surrounding them. In Iraq, they are surrounded by terrorism, terrorists, people who are religiously and will always be religiously against freedom and will die to prevent it from spreading. The only way it will last is if we were to go into many other nations and form democracies there. I doubt America would go for that, and we don’t have the manpower, money or support to do it. Nor do I think it’s our business to do it. As we can clearly see, the transition to democracy and stability in Iraq isn't going to be easy. But there's a good chance that once people in that country taste the fruits of a democratic system, more of them will accept it and support it.

You see, they took it willingly Many Arabs and Iraqis aren’t taking it “willingly” and are revolting against these ideals.
...

I’m sure the majority of people do want these “freedoms”, however, why is it our duty to spread democracy to them? Both statements are correct, and I believe we agree that we should support the majority of Iraqis who do want democracy. Settled.
As for why it's our duty, if people want democracy in their country, and we have the means and ability to help them out, then there's no good reason not to do so. Of course in the real world, other factors play a part in making that decision, such as whether a war would be required, whether it's economically feasible, etc. But looking only at the issue of spreading democracy, I see no reason why we should not help people get democracy if they want it. Let me add that since the majority of Iraqis have shown that they want democracy, it does not stand to reason to say that we are forcing it on them.

I disagree. Democracy is not a right everyone should be granted at birth. I believe it is an ideal and it is something that the west, for the most part, invented. You can’t say everyone deserves or wants democracy when many are religiously against freedom and a government such as democracy. If they truly don’t believe people should be free, then that is their choice. You personally, believe everyone should have the right to a “choice” and a right to “freedoms” but not everyone shares your views. Basic freedoms cannot be granted or not deserved since they are natural rights that people are born with ("endowed by their Creator," as someone once wrote). People who are against these freedoms simply choose not to excercise them due to their beliefs.

And I'm well aware that there are many who don't share my views on this. That fact becomes blatantly obvious whenever I pick up a newspaper.

Jester, I’ve never once said we shouldn’t stay in Iraq to create a stable democracy. I agree with #1 as well. So, I guess I don’t understand your argument. I just personally don't see it lasting, even if we make their nation stable. Let me clarify my position on the war in Iraq. When looking at the initial decision to go to war, I weighed the pros and cons and found that the cons outweighed the pros, which is why I disapproved of invading Iraq. The only positive outcome I saw was that Iraqis would no longer be under the rule of a tyrant and would be given an opportunity at democracy. Now that we have gone into the country, I believe it should be our goal to help them get that opportunity, as the majority of them have shown that want it. We should by no means rule over or control their country, but merely support them in attaining their own goals.

Imperialism- the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=imperialism Go over that definition again and tell me if you find a single thing there that I have advocated. If you don't find anything, I request that you retract your statement about me being imperialistic, because I find that more insulting than if you'd called me an idiot or an asshole or something of that sort. I despise imperialism with every bone in my body.

Jester

As we can clearly see, the transition to democracy and stability in Iraq isn't going to be easy. But there's a good chance that once people in that country taste the fruits of a democratic system, more of them will accept it and support it.
The transition to a safe democracy will only happen if we convert the entire Middle East, or the vast majority to democracy. That will never happen, unless we get every man to sign up for the military or a draft occurs, and if we get Europe and many other nations to fight along with us. Realistic? No.

Do you honestly think that when we leave, a horrible dictator won’t rise up or the terrorists who have infested almost all of the Middle East won’t destroy the government Iraq has put in place?

Both statements are correct, and I believe we agree that we should support the majority of Iraqis who do want democracy. Settled.
I think we should give them a safe country, but I don’t think we can ever do that. So I find this war un-winnable.

As for why it's our duty, if people want democracy in their country, and we have the means and ability to help them out, then there's no good reason not to do so.
We didn’t and still don’t have the ability to help them out. If we did, we would have sent enough troops and wouldn’t have created such chaos across Iraq. And I think this quote sums up why I called you imperialistic.

But looking only at the issue of spreading democracy, I see no reason why we should not help people get democracy if they want it. Let me add that since the majority of Iraqis have shown that they want democracy, it does not stand to reason to say that we are forcing it on them.
Last I checked, the percent of the total Iraqis voting in the last election was lower then 50% after all the revisions were made. And, yes, we are forcing democracy on people who may or may not have wanted it.

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll htp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

Seems they think we have done more harm, and want us out. Seems as if they felt they were better off with Saddam in power…

71% of all respondents say "occupiers."
htp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
I guess they think we are occupiers…not liberators. Maybe we should listen to the people who are actually experiencing this war first hand…


Go over that definition again and tell me if you find a single thing there that I have advocated. If you don't find anything, I request that you retract your statement about me being imperialistic, because I find that more insulting than if you'd called me an idiot or an asshole or something of that sort. I despise imperialism with every bone in my body.

As for America's role in all of this, this certainly isn't the first time that one country has helped another to gain independence or freedom.
Seems as if you are justifying us being imperialistic because “others have done it too”

Advocating freedom and liberty for another country is imperialistic?
You asked me this, as a question. And, my answer to it is, yes. We are forcing people to conform to OUR American ideals.

it is the right of all people to choose their own government
That’s your opinion, one you shouldn’t force upon an entire group of people.

If the people as a whole choose not to put a government of their choice into place (ie. if they do not want democracy) then the only option is for someone (again, foreign or domestic) to impose a government upon them.
But we didn’t know beforehand if the majority of Iraqis wanted democracy, and we still don’t. So until you can prove that, we are forcing a majority of them to conform to something they may or may not have wanted.

Originally posted by Overdose
The transition to a safe democracy will only happen if we convert the entire Middle East, or the vast majority to democracy. That will never happen, unless we get every man to sign up for the military or a draft occurs, and if we get Europe and many other nations to fight along with us. Realistic? No.

Do you honestly think that when we leave, a horrible dictator won’t rise up or the terrorists who have infested almost all of the Middle East won’t destroy the government Iraq has put in place?

I think we should give them a safe country, but I don’t think we can ever do that. So I find this war un-winnable. So the war is unwinnable and democracy will not last. Yet,
"Jester, I’ve never once said we shouldn’t stay in Iraq to create a stable democracy." - OD

"As of right now I think we can’t let Iraq go down the tubes, because we made a mistake by going there in the first place and we now must fix it." - OD

So we should stay in Iraq to try to make it safe and stable, but we will inevitably fail. So why should our military stay there at all? From what I hear, the weather isn't very nice and there isn't much nightlife.

We didn’t and still don’t have the ability to help them out. If we did, we would have sent enough troops and wouldn’t have created such chaos across Iraq. I would recommend that you not underestimate the strength of the US military.

Last I checked, the percent of the total Iraqis voting in the last election was lower then 50% after all the revisions were made. And, yes, we are forcing democracy on people who may or may not have wanted it. Add to that number the people who didn't vote because they were afraid of getting bombed and the people who just didn't bother to vote (there are always a lot of them in every election) and it would be safe to say that a majority of Iraqis want democracy.

Seems they think we have done more harm, and want us out. Seems as if they felt they were better off with Saddam in power…

I guess they think we are occupiers…not liberators. Maybe we should listen to the people who are actually experiencing this war first hand… I don't disagree with that. If the government that the people of Iraq elected tells us to get the fuck out, then we get the fuck out.


And I think this quote sums up why I called you imperialistic.

Seems as if you are justifying us being imperialistic because “others have done it too”

You asked me this, as a question. And, my answer to it is, yes. We are forcing people to conform to OUR American ideals.

That’s your opinion, one you shouldn’t force upon an entire group of people.

But we didn’t know beforehand if the majority of Iraqis wanted democracy, and we still don’t. So until you can prove that, we are forcing a majority of them to conform to something they may or may not have wanted. Now I get why you think I'm imperialistic... it's because you don't know what imperialism is. I strongly suggest you read up on it (beyond a dictionary definition) before you accuse others of holding such views.

Jester, both of those quotes I still stand by.

So the war is unwinnable and democracy will not last. Yet,
"Jester, I’ve never once said we shouldn’t stay in Iraq to create a stable democracy." - OD
What I meant by my first quote was that we must stay in Iraq and give them what we promised, a democracy. We never promised to make it last for the Iraqis. We can create a stable democracy inside of Iraq all we want (which is what we promised) but, as far as it lasting, I don’t see it lasting, because of what is outside and around Iraq.

"As of right now I think we can’t let Iraq go down the tubes, because we made a mistake by going there in the first place and we now must fix it." - OD
And for my second quote, leaving Iraq in chaos, with terrorists everywhere, and a dysfunctional democracy wouldn’t be morally okay in my opinion. Once we fix all of what we have destroyed, it’s our time to leave. Weather a democracy will last or not isn’t the problem in my eyes, it’s that their lands our in ruins and there is far more chaos widespread across Iraq now then before we invaded Iraq. Once we fix what we’ve ruined and give them what we have promised, it’s our time to leave.

So we should stay in Iraq to try to make it safe and stable, but we will inevitably fail. So why should our military stay there at all? From what I hear, the weather isn't very nice and there isn't much nightlife.
Our troops should be there because of the mess we’ve created for the people of Iraq. Until the chaos is gone and the people our secure, we cannot leave Iraq, for we have worsened their lives as a result of our invasion. Our troops need to stay until we have fixed everything we’ve destroyed.

I would recommend that you not underestimate the strength of the US military.
Why? The United States military may be the strongest in the world, but it’s only the strongest with correct planning and enough troops to fill all the positions needed. Numerous military generals have concluded that we need double the amount of troops in Iraq to secure it and that if our pre-war plans had been properly created and not rushed, we would have had far less casualties.

If the government that the people of Iraq elected tells us to get the fuck out, then we get the fuck out.
The vast majority of them have already told us to get the fuck out and that we’ve worsened their lives…

Now I get why you think I'm imperialistic... it's bec