| 89 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by tvalentine
I was pointing out that it would never have happened if you hadn't gone to war with Iraq. I'm not justifying their behavior, merely explaining that their not the only ones responsible |
|
|
tvalentine
 Advanced Member
Joined: 4/01/06
“The things you own end up owning you.” -Tyler Durden |
Originally posted by Myrdek
I was pointing out that it would never have happened if you hadn't gone to war with Iraq. I'm not justifying their behavior, merely explaining that their not the only ones responsible
yes and if we invaded iraq in 1980 before the wars, millions of iranians and kuwaitians would be alive today ..... i could keep talking in "what if's" or hypotheticals all day. On a more serious note, i'm glad your sharing the blame, your first post looked like you put it all on one side.
Playing: EVE Online |
Originally posted by tvalentine
Oh dear god no, the middle east is a very chaotic place to live in and theres a lot of violence there. That's the problem with writing on a forum instead of talking face to face, its very easy to misinterpret what the other person mean. My theory on why theres so much violence there is Heat. Have you ever noticed how every country in the world thats near the equator has a very long history on violence? Cold countries seem to be less prone to anger and violence. Personally I know that I can't stand heat and it makes me prone to anger. That's why I always have the A/C cranked up and I'm glad to live in Canada :) |
|
Originally posted by Myrdek
I don't know if you wrote that yourself but how can soldiers who invade a country wrongfully be heroes? This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting I'm sorry but let's pretend that the U.S would have invaded Canada instead, who do you think would be the good guys? Those of us killing the invading americans or your soldiers? You can of course say that they didn't want to go, that their victims of circumstances but how does that absolve them? My cousin quit the army when they announced Canada would send soldiers to Afganistan and every single member of the family is proud of him for it. He's not a coward, he just doesn't believe in invading/killing/raping another country so a few greedy jerk get more money and power. Any good person would have quit the army before even at the risk of spending a few years in jail or having to defect. For those that believe in God, do you really think God is going to accept "I had to follow orders" as an excuse and send them to heaven? I sure as hell wouldn't if I were God :) I agree,many Americans were blinded by the bullshit of bush and dick the prick,now Obama is in,they are waking up. Jah Rasta For I. |
|
Originally posted by Myrdek
Oh dear god no, the middle east is a very chaotic place to live in and theres a lot of violence there. That's the problem with writing on a forum instead of talking face to face, its very easy to misinterpret what the other person mean. My theory on why theres so much violence there is Heat. Have you ever noticed how every country in the world thats near the equator has a very long history on violence? Cold countries seem to be less prone to anger and violence. Personally I know that I can't stand heat and it makes me prone to anger. That's why I always have the A/C cranked up and I'm glad to live in Canada :) Vikings... there, disproved your statement. Or, the British Empire many centuries ago. Or, all the bloodshed between barbarian factions through Europe and Great Britain during the Medieval ages. Or, the Scottish fighting for their freedom against the Britains (William Wallace). Or, Stalin and Russia. Yeah... you are so wrong with that statement. |
|
Originally posted by Vato26 Vikings... there, disproved your statement. Or, the British Empire many centuries ago. Or, all the bloodshed between barbarian factions through Europe and Great Britain during the Medieval ages. Or, the Scottish fighting for their freedom against the Britains (William Wallace). Or, Stalin and Russia. Yeah... you are so wrong with that statement. Yes, you have a fair point but arnt we supposed to be more civilized now and this is not 1066,it's 2009 or it's the 21st cen... Jah Rasta For I. |
|
Originally posted by Theocritus
The problem is that the people in the middle east are nuts.....They have been bent on war and destruction since the beginning of time....You arent going to change that no matter what you do........They dont even care if they kill their own people or themselves.........
People in the middle east aren't nuts. Its just that there are extremists there just like anywhere else that create action. There were multiple times in the passed 3000 years that the middle-east was united, but was broken apart and provoked into chaos. Take Iran for instance. Up until the '70s they were a very progressive country that had invested heavily into technology and women rights. However, the United States didn't like the fact it was a soveriegnty and worked with extremists in the country to destabilize it then turn it into a Democracy. There are plenty of non-nuts countries and associations like the United Arab Emirate, and Qatar. |
|
|
Godliest
 Protector of Cantha
Joined: 11/26/06
"There''s a time and a place for everything, and it''s called college." - Chef |
Define win. How do you win a war when what you fought for has not been accomplished? "Your" mistake was also not to leave, it was to go there at all. "Your" (really how can you say "our" or "your" when talking about a governments actions and talking a member of a state controlled by that government?) belief that you're some kind of world police is what creates these problems.
Good joke. Let's disregard the fact that the middle east were living in a highly developed country and were developing the science as we know it know while we were running around with trying to win small pieces of countries through war. The same might've been said about "us", the "highly developed" part of the world, before and yet we changed. Prejudices is what you based that post on, not fact. Please wake up.
|
|
Godliest
Protector of Cantha
Joined: 11/26/06
"There''s a time and a place for everything, and it''s called college." - Chef |
Good joke. Saying we are civilized and having a shorter story of violence is just plain wrong. Go through the history and you will see that Europe has been at war almost constantly and USA seems to have something against not being at WAR feeling forced to send troops all over the world to start war. There's nothing to prove that a different position on the earth somehow affects your civilizedness, there's only prejudices and beliefs of superiority.
|
Yeah, there's a lot of countries near the equator that have a long history of violence, anger and starting wars.
"You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you." Zbigniew Brzezinski to Joe Scarborough regarding Clinton and the Middle East on the "Morning Joe" program. |
|
Well, is it civilized to use the atomic bomb? Nuclear weapons with multiple impact re-entry vehicles (MIRVs)? Chemical warfare? Land mines? Agent Orange? Sure all those things are more modern, but are they more "civilized"? "You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you." Zbigniew Brzezinski to Joe Scarborough regarding Clinton and the Middle East on the "Morning Joe" program. |
|
Originally posted by Vato26 Vikings... there, disproved your statement. Or, the British Empire many centuries ago. Or, all the bloodshed between barbarian factions through Europe and Great Britain during the Medieval ages. Or, the Scottish fighting for their freedom against the Britains (William Wallace). Or, Stalin and Russia. Yeah... you are so wrong with that statement.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/may/30/g2.weather I had just a theory when I wrote it but now I know for sure I was right. Heat influence aggression to a high degree |
|
Originally posted by Myrdek
The world did, when they ask us time and time again to save their asses. If its through money or protection, they BEG for our help. And when we have the gall NOT to give them help, we're called arrogant. Thats what happens when you're the most powerful nation in the world. EVERYONE wants a free handout and they want it on THEIR terms. THAT's arrogant. They should be bending over and saying thank you, not sticking their nose up at us when we leave. Imagine if we cut everyone off for a while adn let them fend for themselves? We'll see how long it takes before they're begging for our help again. Where was the rest of the world during 9-11 or Katrina? But how quickly are we there to help when a tidal wave hits? We're first. Go count the number of US military cemeteries scattered around the world in OTHER countries. Arrogant? |
|
Originally posted by Myrdek
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/may/30/g2.weather I had just a theory when I wrote it but now I know for sure I was right. Heat influence aggression to a high degree I was not arguing about your statement about the middle east. I know they are always trying to kill each other (but, I believe that's more from their religious hatred of one another than just the heat). However, I was directly arguing about your statement I highlighted... hence why I highlighted it. There's no statistical proof to state that countries that are colder are less aggressive than the equatorial countries. And, I listed some of the bigger named historical times in countries that are far North of the Equator (thus colder... especially Russia, Britain, and the Vikings). All your links are pointing out is that there were higher crime rates during the hotter times in the UK and US. However, I see no statistical proof of any increased aggressive activities within the equatorial countries during the same time periods in your articles. And, again, if the equatorial countries aggression is due to the heat or religious hatred, which is a prime boiling point unto itself throughout the world. Crusades, many battles in England between Christian denominations (mainly Roman Catholics vs. others), the legalized hunting of Mormons in the US, etc... Again, I'm not arguing about the hatred in the Middle East as I watch the news enough and read enough history texts to know that they pretty much hate each other. However, there is no statistical proof stating there was more within the middle east (and other equatorial countries) than there have been throughout the more Northern lands. |
|
Originally posted by Josher
The world did, when they ask us time and time again to save their asses. If its through money or protection, they BEG for our help. And when we have the gall NOT to give them help, we're called arrogant. Thats what happens when you're the most powerful nation in the world. EVERYONE wants a free handout and they want it on THEIR terms. THAT's arrogant. They should be bending over and saying thank you, not sticking their nose up at us when we leave. Imagine if we cut everyone off for a while adn let them fend for themselves? We'll see how long it takes before they're begging for our help again. Where was the rest of the world during 9-11 or Katrina? But how quickly are we there to help when a tidal wave hits? We're first. Go count the number of US military cemeteries scattered around the world in OTHER countries. Arrogant?
Where was the rest of the world? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801113.html Apparently we didn't need any help. Yes, arrogant. So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist. |
|
Originally posted by Godliest
It isn't the first time we have been to Iraq or Afghanistan. We beat Iraq in 1992 after Saddam was committing genocide on the Kurd population and was openly attacking Iran. We fought in Afghanistan in 1978 similiar to how we fought in Vietnam and Korea. However, all wars we waged after Vietnam we did not occupy the country and provide military support. It allowed people like Osama Bin Laden to gain power and we gave him the weapons and training to do it. It also allowed Saddam Hussien to regain his power. We also did the same thing after WW1 with Germany. |
|
Originally posted by Cleffy
It isn't the first time we have been to Iraq or Afghanistan. We beat Iraq in 1992 after Saddam was committing genocide on the Kurd population and was openly attacking Iran. We fought in Afghanistan in 1978 similiar to how we fought in Vietnam and Korea. However, all wars we waged after Vietnam we did not occupy the country and provide military support. It allowed people like Osama Bin Laden to gain power and we gave him the weapons and training to do it. It also allowed Saddam Hussien to regain his power. We also did the same thing after WW1 with Germany.
If it was possible for you to get more things wrong in one post, I'd hate to see it. 1. The first Iraq war was because Saddam invaded Kuwait and had forces amassed on the border of Saudi Arabia. Iran never entered into the equation, and neither did the Kurds. Also, Saddam didn't have to "regain" his power, since the Bush I administration (correctly) chose a policy of containment rather than march on Baghdad and have to sweat out a brutal occupation chock full o' sectarian violence. Kinda like the one we have now. Secretary of Defense then? Dick Cheney. Amazing. 2. "We" did not fight in Afghanistan in 1978. We (being the U.S., Israel, Egypt and Pakistan) gave the mujahadeen Soviet-made weapons to shoot down helicopters and blow up tanks, and sent the CIA to train them. It was nothing remotely close to how we fought in Vietnam and Korea. So yes, 2001 WAS the first time we had been at war in Afghanistan. 3. The bin Laden comment makes no sense. 4. Did what after WWI with Germany? So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist. |
|
|
That post had the making to be conservative talk radio. I would still think about the history of our occupations. Before Iraq we have occupied the Philipinnes, Japan, South Korea, and Germany. All of them shared a hatred for the US aside from South Korea after the occupation started. Just like Iraq now, the Philipinnes was similiar in its insurgency, yet we were there until 1996. Now most of them are close trading partners. When you contrastly look at the containment of Iraq, and the occupation of Germany from 1918 to 1919. They effectively put dictators into power through the limited scope of occupation. |
|
The Philippines was not similar to Iraq in insurgency by any means. It was closer to genocide. We went to "liberate" Iraqis. We went to kill Filipinos. The Philippines just got out from under the Spanish government's oppression after centuries and then the U.S. moved in to take over the country. This was not a liberation, but an oppression. They were one of our "trading partners" because we had bases planted (Subic and Clark) there among others and were paying them millions in aid each year so we could be closer to Asia. This was by no means a trading arrangement. They were hostages, not freed people. "You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you." Zbigniew Brzezinski to Joe Scarborough regarding Clinton and the Middle East on the "Morning Joe" program. |
|
Originally posted by Myrdek
I don't know if you wrote that yourself but how can soldiers who invade a country wrongfully be heroes? This is just like when americans say Support our Troops, support them to do what? Kill innocents? 100k+ innocents and counting I'm sorry but let's pretend that the U.S would have invaded Canada instead, who do you think would be the good guys? Those of us killing the invading americans or your soldiers? You can of course say that they didn't want to go, that their victims of circumstances but how does that absolve them? My cousin quit the army when they announced Canada would send soldiers to Afganistan and every single member of the family is proud of him for it. He's not a coward, he just doesn't believe in invading/killing/raping another country so a few greedy jerk get more money and power. Any good person would have quit the army before even at the risk of spending a few years in jail or having to defect. For those that believe in God, do you really think God is going to accept "I had to follow orders" as an excuse and send them to heaven? I sure as hell wouldn't if I were God :)
Why is overhrowing a Stalinist dictatir morally wrong? One can certainly argue that the war was ill-advised, but wrong? How so? We did not do this to conquer to rule, or to kill innocent. We attacked and overthrew a man who was an outlaw leader, a tyrant, an invader himself, who for years had blatantly violated the terms he agreed to to remain in power when he agreed to the ceasefire. It was perfectly moral to invade and kick him out of power for that alone, much less any other reasons. Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom. Now, they have what we have -- a messy, corrupt, semi-socialist quasi fascist state just like we do -- and I think that's a moral thing to, compared with what they had. Again there are MANY reasons that Iraq may not have been the best battle to fight right now, but it certainly was moral and the warriors and all the people engaged there are heroes. Any human being from any nation who takes down a tyrant is a good guy. Anyone who helps anyone rebuild after that is as well. |
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
Why is overhrowing a Stalinist dictatir morally wrong? One can certainly argue that the war was ill-advised, but wrong? How so? We did not do this to conquer to rule, or to kill innocent. We attacked and overthrew a man who was an outlaw leader, a tyrant, an invader himself, who for years had blatantly violated the terms he agreed to to remain in power when he agreed to the ceasefire. It was perfectly moral to invade and kick him out of power for that alone, much less any other reasons. Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom. Now, they have what we have -- a messy, corrupt, semi-socialist quasi fascist state just like we do -- and I think that's a moral thing to, compared with what they had. Again there are MANY reasons that Iraq may not have been the best battle to fight right now, but it certainly was moral and the warriors and all the people engaged there are heroes. Any human being from any nation who takes down a tyrant is a good guy. Anyone who helps anyone rebuild after that is as well.
No no no no no. We did not do this for "freedom." That became the reverse-engineered reason after the first one -- that Saddam had a giant death ray or whatever -- turned out to be completely fabricated. So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist. |
|
Originally posted by kobie173
Why is overhrowing a Stalinist dictatir morally wrong? One can certainly argue that the war was ill-advised, but wrong? How so? We did not do this to conquer to rule, or to kill innocent. We attacked and overthrew a man who was an outlaw leader, a tyrant, an invader himself, who for years had blatantly violated the terms he agreed to to remain in power when he agreed to the ceasefire. It was perfectly moral to invade and kick him out of power for that alone, much less any other reasons. Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom. Now, they have what we have -- a messy, corrupt, semi-socialist quasi fascist state just like we do -- and I think that's a moral thing to, compared with what they had. Again there are MANY reasons that Iraq may not have been the best battle to fight right now, but it certainly was moral and the warriors and all the people engaged there are heroes. Any human being from any nation who takes down a tyrant is a good guy. Anyone who helps anyone rebuild after that is as well.
No no no no no. We did not do this for "freedom." That became the reverse-engineered reason after the first one -- that Saddam had a giant death ray or whatever -- turned out to be completely fabricated.
It wasn't called the "stop Iraq's death ray war", it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. Plus, where did I say we did this "for" freedom, as if that were the reason we actually did it? Freedom is what we did, regardless of the reason. We liberated a country, even if there were other reasons as well, even if those other reasons were more important, like our perceived security. It doesn't change that fact that we removed a dicatator and anytime anyone does that anywhere, they won won for the good guys.
|
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
No no no no no. We did not do this for "freedom." That became the reverse-engineered reason after the first one -- that Saddam had a giant death ray or whatever -- turned out to be completely fabricated.
It wasn't called the "stop Iraq's death ray war", it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. Plus, where did I say we did this "for" freedom, as if that were the reason we actually did it? Freedom is what we did, regardless of the reason. We liberated a country, even if there were other reasons as well, even if those other reasons were more important, like our perceived security. It doesn't change that fact that we removed a dicatator and anytime anyone does that anywhere, they won won for the good guys.
"Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom." Yeah, we got rid of Saddam, and that's not a bad thing. However, I think the price we have paid in blood and treasure, in our diminished standing in the world and the quagmire we find ourselves in now, wasn't worth it. So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist. |
|
Originally posted by kobie173
No no no no no. We did not do this for "freedom." That became the reverse-engineered reason after the first one -- that Saddam had a giant death ray or whatever -- turned out to be completely fabricated.
It wasn't called the "stop Iraq's death ray war", it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. Plus, where did I say we did this "for" freedom, as if that were the reason we actually did it? Freedom is what we did, regardless of the reason. We liberated a country, even if there were other reasons as well, even if those other reasons were more important, like our perceived security. It doesn't change that fact that we removed a dicatator and anytime anyone does that anywhere, they won won for the good guys.
"Our men and women of the coolitian did what they did for the best of reasons: freedom." Yeah, we got rid of Saddam, and that's not a bad thing. However, I think the price we have paid in blood and treasure, in our diminished standing in the world and the quagmire we find ourselves in now, wasn't worth it.
I said THEY, the soldiers did it for freedom. I did not say WE, as a political entity, the united states, did it FOR or only for freedom. I was being very careful how I said things there. I said the men and women of our coalition -- obviously meaning the people who fought. Then you said WE, meaning the politics of it. Tsk tsk. Your second argument is a reasonable one -- but it's not the moral one. It's the prudential one, and isn't what I was addressing. I was answering Myrdeks' moral attack. Wether it was a pridential move is another thing entirely. Personally, I don't think we'll know for a decade or three whether it was worth it or not. This is a long war. |
|
Originally posted by Vato26
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/may/30/g2.weather I had just a theory when I wrote it but now I know for sure I was right. Heat influence aggression to a high degree I was not arguing about your statement about the middle east. I know they are always trying to kill each other (but, I believe that's more from their religious hatred of one another than just the heat). However, I was directly arguing about your statement I highlighted... hence why I highlighted it. There's no statistical proof to state that countries that are colder are less aggressive than the equatorial countries. And, I listed some of the bigger named historical times in countries that are far North of the Equator (thus colder... especially Russia, Britain, and the Vikings). All your links are pointing out is that there were higher crime rates during the hotter times in the UK and US. However, I see no statistical proof of any increased aggressive activities within the equatorial countries during the same time periods in your articles. And, again, if the equatorial countries aggression is due to the heat or religious hatred, which is a prime boiling point unto itself throughout the world. Crusades, many battles in England between Christian denominations (mainly Roman Catholics vs. others), the legalized hunting of Mormons in the US, etc... Again, I'm not arguing about the hatred in the Middle East as I watch the news enough and read enough history texts to know that they pretty much hate each other. However, there is no statistical proof stating there was more within the middle east (and other equatorial countries) than there have been throughout the more Northern lands.
It's not a big leap to go from the fact that crime rates are higher between certain temperatures and go from warmer climates are more aggressive. It's one factor, but not the only reason. I didn't find any data about what your asking for, I'm not sure there's ever been a study or that it could even be done. Too many factors in play You mentionned other countries that aren't warm climates but you haven't prove that they were as violent. They had wars and some might have been truly barbaric but it would be require a very long research to see if they was more or less murder/rape/torture in those countries. Even then, it wouldn't be provable because there's too many other factors. The fact that warm weather has had a factor on the history of those countries is not a debate in my mind, how much effect it had though is anyones guess. Would Canada be a warlike country now if we weren't nearly freezing to death in winter? Who knows :) |
|
