RIP Saddam Hussein

[mendhak]

No, he's not dead yet. But the farce trial is over, the appeal has been rejected, it's only a matter of time... but it is of some comfort that he did not go the way of Milosevic by dying before he was to be executed. Ironic, pointless, redundant, but we're all emotional, aren't we?

Thoughts.

[Saddam Hussain]

Thoughts.

This sucks!

[George W Bush]

It is the will of the American people. Let this serve as a message to terrorists everywhere that nations holding WMDs will not be spared. The American people have spoken as one voice.

[Andrew G]

Oh well, where one falls, another hundred shall rise

[Mohammed al Sahaf]

Saddam Hussein remains the true president of Iraq. The zionist devils will be defeated.

[tommygrayson]

Saddam is so used to dying.

He will reincarnate after 100 years to wage war against Bush's grandson.

And the vicious cycle goes on.

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

[litlewiki]

He should have been killed the day he was caught.

[capsulecorpjx]

No, he's not dead yet. But the farce trial is over, the appeal has been rejected, it's only a matter of time... but it is of some comfort that he did not go the way of Milosevic by dying before he was to be executed. Ironic, pointless, redundant, but we're all emotional, aren't we?

Thoughts.

Too bad he looks like a kindly old uncle makes me feel sorry for him.

[RobDog888]

Iraq now has possesion of him and he will be hung within 24 hours are the current reports.

[mendhak]

Iraq now has possesion of him and he will be hung within 24 hours are the current reports.

I didn't believe you at first...
http://www.24dash.com/centralgovernment/14759.htm

[NotLKH]

Will Dick Clark host this Event?

[NotLKH]

Hmmm, perhaps he'll make it to next year after all:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/saddam-lawyers-reach-across-atlantic.php

[RobDog888]

Hmm, I herd it on the news that he was in Iraqui custody and that his lawyers filed that appeal, but quoting the article in your link...
"prevent the transfer of the Applicant into the hands of an authority that has indicated it will execute him after what has been deemed by a number of third party organizations an unfair trial." I highly doubt that anyone will declare that he got an unfair trial. If its true that he is in Irauqi custody then it may be too late for the appeal?

[RobDog888]

I didn't believe you at first...
http://www.24dash.com/centralgovernment/14759.htm
Commandment #8:

Thou shall never doubt RobDog888!

:D

[NotLKH]

Saddam Hussein could be hanged within hours, a senior Iraqi source told Reuters after Saddam's lawyer said US forces had handed over the former president to Iraqi authorities for execution.

US officials, however, insisted that the 69-year-old ousted dictator was still in American hands.



http://milton.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=international%20news&subclass=general&story_id=543568&category=general

I've seen similar statements over the past half hour, so Its debate-able as to where he really is ATM.

[RobDog888]

Well they also said they were afraid of the backlash that probably will occur when they hang him so it could be a ploy to keep everyone guessing until they are finished.

[mendhak]

True. There's also a law there that is supposed to bar executions from happening on a religious festival (which it will be when he is executed (depends on who you are in Iraq too, har har)).

Reports now say that he will be executed by 6AM BST/10 PM EST. Just a few hours remaining.

What do you think is going through his head right now? Is he thinking about the people he killed or the families of those people he killed who will be celebrating? Does he still deem himself to be a victim? Is he cursing his enemies one last time? Is he going to face it with dignity, or go down yelling?

That's what I'm pondering...

[mendhak]

Ha ha... talk about a mismanaged judicial system


A trial in a second case, alleging genocide against Kurds, continues against him.


He'll be back, folks... FROM THE GRAVE!!! :eek2:

[mendhak]

And... he's dead. The 'dam has broken. Hussein has left the building. Kicked the proverbial milk bucket.

[rory]

:cry:

[shakti5385]

War does not determine that who is best, War determines that who is left :cry:

[penagate]

*rubs hands*
Eeeexcellent.

[/Burns]

[RobDog888]

See it was True! They were just trying to confuse everyone as to keep any uprising or attacks to a minimum.

Dont let the door hit you on your way out Sadam!

[kregg]

I don't think he was a nice person, but he was killed for a stupid reason. George have been sending troops to rid Saddam of the Weapons of Mass Destruction, capture him, and kill him for torturing his Iraqi people etc...

What about the weapons of mass destruction? What happens if a little boy picks them up :O

[bushmobile]

I don't think he was a nice person, but he was killed for a stupid reason. :confused: he was executed for his part in the killing of 148 Shia Muslims (plus there were two or three other trials due to start for the likely outcome would have been execution) - would you care to qualify 'stupid'?

[System_Error]

I don't think he was a nice person, but he was killed for a stupid reason.
and it was his own fault. All he had to do was comply with the UN on the stupid WMD issue and none of this would have happend.


he was executed for his part in the killing of 148 Shia Muslims (plus there were two or three other trials due to start for the likely outcome would have been execution) - would you care to qualify 'stupid'?

I'm wondering the same.

[mendhak]

:confused: he was executed for his part in the killing of 148 Shia Muslims (plus there were two or three other trials due to start for the likely outcome would have been execution) - would you care to qualify 'stupid'?

Something called 'pretext'.

[rory]

do the crime, do the time ... :cry:

[bushmobile]

Something called 'pretext'.the pretext for the invasion of Iraq was dubious at best (if that's what you were referring to), but Saddam Hussain was not on trial for being invaded.

Despite the debacle of the last few years, Saddam was tried in the an Iraqi court, found guilty, and sentence in accordance with Iraqi law - he wasn't killed for a stupid reason, however 'stupid' the war might have been in the first place.

[crptcblade]

and it was his own fault. All he had to do was comply with the UN on the stupid WMD issue and none of this would have happend.


He was dead either way. If he had complied, I'm more than fairly certain that Iran would have seen an oppurtunity to march in and give him a swift kick in the ass.

[mendhak]

Saddam was tried in the an Iraqi court, found guilty, and sentence in accordance with Iraqi law

LOL.


- he wasn't killed for a stupid reason, however 'stupid' the war might have been in the first place.


We may have mixed things up, but yeah, I was referring to the reason for the invasion, which in turn, someone else was referring to when he said stupid.

[rory]

the pretext for the invasion of Iraq was dubious at best

just finishing off what should have been done back in 92 .. :eek2:

[mendhak]

just finishing off what should have been done back in 92 .. :eek2:
I was in Syria at the time. We had black snow that winter. :)

[rory]

I was in Syria at the time. We had black snow that winter. :)
should have put out some big containers ... :bigyello:

[mendhak]

We tried making a snowman in school, but our teacher stopped us. Something about 'racism' which I was too young to understand at the time.

[System_Error]

He was dead either way. If he had complied, I'm more than fairly certain that Iran would have seen an oppurtunity to march in and give him a swift kick in the ass.

What a shame. That would have been far more entertaining. Plus Bush could be looking stupid on other issues more entertaining than Iraq.


We tried making a snowman in school, but our teacher stopped us. Something about 'racism' which I was too young to understand at the time.

:lol: :lol:

[kregg]

:confused: he was executed for his part in the killing of 148 Shia Muslims (plus there were two or three other trials due to start for the likely outcome would have been execution) - would you care to qualify 'stupid'?

All I saw on the TV at that time was one minute George and Tony saying something like Saddam having weapons of mass destruction and how we were all going to die. Afterwards then American and British troops went in and messed up Iraq. They both got what they wanted (oil), and found saddam hussein, and then it's like "You've tortured many of your own people..."

He did before but nobody did anything. Why now?


And say hello to my purple elephant folks

[mendhak]

Saddam's final moments
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/12/30/vo.iraq.hussein.execution.affl

Cellphone video of Saddam's body
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/12/30/vo.iraq.hussein.dead.body.reut

[Shaggy Hiker]

just finishing off what should have been done back in 92 .. :eek2:

Oh, we're better off now?

Ok, I'll bite, how are we better off? How was this execution of the war superior to what happened in 92?

Which brings me back to the question I've been asking all along: What is an attainable outcome to the current situation that could be considered a victory for the US? What will it look like? How will we know that it has been achieved?

Frankly, I have read a few attempts to come up with an answer to that question, and they all rely on "then suddenly a miracle happens." I am beginning to believe that no plausible, attainable, outcome to the current situation will be better than the situation pre-invasion. If that is the case, then the US has lost, and it's just a question of how long we drag it out before admitting it.

That sounds like "cut and run", and it is. Despite being a slogan, the "cut" part is short for "cut your losses", and is the only rational answer when the ONLY alternative is to take bigger losses with no possible gain.

I never thought we should have gotten into Iraq, but now that we are there, I think we should not leave until we have attained the best result that is attainable. Right now, I'm leaning towards leaving now, because, though it will be a disaster, there is no alternative that is likely to produce a better result.

As for Saddam, I find it odd that as of this morning, the media couldn't and wouldn't say that his death was confirmed. All I heard was that "a body was shown which was reported to be that of Saddam..." That's an awful lot of hedging. Are we not sure?

[System_Error]

Oh, we're better off now?

Ok, I'll bite, how are we better off? How was this execution of the war superior to what happened in 92?

Which brings me back to the question I've been asking all along: What is an attainable outcome to the current situation that could be considered a victory for the US? What will it look like? How will we know that it has been achieved?

Frankly, I have read a few attempts to come up with an answer to that question, and they all rely on "then suddenly a miracle happens." I am beginning to believe that no plausible, attainable, outcome to the current situation will be better than the situation pre-invasion. If that is the case, then the US has lost, and it's just a question of how long we drag it out before admitting it.

That sounds like "cut and run", and it is. Despite being a slogan, the "cut" part is short for "cut your losses", and is the only rational answer when the ONLY alternative is to take bigger losses with no possible gain.

I never thought we should have gotten into Iraq, but now that we are there, I think we should not leave until we have attained the best result that is attainable. Right now, I'm leaning towards leaving now, because, though it will be a disaster, there is no alternative that is likely to produce a better result.

As for Saddam, I find it odd that as of this morning, the media couldn't and wouldn't say that his death was confirmed. All I heard was that "a body was shown which was reported to be that of Saddam..." That's an awful lot of hedging. Are we not sure?

Sometimes I look at the long term possibilities and think 'it can be done', but then I remember where Iraq is located. The middle east is fighting and will always be fighting. Not to mention half the people we are trying to 'help' are against us :lol: (some for good reason, as Saddam provided more security) Nothing we can do. There's more troops guarding the borders of Iraq and South Korea than our own. I'm sick of the US fighting other peoples fights. We have more than enough problems on native soil. One of them is getting rid of this lame duck we call president :D

So what will joerge butch be remembered for?

[Shaggy Hiker]

He'll be remembered for this war more than Kennedy will be remembered for Vietnam (or Truman, who really kicked that one off).

[rory]

Oh, we're better off now?

who's we .. you livin it up in the US anyway ..

[rory]

now you can watch the video ..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240257,00.html

[grilkip]

Great, let us all get a taste of his blood.

[kregg]

Great, let us all get a taste of his blood.

I hope you realise I'm vegetarian...

[grilkip]

I hope you realise I'm vegetarian...You should be ashamed of yourself. :afrog:

[litlewiki]

:afrog: :afrog:

[litlewiki]

I hope you realise I'm vegetarian...
Non vegetarians don't drink blood . :eek: .They relish the meat. :D

[Shaggy Hiker]

who's we .. you livin it up in the US anyway ..


Quit feelin' so sorry for yourself. Life's too short for that. There are plenty of homeless folks in the US. There are plenty of people living sordid, unhappy, squalid lives here. You don't get handed anything. Anybody who thinks welfare, or other assistance living is a great deal is welcome to try it, as far as I'm concerned. They'll leave the roles as quick as they can, or else they probably would end up there anyways.

You aren't the only one who has ever had it tough, and those of us who are "livin' it up in the US" are doing so only with effort.

[rory]

Quit feelin' so sorry for yourself. Life's too short for that. There are plenty of homeless folks in the US. There are plenty of people living sordid, unhappy, squalid lives here. You don't get handed anything. Anybody who thinks welfare, or other assistance living is a great deal is welcome to try it, as far as I'm concerned. They'll leave the roles as quick as they can, or else they probably would end up there anyways.

You aren't the only one who has ever had it tough, and those of us who are "livin' it up in the US" are doing so only with effort.

im not feeling sorry :wave:

you still in the US .. unless you dont like it there or something?

[grilkip]

I wish I was living in a 3rd world country, it would award me with so much more perspective.

[litlewiki]

I have no complaints. :thumb:

[mendhak]

Oh, we're better off now?

Ok, I'll bite, how are we better off? How was this execution of the war superior to what happened in 92?

Which brings me back to the question I've been asking all along: What is an attainable outcome to the current situation that could be considered a victory for the US? What will it look like? How will we know that it has been achieved?

Frankly, I have read a few attempts to come up with an answer to that question, and they all rely on "then suddenly a miracle happens." I am beginning to believe that no plausible, attainable, outcome to the current situation will be better than the situation pre-invasion. If that is the case, then the US has lost, and it's just a question of how long we drag it out before admitting it.

That sounds like "cut and run", and it is. Despite being a slogan, the "cut" part is short for "cut your losses", and is the only rational answer when the ONLY alternative is to take bigger losses with no possible gain.

I never thought we should have gotten into Iraq, but now that we are there, I think we should not leave until we have attained the best result that is attainable. Right now, I'm leaning towards leaving now, because, though it will be a disaster, there is no alternative that is likely to produce a better result.

As for Saddam, I find it odd that as of this morning, the media couldn't and wouldn't say that his death was confirmed. All I heard was that "a body was shown which was reported to be that of Saddam..." That's an awful lot of hedging. Are we not sure?


Allow me to bite too. I may agree with you, but I am going to play devil's advocate here (or according to Chavez, Bush's advocate :afrog: ), and attempt to say why invading Iraq did have its benefits too.

The reason I think so is, this war was costly. Nobody is stupid enough to make an investment that large if there isn't going to be a return on the investment. They had to evaluate options and they must have known that there would be some benefit to this move.

Regional stability. Iraq is no longer a regional power. Look at all the other countries around it. Iran is the only remaining 'power' there. And Israel. All the other countries are nothing but petty entities that play with oil. Saddam gone, Iraq embroiled in civil war, the playing field has gone down.

Oil. You have to keep in mind, that in about 100 years from now, when the world's oil supplies have run out and nobody has done anything about it but will instead spend time bickering and laying the blame on previous administrations, the US's hold over the Middle East will ensure that their oil reserves last longer, so that they can spend time in developing a solution that would enable their transition from fossil fuels to another source to keep the country running. Remember, oil is everything. When it runs out, there will be wars between nations just for oil. By gaining a stronghold in the region, they ensure the future of a few generations down the line.


OK, that's what I can come up with for now.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The reason I think so is, this war was costly. Nobody is stupid enough to make an investment that large if there isn't going to be a return on the investment. They had to evaluate options and they must have known that there would be some benefit to this move.

History is filled with examples of governments undertaking massive, definitive action, which was directly in opposition to their own best interests. Saying, in effect, "nobody could be stupid enough to have...." Well, that may be true for an individual, but it is certainly not true for a group. Groups have no problem being stupid.

[MasterBlaster]

Oh, we're better off now?

Ok, I'll bite, how are we better off? How was this execution of the war superior to what happened in 92?


We have permenant US military bases on the east and west of Iran. That is how were bettter off. After 92 we did not. Think Germany after WWII. The US still has permenant military installations there. They came in quite handy during the cold war. The US Military will be in Iraq and Askrackastan for the next 30+ years.

I would consider that a victory.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Nice country name there, MB. Took me a moment to pronounce it correctly. I doubt we'll remain in those bases, though. Perhaps Iraq, but not the other. We're already pulling back from there. Frankly, I don't think we'll remain in Iraq, either. Eventually, someone will wonder "what's the point?" We have had a presence over there in SA, and other smaller places for decades, so we don't really lose anything by not being in Iraq (this assumes that the current situation doesn't improve).

[Xanith]

The US has pulled out of Saudi Arabia. I do believe the US still has bases inside of Kuwait however.

X

[FunkyDexter]

Perhaps Iraq, but not the other.
Oddly enough, us Limeys seem to be going the other way. I reckon we'll pull out of Iraq but stay in Afghanistan - the argument seems to be 'we can win one but not both' and Afghanistan seems to be an easier sell politically at the moment If you guys are going the other way then all we'll do is shuffle :eek2:

[MasterBlaster]

....Eventually, someone will wonder "what's the point?" We have had a presence over there in SA, and other smaller places for decades, so we don't really lose anything by not being in Iraq (this assumes that the current situation doesn't improve).

The point would be runways with open airspace all the way to Iran from all directions. Weather it is publicly annonced in the media or not, US/UK bombers will most likley be parked at the brand new airforce bases the US built in both countries until either we bomb Iran or Iran's government falls, whatever happens first. Not to mention that neither Iraq or the afghans have a military to defend themselvs and likley won't for a long time.

[MasterBlaster]

Looks like they just arrested the guy who took the cell phone video of the hanging. Any one watched it yet?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Oddly enough, us Limeys seem to be going the other way. I reckon we'll pull out of Iraq but stay in Afghanistan - the argument seems to be 'we can win one but not both' and Afghanistan seems to be an easier sell politically at the moment If you guys are going the other way then all we'll do is shuffle :eek2:


Nah, you guys just want a rematch ;)

MB-I saw the video that ended when the noose was put around his neck. Can't understand a word anyone is saying. I have heard audio versions of the last few seconds up to the time the lever is pulled, and it doesn't match the video I saw, so it seems that after the video ended, the whole group stood around jawing at each other for some length of time before getting on with it. The video was kind of routine, almost dull.

I doubt the US will ever bomb Iran. I've been wrong before, but from everything I have heard, it would be a pretty stupid move.....oh wait, I guess that means we should be starting up any day now. The bottom line of it all is that Iran (which is MUCH larger than Iraq), can't be easily deterred with minor bombing. Hit specific facilities, and it will simply show them where the weak spots are. Since they easily have the means, they would only need to re-build those facilities in hardened locations (underground), and we'd end up with a distinctly negative change, for the marginal benefit of a few years delay at most. Equipment is cheap and easy to replace, it's the knowledge that is hard to gain, and VERY hard to stamp out.

Thus, simply bombing would have no discernable positive result, except to prove to the vast majority of the Iranian population that they really do need nukes, and that the US really is a real and imminent threat. We can't very well expect this country to rally behind the troops in dealing with a clear and present danger, and assume that another country when faced with a clear and present danger will instead immediately throw out their government and cower. It won't happen, and we shouldn't count on it.

[demotivater]

Looks like they just arrested the guy who took the cell phone video of the hanging. Any one watched it yet?
Yea. It was really weird to watch. On one hand, you hate the guy, on the other hand, it's somebody getting executed, which is contrary to most instincts. They were really screwing with him while getting ready to drop him. He was pissed and started preaching back to them, then right in the middle of him going on about something he dropped through the floor.

[MasterBlaster]

I doubt the US will ever bomb Iran. I've been wrong before, but from everything I have heard, it would be a pretty stupid move.....oh wait, I guess that means we should be starting up any day now. The bottom line of it all is that Iran (which is MUCH larger than Iraq), can't be easily deterred with minor bombing. Hit specific facilities, and it will simply show them where the weak spots are. Since they easily have the means, they would only need to re-build those facilities in hardened locations (underground), and we'd end up with a distinctly negative change, for the marginal benefit of a few years delay at most. Equipment is cheap and easy to replace, it's the knowledge that is hard to gain, and VERY hard to stamp out.

Thus, simply bombing would have no discernable positive result, except to prove to the vast majority of the Iranian population that they really do need nukes, and that the US really is a real and imminent threat. We can't very well expect this country to rally behind the troops in dealing with a clear and present danger, and assume that another country when faced with a clear and present danger will instead immediately throw out their government and cower. It won't happen, and we shouldn't count on it.

Yeah, "simply" bombing would probably be a waste of time. I was thinking more along the cold war lines with B1's and B2's sitting on both sides of Iran loaded with nukes, daisy cutters, and bunker busters. Since it looks like the UN is going to drop the ball again and Iran will get nukes, It may not be a bad idea to assure them that if they ever use one they would only have a few minutes before their entire country is glowing. We already wasted billions of dollars and thousands of troops to get the bases, I doubt the military would be very willing to simply abandon them. Espically with the president of Iran threatnin to wipe us offf the face of the planet.

[gavio]

We showed only that we're the same as he was... sad, but true.

[MasterBlaster]

We showed only that we're the same as he was... sad, but true.

We? I don't know about you, but I've never gutted any infidels with a dull knife or gased women and children. :rolleyes:

[yrwyddfa]

We? I don't know about you, but I've never gutted any infidels with a dull knife or gased women and children. :rolleyes:

A little look at the many horrors the 'allies' have been up to for the last 30 years might change your mind a little.

Ostrich head sand in*

*rearrange as necessary

[MasterBlaster]

A little look at the many horrors the 'allies' have been up to for the last 30 years might change your mind a little.

Ostrich head sand in*

*rearrange as necessary

Like curing hundreds of previously deadly disesases, or building water purification plants for stupid people who haven't figured out you're not supposed to take a dump in the river you drink out of, or extending peoples life expectancy by 10 - 20 years, or shippinng billions of pounds of wheat and rice to people who choose to live in deserts, or cleaning up hazmat sites created during the industrial revolution, or a little pill that lets old people have sex, or sattelites in space that can track drastic weather changes and have saved millions of lives and most importantly, a network of computers that lets idiots like us spout half truth and bullshet across continents for entertainment?

Like I said, I haven't gutted anyone for being an infedel recently.

[System_Error]

We showed only that we're the same as he was... sad, but true.

Wow. Who's this we? I don't remember drilling a hole through anyones head.

So, if *we* are so bad, have you fled the country yet? Why don't you go over to Iran or something. They aren't as bad as the US from your stand point, and would treat you very nicely :wave:

[yrwyddfa]

Like curing hundreds of previously deadly disesases, or building water purification plants for stupid people who haven't figured out you're not supposed to take a dump in the river you drink out of, or extending peoples life expectancy by 10 - 20 years, or shippinng billions of pounds of wheat and rice to people who choose to live in deserts, or cleaning up hazmat sites created during the industrial revolution, or a little pill that lets old people have sex, or sattelites in space that can track drastic weather changes and have saved millions of lives and most importantly, a network of computers that lets idiots like us spout half truth and bullshet across continents for entertainment?

Like I said, I haven't gutted anyone for being an infedel recently.

Slight problem with your context there, mate. You are quite happy to spout out the great advances that have happened over the last 100, or so years - of which I'm quite sure the only part you've played is getting your IRS returns in on time, but won't take the responsibility of playing your part in the ongoing atrocities of which, as a citizen of a democratic country, your vote (or lack of it) along with everyone else has helped put such 'policies' in a position of power and authority.

As I said . . .

Ostrich head sand in*

*rearrange as necessary

[yrwyddfa]

[QUOTE=System_Error]Wow. Who's this we? I don't remember drilling a hole through anyones head.QUOTE] No, you probably haven't; but you've put people in power who are quite happy to undergo process such as 'special rendition' . . . .

[MasterBlaster]

Slight problem with your context there, mate. You are quite happy to spout out the great advances that have happened over the last 100, or so years - of which I'm quite sure the only part you've played is getting your IRS returns in on time, but won't take the responsibility of playing your part in the ongoing atrocities of which, as a citizen of a democratic country, your vote (or lack of it) along with everyone else has helped put such 'policies' in a position of power and authority.

As I said . . .

Ostrich head sand in*

*rearrange as necessary

F you buddy, I'll guarentee I've spent more personal funds and time just this year on some of those issues I mentioned than your lame arse ever will over your entire life. That is not counting the tax money I redirect through deductions to charitys that I support simply to keep my hard earned dollars out of the hands of my government. And on the subject of my government, I don't ever remember my government raping my wife, gutting my children and beheading my parents because I publicly said they were doing a krappy job. If you feel that Iraq is a better blace to live than the US or UK, Then Why don't you take your sorry arse over there.

[mendhak]

Good news everyone, charges against Saddam have been dropped (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6239853.stm)! (Pun unintended, I am sure)

[Ex-FB]

I don't think anyone is saying that they think Iraq is a better place to live than the UK/US (I mean, if I went to live in Iraq I'd probably be picked up by US forces and tortured as a "insurgent"..... wouldn't I? Let's face it, I'd match their strict "criteria" for extraordinary rendition etc.).

It is kinda strange that a number of people in this thread who believe that disagreeing with their government means they should leave the country.... that's not what democracy is about.

But on the other hand, I also disagree that the people who voted Bush into power can be held responsible for torture etc. I would hate to live in such a simple world where everything was black and white and guilt by association was sufficient evidence. If I employ a man to be my bodyguard, and that guy goes out and murders someone. I am not guilty of murder. I don't think that you can call 50% of Americans torturers because they voted for Bush. That is not a fair representation of the many decent people down there.

Well, now that I've disagreed with almost every single person in this thread.... :)

[Ex-FB]

P.S. Wasn't upset to see Saddam hang, but would rather he
a ) Wallowed in a small cage for the rest of his long life being knawed on by disease ridden rats
or
b ) Committed "suicide" with the aid of a few guards.....

I couldn't care less about his personal feelings (though I do think that killing him was the easy option out for him - given the alternatives) on the gallows. But I am curious as to what his execution actually gained us. It is difficult to see it as anything other than revenge (which to be honest is a fine motive as far as I'm concerned). That's not going to help matters.

What other reason would there be to hang him? It's not like it's going to be a detterant to other world dictators is it? In fact, quite the opposite, we've just proven that they have to stay in power at all costs, otherwise their people will lynch them.

Now, we have removed a rallying point from the pro-Saddam camp (which is not the same as the anti-US camp), but have unfortunately portrayed ourselves as not to disimilair to the animals who ruled Iraq under Saddam.

It's a difficult one to judge, and I suspect we will have to wait a few years to see if it was the right move or not. Hopefully it was.

[MasterBlaster]

It is kinda strange that a number of people in this thread who believe that disagreeing with their government means they should leave the country.... that's not what democracy is about.

And that is why comparing the US government to the former Iraqi government is so far off base it is ridiculous to even consider. I believe I even stated that I have no faith in my government and keep as many of my tax dollars as legally possible out of their hands. It is our basic freedom to disagree with our government and that seperates us from Saddam and the like. It is my opinion if someone doesn't want that freedom then get the hell out of my country before you loose it for the rest of us..

[Suzzi]

who's we .. you livin it up in the US anyway ..
Funny, but most people I know would love to be livin' in the Bahamas. One man's meat is another man's posion I suppose.

[yrwyddfa]

And on the subject of my government, I don't ever remember my government raping my wife, gutting my children and beheading my parents because I publicly said they were doing a krappy job. But you are still a citizen of country that holds special rendition as a legal practice. As a citizen you bear some of that responsibility. If you don't then it's not democracy, I'm afraid.

If you feel that Iraq is a better blace to live than the US or UK, Then Why don't you take your sorry arse over there. Did I say that? Did I imply that? Did I even mention Iraq?

I simply point out that your use of 'we' and 'I' is so selective that it might as well be mutually exclusive.

'We' as in the Western World have given so much to the progress and science (I do NOT dispute that the Western World has progresed the human race a great deal - in particular with the efforts from the US) but when it comes to 'We' being those that drag unconvicted persons across countries and torture them, you resort to 'I' have never done it. When we talk of 'we' travelling half-way round the world and then imprison foreigners without trial or explanation for years on end, then you resort to 'I' have never done that.

It's inconsistent language, behaviour, and it's bloody typical. Have it one way or the other.

[FunkyDexter]

It is our basic freedom to disagree with our government and that seperates us from Saddam and the like. It is my opinion if someone doesn't want that freedom then get the hell out of my country before you loose it for the rest of us Errm, how exactly do you reconcile those two statements. If your opinion is that poeple shouldn't be allowed to disagree - in a country where they are allowed to - aren't you the one disagreeing? And since your opinion is that those who disagree should move to Iraq doesn't that predicate that you should, perhaps, move to Iraq, where you will no longer be allowed to disagree.

Democracy is meaningless without dissent. Our right to dissent is being erroded at a terrifying rate on this side of the pond at the moment and I get the impression the same's true over there too. I'm alarmed how gleefully some of us are skipping toward an entirely conformist (and therefore undemocratic society) society.

[crptcblade]

Debating is for idiots. Anyone care to disagree?

:afrog:

[FunkyDexter]

Anyone care to disagree?
No :afrog:

[visualAd]

Debating is for idiots. Anyone care to disagree?

:afrog:
Debating is for politicians.

[Suzzi]

Debating is for idiots. Anyone care to disagree?

:afrog:
Yes, but when you get a large mass of people like this, then it's fun.

I mean, is there anyone here who doesn't like mass debating? :ehh:

[MasterBlaster]

But you are still a citizen of country that holds special rendition as a legal practice. As a citizen you bear some of that responsibility. If you don't then it's not democracy, I'm afraid.

Did I say that? Did I imply that? Did I even mention Iraq?

I simply point out that your use of 'we' and 'I' is so selective that it might as well be mutually exclusive.


No you didn't say Iraq, I started on this rant because someone compared the west to Saddam's regime. I do not bear any responsibility personally for the majority of the f-ed up stuff my government does because I have no control over it. Even with the power to vote, a person can only go by what they think a politician will do. Quite often what they say they will do before they are elected and what they do after they are elected are usually different. No I am not skirting any responsibility, My responsability as an american and a human being it to vote the moron out of office the next time around. It is not a perfect system but it is the best civilization has come up with so far. Ok, back to Saddam: Saddam and his baathists have done nothing positive for society. And while the west has really screwed up at times, I think it is reasonable to say that at least we have good intentions and the majority of what we are about has made the world a better place to live.


'We' as in the Western World have given so much to the progress and science (I do NOT dispute that the Western World has progresed the human race a great deal - in particular with the efforts from the US) but when it comes to 'We' being those that drag unconvicted persons across countries and torture them, you resort to 'I' have never done it. When we talk of 'we' travelling half-way round the world and then imprison foreigners without trial or explanation for years on end, then you resort to 'I' have never done that.

It's inconsistent language, behaviour, and it's bloody typical. Have it one way or the other.

How is it inconsistant? I have already stated that, when legally possible, my tax money goes to causes that I think are worthy. So I am removing money from the pockets of elected offiicals that want to "...drag unconvicted persons across countries and torture... blahh blahh blahh" and putting money in the hands of people trying to make the world a better place. That doesnt even count the personal time, effort, and dollars that I contribute on my own. I'm sorry, but I think that is as consistant as it getts.

[yrwyddfa]

OK.

I think that this is less emotive than you seem to want to make. I come from, in this case, a more philosophical point of view, here. As a member of a democracy I am of the opinion that we are all collectively responsible for the actions of our government.

On the basis of that belief I think I can stand by what I've said; that it is inconsistent to share the good parts but to distance one's self from the bad parts.

[MasterBlaster]

Errm, how exactly do you reconcile those two statements. If your opinion is that poeple shouldn't be allowed to disagree - in a country where they are allowed to - aren't you the one disagreeing? And since your opinion is that those who disagree should move to Iraq doesn't that predicate that you should, perhaps, move to Iraq, where you will no longer be allowed to disagree.

Democracy is meaningless without dissent. Our right to dissent is being erroded at a terrifying rate on this side of the pond at the moment and I get the impression the same's true over there too. I'm alarmed how gleefully some of us are skipping toward an entirely conformist (and therefore undemocratic society) society.

That was basically what I said, or was trying to say, of course you stated it much clearer than I did. I was trying to say those that Disagree with our right to disagree should get out before they loose another right for the rest of us, like the ability(although feeble) to keep our elected officials in check.

[MasterBlaster]

OK.

I think that this is less emotive than you seem to want to make. I come from, in this case, a more philosophical point of view, here. As a member of a democracy I am of the opinion that we are all collectively responsible for the actions of our government.

On the basis of that belief I think I can stand by what I've said; that it is inconsistent to share the good parts but to distance one's self from the bad parts.

I am not responsible for a United States President getting a hummer from an intern in the oval office. He and his intern are responsible. We are collectively responsible to hold our government responsible for their actions, that is all we can do, or at least make an attempt to do.

Saying that the entire western world is guilty of the same crimes as saddam is a joke.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I am not responsible for a United States President getting a hummer from an intern in the oval office. He and his intern are responsible. We are collectively responsible to hold our government responsible for their actions, that is all we can do, or at least make an attempt to do.

Saying that the entire western world is guilty of the same crimes as saddam is a joke.

If I WAS responsible for that, I would expect at least an invitation to dinner, or a couple football tickets or something, just as a thank you. It's only good manners.

By the way, on the subject of mass debates, I was just reading that protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, but those quarks only acount for about a third of the mass of the nucleus. So where does the other mass come from? Debate that!!

[System_Error]

charges against Saddam have been dropped! (Pun unintended, I am sure)
:lol:



No, you probably haven't; but you've put people in power who are quite happy to undergo process such as 'special rendition' . . . .

Nah, the only person I'll vote for is the one who doesn't let 3% of the nation control 97% of the nation and will nuke the ******* **** out of the many worthless places in the middle east when they deserve it.

[FunkyDexter]

[impression of MasterBlaster]We're a tolerant society and if you don't agree with me you can **** off.[/impression of MasterBlaster]

Sorry MB but I really wasn't agreeing with you - can't you see the problem with your position is that you are denying that which you defend - tolerance and the right of free speech? You can't argue that those things are what makes us better than Saddam and then tell people to get out of your country if they disagree.

[Krenshau]

After reading this thread, I can only say that I think that we should have waited another year or two before driving Germany out of power (except we needed to help the Jews) so the Germans could hop the river and take over the Island. How quickly people forget what it takes to defeat an enemy. We nuked two cities to force a surrender. Those bombs killed many civilians. Unfortunately, sometimes those things happen in the course of defeating an enemy. This war has lasted longer than WWII and has had less casualties, on both sides. Everyone is ungrateful for what America does for them, until they want our money or need our help. Then, after we help them, they piss and moan about how we did it. If their way worked, they wouldn't have needed our help.

[Ex-FB]

After reading this thread, I can only say that I think that we should have waited another year or two before driving Germany out of power (except we needed to help the Jews) so the Germans could hop the river and take over the Island.
Ah - a Russian! Yes, thanks for defeating hitler, but if you remember he actually attacked you..... unless of course you're an American who knows very little about world war II apart from what you learned watching U571 and Saving private Ryan..... :lol:

You may well find that the turning point of the war was the Battle of Britain, this followed by Hitlers attack on Russia placed Germany on the path to defeat. Don't get me wrong, the US shortened the war by a good year or two and doubtless saved many needless deaths, and for that we will forever be grateful to the US servicemen of the time and their familes, but please do not belittle the many brave soldiers and civilians of Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Russia who defeated Hitler, by implying that they were lost without the USA.

......This war has lasted longer than WWII and has had less casualties, on both sides. Everyone is ungrateful for what America does for them, until they want our money or need our help. Then, after we help them, they piss and moan about how we did it. If their way worked, they wouldn't have needed our help.
I am sure the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's who have lost children, siblings and parents in this war may seem to be ungrateful, but I'm sure they're just being selfish.... I mean, it's not like they love their children as much as we love ours is it.....?

And the rest of the world is totally ungrateful for you for giving the terrorists the greatest recruiting weapon they could wish for and fanning the flames of hatred amongst the easily swayed. But hey, they just don't appreciate what you do for them.....

Luckily none of these selfish people will probably deter you, and we can look forward to you "helping" Iran next.... I'm sure, for some strange reason, they will be equally ungrateful.... but like Bush says, "You're on a crusade!"

[FunkyDexter]

and we can look forward to you "helping" Iran nextNo, they decided to help Somalia first.

[crptcblade]

unless of course you're an American who knows very little about world war II apart from what you learned watching U571
How dare you. Bon Jovi was in that movie. I doubt he would lend his name to something that was historically inaccurate.

:mad:

[Xanith]

No, they decided to help Somalia first.
Actually the ousted Somali government that was placed back into power welcomed US help. I found it amazing that the Ethiopian army did what the UN couldn’t do, drive out those terrorists and thugs from power.

X

[System_Error]

Man, there's a lot of people who care about the US that don't live here. I'll need you guys when I take over the world.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was watching U238 by mistake, but I would give it a glowing review.

The thing that the US contributed to WWII more than anything else is material. Other countries suffered greater costs in lives, but if the US had not been supporting the allies with material long before we ever sent a single soldier anywhere, the outcome would have been much different.

Considering how inferior much of our equipment was, especially tanks, if the US had not bee contributing vast quantities of material production to our OWN troops, the result would have been much different.

America: Spending Our Way to Victory!!

[Krenshau]

See, this is what got the snot beat out of France in WWII. They thought they could talk Hitler out of attacking them. So did many other countries. Really, America thought it could just hide from it too, until Japan hit us.

The fact is that Muslim extremist have said openly that they are going to take over the world, and kill anyone that doesn't convert. They are growing their populations in Europe, China, as well as violently trying to take over countries in Africa. Not by attacking governments or military outposts, but by killing civilians.

So, now we are where we were at the beginning of WWII. A threat has emerged on the world front, and as usual everyone else is the problem except the people that go around killing other people because they won't convert to Islam. So, while the rest of the world tries to reason with the very people that are trying to take over their countries, we are defeating our enemies, again.

Just as a side note, I believe that Australia and other countries have troops that are actively helping in Iraq, I am not forgetting British troops, I am just taking note because of the remark that somehow I am saying that America did it alone in WWII. It is my understanding that it was American and British forces that were the ones pushing the Germans back in their hole (for lack of a better way to say it) as well as smaller amounts of troops from Canada and Australia. My point is this. we contributed a great deal to winning WWII, and it amazes so many people here as to why many countries that were involved in WWII have the same problem seeing the threat, the same way they didn't see the threat before WWII. The only real difference between now and then is that we are now dealing with an enemy that has no real country to identify them with. They transcend boundaries across the globe. The only way to identify them is to track the propaganda and dead bodies.

BTW, I should qualify my statement about Iraq lasting longer than WWII. It is more accurate to say it has lasted longer than the U.S.A.'s involvement in WWII. WWII actually was going on long before we got involved. Talking about America sticking its collective head in the sand. I'm not sure we learned our lesson on that, though. We are pushing ahead of the rest of the world, more less, but we should have been taking real action back in the 80s and 90s. America seems to be saying, "Give me liberty, or give me death." The rest of the world seems to be saying, "Maybe, if we just leave them alone they will go away." I am, of course, generalizing.

As another side note, I know a little bit about WWII. My Grandpa served in WWII and he taught me quite a bit about it. He fought in France and was wounded. He received a purple heart. I was basically raised by him. I have seen the path the Germans made the Jews walk to get to other concentration camps where dead, decaying bodies were laying on the side of the road. I have seen pictures of where American forces took a location with American and German bodies littering the area. I have seen the affects of what letting a murderous group of people run across the world killing people does. Which is why I so strongly believe that America, and the rest of the world should wake up and put this threat down before it becomes another world war.

[Shaggy Hiker]

See, this is what got the snot beat out of France in WWII. They thought they could talk Hitler out of attacking them. So did many other countries. Really, America thought it could just hide from it too, until Japan hit us.



Get to know your history a bit better:

The country with largest standing army, with the best tanks, and the largest and best air force, prior to the German invasion of France was: France!

Most of Europe, including France, believed that France had the best army in the world. They didn't think they could "talk Germany our of attacking them", they thought they could mop up the floor with Germany whenever they chose to, and everybody else agreed with that belief with the exception of Germany.

And America wasn't nearly as ignorant as you seem to suggest. The pacific fleet, which was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, was designed with one expectation: To meet and destroy the Japanese fleet in a great naval battle.

The army and the navy was well aware that they were going to end up fighting Japan, and were planning for it. They simply didn't know quite when it was going to happen.

You don't have to read more than one or two decent history books to confirm all of that. If you'd like, I could dig out a few references for you.

[Suzzi]

My point is this. we contributed a great deal to winning WWII, and it amazes so many people here as to why many countries that were involved in WWII have the same problem seeing the threat, the same way they didn't see the threat before WWII.

The only country that didn't see the threat was the US (actually, they saw the threat, just didn't think it would effect them). All of Europe could see the threat, (even the French - they just underestimated the modern warfare techniques employed by the Germans). For someone who purports to know a lot about the second world war, you seem to be dropping some awful clangers.

It does remind me of the quote: "The Americans are trying to make up for being late for the last two world wars by being really, really early for the next one..." :lol:

[Ex-FB]

It is my understanding that it was American and British forces that were the ones pushing the Germans back in their hole (for lack of a better way to say it) as well as smaller amounts of troops from Canada and Australia.
Not sure how many Australians etc. were involved, but I seem to recall reading that Canada had some 0.5 million troops on the ground in Europe.... hardly a small insignificant number. In fact they are attributed with liberating the Netherlands... so, it does irk me somewhat to read someone (such as yourself) sidelining these people's great sacrifices so that you can glorify your own countrymen. WWII was a massive undertaking with many brave men, women and children on all sides. A great debt is owed by all in the Western world and Russia to these people whoever they may be.

See, this is what got the snot beat out of France in WWII. They thought they could talk Hitler out of attacking them. So did many other countries. ...... The fact is that Muslim extremist have said openly that they are going to take over the world, and kill anyone that doesn't convert. They are growing their populations in Europe, China, as well as violently trying to take over countries in Africa. Not by attacking governments or military outposts, but by killing civilians.
This is nothing like the start of World War II. World war II consisted of an agressive country attacking other countries and hoping that nobody would notice. Hitler was very suprised when Britain and Canada declared war on him for attacking Poland. How is that in any way like terrorists operating in hard to identify cells and attacking innocent citizens. It's a completely different scenario and it requires a completely different solution.

So, now we are where we were at the beginning of WWII. A threat has emerged on the world front, and as usual everyone else is the problem except the people that go around killing other people because they won't convert to Islam. So, while the rest of the world tries to reason with the very people that are trying to take over their countries, we are defeating our enemies, again.
Who is trying to reason with the terrorists? I don't see anyone trying that! What I see is people saying that attacking Iraq was a stupid thing to do, because any soldier who has been involved in urban combat or foreign occupation could tell you that there would be no exit strategy possible for Iraq. It would also be a stupid move because it would inflict civilian casualties on the Iraqi's, and once you kill someone's child, you have turned a person from being a potential ally to a potential enemy. The invasion of Iraq was quite simply the best gift Al-Quieda could have had. No, you are not fighting the good fight by attacking countries. You are making the problem worse. The only way to combat terrorism is to remove the recruits and selectively capture or kill the terrorists. Blowing up groups of people from afar is not the way to win the hearts and minds of a people.

What do I think should have been done? Well it's too late now, but wouldn't it have been better if you had talked to the Taliban, maybe strong armed them a little bit and got them to hand over Osama? They asked for proof that he was guilty, so in response you attacked them. Can you imaging if the tables were turned and Afghanistan asked for someone to be deported from the US to Afghanistan to stand trial for a crime.... don't you think the US would ask for proof before even considering the request.... No, the US government was far to quick to attack, and all it got them was a minor political victory - oh look we've toppled the evil Taliban. Well, my cousin just got back from a tour there and apparently it's in an even worse state now with Warlords in control of most of the regions. Hey, at least you got Osama.... right? Then there was the farce with Iraq.... which reason was it again.... WMD? No wait... links to Al-Quieda.... No wait.... non conformance of UN sanctions.... oh, that fact the UN council agreed that it is not up to individual states to interpret what punishments should be metted out is just a petty annoyance right..? And what did that gain? more terrorists?

Sorry, but so far the US's actions have helped the terrorist extremists by "proving" that the West are out to wipe out the Muslims.... of course having a numpty of a President in charge isn't going to help things.... did anyone not cringe when he said that we were on a Crusade....!

I have seen the affects of what letting a murderous group of people run across the world killing people does. Which is why I so strongly believe that America, and the rest of the world should wake up and put this threat down before it becomes another world war.
That is what we are trying to do, stop it from becoming a world war.... but Bush seems adamant to fan the fires and divide the world. Look at the aftermath of September 11th. The US had world sympathy from all nations. They could have used that as a powerful weapon to take the moral high ground, expose the terrorists as the murderers they are and turn the population of the Muslim world against them. Instead he chose to lower the West to their standards (imprisonment without trial, kidnapping, torture? For god's sake), and turn the terrorists into freedom fighters - resisting the Western invaders. He botched it big time, and unfortunately I don't think we can ever win this fight now, as any attrocity metted out on the west will be seen as just retaliation to countless civilian deaths in Iraq.

[Krenshau]

What do I think should have been done? Well it's too late now, but wouldn't it have been better if you had talked to the Taliban, maybe strong armed them a little bit and got them to hand over Osama?

I think you just proved my point.

France may have had a big army, but it didn't do them any good, did it? Maybe, they should have used it better and earlier. Many countries signed peace treaties with Hitler and thought that would avoid war, but all it did was buy time for Hitler to set the time of the battle.

I am not familiar with this site, but it talks about the treaties that France and England made with Germany. This exemplifies what I was talking about with people wanting to talk things out. When I say that they didn't see the threat, I mean, they didn't seem to see that they were trying to negotiate with someone that couldn't be negotiated with.

http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/war.html

During March 1938 German troops had occupied Austria, incorporating it into the Reich. In September Hitler announced that the "oppression" of ethnic Germans living in Czechoslovakia was intolerable and that war was near. England and France met with Hitler (the Munich Pact) and compelled Czechoslovakia to cede its frontier districts to Germany in order to secure "peace in our time." Peace, however, was only an illusion. During March 1939 Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia by force of arms and then turned his attention to Poland. Although Britain and France had guaranteed the integrity of Poland, Hitler and Josef Stalin, dictator of the Soviet Union, signed a secret, mutual nonaggression pact in August 1939. With the pact Stalin bought time to build up his strength at the expense of Britain and France, and Hitler gained a free hand to deal with Poland. When Hitler's army invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, World War II began.

Do you think that no innocent people died in WWII? We (that is the allies) fought in cities in WWII. Not really different than fighting in Iraq cities.

And America wasn't nearly as ignorant as you seem to suggest. The pacific fleet, which was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, was designed with one expectation: To meet and destroy the Japanese fleet in a great naval battle.

I know about this, it is reported that the report that Japan's planes were heading to Pearl Harbor to bomb them was "misfiled". This was reported to be done because America was largely isolationist. In general, no one wanted another world war after WWI. That is why the League of Nations was established. I think the American people, and congress, didn't want to get involved, and thought it would just get handled. I think the President knew better, and, well, we got attacked. That is just my opinion, though.

There are similar theories about 9/11. If I remember correctly, the plane that crashed into the ground was heading to the white house, and there were questions about where the plane debris was that crashed into the pentagon. Some witnesses said they saw military planes flying around the plane that crashed into the ground, from what I saw in news reports shortly after it occurred. Yet, the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center "made it thru".

Not sure how many Australians etc. were involved, but I seem to recall reading that Canada had some 0.5 million troops on the ground in Europe.... hardly a small insignificant number.

I am not saying that .5 million troops, or even if it was less, is insignificant. It took everyone that contributed to win that war. Frankly, I think that there was a good chance we (the allies) could have lost if it wasn't for the bomb. Japan, I read, wasn't going to surrender. Even after we dropped the first bomb the Japanese country didn't want to surrender, but, after the second bomb, the ruler knew that if they didn't it could mean that Japan would no longer exist. That is what I have read. So I am not trying to diminish anyone's contribution, no matter what the degree. I just think that people try to minimize Americas involvement.

Just for the record. I think President Bush was placed into office by the powers that be ( some say the world banks, some say the Illuminati, who really knows). I think the VP is the force behind the white house. I think Bush was chosen because whoever chose him knew that he would be more than willing to go after Saddam after Saddam trying to kill his Dad, if some evidence could be shown to him that Saddam was somehow linked. I think we are all pawns in the plan to globalize the world. First, financially. Then by creating a hierarchical structure of governance with a central world power at the helm. What better way to get the people to agree than to have things spiral into WWIII. The only way to prevent it is to defeat the enemy before things get chaotic all over the world (beyond control that is). Even that may not work. If we pull out of Iraq, or even if we become isolationist again, the extremist will just bring the battle to us, again. It would be ideal if the Muslim extremist could be shown that they are being used as pawns in a bigger global plan. Maybe, they would realize that much of what they hear is just propaganda. Americans already know that most of what they hear is propaganda, at least they should.

In any case, we can't hide, so the only other option is to defeat our enemy. The game must be played if we are to survive.

[yrwyddfa]

...
The thing that the US contributed to WWII more than anything else is material. Other countries suffered greater costs in lives, but if the US had not been supporting the allies with material long before we ever sent a single soldier anywhere, the outcome would have been much different ...It's unusual to find a somewhat egalitist post from you, Shaggy. For your information the US didn't do too much out of the kindness of it's heart. Some of the allies have only just finished paying back the loan (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2520100,00.html) (with interest)

I guess, for business sense, the US does, always, come out on top.

[yrwyddfa]

How is it inconsistant? I have already stated that, when legally possible, my tax money goes to causes that I think are worthy. So I am removing money from the pockets of elected offiicals that want to "...drag unconvicted persons across countries and torture... blahh blahh blahh" and putting money in the hands of people trying to make the world a better place. That doesnt even count the personal time, effort, and dollars that I contribute on my own. I'm sorry, but I think that is as consistant as it getts.You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.

It is, in my opinion not enough to say "I give to charity" and "I try to keep money out of the government's coffers." I think, in your case, it would have been better to say "I am lobbying my government in order to change their policy"

But you didn't; and you're few $k's will make not one iota of difference in the huge ocean of space that makes up the US 'defence' budget.

Meanwhile Vietnam PtII carries on with an extra 20,000 American lives sent out to fight to correct a UK/US blunder of extraordinary magnitude.

[FunkyDexter]

Krenshau, your knowledge of WW2 is woeful but this is the most woeful of all:-
Frankly, I think that there was a good chance we (the allies) could have lost if it wasn't for the bomb.
By the time America dropped the bombs Japans navy had been effectively anihalated and it had no production base left to speak of. For an island nation that's pretty much game over. Dropping the bomb probably shortened the war by a year or two and almost certainly saved the lives of some American troops who would otherwise have had to storm the beaches but it in no way changed the final outcome

By the way, Britain and France did indeed follow a policy of appeasement in 38/39 but whether this gave Germany any extra advantage is highly debatable. Germany's army was pretty much in place by the end of 37, he'd been ramping up the military machine since 35/36. At that time Frances and Britains army had both been pretty much stood down - they needed until 39 to mobilise.

Just for the record. I think President Bush was placed into office by the powers that be ( some say the world banks, some say the Illuminati, who really knows). I think the VP is the force behind the white house. I think Bush was chosen because whoever chose him knew that he would be more than willing to go after Saddam after Saddam trying to kill his Dad, if some evidence could be shown to him that Saddam was somehow linked. I think we are all pawns in the plan to globalize the world. First, financially. Then by creating a hierarchical structure of governance with a central world power at the helm. What better way to get the people to agree than to have things spiral into WWIII. The only way to prevent it is to defeat the enemy before things get chaotic all over the world (beyond control that is). Even that may not work. If we pull out of Iraq, or even if we become isolationist again, the extremist will just bring the battle to us, again. It would be ideal if the Muslim extremist could be shown that they are being used as pawns in a bigger global plan. Maybe, they would realize that much of what they hear is just propaganda. Americans already know that most of what they hear is propaganda, at least they should.Drugs are bad, mkay.

[Xanith]

It's unusual to find a somewhat egalitist post from you, Shaggy. For your information the US didn't do too much out of the kindness of it's heart. Some of the allies have only just finished paying back the loan (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2520100,00.html) (with interest)

I guess, for business sense, the US does, always, come out on top.
I never realized the British people expected welfare from the US. Hmmmm so its your feeling the US should have just given the UK free money without having to pay it back eventually? When in real life does that ever happen?

X

[yrwyddfa]

Hmmmm so its your feeling the US should have just given the UK free money without having to pay it back eventually?
No. Not at all.

I'm just sick and tired of hearing how the US did the world a favour when in reality they were in it for the money rather than any moral cause; which, I'm afraid, is the way it looks.

I suppose you could argue that the US lent money to the side which they felt were morally 'right' but I think that's a little tenuous at best

[FunkyDexter]

Hmmmm so its your feeling the US should have just given the UK free money without having to pay it back eventually? This was actually quite a contentious issue after the war.

The nations that had recieved aid from the US tended to take the view that they'd fought a war on behalf of the world, not just themselves. In that context they viewed America as a benificiary of their efforts and argues that US should write off the debt as it's half of the bargain.

The US on the other hand, tended to take the view that WW2 was primarily a European war before 41 and the fact that it had spilled over into a world war was primarily a failing of the European nations to stop the Axis. In that context, why should they write off debts when they'd already done the allies a favour by bank rolling them pre 41 and then stepping in to recover the situation (I'm overstating the american position a bit just to give the idea)

In the end the US actually did write of alot of the debts under the Marshall plan and commuted the rest to loans. In hindsight this doesn't seem unreasonable although the rapidity with which the Truman administration tried to recover those debts was undoubtedly a major contributing factor in the break up of the British empire. And it's equally doubtless that the US became a super power on the back of the profits made by flogging arms to Europe in WW2.

[MasterBlaster]

But you didn't; and you're few $k's will make not one iota of difference in the huge ocean of space that makes up the US 'defence' budget.


No, It may not, but it is a start. If more people did the same instead of the same old "there's nothing I can do the government is too..... <insert pathetic excuse here>" sob story I hear day in and day out, It might make a difference. Unfortunatly, the mentally challenged majority let our governments turn us into goddamn cattle in exchange for pseudo-security. Ask the 3000 dead cattle that died in the WTC attacks how secure they were. I'm paying, quite a bit more than a few thousand BTW, these morons for protection and someone was actually able to fly a jetliner into the pentagon? The fooking pentagon? the "most secure building on the planet"? Where were all of those 50 million dollar jets we bought? They couldn't get one in the air in time to shoot down a big slow fighter that is about as agile as my grandmother? No maybe deferring my tax dollars isn't going to fix the f-ed up situation we're stuck in but at least I and others who still give a sheit can sleep at night.

[yrwyddfa]

No, It may not, but it is a start. If more people did the same instead of the same old "there's nothing I can do the government is too..... <insert pathetic excuse here>" sob story I hear day in and day out, It might make a difference. Unfortunatly, the mentally challenged majority let our governments turn us into goddamn cattle in exchange for pseudo-security. Ask the 3000 dead cattle that died in the WTC attacks how secure they were. I'm paying, quite a bit more than a few thousand BTW, these morons for protection and someone was actually able to fly a jetliner into the pentagon? The fooking pentagon? the "most secure building on the planet"? Where were all of those 50 million dollar jets we bought? They couldn't get one in the air in time to shoot down a big slow fighter that is about as agile as my grandmother? No maybe deferring my tax dollars isn't going to fix the f-ed up situation we're stuck in but at least I and others who still give a sheit can sleep at night.I actually agree with quite a lot of this; you are correct - if everyone avoided tax and re-channeled the money into charities they support the govt. would certainly have to change their ways.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's unusual to find a somewhat egalitist post from you, Shaggy.

I thought someone might consider that out of character, but from what I have read, it is pretty much true. Regardless of whether it was done for a profit motive or not (somebody profits from EVERY war) was not the point, the point was that the huge volume of production was our largest contribution to WWII, beside which our troop level was insignificant.

By the way, that was not the case in WWI, so it was a "New for Number 2" kind of a thing.

France may have had a big army, but it didn't do them any good, did it? Maybe, they should have used it better and earlier. Many countries signed peace treaties with Hitler and thought that would avoid war, but all it did was buy time for Hitler to set the time of the battle.



That's a popular view, which you can find in many places. However, it has two flaws that I believe are fatal:

1) As FunkyDexter pointed out, Germany didn't buy any time. When Germany went into France, they did so with Panzer Is and IIs, which were training tanks they had been using for developing the tactics. The Panzer I had fake armor which couldn't necessarily stop a rifle bullet. The tanks which were to form the backbone of their armored divisions were just starting to be produced, and were not yet deployed. Basically, had France and Britain waited longer, Germany would have had real tanks, as it was, they had fake tanks....and still swept over them in short order. It is unlikely that the fight would have been different if France had gone into it less well prepared.

2) They didn't see that what they were trying to do couldn't be done...so...should they have done what they subsequently proved incapable of doing? He couldn't be appeased....and France couldn't beat him. They didn't realize either point in advance. Had they enough foresight to recognize both points, what would you suggest then?

The other part of this is that you have the benefit of hindsight. We now know that there really wasn't anything they could have done. Had they kept up with the diplomacy, Hitler would have ignored them, because his western flank was secure. Had they attacked, as they did (or any time earlier), they would have lost. They had too many weaknesses, and too much pride to recognize any of them.

Interesting to make an analogy between Hitler and today. Are we like France then? Should we make sure that we do not appease anybody because we are certain that they can be beaten? France expected that war with Germany, if it happened, would happen in certain ways, which they were well prepared for. The Belgian forts would stand, and the Ardennes were impassable.

We already hear people complaining because the terrorists won't fight us the way we want to fight them.

[Ex-FB]

With regards the loans from the US for the war effort. In fairness I am 100% behind the US on this one. The interest they charged was low, and let's face it Britain needed the raw materials and equipment. At the time it made the difference between life and death for Britain, so it would be somewhat churlish to welch on the deal once the battle is done. It is one thing for the US to write off debts to African nations who have no hope of repaying the interest alone, but let's face it, Britain could (and has) afford to repay the loan. It was difficult to repay sure, but by no means impossible.

At the time, it was life or death, and it was/is still greatly appreciated.

[Krenshau]

Shaggy Hiker,

I just hope we aren't sitting around fifty years from now saying that we should have done more. We do have the advantage of looking back on WWII. We should use that advantage to ensure the mistakes never happen again.

_______________________________________

I think it is funny how people debate whether something in history is true. They see the facts and think that they know better than the facts. In books and any other historical documentation it is very important to draw a line between factual events, and speculations of reason. France stated the reasons they tried to get a treaty. Anyone who thinks they know more about another person's intentions than that person is, well, they just shouldn't do that to say it nicely. Their actions were in line with their words, I have no reason to think anything else. Looking at words and actions is a good way to determine a persons intentions.

In regards to us losing or winning if we had not dropped the bomb. Japan was not going to surrender. The entire country was against it, even after the second bomb was dropped. The ruler decided to surrender, despite the wishes of his country. With that kind of determination, short of killing every person in Japan, it would be very difficult to win. Surrender was dishonorable to them.

Drugs are bad, mkay.

That's true, but not anything I have an issue with. Ignorance kills more people than drugs, though. If you don't believe me about my remarks on our government, then, if you are American, you should file for declassified material related to evidence for war with Iraq under the freedom for information act. You can also view interviews with former members of the United States Government on Frontline that directly address the statements I made. Regardless of your belief in it, there is a lot of evidence to support what I have stated.

Anyway, I enjoy posting here and reading everyones views. I have pretty much stated all I have wanted to say. I hope that these things don't polarize people on this forum. I certainly wouldn't want someone to not help me with something in another thread because we disagree about something in this thread. I won't be doing that.

[Ex-FB]

I hope that these things don't polarize people on this forum. I certainly wouldn't want someone to not help me with something in another thread because we disagree about something in this thread. I won't be doing that.

:) Don't worry, I think most people here come to this part of the forum to get things off their chest and have a good constructive argument. Very few of them take it personally. In fact, though I disagree with you on a number of points, I have thoroughly enjoyed arguing them with you.

For instance, I rarely agree with Xanith and Masterblaster (though it has been known to happen), but I really enjoy discussing things with them because they usually present very good arguments and bring another perspective to my life. Because of this I respect them and their opinions.

I think as long as the discussion doesn't devolve down to name calling, it's all good. Some of our members can be very er, simplistic in their responses and take things very personally, but luckily they are few and far between.

If you feel this conversation has done it's course, please start a thread on something else to argue about and I will enjoy jumping in.... what about abortion? Saying the Lords game at football games etc?, Nuclear Power, Global warming, British Army cutbacks, feel strongly about any of those things?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Shaggy Hiker,

I just hope we aren't sitting around fifty years from now saying that we should have done more. We do have the advantage of looking back on WWII. We should use that advantage to ensure the mistakes never happen again.



I agree completely with what Ex-FB said. This forum doesn't bleed over into the others.

As for this quote, it's an interesting one. If you can figure out how to make sure that we should have done either more or less, please let us all know. History, and life, are not science experiments. We never get to repeat an experience, because every one is different, despite how similar they are. The comparisons between Saddam and Hitler are particularly laughable. Hitler had one of the best armies in the world at the start of WWII, while Saddam couldn't beat anybody who was capable of even minimal resistance. He was reduced to beating up on his own population after two disasterously failed wars. Hitler couldn't be bullied because he could fight back very effectively. Saddam could be bullied. He whined about it plenty, and he didn't like it anymore than anyone else would, but ever since GWI, he always caved if he believed people were serious.


I think it is funny how people debate whether something in history is true. They see the facts and think that they know better than the facts. In books and any other historical documentation it is very important to draw a line between factual events, and speculations of reason. France stated the reasons they tried to get a treaty. Anyone who thinks they know more about another person's intentions than that person is, well, they just shouldn't do that to say it nicely. Their actions were in line with their words, I have no reason to think anything else. Looking at words and actions is a good way to determine a persons intentions.

What does this whole bit mean? Are you saying that the views of history that are not the same as yours are based on fiction, while yours are based on fact? Or are you saying....heck, I can't figure out what you were saying. What facts do people think they know better than? What are you refering to?

In regards to us losing or winning if we had not dropped the bomb. Japan was not going to surrender. The entire country was against it, even after the second bomb was dropped. The ruler decided to surrender, despite the wishes of his country. With that kind of determination, short of killing every person in Japan, it would be very difficult to win. Surrender was dishonorable to them.

Considering your last statement (which I couldn't understand), this one is bizarre. The idea that Japan was going to fight to the death, and would never have given up without the bomb is entirely speculation. There is strong evidence that it was not the bomb that caused them to surrender, and I would have to say that the bulk of historians do not believe the bomb was the key factor. It appears to be the concensus that it was pure politics that caused the surrender.

And that's the key. There certainly were Japanese people who wanted to fight to the very end. There were plenty who would have killed themselves when they lost. However, there were plenty who didn't believe they could ever win, and had thought the war was futile from the start. One of the major believers in that was Yamamoto himself, who publicly asserted that if the US didn't simply surrender after that first strike, then Japan would surely lose. Of course, he was dead long before the bomb was dropped.

Therefore, to say that the Japanese suddenly changed their minds from "fight to the death" to "surrender now" just because of the bomb, is crazy. Both views were held by different factions within the government, and every event caused one or the other to gain sway. At some point, the latter group got sufficient influence that the emporer switched to their side, and the war ended. Did the bomb have anything to do with this? Yeah, probably. Did the fact that they didn't have a chance have anything to do with it? Of course. The loss of their navy? Absolutely.

So what was the major tipping factor? By most accounts that I have read, they recognized that Russia was about to enter the war against them. They knew they were going to lose eventually, and simply decided that if they surrendered right then, they could surrender to the Americans, who would not ask too much, versus being required to surrender also to the Russians, who would immediately gobble up all the territory they could. The surrender was thus strongly influenced by a decision to take the best alternative.

In this they proved correct. America made a separate peace, in direct violation of a treaty with Russia (the Russians were pissed), and the Japanese and Russians are still disputing ownership of some land (currently in Japanese hands), which would be irrevocably Russian had Russia been a party to the peace talks.

[FunkyDexter]

I think most people here come to this part of the forum to ... have a good constructructive argument I don't. :p

I hope that these things don't polarize people on this forumIf they did none of us would helping each other by now. EVERYONES WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING... EXCEPT ME! Just needed to clear that up.

Japan had actually offered surrender pre big-boy, just not unconditional surrender. One of the major sticking point was that they wanted to keep their emperor.

The drugs are bad quote wasn't really aimed at your Iraq views but rather the whole illuminati/world wide conspiracy of centralisation thing. I think the symptoms some perceive as signs of the illuminati are caused by the fact that everyone wants more money and power and those who already have it are better placed to gather it => a centralising effect around a (fairly large) minority of individuals.

I think Iraq stinks to high heaven and I'm damn sure we didn't go in there because we wanted the Iraqis to have democracy out of some benign brotherhood of man thing. We went in there because we wanted to secure key resources for the future and stabilising the country as a democracy was just one of the means to that end - sadly a misguided one. I'd stop short of calling that a conspiracy though. Rather I'd blame it on the all too human traits of greed and teh ability to ignore anything inconvenient to our views once we've made our minds up.

[Krenshau]

Well, I wasn't going to continue on here because it seemed to be more opinions getting stated that evaluation of the facts, but I thought that clarification on some things I stated that wasn't understood would be important.

The statement about words and actions was made because it seemed to me that, in general, there was the thought that an action and a reason for the action were given as fact, but, in my experience, looking at documents from 30 years ago, and then looking at documents incrementally up to today, we see the same or similar presentation of facts (such as events or statements that people made) however, what changes is the reasons that people give for those facts. 30 years ago people speculated (but stated as facts) the reasons that Japan surrendered, and reasons that Hitler did things that he did. Later, the same facts were presented, but the reasons for those facts changed. The culture of the people at a given time affects the perspective of the people evaluating the facts. If we were to have the advantage of going to interview people in Japan during WWII, we could gain a perspective of events that were occuring at that time. Wait 20 years and interview people about the same set of facts and the perspective will have changed a bit. Interview people now, and you get a different perspective. Add to that the difference of culture for various countries in the world and you get a wider variety of views about the same set of facts, thus where our coversation is today. So, my point is that the views and perspectives of the events are different than the events themselves. That is why I stated that the actions of the French, and the statements of the French government of the time, are the facts, to speculate about how or why other that what is historically documented is speculation. This statement was meant to encompass all the posts that relate to this statement. I didn't want to make a list of all the posts that fall within this statement, just point out that it was occuring. My statements are based on people I have spoken to that were in WWII, interviews of people that were involved in the decision making of WWII, statements made and things written by Winston Churchill, and others that were actually involved at the time. I, rightly or wrongly, give those much more weight than history books written by historians that try to speculate about reasons. They are, in my opinion, people acting like sports announcer for a sporting event that is a recording of the original game.

[penagate]

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223_05_mistake.gif

[Ex-FB]

Well, I wasn't going to continue on here because it seemed to be more opinions getting stated that evaluation of the facts, but I thought that clarification on some things I stated that wasn't understood would be important.

The statement about words and actions was made because it seemed to me that, in general, there was the thought that an action and a reason for the action were given as fact, but, in my experience, looking at documents from 30 years ago, and then looking at documents incrementally up to today, we see the same or similar presentation of facts (such as events or statements that people made) however, what changes is the reasons that people give for those facts. 30 years ago people speculated (but stated as facts) the reasons that Japan surrendered, and reasons that Hitler did things that he did. Later, the same facts were presented, but the reasons for those facts changed. The culture of the people at a given time affects the perspective of the people evaluating the facts. If we were to have the advantage of going to interview people in Japan during WWII, we could gain a perspective of events that were occuring at that time. Wait 20 years and interview people about the same set of facts and the perspective will have changed a bit. Interview people now, and you get a different perspective. Add to that the difference of culture for various countries in the world and you get a wider variety of views about the same set of facts, thus where our coversation is today. So, my point is that the views and perspectives of the events are different than the events themselves. That is why I stated that the actions of the French, and the statements of the French government of the time, are the facts, to speculate about how or why other that what is historically documented is speculation. This statement was meant to encompass all the posts that relate to this statement. I didn't want to make a list of all the posts that fall within this statement, just point out that it was occuring. My statements are based on people I have spoken to that were in WWII, interviews of people that were involved in the decision making of WWII, statements made and things written by Winston Churchill, and others that were actually involved at the time. I, rightly or wrongly, give those much more weight than history books written by historians that try to speculate about reasons. They are, in my opinion, people acting like sports announcer for a sporting event that is a recording of the original game.

But by the same token one could argue that listening to the likes of Winston Churchill about the second world war would be akin to listening to the likes of George W. Bush about why he attacked Iraq.... it is a somewhat biased viewpoint.... now I will go and iron my hands for even passingly comparing Winston Churchill to Bush..... :sick:

But you see what I am saying. Time does add a certain amount of perspective to events. Perspective that is possibly lost in the heat of war. I don't know whether Japan was going to surrender or not, but I do know that the concept of Japan "fighting to the death" was no different from "Britain fighting to the death" - "We will fight them on the beaches....We will never surrender... etc.". I would feel there would come a point when the homeland has been overrun that defeat would have to be accepted, though guerilla units would surely continue to operate (as were set up in Britain incase of invasion). However the cost in lives would be massive. There is a lot wrong with Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but war is hell, and I have to say that it was probably the right move at the time given the state of the war. People have condemed Bomber Harris for the bombing campaign on German citys, and even know most Brits feel a little bit guilty when the name of Dresden is mentioned, bombing a city off the face of the earth is hardly something to be proud of, however it was a war that we didn't ask for, and when your backed into a corner you cannot afford to be chivilrous, you hit them as hard as possible.

As for the French, again I see a lot of distorted history about this. In particular the US have a very low opinion of the French for surrendering so quickly, but in actual fact they were overran and outclassed, as were the British troops at the start of the war. The shock tactics used were revolutionary and took the allied generals by suprise (who were the good old stick in the mud - war of attrition sort of Generals). Hitlers biggest problem was that he didn't/couldn't follow through and press his advantage, giving the British time to regroup and organise itself. The Battle of Britain was his last attempt at winning the war, after that he was fighting a defensive war all the way back to his bunker.

That is my view of the second world war, and by many accounts it is an accurate view, as told by time, not by people on the ground at the time. Do you agree with this view, or do you have a different opinion based upon your interviews?

[Krenshau]

I agree with much of what you said. I guess by biggest point of disagreement is not so much the events of the war, more the perspectives of the intentions, and so forth. I think that over time some things can be revealed that aren't known at the time, but in order to have an accurate understanding of the intentions, the view of the people during the events are the most important.

I want to try to keep this on track, so the reason that I presented that information was because of exactly something that was referenced to in this post.

The shock tactics used were revolutionary and took the allied generals by suprise (who were the good old stick in the mud - war of attrition sort of Generals).

I remember growing up a lot of discussion about the Vietnam war. My Dad was in Vietnam, and some of my friend's Dads had been in Vietnam. One of the things that was discussed a lot was the tactics used in the war. They would take a hill, clear it, then leave. This allowed the enemy to come back and easily take that ground again. This was a circle, and a really ignorant tactic. However, the enemies fighting style was well suited for the environment. Many times, from what I was told, the Americans would just be shooting into the trees and not know where the enemy was exactly. America didn't adapt its tactics to the enemy. The French didn't have the tactics and knowledge ( I presume) to defeat the Germans. Now, in Iraq, we (America) use traditional urban warfare methods developed in the 80's and 90's (to the best of my memory), which is why we are not doing well. We clear a neighborhood, and leave. This allows the enemy to come back. The same thing is being done in Afghanistan. On a more broad scale we do things like we see in Somalia where we attack a base, it brings the anger of the international community, and we leave. This allows the enemy to return. I think if the rest of the world would wake up and see that instead of pitching a fit about us going around killing terrorist, they might do better to say, let's join America. Let's not just let the Americans set up bases in all of these countries, let's have the U.N. set up bases in these countries. So, then, we would have the international community working together to be a quick response military force that could do as a team what America is doing alone now. Instead of an American plane going into Somalia and taking out a training camp, perhaps it could have been an Egyptian plane ( I don't know much about Egypt it just came off the top of my head). This would be the world united against these extremist that want to behead anyone that doesn't cover their females head and recite things from the Koran. However, in my idealistic yet pessimistic perspective, it seems to me that the world wants to get rid of the aggressive Muslims, but doesn't want to do the killing needed to stop them. Thus my talk about how we (Americans), rose to the occasion, though admittedly late, and we didn't try to negotiate with our (collective) enemy, we just killed them. This is, in my view, how we (the nations of the world) should deal with Muslim extremist. Let me rephrase that, this is how we should deal with Muslim extremist that go around killing and oppressing people. I would go so far as to allow them to want to kill and oppress people, they just can't actually do it.

From a more broad perspective, rightly or wrongly, we (the American population) want to help people. That is why we originally supported the war in Afghanistan, and then Iraq. Now, we see that what we are doing isn't helping, and could be making it worse. How to fix the problem is being highly debated. I can see how some people just want to get out of Iraq. Maybe if we go that will help. I personally don't think that way. I think that the reason we are not doing well (putting it mildly) is because we used the same stupid tactics we did in Vietnam. If we can fight this war like we did in WWII, then, and only then, do I see us having a chance. To clarify, when I say we should fight this war like we did in WWII. I am not saying to employ the same tactics, I am saying that we should think less about doing more with less troops, and think more about bringing peace and security to the neighborhoods all around Iraq by killing the enemy, securing the area, leaving a well supported amount of troops to patrol an assigned section, and not giving the enemy a chance to come back in. We should do this until the country can do it itself. By we I mean the international community. If 20 countries committed 10,000 troops we would have 200,000 troops in the country. That would be more than enough to get Iraq back to being self sufficient and free from violence. We should not tolerate any members of the government to make the mistake of trying to negotiate with the warlords. If they want to do things the old way, then we should get out. If they think they can do a better job of dealing with an enemy by talking them down, then we shouldn't even be there. Plus, I would leave them with this question, "How affective were you at talking Saddam out of power?" I think that if we leave any other time than that, you will see Saudi Arabia sending in people to help the Sunnis, Iran to help the Shiite(sp?) and the whole place to will get a 1000 times worse. My original post was just to say, "How can the other nations in this world, that were involved in WWII, not see that?" The enemy has to be stopped.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's not a bad idea...if it worked. Unfortunately, WWII will show you that it doesn't work...and never has.

One of the major obstacles facing the Germans in the Russo-German portion of WWII, was that they had taken a huge amount of territory, and had to detail several divisions in a vain attempt to do exactly what you are suggesting. They also failed with the occupation of France, as they had to have several divisions fighting the insurgents in that country, though they were less well equipt than modern insurgencies.

This was also why England eventually gave up in America. They simply realized that they couldn't provide enough troops to occupy the country at the level necessary to be able to suppress a determined insurgency. The US lacks sufficient troops to occupy Iraq, so you are correct that it would take the worlds cooperation to do that, but George failed to get the world behind the action, and has subsequently made certain that they have no interest in helping us now. The only countries, aside from the British Commonwealth countries, who are on board at the time, couldn't begin to provide the troops you are talking about without destroying themselves.

Though I guess that all just proves that you agree the war was misguided and mismanaged.

However, what I find really disturbing was the whole bit about Muslim extremists. It's one thing to talk about those who are willing to kill others. I'm ok with that part. However, you never leave it there, but always add in the bits about reciting from the Koran, oppressing people, covering women, etc. I've got bad news for you. All of those things are characteristics of large portions of the US!!! The evangelical and christian fundamentalist movements, which have gotten real traction in the US in the last decades, want almost exactly the same things, except that they want people to be reciting the bible instead of the koran, and they want a different style of covering for women.

I don't agree with muslim fundamentalists for the reasons you share. However, I see just as geat, and an almost identical threat building within this very country.

Whenever anyone says "get rid of aggressive muslims", I wonder what that would leave: Nice, docile, muslims. You don't suppose that the rest of the world might not start thinking that getting rid of aggressive Americans might be a good idea, too. Maybe we can get rid of every group that wants to push its ideas on others. I can't help but wonder why we decided to start with this particular group. I keep pointing out that the majority (by number) of terrorist attacks within the US have been from right wing groups, not muslims, but only liberals seem to notice that fact.

By the way, the tactics used by the Germans was developed by the British. As you pointed out, they were stick-in-the-mud generals, which is why they were surpsised when they encountered tactics they had themselves developed.

[Ex-FB]

Now, in Iraq, we use traditional urban warfare methods developed in the 80's and 90's, which is why we are not doing well. We clear a neighborhood, and leave. This allows the enemy to come back. The same thing is being done in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure that there is any effective tactic that has yet been developed against local resitance. Look at the British in Northern Ireland, it is very difficult to fight an enemy when they look like everyone else, and don't show themselves until they are pointing a gun at your back. Also, unless you have the local population on your side (and against the enemy) then you will never succeed. Note: I qualified that statement by saying "Against the enemy", as being sympathetic to the allies, is quite different from being active against the enemy. If someone sees somebody planting a road side bomb:
1) If they are for the resistance, then they will say nothing.
2) If they are sympathic to the allies, they probably still will do nothing for fear of reprisals against their family.
3) Only if they actively hate the resistance will they do anything.

*I use the term resistance above to describe any group of local fighters vs. organised army. They might be French Resistance in WWII, IRA in Northern Ireland, Warlords in Afghanistan or Insurgents in Iraq - I'm just using the term to draw a point.

Unfortunately, I suspect Iraq is full of people 1 & 2 and not many of type 3.

I think if the rest of the world would wake up and see that instead of pitching a fit about us going around killing terrorist, they might do better to say, let's join America.
Nobody is pitching a fit about you killing terrorists. Killing terrorists is fine. Just how many terrorists where in Iraq before you invaded? Zip. Nada. None. The Iraqi's are not terrorists they are just people who are fighting an occupying army. Would you do any different if a country invaded the US and killed off your children etc. I'm not saying I agree with what they are doing, but I understand their motives, and it is nothing to do with terrorism.

Which brings up another irk of mine. Whenever anywhere is bombed in Iraq, it's "20 suspected terrorists were killed in the attack". Sorry, but that's not good enough. You can't just sweepingly state that they were terrorists and leave it at that. Whatever happened to good old fashioned soldiering. Don't bomb them from afar and hope that they aren't civies. Get troops into the house, shoot anyone that shoots back and get the buggers in the back of an army truck, then work out who they are. Every wrong target you kill creates a number of new "freedom fighters" wanting revenge. Face facts, someone fighting an occupying army is not a terrorist - they're a patriot! But those words are too imotive so the US government uses the term "insurgent"......


Let's not just let the Americans set up bases in all of these countries, let's have the U.N. set up bases in these countries. So, then, we would have the international community working together to be a quick response military force that could do as a team what America is doing alone now.
I agree. However, as Shaggy Hiker has already pointed out, I think that it would be a hard sell now. Do you remember all the "If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists" rhetoric. People might not be as quick to forget as you hope, and I suspect that most of the population of the world now see Iraq as 100% US/UK problem.

This is wrong (in my opinion), but it is very much the feeling in a number of the countries I have visited recently.

This would be the world united against these extremist that want to behead anyone that doesn't cover their females head and recite things from the Koran.
Iraq was actually one of the free-er middle eastern countries with regards to interpretation of the Koran. If we are going after people for their religous beliefs then maybe we should knock over Saudi, or how about Kuwait, or what about Pakistan (for their incredible rape law - basically unless the woman has 4 male witnesses she's guilty of adultery - oh look, that's death by stoning), or how about we start attacking China for their clamp down on the Foolan-gan (sp?)

Sorry, I don't buy it. Attacking to free the locals from oppression. Even in Afghanistan, we got rid of one regime to be replaced with another (of warlords). Now in fairness, I think we can do something with Afganistan as the country is war weary and the military there is seen as far more multi-cultural. With Iraq, I'm afraid we are seen as invaders.

It seems to me that the world wants to get rid of the aggressive Muslims, but doesn't want to do the killing needed to stop them. Thus my talk about how we, rose to the occasion, though admittedly late, and we didn't try to negotiate with our (collective) enemy, we just killed them.
Again, nobody has a problem with killing terrorists, the problem is in identifying the terrorists and then killing them. Luckily all of the 50,000 dead Iraqi men, women and children were all terrorists eh? That's a lot of blood, has it sated US peoples thirst for revenge after 9/11? Or is there more to come?

This is how we should deal with Muslim extremist that go around killing and oppressing people.
I would agree, unfortunately that is nothing to do with what is happening. You do not fight terrorists with armies, you fight them with inteligence, infiltration and a few bullets.

I think that the reason we are not doing well (putting it mildly) is because we used the same stupid tactics we did in Vietnam. If we can fight this war like we did in WWII, then, and only then, do I see us having a chance. To clarify, when I say we should fight this war like we did in WWII. I am not saying to employ the same tactics, I am saying that we should think less about doing more with less troops, and think more about bringing peace and security to the neighborhoods all around Iraq by killing the enemy, securing the area, leaving a well supported amount of troops to patrol an assigned section, and not giving the enemy a chance to come back in.
Alas, this is back to the problem of how do you identify who your enemy is. The kid on the street infront of you might grow up to be a normal well adjusted human being, or they might grow up to be a terrorist because of some event yet to happen. You just don't know. One of the biggest causes of IRA recruitment in Northern Ireland was that youths felt they were being oppressed because British troops would raid their homes, ransack them looking for weapons and then leave the house in a mess when they didn't find anything. Sounds strange doesn't it? You would think they would become terrorists for deeper meanings than that, but silly as it sounds, the youths felt helpless and violated. So they turn to the IRA as their only source of response. The IRA kindle their hatred and give them the ability to strike back for past wrongs. Now, look at the situation in Iraq. How many people will become "freedom fighters/insurgents" when you have a situation which it far worse because
1) It's an invading army, not your own army
2) People are being killed instead of just inconvenienced

Like I say, I don't think there are any good tactics for dealing with this situation. But how can we best deal with it? I would suggest putting in place an Arab based peace keeping force (Saudi, Jordanian etc.) on the streets who might be a bit more acceptable to the locals, and use old fashioned soldiering, i.e. find your enemy and then kill him, not just blow up buildings and hope that they were insurgents.

Do I think it will work? No, I feel that we have passed the point of no return, however we shouldn't give up trying.

Plus, I would leave them with this question, "How affective were you at talking Saddam out of power?" I think that if we leave any other time than that, you will see Saudi Arabia sending in people to help the Sunnis, Iran to help the Shiite(sp?) and the whole place to will get a 1000 times worse. My original post was just to say, "How can the other nations in this world, that were involved in WWII, not see that?" The enemy has to be stopped.
We made the enemy. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Hell, Britain and Saudi had way more to do with 9/11 than any other country. You can't point to the violence in Iraq and say that you are fighting the good fight and the world should help out. As an outsider I would not want to align myself with a state that encourages kidnapping, imprisonment without trial and torture. So, to answer your question, I suspect the other nations of the world are looking at Iraq and trying to decide who the villain of the peice is....

But I will leave you with this scenario, Poland was quite aggressive to it's neghbours prior to WWII (Lithuania in particular). Germany invades Poland, takes over and starts imprisoning and torturing the Poles... the Poles form a resistance movement..... Now, I personally do not think there is much a parallell between what is happening in Iraq and WWII, but if you insist on drawing comparisons then re-write the above statement as

Iraq was quite aggressive to it's neghbours. The USA invades Iraq, takes over and starts imprisoning and torturing the Iraqis... the Iraqis form a resistance movement.....

Now, I don't agree with it, but that is possibly how the rest of the world views the US actions...

[Krenshau]

Shaggy,

I don't remember a time in U.S. history when Christians marched thru the streets yelling, "Death to heathens!". Do you know of anyone that has been beheaded because they wouldn't convert to Christianity? To me, that is a crazy comparison. However, if Christians ever started doing this, I would join in the fight against them. Also, anyone that knows anything about Christianity would know that it is not proper for any Christian to murder another human being. (just to avoid another totally off topic subject notice I said murder, and not kill). I am not saying that Christians haven't murdered for what they believe, I would just question their true beliefs.

Also, where is there a law that makes anyone recite Bible verses? It is my understanding that the opposite exists. That is, laws that prohibit reciting Bible verses and praying. The Constitution says that congress shall make no laws establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of. That may not be word for word, but I am pretty sure it is very close. In my opinion, there have been many laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, not the opposite.

Ex-FB,

I agree with most of what you said, except the conclusion. I do not agree with how many things have been handled. At the beginning of the Iraq war, I was against it, until I heard, or read, that the Iraqi people wanted our help. Plus, if you look at how we were originally responded to, we were very much liked. Polls done of the Iraqi people showed that 60% were glad we did what we did. Where we failed was in not delivering the things needed for the Iraqis to maintain a normal existence. Plus, I agree that our troops should not be storming into houses just because someone reported them. They should do what cops do and stake out the house for a few weeks or so to determine if the report is true. These two things, I think, are exactly why they are fighting against us. However, I don't believe in too late. I believe that anything can change. If we would provide security so that people could return to a normal life, give them water, garbage collection, and other necessities, and start being smarter in how we deal with them, actually, people in general, then we could turn this around.

In your first set of statements, my first paragraph would help to put people into group three. If we could show them that we are improving their lives, and the people fighting are making it worse, they might jump into group three. However, I don't agree that all the fighters are local dissidents. I think many, many, many of them are people coming over from Iran. It is my understanding that Iran is mostly Shiite, and the PM of Iraq is Shiite, and most of the violence is Shiite against Sunni. Our troops have been ordered by the Iraqi PM to do no operations against the Shiite militias, and only take down Sunni militias. The PM doesn't want us to leave because our troops have become his pawns doing his dirty work. That is supposed to change according to what that President's last speech. We will see.

As I said before, I don't agree with a lot of how things are handled. I think I could do a lot better, but I think for the rest of the world to say that they aren't going to help fight a common enemy just because of things we do things that, admittedly, aren't right, but are not nearly as bad as what our enemy is doing, is foolish. Iran just got done killing a 16 year old girl for nothing (they hung her in public), but no one says a word. We do something wrong and there is a severe backlash. I am not saying that America shouldn't do what is right, I am saying there is a huge double standard. It's like that saying (cleaned up) you get crap if you do, and you get crap if you don't.

[Ex-FB]

Overall I agree with pretty much your view of things. You are right, (IMHO) that we need to provide the Iraqi's with water power etc. But my dealings with Iraq at the start of the conflict very much centred on power distribution (gas turbine generators). The US bought loads of them, but they weren't for civilian power, without an exception (of the ones I know of) they all went to getting the oil pumping again. I can see how that would annoy the local poplace (who had/have no power still), who subsequently took to machine gunning the plants when they were installed. One of our colleuges only survived an attack by crawling inside the engine (his 3 co-workers were killed).

*On a side note, the original Bush quote was "Only countries that support us will get contracts to rebuild Iraq". Fair enough... but at what stage do you decide that company A is British, Canadian, French or American in this global market. Rolls-Royce for instance - what country does it belong to these days? But anyway, that was the original message.

So our mates in GE where busy putting in Gas Turbines, we (a 75% Canadian owned company, 25% US owned) were excluded, but we carried on with our business quite happily (thanks to GE being tied up). 6 Months later, GE decided that the risks outweighed the rewards and geared back their work. So, we get a bunch of US government guys on the phone pleading to buy our engines (and us to install them on site). We ask if this is legal given Bush's statement about only US allies getting the work, and the response was basically that "he was only joking when he said that" - I kid you not. Anyway, we weren't about to go into a warzone so it was :wave: to that.
Shaggy,

I don't remember a time in U.S. history when Christians marched thru the streets yelling, "Death to heathens!". Do you know of anyone that has been beheaded because they wouldn't convert to Christianity? To me, that is a crazy comparison. However, if Christians ever started doing this, I would join in the fight against them. Also, anyone that knows anything about Christianity would know that it is not proper for any Christian to murder another human being.
The IRA are supposedly a Catholic/Christian organisation. Beheading isn't their style, but they do go in for shooting out kneecaps, blowing up school children and that sort of thing. They're also big on setting fire to families where a Catholic has married outside their faith (with the parents and children still in the house).

What has this to do with the US? You will find that before 9/11, the majority of the funds for the IRA came from Boston. As regular readers here know, one of my gripes with the so-called war on terror, is that most Brits would take it a bit more seriously if Bush arrested all the guys who support terrorism in Boston. But hey, they're good white Christian voters, so we won't touch them.

As I said before, I don't agree with a lot of how things are handled. I think I could do a lot better, but I think for the rest of the world to say that they aren't going to help fight a common enemy just because of things we do things that, admittedly, aren't right, but are not nearly as bad as what our enemy is doing, is foolish. Iran just got done killing a 16 year old girl for nothing (they hung her in public), but no one says a word. We do something wrong and there is a severe backlash. I am not saying that America shouldn't do what is right, I am saying there is a huge double standard. It's like that saying (cleaned up) you get crap if you do, and you get crap if you don't.
Actually, as I stated in my post, I agree that it is a petty reason for the world not to help out. However, much as it embarrasses me, all governments seem to act like petulant children. Have you ever watched the British house of commons. They're worse than school children!

But, I think that Iran is a poor standard to judge yourself against. Do you really believe that this is the league (human rights wise) that the US is playing in? Well, we're better than Iran, Cuba and China for human rights. It's hardly something to brag about. Shouldn't you be striving to be at the top of the league table, not resting on your laurels because you are not bottom.

[SurfDemon]

Shaggy,

I don't remember a time in U.S. history when Christians marched thru the streets yelling, "Death to heathens!". Do you know of anyone that has been beheaded because they wouldn't convert to Christianity? To me, that is a crazy comparison. However, if Christians ever started doing this, I would join in the fight against them. Also, anyone that knows anything about Christianity would know that it is not proper for any Christian to murder another human being.
What about Pat Robertson, wasn't he calling for the assassination of the Venezuelan president? What was his reasons... oh yes, Communism and Muslim infiltration.....

It does start to appear a bit of a double standard....

[MasterBlaster]

Anyway, I enjoy posting here and reading everyones views. I have pretty much stated all I have wanted to say. I hope that these things don't polarize people on this forum. I certainly wouldn't want someone to not help me with something in another thread because we disagree about something in this thread. I won't be doing that.

This place was about as polar as canadian farm land way before you got here. :wave:

[MasterBlaster]

What about Pat Robertson, wasn't he calling for the assassination of the Venezuelan president? What was his reasons... oh yes, Communism and Muslim infiltration.....

It does start to appear a bit of a double standard....

Pat Robertson's opinion carries as much weight as Nicole Ritchie. Besides, Chavez is a jerkoff. Would any one really care if someone ran him over with a kangaroo wearing ice skates?

[Ex-FB]

This place was about as polar as canadian farm land way before you got here. :wave:
:lol:

Pat Robertson's opinion carries as much weight as Nicole Ritchie. Besides, Chavez is a jerkoff. Would any one really care if someone ran him over with a kangaroo wearing ice skates?
Funny, that's exactly how my grandad died... :ehh:

[MasterBlaster]

Funny, that's exactly how my grandad died... :ehh:

Riding an ice skate clad kangaroo over Chavez? :lol:

[Shaggy Hiker]

Shaggy,

I don't remember a time in U.S. history when Christians marched thru the streets yelling, "Death to heathens!". Do you know of anyone that has been beheaded because they wouldn't convert to Christianity? To me, that is a crazy comparison. However, if Christians ever started doing this, I would join in the fight against them. Also, anyone that knows anything about Christianity would know that it is not proper for any Christian to murder another human being. (just to avoid another totally off topic subject notice I said murder, and not kill). I am not saying that Christians haven't murdered for what they believe, I would just question their true beliefs.

Also, where is there a law that makes anyone recite Bible verses? It is my understanding that the opposite exists. That is, laws that prohibit reciting Bible verses and praying. The Constitution says that congress shall make no laws establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of. That may not be word for word, but I am pretty sure it is very close. In my opinion, there have been many laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, not the opposite.

What country do you live in? I live in Idaho. As long as you don't require the use of the word "heathen" in that quote, I think those marches have taken place in Idaho. We are still dealing with the aftermath of a bruising fight over a christian group wanting to put a memorial in our local park in support of the death of Mathew Shepherd (the gay teenager killed in Wyoming). Just to be clear, the memorial was in support of his murder.

Now I don't know any gays, so the issue is a remote one for me, but we had the speaches, the marches, the vigils. Did you hear about it? If not, why not? Why do we hear about every yahoo in Iran who is willing to spout off in front of a camera, but don't hear about our own homegrown variety. I assure you, they are VERY willing to appear before a camera. One in particular out here, has pursued them with great diligence.

We've had a few other related marches against other minorities over the years, though a recent lawsuit here in Idaho, where a bunch of the Aryan Nation guards assualted a woman and her young son when their car broke down in front of the AN compound. The CIVIL suit bankrupt the group. For decades, they held their marches, rallys, etc. Rest assured that they were not pro much of anything.

As for the vaunted separation, I live beside a high school. There is a church on school grounds. When the last two schools were built, the church was up before the school was finished. Where's the governement? Well, since the elected officials are elected by the majority, the government is attending the consecration of the next church on school grounds. If you live in a more diverse area than I do, your experience will probably be different. You don't need a law to force people to do things, you just have to make it decidedly uncomfortable for them to NOT do those things.

[MasterBlaster]

Shaggy,
I don't remember a time in U.S. history when Christians marched thru the streets yelling, "Death to heathens!". Do you know of anyone that has been beheaded because they wouldn't convert to Christianity? To me, that is a crazy comparison. However, if Christians ever started doing this, I would join in the fight against them. Also, anyone that knows anything about Christianity would know that it is not proper for any Christian to murder another human being. (just to avoid another totally off topic subject notice I said murder, and not kill). I am not saying that Christians haven't murdered for what they believe, I would just question their true beliefs.


As much as it pains me to agree with Shaggy, I believe the US government was guilty of the genocide of a race of "Heathens" who refused to worship "their" god and pay "their" taxes. I had one of the few survivors' decendants deal me a straight flush off the river two weeks ago.

[crptcblade]

As much as it pains me to agree with Shaggy, I believe the US government was guilty of the genocide of a race of "Heathens" who refused to worship "their" god and pay "their" taxes. I had one of the few survivors' decendants deal me a straight flush off the river two weeks ago.
Damn Irish. :mad:

[MasterBlaster]

Damn Irish. :mad:


I said he dealt me a straight flush, not pull a 4 and 5 of spades out of his sleve and take all my chips. ;)

[Shaggy Hiker]

Glad to give you pain MB. Love your posts, even when they're garbage.

[Saddam Hussain]

Does any one have a phone number or email address for a good chiropractor?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Why, didn't your spine straighten out enough?

[NotLKH]

..., I live beside a high school. There is a church on school grounds. When the last two schools were built, the church was up before the school was finished. Where's the governement? Well, since the elected officials are elected by the majority, the government is attending the consecration of the next church on school grounds.

Q1) So this school property will have 2 churches and 2 schools when all is said and done?

Q2) Is Church 2 replacing Church 1?
Q3) Did School 2 Replace School 1?

Did School & Church #1 suffer from a Natural Disaster?

{Couldn't have if Church1 was up before School1 & School2}

It seems to me that Churches are supposed to own the land that they build on. How do you know that the school owns the property?

Q4) Isn't schools the oddest word you've ever seen in your life?!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Oh, sorry, two different schools. There's the current one, and then there is the new one which has been built a few miles away. For the second school, I doubt the church is on school property, but I would be surprised if the location for the school was not partially dictated by the availability of land for the church. It's not exactly a secret that the two are hand in hand.

As for the first school/church combo, it is possible that the church sits on a chunk of its own property surrounded by the school. I was told by our office admin, who had kids in that school, that the church was either in the school or on school grounds, so I cruised around the place looking for it, and I'm pretty sure I have it located. The first building I thought it was was actually attached to the school. The one I believe it to be is not actually attached to the school, it just sits on the school bus loop for the school, and is surrounded on at least three sides by school property. On the fourth side, however, is a different structure, ownership uncertain.

As for question 4, I would have agreed, but I was really amazed at a word I saw just recently, unfortunately, I have since forgotten what it was. The reason it was unusual was that it had a really improbable run of consonants in it....and now you go and point out schools, so remembering that foolish word would have been good. If you were to try to pronounce schools the way it is spelled, it would certainly sound weird.

[MasterBlaster]

Oh, sorry, two different schools. There's the current one, and then there is the new one which has been built a few miles away. For the second school, I doubt the church is on school property, but I would be surprised if the location for the school was not partially dictated by the availability of land for the church. It's not exactly a secret that the two are hand in hand.

As for the first school/church combo, it is possible that the church sits on a chunk of its own property surrounded by the school. I was told by our office admin, who had kids in that school, that the church was either in the school or on school grounds, so I cruised around the place looking for it, and I'm pretty sure I have it located. The first building I thought it was was actually attached to the school. The one I believe it to be is not actually attached to the school, it just sits on the school bus loop for the school, and is surrounded on at least three sides by school property. On the fourth side, however, is a different structure, ownership uncertain.

As for question 4, I would have agreed, but I was really amazed at a word I saw just recently, unfortunately, I have since forgotten what it was. The reason it was unusual was that it had a really improbable run of consonants in it....and now you go and point out schools, so remembering that foolish word would have been good. If you were to try to pronounce schools the way it is spelled, it would certainly sound weird.

I am guessing it is not a public school then. If so what's the big deal. People are paying to go to that school on top of the taxes that are still due to the public school system.

You'd be amazed at the massive amounts of land owned by the church. I went to a highschool owned by a catholic dioces(SP?) They had around 250 acres surrounding the place, Including 3 chapels and one church. 20 acres of which were a drive in movie theater until the early 1980's. The church still owned it when it was a Drive In. they just rented it out. Another 15 -20 or so acres was part of a strip mall parking lot at one time. Again rented out. Of course no one really knows the church owns this property. It is not obvious as there are there is also a community of houses(rental I think) in addition to the other busisness on the place. At first glance one would think it was just a small neighborhood with a drive in and a strip mall. I only know because I got busted underage drinking on said property after school in the late 80's and it was on the police report that I was still on "school" grounds.

The catholic church owns a helluva lot of land in the US. Hence, my extremly PO'd rant in another thread about tax exempt organazations owing ridicuously sickening amounts of prime real estate and not paying property tax on it.

[Shaggy Hiker]

You'd guess wrong.

By the way, the church is Mormon, rather than catholic.

[MasterBlaster]

You'd guess wrong.

By the way, the church is Mormon, rather than catholic.

No difference, The morman curch and most other religous so called non-profits are vested in mass quantities of real estate as well. It must be a state thing, Most states own the land that public schools are built on. Maybe they can lease land in your state. Or it is possible they purchased a portion of the property from the Mormans and the money from the sale or lease was used to build a new "Tempel" on the remaining land. This way, the school district (most likley morman influenced) get a new school and the mormans get their mitts your tax money to build a new bullsheit factory. Tax money that they never contributed a red cent to BTW.

[rory]

Shaggy,

I don't remember a time in U.S. history when Christians marched thru the streets yelling, "Death to heathens!". Do you know of anyone that has been beheaded because they wouldn't convert to Christianity? To me, that is a crazy comparison. However, if Christians ever started doing this, I would join in the fight against them. Also, anyone that knows anything about Christianity would know that it is not proper for any Christian to murder another human being. (just to avoid another totally off topic subject notice I said murder, and not kill). I am not saying that Christians haven't murdered for what they believe, I would just question their true beliefs.

Also, where is there a law that makes anyone recite Bible verses? It is my understanding that the opposite exists. That is, laws that prohibit reciting Bible verses and praying. The Constitution says that congress shall make no laws establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of. That may not be word for word, but I am pretty sure it is very close. In my opinion, there have been many laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, not the opposite.

Ex-FB,

I agree with most of what you said, except the conclusion. I do not agree with how many things have been handled. At the beginning of the Iraq war, I was against it, until I heard, or read, that the Iraqi people wanted our help. Plus, if you look at how we were originally responded to, we were very much liked. Polls done of the Iraqi people showed that 60% were glad we did what we did. Where we failed was in not delivering the things needed for the Iraqis to maintain a normal existence. Plus, I agree that our troops should not be storming into houses just because someone reported them. They should do what cops do and stake out the house for a few weeks or so to determine if the report is true. These two things, I think, are exactly why they are fighting against us. However, I don't believe in too late. I believe that anything can change. If we would provide security so that people could return to a normal life, give them water, garbage collection, and other necessities, and start being smarter in how we deal with them, actually, people in general, then we could turn this around.

In your first set of statements, my first paragraph would help to put people into group three. If we could show them that we are improving their lives, and the people fighting are making it worse, they might jump into group three. However, I don't agree that all the fighters are local dissidents. I think many, many, many of them are people coming over from Iran. It is my understanding that Iran is mostly Shiite, and the PM of Iraq is Shiite, and most of the violence is Shiite against Sunni. Our troops have been ordered by the Iraqi PM to do no operations against the Shiite militias, and only take down Sunni militias. The PM doesn't want us to leave because our troops have become his pawns doing his dirty work. That is supposed to change according to what that President's last speech. We will see.

As I said before, I don't agree with a lot of how things are handled. I think I could do a lot better, but I think for the rest of the world to say that they aren't going to help fight a common enemy just because of things we do things that, admittedly, aren't right, but are not nearly as bad as what our enemy is doing, is foolish. Iran just got done killing a 16 year old girl for nothing (they hung her in public), but no one says a word. We do something wrong and there is a severe backlash. I am not saying that America shouldn't do what is right, I am saying there is a huge double standard. It's like that saying (cleaned up) you get crap if you do, and you get crap if you don't.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[Xanith]

Nobody is pitching a fit about you killing terrorists. Killing terrorists is fine. Just how many terrorists where in Iraq before you invaded? Zip. Nada. None.
This isn’t a true statement. Not only was Iraq a state sponsor of terrorism there were terrorists and terrorist training camps inside Iraq before the war. They were some of the first things that were hit when the invasion began.

Face facts, someone fighting an occupying army is not a terrorist - they're a patriot! But those words are too imotive so the US government uses the term "insurgent"......
Sorry but this is not the case in Iraq. It was the Iraqi people that voted their government into office. I wouldn’t call anyone working against an elected government a patriot. I think the term insurgent is appropriate.

Which brings up another irk of mine. Whenever anywhere is bombed in Iraq, it's "20 suspected terrorists were killed in the attack". Sorry, but that's not good enough. You can't just sweepingly state that they were terrorists and leave it at that. Whatever happened to good old fashioned soldiering.
Good old fashioned soldiering (or the old fashioned way) as you put would likely consist of bombing the entire area regardless of any civilians in the area. Today intelligence teams and special operations are used to pinpoint terrorist locations which are then relayed to fighters who drop a few hundred pounds of bombs on the target. To me that seems a lot better than simply leveling a town or area that has suspected terrorists.

I suppose in a perfect world only the bad guys would die but we hardly live in a perfect world. I think the US has done everything in their power to avoid civilian casualties, more so than any other conflict ever fought. But you have to realize that in some cases there will be innocent civilians that die, this has been the case in all wars. However you can’t stop fighting the enemy just because civilians might die, what you do is what the US is doing; take every step to minimize civilian deaths but still continue to fight the people who are trying to kill you.

Again, nobody has a problem with killing terrorists, the problem is in identifying the terrorists and then killing them. Luckily all of the 50,000 dead Iraqi men, women and children were all terrorists eh? That's a lot of blood, has it sated US peoples thirst for revenge after 9/11? Or is there more to come?
If the US simply wanted to kill Iraqis they would have dropped several small nukes on some cities or used bombers to carpet bomb civilian areas. It was never the objective of the US to just kill for the sake of killing; there was no “thirst for revenge” as you put it. Strategic bombing was always used (and still is being used) inside Iraq.

We made the enemy. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Hell, Britain and Saudi had way more to do with 9/11 than any other country.
Iraq was a problem that was long since overdue with being dealt with. 9/11 simply changed the mindset of a lot of people with regards to Iraq. Dealing with Iraq and their violation of the 1991 cease-fire and 17 UN resolutions got pushed to the front burner because of 9/11, it wasn’t because Iraq was involved in 9/11 it was because people became more aware of terrorist activities and how those terrorists could get their hands on some very bad weapons from states such as Iraq. But it’s not as simple as just that either, a lot of the Iraq situation and the Afghanistan situation has to do with Iran, the real threat in that region.

But I will leave you with this scenario, Poland was quite aggressive to it's neghbours prior to WWII (Lithuania in particular). Germany invades Poland, takes over and starts imprisoning and torturing the Poles... the Poles form a resistance movement..... Now, I personally do not think there is much a parallell between what is happening in Iraq and WWII, but if you insist on drawing comparisons then re-write the above statement as

Iraq was quite aggressive to it's neghbours. The USA invades Iraq, takes over and starts imprisoning and torturing the Iraqis... the Iraqis form a resistance movement.....

Now, I don't agree with it, but that is possibly how the rest of the world views the US actions...
Problem with this analogy;
1) Poland never invaded any of its neighbors
2) Iraq was in violation of a cease-fire and 17 UN resolutions and faced world-wide condemnation. Poland wasn’t in violation of any cease-fire and didn’t face world-wide condemnation but instead was invaded by Germany and Russia in a pre-war plan to divide that nation.
3) The Germans set up concentration camps in Poland and killed 90% of Jewish population (approx 2 million Jews). The US had a scandal with Abu Garab in which some soldiers were accused of making naked pyramids and putting woman’s panties on their heads. Which prison camp would you rather be in?
4) Iraq has a civilian elected government and US troops are there at their behest. Poland was divided between Germany and Russia and run by those nations and held by those armies.
5) Poland indeed had a resistance movement to free that country but Poland didn’t have a civilian elected government. Those acting against a duly elected civilian government cannot be called a resistance movement but rather insurgents and terrorists, just as we see in Iraq.

Most of the rest of the world believes what their media’s spoon feed them. A lot of foreign papers I have read are severely slanted anti-American, its no wonder a lot of people feel as you say.

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

Most of the rest of the world believes what their media’s spoon feed them. A lot of foreign papers I have read are severely slanted anti-American, its no wonder a lot of people feel as you say.

Why add the bit about "the rest of the world"? Are you any different? And if so, how? The only way you could be different from this statement is either:

A) You were personally involved in EVERY event you are talking about.
B) You make up everything you say, without regard to any information input.

I don't believe either case applies. You may object to being spoon-fed, but that's just a metaphor, and can't be taken literally. The ONLY information you have, unless you can honestly say yes to option A, is information you obtained from a media source. Of course, you might not consider some blog, this site, or talk radio to be a media source, but that's just splitting hairs.

Of course, there is interpretation. I look at everything you have posted, and the only reason I don't think you are making most of it up is because I am well aware that there are people out there who feel as you do. If we both listened to exactly the same set of reports, we would find them equally contradictory, and each of us would decide that a different set was biased and incorrect. We have a view, and will consider to be true those reports that support that view. We will also consider to be distorted and incorrect, those reports that contradict our view.

And then we'll both die, and another group of people will continue the argument, forever into the future. The fact that I believe you are wrong about the rationale for everything we have done in Iraq is interesting, but irrelevant. You look at what happened, and frame it in one way. I look at the same things, and frame it in a different way. History will be written to show that Iraq was a disaster....and history will be written to show that Iraq was a success.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Every piece builds on the perceptions of the pieces that came before, and all of the ramifications of any action cannot be predicted. However, having said that, I believe that one of the short term effects of the Iraq war will be a more isolationist America. The Afghan groups that drove out the soviets took years to do so. NATO will be driven out in no longer time at this rate, since attacks are increasing steadily. Iraq will be the same way because we can't seem to define an endpoint. We are already tiring of a war where nobody can even tell us what victory would look like, or what benefit we would reap from it. Future politicians (and this country will be lead by politicians) will look at these two wars, and be ever more hesitant about using the military to squash bugs. We can win stand up battles, but no country that I am aware of has successfully conquered a country for decades, so long as the citizens of that country were willing to fight back in unorthodox ways. For examples, look at Germany in France, Holland, and Russia, as well as the US in Vietnam, USSR in Afghanistan, Russia in Chechnya.

On the other hand, look at Ethiopia in Somalia. They didn't like the existing government, and such a military power as Ethiopia, charged into Somalia, knocked out the governement, and ran out. They got the solution they wanted. The vacuum that was created was filled by something, which they didn't pay for. If the replacement wasn't what they wanted, they could come back.

Iraq is showing countries how to beat the US. Since we try to fix what we break, let us break it. As long as you can keep fighting, not only will we eventually leave once we are convinced that we can't gain anything by remaining (Nixon in Vietnam), but we will be so stung that it could be decades before we will be willing to even try again. GHWB struck fast at Iraq, and left. We could control Saddam after that, he was toothless, as we have proven. GWB lingered in Iraq, and America will be the one that ends up toothless. Some victory.

[zaza]

Reminded of this whilst reading the news today.

With regards the loans from the US for the war effort. In fairness I am 100% behind the US on this one. The interest they charged was low, and let's face it Britain needed the raw materials and equipment. At the time it made the difference between life and death for Britain, so it would be somewhat churlish to welch on the deal once the battle is done. It is one thing for the US to write off debts to African nations who have no hope of repaying the interest alone, but let's face it, Britain could (and has) afford to repay the loan. It was difficult to repay sure, but by no means impossible.

At the time, it was life or death, and it was/is still greatly appreciated.



Perhaps so, but they also got a whole lot more (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6331897.stm). Some might say that this was far and away more valuable than the money; technological leaps forward are what keeps you in the driving seat.

So what did the US actually get out of joining WWII? A load of cash, brought completely up to date on the latest military engineering and they avoided having Europe taken over by a hostile megalomaniac, which would have been bad for peace and bad for business.
Don't get me wrong; I'm glad the US pitched in to help get rid of Adolf, but I think they bargained pretty hard for it too.

[nemaroller]

On the other hand, look at Ethiopia in Somalia. They didn't like the existing government, and such a military power as Ethiopia, charged into Somalia, knocked out the governement, and ran out. They got the solution they wanted. ... If the replacement wasn't what they wanted, they could come back.


The US did mostly that for the first gulf war. Many people said we should have knocked out Saddam back then - and I believe the result in Iraq today would have been the same result we would have had in 1992 if we had toppled Saddam.

It certainly is easier to execute and declare victory on an attack-and-wait approach. You wait for them to build up a semi-credible threat - and then annihilate their military - then leave.