Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Red Hook, NY (small town approx. 100mi from NYC)
Originally Posted by Leonie
Liam is Australian.
When D-Day came around, we needed all the help we could get. The US didn't win the war for us. The allied forces did. Canadians, Americans, Aussies and Britons alike. Russia pitched in too.
I don't think anyone believes or even hopes that the US will handle things for them. You have not shown yourself to be very capable in recent history. As far as it not being our problem - Iraq? Wasn't our problem, or yours. If we are going to overthrow brutal governments, why not start with Zimbabwe? At least a lot of the people there are of Anglo-Saxon heritage. But Zimbabwe does not have huge oil supplies, and that is why the US took no interest. You took no interest in the weapons of mass destruction either. They were pointed out to your leaders, and they brushed it aside. The war in Iraq did not start from the kindness of Bush's heart.
In short, I don't think there is an ounce of embarrassment in not thinking Iraq was our business. Dutch troups are in Afghanistan. Sadly they are also in Iraq. If I remember correctly, your president asked us to help.
Don't pretend you've won the war, or are winning this one, because as far as I can see, it's clear you can't do it on your own.
Originally Posted by AureaMediocritas
Thanks for that post, Leonie. I´m with you 100%.
In addition - sorry for going off topic - always keep in mind the precarious difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". As someone interested in history, the massive use of the word "terrorist" by western governments and media painfully remind me of my good old Nazi friends : WW II being won by the Allies, we are now able to speak of Résistance or Partizans as of heroic defenders of national freedom, while Nazi propaganda presented them as "terrorists".
The same goes for insurgents in Iraq. If I imagine that some islamic superpower would occupy my country, impose strange values incompatible with mine, install a puppet regime, install an entirely artificial form of state, steal my national resources, terrorize the civilians by frequent house searches, favour foreign companies... in short dominate me, I would choose to fight it. No question. As I am no traitor to my country.
Especially if the invasion is based on lies, on causes that are hypocrite to the extreme, causes developed from the 11 September "new Pearl Harbour" to make the American citizen feel "threatened", and all that despite the fact that the perpetrators come from different countries, that my dictator had no direct link to these actions...
I am not a fervent supporter of cowardly bomb attacks on civilians, yet I support, in substance, the action of every Iraqi classified as an "insurgent", since I would do exactly the same thing. Against a country that is to be ruled by two parties only... parties not so different in essence... a system not far away from the totalitarian one party system.
This sounds like a defense for the islamist fascism of organizations like our much-feared Al-Qaida, but it isn´t meant as such. All I know is that the unrighteous U.S. intervention in Iraq has pissed off a good deal of moderate and more or less rational islamic tendencies. It has becaome one big counterproductive mess.
Originally Posted by DragonRat
Catch-22. It's a good book. I think Bush should have read it before he decided to go to Iraq. (Really, the United States--of which I am a citizen--can really go nowhere in Iraq. If we leave, then the fledgling (?) government (?) will have the hardest time of all trying to protect itself from the demands of theocracy and warlordship, as well as anarchy and unrest, not to mention the possibility of military juntas.
(And if the U.S. decides to stay, then we're just going to have to commit more lives to the conflict. And so is Iraq. And so is every Arab nation in support of Iraq.
(It's really a big mess over there in the Middle East, because we're acting like the peacemakers, when really the Arabs don't want our kind of peace. Really, they want to be left alone to do their own thing; after which, it may or may not be possible to negotiate with them later. I really don't know why we still keep troops there: if we remove all the troops, we may get a little hit upon our pride, but still, pride over blood? Oil over blood? Be reasonable. Hey, we the U.S. have to know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.
(And to top things off, we're still the major supporter of Israel in the Middle East--the only non-Muslim nation in the entire Middle East. And because both Israel and the U.S. are symbols of Western influence upon a region that despises Western influence, yet requires Western influence in most of its dealings, the use of force in integrating democracy into a region that demands theocracy--or at least a combination of both--seems rather ludicrous to me. You would think that it would be slightly more profitable to deal with Arab nations after they have solidified a government that may not be democratic, but still supports Western interests [like Saudi Arabia]. I always thought people should have the right to political determination, not having political determination forced down their throat. There's a difference between giving people democracy, and force-feeding them democracy.)
Did i say that the US was the only country in WWII. but D-Day was an american plan, and the bulk of the casualties in the operation were Americans.
The invasion of iraq was never a humanitarian thing. All reputable intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMDs, and there was a risk he was cooperating with Al qaeda. It is a mess, but it can be won. if only politicians would stop playing politics and do what must be done.
We have troops in Iraq. We can not give up. AureaMediocritas, what you r saying, is that Al Qaeda is a benevolent, moral organization. People who kill 3,000 inocent americans are terrorists. These insurgents are al qaeda, the same as those on 9/11. They are TERRORISTS, not freedom fighters. to call them as such, you are saying you hate America. And, as i will say till I die, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was justified based on the intelligence available at the time.
9/11 WAS a second Pearl Hearbor. 19 Muslim extremists hijacked 4 aircraft filled with innocent men, women, and childred. 2 planes were flown into the World Trade Center. The buildings, filled with workers, later collapsed, killing all inside, some on the ground. 1 into the Pentagon. 1 crashed in a field, but was likely heading to the White House. This attack was unprovoked, no warning was given. There was no overt act by us that would justify this act. It was pure mass murder of innocent American Citizens. In one day, more than 3,000 died. These people did nothing wrong.
We can not give up. We can not pull out. To do so is to surrender. If we surrender, we will have another 9/11. We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here.
I believe that whatever doesn't kill you simply...makes you...stranger.
47th Member of the Keira Knightley Posse