War With Iraq

[Chuck]

In case anyone hasn't heard, American troops opened fire at an Anti-American demonstration. The demonstrators were asking the American troops to leave a school that they were using as a command centre so that the people could use it again. Although some sources say that they were Saddam supporters. Thirteen protestors were killed.

American Sources say that they were shot at first.

I think this is going to be one hell of an argument once the dust settles.

[Andy Bayley]

[/b]
[s]Tom Plant wrote on 17:55, 28th Apr 2003:
My "broad generalisation" about the Shiite Iraqis is based partly on their current anti-American demonstrations, which one might consider strange from a people we have just liberated. Strange it is, as they have just engaged in open religious worship and pilgrimage for the first time in years, but that just goes to show exactly how deep their anti-US feeling runs. This in mind, I ask again; how likely are we to give them (who are 60% of the population) the democratic mandate that Saddam denied them?

Reports are just coming out in Iranian involvement Iraq. A moderate cleric who was killed in Basra a few weeks back was suspected to be done by Iranian agents. There are some smart people organizing these rallies and the media is playing right into it. You don't think all the people carrying signs printed in English know what they are saying do you? I agree there is a portion of the country that wants an Islamic Theocracy but I think its the minorities. Islamic sects are no different than Christian sects. All catholics don't vote the same way. It could be true that 60 percent of the shiites want a theocracy but I doubt it. Don't think that 3000 people protesting means 17 million people think the same way they do.

It worries me enough that a born-again Christian is the head of America. A Christian invoking the power of god to his country, as Bush frequently does, is just as disturbing as a Muslim. I think you overrate America's liberty and tolerance. Remember that the preacher Bush chose to deliver his inaugural sermon decried Islam as a religion of evil. In fact, not just a Mormon, but even a black or female president is still nothing more than a pipedream in America. This isn't anti-American, before you start trying to use that as a defence - it's simple fact.

You are showing intolerance to christians. Bush said no such thing about islam in fact he can be quoted over and over again as a religion of "peace". As far as the woman president thing it's just the perception of the masses, right wrong people don't see women as strong as men. AS far as blacks they are often held back by the democratic party. Al Sharpton ( a democratic canidate for president) is finding out just how much the democratic party is holding him back from running for office. The system isn't perfect but its far greater than china or Iran.

You still haven't answered how persuading Turkey to oppose the will of its parliament can be considered democratic.

In any foriegn policy decision there are pros and cons. We tried to make the pros much more than they were originally. And we didn't try to get turkey to oppose the will of the parliment but to get the parliment to oppose the will of its people. I stand by that sometimes the uneducated public isn't the end all be all in legislation. Look at your country before the war Tony Blair approval ratings were in the thirties now last I saw they were in the high 50s. People are fickle and change there opinion regularly, you can't base policy on the will of the people but what is right for the people. If at the next ellection you chose wrong for your people they will let you know.

As far as America is concerned, the government did act in the will of its people. But Britain did not. It did not even act according to the will of its politicians at first, just of its Prime Minister. The fact that this can happen is, of course, our problem, but a considerable one. That America should ally with a country so blatantly ignoring its own people, however, is America's problem.

I just kinda answered this. If it was a huge problem the labor party could have kicked blair out of Office.

It's strange that a country which relied so heavily on France for its independence should develop such animosity towards it over one issue, but there you go. What I will say, is that the level of derogatory comments levelled at the French have been nothing short of racist in America, with one politician even dismissing another in argument by saying he had a 'French look' about him. Just try replacing the word 'French' with 'Jewish' or 'hispanic,' and I think you'll see what I mean. Nor is this an isolated example; you have no doubt read several more in the press. Even the Japanese press, conservative and staunchly pro-America, has printed international articles to this effect.

Saying the french helped us out in revolutionary war and therefor we should love them forever is the same as saying the brits opressed us in the revolutionary war so we should hate them forever. There is a lot of french bashing in the american press but also vice versa in the french press. Much like you said you can be against the people who live in Israel and not be against jews. I can be against the people who live in France and not be against all people who came from France. There is a long kind of love hate relationship with the french because first of all we feel they owe us something for liberating there country, you can bring up the revolutionary war but 50 years and 200 years are different things. SO when french tries to rival America it does cause some resentment, like trying to appease the soviet union, not allowing the US to use it's airspace in bombing libya, ect ect.

By the way, most of the Jews who disapprove of Israel's action are American. In fact, almost half your population doesn't approve of the war, too, polls suggest. Are the Americans who disagree with the President now anti-American, too? Does democracy now demand mindless obedience to the elected? You haven't yet even acknowledged your fellow countrymen who are against expansion in the middle east.

First of all the dates of your poll is importan. For a while 40 percent approved and 30 percent disaproved but right before the war it went to like 80 and 9. People disagreeing with the president are not anti-american necisarely. But there are some protesters who have an anti-american agenda. For example the PEACE coalition who sponsers most of the protests in America is a front for the communist group ANSWER. Anti-American is my word of choice but a more appropriate one could be the Blame America First crowd, the people who no matter what blame america as a colonial, imperialistic power. Understand though when I say anti-american I mean people with goals other than the best interest of the country.

It is decidedly not a thin line between Israel remaining within its legal borders and ceasing to exist. In fact, it's a very big line. Yes, Israel should exist, but no, it shouldn't break international law and just use force of arms to get more land. That does not seem like a particularly fine lin to me. What do you mean?

Out of curiousity how did they break international law where those lands were taken as part of a peace treaty caused by the invasion of Israel in 1967? But the thin line is because some people may just not want israel to be there because they feel they are wrong, but the very large majority just hate the Jews. Why wasnt there a free palistine movement before Israel had the lands?

I agree that there is no place for broad anti-American sentiment, just as there is no place for anti-French sentiment. In fact, all broad 'anti' sentiments border on fanaticism. But there is certainly a place for resisting the Americanisation of the whole world.

We as americans and Europeans should have common goals being that we are all lucky enough to grow in free countries to encourage other countries to be free. When one country has a goal in the opposite of the encouraging freedom around the world the other countries should take a stance against them. I wouldn't beat up a french person or even be rude to them, but if I have a choice between Evian water and Liberty Springs I'm going to pick the water that's country represents the same values as mine.

You seem to be saying that we went to war in Iraq as part of a war on Islamic fundamentalism. Saddam could not have been further from Islamic fundamentalism; he hated it, and butchered its followers. Bin Laden declared him an infidel. He is certainly no martyr to Islam. The pretext for the war was, if you remember, nothing to do with liberating Iraqis at all, but that they held weapons of mass destruction. But instead of acknowledging that there weren't any (surely they would have used them if there were), the US and Britain have almost imperceptibly altered the mission - while it was taking place. If this does not stink to you of deception, then you must be wearing very strong aftershave.

Saddam was not a fundamentalist true, but your great paper the telegraph that I do like to read pointed out there is a link between Bin Laden and Saddam. Rather or not Saddam was a fundamentalist doesn't matter Iraq was the easiest case to make a war for. The goal was getting a large arab country to convert to democracy and be a beacan to the other arab countries. Iraq was the best canidate because of how bad a person saddam was. I am sure they will find weapons of mass destruction, I highly doubt that Bush and Blair would risk all of thier credibility if they weren't sure they had them. Finding them won't be easy but they are there. The reason the pretext of war was WMDs is because we can't come out and say we are going to war against fundamental islam and liberating a country doesn't quite past the mothers test in America. It's not a lie liberating Iraq is for our long term safety it just can't be said diplomatically.

Saddam was not Hitlerlike. Saddam did not butcher millions (thousands, maybe) of people, and did not successfully expand his territory. Whenever there's someone we don't like, he's always 'the worst thing since Hitler.' We said the same of Bin Laden, Gaddaffi and Milosevic. Before Hitler, everyone was compared with Napoleon. This ludicrous monsterisation holds no water; none of them were anywhere near as bad as Hitler, and to suggest so belittles the true horror of that man and the lives of those who died fighting him.

Hitler Lite would be more of a fair assessment. First of all saddam is blaimed for the deaths of 1.5 to two million muslims. I compare saddam to Hitler if he was stopped at Austria and let to stay in power. I would say the plight of the Iraqis was not a whole lot different the plight of the Germans as a whole. And any country that partakes in ethnic cleansings( dont bring up the indians) does remind people of hitler. out of curiousity does it bother you when people compare bush to hitler?


For the record, Saddam was not 'hell-bent on destroying us,' and you know well that he couldn't have even if he had wanted to. We were certainly hell-bent on destroying him, but it wasn't mutual until we started. In fact, he was complying for the first time in years, albeit slowly. What we did was fooled him; we persuaded him to drop his weapons, then attacked him as soon as we knew it was safe to do so. As a result of this, the really dangerous countries - like North Korea - will never trust us, and I cannot morally support what we did. Can you?

Without a doubt I can support this Saddam was truly evil. I don't feel saddam was ever a major threat to us himself. I feel he was a threat to humanity. If we killed 1000 inocent people to prevent him from killing another million then it is definately worth it. Same with North Korea, I don't want peace there I want a country that spends billions on weapons while millions starve to death(dont bring up health care in america)I will risk my life for a cause as just as that I wish I would have been in on the Iraq war and sacrificing my life so millions could live is well worth it.

I want you to know something. Because of my arguments, you've made certain suppositions about me, some of which are correct. I am a liberal, but not in the bearded Trotskyite way you seem to dismiss us all as. I am a patriotic Briton, and a former army reservist of five years' experience, but that does not mean that I have to agree with everything my country does. People I know are currently serving in the occupation of Iraq, and trust me, I don't think its worth the risk of their lives. It will take a lot for you to persuade me otherwise, but good luck.


I don't think I called you unpatriotic to your country if I did it is because I probably lumped you in with others such as AL and the Kensson guy who I guess doesn't want to argue with me anymore. That is the problem with liberals they don't disassociate themselves with the radicals. Conservatives make it very clear they want nothing to do with true biggots and racists.

[Miss Maryland]

i don't understand why you are wasting your breath (or typing fingers) here trying to convince these people that war is a good thing. there are more important and productive things to do than to try and convince the sinners that they are wrong!

[Al]

Ignoring the obvious tautology in your latest post, if being unpatriotic means not accepting my country doing something wrong then I am unpatriotic; if being unpatriotic means not turning a blind eye to my country's errors then I am unpatriotic; if being unpatriotic means abandoning the specious notion of "my country right or wrong" then I am unpatriotic. However, I am not unpatriotic. I want the best for my country (which, by the way, is Scotland not Britain) and that means not involving it in wars that serve no function but to fan the ego of certain American "Presidents".

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Emma]

Bush has indeed never made a comment calling Islam evil. If you had read Tom's sentence, you would see that he had said (correctly) that Franklin Graham, Bush's minister/evangelist of choice, in fact made that comment and has repeatedly refused to retract it.

That said, I really don't see the point of arguing with Andy_Bayley. He's ignorant, he's arrogant, he's semi-literate and he's never, ever going to be convinced that the Bush government is anything but right. Best left well alone.

[Gods Gift to wrong people]

First of all no I'm not ignorant I'm well read and keep informed on what's going on in the world.

If knowing I'm right makes me aragont then I suspose I am.

Now your only pointof interest was you mentioned Franklin Graham I didn't see him mentioned in Tom Plants post none the less, Franklin Graham is a very good person. He dedicates most of his life to helping starving people of Africa. He does harbor resentment against islam because they keep blowing up his christian hospitals in Northeast Africa. That being said Islam is not necisarely evil but fundamentalist Islam is a tool of evil.

Al, I never said rather or not your a patriot, I don't care (although it interesting that your not loyal to britain, it's like me saying I'm only loyal to Illinois) I do consider you antiAmerican with some of your obsurd statements.

The person who said I could find something better to do,your probably right I post here among other places at work for two reasons, one I like to hear my talk(or type in this instance), two I like to have my points of views challenged

[Al]

You claim to be well-read but you are obviously not capable of reading very well. Certainly, if your spelling is anything to go by, you must never have ventured anywhere near a dictionary. Aragont? Suspose? Obsurd? And you seem incapable of avoiding making yourself look a (bigger) idiot.

"Now your only pointof interest was you mentioned Franklin Graham I didn't see him mentioned in Tom Plants post"

In fact, he was mentioned. Tom wrote "Remember that the preacher Bush chose to deliver his inaugural sermon decried Islam as a religion of evil..."

"Al, I never said rather[sic] or not your a patriot"

No? Then who wrote "I don't think I called you unpatriotic to your country if I did it is because I probably lumped you in with others such as AL"?

"...I don't care (although it interesting that your not loyal to britain, it's like me saying I'm only loyal to Illinois)"

Is Illinois a country? No, it is not. Has it ever been a country? No, it has not. Therefore there is no possible comparison between the two. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing. I am not remotely surprised that, if anyone would be so stupid, it would be you.

"I do consider you antiAmerican with some of your obsurd[sic] statements"

What do you mean by this? Anti-American policy? I freely admit it. Anti-America or Anti-American people? 'Fraid not.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[flarewearer]

[s]Unregisted User Gods Gift to wrong people wrote on 04:24, 2nd May 2003:
That being said Islam is not necisarely evil but fundamentalist Islam is a tool of evil.


of course Islam isnt evil, neither is fundamental islam or christianity, its the tools that use religion to justify their causes that are evil, and that goes for all religions.

[hr]
* 9 out of 10 cannibals agree;
"vegetarians taste BETTER"

[Dee]

[s]Al wrote on 12:26, 2nd May 2003:

Anti-American policy? I freely admit it. Anti-America or Anti-American people? 'Fraid not.



Whilst I'll concede this is a valid position, I find it hard to accept in view of some of your previous remarks. I particularly treasure the one about the US being a "swamp full of morally retarded degenerates".

Perhaps you regret this remark and would care to withdraw it?

[Al]

I actually wrote "It is a swamp full of morally retarded degenerates. I think you refer to the worst of them as the 'government'". I was referring to politicians and NOT the American people. Although I will concede that I did not make that sufficiently clear.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Guest]

Nice job Emma and Al,

Nothing brings your point across better then when you resort to name-calling. Now are we suppose go back and fourth about whose father can beat up whom?

Contrary to what you may think the world is far from a perfect place. We come to many crossroads and at some points tough decisions have to be made. As much as you'd like to criticize Bush and Blaire. They are both extremely educated individuals and are smart enough to surround themselves with the same high caliber people. Many times they are privy too much more information than you and I are. Its our right to question their actions, but don’t be blindsided by what picture the media portrays, because they rarely paint a impartial one.

[I can't argue so I'll just insult people]

[s]Al wrote on 12:26, 2nd May 2003:
You claim to be well-read but you are obviously not capable of reading very well. Certainly, if your spelling is anything to go by, you must never have ventured anywhere near a dictionary. Aragont? Suspose? Obsurd? And you seem incapable of avoiding making yourself look a (bigger) idiot.

I don't spell good I have no need anything I write I use spell check. It doesn't mean I don't read a lot because I do.

Is Illinois a country? No, it is not. Has it ever been a country? No, it has not. Therefore there is no possible comparison between the two. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing. I am not remotely surprised that, if anyone would be so stupid, it would be you.

Is scotland a soveriegn country now? No was it a country ever while you were alive? No. It's silly to say your a patriot to Scottland but not to Britain.

Seeing as how all you can do now is insult me it shows you have nothing that you can prove me wrong on.


What do you mean by this? Anti-American policy? I freely admit it. Anti-America or Anti-American people? 'Fraid not.

The American people support our foriegn policy. 80 percent in fact, you can't differientiate between the two.

[Al]

My God! It's like shooting fish in a barrel, but here goes:

"I don't spell good I have no need anything I write I use spell check. It doesn't mean I don't read a lot because I do"

You don't spell good? You don't write good either.

"Is scotland a soveriegn country now? No was it a country ever while you were alive? No. It's silly to say your a patriot to Scottland but not to Britain."

Erm, yes Scotland is a country, and has been for centuries. Britain is a geographical identity. It is not a nation or a country. At best it is a political construct.

"Seeing as how all you can do now is insult me it shows you have nothing that you can prove me wrong on."

It was you that started the insults.

"The American people support our foriegn policy. 80 percent in fact, you can't differientiate between the two"

This makes your usual amount of sense.

[hr]"Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you'll know. It's the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world."

[Miss Maryland]

[s]Unregisted User I can't argue so I'll just insult people wrote on 17:43, 2nd May 2003:[i


It's silly to say your a patriot to Scottland but not to Britain. [/i]

Ahem. I am a bigger supporter of my state, Maryland (suprising?), than I am of my country. When I go to St. Andrews, what flags do you think will be hanging on the wall of my dorm room? The US flag? No way. I will have the Maryland flag and the Talbot County flag on display.

Scottland? You mean the borders? I always wanted to go see Abbotsford. Har har.

[Dee]

[s]Al wrote on 20:21, 2nd May 2003:
I actually wrote "It is a swamp full of morally retarded degenerates. I think you refer to the worst of them as the 'government'". I was referring to politicians and NOT the American people. Although I will concede that I did not make that sufficiently clear.

Unclear for sure, but if that's all you meant by it then no worries.

[hr]
"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you."
- Jean-Paul Sartre

[Elizaliz_the_Objectivist]

My name Elizabeth, and despite my handicap of being a colonist, I hope in the future you find me well-informed and courteous. I just wanted to introduce myself before I began posting here- I'm an Objectivist libertarian, a redhead, and I think this site looks extremely interesting (especially arguments between Al and the ignorant poor speller.)

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I thought this thread was dead... There are far wothier threads to return from the depths - mostly the ones pertaining to fulsome funbags.

[Buzzboy]

Yes, and while it's alive I'll stoke the flames a bit.

This is the country I live in, commonly referred to as 'Britain' for the sake of brevity.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or Britain as I shall refer to it from now on. Is a recognised nation under the United Nations - hence it is a country!!!!

It is composed of member states (4 now of differing levels of autonomy - England being the largest, but without a seperate representative body, Scotland (having its own parliament), Wales (having an assembly (less powerful than a parliament) and Northern Ireland (sometimes having an assembly if the Loyalists and Republicans are behaving themselves).

At their most powerful (in Scotland) the autonomous powers stem from a time before the representative states where united into one country. Scottish law and education are distinctly different from that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, when compared with the United States of America the powers of each individual state in Britain are no more marked than each state in the US.

For instance Foreign Policy and Defence are totally centralised in the British Parliament, Westminster, London. New Legislation from this parliament is imposed throughout Britain. Britain has one head of state (the queen) and one political leader with total executive power (the Prime Minister, currently Tony Blair MP). However the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies have their own first minister, however their job is to lead their respective houses and to act, in a very limited sense, in a diplomatic capacity these leaders do not possess executive powers anywhere near those of the British Prime Minister.

Obviously some people in Scotland have a problem with this. To them I say - live with it, your rulers signed a piece of paper that made it so. You've only got yourselves to blame.

[LeopardSkinQueen]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 11:12, 4th Jun 2003:
mostly the ones pertaining to fulsome funbags.


There hasn't been one of them in ages, wierdly.

Very disconcerting.

[Plette]

[s]Unregisted User Elizaliz_the_Objectivist wrote on 19:24, 3rd Jun 2003:
I'm an Objectivist libertarian


Another Ayn Rand disciple? Ack! In my humble opinion, she's right up there with Stalin as one of the worst people Russia ever produced.

But this place is all about being free to disagree with each other, so...welcome to the board.