You're right, invading the UK was a real tipping point.
Can we really blame most of the insurgents in IRAQ?
- Thread starter Xanikk999
- Start date
scipian
Czar
And on the issue of whether Americans are "better" than all those peoples who engage in cowardly and pointless fighting.
America has a long history of freedom, democracy, moderation, and fairly democratic process of governance. We have long since reconciled organized violence between religions, races, cultures, sects, and more. America has advanced past this barbaric attitude. Other groups, nations have not. I realize that it is not their fault that their politics and world view was messed up originally. However, ignorance does not excuse responsibility and they are still quite guilty.
America has a long history of freedom, democracy, moderation, and fairly democratic process of governance. We have long since reconciled organized violence between religions, races, cultures, sects, and more. America has advanced past this barbaric attitude. Other groups, nations have not. I realize that it is not their fault that their politics and world view was messed up originally. However, ignorance does not excuse responsibility and they are still quite guilty.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
If somebody invaded the United States, they'd be deposing a democratically-elected government. In Iraq, we desposed a military dictatorship. There is a big difference between the two.
RedWolf
Deity
This would actually matter if Iraqi's had ASKED you to topple their government thus unleashing anarchy on their society.
Since they didn't - your troops are an army of occupation and the new government nothing but a puppet.
Redwolf, your position makes me ask "Who could have asked, and how would they have asked, for it to be legitimate?"
RedWolf
Deity
Oviously nobody - and thats why you can't go around invading people "for their own good".
And you defintely can't get pissed off when you do so... and they fight back.
Well then, I don't think it's a legitimate criticism to Sharpe's comment. If you don't think that anybody can legitimately request that someone topple a dictator (who has deliberately arranged society so that only force can depose him), then the absence of askers will occur whether it's wanted or not.
RedWolf
Deity
Ok - then nullify his original point based on the same logic as he was trying to claim that "their resistance isn't warranted because we freed them from a dictatorship".
My point stands though - the existence of a democratically elected government (or lack thereof) is irrelevant if you're "invading someone for their own good" without actually knowing what they themselves want. I would think that an occupying army should expected to be attacked regardless of the government type originally in place.
skadistic
Caomhanach
A democraticly elected government by the Iraqis in free and fair elections is a puppet of only the Iraqis. They could ask at any point for the coalition to leave but chose not to.
Dont want the facts to get in the way.
RedWolf
Deity
I know you're into blaming the Iraqis for the situation your government put them in so there really isn't much I can say to counter it. We could argue about it in circles for days.
If your military was to leave tomorrow do you have any doubt the Iraqi government would collapse? You're propping it up - thats a puppet.
Oh, you're very right, his point was not really all that contributory; it was meant to villainise people, regardless of their motives.
Absolutely. If nothing else, locals cannot be expected to have complete information, but they can be confident that their lands are being occupied. Iraq is a mess, because there are so many different types of radical violence going on that we can't distinguish idiocy from ignorance from evil.
However, if a tyrant sets himself up so that he can only be toppled by force, then it's not necessarily immoral to topple him. It's the condition he arranged for himself; he tried to make a world where "might makes right" - even though it never does.
Skadistic: remember that a vast majority of Iraqi people want peace. Don't blame even a minority for the problems when it's a tiny minority that's the issue.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Im into blaming the evil vile idiots who chose to kill each other. You are right you can't counter that because you know the Iraqis are to blame for the actions they chose. Next thing you'll try to tell me the man who shots his wife can blame his doctor. Its called personal responsiblity. The Iraqis have a choice and they took the path of murder. You can try all you want to blame some one other then the actual people killing but you be a fool to do so.
Ensuring the furthering working of a fledgling democraticly elected government is not a puppet. A puppet implies that the US controls the workings of the government but they don't the Iraqis do. Again they can ask us to leave at any time. but they don't.
Ensuring the furthering working of a fledgling democraticly elected government is not a puppet. A puppet implies that the US controls the workings of the government but they don't the Iraqis do. Again they can ask us to leave at any time. but they don't.
RedWolf
Deity
Well thats likely about as close as I'm going to get to a win for tonight so maybe I'll call it a day.
RedWolf
Deity
I'm willing to admit that there is enough blame to go around in Iraq. If you're not willing to place at least some of that blame on your government's actions (particularly when the results were entirely predictable) then your stance lacks complete credibility.
Call me a fool if you want - your country has spent 400 billion dollars and over 3000 lives on an unwinable war that most people told you was unwinable. Who's the fool?
thenooblet22
King
Sad... I would normally tell people to use a search engine for these things, but as it turns out, the last thread about this was created by you and even then there was already a similar thread
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205304
skadistic
Caomhanach
The fool is the man who sits and whines in a nation to selfish to risk its treasures and people to free a nation on the other side of the world from an insane mudreous despotic tyrant who filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of people, a man who had prisons for children of political prisoners, a man whos sons raped little girls for fun and killed for sport, a man who tortured, a man who gased his own citizens. A fool indeed to cry foul about a nation on the side of freedom to sooth his eggo but forgets the evils that no longer run unabashed.
The war was won in an astoundind display of military power. The aftermath could have been avoided or lessened if only the selfish nations who would rather point and complain instead of helping had the balls to back up their holy then thee high horse rhetoric. But actions are hard and talk is cheap.
RedWolf
Deity
This craptastic post is exactly why I wish your nation, it's politicians and it's military only the worst in Iraq. I'm not sure why you're so angry at me - you wanted this war - you got it. Deal with it - we're better off without it.
By the way - you're welcome for the help we've delivered in Afghanistan (and the Canadian lives we've thrown away). I don't support that one either - but it's irrelevant since people like you don't appreciate it anyways.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
If they wanted to, the Iraqis could hold a plebiscite on U.S./Coalition military advisors in the country and vote to remove them from the country. The representative government, however, does not believe that abandoning their strongest ally is a good idea in the long-run. Not for Iraq, not for the government, not for anybody except the terrorists.
Who needs enemies when your "strongest ally" can't even handle a few 3rd world dead enders for you?
boarder
King
No, they are only there becuase of what the US has done.
Saddam hated terrorists there where none there before the US invaded and now it is a breeeding ground for them. So basically the war has accomplished exactly the opposite of what is was supposed to do.
If only you had just stuck with Afghanistan and made sure that you rebuild that country properly youd prob have Osama by now,no more Taliban, no more Alqueda (even if it is more a ideology now that a actual specific group) thousands less would be dead on all sides and you would have afghanistan as a base to watch over the ME.
Oh and the world wouldnt view you all in such negative light.
Saddam hated terrorists there where none there before the US invaded and now it is a breeeding ground for them. So basically the war has accomplished exactly the opposite of what is was supposed to do.
If only you had just stuck with Afghanistan and made sure that you rebuild that country properly youd prob have Osama by now,no more Taliban, no more Alqueda (even if it is more a ideology now that a actual specific group) thousands less would be dead on all sides and you would have afghanistan as a base to watch over the ME.
Oh and the world wouldnt view you all in such negative light.
Similar threads
