US Out How? The Moral Dilemma of Leaving Iraq

[Damnyankee]

Why? What's actually wrong with it? You didn't give any real reasons. You just said it was a bad analogy without explaining why. I need the "why".

Our ancestral homeland is in England, is it not? Our ancestors were subjected to religious persecution, were they not? The British military committed countless atrocities against Colonial civilians, did they not? The answer to all three is "yes". (To your credit, you did answer "yes" to the second one, religious persecution)

Seems an entirely valid analogy to me. The difference between the U.S. and Palestine is in how we responded to it.

Countless atrocities? Against Native Americans, sure, but against your average Colonial? The atrocities committed were hardly countless

 

[FriendlyFire]

Then why were there no terrorist attacks against Iraq before Saddam was deposed.....? Iraq's many victims certainly had plenty of time to make reprisals against Saddam. Why didn't they? What changed about Iraq?

Yes, there were actually many reasons for people to want to attack Iraq--but for some reason, those people didn't take action until after Saddam was deposed.

Why?

Ok WHY did we armed Osama bin ladden ? we gave him money, arms and trainning to fight against the communist. After all terrorist hate democracy but not dictatorships ? Why didn't they? What changed

Like I said basketcase iraq fighting are in three camps, nationalist, islamist and the jihardies. The last group are the terrorist and there estimate numbers are under 12k

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why? What's actually wrong with it? You didn't give any real reasons. You just said it was a bad analogy without explaining why. I need the "why".

Too bad. The "why" is just superfluous crap. It's intelligent masturbation in the form of arguments. This was explained to me quite clearly. You are wrong, and not a little wrong, the kind of wrong that would make Ann Coulter go: "Jeez, that some f-ed up s you are pulling there", that's all you need to know.

Cheers,
Ziggy.

(j/k of course )

 

[Che Guava]

Why? What's actually wrong with it? You didn't give any real reasons. You just said it was a bad analogy without explaining why. I need the "why".

Our ancestral homeland is in England, is it not? Our ancestors were subjected to religious persecution, were they not? The British military committed countless atrocities against Colonial civilians, did they not? The answer to all three is "yes". (To your credit, you did answer "yes" to the second one, religious persecution).

There is no similarity. The pilgrims/puritans were a group that voluntarily left england to find a new life, and had the support of the british crown in thier colonization efforts and still considered themselves British until the lead-up to the american revolution. They had land and resources to make thier livelihood and were allowed to practice thier religious beliefs in the new world without repercussion. There is nothing about this situation that compares to the palestinians, who were stripped of thier land and livelyhood (no matter who you want to blame) and had to live under the rule of either Israel, Jordan and eventually Lebanon.

I'm interested to hear what these countless atrocities were before the revolution, but maybe that's a little too OT...

 

[BasketCase]

@DamnYankee: Yes, I said countless, and I meant countless atrocities by the British against COLONIALS.

@FriendlyFire: You didn't answer the question.

@Ziggy: Until you explain the "why", you're the one who's wrong.

@Che Guava: What you point out is a minor difference. The pilgrims and the Palestinians were not completely identical, but still very similar. Just because you point out that an apple and an orange are different colors, that doesn't mean there's no similarity between the two. Apples and oranges remain very similar. You're going to have to come up with a lot more. (Edit: the example you pointed out was the pilgrims' response to the problem, rather than a difference in the problem. The pilgrims gave up and left; the Palestinians are staying and trying to win a war they've already long since lost--that's why America succeeded and Palestine failed)


Four against one, eh? Blah. Bring it on.

 

[Damnyankee]

@DamnYankee: Yes, I said countless, and I meant countless atrocities by the British against COLONIALS.

Alright, your gonna have to back that up.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't have to; a grade school history book should suffice, and grade school is in fact my source.

 

[Damnyankee]

I don't have to; a grade school history book should suffice, and grade school is in fact my source.

And a grade school text book is the authoritative source on history? Grade school textbooks are very much biased to promote a "patriotic" message.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@Ziggy: Until you explain the "why", you're the one who's wrong.

I don't have to explain, I´m using my knowledge of history.

 

[BasketCase]

And I used mine. Therefore we're done. See you next thread.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have to hand it to you, this is much more efficient than arguments

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Ok WHY did we armed Osama bin ladden ? we gave him money, arms and trainning to fight against the communist. After all terrorist hate democracy but not dictatorships ? Why didn't they? What changed

Like I said basketcase iraq fighting are in three camps, nationalist, islamist and the jihardies. The last group are the terrorist and there estimate numbers are under 12k

We did not arm OBL or provide him with funding. His family basicly ran HVAC throughout Saudi Arabia, he had plenty of money on his own and was basicly a supply and funding type at the hieght of the US involvement in Afganistan. Mind you, a good 90% of that was done through the Paki ISI, so it's not even direct. I would expect you of all people to know that.

 

[JollyRoger]

The solution is simple - In 2009, appoint the outgoing Bush administration as special advisers to Iraq, give them all the resources of Blackwater and let them have at it.

 

[Che Guava]

@Che Guava: What you point out is a minor difference. The pilgrims and the Palestinians were not completely identical, but still very similar. Just because you point out that an apple and an orange are different colors, that doesn't mean there's no similarity between the two. Apples and oranges remain very similar. You're going to have to come up with a lot more. (Edit: the example you pointed out was the pilgrims' response to the problem, rather than a difference in the problem. The pilgrims gave up and left; the Palestinians are staying and trying to win a war they've already long since lost--that's why America succeeded and Palestine failed)

That you for your very interesting treatise on fruit. I'll remember it when I trying to make peace in my crisper...

So let's do a tally: what is different between Palestinians and (jewish) Israelis:

(1) Religion
(2) Language
(3) Culture
(4) political affiliations

and for the pilgrims/english:

(1) religious denomination
(2) uuuhhh......hmmmmm......

Now compare the historical context:

The pilgrims, a protestant minority in england, originally left the politically unstable english mid-lands for Holland (according to the Columbia Encyclopedia, they were not actually actively persecuted in england, just harrassed and mocked for thier differing political beleifs, something akin to what mormons experiecne later in america), but decided to leave for the americas because they were afriad of diluting thier english heritage, and were wary of the the sinful extravagances of european life. They negotiated a deal with a trading company, travelled across the atlantic with british support, and remained british subjects, protected by the crown, once they set up a colony.

Palestinians, OTOH, had a relgion, language and culture which they practiced in a land that was part of the Ottoman empire. In spite of being landowners and the majority population, they ended up getting pushed off of thier own land, receiving little in terms of means to set up shop anywhere else. For most of thier recent history, they have not had a working government or representation, and are denied access to lands that were traditionally (and in some cases legally) thiers.

In short: the pilgrims were a small minority that grew out of a larger society that intentionally wanted to isolate themselves to practice thier own denomination of christianity and were in a position to acquire the means to set up shop in someon else's land, wheras palestinians were a majority on thier own land, pushed off by an external power and left with little to no means for recourse.

What is the similarity there?

Seems like those who get to take land (americans and israelis) get to succeed, while those that are pushed off (amerindians and palestinians) just get pushed into the dustbin of history. If you just agree that that is the way of the world, and that whomever can take land should, well then I guess that's a viewpoint. I guess I don't take an amoral view of history like that.


And please let me in on at least some of the countless atrocities committed against colonials. I'm all ears.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, you had the slavery and the killing of the indians, not to mention the horrible wardrobes, and lets not forget how ... oh against colonials.

My bad. Never mind.

 

[m4gill4]

@ Basketcase:

I can't stand seeing anyone who is so clearly wrong about everything act as smug as you do.

Unfortunately for me, you are clearly one of those people who are so utterly convinced of their own ultimate correctness and infallibility that any attempt at debate is useless, a la Bill O'Reilly.

So really all I can do is politely but impotently inform you that you are absolutely wrong on all counts.

I'd encourage you to revisit those "grade school textbooks", but I know you won't so instead I'll wish you safe travels and hope you enjoy your delusions!

 

[BasketCase]

Did the Colonials suffer religious persecution? Yes or no?

Did the Colonials get "invited" off their ancestral homelands in England? Yes or no?

Did the Colonials get subjected to a military occupation by the British? Yes or no?


Everybody in here knows the answer to all three is "yes", and trying to nitpick on minor details doesn't change that. These facts are indeed found in grade school history textbooks.

These three things all happened to the early American pilgrims. And all three also happened to the Palestinians. Case closed.

 

[Che Guava]

Did the Colonials suffer religious persecution? Yes or no?

No. They were harrassed by ecclestial organizations and mocked by other sects.

Did the Colonials get "invited" off their ancestral homelands in England? Yes or no?

No, I think it's pretty clear that they chose to go to Holland, then America themselves. As fas as I can tell, the either abandonned thier land, sold it, or never had any to begin with.

Did the Colonials get subjected to a military occupation by the British? Yes or no?

They were the british until the American Revolution. You might as well say that you are being 'occupied' by the american army or the national guard right now.

Everybody in here knows the answer to all three is "yes", and trying to nitpick on minor details doesn't change that. These facts are indeed found in grade school history textbooks.

Please send me a gradeschool book. All of mine must be terribly out of date.

These three things all happened to the early American pilgrims. And all three also happened to the Palestinians. Case closed.

How nice of you to let the rest of us know. I'll note that you beleive the subject is closed for further discussions.

 

[BasketCase]

No. They were harrassed by ecclestial organizations and mocked by other sects.

In other words, yes.

No, I think it's pretty clear that they chose to go to Holland, then America themselves. As fas as I can tell, the either abandonned thier land, sold it, or never had any to begin with.

You think? As far as you can tell?

Brush up on that before making any definite claims. Here's what really happened: while living in England they were treated like dirt, and hounded into leaving. Gee, what a coincidence--that's the same grievance the Palestinians have with Israel!

They were the british until the American Revolution.

So what??? We didn't want them there. The fact that we picked up guns and started shooting at them doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. You're going to have to do much better than this.


Now, here are the ways in which America and the Palestinians are, in fact, completely different: when we were trying to dislodge the British occupation, we fought the British over here instead of in England. We didn't send people to shoot British civilians or blow up British buildings. And then, when they finally departed, we left them the hell alone instead of declaring a jihad and trying to take revenge for past offenses against the Colonies.

 

[Che Guava]

In other words, yes.

I would hardly call that persecution. The church of scientology goes through more 'persecution' than that today.

You think? As far as you can tell?

Brush up on that before making any definite claims. Here's what really happened: while living in England they were treated like dirt, and hounded into leaving. Gee, what a coincidence--that's the same grievance the Palestinians have with Israel!

Once which you have previously claimed was illegitimate...but that's for anotehr thread.

From everything I have read, pilgrims, puritans etc didn't like the conditions in europe because they found them too extravagant, too sinful, and too off the mark on thier own religious beliefs. So they went elsewhere. Sounds more like Jonestown than Jerusalem. Compare that to say, thier irish cousins across the sea, who also practiced another religion, but did not want to move because they didn't have the means, didn't want to leave, and were numberous and well established enough to stick around. THey had a thriving and established society there that was occupied, wheras puritans grew out of English society and simnply moved somewhere else, with teh permission and good wishes of the crown.

So what??? We didn't want them there. The fact that we picked up guns and started shooting at them doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. You're going to have to do much better than this.

That's why it's a revolution, and not an occupation. You invited them to protect you for decades by submitting to the british crown, then fought them when you got tired of paying taxes without being represented. The british never fought to put you under thier thumb: ergo, there was no occupation.

Now, here are the ways in which America and the Palestinians are, in fact, completely different: when we were trying to dislodge the British occupation, we fought the British over here instead of in England. We didn't send people to shoot British civilians or blow up British buildings. And then, when they finally departed, we left them the hell alone instead of declaring a jihad and trying to take revenge for past offenses against the Colonies

Which has nothign to do with the speed of a sailing ship, I'm sure . But that is besides the point: the americans didn't want britain, they didn't care what happened there: they had thier own land. Palestinians attack Israel because (they beleive) it is thier land and they want to reclaim it after having had it be occupied by an invdading force.

Really, just drop this ridiculous comparisan, I'm not wasting any more time trying to discredit it.


Still waiting to hear about those atrocities...