And we wonder why the Iraqis don't like us...

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

You don't seem to be getting the idea: Bumping people's cars (and what looked like a bus) off the road is not safe. All the pedestrians they avoided with a narrow margin... (and subsequently insulted,) they were not safe.

Not getting these people out of the way is not safe for the soldiers (who probably don't want to be there any more than the average Iraqi wants them there) inside of the Humvees. Either way, someone's in danger.

 

And god forbid the civilians are insulted. They probably can't speak English, never mind understand the insults lobbed at them by the soldiers.

 

If the US forces were really there for the benefit of the Iraqi people, they wouldn't run around endangering them wantonly.

They aren't there for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

[Spider AL]

Not getting these people out of the way is not safe for the soldiers (who probably don't want to be there any more than the average Iraqi wants them there) inside of the Humvees. Either way, someone's in danger.

You seem to think that US soldiers in humvees have the right to be safer than the Iraqi civilians they run off the road and almost run over. They have no such right. Once again: this driving "technique" is merely for the US soldiers' benefit. But here's the chaser, here it is: An illegally occupying military force does not have the right to safeguard its soldiers at the expense of the safety of the civilian population.

 

Illegal occupying forces HAVE NO RIGHTS. Only responsibilities. It's basic, basic morality. Hard to get more basic.

 

And god forbid the civilians are insulted. They probably can't speak English, never mind understand the insults lobbed at them by the soldiers.

Well you missed the point again, didn't you. The fact that the US soldiers were insulting the Iraqi civilians they almost ran over is indicative of the contempt for Iraqi people that US/UK soldiers routinely have. You don't get to insult people whom you've almost clipped with your car.

 

So whether or not the Iraqi people KNOW they're being insulted isn't relevant, and I'm not sure how you can think it is... It's the same with that old clip of US soldiers teaching Iraqi children to chant "f**k Iraq! f**k Iraq!" over and over again. The kids couldn't understand it, but that's not the point. It's immoral, immature and disrespectful, and from all reports, it characterises our attitude over there.

 

They aren't there for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Yah, that's the point. The US and UK claim to be there for the benefit of the Iraqi people. But these tapes are all further evidence that this is a lie. Not that any further evidence was necessary, but hey.

[Totenkopf]

Sorry al, but the only irrelevant nonsense spewed is your inexplicable rallying to the defense of an utterly bankrupt and amoral/immoral institution. As is your statement about my position on democracy in Iraq. I'm glad you picked up on my "harsh" critique of the UN (it shows that occasionally you do grasp what's being said). Neo-con, your obsession with the term notwithstanding, has nothing to do with it. However, once again in one of your indoctrinal moments, you willfully confuse my statement to make one of your own. I don't seriously contend the UN should be involved in any manner. You obviously know this much as you appear to indicate in your attempt to "slam" me in the opening of your post. Or perhaps I'm mistaken here. Maybe you're once again having problems with your ability to comprehend. If not, I can only fairly conclude that you're attempting, disingenuously, to misrepresent what I'm saying (you do have a history of that, btw). I'd say shame on you, but you're so obviously and utterly shameless as to make it pointless. Either way, that's your problem not mine.

[Spider AL]

Sorry al, but the only irrelevant nonsense spewed is your inexplicable rallying to the defense of an utterly bankrupt and amoral/immoral institution.

In this dubious paragraph, are you attempting to refer to the UN? In the past you've stated that your problem with the UN was that it wasn't powerful enough to stand up to nations like the USA. Are you now suggesting that the UN is "immoral" as an institution? Why? Are you going to wheel out more of your unsubstantiated oil-for-food related neo-con allegations again? Please spare us.

 

As is your statement about my position on democracy in Iraq.

You are opposed to democracy in Iraq. You support and always have supported the US/UK's immoral and illegal invasion and occupation of the nation, and since the majority of Iraqis oppose our presence there, your support of the occupation is DIRECTLY in opposition to the will of the Iraqi people.

 

Therefore you don't believe the will of the Iraqi people should be observed.

 

Therefore you're against democracy in Iraq.

 

End of story.

 

As for the rest, it's really a mishmash of babbling about how I fail to comprehend you... What can one say to such unsubstantiated drivel? Show me where I've misunderstood you or misrepresented your position. Ever.

 

Until you do... your allegations are spurious and are to be dismissed.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

You seem to think that US soldiers in humvees have the right to be safer than the Iraqi civilians they run off the road and almost run over. They have no such right. Once again: this driving "technique" is merely for the US soldiers' benefit. But here's the chaser, here it is: An illegally occupying military force does not have the right to safeguard its soldiers at the expense of the safety of the civilian population.

I'd rather have a few civilians be almost hit or have their cars dented a bit than a few soldiers be ambushed and wounded or killed.

 

Illegal occupying forces HAVE NO RIGHTS. Only responsibilities. It's basic, basic morality. Hard to get more basic.

You seem to assume I agree with your version of morality. In this case, I do not.

 

 

So whether or not the Iraqi people KNOW they're being insulted isn't relevant, and I'm not sure how you can think it is... It's the same with that old clip of US soldiers teaching Iraqi children to chant "f**k Iraq! f**k Iraq!" over and over again. The kids couldn't understand it, but that's not the point. It's immoral, immature and disrespectful, and from all reports, it characterises our attitude over there.

The soldiers there aren't obligated to respect the Iraqi people. They're obligated to protect them. So long as they try to do this, I don't give a damn what they say.

[TK-8252]

I'd rather have a few civilians be almost hit or have their cars dented a bit than a few soldiers be ambushed and wounded or killed.

 

Uh... they're SOLDIERS. It's part of their JOB to be ambushed, wounded, and killed. As much as I don't want to see any of the above happen... it WILL happen as long as they're occupying a hostile land.

 

Just because I don't want to see those things happen doesn't mean, however, the soldiers should get special priviledges... like the ability to commit hit-and-runs and numerous other crimes to save themselves at the expense of the average Iraqi.

 

The soldiers there aren't obligated to respect the Iraqi people. They're obligated to protect them. So long as they try to do this, I don't give a damn what they say.

 

I'm sure glad the police in America don't "protect" me the same way these soldiers do! God damn! I hardly call running me off the road and nearly running me over in the street "protecting" me!

[Spider AL]

I'd rather have a few civilians be almost hit or have their cars dented a bit than a few soldiers be ambushed and wounded or killed.

Ha! If we're going with "what-ifs"... With this style of driving Iraqi civilians, maybe Iraqi children, could easily be injured or killed in the process. Would you rather THAT than some US soldiers getting shot at? I wouldn't.

 

You seem to assume I agree with your version of morality. In this case, I do not.

Hmph, then you're deluding yourself. This is basic stuff. A military force that invades another country illegally, causes the deaths of many civilians, ruins the country's infrastructure and sticks around when the majority of the native peoples want them gone DO NOT have any right to safety within the country they've invaded. What warped version of morality are YOU using to say that they do have any such rights? Of course they don't.

 

The soldiers there aren't obligated to respect the Iraqi people. They're obligated to protect them. So long as they try to do this, I don't give a damn what they say.

And as stated before, these clips show that the US soldiers are protecting themselves and endangering the Iraqi people. So not only are they not protecting the Iraqi people, they ALSO have no respect for them.

 

That's a wash.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

As much as I don't want to see any of the above happen... it WILL happen as long as they're occupying a hostile land.

By your logic it doesn't matter if the Iraqi people die either, hell they're in a war zone, so they'll most likely die too.

 

 

I'm sure glad the police in America don't "protect" me the same way these soldiers do! God damn! I hardly call running me off the road and nearly running me over in the street "protecting" me!

You're exaggerating what happened in the video, none of the cars in it were run off the road. As for the "nearly running me over in the street" part, keyword there is "nearly". I also don't see police here being ambushed with IEDs and shot at with fully automatic assault rifles and RPGs.

 

 

Ha! If we're going with "what-ifs"... With this style of driving Iraqi civilians, maybe Iraqi children, could easily be injured or killed in the process. Would you rather THAT than some US soldiers getting shot at? I wouldn't.

This entire issue is a what-if. Maybe civilians will be wounded, and maybe soldiers will be wounded. In any case, if you'd like to dig up some statistic that says "reckless driving is to blame for the emotionally-jarring death of some school children who just wanted to learn", feel free to. I'll have my tears on the ready.

 

Hmph, then you're deluding yourself. This is basic stuff. A military force that invades another country illegally, causes the deaths of many civilians, ruins the country's infrastructure and sticks around when the majority of the native peoples want them gone DO NOT have any right to safety within the country they've invaded. What warped version of morality are YOU using to say that they do have any such rights? Of course they don't.

So by not agreeing with you on the issue, I'm deluding myself? That statement is equivalent to you deluding yourself - contrary to what you seem to believe (based on your other posts, in addition to this statement), you are not some sort of moral authority who can pronounce judgment on the world (via the internet).

 

You're also saying that the soldiers driving like this played a key role in destroying Iraq - they didn't. The people who did aren't in places where it's necessary to drive like that. I have no doubt that the soldiers in that video don't want to be there, they're most likely there against their will, in addition to being there illegally. In my mind, this gives them the right to protect themselves, perhaps not by any means necessary, but I will give them some leeway and say that's it's okay to protect themselves at the risk of someone's car being dented.

[TK-8252]

By your logic it doesn't matter if the Iraqi people die either, hell they're in a war zone, so they'll most likely die too.

 

When did an Iraqi civilian ever sign up to be in a war zone, like a soldier did. When?

 

 

You're exaggerating what happened in the video, none of the cars in it were run off the road.

 

*Shrug* Looked like it to me. They were forced off of their current path on the road. Is that more politically correct?

 

As for the "nearly running me over in the street" part, keyword there is "nearly".

 

Maybe next time, though, it won't be "nearly."

 

I also don't see police here being ambushed with IEDs and shot at with fully automatic assault rifles and RPGs.

 

Too bad, it's part of a soldier's job. If a soldier didn't want to have to face AK's and RPG's then they shouldn't have signed up. Either that or the Bush Administration should have put more than scrap metal on a Humvee and call it armor. Do you know that there is actually technology available to be mounted on military vehicles that shoots down incoming RPG's? They're using it in Israel right now. For some reason though, the retarded U.S. government refuses to adapt it for our own vehicles.

[Spider AL]

By your logic it doesn't matter if the Iraqi people die either, hell they're in a war zone, so they'll most likely die too.

You clearly didn't grasp his logic. He never said that US soldiers getting shot "doesn't matter". You've totally misrepresented him!

 

As for the Iraqi people, they are civilians in their own country. They didn't bring the war to Iraq, the US did. So it matters if they die. They're innocent civilians in their own country! Their lives matter MORE than the lives of our soldiers, morally speaking. Civilian lives ALWAYS matter more.

 

You're exaggerating what happened in the video, none of the cars in it were run off the road. As for the "nearly running me over in the street" part, keyword there is "nearly". I also don't see police here being ambushed with IEDs and shot at with fully automatic assault rifles and RPGs.

The cars were shunted from the rear and forced out of the way by a bigger, heavier vehicle! You may not WANT to call that "running them off the road" just because they happened to maintain some control... but that's you being over-charitable to western soldiers.

 

As for your idea that just because they only NEARLY ran people and kids over that makes it okay... nonsense. You can go out driving on the wrong side of the road right now. If you don't happen to hit anyone or anything... that's lucky. That doesn't mean that you weren't doing something morally wrong as well as irresponsible and dangerous.

 

As for the police being attacked with rifles etc... It wouldn't matter WHAT the police were at risk of being attacked with, they would STILL not have the right to drive through crowded public streets so recklessly as to endanger people's lives and damage property. End of story.

 

(edit - Additions)

 

This entire issue is a what-if.

No it isn't, you're the one who brought the what-ifs into the "issue". The clip itself is very clear-cut, no "what-ifs" there. The drivers are driving in a manner which endangers Iraqi civilians and damages their property. And the fact is that US soldiers have no right to endanger Iraqi civilians in order to safeguard their own backsides. End of story.

 

So by not agreeing with you on the issue, I'm deluding myself?

By not applying basic logic, you're deluding yourself. Has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not agreeing with me. The logic is this: An illegally invading force is morally in the wrong. They have no moral right to make themselves safer at the cost of the native civilians' safety.

 

This is basic stuff. You haven't even TRIED to argue with it in a coherent way, and frankly it cannot be argued with. Instead, you seem to want to make it personal. It's up to you.

 

You're also saying that the soldiers driving like this played a key role in destroying Iraq

Ugh, what utter drivel. I've never said anything of the sort. You're just making stuff up, now.

 

The soldiers in this clip have been proven to have done two things: 1: driven in a manner that endangers Iraqi civilians in order to protect their own backsides (in line with general policy), and 2: shown disrespect for Iraqi civilians whom they almost ran over.

 

I have no doubt that the soldiers in that video don't want to be there, they're most likely there against their will, in addition to being there illegally. In my mind, this gives them the right to protect themselves,

Oh right. I'm sorry, I didn't realise they'd been drafted into a traditionally amoral army entirely against their will.

 

Please. They're big boys and girls, they've seen TV, they know the score. And if they don't, too damn bad. They signed on the dotted line. That one signature was a minor moral crime in itself. Everything that follows is just gravy.

 

(/edit)

[Totenkopf]

*Edit* ~ET

 

Your contention about democracy has implicit in it that somehow you support the concept in Iraq. That isn't even remotely believable given the fact that you would have been quite content to see them suffer under Saddam's regime (or any that followed) b/c the UN wouldn't have lifted a finger to do otherwise. And we all know what paragons of virtue you seem to think run that place. I haven't stated anywhere where I stand on the idea of a democracy (really nothing more than mob rule in its "pure" form anyway) in Iraq, let alone anywhere else. You, unfortunatley, like to infer a great deal from other peoples' positions, often going off half-cocked. This is just one example of how you devolve into irrelevancy. You simply make too many assumptions. So, perhaps you should take your own advice and stop spewing your own particular brand of nonsense in these threads. Untill then, you just have no credibility.

[Spider AL]

Your contention about democracy has implicit in it that somehow you support the concept in Iraq. That isn't even remotely believable given the fact that you would have been quite content to see them suffer under Saddam's regime (or any that followed) b/c the UN wouldn't have lifted a finger to do otherwise.

Ludicrous nonsense. I am and always have been in favour of abiding by the will of the Iraqi people, and therefore democracy in Iraq.

 

The Iraqi people didn't want to be decimated by our violence and starved into submission by our economic sanctions, therefore I was AGAINST those violences, and against those sanctions.

 

The Iraqi people didn't want us to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroy their national infrastructure in the process of illegally invading their country, so I was against that invasion.

 

The Iraqi people don't want us illegally occupying their country, they don't want us continuing to be a focus for violence and occasionally going off on one and beating Iraqi kids up if not blowing their heads off. So I'm against the occupation.

 

So I'm in favour of the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, therefore I'm in favour of Iraqi democracy by default.

 

Your statements in the past, and in this very thread, show that you approve of all of the things mentioned above, therefore you're opposed to the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, therefore you're against democracy in Iraq by default. It's very simple.

 

As for your ridiculous implication that I was in some way in favour of Saddam's rule... Ugh, it's beneath contempt. Every civilised, intelligent person was against Saddam's regime, but every civilised, intelligent person also recognised that bombing the heck out of Iraq (as we did over the course of decades) would do NOTHING but strengthen Saddam. Every civilised, intelligent person also recognised that invading Iraq, destroying what little infrastructure they had left and decimating the civilian population would be WORSE than leaving Saddam in power, as evil and damaging as he was.

 

So was I (or any other individual with more than one brain-cell) in any way in favour of Saddam's reign? Of course not, only a sillyperson would suggest so. I was in favour of ousting Saddam through means that would not adversely affect the Iraqi people and international attitudes to the US and UK, means which I have mentioned above.

 

 

And we all know what paragons of virtue you seem to think run that place

Oh do we indeed? Go and find a post in which I've described those that run the UN as being more virtuous than any other men. You won't find one. Once again you make the basic error you've consistently made throughout these threads... the fact that I recognise that international law can only be morally applied by international institutions like the UN, doesn't mean that I'm stating that "the UN will always be moral".

 

I haven't stated anywhere where I stand on the idea of a democracy (really nothing more than mob rule in its "pure" form anyway) in Iraq, let alone anywhere else. You, unfortunatley, like to infer a great deal from other peoples' positions, often going off half-cocked.

Bahahah! Ohhh Tot. You really are priceless. "Pure democracy is mob rule!!!111" as if that's something negative...

 

I don't think I've ever heard anything so unenlightened since involuntarily listening to Alanis Morissette's single "Ironic".

 

So, even if your previous posts hadn't made your stance on Iraqi democracy crystal, crystal clear, (which they did) this post has made your stance on democracy in general even clearer. It's not a huge, superhuman inference, after all. It's a gargantuan, unmissable implication running through every damn post on this topic you've ever made.

 

The Iraqi people are the "mob" you're so dismissively referring to, and they have the right to run their own country. By the people, for the people, anyone?

 

The "accusation" was neither spurious nor poorly formed. Unfortunately, you consistently twist people's words to fit your rants and then deny that you are guilty of anything. In doing so, your responses become irrelevant. Also, you've demonstrated repeatedly throughout that you have neither a modicum of maturity or apparently an ounce of introspection. You also make leaps of logic that are both non sequitur in nature and astounding in their arrogance. I'd be able to take you seriously if you weren't so selectively hypocritical in your attempts at admonishment. ... You, unfortunatley, like to infer a great deal from other peoples' positions, often going off half-cocked. This is just one example of how you devolve into irrelevancy. You simply make too many assumptions. So, perhaps you should take your own advice and stop spewing your own particular brand of nonsense in these threads. Untill then, you just have no credibility.

There you go again with a veritable smorgasbord of unsubstantiated accusatory assertions.

 

One example, please, of where I've made unjustified assumptions. One example of where I've been hypocritical. One example of my twisting people's words, one example of my alleged non-sequiturs... Oh just go and find some examples to support your childish and ludicrous accusations why don't you. Until then... they're dismissed.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You're exaggerating what happened in the video, none of the cars in it were run off the road. As for the "nearly running me over in the street" part, keyword there is "nearly".

In this clip. The same way, I can probably have a drunk driver tear through a city and video-tape it. But the point is: If he makes it through without hurting anyone and there's a tape to prove it... does that make drunk driving safe ("he only nearly hit that old lady crossing the street")? Or does it mean that next time, he might not be as lucky?

 

I also don't see police here being ambushed with IEDs and shot at with fully automatic assault rifles and RPGs.

No, but you do see emergency vehicles in a hurry to get wounded to hospitals, SWAT teams to hostage crises, or fire apparatuses with their equipment and personell to fires. All of which is as important, or even more so, than a Hummer load of soldiers avoiding ambush.

 

Ambulance personnel, as you well know, can perfectly well find themselves in situations where they needs to deliver patients quickly to hospitals. They often need to drive fast just as often as Hummer crews feel they need to drive fast. Yet it'd never be acceptable for them to bump into cars ahead of them.

 

This entire issue is a what-if. Maybe civilians will be wounded, and maybe soldiers will be wounded. In any case, if you'd like to dig up some statistic that says "reckless driving is to blame for the emotionally-jarring death of some school children who just wanted to learn", feel free to.

Reckless driving and rear-ending of cars is the cause of countless accidents every year everywhere else in the world.

 

Causes of car accidents are often attributed to driver negligence. This is especially true for young and inexperienced drivers, though any driver can act negligently or recklessly on the road. One quarter of all car accidents involve a teenaged driver. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for persons aged five to twenty-seven. Lack of experience, risk-taking behavior, distractions, and alcohol or drug use are common causes of car accidents that involve teen drivers.

Reckless and aggressive driving are major causes of car accidents for any age group.

 

Taken from

here

.

 

I fail to see how it'd be any different when it's Humvees being driven. "Any age group" would include American Humvee drivers.

 

The bottom line is: There's nothing "what if?" about reckless driving causing accidents. Driving in the manner depicted in the movie, as well as wantonly rear-ending cars, does cause accidents. This is a proven fact.

[Nancy Allen``]

Rebel marksman: "Crazy driver!"

 

Apart from ramming other vehicles the driver of the vehicle acted much like some belligirent New Yorker, or an Israeli behind the wheel. Ramming other cars off the road however is too much. On a completely unrelated note there's a lot of nice cars in Iraq, I saw a BMW and I think a Mercedes.

 

Check out that video. Pretty ****ing insane. And this is actually how soldiers are *SUPPOSED* to drive in Iraq... to minimize the risk of being ambushed when stuck in traffic.

 

You have a source for this?

 

So, they should drive slowly in traffic and respect the traffic laws and what?

End up dead by a ambush or a IED on the road.

 

Yes. With all apologies to Jae and those who have loved ones in the military, America isn't in Iraq to flip pogs. They get hazard pay for a reason. By the same token however every reasonable precaution should be taken to ensure the safety of the troops there. But not only do I see ramming Iraqis off the road as unnessecary I don't see how it helps. Wouldn't a car loaded with explosives plus a military jeep hitting it's back end equal BOOM?

 

The war look's like a revenge war, the soldiers kill insurgents, the family members of the insurgents become insurgents over and over again until no one is left.

 

True. This is one of the reasons behind, and one of the things that legitimises, terrorism. We should never have gone in, but now that we are we're stuck. Even the Democrats realise that now that they have the power to take action on Iraq.

 

Just think... every person in these bumped cars now might look the other way if they see an IED being planted... how the HELL are we EVER going to win hearts and minds like this??

 

QFT, we're not. All the work that's done by soldiers to try and connect with the Iraqi people is flushed down the crapper by some of the stunts these idiots pull here.

[TK-8252]

You have a source for this?

 

Not one that I can link to, but it was said by Keith Olbermann on his MSNBC show, Countdown. He said that this is a method soldiers are now using in order to avoid being stopped and ambushed (basically, never stop the vehicle - always be on the move). However, he also said that the average Iraqis probably doesn't know why the soldiers are doing this.

 

Here's the transcript from his show:

 

"OLBERMANN: Another kind of evidence about Iraq and more visceral, to use that word again, those homemade videos from soldiers there increasingly posted on the Internet. One such posting we‘ll show you presently, with a military Humvee driving through a congested, though unidentified, city in Iraq, the vehicle seems to be making every effort to prevent itself from slowing town.

 

One of MSNBC‘s military experts, Colonel Jack Jacobs, watched the video, tells us that soldiers are taught to drive this way now to reduce the risk from IEDs, improvised explosive devices, and that this is the best way to defeat a possible ambush. So assumptions about why the Humvee is driving this way are perfectly reasonable. How average Iraqi citizens might react to these maneuvers, that‘s another matter. We‘ve condensed the 2.5-minute video. Here it is."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16991456/

[Nancy Allen``]

I'd wager that such a tactic makes them no less vulnerable. It's not as if you cannot aim an RPG at a moving target, or detonate a car bomb as Americans drove past.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Your contention about democracy has implicit in it that somehow you support the concept in Iraq. That isn't even remotely believable given the fact that you would have been quite content to see them suffer under Saddam's regime (or any that followed) b/c the UN wouldn't have lifted a finger to do otherwise.

 

-----Ludicrous nonsense. I am and always have been in favour of abiding by the will of the Iraqi people, and therefore democracy in Iraq........ therefore I'm in favour of Iraqi democracy by default.

 

Your statements in the past, and in this very thread, show that you approve of all of the things mentioned above, therefore you're opposed to the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, therefore you're against democracy in Iraq by default. It's very simple.

 

As for your ridiculous implication that I was in some way in favour of Saddam's rule... Ugh, it's beneath contempt. Every civilised, intelligent person was against Saddam's regime, but every civilised, intelligent person also recognised that bombing the heck out of Iraq (as we did over the course of decades) would do NOTHING but strengthen Saddam. Every civilised, intelligent person also recognised that invading Iraq, destroying what little infrastructure they had left and decimating the civilian population would be WORSE than leaving Saddam in power, as evil and damaging as he was.

 

So was I (or any other individual with more than one brain-cell) in any way in favour of Saddam's reign? Of course not, only a sillyperson would suggest so. I was in favour of ousting Saddam through means that would not adversely affect the Iraqi people and international attitudes to the US and UK, means which I have mentioned above.

 

Save the canned speeches for your fanbase. Fact is, the only way for the Iraqi people to shed themselves of SH would have been for him to die in his sleep or to have been turned on by his own praetorian guard. If all your brain cells weren't so busy engaging in mental self-abuse, even you would realize that. Even using your VERY strained attempt at logic, you can only claim that you favor (by default) some form of democracy only insofar as you relate it to the issue of the presence of foreign troops.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

And we all know what paragons of virtue you seem to think run that place

 

Oh do we indeed? .... the fact that I recognise that international law can only be morally applied by international institutions like the UN, doesn't mean that I'm stating that "the UN will always be moral".

 

 

No, I'm just going from your ludicrous statement that a UN impramataur somehow makes any action even remotely moral. You have a misplaced faith in international institutions that many don't share. Fact is, you were even unwise enough to suggest that had the UN given any support at all to what you've made verrrry plainly clear is grossly immoral, that would have lent it some moral credibility. So much for your vaunted logic. Also, I've never said you said ALL the heads of the UN were all ALWAYS moral. So, please tuck that one back into the part of your anatomy you pulled it from.

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

I haven't stated anywhere where I stand on the idea of a democracy (really nothing more than mob rule in its "pure" form anyway) in Iraq, let alone anywhere else. You, unfortunatley, like to infer a great deal from other peoples' positions, often going off half-cocked.

 

-----Bahahah! Ohhh Tot. You really are priceless. "Pure democracy is mob rule!!!111" as if that's something negative...

 

The only thing unmissable here, besides your bluster and hubris, is how you infer soooo much from anyone's statements. And really, this 111 stuff is pretty juvenile, al. Mob rule equals anarchy. The KKK was mob rule. I could very reasonably conclude logically that you don't have a problem with lynching b/c it was democratically done. In a group of 10 men, one being black, it's naturally a positive thing that the 9 white guys would hang the black man, b/c .......hell, majority rules (afterall, that's what pure democracy is all about). hoist on your own ridiculous petard. end of story.

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

The "accusation" was neither spurious nor poorly formed. Unfortunately, you consistently twist people's words to fit your rants and then deny that you are guilty of anything. In doing so, your responses become irrelevant. Also, you've demonstrated repeatedly throughout that you have neither a modicum of maturity or apparently an ounce of introspection. You also make leaps of logic that are both non sequitur in nature and astounding in their arrogance. I'd be able to take you seriously if you weren't so selectively hypocritical in your attempts at admonishment. ... You, unfortunatley, like to infer a great deal from other peoples' positions, often going off half-cocked. This is just one example of how you devolve into irrelevancy. You simply make too many assumptions. So, perhaps you should take your own advice and stop spewing your own particular brand of nonsense in these threads. Untill then, you just have no credibility.

 

------There you go again with a veritable smorgasbord of unsubstantiated accusatory assertions...

 

 

A multitude of examples have been provided for you (and not just w/regards to me) over the course of many posts. Your inability to take criticism in no way dismisses anything (btw, you're very quick to try in bask in any statement that's remotely favorable to you). The only thing really ludicrous is the immature nature of many of your replies. Grow up. Untill you do so, you're dismissed to go play with the rest of the children.

[Nancy Allen``]

And there's one overriding issue to remember above all else with Iraq: As much as we should leave, as much as we should never have gone in, if we do leave we'll be leaving the Iraqi people to kill each other and allowing this mob rule, anarchy, to take over the country. Certainly it can be argued that we had destabalised things to this point but wouldn't the Iraqi people be better off with some semblence of law and order there?

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Fact is, the only way for the Iraqi people to shed themselves of SH would have been for him to die in his sleep or to have been turned on by his own praetorian guard.

Clearly nonsense. Common people have overthrown dictators the world over throughout history. If the Iraqi populous hadn't been made destitute and dependent on Saddam by years and years of US sanctions, they undoubtedly would have had more of an opportunity to revolt. And how much easier would it have been for them to revolt if we had SUPPORTED them instead of pounding them into the dust with our evil sanctions and our ill-advised military attacks? Much easier.

 

People have overthrown barbarous US-sponsored regimes before, and no doubt they will again. Your contention that this was an impossibility in Iraq is sheer ridiculousness.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

you can only claim that you favor (by default) some form of democracy only insofar as you relate it to the issue of the presence of foreign troops.

On the contrary, I have demonstrated that I am in favour of democracy ACROSS THE BOARD, both in Iraq and elsewhere. I shall once again post those few phrases in from post #37, that you conveniently chose to ignore in your last offering.

 

I am and always have been in favour of abiding by the will of the Iraqi people, and therefore democracy in Iraq.

 

The Iraqi people didn't want to be decimated by our violence and starved into submission by our economic sanctions, therefore I was AGAINST those violences, and against those sanctions.

 

The Iraqi people didn't want us to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroy their national infrastructure in the process of illegally invading their country, so I was against that invasion.

 

The Iraqi people don't want us illegally occupying their country, they don't want us continuing to be a focus for violence and occasionally going off on one and beating Iraqi kids up if not blowing their heads off. So I'm against the occupation.

 

So I'm in favour of the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, therefore I'm in favour of Iraqi democracy by default.

 

Your statements in the past, and in this very thread, show that you approve of all of the things mentioned above, therefore you're opposed to the will of the Iraqi people being enacted, therefore you're against democracy in Iraq by default. It's very simple.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

No, I'm just going from your ludicrous statement that a UN impramataur somehow makes any action even remotely moral. You have a misplaced faith in international institutions that many don't share. Fact is, you were even unwise enough to suggest that had the UN given any support at all to what you've made verrrry plainly clear is grossly immoral, that would have lent it some moral credibility

I have never made such a statement, Tot, and I have pointed that fact out to you before, many times. Let me explain yet again in the most simple of terms:

 

The UN's support does not MAKE any international intervention moral. If something is immoral, it's immoral whether the UN supports it or not. One could in theory pressure the UN into supporting an immoral war. Therefore UN support doesn't "make" any action moral. I have never claimed this, it is a fallacy that only you have wheeled out. It's a straw man, a nonsense.

 

But, WITHOUT the sanction of an international institution like the UN, an international intervention CANNOT BE truly moral. In other words, an act which the government of one nation considers to be just is merely vigilantism without the support of international law and the institutions that embody international laws. And vigilantism, lynch mobs... these are immoral and illegal things.

 

Once more: The UN doesn't MAKE any international intervention moral. But without the UN, it could never BE moral. To be just, an international act like a war must be BOTH inherently moral, AND have the support of international law. The invasion of Iraq had neither.

 

You have failed to grasp this simple distinction EVERY time it has been shown to you, I have no reason to believe you'll grasp it now. But perhaps... a vague hope lingers in my battered old heart. So I'll keep telling you.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Also, I've never said you said ALL the heads of the UN were all ALWAYS moral.

Ha! In post #36 You said this: "the UN wouldn't have lifted a finger to do otherwise. And we all know what paragons of virtue you seem to think run that place"

 

And my response was this: "Oh do we indeed? Go and find a post in which I've described those that run the UN as being more virtuous than any other men. You won't find one. Once again you make the basic error you've consistently made throughout these threads... the fact that I recognise that international law can only be morally applied by international institutions like the UN, doesn't mean that I'm stating that "the UN will always be moral"."

 

Firstly, you attempted to quote me out of context, by cutting out the first couple of sentences of my response. How childish. Secondly, you still haven't come up with a post in which I describe those that run the UN as being more virtuous than any other men. You haven't found one, you won't find one, so your original assertion was rubbish. QED.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

The only thing unmissable here, besides your bluster and hubris, is how you infer soooo much from anyone's statements. And really, this 111 stuff is pretty juvenile, al. Mob rule equals anarchy.

You accuse me of being juvenile? That's laughably rich. Secondly, I didn't have to make any great inference from your statement, because you literally said:

 

"I haven't stated anywhere where I stand on the idea of a democracy (really nothing more than mob rule in its "pure" form anyway)"

 

And that reprihensible statement is perfectly clear. You refer to pure democracy, rule by the people as "nothing more than mob rule". You call the PEOPLE a "mob" (most derogatory) and with that, you clearly imply that true democracy would be a negative thing.

 

And now you've compounded your earlier statement by opining that "mob rule" equals anarchy in your book.

 

Anarchy = a state of society without government or law.

 

Even more ludicrous! You equate pure democracy with lawlessness, ungoverned chaos, etcetera. Tot, you clearly dislike the idea of democracy... not merely in Iraq, but in general.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

The KKK was mob rule.

No Tot, the KKK was a violent mob. A minority.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

I could very reasonably conclude logically that you don't have a problem with lynching b/c it was democratically done. In a group of 10 men, one being black, it's naturally a positive thing that the 9 white guys would hang the black man, b/c .......hell, majority rules (afterall, that's what pure democracy is all about). hoist on your own ridiculous petard. end of story.

In my experience Tot, nothing you've ever concluded in the senate could remotely be called "reasonable", and this is no exception. You present a hypothetical racist lynching as an example of what you consider to be democracy in action. This is laughable. It pains me to even dignify this idiocy with a rebuttal, but I suppose I should rebut for the sake of completeness.

 

First of all, the lynching you describe is undemocratic because the racists have not obtained a mandate from the masses before engaging in their illegal and immoral act. Secondly the racists have not obtained the imprimatur of the democratically elected state legal bureaucracy before engaging in their illegal and immoral act. It is neither sanctioned by the people, nor the officials elected by the people. Therefore, counter to the democratic ideal.

 

Frankly, if you really tried hard, you might find some historical example that actually DOES represent a genuinely democratic majority-sanctioned act that is also immoral... but that of course would be meaningless. A democratically decided national decision might be immoral... but without a state of true democracy no national decision can be optimally moral.

 

Once again, we have the "UN distinction" that you have yet to grasp. Democracy doesn't necessarily MAKE state decisions moral. But without democracy the state's decision CANNOT be moral.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

A multitude of examples have been provided for you (and not just w/regards to me) over the course of many posts. Your inability to take criticism in no way dismisses anything

No they haven't. You've accused me of basically everything under the sun, from "hypocrisy" to "twisting people's words". And you haven't come up with a single example that shows I've done any of these things you've accused me of. Accusations without proof are dismissed, Tot.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Save the canned speeches for your fanbase.

 

...

 

If all your brain cells weren't so busy engaging in mental self-abuse, even you would realize that. Even using your VERY strained attempt at logic,

 

...

 

So, please tuck that one back into the part of your anatomy you pulled it from.

 

...

 

(btw, you're very quick to try in bask in any statement that's remotely favorable to you). The only thing really ludicrous is the immature nature of many of your replies. Grow up. Untill you do so, you're dismissed to go play with the rest of the children.

As for these snippets of petulant childishness, what can one say? They're reprehensible, Tot.

[FoolInTheWave]

Please people, be supportive of your own country. We are in a war and certain measures must be taken. This war isn't half as bad as WWII or Vietnam. At least the US citizens supported America's cause in WWII, and this led to a victory for democracy and peace for the world.

 

Vietnam was a different story though. Hippies and other Americans didn't support American troops one bit, we lost that war and now America is still technically still at war with Korea. If this war turns out to be like Vietnam we could have a nuclear crysis on our hands.

 

If we pull out of Iraq now, terrorists groups could conquer other middle eastern countries, stock pile their resources and launch a full scale attack on American soil. It would be worse than 9/11 by far. So instead of complaining about the War on Terror, be supportive of the country that you live in, the troops that fight and defend our country. War is not a pretty thing, its just that this war seems worse because the press is all over in Iraq.

[Achilles]

Please people, be supportive of your own country.

I have no problem supporting my own country when my country makes smart decisions that are morally justified. This case meets neither of those criteria.

 

At least the US citizens supported America's cause in WWII, and this led to a victory for democracy and peace for the world.

Right because some of our actions in WWII were morally justified.

 

Vietnam was a different story though. Hippies and other Americans didn't support American troops one bit, we lost that war and now America is still technically still at war with Korea. If this war turns out to be like Vietnam we could have a nuclear crysis on our hands.

We lost Vietnam because of the hippies? I thought it was because we rushed headlong into a protracted ground war against guerrilla forces fighting for autonomy along side a corrupt pro-U.S. government. Wait....

 

If we pull out of Iraq now, terrorists groups could conquer other middle eastern countries, stock pile their resources and launch a full scale attack on American soil.

No chance we'd see them crossing the ocean in their pontoons is there?

 

It would be worse than 9/11 by far. So instead of complaining about the War on Terror, be supportive of the country that you live in, the troops that fight and defend our country. War is not a pretty thing, its just that this war seems worse because the press is all over in Iraq.

There is more than one way to support our fighting soldiers. Allowing them to continue dying in an illegal, unjustifiable war doesn't strike me as being the best of them.

 

Thanks for your post.

[Tyrion]

Please people, be supportive of your own country. We are in a war and certain measures must be taken. This war isn't half as bad as WWII or Vietnam. At least the US citizens supported America's cause in WWII, and this led to a victory for democracy and peace for the world.

 

American citizens didn't support entering WWII until after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor - up until then, the majority opinion was isolationism. The war, as well, had clear, specific definitions on who the enemy was. This war lacks that luxury, and therefore blind support is not possible.

 

Vietnam was a different story though. Hippies and other Americans didn't support American troops one bit, we lost that war and now America is still technically still at war with Korea. If this war turns out to be like Vietnam we could have a nuclear crysis on our hands.

 

The sole aim of Vietnam was to prevent it from becoming a communist state and being the first domino to fall on the capitalist world. Despite the fact we lost the war, the dominoes did not tumble. That should raise the question of if the war was ever necessary in the first place...

 

Also, Korea was in an entirely seperate war than Vietnam. And that one had the support of the American people.

 

If we pull out of Iraq now, terrorists groups could conquer other middle eastern countries, stock pile their resources and launch a full scale attack on American soil. It would be worse than 9/11 by far. So instead of complaining about the War on Terror, be supportive of the country that you live in, the troops that fight and defend our country. War is not a pretty thing, its just that this war seems worse because the press is all over in Iraq.

 

The best way to keep Middle Eastern countries from terrorist overtake is to make the region stable and prosperous. Attempting to invade every Middle Eastern country in an attempt to quell terrorists only results in more hatred towards the US.

[Kylilin]

The best way to keep Middle Eastern countries from terrorist overtake is to make the region stable and prosperous. Attempting to invade every Middle Eastern country in an attempt to quell terrorists only results in more hatred towards the US.

 

 

Kudos! I agree. That region will only become stable after the country has begun to be relieved of the backbreaking poverty many of its citizens experience.

 

If you really want to kill terrorism, I mean really kill it, make the Middle East a prosperous place for the people who live there.

 

The root of terrorism is religious fundamentalism (of course, U.S. interference doesn't help the situation). Religious fundamentalism seeks to oppress its citizens, it keeps them poor, keeps them rooted in a way of thinking that went out of style with Chain Mail armor and Scimitars. If you gave these same people jobs that paid well, common sense would dictate that potential terrorists would rather make money and support their families by working rather than strapping a bomb to their chest and running into a cafe full of Jews in Tel Aviv.

[Achilles]

If you gave these same people jobs that paid well, common sense would dictate that potential terrorists would rather make money and support their families by working rather than strapping a bomb to their chest and running into a cafe full of Jews in Tel Aviv.

Well, except that in this scenario, the "terrorists" are doing this because the Israelis have walled them in and separated them from their farms/livelihoods.

 

Iraq sits atop the world's 2nd largest oil reserves. Clearly if there were some way to break the in-fighting/power struggle, Iraq would be a very rich nation. Of course, if they opted to socialize their oil revenues (the way Iran tried in the 1950's) then what? Would we try to overthrow that government the way we did Iran? Look where that got us (hostage situation in 1979 which eventually put us in bed with Saddam Hussein by way of "damage control")

 

No foreign investment. "Thanks, Haliburton, for all your help. This compensation should be more than sufficient to cover your expenses. Take care"? What happens if Hally-B says "no thanks" then is forceably expelled? Would that be viewed as an act of international aggression and a justification for war? Would an independent (i.e. not beholden to the U.S.) Iraqi government pose a threat to Turkey or Saudi Arabia (our allies)?

 

What if an independent Iraq decided to bury the hatchet with their old enemy Iran (Ahmadinejad recently visited his neighbors and was warmly recieved)? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing for Isreal (a country that we currently send more than 3 billion dollars in direct aid to every year)? Some would probably point out that Israel has a very sophisticated military force whereas the Iraqi are struggling to build their military. I bet Iran and N.Korea (Russia? Venezula?) would be willing to help them establish a military force.

 

I guess the point of this rant is to point out that the U.S. has absolutely no intention of estabilishing a truly independent democracy in Iraq. A truly independent democracy in Iraq could be very bad for us. What we want is a pro-U.S. goverment that is hobbled by the fact that it's infrastructure is almost entirely owned by U.S. interests (compliments of the no-bid contracts parsed out to Halliburton and their subsidaries) and was installed before the gov't itself (P.S. clearly this isn't imperialism, btw).

 

So while I agree that religious fundamentalism is a problem, I don't think that somehow eliminating it is going to somehow resolve the economic problems that you accurately highlighted above. Thanks for reading.

[Kylilin]

While I would, of course, prefer a pro-US government in Iraq (not too many Americans wouldn't), I really wouldn't mind a truly, truly independent and secular Iraqi government either, free from U.S., Russian, Iranian, or Religious influence. So far both of those goals seem like a pipe dream.