Iran.

Faskalia · November 2004

Why does anyone need any weapons?

To defend ourself, in case that the others attack us and to prevent them from getting weapons.

Have you ever thought about that this is exactly what ppl think. We are safe as long as we have weapons but the others dont have some.

Gosh, i just hat policy that is based on scaring your people.
Omg the Irak could get nukes, we need to destroy em. Well ever thought about their right fot seld-defense? Maybe they just want to protect themselves from beeing invaded (which the US would proove if they should attack them).

And dont tell me: Weapons dont kill humans. Humans kill humans.
This might be true, but with only a pointed stick it gets pretty hard to kill humans from 1000 miles away.

noncomposmentis · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Faskalia @ Nov 14 2004, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Omg the Irak could get nukes, we need to destroy em. Well ever thought about their right fot seld-defense?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Ever thought that it might be the twisted logic that considers nukes to be self-defense that may be part of the problem, and not a solution? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />

reasa · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Faskalia @ Nov 14 2004, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Gosh, i just hat policy that is based on scaring your people.
Omg the Irak could get nukes, we need to destroy em. Well ever thought about their right fot seld-defense? Maybe they just want to protect themselves from beeing invaded (which the US would proove if they should attack them).
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
You see the thing is the people in Iran who would control the nukes really, really, really, really hate Israel, and Israel is a very small country.

Sure they start out as a defensive weapon...but once they have them their going to realize that they now have allot more weight to throw around, and I think they just might do that

reasa · November 2004

FOX NEWS ALERT! *dramatic attention getting music*

<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6485378/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6485378/</a>

Faskalia · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (non.compos.mentis @ Nov 14 2004, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Faskalia @ Nov 14 2004, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Omg the Irak could get nukes, we need to destroy em. Well ever thought about their right fot seld-defense? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ever thought that it might be the twisted logic that considers nukes to be self-defense that may be part of the problem, and not a solution? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I thank you for that statement:

So why does the US need nukes? According to you is has nothing to do with self-defense.

Legat · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am completely supportive of a nation's right to political self-determination. Even when I'm rather dubious about the outcome, such as the "balkanization" of Yugoslavia or other ex-communist countries, I do feel that it's important for them to seek their own solution to their own problems. Even supporters of the Iraq war tend to justify their position with the thought that they're empowering Iraqis with that ability. In that regard, you're preaching to the choir here.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

the difference of my preach is yet, that I beleive that any outside "help" to develope democracy or "stable" political circumstances and enforcement of human rights is inevitably doomed to fail. Progress can only come from the inside.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Self-determination has its limitations, however. No nation exists in a political vacuum. Iran is making a decision which unavoidably impacts the rest of the world. How is it wrong for the rest of the world to exert their will when they feel this decision is going to hurt them? We're not talking about this country passing a law about how their women can wear their hair or what side of the street cars can drive on. Iran is attempting to enforce its will with - at the very least - the threat of nuclear war. This is in no way a positive thing.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Like Israel is doing since when? 35 years? You must understand that Iran is not exactly trying to force its will on us, but merely stop us from forcing our will on them. We gave them enough resons to deem that nessesary, so you must at least try to understand them. Just imagine the helplessness and fear of a people with a hostile neighbor that threatens you with his nuclear capacity. You are helpless, you must yield. Whoever started the hostility is irrelevant, the point is that those poeple support their Government in this because they fear Israels nukes.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm afraid you're going to dodge the bullet here and make a statement about provoking thoughts, when in actuality what you're saying is an argument whatever you want to call it personally. Your statements do have a greater context in this thread. So let me reiterate. In other discussions or contexts I would emphatically agree with Iran's right to govern themselves and develop their "social and cultural richness." When they try to do that (well I find it difficult to equate WMDs with cultural richness) by threatening the world it's a different matter though. Hopefully this made sense </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I've dodged nothing. In that particular statement you are referring to I really did not argument for or against anything. I also do not particularely argue for or against Irans nuclear programm.
I merely try to state my analysis of the situation and the way an islamic nuclar power would affect the area. Iran does not pose a threat to the world. Not in terms of military power.
It only poses a potential threat to out economical system. Even that is not true, as they are dependent on exporting oil as we are from our imports. However, they would be able to determin teh disposition of their own resources and that is what scares us. Nothing else.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(well I find it difficult to equate WMDs with cultural richness)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I did not intend to to say they are. They are however a tool of military independence. Military independence leads to political independence. Political independence is self determination, self determination leads to true freedom. It takes time but it happens some day or another.

Sovereign · November 2004

They are all excuses....

why wud iran be so stupid to start a nucleur weapon's programme after seeing the consequences in iraq twice over.

This is another case of american/israeli being the world bullies. It was obvious they wud attack iran after subtle mentions of a possible nucleur wepons programme being hammered into our brains since the disaster on september 11th.

They will attack/occupy iran and continue its mission for world-democraticism, aswell as reeping the bonus's of oil and americanisation. Iran will be a more secure puppet for the western "powers" such as is Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia. And soon to be - Palestine.

North Korea: Americans wont dare attack this country, not only will they loose terribly as they have did in the korean war and Vietnam, it is a KNOWN fact this country posseses many nucleur weapons and it would lead to a nucleur holocaust.

The media is a powerful tool, it is mainly if not all is jewish owned, therefore is very biased limiting what to show. as isreal is a close ally to the US. The US providing them weapons of mass destruction aswell as mlitary power to occupy palestine.

This time Next YEAR IRAN will be firmly in the US hands, the year after that so will Syria.

Legat · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This time Next YEAR IRAN will be firmly in the US hands, the year after that so will Syria.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And who do you think will pay for that? certainly not the UN...
Ts it is, the US barely can afford the continued campaing in Iraq today. the costs explode, the situation gets worse. Some people already suggest reintroduction of a draft.
I hardly believe the US economy can sustain two Iraq desasters at a time.
To be honest, I do not believe that even Iraq will be under control next year.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Have you ever thought about that this is exactly what ppl think. We are safe as long as we have weapons but the others dont have some.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

What prevents those who have the weapons from abusing their superiority? Nobody.
And that is exactly what we are doing when we dictate their political system and development.

Let me clarify something as it seems you think I deny reality.
I am no romatic lefty, ok? I have a short haircut, did my time of military service, I am pro nuclear power, I tend to be sceptical about labor unions and I am against legalisation of canabis.
Also, I understand the nessesity of as strong military force and the resolve to use it when appropriate.

Yet, I have realized that we do abuse our military dominance to ensure our economical interests at the expense of those people and, subsequently, at our own expense, as we have been maneuvered into a conflict we cannot end victorious.

You want to know why the muslims hate the west? Then try to think like them.
You want to know why young men and women kill schoolkids in Russia? Then try to imagine what russian military forces did and do in Chechenia. Or Afghanistan. You want to know why someone would do such a horrible thing like crashing a plane into the WTC? Then imagine how helpless a man feels, whose people are bombed by planes far out of sight, or with missles they don't even hear coming. Imagine how the people talk about those families that died when a bomb hit a wedding party accidentially.
Imagine how someone feels, who lives in a desolate camp in the border between Iran and Palestine, because his town was ravaged by an enemy that is supported with US money.
Then try to understand how a man feels, whose nation is under control of corrupt leaders, empowered and supported by US money and military. Leaders that rather cut on your wages than to raise the oilprizes a tad.
Try to imagine how it feels when foreign troops are stationed within your borders. Their airplanes flying over your houses day by day, Their fleets and carriers visible from the coast.
Think about how you would feel when you know that those carriers have enough nuclear capacity to kill all life in your country. Think that those planes have bombed other arabian nations in the past, because they stopped to support them. Would you trust in them as friends and rely on their peacefullness?

You wonder why those nations support terrorists? It is because it is the only means of warfare possible for them. They ignite riots and uprisings. But believe me, the last thing they would want is Osma with a nuke.
No one would ever be so dumb and allow terrorists to attack the US with a nuclear weapon. The consequences would be desastrous for them.

Yet, The most important thing is that we cannot win this conflict. We will never be able to apease the middle east, as the more force we use, the more force we will have to face as a direct reaction.

It is true that military force is a solution for everything. If applied in sufficient amount. Someone implied it was always better to have only one single Superpower ruling the world and reffered to ancient empires like Rome.
That is correct, however, those superpowers are never, at no time in their existence, at peace. They are established by war and sustained by war. They expand by means of war. However at some point they stagnate and eventually collapse, as they are not able to contain the constant unrest that awakes at any display of weakness.

That is the ever repeating circle of the rise and fall of nations. There is a good book with that title. I recommend it warmly.

I also recommend a rather special lecture which could bring some interesting insights in the current political course of the western world.
Its the "bellum gallicum". That is the cronicle of the roman conquest of the french celtic tribes, widely known as gauls. it was written by Gaius Julius Cesar himself and is conidered accurate, as it was written for people who understood war like cesar himself. There are some pretty good translstions around.

In short, the most interesting part is about the last effort of the gauls to defeat Ceasar. As some of you might know (anyone read Asterix comics <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />? ) The warleader Vercingetorix managed to unify the celtic tribes against the romans and was the first to ever defeat Ceasar in the battle of Gergovia. At the hillfortess of Alesia, Cesar besieged Vercingetorix, who sent for his allies and hoped to finally crush the romans in one decisive battle. over 250000 (!) infantrymen and 5000 horsemen (not including the army in the besieged city) gathered to attack Cesars 50000 legionaires.

It is common knowlege how the battle ended. What is not so commonly know is, that
Vercingetorix was a former ally of Rome!
He was intreagued by roman culture and wealth and, like many others, allied with Ceasar against the other tribes to conquer the land and bring civilisation.
After several victories, Rome widely dominated the tribes, and after some towns and settlements were razed, some hundred thousand people were dead and the intruders began to plunder and take slaves, the people realized what this meant for them.
They began to meet secretly and plotted rebellion. Finally, Romes formerly trusted allies turned against them and rallied under the banner of Vercingetorix.
Does that somehow sound familiar to you?

The difference to the situation back then and the crisis in the middle east today is, that Julius Ceasar was allowed to apply the force nesesary to break the will of the Gauls. After Alesia, there was no significant unrest in the tribes ever again.
However, that victory came at the expense of an estimated 1 million lives. One million, compared to the population density back then, would mean a greater loss of lives than both World Wars together nowadays!

Bush could of course appease Iraq and any other country. But he had to devastate it entirely. That is something, he cannot do anymore. That is maybe the only real difference in our society nowadys compared to ancient times.

----Edit-----

I apologize for the horrible spelling....I had a long night.

TheWizard · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 15 2004, 08:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You want to know why the muslims hate the west? Then try to think like them.
You want to know why young men and women kill schoolkids in Russia? Then try to imagine what russian military forces did and do in Chechenia. Or Afghanistan. You want to know why someone would do such a horrible thing like crashing a plane into the WTC? Then imagine how helpless a man feels, whose people are bombed by planes far out of sight, or with missles they don't even hear coming. Imagine how the people talk about those families that died when a bomb hit a wedding party accidentially.
Imagine how someone feels, who lives in a desolate camp in the border between Iran and Palestine, because his town was ravaged by an enemy that is supported with US money.
Then try to understand how a man feels, whose nation is under control of corrupt leaders, empowered and supported by US money and military. Leaders that rather cut on your wages than to raise the oilprizes a tad.
Try to imagine how it feels when foreign troops are stationed within your borders. Their airplanes flying over your houses day by day, Their fleets and carriers visible from the coast.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Yet there are some things that just shouldn't be done. No matter how oppressed or helpless you feel it is NEVER a solution or acceptable to specifically target noncombatants. such are the actions of people we can never deal with diplomatically or rationally. Attacking children going to school is nothing but evil. There is no justification for such an action. The opposition you face might be overwhelming and seemingly invincible but remember. Sometimes you lose.

The instant you target noncombatants or engage in terror inspired activities is the instant I don't give a damn how oppressed you feel.

Sovereign · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 15 2004, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 15 2004, 08:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You want to know why the muslims hate the west? Then try to think like them.
You want to know why young men and women kill schoolkids in Russia? Then try to imagine what russian military forces did and do in Chechenia. Or Afghanistan. You want to know why someone would do such a horrible thing like crashing a plane into the WTC? Then imagine how helpless a man feels, whose people are bombed by planes far out of sight, or with missles they don't even hear coming. Imagine how the people talk about those families that died when a bomb hit a wedding party accidentially.
Imagine how someone feels, who lives in a desolate camp in the border between Iran and Palestine, because his town was ravaged by an enemy that is supported with US money.
Then try to understand how a man feels, whose nation is under control of corrupt leaders, empowered and supported by US money and military. Leaders that rather cut on your wages than to raise the oilprizes a tad.
Try to imagine how it feels when foreign troops are stationed within your borders. Their airplanes flying over your houses day by day, Their fleets and carriers visible from the coast. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yet there are some things that just shouldn't be done. No matter how oppressed or helpless you feel it is NEVER a solution or acceptable to specifically target noncombatants. such are the actions of people we can never deal with diplomatically or rationally. Attacking children going to school is nothing but evil. There is no justification for such an action. The opposition you face might be overwhelming and seemingly invincible but remember. Sometimes you lose.

The instant you target noncombatants or engage in terror inspired activities is the instant I don't give a damn how oppressed you feel.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
erm.

how on earth can u assume u know what it is like to live in these circumstances....

of course it is wrong to target non-combatants. please offer a solution.
the basic instinct of revenge comes into play aswell. we are all human.

EG. The beheding of Kenneth Bigley:

What were the terms that were wanted to be met . The release of Female Prisoners in Iraq. (releasing a female chemical officer of sadaam is NOT what was wanted)

Think about it. Say if: You saw American Soldiers storm into YOUR house abuse and rape your wife and children then take them away to a distant prison where u will never see them again, where they are Abused DAILY. (Dont say "what you talking about that doesnt happen!" please look at the statistics, the abuse of prisoners was only accidently discovered....

You have nothing u are desperate...

ok for some of the people that targeted the non-combaants maybe they have not actually seen this take place BUT IF they are muslims, women are regarded as sisters and girls regarded as daughters. Every muslim is hurt by this.

THIS IS WRONG BUT THIS HAPPENS TO THEM ON A MUCH MASSIVE SCALE

OVER 1 MILLION Children have been murdered in iraq by US forces so far. (since before the 1st gulf war)

secondly. you Dont DEAL with these people these are normal civilians without any political power simply looking for revenge. you CANNOT assume ANYTHING about how to live in these circumstances, your saying that from ur comfy sofa, and brick walls.

"Want to know why Muslims hate America?" Ok your points are valid and correct i feel. BUT DO NOT ASSUME Muslims hate America.... This has been constructed by the Western/Isreali media.

Extreme groups hate America, and normal civilians living in iraq and other oppressed areas., Many people HATE the political powers, majority of muslims like a lot of other people hate the American political powers but have no problem what so ever with the American people. If they did how on earth is there so many American Muslims?
.... This has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion. now thanks to the Jewish/American Media . MUSLIM = TERRORIST . How convienient makes it easier to occupy palestine aswell as other countries.

Edit- America has money to burn. They make a lot of profit from the iraq war to counter the expenses. i.e rising oil prices. They wil easily take iran next year. How much resistance can Iran really put out...

TheWizard · November 2004

I don't want to know what it is like. However, I do not need to know what it is like to be able to tell right from wrong.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>of course it is wrong to target non-combatants. please offer a solution.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Don't target noncombatants?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Think about it. Say if: You saw American Soldiers storm into YOUR house abuse and rape your wife and children then take them away to a distant prison where u will never see them again, where they are Abused DAILY. (Dont say "what you talking about that doesnt happen!" please look at the statistics, the abuse of prisoners was only accidently discovered....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Abuses occur. If I were the officer in charge of men who did this I would have them court martialed and recommend the most extreme punishment. I would then submit myself for review and discharge. Such actions are ALWAYS wrong.

Lets say these things happen. Two wrongs do not make a right. Do I even have to say such a thing? If you were so horrified over what happened then by all means use every avenue you have to set things right.

Just let me give you a hint. Going into an elementary school and shooting kids isn't right.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>OVER 1 MILLION Children have been murdered in iraq by US forces so far. (since before the 1st gulf war)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Bull ****. It is one thing to debate with me regarding proper tactics and world events but if you want to make such a claim I want to see an unimpeachable source attached right after such a claim.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>.... This has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion. now thanks to the Jewish/American Media . MUSLIM = TERRORIST . How convienient makes it easier to occupy palestine aswell as other countries.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I never once brought the concept of religion into this arguement. I could care less about the religion of some nutjob who thinks it is right to kill civilians buying fruit in some marketplace. They are all equally scum in my book.

What most Americans get mad about is the lack of real official condemnations of these actions. Or what I would call the 'Yes, BUT' responses that we have typically seen from the governments of traditionally Islamic nations.

Reporter: Will you condemn the recent suicide bombing of the market?
Arafat: yes, but the Israelis..... Ad infinitum.

Also, it is bad PR to have parades in the streets dragging through the streets the bodies of aid workers who were just trying to make life a bit more livable in those areas.

noncomposmentis · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 15 2004, 08:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It is true that military force is a solution for everything. If applied in sufficient amount. Someone implied it was always better to have only one single Superpower ruling the world and reffered to ancient empires like Rome.
That is correct, however, those superpowers are never, at no time in their existence, at peace. They are established by war and sustained by war. They expand by means of war. However at some point they stagnate and eventually collapse, as they are not able to contain the constant unrest that awakes at any display of weakness.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Imagine if what you support happened. Over-night the Huns and Germans had militaries equivelant to the Roman empire. Does this situation seem like a balance? The barbarians, after being pushed back and dominated for a long time, have the means to not only defend themselves but strike out. Do you want to suggest they would restrain themselves?

An Iran with nuclear capibilities would absolutely shift the balance, and only in their favor. It's difficult to see how that shift would end up with a peaceful exchange, though.

I also see a problem with saying that nuclear weapons give immediate soverignity. Nuclear weapons and mainly their means of delivery demand a huge investment in infrastructure. Supporting that infrastructure can only be done by tapping into the world economy. If you are a part of the world economy you are bound by its ebb and flow. The US, Britain, France and Russia have foreign policies dominated by oil or past colonial ventures. China has had to depart from its ideology and embrace capitalism because if it didn't, its aging military (mostly donations from Russia) would have continued falling behind. Pakistan faced some sort of reprisals if they didn't align themselves with the US. They are a nuclear power. Did being so expand their ability to choose?

My point is, and has always been, that it is fallacious to argue that increasing military weapons in the world has never been the route to peace. You say you were alive and concious of the Cold War during the end of it. Thus you equate that standoff with peace. But the fact is that you were feeling the solution, not the conflict. Thousands of diplomats and politicians spent the better part of 50 years crafting a complicated ritual in order to deal with the problem without talking about it specifically. Then finally they were able to <i>de</i>escalate and reduce their arsenals. Only when that happened was their progress.

Military power doesn't bring soverignity directly. Especially if gaining that power shackles you even further to the world's economy. If they really wanted independance they would pursue an economic plan that seperated them from the world.

You think I'm criticizing you for being a "romantic lefty" but I haven't found a person who doesn't have the same goal of peace. I'm saying I can't see how a world with more nukes would be a more peaceful one. Consider a nation where the laws were only used when they benefitted a person and ignored when they were inconvenient. Every person has a gun. The only way they could get anything done is by holding that gun to someone else. Everyone in that nation would be holding their gun to someone else. Does that seem like peace to you?

NumbersNotFound · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Edit- America has money to burn. They make a lot of profit from the iraq war to counter the expenses. i.e rising oil prices. They wil easily take iran next year. How much resistance can Iran really put out...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ah hahahaha....

heh heh...

heh... ok i'm done.

BWA HAHAHAHAHAAH.

Really this time... *wipes away tear* since when did the US Government own Shell? Exxon? Since when can probably around 100billion of money sunk into Iraq turn into a profit to a degree which can be used to take on another country?

reasa · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sovereign @ Nov 15 2004, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Think about it. Say if: You saw American Soldiers storm into YOUR house abuse and rape your wife and children then take them away to a distant prison where u will never see them again, where they are Abused DAILY. (Dont say "what you talking about that doesnt happen!" please look at the statistics, the abuse of prisoners was only accidently discovered....

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
First off you’re being far too extreme, I have yet to see anything even remotely close to American soldiers storming houses and raping woman and children.
Yes Abu Grab was a horrible blunder, but it was an isolated incident which I chalk up to general incompetence within the army, they clearly had morons in charge of the prison, I doubt it will happen again. Do not take an isolated incident and try and paint the entire effort in Iraq under that shade.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>ok for some of the people that targeted the non-combaants maybe they have not actually seen this take place BUT IF they are muslims, women are regarded as sisters and girls regarded as daughters. Every muslim is hurt by this.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So you go out and kill dozens of innocent IRAQI woman and children, men trying to get a job with the police so they can feed their families....you see your trying to defend barbaric killers, people who kill without much reason or purpose, and it isn't possible. Can you explain to me the logic behind killing your own people in a suicide bombing attack...because you’re mad at the Americans? What does that prove?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>OVER 1 MILLION Children have been murdered in Iraq by US forces so far. (since before the 1st gulf war)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Wow. If your going to ****....at least try and make it the least bit believable.
If every inch of Baghdad was covered with over populated daycare centers and we nuked it, I'm still not sure we could rack up that many.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Edit- America has money to burn. They make a lot of profit from the iraq war to counter the expenses. i.e rising oil prices. They wil easily take iran next year. How much resistance can Iran really put out...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Really....could you please show me all this money we have...or did you just spew out more unprovable crap off the top of your head? We won't be invading Iran anytime soon simply because we don't have any of the resources necessary to even begin rebuilding it. Sure we could go in there and smash the place up, but we would have to leave the next day and even that would cost more then have right now.

noncomposmentis · November 2004

If you guys are going to poop all over this thread about Iraq, could you at least respond to the guy with the more legitimate arguments?

Deus_Ex_Machina · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sovereign @ Nov 15 2004, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> They wil easily take iran next year. How much resistance can Iran really put out...  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' />

You can't see me right now, but I've literally fallen out of my seat laughing.

Iran has almost 4 times the landmass of Iraq and over 3 times the population. Just by numbers you're going to have at least double the resistance and a whole lot more ground to cover. The US can't even control Iraq, so you may want to rephrase that statement.

Special_K · November 2004

I scanned some of the posts since I last posted and I have a couple of comments to make in the limited time I have.

First, I think that very few people posting here really have the foundation of historical and political knowledge (the one that comes from more than reading the newspapers) to make accurate analyses of the situtation. Many of the statements I've seen are reflections of a warped or incomplete perception of US foreign policy or internal Iranian politics. I'm not trying to criticize, I'm just saying that you need a wide perspective in order to understand such a complex problem.

Second, United States foreign policy has historically been based on greed and the advancemeent of the rights of Americans over the rights of citizens of other countries. These policies are not the correct approach to creating long term, sustainable peace. This may sound like hokey peacenik talk to some you, but I don't think that Washington's zero-sum game of politics is moving anybody (besides Americans) to peace and prosperity. The world needs is world peace, not American peace. If in fact you don't think that world peace is a good idea, feel free to support US foreign policy.

Legat · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So you go out and kill dozens of innocent IRAQI woman and children, men trying to get a job with the police so they can feed their families....you see your trying to defend barbaric killers, people who kill without much reason or purpose, and it isn't possible. Can you explain to me the logic behind killing your own people in a suicide bombing attack...because you’re mad at the Americans? What does that prove?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You are wrong, there is a purpose and a reason. They set examples for those alinging with the US officials. Also, you must remember that a considerable prat of those accepted into the Iraqi police by US oficials have been there under Saddam. In conquered nations, the former officials are resinstalled at their former positions out of practical reasons. Don't have illusions about this....half of the first german government after WW2 constited of former active members of NSDAP. Opportunists always land on their feet. It would be practically impossible to reinstall a govenment without them. So there may be grudges left that make policemen desirable targets for shiite extremists.
The purpose however, is to undermine US control over the land by scaring off people to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq (thats why they target Heathcare organisations).
You must stop to see these people as crazy fanatics or barbaric murderers, as you do deny the full extent of their resolve.
They do have a plan and they are well oraganized. Think of the last few days. The The US are sure to loose this war, if their strategist think like you and underestimate them as some barbaric maniacs.

Note: I do not support such actions. I don't support them like I don't support the invasion. I merely see it as an inevitable and natural development which cannot be stopped. Also, I am fairly concerned that this is the final spark that makes the middle east explode. If the US are forced to retreat from Iraq, then everybody there will know it is possible to win and we have rebellion in every muslim nation allied with the US. Then, we have a problem....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yet there are some things that just shouldn't be done. No matter how oppressed or helpless you feel it is NEVER a solution or acceptable to specifically target noncombatants. such are the actions of people we can never deal with diplomatically or rationally. Attacking children going to school is nothing but evil. There is no justification for such an action. The opposition you face might be overwhelming and seemingly invincible but remember. Sometimes you lose.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Consider one thing. To bomb a city is one extreme, however the pilot never actually whitnesses the damadge and casualties he inflicts. A terroist taking civil hostages and kill them or blow them up, has to look into their eyes before he does it.
No man under normal circumstances would do such a thing. Nobody kills children if there has not happened something that twisted his sense of justice. Find that reason and eliminate it, and you won your war against terrorism.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Imagine if what you support happened. Over-night the Huns and Germans had militaries equivelant to the Roman empire. Does this situation seem like a balance? The barbarians, after being pushed back and dominated for a long time, have the means to not only defend themselves but strike out. Do you want to suggest they would restrain themselves?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well I tend to shiver when people use the term "barbarian" to describe ancient civilasations like the german tribes or the celts, or huns, mongols etc.
They were far more than that. The celts had around 300 BC a extremely successsful civilisation, were extremely healthy and known all over the world as fighters and traders. There are indications that celtic dialects were used as lingua franca for traders all over the known world, like english is today.
They had enormous farming outputs and extreme high population desity. They were excellent craftsmen unrivalled in the world. Celtic weapon were exported all over the world, even the greeks bought them. They were masters in forging bronze,also, they are considered to be the first to master the arts of iron crafting in Europe.
They were the last power that truely rivalled Rome when it was on the peak of its might. Yes, they had no own writing and did not build citys of stone. However, the term barbarian is not fitting for this intreagung and sucessful people.

Later on, the Germans had similar qualities. In fact, various german tribens were allied with Rome and sustained their military power. When they tuned on Rome, they did it to gain Roman citicenship, as they felt they deserved for serving Rome so long.
When they conquered Rome, they did not destroy the city. They did not plunder (not exessively) In fact they reinstalled romes power to an extent and delayed its complete fall. Later on it was a german king that reunited the holy roman empire. In fact, german tribes were ever present througout the world and influenced its development. In fact, many nations that emerged from the dark age after the fall of Rome, and survied a nations through the curse of the medieval period, are the heritage of german kings.

The huns....well do you honestly think mere barbarians could conquer almost the entire world?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The barbarians, after being pushed back and dominated for a long time, have the means to not only defend themselves but strike out. Do you want to suggest they would restrain themselves?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, I would. Because its a bomb. A nuclear bomb. Nobody uses Nucelar bombs. Know why? Because you are dead when you do? Simple. Its like dueling yourself with someone standing 30 cm before you. You cant miss. Will you shoot? Hardly.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
An Iran with nuclear capibilities would absolutely shift the balance, and only in their favor. It's difficult to see how that shift would end up with a peaceful exchange, though.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I prefer to think that it would actually establish a balance that is direly needed in that area.
there is an antique saying that goes like "weapons make peace" that is referring to the situation that equal strength generates a stalement and this stalement serves the purpoce of a forced peace until someone regains the advantage. Right now, Israel has the advantage. The bomb. So there is no peace possible, as Israel can act without fearing military consequences. They have the longer arm. This bare possibility is a existential threat to all of Israels neighbors. Think it this way. You would sleep safer too if you knew your country had something to retaliate in case of a nuclear attack. We all know Israel will not bomb those natons. Iran won't either. Its nothing but an ensurance that there's nobody trying anything funny.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I also see a problem with saying that nuclear weapons give immediate soverignity. Nuclear weapons and mainly their means of delivery demand a huge investment in infrastructure.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yet it works. See North Korea. You do not need an actual missle delivery system. A plane will sufice to wipe out an army or a fleet. You don't even have to hit the target. A torpedo might do too. Or even a large artillery gun to fire small tactical nuclear devices. (Some of those were on cuba and in the case of an US invation it would have been destastrous)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Supporting that infrastructure can only be done by tapping into the world economy. If you are a part of the world economy you are bound by its ebb and flow. The US, Britain, France and Russia have foreign policies dominated by oil or past colonial ventures.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Do you honestly compare those nations to a country in the middle east? The historical comparison is so out of context that I lack words to describe it porperly.
Besides, Iran is not poor. They have oil you know? They don't need our world economy, they <i>fuel</i> it.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
China has had to depart from its ideology and embrace capitalism because if it didn't, its aging military (mostly donations from Russia) would have continued falling behind.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
China has never been anything else that capitalistic exept on paper.
The innermost soul of the chinese is so capitalistic that Rockefeller looks like Karl Marx in comparison.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Pakistan faced some sort of reprisals if they didn't align themselves with the US. They are a nuclear power. Did being so expand their ability to choose?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Parkistans government is alinging with the US because they are in fear of the fundametalist movement taking over like in Afghanistan.

TheWizard · November 2004

Let me say it again. There is NO justification for the targeted killing of civilians.

Legat, whatever your motivations or causes no matter how 'confused' your morals may become due to emotions are thrown out the window the instant you decide to go out of your way to attack civilian targets.

If the some government comes in and blows up my house, murders/tortures my family and whatever other horrible things could be done, It was the government that did it. Not little Billy on the playground. Not Ethyl purchasing some tomatoes from the market. And not Margaret Hassan, the kidnapped British director of CARE International.

If you have been oppressed or abused, take your grievances out on the transgressors. Take the time to figure out how to do such a thing without resorting to barbarism (yes that is the appropriate word no matter how much you dislike it)

Your inability to extract revenge from the guilty party is not justification to take it out on civilians.

I guess if I can't convince you of this I could always look at it from your angle. But boy would that upset me. Maybe I should go punch the person in the cubicle next to me and tell them it was your fault.

TheWizard · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 16 2004, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If the some government comes in and blows up my house, murders/tortures my family and whatever other horrible things could be done, It was the government that did it. Not little Billy on the playground. Not Ethyl purchasing some tomatoes from the market. And not Margaret Hassan, the kidnapped British director of CARE International.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
They just killed Margaret Hassan.

Justify that.

reasa · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 16 2004, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I guess if I can't convince you of this I could always look at it from your angle. But boy would that upset me. Maybe I should go punch the person in the cubicle next to me and tell them it was your fault.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
You just got yourself sigged. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

TheWizard · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 16 2004, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 16 2004, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I guess if I can't convince you of this I could always look at it from your angle. But boy would that upset me. Maybe I should go punch the person in the cubicle next to me and tell them it was your fault. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You just got yourself sigged. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
You know, as I was writing that I said to myself, "10 bucks says this ends up in some sig"

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

reasa · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 16 2004, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 16 2004, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 16 2004, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I guess if I can't convince you of this I could always look at it from your angle. But boy would that upset me. Maybe I should go punch the person in the cubicle next to me and tell them it was your fault. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You just got yourself sigged. <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You know, as I was writing that I said to myself, "10 bucks says this ends up in some sig"

<img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Well I've been meaning to get something to replace my Bush04 sig, and your timing was perfect. <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

But enough about sigs, lets get back to Iraq/Iran, nukes and death.

Sky · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Nov 15 2004, 04:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Edit- America has money to burn. They make a lot of profit from the iraq war to counter the expenses. i.e rising oil prices. They wil easily take iran next year. How much resistance can Iran really put out...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ah hahahaha....

heh heh...

heh... ok i'm done.

BWA HAHAHAHAHAAH.

Really this time... *wipes away tear* since when did the US Government own Shell? Exxon? Since when can probably around 100billion of money sunk into Iraq turn into a profit to a degree which can be used to take on another country?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Quoted for.....just being quoted.

Legat · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Let me say it again. There is NO justification for the targeted killing of civilians.

Legat, whatever your motivations or causes no matter how 'confused' your morals may become due to emotions are thrown out the window the instant you decide to go out of your way to attack civilian targets.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Tell that the 300000 citiezens of Falludhah which are now fugitive because their city is getting torn apart at the very moment.

Spare me your moral preachings. There is no morality in war. It never has been and never will be. Times have only changed in the way that our population will not tolerate overly cruel actions, so we just don't show them on TV and its fine.
Yesterday I saw a Video Tape on TV where a US soldier shot an incapacitated enemy in falludsha. Then a PR officer was interviewed and said the GI was withdrawn from active duty until the case is solved....
Do you think that means this will not happen again? Do you think that happened never before?

Do you believe that crap about precise and clean warfare? In every single Attack US forces have started on Iraq in the past years, people died. Civilians died.
And the locals could not fight back. Now, the US are in their country and within their reach. Now they can fight back and they have a lot of bones to pick with them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If the some government comes in and blows up my house, murders/tortures my family and whatever other horrible things could be done, It was the government that did it. Not little Billy on the playground. Not Ethyl purchasing some tomatoes from the market. And not Margaret Hassan, the kidnapped British director of CARE International.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ah yes? really? Did that happen to you? No? then how could you be sure about that? That is a bold statement for someone living in wealth and peace of western civilisation for his entire live.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you have been oppressed or abused, take your grievances out on the transgressors. Take the time to figure out how to do such a thing without resorting to barbarism (yes that is the appropriate word no matter how much you dislike it)

Your inability to extract revenge from the guilty party is not justification to take it out on civilians.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Abu Graeb. Tell someone about letting your inability to hit the responsible ones on those who can't defend themelves.....Of course, we are talking about isolated cases....

War is dirty. Anybody who thinks otherwhise, everybody who think by war can be gained anything than war is wrong. Everybody who thinks he can bring peace by means of war is twisted in his logic. When your opponent is inferior and can not retaliate by normal means of war, he will find other ways. Simple. That is not a question of morality, its a simple fact of life. Deal with it.

The cycle has begun and nobody can stop it. The Iraqis attack US soldiers, the soldiers retaliate, both sides kill civilians in their wake. More and more civilians become desperate and blame the US as the reason for the war. More people will start fighting them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I guess if I can't convince you of this I could always look at it from your angle. But boy would that upset me. Maybe I should go punch the person in the cubicle next to me and tell them it was your fault.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again: you do not have to convince me that this it wrong. Find a quote were I said otherwhise and I buy you a beer.

I merely tell you how things work there and where the hate comes from. Maybe, if you would stop looking at their "barbaric" way of fighting, you should take a look on our most "ancient" way of dealing with them in the past to understand their rage.
Maybe, if some important people would do so or had done so in the past we would not have a cultural conflict today.

That is the reality we face. In the the Netherlands, the self proclaimed "home of tolerance", the muslim extremists have assasinated Theo van Gogh, a moviemaker that made a ctritic movie about the Islam. Since that happened, several mosques have been set on fire. This happened in one of the most libearal countries on the world. Whats the reason for that I ask you?

Find an answer to this question and act accordingly and you will achieve piece.

TheWizard · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 17 2004, 04:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Let me say it again. There is NO justification for the targeted killing of civilians.

Legat, whatever your motivations or causes no matter how 'confused' your morals may become due to emotions are thrown out the window the instant you decide to go out of your way to attack civilian targets.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you have been oppressed or abused, take your grievances out on the transgressors. Take the time to figure out how to do such a thing without resorting to barbarism (yes that is the appropriate word no matter how much you dislike it)

Your inability to extract revenge from the guilty party is not justification to take it out on civilians.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Abu Graeb. Tell someone about letting your inability to hit the responsible ones on those who can't defend themelves.....Of course, we are talking about isolated cases....

War is dirty. Anybody who thinks otherwhise, everybody who think by war can be gained anything than war is wrong. Everybody who thinks he can bring peace by means of war is twisted in his logic. When your opponent is inferior and can not retaliate by normal means of war, he will find other ways. Simple. That is not a question of morality, its a simple fact of life. Deal with it.

The cycle has begun and nobody can stop it. The Iraqis attack US soldiers, the soldiers retaliate, both sides kill civilians in their wake. More and more civilians become desperate and blame the US as the reason for the war. More people will start fighting them.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I guess if I can't convince you of this I could always look at it from your angle. But boy would that upset me. Maybe I should go punch the person in the cubicle next to me and tell them it was your fault.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again: you do not have to convince me that this it wrong. Find a quote were I said otherwhise and I buy you a beer.

I merely tell you how things work there and where the hate comes from. Maybe, if you would stop looking at their "barbaric" way of fighting, you should take a look on our most "ancient" way of dealing with them in the past to understand their rage.
Maybe, if some important people would do so or had done so in the past we would not have a cultural conflict today.

That is the reality we face. In the the Netherlands, the self proclaimed "home of tolerance", the muslim extremists have assasinated Theo van Gogh, a moviemaker that made a ctritic movie about the Islam. Since that happened, several mosques have been set on fire. This happened in one of the most libearal countries on the world. Whats the reason for that I ask you?

Find an answer to this question and act accordingly and you will achieve piece.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I will not spare you my moral preachings. You say there is no morality in war?

Let us use the example of the marine shooting the wounded insurgent. When the event occured, he was withdrawn from service, and is facing official inquiry. It is very likely that he will face a courts marital or worse.

Let us contrast that to the killing of Margaret Hassan. A woman who was done nothing but help the Iraqi people. The UN has found the body of a western woman. Her arms and legs cut off and her face mutilated. Likely this toture occured while she was still alive.

I don't have to debate you from a moral highground as you seem to have no moral ground to stand on whatsoever.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Do you believe that crap about precise and clean warfare? In every single Attack US forces have started on Iraq in the past years, people died. Civilians died.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

By your justifications the United States would be justified to go into Iraq and kill every single soul there. We are doing exactly the opposite. We are putting our soldiers at risk of greater harm in an effort to minimize the amount of civilians killed or wounded.

Clean and Precise warfare? I never said such a thing. But there is a huge difference when it comes to intentionally torturing and murdering civilians as an effort to advance your cause and the decided efforts by the US military to avoid civilian casualties.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If the some government comes in and blows up my house, murders/tortures my family and whatever other horrible things could be done, It was the government that did it. Not little Billy on the playground. Not Ethyl purchasing some tomatoes from the market. And not Margaret Hassan, the kidnapped British director of CARE International.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ah yes? really? Did that happen to you? No? then how could you be sure about that? That is a bold statement for someone living in wealth and peace of western civilisation for his entire live. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes it is a bold statement. A statement that I can easily say that I would uphold. I never said that I would not be raging mad and full of a feeling of frustration. But NEVER would I target the individuals who were not involved.

Did it happen to me? I cannot discuss any such incidents until it is resolved. But it was not the government who targeted my family.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The cycle has begun and nobody can stop it. The Iraqis attack US soldiers, the soldiers retaliate, both sides kill civilians in their wake. More and more civilians become desperate and blame the US as the reason for the war. More people will start fighting them.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You cannot compare the actions of the US military in which intentional civilian deaths are met with criminal charges and terrorists who murder civilians and are celebrated.

Note that I do not include the insurgents in Falluja who are fighting against the military in my terrorist definition. Those that fight against military (or even government targets) usually do not fall into my definition of terrorists. They are fighting the proper enemy even though their cause is misguided.

However, those that plant bombs on corpses (ever wonder why that marine was willing to shoot that wounded insurgent? If you listen to the audio of that tape you can hear some explosions in the background. Those are bombs exploding from the corpses of the insurgents and killed several marines) or target civilians or do any number of things in violation of the geneva convention are terrorists.

You say that I should look into the causes that are the root of this rage. I have. I spent many nights studying the history of the region and the cultures of the societies. I have a solid grasp of what would fuel the hate for the West.

Yet, nothing I found has ever justified targeting civilians.

TheWizard · November 2004

Legat, I pose this question directly to you.

Will you agree that it is always wrong to target civilians as military targets?

Legat · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Legat, I pose this question directly to you.

Will you agree that it is always wrong to target civilians as military targets?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ok Wizzard, it took a while but now I have time to write this answer and continue our recent debate.

But first, we should calm down a bit. The thread has gone a little hot and that may be my fault. Secondly, we are rambling off topic, so maybe we should open another topic about the issue. However since no mod has taken action I will continute the course of the debate.

So in reply to your question:

Yes, attacking civilian targets is always wrong. There is no question about that.
Yet, you are asking a black and white question. Reality however is a variety of grey shades.

To remain with the situation in Iraq. The rebels are targeting people that support the US troops or are relatated to US troops. That means they are their enemys. This makes them a target. From purely military point of view this is perfectly reasonable. They have effectively halted every progress of rebuilding the land or ease the suffering for the population. They destabilize the US position and their standing among their people. This is perfeclty reasonable.

I do not approve that. Please bear that in mind. I merely describe the situation.

The US can only lose this way, as any day without water or electricity, ever child that died because of polluted water or becasue there are no anti-biotics, or that steps on a clusterbomb pellet that failed to detonate is a victory for those who oppose the US. Because the people blame the US for the Situation.

That is all I say. They are doing this becasue it it effective and because it is the only way to harm the US. You cannot win a war against the US with 30 year old Russian equipment. You win it by demolishing the trust in the US government and its military. The more US soldiers die, the more dire the Situation becomes, the more US citizens will question the war and its reasons. You win the war due to the media, not by force of arms.

Take the liberation of Kuwait. Why do you think The UN approved to the operation? because a long term media campaign unified the world in disgust for the Iraqi occupation. Nobody told us that Kuwait cross-drilled into Iraqi oil fields and was warnded to stop their actions beforehand. Nobody told us that Saddam, who was still on good terms with the US that time informed the US foreign ministry about his intent to take Kuwait to help restablish his economy aftert the war with Iran. Not to mention that Kuwait was originally a part of Iraq to begin with....
I remember me watching the live news, every morning and being exited about the US progress. I was convinced the war was just.
Then, I found out about the Iraqi rebels, that were prepared to fight Saddam with US support, to finally free the country. I learned how they were sloughtered because politicians descided to let Saddam remain in charge and simply deserted them. I realized that Kuwait was liberated because Iraq would have had the control of roughly 70% of all oil reserves in the imidiate vicinity, and has slipped out of US control. That is the one and only reason.

Do you really ask why they do fight you now and why the use every means nessesary to get rid of you?
If the US would be invaded by muslims, what do you think would the various paramilitary groups in your country do about it?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Let us use the example of the marine shooting the wounded insurgent. When the event occured, he was withdrawn from service, and is facing official inquiry. It is very likely that he will face a courts marital or worse.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is true. But only because the footage hit the newsscreens and shocked the US population. It is bad publicity. It makes mommas fear their sons to to become monsters. Bad publicity is something the US can not allow atm, as they need recruits.
They need them direly. Young people wont sign up if they realize that in true wars, you don't gain "honor points" like in AA-online.
I guess you have seen the footage on the news.
Did you see how perfectly normal the situation seemed for the GIs? It was like "look theres one left" and he shot the man dead.
He did not look if he was boobytrapped or still armed.
He did not ask his supperior how to handle the casualty. He did not hesitate. Do you really think that this was a special case, when the life of this wounded enemy seemed so insignificant.
The problem is what you do not see. Abu Graeb is another example. The officers and soldiers responsible for the Torturing of Prisoners were also withdrawn. I do not know what happend with them afterwards. However, if this would not have been picked up by the media, <i>nothing</i> would have happened.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Let us contrast that to the killing of Margaret Hassan. A woman who was done nothing but help the Iraqi people. The UN has found the body of a western woman. Her arms and legs cut off and her face mutilated. Likely this toture occured while she was still alive.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is like I told describe above part of the tactic to undermine US efforts to stabilize the situatuion. However, in that particular matter, no body has been found yet, nor has any of the restistance groups actually declared their participation. One of the most wanted terrorist leaders in Iraq (sorry I can't remember the name. They all sound alike.....) has actually demanded her release and damnated her disapearance, as she had significant credit among the Iraqi population AND the resistance.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Yes it is a bold statement. A statement that I can easily say that I would uphold. I never said that I would not be raging mad and full of a feeling of frustration. But NEVER would I target the individuals who were not involved.

Did it happen to me? I cannot discuss any such incidents until it is resolved. But it was not the government who targeted my family.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

To your resolve about your statement I really congratulate you. There is a person in my life that is very special to me. I intent to marry and share my life with her. If I imagine her harmed by muslim extremists for example, I could not predict how I would react. How I would change and what I would do. That is an honest statement.

The loss of loved ones can twist the most honorable man and make him do things nobody could imagine himself table to do. Vengence can become a reason to live on for people who lost everything what was important for them.

I can understand their hate. I really do. I also understand why the GI shot the man. I really do not blame him, his service must be a horrible experience, and he will see the men he killed every time he closes his eyes for the rest of his life.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You cannot compare the actions of the US military in which intentional civilian deaths are met with criminal charges and terrorists who murder civilians and are celebrated.

Note that I do not include the insurgents in Falluja who are fighting against the military in my terrorist definition. Those that fight against military (or even government targets) usually do not fall into my definition of terrorists. They are fighting the proper enemy even though their cause is misguided.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yet, the US government invades a country for its ressources. Face it. There is no other reason. If the US actually wanted to bring peace to the word, they would have to fight 20 wars at a time. The war is for oil. For money. Nothing less, nothing more.
By doing so, they accept the simple reality of civilian casualties. And there are many casualties. They know what is going on there. So tell me, what behavior is more morally wrong?

Accepting civil casualties to ensure our wealth (I say *our* wealth, as I am profiting from cheap oil as any other guy in the "civilized" world...talk about hippocrisy don't we <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /> ), or inflicting civil casualties to gain the right to determin your own future and your own ressources? Politics is a dirty game my friend. Morale is not one of its rules.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
However, those that plant bombs on corpses (ever wonder why that marine was willing to shoot that wounded insurgent? If you listen to the audio of that tape you can hear some explosions in the background. Those are bombs exploding from the corpses of the insurgents and killed several marines) or target civilians or do any number of things in violation of the geneva convention are terrorists.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Hell, bobytrapping wounded soldiers or corpses is as old as explosives themselves
That is one of the atrocities modern warfare have brought up. Deal with it, its your war. I did not sent you there. Don't blame me.
If you want a fair fight you must have equal streng on both sides. If you want it to be a fair fight, dont attack with stealt bombers and cruise missles. Give everybody a knive and and meet in the desert.
Face it, they have no other possibility to fight. Its only natural to be more "creative" when you are inferior in strength. How do you think the Continentals defeated the British Expeditionary forces? On the open field? nope. They resorted to guerillia warfare tactics. Especially shooting officers was a habit considered extremey barbaric. Yet it was darn effective....
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
You say that I should look into the causes that are the root of this rage. I have. I spent many nights studying the history of the region and the cultures of the societies. I have a solid grasp of what would fuel the hate for the West.

Yet, nothing I found has ever justified targeting civilians.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

When you loose your familiy in war, maybe some might find resolve in hurting others? People have killed innocents for much less of a reason. The human mind is a fragil thing and easily twisted. Vengence is one of the most ancient behaviors of the human race. Blood must be washed away with blood. Eye for an eye. It is as old as humanity itself. There is enough reason for enough people to act like monsters. When a man has seen a certain amount of injustice and cruelty, I believe, he stops to be human and becomes a beast.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't have to debate you from a moral highground as you seem to have no moral ground to stand on whatsoever.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I would rather not have my morality questioned this way as I am trying to uphold certain morale values of my ancestors, which maintained their integrity even during a rather sad period of my peoples history.

Also, morale standards are somewhat fragil construcs, which are all too easily shattered by reality.

Let me give you an example that attracted publicity here in Germany these days.
A high ranking police officer is charged for threatening a suspect with torture. He did not torture him but he threatened to do so. Actually it was one of of his subordinates who interrogated the suspect. He did it on agreement however, and the charged Officer aproached his subordinate in that matter.
The suspect was a kidnapper that tried to force ransom from the wealthy parents of an 8 year old boy (I believe the age is correct. don't hang me on details im buisy these days)
The child was found because the Kidnapper confessed under the pressure applied. However, the kid was already dead. What would you have done if you were the policeman in charge of the case? Maybe you have a son yourself?
Of course his actions were wrong, but were they wrong by moral standards, or because of the pricipes of democracy and human right?

I see you are online right now as I edit this. I am looking forward to your answer. (please forgive me for my horrible spelling im terribly tired )

TheWizard · November 2004

I understand the rational that the rebels employ to justify their causes. I know why they target civilians and use tactics that are considered 'wrong'. I do not dispute that in their minds their actions are justified and appropriate.

However, just because it is justified in their minds does not make it right or justifiable. Humanity has to set standards as to what is acceptable and not acceptable. War and its results are terrible and never the ideal solution. It pushes people into realms that we do not wish to discuss yet we must because it will happen and when it does we must be ready for it.

These standards of which the 4 Geneva conventions only begin to scratch the surface, must be met by all sides lest we slip from the course of Humanity and become no more than beasts.

I view the attrocities of war in an equal light for both insurgent and marine. The insurgents are fighting a losing battle. The 'Death by a thousand cuts' that was able to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan will not work against the US military. Our military has advanced too far and our nations resolve is too set for these tactics to deter us. To stop now would mean that all who have died will have died in vain.

For the soldiers who have commited such crimes as in Abu Graib I hold them in the highest contempt. The US military has the toughest job as every action they take will be judged with the harshest scrutiny. The slightest misstep will result in irreperable harm to the image of the US. Because of this I support the harshest penalties for such actions as they not only harm the people involved but the entire country.

Thankfully our military is organized and able to punish these cases. However, there is no such mechanism installed in the insurgents. With each kidnapping and act of terror their cause gets dragged through the mud. If they truly wish to win they must stop the terror and fight for their country and not against the West.

The leaders of the Middle East must denounce any acts of terror as an abomination to Islam and Humanity. The rebels have already lost the military battle. There is no debate to this. In the current situation the US military is unstoppable by any force in the region. Therefore if they wish to win any sort of victory, they must win the moral victory. Such victories are often bittersweet but the historians will remember.

The Palistinians had such an opportunity to win against Israel. Unfortunately their leaders squandered world support and pushed for violence. Using the media to their advantage the Palistinians could have changed the face of the middle east.

Imagine if Israeli tanks and helicopters were met with a peacful populace armed with cameras instead of rocks and carbombs. The world would notice.

Marine0I · November 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, attacking civilian targets is always wrong. There is no question about that.
Yet, you are asking a black and white question. Reality however is a variety of grey shades.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yeah - isnt it amazing how when the US abused prisoners and shoots a wounded Iraqi, shades of grey very quickly fade to black, while the latest Iraqi churchbombing or police recruiting line explosion becomes a beautiful cream colour.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I realized that Kuwait was liberated because Iraq would have had the control of roughly 70% of all oil reserves in the imidiate vicinity, and has slipped out of US control. That is the one and only reason.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Irrelevant. If you insist that every nation have the best of intentions before it does anything on the international arena, then no one can and will do anything ever. You dont know whether that SWAT sniper who saved you is doing it for truth, justice, love, hope and honor - or whether he gets a kick out of killing people and this was his time to shine, yet that is also irrelevant, he did the right thing, and that's honestly all that matters.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If the US would be invaded by muslims, what do you think would the various paramilitary groups in your country do about it?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Who cares? This likewise doesnt matter - because they'd either do the right thing or the wrong thing, and that has no bearing on the Iraqi resistance, which is doing the wrong thing. You condemn the wrong thing to do no matter what.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However, if this would not have been picked up by the media, <i>nothing</i> would have happened.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Garbage. The investigations into Abu Grahib began back in March that year, when the US Army started a probe into allegations raised by the Red Cross. This was reported in the small print in papers globally - it wasnt until months later, when everyone involved had been removed from active service, that the media got hold of the pictures and released them. By the time you knew about it, it was practically already over, handled internally by the Army itself - I was quite disappointed the pictures got released, but hey.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I can understand their hate. I really do. I also understand why the GI shot the man. I really do not blame him, his service must be a horrible experience, and he will see the men he killed every time he closes his eyes for the rest of his life. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Understanding is good - but I can still hate a man who I understand if his actions are dispicable.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yet, the US government invades a country for its ressources. Face it. There is no other reason. If the US actually wanted to bring peace to the word, they would have to fight 20 wars at a time. The war is for oil. For money. Nothing less, nothing more.
By doing so, they accept the simple reality of civilian casualties. And there are many casualties. They know what is going on there. So tell me, what behavior is more morally wrong?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'm sorry - but I dont care. If a man saves another man for money or for fun or for a dare, he is still doing the right thing and should be supported. The only way for the US to ensure a steady supply of oil is to democratise Iraq, the only way for their GMEI to work is to spread said democracy. Its amazing how many people scoffed at the GMEI, saying "only an idiot like Bush could believe that" - and then turn around and claim "Its all for the OIL!". Which is it - GMEI or oil, or both? Interesting that you have now recovered your morality when shades of gray have ceased to be useful, and blacklisting America is the game again.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Morale is not one of its rules</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Exactly, which is why you have to get over the whole "America isnt doing it for the right reasons".

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Deal with it, its your war.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

He was dealing with it - didnt you watch the video?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They resorted to guerillia warfare tactics. Especially shooting officers was a habit considered extremey barbaric. Yet it was darn effective....</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yeah, dirty Americans targeting military personnel - they must all hang their heads in collective shame at the thought of it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would rather not have my morality questioned this way as I am trying to uphold certain morale values of my ancestors, which maintained their integrity even during a rather sad period of my peoples history.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I do not understand your moral values. You seem of two minds. You hate the Americans intensely, you leap upon their every flaw, yet you are also highly critical of the insurgency, calling them "beasts". But the strength of your feeling towards the US seems to overpower your hatred of the insurgency, so you find yourself trying to rationalise away the daily events in Iraq caused by insurgents that make US soldiers look like angels. You see insurgents deliberately trying to kill Iraqi civilians and disrupt their lives, but you turn that back into "if America wasnt there in the first place this wouldnt be happening". No matter what the Americans do, in your eyes, they lose. They walk into a building, there is a body on the floor, they sit down and have a philosophical discussion on the ins and outs of shooting potential human bombs, he blows up and kills them, and you point to the American body count and say "QUAGMIRE!". They walk in and pop the guy on the ground, and you call evil heartless Americans. We ask you for a way around this - and we get "That's not my problem". You cant even see a solution yet feel obliged to complain about soldiers in a scenario you wouldnt even begin to know how to handle.

My props to that German policeman - no grey areas there for me.

Iran.

Comments