...<
>
<
>
God you are ignorant. <i></i>

Wow, very impressive response, sir. <
>
<
>
So democracy is a means to an end? What exactly is the "end"??? Peace? Stability? A good economy? Democracy is a CONSTANT and ONGOING process. It's a means that really has no "end" because it is constantly being "practiced". <
>
<
>
Is it that tough for you to suck up your whiny little bitching about the war ass and give credit for a relatively good election? Of course it is. Keep fucking whining. <i></i>

How will you feel if it turns out they've elected a goverment full of Islamic fundamentalists who immediately demand our exit? <i></i>

Democracy is a means with no end? Then why are we practicing it? It obviously has ends. The end is civic participation which leads to stability which leads to peace. Cele
ate democracy in Iraq when it's met its ends. Cele
ating democracy as it stands now is like cele
ating a glorious missle that hasn't yet hit it's target. Wow what a missle we made! But has it done anything? What if it misses? <i></i>

"government" <i></i>

You honestly believe democracy has an end? Come on, man. Democracy is something that needs to be practiced constantly and consistantly in order to work. I don't think there is an end, I think it's a way of life. That in itself is a big reason we need to stay the course and ease them into this way of life.<
>
Quote:How will you feel if it turns out they've elected a goverment full of Islamic fundamentalists who immediately demand our exit?<
>
It's not going to happen. Will there be people elected that we as the US disagree with? Absolutely. Will it be full of them, and enough to "demand we leave"??? No. <i></i>

I'm still trying to get past the entire 'Democracy is a constant' thing.<
>
<
>
In what world is a political system EVER maintained itself as a constant? <i></i>

Oh good lord.<
>
<
>
Saddam fucking thought he had WMD's and we had intellegence based off of that. He fully intended to use them and thought he had working bio-chem operations underway.<
>
<
>
Second, quit bitching about the fucking oil profits already it's getting old. They've been getting the same 8% profit margin they were getting 10 years ago. Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Dude, the provisional government already said they want us out. Opinion polls show the majority of Iraqis view us as occupiers and want us out.<
>
<
>
I don't particularly care what the insurgents think. But I don't really want our military to be perceived as unwanted guests by the majority of the civilian population that is just trying to get by. Nothing good can come of that in the long run. <i></i>

Quote:So much hate for me... it makes me sad.<
>
<
>
<
>
You can say what you like, but the fact is I have never argued for inaction, in any of the situations you have mentioned.<
>
<
>
Have fun with your false conception of non-violence though!<
>
<
>
So you retreat too, "Your wrong, I'm right."<
>
<
>
When push comes to shove, literaly, non-violence IS inaction. There is no way to non-violently prevent fighting between people who are already shooting at eachother and shooting innocent women and children off to the side. Now you need to defend the women and children, by violent needs if nessessary. Or you could do what is being done in Darfur, watch it and write up a report to send to the UN. Non-violence also has a rather poor record of removing violent psycopaths from power.<
>
<
>
Arkayn, if you are looking to defend this adminstrations complete and neglant missmanagement of the Iraqi reconstruction dont look to me for support. Bush has messed up almost every aspect of reconstruction possable. The looting right after the fall of Saddam could have been sevearly limited, where were the troops ordered to go? Oil ministry. Electricty could have been a major improvement, but it is just on par with pre war levels. Ya, oil burning power plants arnt the cleanest things in the world but they are easy and quick to build, they also produce a good amount of electricty. What hasnt Bush done? Built more powerplants. Food and medicine are 10x better then what they were prewar, simply because Saddam isnt spending money on gold toilets. Also consumer goods are flooding into Iraq like never before. Possably could have something to do with over a decade of sanctions. <i></i>

The genius of our own constitution is that it can be changed. <i></i>

Dude, the provisional government already said they want us out. Opinion polls show the majority of Iraqis view us as occupiers and want us out.<
>
<
>
I don't particularly care what the insurgents think. But I don't really want our military to be perceived as unwanted guests by the majority of the civilian population that is just trying to get by. Nothing good can come of that in the long run. <i></i>

Third times a charm Jay. <i></i>

No freaking clue how that posted twice.<
>
<
>
Feel free to delete both the redundant post, as well as this one, mods. <i></i>

I'd ask the mods to delete my worthless posts, but I'm afraid my post count would fall to zero. <i></i>

Quote:Dude, the provisional government already said they want us out. Opinion polls show the majority of Iraqis view us as occupiers and want us out.<
>
<
>
I don't particularly care what the insurgents think. But I don't really want our military to be perceived as unwanted guests by the majority of the civilian population that is just trying to get by. Nothing good can come of that in the long run. <
>
<
>
NEWSFLASH, we will leave Iraq. Period. The Iraqi's want us to leave, the troops want to leave, the American people want to leave. The question is who decides when and how we leave Iraq. I personaly think it should be the government that Iraqi's just elected.<
>
<
>
You also need to look as how questions were asked. There is a difference between "Do you want the Americans to leave Iraq." and "Should the Americans stay in Iraq until there is stability?" There will be quite a few people who answer "yes" to both questions. <i></i>

Quote:It's not going to happen. Will there be people elected that we as the US disagree with? Absolutely. Will it be full of them, and enough to "demand we leave"??? No.Do you know who I
ahim al-Jafaari is? Ever read up on his Dawa Party? <i></i>

Quote:Orientation <
>
National Islamist Opposition Group. <
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
Platform <
>
Islamic Dawa Party is an old Shi'a Islamic organization. Now based in Tehran, the group supports the establishment of an Islamic state in Iraq. <
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
Leadership <
>
Led by Abu-Bilal al-Adib, Abd al-Razzaq al-Kadhami, and Dr. Haydar al-Abadi. <
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
Funding <
>
Funded by Iran. <
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
History <
>
Islamic Dawa Party was established in 1958, based on Association of Najaf Ulama, a political-religious organization that had been established in late 1957 to combat communism. Has coordinated closely with Sunni Islamic organizations. The group was blamed by the Iraqi leaders for actions that necessitated the attack on Iran in 1980. Dawa members mostly either joined the Iranian military units or refrained from political activity altogether. Islamic Dawa Party members staged a major assassination attempt on Saddam Husayn in July of 1982, bombed the Ministry of Planning in August of 1982, and attacked Saddam Hussein's motorcade in April of 1987. Member of Coalition of Iraqi National Forces. <
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
Honestly, that scares the shit out of me more than 12 more years of Bush...<
>
<
>
A unified Iraq/Iran as a single islamic state...<
>
<
>
Ugh. Now THAT is something to add to my anxiety closet. <i></i>

It goes beyond that. The Dawa party has roots in terrorism. They bombed the US embassy in Kuwait in 1983. They hijacked a plane in 1986. Al-Jafaari was a key member of the group in the 1980s. He's now the prime minister of Iraq. <i></i>

So let me ask you this, Rayvenn. <
>
<
>
Knowing all of this, and what it may lead too, how would YOU deal with Iraq then?<
>
<
>
<i></i>

What would I do? Cut and run. All the reasons why are eloquently stated here, by retired General William Odom:<
>
<
>
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/in...thisid=129 <i></i>

Quote:Who did LBJ remove from power again?Kennedy, possibly. - Leo<i></i>

Quote:Yeah, removing Saddam from power was a bad thing.<
>
It was great for Iran! The only thing we DIDN'T do was actually gift-wrap the entire country of Iraq for them before we put it on the silver platter!<
>
<
>
Follow the stories that are being played down: <
>
<
>
- about possibly hundreds of Sunnis regularly being grabbed in the middle of the night by men in Iraqi police uniforms. <
>
<
>
- about how some of those same kidnapped Sunnis, the ones whose tortured corpses did not show up in the streets a few days later, were discovered in one of the several "camps" being "discovered" by the military half-starved with signs of torture.<
>
<
>
- about how the Shiite leader of the ruling Party in Iraq...<
>
Quote:Abdul Aziz Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shiite Muslim religious party that leads the transitional government and whose armed wing is the most feared of Iraq's many factional forces ...wants the U.S. government to allow the Shiites to "get tough" with the insurgents:<
>
Quote:Hakim oversees the party's armed wing, formerly known as the Badr Brigade. Its fighters are widely feared for what even many Iraqi Shiites say are habits of torture and other ruthless tactics learned from Iranian intelligence and security forces. Now officially converted into a private security detail and political group, the renamed Badr Organization is widely alleged to control many command-level and the rank-and-file officers in the Interior Ministry -- police, commandos, intelligence agencies and other
anches.<
>
All our troops are doing is getting in the way of the violence they are perpetrating/will perpetrate on each other.<
>
Quote:Who did LBJ remove from power again?<
>
Himself <i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

I love the answers to who LBJ removed from power as a comparison to this conflict.<
>
<
>
Couple things:<
>
<
>
1. Bush wanted to go into Iraq before he was even elected.<
>
- He was searching for justification, and found it.<
>
<
>
2. One of the many reasons he wanted Saddam from power was that he tried to kill a former President.. (aka his Dad)<
>
- The fact that so many of you have a problem with this as one of the reasons... /boggle<
>
<
>
3. The conflict in Viet Nam initiated no change vs the conflict in Iraq has affected MUCH change.<
>
- People that expect.. yeah EXPECT this transformation to happen peacfully are completely ignorant. The fact remains that those who had power through force allowed (or encouraged) by the Saddam regime are going to FIGHT HARDER NOW! Maybe you should read more about our own civil war, and other nations civil wars to check out how a nation transforming to a more free soceity causes conflict.<
>
<
>
4. The Iraq Invasion has lead to a Civil war in Iraq.<
>
- See above. The bottom line is that while the "intelligence" was innacurate, the end result is a positive thing. I do not think that the ends justifies the means, but Bush is taking responsibility for what went wrong. Something I have not seen a leader do in quite a while. <i></i>

Quote:but Bush is taking responsibility for what went wrong.<
>
<
>
You only see him take accountability after he's backed into a corner. <
>
<
>
And regarding points #1 and #2, you know that he has a war trophy, right? It's unbelievably appalling. He's shown off Saddam's gun to people in the Oval Office. <
>
<
>
If that was the ONLY gaffe he'd ever made, I wouldn't harp on it quite so much. But it's just one of so many. (Crusade anyone?) Just things where you bury your head in your hands and moan 'oh no no no no'. <
>
<
>
Oh and additionally regarding Saddam's threats to assassinate Bush...we tried to assassinate Saddam, so I hope no one is thinking we're on the high road there. <
>
<
>
Then skipping back to the genocide comments, from the Kurd gassing, well...let me see by my watch we're about scheduled then to rush into Rwanda for their genocide, it's about 10 years-ish later there too. When do we pony up for that?
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:So you retreat too, "Your wrong, I'm right."<
>
<
>
No, I retreat to, "I'm tired of repeating myself." I show over and over again that non-violence is an active pursuit of peace, not a passive "go ahead and do whatever you want" activity, and yet still you make statements that show you either didn't bother to read them, or refuse to admit that there are other options besides violence. <
>
<
>
Quote:When push comes to shove, literaly, non-violence IS inaction. There is no way to non-violently prevent fighting between people who are already shooting at eachother and shooting innocent women and children off to the side. Now you need to defend the women and children, by violent needs if nessessary. Or you could do what is being done in Darfur, watch it and write up a report to send to the UN. <
>
<
>
Again, if you think non-violence = "write up a report to send to the UN." then you simply don't have a clue about what non-violence is.<
>
<
>
Quote:Non-violence also has a rather poor record of removing violent psycopaths from power.<
>
<
>
Only twice that I know of in human history has non-violence been tried as a large scale operation, and in both instances it has resulted in success. Now, it's been a while since I took a math class, but I believe that this is a 100% success rate.<
>
<
>
War, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have worked at all. Despite all the wars we've had over the course of human history, people keep killing each other! It's crazy I know, but when people kill people to stop people from killing people, it seems a little silly. It's a self perpetuating cycle that justifies killing, and to me seems to be entirely contradictory to the Jesus I know you say you follow as a Lutheran. On the other hand, those Palestinians who graduate from our school in Ramallah will never become suicide bombers. Those Ugandans we have worked with will never again raise their gun to kill their ethnically different neighbors. Those Sudanese Muslims and Christians we work with will never again kill each other.<
>
<
>
Non-violent work is primarily preventive, it is true, but two of the three examples I just gave are examples of responses to people who have already committed violence, and who will never do so again. There are hundreds of thousands more examples, if you wish to see them. But you don't. You would rather just imagine we don't do anything and just let people kill other people.<
>
<
>
If there were enough people out there that were willing to follow the principles of non-violent resistence, then people like Saddam could be removed from power non-violently. Sadly, there aren't enough right now, and so the work of a pacifist becomes one of education, showing people one at a time that it can be done.<
>
<
>
Use your imagination. Think outside the box of violence. There are other ways to achieve the removal of an evil man from power.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote:On the other hand, those Palestinians who graduate from our school in Ramallah will never become suicide bombers. Those Ugandans we have worked with will never again raise their gun to kill their ethnically different neighbors. Those Sudanese Muslims and Christians we work with will never again kill each <
>
<
>
Fribur I understand that as a lifelong pacifist you believe that a non violent approach will work, perhaps you are right, perhaps not. However you use the word never, you, your group, no one can state with any reasonible amount of certainly that any of these groups will never again resort to violence to resolve a dispute. Never is forever and nothing last forever<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Fribur I understand that as a lifelong pacifist you believe that a non violent approach will work, perhaps you are right, perhaps not. However you use the word never, you, your group, no one can state with any reasonible amount of certainly that any of these groups will never again resort to violence to resolve a dispute. Never is forever and nothing last forever<
>
<
>
Fair enough. I suppose no absolute term is completely absolute aside from the assertion that there is no absolute . There's always a chance that things could change. But then also when people create hypotheticals for me to challenge my pacifism, allow me then the same argument; that there is always an alternative to killing, and that you can never know for sure that non-violent response will result in your death.<
>
<
>
I just wanted to reply, however, and point out that I'm not a life-long pacifist. I have only been a pacifist for about 5 years.<
>
<
>
In fact, I was a fairly hawkish conservative through high school, heh.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote:that there is always an alternative to killing, and that you can never know for sure that non-violent response will result in your death.<
>
<
>
There is always an alternative to violence. The educational programs that the Quakers are running all over the Middle East are proof that it CAN work. From what I've been reading they are doing some very interesting things over there. So you can't exactly say that they believe in inaction because that's simply not true. Seems to me (from what I've been reading) that they are MORE active then most of the "this war sucks" whiners. They are doing and acting on what they believe in.<
>
<
>
<
>
That said while there is always an alternative to violence. That alternative does NOT always work. There are people in the world that want us dead (off the Iraq subject for a minute) and don't care about your pacifistic nature (not meant rudely). Those people WILL pull the trigger if they have a gun. They WILL use the knife in their hand to rip you a part if they get the chance. They WILL blow up buildings. I personally believe it is wrong to NOT fight back or to NOT try to remove that threat.<
>
<
>
<
>
As for Iraq I've pretty much made my opinions clear on the other threads.<
>
<
>
Leaving now (i.e. completely in the next 6 months) would be a HUGE mistake and would be a self-fulfilling prophecy for most of the Dems. (IE giving Iraq to Iran on a silver platter, that is exactly what happens if we leave before the Iraqi people are ready for us to leave) The new Iraq government should be the one making timelines for us to leave because they know better then us when they are ready.<
>
<
>
Rosetta's WoW Profile Rosebud's WoW Profile<
>
Coin and Cleavage<
>
"My Give a damns busted" - Jo Dee<i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

Quote:You only see him take accountability after he's backed into a corner. <
>
<
>
While I don't disagree, is still more than I see MOST leaders do.<
>
<
>
Quote:Then skipping back to the genocide comments, from the Kurd gassing, well...let me see by my watch we're about scheduled then to rush into Rwanda for their genocide, it's about 10 years-ish later there too. When do we pony up for that?<
>
<
>
I have never 100% understood this arguement. Because we haven't allocated resources to
ing justice for this attrocity we shouldn't have allocated recources to
ing justice to Saddam? I certainly hope that we do go into Rwanda in the future if we are able to affect the level of positive change there that we are in Iraq. <i></i>

Lol, positive change. <i></i>

no positive changes then, Ray? <
>
<
>
<
>
Gnome - Dark Iron - Knight of Arcadia<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Call me a pessimist but when daily bombings and assassinations are still going on, I have a hard time seeing anything positive. 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians (according to Bush, so the real number is higher) due to our invasion. I don't see much positive there either. <i></i>

Rayvenn<
>
<
>
Don't make me post the latest poll that shows that even the Iraqi people are optimistic.<
>
<
>
(besides the whole better off now or not better off now is a been there done that unwinnable argument)<
>
<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

Fribur, I know that the Society of Friends is doing some outstanding work in the places you mentioned, I guess the point I was trying to make is until people who believe in non violent solutions become the leaders of their countries you are going to have violent solutions to problems because that is the nature of the beast. By the beast I am referring to the political process.<
>
<
>
The problem lies in getting the believers in non violence into positions of leadership, which is really an uphill battle. <
>
<
>
Don't you think that even though the folks you mentioned in your post get along fine today, that just under the surface there lies simmering the old ethnic hatreds that have caused problems in the past? It is kind of like raising a tiger cub and a lamb together, they get along fine until one day the now full grown tiger looks at the sheep and says food not friend.<
>
<
>
Perhaps, I am looking at non violent action from the prespective of one who has been involved with armed combat and can't really comprehend how a pacifist could ever become the leader of a country. <
>
<
>
Of course, anything is possible but if a country had a pacifist as a leader, that country would become easy prey for others who would exploit that pacifism. Probably one of the reasons there have and always will be wars, politics at its finest. <i></i>

Quote:Don't you think that even though the folks you mentioned in your post get along fine today, that just under the surface there lies simmering the old ethnic hatreds that have caused problems in the past? It is kind of like raising a tiger cub and a lamb together, they get along fine until one day the now full grown tiger looks at the sheep and says food not friend.<
>
<
>
Ethnic hatred is not instinct, it's learned. You learn to hate others based off of the reactions of those around you, and learn to associate that with race because humans are all about the categorization. I have yet to see a newborn who knows to avoid those "chinks, wops, niggers, and wetbacks". Now, once they've been around their family long enough, they learn all about that hatred. Take them out of that environment at a young age, and that simmering ethnic hatred doesn't exist.
<i></i>

Quote:Ethnic hatred is not instinct, it's learned. You learn to hate others based off of the reactions of those around you, and learn to associate that with race because humans are all about the categorization. I have yet to see a newborn who knows to avoid those "chinks, wops, niggers, and wetbacks". Now, once they've been around their family long enough, they learn all about that hatred. Take them out of that environment at a young age, and that simmering ethnic hatred doesn't exist. <
>
<
>
Exactly Mono, the only way to
eak this learned behavior is to isolate them. Obviously the folks the Quakers are working with have no family. <i></i>

No, Hyurtices - that's *one* method. She was invalidating the claim that such hatreds cannot be removed. I don't see how you assume from her statement that that's the only way to work on removing such hatreds. In fact, its clearly untrue, as overall, the white population in Tennessee (where I have a reasonable anecdotal familiarity with the subject) shows markedly less overt and covert hostility and prejudice towards blacks, just in my lifetime - and I am under 50. I think that I would probably remember if I were separated from my parents as a kid and raised by the state <
>
Lupic Wulfsib<i></i>

Quote:Ethnic hatred is not instinct, it's learned. You learn to hate others based off of the reactions of those around you, and learn to associate that with race because humans are all about the categorization.<
>
<
>
It's learned, but it's also innate. You learn who to hate, and how to hate, but the "us and them" is innate behavior. Very young children do not react to differences, but then again, they don't react to many things that they should. They're not afraid of fire, for example. As they start to get older, they start to be more distrustful of 'strangers'. Very young children have to be taught not to talk to strangers, but even toddlers may react (violently) to Santa Claus. Mostly because they're thrust into this adult stranger's lap, and it's a potential threat to them, and it is someone who looks very different.<
>
<
>
Other children aren't really a threat, and they'll be accepting of children even if that child appears very strange, or to them abnormal. (Such as if they had a disability). They'll show curiousity, but generally not fear, and certainly not hate just because of the difference.<
>
<
>
But when you seperate children, even young kids of about 5, into 2 groups and make an artificial us and them by grouping...they will display competitive behavior, as well as aggression to the other groups. <
>
<
>
So what part is learned? The grouping, if it's artificial, which you could say all borders are 'artifical' creations. If you had children of every color in one group, they'd get along fine without racism, but they would still display 'us and them' bigotry towards those not of the group.<
>
<
>
Hope that makes sense. I just wanted to point that out because it's something I have a great deal of interest in myself, and I think you do too. And probably others. <
>
<
>
I think what may eventually change it, is the fact that we're becoming more and more a global society. We're a long way I think from eliminating 'us and them' groupings, if it could ever be eliminated (such as religious differences, idealogical differences, political differences, etc), but some of the ways people are currently grouped (by physical differences, such as skin color) will not exist in the future IMO. That's solely opinion though, and I could easily be wrong, since visual differences are the first thing noticed by people, and therefore may in fact be the hardest to eliminate.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:Then skipping back to the genocide comments, from the Kurd gassing, well...let me see by my watch we're about scheduled then to rush into Rwanda for their genocide, it's about 10 years-ish later there too. When do we pony up for that?<
>
<
>
Im up for it, then again I also think we should be in Darfur; and not taking notes of the killings to send to the UN. <i></i>

I fail at sarcasm again.<
>
<
>
Let me be serious then. No one can legitimately argue that Saddam was a good guy. He wasn't. He was an evil and sadistic man. I think one of the bad things we've done as a nation is made deals with evil and sadistic men, either putting them into power, or helping them to maintain their positions of power, because of other things that benefit the United States. Even when it does not benefit the people of that country. We've even quashed democracy before, to suit our interests.<
>
<
>
I'm also not adverse to playing 'America: World Police' as long as we have a clear idea of what our objectives are. It would be wonderful if ideally the UN could take on that role, but that would be a ten page discussion in and of itself.<
>
<
>
Rwanda in particular had a genocide where almost 1 million people were killed (approx. 800k) in under three months. We knew it, the world knew it. In a perfect world, had there been some type of 'world police', or the US was filling that role, many lives could have been saved. Of course the massacre took place within a short period of time, and it would require massive mobilization efforts to happen very quickly, but it could be done.<
>
<
>
But we don't play world police. Not really. We're interested in protecting our interests, which is why we've helped to keep some terrible people in power, and put some terrible people into power. I'm sure everyone recalls when Saddam was our buddy, pretty much prior to this invasion of Kuwait.<
>
<
>
So did we go into Iraq to 'liberate' the Iraqi people? Or did we go into Iraq to protect our own interests? Or did we go into Iraq for other reasons which have been proposed, everything from private business concerns, to Bush's agenda on wanting Saddam out both because of threats made specifically against his family as well as the fact that he should have been taken out of power during the Gulf War, and George Bush, Sr. failed to do so.<
>
<
>
I personally don't think there's a simple answer there, I think it's a factor of all those things, and the answer most presented to the American people is the one that works the best this week. But the truth is a combination of those factors, and probably other factors.<
>
<
>
Is the United States safer today because we went into Iraq? I don't think so. There's no terrorism links between 9/11 and Iraq. I also think it can be argued that we are less safe as a result of our actions there. We've destablized a secular government (which was clearly not a 'good' government, but serves our interests better than another theocracy in the region). We've created more zealots. Yes, there will always be zealots even without help, but we've made a fertile
eeding ground for more.<
>
<
>
Are the Iraqi people better off today because we went into Iraq? Yes and no. Yes, in that some individuals are probably better off, no in that the majority *today* are not. If you look at every factor, most people were better off when Saddam was in power. That does not mean he was better for the people though, simply that *today* they are not better off.<
>
<
>
So what about the future? It's hard to say. And unfortunately we have biased perspectives. I would say that it appears to me that women are not better off, because previously when their society was more secular, women had far more rights, and far more freedoms. You see far more women today wearing the veil. However that's my perspective based off my bias. There are women I am sure who would say they believe that is positive change.<
>
<
>
The future is uncertain. I really don't know if it will be ultimately better for the Iraqi people. I think the situation today would have been far better had there been active popular resistance, which we went in and 'liberated', but we created a vaccum. It's truly a case of time will tell.<
>
<
>
And time will tell whether or not our actions will ultimately be of benefit to the United States or not too. <
>
<
>
I think we have to be aware of our biases though. I happen to think that our government style: A republic/democracy, or representitive democracy...is the best. I'm biased though, because I've always lived with it. I know people who truly believe a monarchy is the best form of government. I saw a very intelligent person the other day write a little bit on why they felt a monarchy was the way to go, with much the same bias we show democracy. (And no, they weren't British! ). <
>
<
>
We also tend to think of dictatorships as 'evil' because of our bias. I think there's a tendancy to think of theocracy as 'bad' too, when it's not one's personal religion. But when it is one's personal religious beliefs, then it doesn't seem as bad, or it may even seem like a good idea to
ing some components of that faith system into government.<
>
<
>
But I'm starting to drift off topic. The real question here is, what is our role, and what do we want our role to be? If we play "World Police", then much like law enforcement all over the world, we have to prepare to be hated. And that hatred will make us vunerable. And we have to have clear goals on what we're doing, and why. Do we go in when it's genocide? Seems a no-
ainer to me, sounds good. Okay, what about when a leader is 'bad'? Well we have to define bad. Of course with Saddam, it's pretty easy. Shoving people through a wood chipper, rape rooms, gassing Kurds...not a nice guy. Unfortunately we can probably come up with a list of world leaders who would be considered 'bad' under what we could come up with there.<
>
<
>
And there are those in the world who think our leaders are bad. I'm not talking so much about Americans who aren't thrilled with Bush. Even the ones who really dislike him (or perhaps even hate him) wouldn't usually classify his level of being bad with the more evil people in the world. If it was between Saddam and Bush, I think you could easily point to Saddam as far more 'evil' in totatlity. <
>
<
>
But there are people in the world who think Bush is just as evil, or more evil than Saddam. There are those who think we're the greatest threat to the world. And if we didn't have the best military in the world (my bias again, but it's also true) we might be in deeper shit. But instead that displeasure or hatred will be carried out in other ways. If you can't beat the biggest kid on the block, you can strike other ways: terrorism, kidnapping American tourists, etc.<
>
<
>
If we decide that world police is NOT our role, or is a role we should only play in part through another entity...like the UN, then what is our goal? If it's American interests, we need to be clear on what that is as well. Because unfortunately there's an appearance that 'American interests' is synonymous with corporate interests. <
>
<
>
Which isn't necessarily bad. Capitalism works for us, and corporate interests effect the United States greatly. But I think that line is a little too fuzzy for many people. <
>
<
>
Back to Iraq, Bush has said that the intelligence was faulty. This admission has helped his popularity numbers in the US. Which (IMO) is why the admission was finally made. But that's purely my cynical opinion, it doesn't matter for this discussion, I'm just tossing it in to demonstrate my bias here. He has also said though that if he knew then all that he knows now...he still would have gone in. Which is different mind you, than knowing that the intel was faulty then with no additional information.<
>
<
>
So, let's play hindsight. People knew at the time that the intelligence was 'questionable' at best. It's a fact that it was questionable then. What's uncertain who knew how wrong it was when. <
>
<
>
But let's say that there's no intelligence failure, and it's discovered then that there were no WMD. Would the people of the United States have supported an invasion into Iraq?<
>
<
>
I think the answer is 'no'. Would our allies have supported it? Again, I think the answer for most (if not all of them) would be 'no'.<
>
<
>
Without the WMD issue, there's no invasion.<
>
<
>
In other words, we aren't the world police. It was simply an added bonus to feel better that in addition to eliminating a threat against ourselves, we were also helping to free a people from oppression. And it served business interests to do so. Those are added bonuses, not reasons for invasion, no matter how it's spun today.<
>
<
>
And that's the hindsight on it. But as most people are well aware, we're at "well...we're there now!" point. Which illustrates the addage, 'it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission' I suppose. <
>
<
>
So where do we go from here? It seems like the main agenda now is to make this as small a clusterfuck as possible. It could still end 'okay', but there's a lot of big 'ifs' there. If a representitive government works. If islamic extremists don't disrupt or worse, gain power. If the region stabilizes. If the new government has enough support to stay in power. If the people really want this new government. And numerous other 'ifs', along with many I probably haven't even thought of.<
>
<
>
And there's an awful lot of 'ifs' on how badly this could end up. <
>
<
>
So where do we go from here? I don't know. I do know that if we don't learn from this mistake, we have no one to blame but ourselves when it fucks us in the ass again. I think we need for a President ot have the power to mobilize troops quickly in a crisis situation, without going through the governmental process of declaring an act of war. But that process is there for a balance. Would a better system in place have worked here? I don't know. I think another issue is access to intelligence. Based on what Congress knew, because their access was limited, they were in support. Would that have changed if they had known more about the intelligence, including the questioning of it.<
>
<
>
So many 'ifs', but I think it demonstrates a need for change. And not a knee-jerk reaction like the Patriot Act. But carefully considered change about balance of power, and what our role should be, and what our role will be in the world theater, and concerning our own interests.<
>
<
>
Meanwhile, while it seems so disgracefully on the backburner, Osama bin Laden is still out there. I know that it has been said that he's essentially powerless and in many ways we don't care (said in essense one way or another). Well, perhaps not that we don't care, that's a little too strong. More that it is not our focus, and it's very low on the list of priorities. <
>
<
>
It shouldn't be. If a serial killer was on the loose, it would be scant conciliation to the families of the victims if the police said it wasn't a priority because due to the publicity the killer was in hiding, and since he was unlikely to attack again due to the publicity...it was no longer a priority case. Bad analogy perhaps, but frankly I don't care if he's in the nastiest rat hole in the world with no electricity, he still holds power as long as he lives. He's a symbol, and a powerful one. Even if all funds were cut off (which they're probably not), even if his access to the world was limited only to video tapes which eventually surface, that is still a fuck of a lot of power. It galvanizes others to action, and is a living demonstration of 'See, I'm still outwitting the most powerful nation on earth. They haven't gotten me yet!'. And toss in a few things about it being because God is on their side.<
>
<
>
We weren't done with Afghanistan and we leapt into Iraq. And while we are still in Afghanistan, it seems that the very reasons we went to war...because we were attacked...are off the priority radar because of these other issues.<
>
<
>
Bleh, I've typed too much and probably three people will read it all, but that's my non-sarcastic thoughts on this whole mess. I truly wish I had better answers. I've certainly seen some good ideas offered. But I think one of our priorities needs to be taking a long hard look at how these things have happened, and making changes so they do not happen in the future, as well as figuring out our role. It doesn't have to be a hard rule, but I think it's better than continually trying to spin various reasons for actions we've already committed.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:No, I retreat to, "I'm tired of repeating myself." I show over and over again that non-violence is an active pursuit of peace, not a passive "go ahead and do whatever you want" activity, and yet still you make statements that show you either didn't bother to read them, or refuse to admit that there are other options besides violence.<
>
<
>
Non-violence is PREEMPTIVE pursuit of peace. When violence has occured, non-violence has failed. At this moment there is a very very important choice, to use force to prevent one side from killing innocient people, or to not. So should we use force to prevent people from killing innocents?<
>
<
>
Quote:Again, if you think non-violence = "write up a report to send to the UN." then you simply don't have a clue about what non-violence is.<
>
<
>
"write up a report to send to the UN" is in reference to what the African Union troops are doing in Darfur; more specificly NOT doing wich is protecting the innocent women and children. Non-violence followers believe that using violence under any circumstances including to ward off or to protect innocent women and children is wrong. I believe that letting innocent women and children die is wrong. See the difference?<
>
<
>
Quote:Only twice that I know of in human history has non-violence been tried as a large scale operation, and in both instances it has resulted in success. Now, it's been a while since I took a math class, but I believe that this is a 100% success rate.<
>
<
>
India and US Civil Rights, but neather removed a violent psychopath. We dont hear many of the failures of non-violent resistance of violent psychopaths because dead men tell no tales. Plus, non-violent resistsance is counteractive against violent psychopaths. When fear is used to control a population, non-violent resistance will be destroyed by force. They will take the leaders of the non-violent resistance, kill them, kill their families, and 20 other random people. That only leads to greater fear of the violent psychopath.<
>
<
>
Quote:War, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have worked at all. Despite all the wars we've had over the course of human history, people keep killing each other! It's crazy I know, but when people kill people to stop people from killing people, it seems a little silly. It's a self perpetuating cycle that justifies killing, and to me seems to be entirely contradictory to the Jesus I know you say you follow as a Lutheran. On the other hand, those Palestinians who graduate from our school in Ramallah will never become suicide bombers. Those Ugandans we have worked with will never again raise their gun to kill their ethnically different neighbors. Those Sudanese Muslims and Christians we work with will never again kill each other.<
>
<
>
So is using force to defend the innocent wrong? Should we disband our governments lawful use of violence? We violently force people in jail, and threaten them with more violence if they attempt to leave. This is wrong or is letting them roam free to commit more crimes wrong?<
>
<
>
Quote:If there were enough people out there that were willing to follow the principles of non-violent resistence, then people like Saddam could be removed from power non-violently. Sadly, there aren't enough right now, and so the work of a pacifist becomes one of education, showing people one at a time that it can be done.<
>
<
>
Chicken and the Egg, non-violence wont be followed until it is proven to work, it wont be proven to work until it is followed. In the mean time Saddam is out of power.<
>
<
>
Quote:Fair enough. I suppose no absolute term is completely absolute aside from the assertion that there is no absolute . There's always a chance that things could change. But then also when people create hypotheticals for me to challenge my pacifism, allow me then the same argument; that there is always an alternative to killing, and that you can never know for sure that non-violent response will result in your death.<
>
<
>
So now can you answer me how non-violence is going to stop the murder and rape of innocents in Darfur? What about the lawful use a violence by the state? Is that wrong? Is forcing men and women, violently if required, who have harmed another to have restricted access to society when it is belived that they will harm more people if let free wrong? <i></i>

Quote:Non-violence is PREEMPTIVE pursuit of peace. When violence has occured, non-violence has failed.<
>
<
>
Well to be fair he's talking about non-violence resistance. Otherwise I agree with your opinions Karthun.<
>
<
>
And we don't have to reach for bizarre hypotheticals. Look at genocide, and I don't mean just the Holocaust of WWII, though that's ample enough. You can look at Cambodia and the Khabar Rouge. You can look to Russia and the 20 million or so killed there.<
>
<
>
The two examples of where passive resistance was highly successful: the civil rights movement in the US, and in India with Ghandi against the British are two examples of opponents who had limitations. There was never an intent on the part of either government to exterminate the people who were oppressed. The goal was not annihilation. Removing people and killing them elsewhere, even if they passively resist, is successful when you are someone who has no real limitations, someone who's ultimate goal is to kill you.<
>
<
>
The non-violent resistance during WWII in regards to the Holocaust consisted of people hiding those that the Nazis sought to murder. Or moving them to a safer place where the Nazis couldn't get them. Once the Nazis had them though, they either murdered them outright, or put them into camps where they either died, escaped (very few), or were eventually liberated.<
>
<
>
If you can explain how passive resistence will work against an opponent who wants you dead, I'm all ears. <
>
<
>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:Well to be fair he's talking about non-violence resistance. Otherwise I agree with your opinions Karthun.<
>
<
>
How are innocent people in Darfur who are being murdered and raped able to resist? <i></i>

As I said in the rest of my post, I agree with that. <
>
<
>
However as I quoted, you cannot say because violence occurs, non-violent methods have therefore failed. Violence occurred when Ghandi used non-violent methods to successfully combat the British. His methods were a success. <
>
<
>
Other than that minor point, we're on the same page.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

<
>
Do you think that every single soldier in an army exterminating a given population really has the same level of hatred as the leader directing the efforts? How many reluctant German soldiers were there? I'm sure there were thousands. The problem is a fear of speaking up, a fear that would be mitigated if *everyone* stood up at the same time.<
>
<
>
Would Hitler, Stalin, etc. have any power at all if his / her population refused to carry out his commands? Stalin couldn't kill his 20+ million people if the people under him refused. <
>
<
>
We've all heard of the Stanford prison experiments. We know how easy it is to get a group of people who would normally be considered "civilized" can be manipulated into very uncivilized acts. A large part of commiting to pacifism is recognizing that weakness with yourself, and working to build up a conviction strong enough to simply make that kind of environment impossible.<
>
<
>
We are ages from a society that would refuse such actions. But it has to start somewhere, with some group of people standing up and saying, "this is unacceptable." <
>
<
>
Whatever power any leader has in any country, it is power granted him by the acquiesence of the people within.<
>
<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote: Call me a pessimist but when daily bombings and assassinations are still going on<
>
<
>
Welcome to change where people who have always been able to get their way using such methods, now are confused about why it doesnt work anymore. <
>
<
>
Yeah there are significant positive changes happening in Iraq. To suggest that those changes could possibly happen without serious internal conflict is ignorant of all world history. Hell, I wonder what Europe's position on France would be if they assisted the forming of the US in today's media enhanced world. What would the media say about France given our civil war, internal strife, genocide of the American Indian, and constant fighting with Spain to take more territory.<
>
<
>
What we are doing in Iraq is tame in comparison to World history. It also is one of the most complete successes of a transformation to democracy ever. I wish it could be peaceful and perfect. Welcome to humanity... dont we all wish the world was more like Fribur? <i></i>

I generally agree with the principals of pacificsm. The time I don't are situations like Rwanda or Kosovo where thousands of people are in need of your military action. <i></i>

Quote:What we are doing in Iraq is tame in comparison to World history. It also is one of the most complete successes of a transformation to democracy ever.Yeah killing tens of thousands of civilians is "tame" and the democratic process is such a "success" that it was all "worth it". It was so worth it to murder 30,000 people so that we could "win" at our "project". What a good nation we are. <i></i>

Funny, I hadn't realized we succeeded over there in anything but to piss them off more. <i></i>

Tame? You're damn right it is, during WWII we bombed the fuck out of Germany for months and months on end. We bombed everything, our accuracy was maybe 20% the only way we could take out specific targets was to send a couple hundred bombers and drop thousands of bombs, yeah we got our target. But we also got everything else anywhere near it or even not near it.<
>
<
>
Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

The point is you should never refer to the deaths of 30,000 innocent fucking people as being a "tame" action, unless you are a completely heartless bastard incapable of empathy. <i></i>

Quote:Yeah killing tens of thousands of civilians is "tame" and the democratic process is such a "success" that it was all "worth it". I<
>
<
>
Quote: The point is you should never refer to the deaths of 30,000 innocent fucking people as being a "tame" action<
>
<
>
Great example of how badly you need this to be recorded as a failure just because you dislike the current administration. Here is a reality check, from everything I have read, the 30,000 people were not all civilians, don't know a percentage, but I am betting a LARGE portion of them are soldiers. Also, another poor assumption is that the US military killed that number. See the thing is, MANY Iraqi soldiers hid behind and within civilians. Pretty sickening practice if you ask me. I wonder what the outcry would be if US soldiers did something like that?<
>
<
>
I called this a relatively TAME action, and continue to because it was. Your sensationalizm of details to make them appear MUCH worse than reality, just because you have an overwhelming hatred of the current administration is pretty sad. <i></i>

Sensationalism? I'm quoting the exact figure Bush used, and Bush has good reason to shoot low on his estimates due to the political damage of the number. And it doesn't matter who killed them. Red herring. The fact is they are dead because we invaded and occupied. The fact that you consider thousands of dead Iraqis as being "tame" is pretty sickening, and shows a segment of American society has a very difficult time grasping the seriousness of the situation and our actions. How about you going to Iraq and telling them how "tame" it has been. <i></i>

Tell me Ray.. how many would be dead by Saddam's hand in the same time frame? <i></i>

Fribur, how many trillions would you let die during those "ages"? <i></i>

better question...<
>
<
>
Sadaam tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of ethnic Kurds over many decades.<
>
<
>
We've tortured and killed Iraqi's. We've used indiscriminate weapons like white phosphorus to attack civillian and soldier alike.<
>
<
>
At which point do we go from a "tame excursion" to part of the problem? At which point is the devil you knew no worse than the devil you know have? As 30K is a peachy keen OK number, I want a hard number from the warhawks here. How many dead is too many? When does the cost officially become too high? <
>
<
>

<i></i>

<
>
Karthun, zero.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote:We've used indiscriminate weapons like white phosphorus to attack civillian and soldier alike.<
>
<
>
I'll assume you're talking about Fallujah, do you understand how white phosphorus works and what types of weapons it is used in? Marauder Harabakc Goat<i></i>

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Quote:Karthun, zero.<
>
<
>
You would refuse the poor and the weak shelter and saftey. <i></i>