PDA

View Full Version : Tough question


Voss
05-21-2004, 05:17 AM
Why do so many Iraqis not like the US?

Asad Jalil - tortured to death by American soldiers.

Face it! Don't look away!

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,355611,00.jpg

u2sarajevo
05-21-2004, 09:33 AM
That's what happens when you fire rounds at American Soldiers....

I don't know this guys story, but I am betting there is a better than zero chance that he wasn't the local paper boy.

FishForLunch
05-21-2004, 09:36 AM
What did this innocent Iraqi do? Did he blow up our soldiers, burn our citizens? I give a flying f... if the arab street hates us. Those ungrateful bastards, I did not see you guys outraged when Saddam was slaughtering his dogs sorry citizens.

MavKikiNYC
05-21-2004, 12:31 PM
Why do so many Iraqis not like the US?

Who cares, as long as they stay home and kill each other, rather than coalition forces, or helping other miscreants of Allah fly planes into buildings in the U.S,.....or worse.


Asad Jalil - tortured to death by American soldiers. Face it! Don't look away!

No one is condoing torture by American forces, and no one appears to be afraid to confront it. On the other hand, who was this Iraqi, and what was he being detained for? Who were his associates, and what did he know?

Start answering some of those questions before you condemn anyone here.

madape
05-21-2004, 12:56 PM
The left is starting to resemble the insane fringe of pro-lifers who hand out pictures of dead babies in front of health clinics. Shocking people with gruesome photos never convinces people you are right. It only convinces them that you are a nut.

I think it's time to take your medicine, Voss.

LRB
05-21-2004, 01:45 PM
Why do so many Iraqis hate us? Well 1st of all I don't think near as many hate us as the media and left leaning useful idiots would have us believe. Of those who do hate us the vast majority probably hated us long before any news of possible abuses in prisions broke out. Of course those whackos in the far left of the Democratic party and dead set on doing all in their power to make sure as many Iraqis hate us as possible so long as a Republican administration is running the war effort there. Now that's patriotism for you. I'll trade these liberal idiots for the Iraqis who hate us in a heartbeat. At least the Iraqis are more upfront about it.

dude1394
05-21-2004, 03:24 PM
The reason that so many iraqi's hate us is because the ones that do are ignorant and fanned by irrational religious dogma. It also doesn't help that their culture and their politics are useless and corrupt. Their once-great dynasty reduced to begging for western aid or western technology to pump out oil. Bankrupt culture.

Here they are sitting on the greatest amount of wealthy known to man and they teach their children to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up because their military can't defenat tiny israel even when they have them surrounded and greatly out-numbered.

They have nothing left but hate for anyone who is better than they are... and almost everyone is or is passing them. It's nothing but impotence and envy.

dude1394
05-21-2004, 03:29 PM
Why do so many iraqis hate iraqi's? Sadaam Gas Attack.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/1.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/3.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/4.jpg

Murphy3
05-21-2004, 05:51 PM
Why do so many Iraqi's hate us? Two reasons:

1. It's a case of the haves and the have nots

2. Some people only learn how to hate.

twelli
05-21-2004, 09:21 PM
A superpower like the US will always be hated, because no one likes to be subjected to the power of another nation. In the beginning most people in Iraq were surely delighted to see Saddam gone, but the longer there are US troops in Iraq the more of the locals will want them to go home. Imagine, Iraq as the superpower liberates the US from a cruel dictatorship, how long would it take before the American people would demand Iraqi troops to go home? Imagine the Iraqis came to the US without getting the approval of the UN, basically acting alone (together with some Arab allies) thus neglecting international laws and attacking a souvereign country?

dude1394
05-21-2004, 10:13 PM
Ridiculous comparison. The US number one would be ecstatic because they aren't tribal idiots. However the iraqis right now are a bunch of irresponsible people who have never done much of anything for themselves.

Blaming ANY of this crap on the us is bs.

reeds
05-22-2004, 11:30 AM
"A superpower like the US will always be hated, because no one likes to be subjected to the power of another nation" Half-True. It true if the superpower flexes its muscle for reasons the majority of the world disagree with- then they will be hated...In the case of this war- I agree, we are hated by more of the world now than before this war started, thats for sure

LRB
05-22-2004, 12:15 PM
Why do the Iraqi's (and the French, Russians, some Germans, etc.) hate us? Pure and simple, it's Penis Envy.

Drbio
05-22-2004, 04:22 PM
rotflmao

FullBurst41
05-23-2004, 11:31 AM
Penis Envy, I like that one, ROFL. Anyway...

Some of you people really need a reality check. Iraq isn't filled with tribal idiots, unless you see Islam as being tribal, of course. There are tribes, just like there are tribes in Pakistan. Want to refer to them as tribal idiots as well?

Would you be ecstatic if the Iraqis came to America without anyone's consent except for a tightly knit group? Well sure, if, say, Putin was occupying your country, you'd be glad to see Buthan march their troops in and save you. However, how long would that last? And God forbid, what if they violated prisoner's rights? *shocking music* Oh dear, no!

For those who say that it all has nothing to do with the United States of America, what planet are you from again? Remind me who's M1 Abrams tanks are supporting offensives? Remind me where the F/A-18 Hornet was made, and which pilots fly them in Iraq today. If you can't even admit that the war that the US is still conducting in Iraq has nothing to do with the unrest, you're totally out of your league (hah, imagine that).

Of course! There are religious extremists, and more come and die every day. The world would be so much better off without them, I will agree with you on that any day of the week. But there are a couple of distinctions you don't have to lose sight of:

- It is not Iraq where people instruct their children on becoming suicide bombers. You've been watching "Our Dear Motherland Israel, Episode 158" too many times, I thikn.
- If all these Iraqis are so bad, then why was it them that forced that little bastrrd Shiite cleric out of town? It sure wasn't the US, since M-16A2s don't seem to scare them.

Conclusion: Unless you can well argument the sort of "anything to do with the US is bs" opinions, you'd better just shut that trap.

Oh, and just so you know, Belgium hates "you" too, "you" having much more to do with the American government than anything else. Oh, and Hollywood, oh how we hate Hollywood (or rather, a select few do, and I don't really belong there anyway). If I hated America as a whole, than I'd probably go to local basketball games moe often. Too bad they suck. So before you blame us of hating America, perhaps you might want to clean out your own closets first (and this is not aimed at all of you, but those targetted know who they are, I'm sure).

Respectfully.

FishForLunch
05-23-2004, 11:49 AM
So you hate us , big deal like we care, it the pinki liberals who are upset that the world hates them.

FullBurst41
05-23-2004, 05:01 PM
Fish, is it really that hard to understand what I am saying? Should I really increase the font size or something? So, if I presume that I did understand my post, my anwer would be...

So you're a government official now? And a highly placed one at that? Wow... can I have an autograph?

Go and read it again.

dude1394
05-23-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
Penis Envy, I like that one, ROFL. Anyway...

Some of you people really need a reality check. Iraq isn't filled with tribal idiots, unless you see Islam as being tribal, of course. There are tribes, just like there are tribes in Pakistan. Want to refer to them as tribal idiots as well?

Ahem... Well let's see they go around exploding themselves following around a religious zealot. Sunnis, kurds, shities. Fallujah leaders, imans calling people into prayers and no matter what kind of crapola they yell out, they go do it. Yeah, I'd call a whole BUNCH of them tribal idiots. Of course you try to argue the generality, ok. How about 20% of the iraqis are tribal idiots, better. That would be like what All african-americans and all hispanic people in the US being tribal idiots. We can parse the numbers, but yeah it's a hell of a lot.


Would you be ecstatic if the Iraqis came to America without anyone's consent except for a tightly knit group? Well sure, if, say, Putin was occupying your country, you'd be glad to see Buthan march their troops in and save you. However, how long would that last? And God forbid, what if they violated prisoner's rights? *shocking music* Oh dear, no!

Let's see.. If Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy gained power and began to kill you, me and anyone else who he felt like it. Nationalized the economy, starved my children, raped my daugthers (hmmmm) when he wanted and let his sons and cronies do it for 30 DAMN YEARS!!! Yea, I'd be pretty happy about someone coming in and finishing them off. Especially if I then saw them spending 87 BILLION!!! dollars on my country. There is no rationality for the lunatics in iraq to be against the US other than they are children being lead by tribal radicals, the only thing that makes any sense.


For those who say that it all has nothing to do with the United States of America, what planet are you from again? Remind me who's M1 Abrams tanks are supporting offensives? Remind me where the F/A-18 Hornet was made, and which pilots fly them in Iraq today. If you can't even admit that the war that the US is still conducting in Iraq has nothing to do with the unrest, you're totally out of your league (hah, imagine that).
What's your point? So we should have rolled over and let the soviets take iraq? Let the soviets take afghanistan? What planet are YOU from. The US for the last 50 years has spent blood and treasure promoting democracy, liberation and yes, our own interests throughout the world and then WALKED OUT. If we had your intestines what would the world look like? Soviet Utopia?


Of course! There are religious extremists, and more come and die every day. The world would be so much better off without them, I will agree with you on that any day of the week.

Typical liberal bs. Oh yeah, there are bad guys and it would be better if they weren't there....So now what einstein. Gonna call a cop or call your momma.


Oh, and just so you know, Belgium hates "you" too, "you" having much more to do with the American government than anything else.
Good, the feeling is getting pretty mutual.


Oh, and Hollywood, oh how we hate Hollywood (or rather, a select few do, and I don't really belong there anyway).
No I don't hate hollywood. I just saw a nice Troy movie, shrek, almost anything done by Mel Gibson, Eastwood, Kidman, Annette Beining..

But if you are talking about a buch of spoiled brats like the lying puke Michael Moore. maybe. I don't really hate him as much as loathe him spreading half-truths about the only country that wouldn't probably take his head for the crud he spouts. Let him go to iraq/iran/egypt/palestine/sudan/china and say any of this crap if he wants to see something. He's just another irresponsible, spoiled leftist. Irrelevant except when he's preaching to the sheep.

FishForLunch
05-23-2004, 08:27 PM
Well we dont care we hate you and your governments you socialists

LRB
05-23-2004, 11:44 PM
Would you be ecstatic if the Iraqis came to America without anyone's consent except for a tightly knit group? Well sure, if, say, Putin was occupying your country, you'd be glad to see Buthan march their troops in and save you. However, how long would that last? And God forbid, what if they violated prisoner's rights? *shocking music* Oh dear, no!

For those who say that it all has nothing to do with the United States of America, what planet are you from again? Remind me who's M1 Abrams tanks are supporting offensives? Remind me where the F/A-18 Hornet was made, and which pilots fly them in Iraq today. If you can't even admit that the war that the US is still conducting in Iraq has nothing to do with the unrest, you're totally out of your league (hah, imagine that).


Hmmmm. How would you like it if say some madman and his army came marching into Belgium with his tanks and planes and soldiers. Set up camp and started raping your women, killing you citizens that he didn't like for silly reasons like their ethnic origin or sexual preference. Virtually enslaved your whole country. Now how would you feel if the American GI's with their tanks and planes stayed their butts at home and played baseball and ate apple pie instead of rescuing your and the rest of Western Europe's collective butts? I guess you just miss saluting a swazstika every morning and watching your Jewish neighbors go off to the gas chamber? Of course no one is worse than the French who are so damn pissed that they had to have their good for nothing @$$es rescued not once, but twice in the last century by good old Americans. With the exception of Great Britan and a few other countries, Europeans are just friends with you when they need you. To hell with you though when you need even so much as their moral support. I sure hope that we remember who our friends are who they aren't. As for the ones who aren't, they can go to hell and stay there until it freezes over before I'd vote to lift a finger to help them again.

twelli
05-24-2004, 03:03 AM
I think all people in Europe and even people in Russia and China, all of which like to oppose the US going to war, should be thankful that someone takes it upon him to fight terrorism. This is a global problem that cannot be solved by appeasing the enemy. And every single person should be asking himself or herself in what kind of society he or she wants to live. Although I don't agree with all of what the US does, I rather enjoy the protection by a strong power that share ideas similar to mine than having to live under Nazis, Communists, Ayatollahs, Talibans or whatever other madmen find a way to grasp power.

Of course, the war in Iraq is not just about getting rid of Saddam, fighting terrorists, and accomplishing a humanitarian mission. Naturally, the US wants to have a permanent say in what's going on in the Middle East and looks for advantages of strategic and economic kind, who wouldn't? I don't care, because in the broader picture, all of us benefit from a US-controlled region.

My only problem with the war is that on the one hand the US justifies the war be telling the world that Saddam is illegally producing WMDs and on the other hand the US start a war that is against international laws. Does a super power have the right to neglect international laws?

Living in Taiwan right now I am a bit worried. If the Taiwanese government should one day declare independence and Mainland China decides to attack the island, should the US interfere or stay away? I am leaning towards the Chinese taking Taiwan in a short battle without much casualties rather than having the US support Taiwan in a prolonged war that would be disastrous for Taiwan and eventually have the same outcome.

LRB
05-24-2004, 10:32 AM
Does a super power have the right to neglect international laws?

Twelli while this is a good question, there is a great deal of disagreement what is and what is not international law. More importantly laws any laws are open to some interpretation. Who is the final interpreter of international law? There really isn't one. You could say that possibly the UN is by some, but this really isn't the case either. This would give the UN sovereignty over all nations and that is not the case. The UN is not sovereign over all nations. Furthermore, what happens when two veto carrying members disagree over what is right? A decision cannot be made. The UN can pass resolutions though. One was passed that promised severe consequences to Saddam Hussein if he did not comply with UN weapon inspectors. He did not. Furthermore, Saddam signed a treaty to end the original Gulf War with promises to corportate in disarming which would mean also corporating to show that he was disarmed. He did not comply with this either. The UN and generally agreed upon international law respect the right of sovereign nations, which the US is, to defend themselves from attacks. On September 11, 2001 the United States suffered a tragic attack on our citizens, our government, and our infrastructre. We had decalared war on those who perpetrated this attack and those who support them. There was and is evidence which led our leaders to believe that Saddam was corporating with Al Queda and other terrorist organizations which we have declared as our enemy. We also had intelligence reports that he was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMD's. Because he refused to comply with UN inspectors, we could not verify for sure if this was true without going there and verifying for ourselves. So far we haven't found any WMD's. Does this mean that there weren't any? Not necessarily so. While it's probable that he didn't have WMD's of a large scale, he could have had WMD's on a smaller scale which could have either been hidden and we've yet to find them or could have been removed from the country. Certainly it is a possibilty that he didn't have WMD's. Still it begs the question as to why he refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job. Did he plan on developing them later? So far we can only say that Saddam knows for sure. Where we're at is that we can't prove for sure that there were WMD's, however we can't prove for sure that there weren't either. Personally I hope that there weren't or that we destroyed them in a bombing. I shudder to think of the damage that they could cause. But for sure our leaders did fear that Saddam was a threat to the US via giving terrorists access to WMD's and support in general. So we have a legal argument to defend ourselves.

Certainly there are those who argue against these legal reasons. However those people haven't been appointed as a universally recognized international judge to judge who is and is not in compliance with international law. Really this is a war of propaganda. However, I question those who oppose the war because in essence they are supporting one of the greatest mass murders the world has ever known. And let me ask you this, would you be comfortable with Hitler being in power today if we had his conventional military scaled back to proportions that could be managed by the US and HItler's promise not to use WMD's and that he doesn't have any but his refusal to allow international weapons inspectors to verify it? Maybe you would, but I wouldn't. History is replete with calamities from trusting such power hungry and blood thirsty madmen in the past. Does or should international law protect them and give them the right to threaten innocents in both their own nation and in others? I would say no and no. Still this is open to interpretation. France would gladly have protected him. Great Britan would not. It should be noted that while the US was the major supplier of manpower and resourses in prosecuting the war against Saddam, that we did act with an international coalition of several nations who supplied both manpower and resources and many others who offered moral support. The UN did not offer any official resolutions condemning this action. And while France, Germany, Russia and others did speak out against it; no one has appointed them rulers of the world to unilaterally or as an international coalition decide what is and what is not international law nor have they been given the power and authority to be the official interpreters of international law.

Now as pertaining to the situation of your country. Taiwan is a democratic country which elects it's government. If you choose a government which chooses to oppose a forceful takeover by your country it will be the choice of your elected representatives and not the United States. We may and most assuredly will come to you aid if you are attacked or threatened and ask for our help. If you don't want this to happen then choose a governemnt which won't ask for our help. You can merge with China by simply voting in a government that agrees to do this. However you will need a majority of voters to obtain this government.

It should be noted that China can destroy, but not necessarily occupy Taiwan at their choosing. You do have a formidible defense against occupation in that you are an island. There is no nation on earth, including China, which is a match for the United States in the air or on the sea. If we stand by you, China has the choice to desist or to destroy you. But they make that decision knowing that the US has the power to destroy China. Doing so would result in a nuclear holocaust which would destroy our world as we know it. But it is this mutually assured destruction that protects both you, China, and the United States as long as leaders with any sense of reason and responsibility govern. I do believe that we have that in all 3 countries. And God help us all if a nuclear nation ever gets a madman in control of nuclear weapons.

FullBurst41
05-24-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Would you be ecstatic if the Iraqis came to America without anyone's consent except for a tightly knit group? Well sure, if, say, Putin was occupying your country, you'd be glad to see Buthan march their troops in and save you. However, how long would that last? And God forbid, what if they violated prisoner's rights? *shocking music* Oh dear, no!

For those who say that it all has nothing to do with the United States of America, what planet are you from again? Remind me who's M1 Abrams tanks are supporting offensives? Remind me where the F/A-18 Hornet was made, and which pilots fly them in Iraq today. If you can't even admit that the war that the US is still conducting in Iraq has nothing to do with the unrest, you're totally out of your league (hah, imagine that).


Hmmmm. How would you like it if say some madman and his army came marching into Belgium with his tanks and planes and soldiers. Set up camp and started raping your women, killing you citizens that he didn't like for silly reasons like their ethnic origin or sexual preference. Virtually enslaved your whole country. Now how would you feel if the American GI's with their tanks and planes stayed their butts at home and played baseball and ate apple pie instead of rescuing your and the rest of Western Europe's collective butts? I guess you just miss saluting a swazstika every morning and watching your Jewish neighbors go off to the gas chamber? Of course no one is worse than the French who are so damn pissed that they had to have their good for nothing @$$es rescued not once, but twice in the last century by good old Americans. With the exception of Great Britan and a few other countries, Europeans are just friends with you when they need you. To hell with you though when you need even so much as their moral support. I sure hope that we remember who our friends are who they aren't. As for the ones who aren't, they can go to hell and stay there until it freezes over before I'd vote to lift a finger to help them again.

Your assesment of bothworld wars is flawed. Your assesment of the battle between capitalism and communism is flawed.. Let's take a look.

World War I, the Great War, lasted three years before the US entered, or rather decided to enter (it would take until 1918 before they were ready to push the Germans off the map). Now, how did this come about?

First of all, it should be noted that America's help was very vlauable indeed, keeping the British fighting. This help came in the form of merchant shipping getting goods from the US to Britain. This was not opposed by the government, though technically it didn't have anything to do with them, it was an economic matter settled by parties outside the government. Correct?

Now, things started going awry when the Germans decided that this trade (one-way trade, rather) had to stop. They had the advantage of having some of the first really functional submarines, and they used them to devistating effect against the merchant fleet. This caused great concern on the US mainland. However, the American government wasn't ready to go to war quite yet, though it was now seriously considering it. Then came the Zimmerman telegram. You know that one, I'm sure. This really set the Americans off, and we all know what followed, so...

It took this long for the Americans for two reasons: for its economy to be hampered, and for US lives to be in danger (that's ONE), and second because the Germans tried to set other countries against the US, indirectly declaring war on the USA.

So that's the deal, and here lies the foundation of the US coming to save the Europeans. They wouldn't, until they were drawn into it. One cannot speculate as to whether the US would'vve entered as a last ditch effort to save the Western Europeans if things really got ugly (as in France eing lost, and an invasion of Britain being imminent).

In the Second World War, there are more interesting points to discuss. Again, the US was generous with aid to Britain, but this time there was more.

And here is where I mention the US army, as the honorable organisation it is. I will not hide my fascination and respect for the United States army, air force, navy and marine corps (and Coast Guard, fi you like). Here we had US pilots VOLUNTEERING to go overseas and help the British hold their own against the Luftwaffe. A crucial move, as would later be revvealed.

yet the US was cautious about entering the war. mMeanwhile, the Russians were dying by the millions and persecution was in full swing. Then came that terrible event known to all of us as Pearl Harbor. Now the US was faced with the whole of the Axis might ready to face it, it had nochoice but to go to war.

Again, thanks to the pilots that volunteered and the British pilots themselves, Great Britain was still standing by the time America entered the war. This meant that the Americans could station their long-range bombers on the island, a factor that would prove crucial in the long haul to destroy the German war machine.

Are we thankful that the American soldiers went all the way to Europe and saved our butts TWICE? Of course we are. We would be pure jerks if we weren't. However, that is beside the point. This is all about US politics. Twice in as many world wars, the Americans entered the war late. If this war were thought by politicians, I would be singing "Deutschland über alles" right now. God fobid.

Now, onto communism. Over here we have a term, "Pax Americana" to be more precise.; This basically refers to the Marshall Plan.

Again, we, the Europeans, are very thankful that this plan was drawn up, as it helped us recover from the horrors of war. Yet, it also made sure that Europe would not fall into Russian hands. Surely that is a good thing. Only this drive to deny the Russians any access proved to be a relentless one throughout the world.

American GIs faithfully didwhat their country asked of them, and went out to fight the Korean and Vietnam war, both of them gruelling. Whatever the official reason, both were meant to stifle communist expansion. However, it was not just this sort of actiont hat dominated the Cold War. Think back to 9/11, 1973, Chile. Need I go on?

Furthermore, one can ask the question whether communism in Europe would've prevailed once it penetrated the West (after a few years, maybe a decade of the Marshall plan, that is). The fundamentals were crucial, but surely you must realise that communism had no chance in Western Europe. Even if the Soviets tried to force it on us, communism simply would not have worked. That, and the nucleear deterrant, and I cannot really see why I owe the US government that much in debt for protecting me from the Red-Nosed Reindeer, to use a quite unneeded metaphor.

I blame the Western politicians as a whole for missmanaging the whole anti-communist action, especially in the third world. Politicians were assassinated (by whom exactly is still not clear), dictators were put in place, and we, the West, turned a blind eye while they went about raping their own country, if only to resist communism. I wonder then, if perhaps for them communism might've been a better alternative. Then I look at Cuba. Now you may think of Castro what you want, and I don't hold the guy in high regard either, but putting an embargo on that island for more than forty years? That's not going to help. The United States government is trying to force Castro out, while what they are really doing is hurting the people, when all they want to do is live in peace.(believe it or not) They see the US, and think "Wow, what a paradise." They go there, whenever they can. Sometimes they meet marginal to good success, sometimes they are sorely disappointed. Soemtimes they're executed by their own government. And who is to blame for that? I'll leave you to ponder all of that.

LRB
05-24-2004, 01:13 PM
Little history note was that the US declared war on Japan because of Peal Harbor. The US declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on us. However we could didn't have to committ as many soldiers and resources as we did to Western Europe until we finished with Japan. But for the save of saving Europe we did. We could have tried to force a conditional surrender from Germany without the Normandy invasion, but it would have left much of Europe in Hitler's hands including your country.

And we were at war with Germany in practically all manner except officially long before Pearl Harbor. You could hardly call the US position neutral and keep a straight face. We did however heighten our committment to the war after Pearl Harbor. Part of the reason why were were slow to act was a policy of isolationism. Now you ask us to go back to that. Even more you ask us to ignore an attack on our country which makes Pearl Harbor pale by comparison.

I do find you denial of the threat of communism as not being valid. I guess it's real easy to dismiss threats when you have someone else willing to bleed and die for you freedom. Just what do you think would have made Western Europe so vastly different from Eastern Europe? And what was the difference from Hitler roling over you and then Stalin doing the same?

Most European's are so damn grateful for America, which by the way fed a huge part of Western Europe after the WWII in addition to military assistance, that they'd prefer to back a mass murdering dicator than support us in our conflict against him. Why? Because you just really like sticking it to the biggest kid on the block I would guess.

I think that we did you a major disservice by saving your butts. You are so damn spoiled and live in an ivory tower world with no conception of the blood and sacrifice that are necessary to pay for a free society. Why? Because for the most part you had it given to you and didn't have to fight for it. You're like the spoiled rich kid who doesn't appreciate those who have to work to support his oppulance.

FullBurst41
05-24-2004, 01:30 PM
You could not force Hitler out, but Stalin wcould, a nd gladly would oblige. If he had done so, I think that there would have been no European union at this time, enough said.

Even though jyou did ally with Stalin against Hitler, you cannot forget that the original position was that a confrontation in the East might be a good thing. In the early days, it was generally agreed that it might be better to have a fascist threat in the east, than a communist one. OR perhaps they'd just bleed each other to death, better yet.

Germany, or rather HItler, made many silly mistakes in the war. The whole invasion of the Soviet Union was one big mistake.

What makes me think that Western Europe would've been different from Eastern Europe? Simple: the taste of capitalism. The Eastern European countries barely had, and never would until they were released from Russia's grip. And I won't deny it, the MArshall Plan allowed for that. That i simply sayign that communism as a system would not work, and Stalin might have had to deport multiple populations to Siberia to get any sort of cooperation. However, that is not what the United States wanted,they simply could not allow a western expansion of the Soviet Union, that was what the nukes were for, and all the troops in the early days (until today).

What I am saying, is that France, for one, does not owe you as much as you make it out to be. They allowed you your independance by sending troops to defeat the British in the late 18th century. Your country values that. Your military values that until today. You have a nuclear missile submarine designated "Lafayette," in fact, you have a whole class of the boats. You will never be able to discount the economic implications of losing Europe to the US in both wars.; That's just geopolitics for you. What I do value, and what I do owe to your SOLDIERS ALONE, is my liberty. However, I do not owe a thing to your government, and you don't owe a thing to the French government (they helped you kick British butt because it was in their own interests). I owe nothing to the French, they occupied my country many times. They don't owe us anything, even though we tried in both world wars, in the end our resistance against the Germans and their crossing of the Belgium-France border was futile. What does a country owe, and who does that country owe it to? I think stating that I, or anyone else, owes anything to any country when it concerns its policy, is pulling the subjects out of context.

LRB
05-24-2004, 02:04 PM
And based upon what evidence do you believe Stalin would have given up Western Europe?

And you're right the French Monarchy did send aid to my country. Then that monarchy fell from power when they literally lost their heads. But we're still grateful for that aid and came to France's aid twice when invaded by Germany.

The French government has always been ungrateful to the point of open resentment for our aid, especially in WWII. And France makes a much better enemy than they do an ally.

dude1394
05-24-2004, 07:13 PM
Living in Taiwan right now I am a bit worried. If the Taiwanese government should one day declare independence and Mainland China decides to attack the island, should the US interfere or stay away? I am leaning towards the Chinese taking Taiwan in a short battle without much casualties rather than having the US support Taiwan in a prolonged war that would be disastrous for Taiwan and eventually have the same outcome.

Twelli, I don't know how old you are, but look at tibet to see what will happen if your scenario happens. Or tianammin(sp) square. If you love the freedoms you have now, you have to be ready to die for it, or you won't have it. How would you have liked to have been put in prison for the message board entry you just typed. Once freedom is lost, it is not easily re-gained.

twelli
05-25-2004, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394

Living in Taiwan right now I am a bit worried. If the Taiwanese government should one day declare independence and Mainland China decides to attack the island, should the US interfere or stay away? I am leaning towards the Chinese taking Taiwan in a short battle without much casualties rather than having the US support Taiwan in a prolonged war that would be disastrous for Taiwan and eventually have the same outcome.

Twelli, I don't know how old you are, but look at tibet to see what will happen if your scenario happens. Or tianammin(sp) square. If you love the freedoms you have now, you have to be ready to die for it, or you won't have it. How would you have liked to have been put in prison for the message board entry you just typed. Once freedom is lost, it is not easily re-gained.

I might be wrong or maybe I am blended by Mainland China's propaganda, but I am under the impression that enormous changes have been taking place in China over the last decade and I think it is not only the economy that is making astonishing progress but also the political scene is not what it was like before. Sure, the Communist Party is still in power and they don't have the kind of democracy we enjoy in the West but compared to Tiananmen and before I believe people in China enjoy a much higher degree of freedom than ever before during the past 50 years. And I also believe that this is an ongoing process that will continue until the Chinese will life in a democratic society like people in the US or Europe (of course that might take another 50 years).

As to the Taiwan question, first of all, I hope the Taiwan government is not so stupid as to declare independence. Because of historic facts (Taiwan was part of China during the Chinese Civil war in the late 1940s that separated the two sides) and internal political pressure (independance movements in Xinjiang and Tibet) China has no choice but to reclaim the island by force and considering the sheer size of the army, there is no doubt about the outcome. Even if the US would back the Taiwanese with weapons (Patriots come to mind) it would be just a matter of time until Taiwan falls (no way the US would consider confronting China directly over Taiwan). So my point is that if Taiwan wants to risk war they should not rely on US help, which would only prolong the war and destroy more of the country. If I were Taiwanese (I am a Westerner living in Taiwan) I wouldn't die for independence (not anymore, maybe during the 50s to 70s, but not today where China makes some progress in the right direction). There are now many people in Taiwan that think it wouldn't be so bad to be reunified with Mainland China, although most prefer the status quo.

Would the US try to hamper reunification between the two Chinas and do they currently hamper unification of the two Koreas for protecting US interests in the region?

Final thought: If I hear someone arguing that the war in Irak is about saving people's lifes I can't help but thinking about the astronomic amounts of money spent and I wonder how many millions of people could be saved in Africa if the money was spend on AIDS education and condoms ...

FullBurst41
05-25-2004, 10:40 AM
How do you mean, give up Western Europe? If you mean after the second World War, in a hypothetical Sovietpush Westward after the fall of the Germans? The answer would be as simple as "nuke." Remember the Berlin dispute, where Stalin threatened to take acion against aircraft delivering supplies to the forces stationed in the city? He didn't. Why? Nukes.

Of course, after a while, it became the general idea that a conventioonal attack would not immediately provoke a response consisting of a nuclear package, but you and I both know where it would probably lead.

dude1394
05-28-2004, 11:14 PM
Here is what real torture by sadaam looked like. Now you want to tell me again why we are talking about panties on someones head for 4 weeks!!! And calling for secdef's resignation is nothing but politics. I couldn't stand to put the rest in here. saddam torture (http://www.sotaliraq.com/thenewiraq/article_Baath.html)

You sure as hell won't see any of this to give context to the american prison photos. And where is the sob amnesty international during this time.

http://www.sotaliraq.com/thenewiraq/baathregimetorture8.jpg

FullBurst41
05-29-2004, 11:02 AM
Don't forget that you support an Usbek government that has a similar human rights record (when it comes to political oppositions and prisoners, that is). Those that say that "The Cold War is over" are right, but the shadows of that period ar still cast over the new conflict, that against terrorism.