Why did America go to war with IRAQ ?

[kurtsprincess]

Thats fine.. Its just an interesting video with all kinds of CIA and Govt officials. But I find it funny when people dont want to watch something that debates their view point. Espeically when it comes from the people that are right there in the thick of it. I think I would believe them than some of the bogus articles people post here.

Are there any other sources that quote these same "CIA" and "Govt Officials" other than Moveon?

I have a tendency to shy away from a "one source" article. If you can direct me to some other source that has this same information I would be happy to peruse it.

However..............Moveon is not a credible source for anything that is unbiased.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I was debating in class today with someone whos main point was that America was a bully who deserved to be attacked, and Cuba was a great place to live. So what if people were'nt free. They were all equal and had 99% literacy.

I think I actually lost, technically. Because that just threw up a "Does Not Compute" message in my mental computer. How the f*** am I supposed retort against that? It's like somebody openly endorseing David Duke or Adolf Hitler.

Sometimes inequality can only be ended by depriving some people of their hardearned and inherited resources, thus reducing them to be as poorly off as everyone else.

Theim --- too bad you can't continue the debate and use this example:

In a group consisting of both blind and seeing persons, those with sight were rendered blind because the blind could not be offered sight.

In this case, as in the case with Cuba, equality would suck!

Personally, I have fought most of my life to be better than equal to my peers. I am not one to be satisfied with "equality". I want more than the status quo.

Guess I wouldn't make a very good liberal.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, on the issue of somebody invading to end slavery, let's take a look at what actually happened. In 1820, there was no 'enlightened' society that realized that slavery was wrong. Europe was slowly moving that way, but it was still a widely accepted practice throughout the world since it was assumed that Africans were genetically inferior to the rest of the world. By the time it was almost universally seen as wrong, the American economy was so dependant on slavery that they didn't dare end it until they had a plan to replace it. The process was being discussed, but some politicians were making it their business to simply cut slavery off without a backup. Economic disaster? Who cares? They'd get the slave symapthizer vote. The south broke away to avoid being bullied into it, and this caused a huge kink the process of peacefully ending slavery. After an invasion of the Confederacy which was unrelated to slavery (and which I think was morally and ethically wrong, but that's another thread), legal slavery was ended in the civilized world. The invasion of the south is not widely seen as wrong, and though I think there were better ways, I can't entirely disagree.

However, in the modern world, dictatorship and genocide are pretty much universally wrong. Diplomatic routes with Saddam were tried, but failed. It's apples and oranges.

 

[ThomasPaine]

Ok, on the issue of somebody invading to end slavery, let's take a look at what actually happened. In 1820, there was no 'enlightened' society that realized that slavery was wrong. Europe was slowly moving that way, but it was still a widely accepted practice throughout the world since it was assumed that Africans were genetically inferior to the rest of the world. By the time it was almost universally seen as wrong, the American economy was so dependant on slavery that they didn't dare end it until they had a plan to replace it. The process was being discussed, but some politicians were making it their business to simply cut slavery off without a backup. Economic disaster? Who cares? They'd get the slave symapthizer vote. The south broke away to avoid being bullied into it, and this caused a huge kink the process of peacefully ending slavery. After an invasion of the Confederacy which was unrelated to slavery (and which I think was morally and ethically wrong, but that's another thread), legal slavery was ended in the civilized world. The invasion of the south is not widely seen as wrong, and though I think there were better ways, I can't entirely disagree.

However, in the modern world, dictatorship and genocide are pretty much universally wrong. Diplomatic routes with Saddam were tried, but failed. It's apples and oranges.

and the war began. The South's attempt to secede was one thing. To openly attack federal forts was another. After that the bloodshed began. The South lost the war, was occupied, and the occupation should have continued much longer to ensure black rights. By the way I'm a Southerner and I know for damn sure that Reconstruction ended way too soon and left the South bankrupt, backward, and racist for nearly another century. Of course I think the anology of the United States to Iraq is poor and unsupportable to begin with..

 

[José]

That was a <B>THOUGHT EXPERIMENT</B> designed to clarify what I said.

Last time I checked thought experiments didn&#8217;t have to be based on absolutely accurate historical circumstances.

You can replace slavery with any other <B>MODERN</B> justification for the military invasion of the US.

A foreign power invading the US to end the massive drug consumption.

A foreign power invading the US to eliminate american weapons of mass destruction.

A foreign power invading the US to eliminate the american pornographic industry.

A foreign power invading the US to reduce the impact of american industries on the environment.

ETC, ETC, ETC...

How can you have an online debate when people are not even able to understand the point you&#8217;re making?

This is the core of my argument:

When their country is the invader, people tend to emphasize the superior social project presented by it.

But when their country is the invaded one, they tend to emphasize the nationalist opposition to the occupier, no matter how justifiable the reasons behind the invasion are.

These are natural human tendencies, there&#8217;s no need to be ashamed of them and deny their existence.

If you can prove these statements are false, do it now, otherwise, just admit I&#8217;m right.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I was debating in class today with someone whos main point was that America was a bully who deserved to be attacked, and Cuba was a great place to live. So what if people were'nt free. They were all equal and had 99% literacy.

I think I actually lost, technically. Because that just threw up a "Does Not Compute" message in my mental computer. How the f*** am I supposed retort against that? It's like somebody openly endorseing David Duke or Adolf Hitler.

If Cuba is such a wonderful place, why do Cubans take a raft made for 3, cram 30 people on it, and risk their lives to get away from it?

That's about all I can think of in my state at the moment. As far as America being a bully, I guess we are a bully that has played major roles in liberating places like France, Germany, and indeed Iraq. Also, a bully that offers financial assistance to every country in the world when they suffer natural disasters, even countries that openly despise us like Iran. There are more examples, I'm just too tired to come up with much of anything good.

 

[Hobbit]

Your comparisons are invalid and asinine, starting mainly with the fact that we control our own government. You're just a troll using these idiotic comparisons to make yourself look smart.

Let's also look at your last statement. It's using a propaganda technique called "false alternatives." You present two views, namely that either you deny the human nature of perspective exists or that you're right and we shouldn't be in Iraq. These views are not the only two choices. However, you have presented them as such in order to make us say that you're right because nobody would deny perspective exists. However, knowing people who are from Iraq, I have that perspective, and you are wrong.

 

[José]

The reality check in Iraq says:

60% of the population (shia muslim) grudgingly <B>TOLERATE</B> the invasion and occupation of their country, hoping that they will be the main beneficiaries of majority rule in Iraq.

20% of the population (sunni muslim) are openly hostile to the occupation and, as we speak, are engaged in a armed struggle against american forces in Iraq.

20% of the population (kurds) enthusiastically support the occupation of Iraq.

So 20% of Iraq&#8217;s population unambigously support the occupation, while the other 80% is either openly hostile or tolerate it as a necessary evil.

This does not mean the US effort to create a democratic Iraq is doomed.

People&#8217;s opinions, feelings and outlooks are constantly changing as the situation on the ground changes.

Let&#8217;s not forget that nationalist resentment against the US military invasion of Germany and Japan were also pretty high during the first months (years) of the occupation.

But these numbers clearly show that I&#8217;m absolutely right when I say that when the country invaded is <B>YOURS</B>, most people (sometimes only for a while) tend to focus on nationalist resentment against the humiliation brought by military defeat and occupation, despite all the good reasons for the occupation given by the invader.

Two outcomes are possible in Iraq (besides the creation of a puppet government as an exit strategy):

Sunni arabs can be coopted into the democratic process and then the US plan for Iraq will probably succeed.

Sunnies will continue their armed struggle to keep their autocratic rule over Iraq, and even worse, shia muslim will, some years from now, join the sunni armed struggle and then nationalist opposition will win (together with the ethno-religious rivalries between the three groups that make up Iraq).

Iraq can go either way (a winning cause like Korea or a losing one like Vietnam).

So this factor, nationalist opposition to foreign rule, is a <B>VALID</B> argument when one debates any military occupation of another country, an argument that cannot be discarded by the blind american patriots of the USMB, just like one of the reasons behind the US invasion (a democratic Iraq/Middle East) cannot be discarded by the anti-american crowd either.

 

[José]

So, in a sadly familiar scene for all those who follow José&#8217;s trajectory, Hobbit and Paine lie on the floor of the USMB, semi-concious, mumbling, five broken teeth, with blood slowly dripping from their mouths and noses while jimnyc raises José&#8217;s arm.

Meanwhile, RightwingAvenger, Paine and Hobbit&#8217;s trainer, shouts in total desperation:

&#8220;ON YOUR FEET, HOBBIT, THOMAS!!!! ON YOUR FEET!!!!&#8221;

They hear their trainer&#8217;s appeals, but due to the mental confusion caused by their state of semi-conciousness, they are unable to understand the meaning of his words.

Kathianne was still holding the sign anouncing the beginning of the 5th round when Hobbit and Paine went down.

RightwingAvenger, helped by his assistant, d, finnally drags Hobbit and Paine to their corner where they slowly regain conscience, and, as they realise what happened, start crying and sobbing:

&#8220;We tried to hold our ground but we were brutalised by José&#8217;s paroxistic violence.&#8221;

Nato Air, completely struck by José&#8217;s performance, says:

&#8220;Not even the best sumo wrestler we have here in Japan, the great Takanohana, would stand a chance against José.&#8221;

Watching the fight from a distance, Dilloduck shakes his head in disappointment and thinks to himself:

&#8220;Just like Comrade before them, Hobbit and Paine met the sad but innevitable fate of all those who are foolish enough to challenge José.&#8221;

While Merlin 1047 and freeandfun wrap the heavyweight championship belt around José&#8217;s waist, the crowd of the USMB, ignoring completely the suffering of the losers, shout the name of their new idol in an unbelievable frenzy:

<B>&#8220;JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!!&#8221;</B>

So once again, imposture is defeated, right-wingers and leftists are defeated, and the truth triumphs through another devastating knockout by José, the undisputed heavyweight champion, not only of the Israel/Palestine section anymore, but the entire USMB.

: )

 

[Avatar4321]

Found this on another site and thought it very interesting. So much so that I think some of the war supporters might find this very interesting. Its a 45mb download.

BTW, its made by americans, all credible sources (ex CIA workers/MOD employees etc.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse...whole_truth.wmv

If the link dont work just go here where I found it.

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=92859

BTW - Before you flame this is a very interesting Moveon.org video. But it has interviews with MANY Govt offiicials. And if you want to call every govt offiicial on here an outright liar then so be it. this isnt for you.

Why is it liberals have such a difficult time understanding why we liberated Iraq? I mean it's not really that complicated. In fact I can explain it pretty easily.

We were attacked on 9/11. Liberals for some reason don't seem to understand why this small fact has totally changed our foriegn policy outlook. We can't just sit on our ass and do nothing in the world and expect our enemies to ignore us. We are at war whether we fight back or not. We just have a chance of survival fighting back.

After 9/11 we promised that we would hunt terrorists down and take out any regime that supported terror. Saddam supported terror. He funded terrorists. He had dealings with terrorists. He offered Osama a place to stay after he Osama fled the Sudan.

On top of that Saddam had already proven to the world his agressive nature. He proved that he was eager and willing to seek after and use weapons of mass destruction. With his disposition to seek after WMDs and his ties with terrorists it was only natural that we would want to impliment President Clinton's policy of regime change in Iraq. If we waited around for him to become an iminent threat, it would have been too late.

In addition to all that clear analysis, Iraq was a great place to begin the war on terrorism for a number of strategic reasons.

1)Saddam's neighbors had no love for him. They don't have any problem with the fact that he is no longer in power. In fact, some are quite grateful he is gone. He had no way of rallying other ME nations to help him.

2)The liberation of Iraq has given us greater military position in the region. We now have 2 other major terror supporters, Iran and Syria, pincered between two allied nations. Iran is pincered between Iraq and Aghanistan. Syria is pincered between Iraq and Israel. We now have a strong base of action in the center of the middle east in case we have to use any military force against another hostile nation.

Not only that, in case we ever have to invade Saudi Arabia, which seems unlikely at this moment of time, we could have pretty easy access and there will be less resistance by neighbor nations because we will have liberated them and proven that we don't want to attack Islam but to free people from these terrorists.

3)One of the major reason for terrorism is the opressive nature of the regimes where these terrorists come from. By supporting a foreign policy of freedom for everyone in the middle east, and by liberating the people from these oppressive regimes, we give the people more ability to seek out their own destinies. We allow them the chance to grow economically and get themselves out of the cycles of poverty. In essence we wipe out the terrorists breeding grounds.

4)the liberation of Iraq has drawn terrorists from other countries out of hiding. As they gather in Iraq we can beat them down alot easier than we could if they were hiding throughout the world.

5)One last strategic reason to be in Iraq is the oil. It's not why we are there. But freeing up the oil reserves from a ruthless dictator will have a positive effect on the price of oil in the long run.

Most importantly, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqis. They no longer have to fear death at the hands of their government. They dont have to watch their wives and children raped and tortured. They don't have to starve to death while Saddam and corrupt UN leaders make billions off the oil for food scam.

Like I said, it's not really that difficult to figure out why we are in Iraq. All you have to do is see the twin towers fall on video this weekend and you'll know why.

 

[Avatar4321]

Thats fine.. Its just an interesting video with all kinds of CIA and Govt officials. But I find it funny when people dont want to watch something that debates their view point. Espeically when it comes from the people that are right there in the thick of it. I think I would believe them than some of the bogus articles people post here.

I don't think anyone is not wanting to watch the videos because they have an opposing view point. They just don't want to watch the video because the people who created them are untrustworthy NeoCom @$$holes who think we the people are two stupid to figure things out for ourselves.

 

[Hobbit]

So, in a sadly familiar scene for all those who follow José’s trajectory, Hobbit and Paine lie on the floor of the USMB, semi-concious, mumbling, five broken teeth, with blood slowly dripping from their mouths and noses while jimnyc raises José’s arm.

Meanwhile, RightwingAvenger, Paine and Hobbit’s trainer, shouts in total desperation:

“ON YOUR FEET, HOBBIT, THOMAS!!!! ON YOUR FEET!!!!”

They hear their trainer’s appeals, but due to the mental confusion caused by their state of semi-conciousness, they are unable to understand the meaning of his words.

Kathianne was still holding the sign anouncing the beginning of the 5th round when Hobbit and Paine went down.

RightwingAvenger, helped by his assistant, d, finnally drags Hobbit and Paine to their corner where they slowly regain conscience, and, as they realise what happened, start crying and sobbing:

“We tried to hold our ground but we were brutalised by José’s paroxistic violence.”

Nato Air, completely struck by José’s performance, says:

“Not even the best sumo wrestler we have here in Japan, the great Takanohana, would stand a chance against José.”

Watching the fight from a distance, Dilloduck shakes his head in disappointment and thinks to himself:

“Just like Comrade before them, Hobbit and Paine met the sad but innevitable fate of all those who are foolish enough to challenge José.”

While Merlin 1047 and freeandfun wrap the heavyweight championship belt around José’s waist, the crowd of the USMB, ignoring completely the suffering of the losers, shout the name of their new idol in an unbelievable frenzy:

<B>“JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!! JOSÉ!!!”</B>

So once again, imposture is defeated, right-wingers and leftists are defeated, and the truth triumphs through another devastating knockout by José, the undisputed heavyweight champion, not only of the Israel/Palestine section anymore, but the entire USMB.

: )

What the hell is this? You're apparently a legend in your own mind. You have beaten nobody and accomplished nothing.

Now, let's got over some facts from your previous post.

Shiites are supportive of the new government. They don't "grudgingly tolerate" anything. They're, in fact, quite glad to have us there.

Most sunnis have stopped interfering with the new government and instead have joined in with it so they get a say in it.

The kurds couldn't be happier.

How do I know this? It's because I don't make stuff up off the top of my head, then post some messed up boxing thing about how I won. Instead, I ask my friends, both in the military and with Iraqi relatives, what's going on. I tend to take their word over yours.

 

[Gunny]

Why is it liberals have such a difficult time understanding why we liberated Iraq? I mean it's not really that complicated. In fact I can explain it pretty easily.

We were attacked on 9/11. Liberals for some reason don't seem to understand why this small fact has totally changed our foriegn policy outlook. We can't just sit on our ass and do nothing in the world and expect our enemies to ignore us. We are at war whether we fight back or not. We just have a chance of survival fighting back.

After 9/11 we promised that we would hunt terrorists down and take out any regime that supported terror. Saddam supported terror. He funded terrorists. He had dealings with terrorists. He offered Osama a place to stay after he Osama fled the Sudan.

On top of that Saddam had already proven to the world his agressive nature. He proved that he was eager and willing to seek after and use weapons of mass destruction. With his disposition to seek after WMDs and his ties with terrorists it was only natural that we would want to impliment President Clinton's policy of regime change in Iraq. If we waited around for him to become an iminent threat, it would have been too late.

In addition to all that clear analysis, Iraq was a great place to begin the war on terrorism for a number of strategic reasons.

1)Saddam's neighbors had no love for him. They don't have any problem with the fact that he is no longer in power. In fact, some are quite grateful he is gone. He had no way of rallying other ME nations to help him.

2)The liberation of Iraq has given us greater military position in the region. We now have 2 other major terror supporters, Iran and Syria, pincered between two allied nations. Iran is pincered between Iraq and Aghanistan. Syria is pincered between Iraq and Israel. We now have a strong base of action in the center of the middle east in case we have to use any military force against another hostile nation.

Not only that, in case we ever have to invade Saudi Arabia, which seems unlikely at this moment of time, we could have pretty easy access and there will be less resistance by neighbor nations because we will have liberated them and proven that we don't want to attack Islam but to free people from these terrorists.

3)One of the major reason for terrorism is the opressive nature of the regimes where these terrorists come from. By supporting a foreign policy of freedom for everyone in the middle east, and by liberating the people from these oppressive regimes, we give the people more ability to seek out their own destinies. We allow them the chance to grow economically and get themselves out of the cycles of poverty. In essence we wipe out the terrorists breeding grounds.

4)the liberation of Iraq has drawn terrorists from other countries out of hiding. As they gather in Iraq we can beat them down alot easier than we could if they were hiding throughout the world.

5)One last strategic reason to be in Iraq is the oil. It's not why we are there. But freeing up the oil reserves from a ruthless dictator will have a positive effect on the price of oil in the long run.

Most importantly, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqis. They no longer have to fear death at the hands of their government. They dont have to watch their wives and children raped and tortured. They don't have to starve to death while Saddam and corrupt UN leaders make billions off the oil for food scam.

Like I said, it's not really that difficult to figure out why we are in Iraq. All you have to do is see the twin towers fall on video this weekend and you'll know why.

The problem here is that this is a well thought out response, and you might as well be talking to a barn door as anyone who hasn't figured it out by now. The lefties have made up their story and they'er sticking to it no matter how much fact, logic, and/or common sense you throw at them.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Jose said:

When their country is the invader, people tend to emphasize the superior social project presented by it.

But when their country is the invaded one, they tend to emphasize the nationalist opposition to the occupier, no matter how justifiable the reasons behind the invasion are.

If these stamenents are true, it makes even less sense how libs (like Cindy Sheehan, for example) while being citizens of the "invader" country (USA), act like they are actually citizens of the invaded country (Iraq).

-

 

[sitarro]

That was a <B>THOUGHT EXPERIMENT</B> designed to clarify what I said.

Last time I checked thought experiments didn’t have to be based on absolutely accurate historical circumstances.

You can replace slavery with any other <B>MODERN</B> justification for the military invasion of the US.

A foreign power invading the US to end the massive drug consumption.

A foreign power invading the US to eliminate american weapons of mass destruction.

A foreign power invading the US to eliminate the american pornographic industry.

A foreign power invading the US to reduce the impact of american industries on the environment.

ETC, ETC, ETC...

How can you have an online debate when people are not even able to understand the point you’re making?

This is the core of my argument:

When their country is the invader, people tend to emphasize the superior social project presented by it.

But when their country is the invaded one, they tend to emphasize the nationalist opposition to the occupier, no matter how justifiable the reasons behind the invasion are.

These are natural human tendencies, there’s no need to be ashamed of them and deny their existence.

If you can prove these statements are false, do it now, otherwise, just admit I’m right.

I believe that the use of the word invade is incorrect. The United States was asked by Iraqis to take out a very evil man that was oppressing his people, non of your analogies work. I think the lines of Iraqis walking miles and standing for hours to be able to cast a real vote says it all.

 

[José]

Originally posted by <B>Hobbit</B>
Shiites are supportive of the new government. They don't "grudgingly tolerate" anything. They're, in fact, quite glad to have us there.

Most sunnis have stopped interfering with the new government and instead have joined in with it so they get a say in it.

The kurds couldn't be happier.

Hobbit.

I lived in the ME, was always well treated there, have fond memories of Syria and Lebannon, so I&#8217;m probably the last person in the world who want to see arabs living under tyrannical rule.

But when I come into a political chat I have to leave my personnal opinion aside and recognise that armed struggles against foreign occupiers are a valid argument to be brought on the table, to a certain extent.

This is what I mean:

I understand an Iraqi or american citizen who don&#8217;t want to wait 200 hundred years seeing their countrymen being killed every day, and take up arms or protest to end a failed political experiment.

If in the next 5, 10 or 15 years, despite all the efforts by the US, the three ethnic groups that make up Iraq still don&#8217;t reach any political consensus regarding the establishment of a government based on majority rule (with security checks for all minorities) with Iraqis and american soldiers being killed every day, then, the armed struggle will have to be taken into account in Washington DC.

 

[José]

Originally posted by <B>sitarro</B>
I believe that the use of the word invade is incorrect. The United States was asked by Iraqis to take out a very evil man that was oppressing his people, non of your analogies work. I think the lines of Iraqis walking miles and standing for hours to be able to cast a real vote says it all.

I do believe 80% of Iraqis wanted Saddam out of power.

Iraq was clearly under an autocratic minority rule.

But now that Saddam is politically irrelevant, I think the best way to describe shia attitude regarding the occupation is toleration.

They tolerate it because they think they will be the main beneficiaries of a democratic Iraq.

But as far as political science is concerned the only thing we can say for sure is that today&#8217;s reality will not be tomorrow&#8217;s.

The crucial question to be made now is:

Will democracy really take root in Iraq, and if it does what will be Iraq&#8217;s relationship with America?

Will Iraq someday be a true US ally?

Will Iraqis someday look upon american military bases (long-term american presence) in their country the way the german and japanese people see it:

As a benign foreign presence rather than a foreign army of occupation?

Or is America too radioactive in arab countries for this to happen (support for Israel etc etc)?

Aside for NATO:

I know some japanese (specially in Okinawa) would beg to differ about the &#8220;benign foreign presence&#8221; part, but I still think this is the way most japanese see your presence there.

 

[José]

Originally posted by <B>Abbey Normal</B>
If these stamenents are true, it makes even less sense how libs (like Cindy Sheehan, for example) while being citizens of the "invader" country (USA), act like they are actually citizens of the invaded country (Iraq).

We finally have two brave souls who at least understood and is willing to take on the challenge to prove these statements are wrong!!!

Look Abbey, this is a good point and good points deserve good answers.

In order to understand not only Cindy but also the protesters during the Vietnam War, we&#8217;ll have to complicate things a little bit:

If you analyse the reasons behind the anti war movement in the 60&#8217;s, or this lady&#8217;s opposition to the war in Iraq, you&#8217;ll find out that their major concern was the loss of american lives in what they viewed as a quagmire.

<B>When a majority of citizens of the invader country oppose their country&#8217;s war, this is, almost always, due to the damage inflicted by the conflict on their own nation and not on the occupied nation. They come to believe that the material and human costs of the war outweighs its potential benefits.

Similarly, when a majority of citizens of the invaded country change their minds and start collaborating with the invader, this is also due to internal reasons, for example, they see a significant improvement in their living conditions, freedom of speech, political organization etc, etc...

From this moment on, the citizens of the invaded country realise that the benefits brought by the occupation outweighs the nationalist reasons fuelling the armed struggle. </B>

This is exactly what hapenned in Germany where the nationalist armed struggle against the american occupation lasted for several years and then came to an end.

And as I said a million times, this may very well be the final outcome in Iraq.

But this is the main point:

What drives most people to support or oppose a given war is their subjective perception of what the cost/benefit relation is to their own countries and not concern for the other country.

But I&#8217;m not in any way rebating your point. In fact, I couldn&#8217;t agree more:

Although most people have their own countries as their primary concern, you will always find citizens of the invader country who oppose any military invasion as a matter of principle, regardless of the damage inflicted on their countries (you call them leftists or liberals (when you believe they don&#8217;t like their countries) or just pacifists (when you think they just don&#8217;t like war and military occupation)).

And you will always find Iraqis (even a few sunni muslims) who will continue to support the efforts of America to democratise Iraq, even if this means the perpetuation of the economic hardships and the armed struggle for 200 years.

Let&#8217;s not forget we are not talking about physics or chemistry here.

Political science is all about human beings with all their uniqueness, singularity and changes of perception.

Mathematical formulas definitely do not apply here.

That&#8217;s why I used the verb &#8220;tend&#8221;: people of the invader country tend to... the majority of these citizens tend to...

I believe any <B>IMPARTIAL</B> opinion poll in the US and Iraq will confirm, by and large, my main point but you can always find exceptions.

It&#8217;s a human tendency not an unchangeable natural law of the Universe : )

 

[José]

It&#8217;s more than clear some people here have trouble understanding thought experiments, but I&#8217;m gonna use another one based on Israel to clarify this issue.

 

[José]

Most people who follow the debates in the Israel/Palestine section, probably know my personal opinion about the state of Israel.

Israel is a country racist to the core perceived as a democracy only by racist jews and super patriotic american clowns.

So let&#8217;s imagine a parallel universe where the US decides to start its war on terror by democratising what is, by far, the main source of arab anti-americanism, the jewish racial dictatorship also known as Israel.

Let&#8217;s imagine the US invaded Israel in order to create a single country comprising the entire region of Palestine where jews and arabs enjoyed equal rights.

Let&#8217;s imagine that israeli jews started an armed struggle against the american occupation in order to prevent the democratization of Palestine.

I have to be honest enough to admit that there is an argument made by israeli jews I have no absolute answer to:

&#8220;Any democratic state comprising the entire region of Palestine will necessarily mean we jews will be a minority group and minorities are always subject to persecution.&#8221;

Although whites are in no way discriminated in the modern democratic state of South Africa, the probability that in the future they may be the target of racial discrimination is indeed greater than in SA under apartheid.

Likewise, a democratic state comprising the entire region of Palestine will <B>NEVER</B> be able to provide the same level of security for the jewish population as the jewish racial dictatorship is.

So, if you leave aside white South Africans and Jews killed by the black/Palestinian armed struggle, it&#8217;s pretty obvious that whites were safer in racist SA and jews are safer in Israel.

This is absolutely true, whether I like it or not.

I already presented here an alternative to Israel.

I described the creation of a state comprising the entire region of Palestine, <B>with all the necessary checks and balances to prevent any ethnic group from seizing ABSOLUTE political power and start discriminating the other ethnic group</B>.

These security checks and balances can range from a ban on fire arms for arabs to birth control to ensure demographic balance between the two ethnic groups.

But no matter how many security checks and balances are put in place, Israel would still be a safer place for Jews.

It&#8217;s hard for me to type these words but they are true.

And even if a democratic state in Palestine was able the provide the same level of security, I would still have to understand a jewish nationalist who simply don&#8217;t want to see his country dismantled:

&#8220;No matter who lived here 60 or 35 years ago this is our country now and we&#8217;re going to fight the american occupation force to the last man&#8221;.

This is a valid argument from the point of view of jewish nationalism.

The entire country was taken away from the arab population of Palestine by brute force.

But despite this historical fact, I have to understand the valid reasons presented by jewish nationalists who do not want to live in a truly democratic country but where jews will necessarily be somewhat less safe.

I personally believe that the peaceful dismantlement of the jewish racial dictatorship is the &#8220;price&#8221; the jewish population of Palestine has to &#8220;pay&#8221; for not being super-humans, for being individuals entitled to exactly the same set of rights palestinian arabs are.

But if in order to make my case I have to hide its weaknesses then something must be wrong with it.

We, people who support democracy in Palestine, have to be suffiently honest to recognise we don&#8217;t have an definitive answer to this issue (how to implement the safety of the jewish population in a democratic Palestine), instead of discarding it as nothing more than jewish racism.

Otherwise, we will lose our credibility just like the racist jews and super patriotic american clowns who insist in calling Israel a &#8220;democracy&#8221;.