Why did America go to war with IRAQ ?

[José]

Before the thread is flooded with thousands of messages defending Israel, let me say the &#8220;moral lesson&#8221; of this thought experiment is not about Israel, it&#8217;s about <B>INTELLECTUAL HONESTY</B>.

Just as I admit the argument made by israeli jews is valid to a certain extent, the american patriots of the USMB can&#8217;t simply discard any armed struggle in Iraq, (now or in the future) as terrorism.

If you want to understand how some Iraqis feel about the occupation, just imagine armed russian soldiers patrolling the streets of LA under any of the justifications I provided on a previous post.

You don&#8217;t have to agree <B>wholeheartedly</B> on something in order to understand it and even recognise its partial validity within a certain set of values.

I view Palestine through a paradigm based of equal humanity but that doesn&#8217;t mean I can&#8217;t understand the reasons behind the jewish nationalists&#8217; paradigm. I understand their reasons to oppose the democratisation of Palestine, as described in my thought experiment, and even recognise its partial validity from the point of view of jewish nationalism, even though I don&#8217;t fully agree with them.

If american patriots have the right to be outraged by russian troops patrolling the streets of NY or LA no matter how reasonable the reason for the occupation would be, they should at least understand, not agree just understand when an Iraqi patriot is outraged when he sees American troops patrolling Baghdad.

Let&#8217;s face reality people:

If the country invaded was the US, nationalist resentment against the occupation would, most probably, override any other political consideration <B>in your mind</B>.

I&#8217;ve already stated several times here that political science and blind patriotism simply don&#8217;t mix well.

Somewhere along the road you&#8217;ll have to decide what you really want to be: a <B>serious</B> political thinker or a super patriotic american clown.

You just can't be both.

No matter how passionately you support your point of view, if you are not willing to accept the valid points made by others, if you can analyse a political situation only from a unidimensional perspective (the perspective of your own country), you&#8217;ll soon be reduced to a clown waving the US flag (or any other flag for that matter).

 

[Gunny]

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’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’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’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:

“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.”

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’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’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’t want to see his country dismantled:

“No matter who lived here 60 or 35 years ago this is our country now and we’re going to fight the american occupation force to the last man”.

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 “price” the jewish population of Palestine has to “pay” 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’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 “democracy”.

That's a whole lot of words attempting to legitimize terrorism as "armed struggle." Where your theory doesn't cut the mustard is:

Armed struggle against an occupation force could be seen as legitimate from one point of view.

Targetting noncombatants and noncombatant services, facilities, etc is NOT armed struggle against an occupation force. It's murder. Simple as that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There are always some points on both sides. But in actuality, I AM an AMerican and advocate policies which further the interests of the nation. ( Most of the time I feel what's good for america, just also happens to be what's good for the world, tax cuts, civil liberties and freedoms vigilantly enforced by a standing Republican Army, World Banking and market systems which allow globalized trade. Let's face it Modernity is led by America. Old style theocracy is Islam. ) I suspect everyone feels this way, everyone who is sensible. Of course, american libs are sleeping with the enemy and believing these lies that Islam is a religion of peace.

Let's go with what you lefties say, that there is no right and wrong. Why are you so sure AMerica is wrong then?

 

[José]

Heya Avenger!!

Good to see you again buddy.

I hope you didn&#8217;t get angry cuz I portrayed you as Hobbit&#8217;s trainer lol

Only Kathianne, portrayed as one of those girls who announce the beggining of the rounds, was funnier.. LOL

You know what... I appreciate the style of your posts.

You mix serious messages with less serious ones... just like me : )

I agree it&#8217;s hard to escape from the unidimensional perspective we grew up with and see things from a different angle...

We have to make a conscious effort to achieve it.

<B>&#8220;Most of the time I feel what's good for america, just also happens to be what's good for the world, tax cuts, civil liberties and freedoms&#8221;</B>

HEAR!!

<B>Of course, american libs are sleeping with the enemy and believing these lies that Islam is a religion of peace.</B>

&#8220;The history of the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a very aggressive stance as far as convertion of infidels and spreading of the faith is concerned compared with eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.&#8221;

This line is not mine... It is what I remember from the article &#8220;Monotheism&#8221; &#8211; Encyclopaedia Brittanica.... www.britannica.com

But I&#8217;m not going to discuss theology with you cuz I know I&#8217;m gonna lose... : )

 

[José]

Originally Posted by GunnyL
That's a whole lot of words attempting to legitimize terrorism as "armed struggle."

Gunny...

Check out the Israel/Palestine forum once in a while, ok?

I&#8217;m gonna create a thread explaining the palestinian armed struggle, targeting of civilians etc etc

But for now let&#8217;s just call it a day.

 

[Gunny]

Gunny...

Check out the Israel/Palestine forum once in a while, ok?

I’m gonna create a thread explaining the palestinian armed struggle, targeting of civilians etc etc

But for now let’s just call it a day.

What's to check out? Sorry, but I don't consider attempts to legitimize terrorism as "armed struggle" honest, no matter how many words you want to wrap around it.

 

[dilloduck]

Heya Avenger!!

Good to see you again buddy.

I hope you didn’t get angry cuz I portrayed you as Hobbit’s trainer lol

Only Kathianne, portrayed as one of those girls who announce the beggining of the rounds, was funnier.. LOL

You know what... I appreciate the style of your posts.

You mix serious messages with less serious ones... just like me : )

I agree it’s hard to escape from the unidimensional perspective we grew up with and see things from a different angle...

We have to make a conscious effort to achieve it.

<B>“Most of the time I feel what's good for america, just also happens to be what's good for the world, tax cuts, civil liberties and freedoms”</B>

HEAR!!

<B>Of course, american libs are sleeping with the enemy and believing these lies that Islam is a religion of peace.</B>

“The history of the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a very aggressive stance as far as convertion of infidels and spreading of the faith is concerned compared with eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.”

This line is not mine... It is what I remember from the article “Monotheism” – Encyclopaedia Brittanica.... www.britannica.com

But I’m not going to discuss theology with you cuz I know I’m gonna lose... : )

You got some bad info there Jose--the "conversion of infidels" has gotta be last on the list of Jewish doctrine (if it's even there).

 

[kurtsprincess]

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.

Unfortunately there is an "immediate gratificiation" culture in our world today.

Very few are willing to bear the long term costs of war (lives and economy) in order to create an enduring benefit.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Let’s face reality people:

If the country invaded was the US, nationalist resentment against the occupation would, most probably, override any other political consideration <B>in your mind</B>.

Jose........I'm the wife of a career soldier, and I am pretty patriotic, however, I have to tell you that if our country devolved into a society governed by a despotic dictator, who was killing us by the millions, and the Russians invaded and toppled the existing regime to that we, the natives of this country, could gain control back, I would be supporting them in every way I could.

Thus, your statement above holds no validity under the same conditions as presented prior to the US "invading" (as you label it) Iraq.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

<B>“Most of the time I feel what's good for america, just also happens to be what's good for the world, tax cuts, civil liberties and freedoms”</B>

HEAR!!

But the jihadis are not fighting for freedoms, their fighting for the world dominance of islam.

We shouldn't all just lay aside causes because we realize the existence of different viewpoints, we should compare the viewpoints.

<B>Of course, american libs are sleeping with the enemy and believing these lies that Islam is a religion of peace.</B>

“The history of the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a very aggressive stance as far as convertion of infidels and spreading of the faith is concerned compared with eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.”

This line is not mine... It is what I remember from the article “Monotheism” – Encyclopaedia Brittanica.... www.britannica.com

Jihad is much more clearly doctrinally supported by the quran than Christian militancy is by the bible. But even if it WERE the case, this still doesn't mean the West should lose. Let's say all monotheistic religions ARE violent, which they are not, why should Islam win by default?

We WILL have it both ways. We WILL get the oil; We won't become muslim.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

all Following posts will be required to use vocab words listed here:

1. bolster
2. bely
3. bellicose
4. inflamed
5. autocratic
6. carjack macker
7. "played out"
8. infiltrated
9. self-referential
10. fait accompli

 

[Abbey Normal]

all Following posts will be required to use vocab words listed here:

1. bolster
2. bely
3. bellicose
4. inflamed
5. autocratic
6. carjack macker
7. "played out"
8. infiltrated
9. self-referential
10. fait accompli

But how can I use carjack macker in a sentence, if I can't find it in my Merriam-Webster?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But how can I use carjack macker in a sentence, if I can't find it in my Merriam-Webster?

This is where personal creativity and imagination are assessed!

 

[José]

Originally posted by <B>Dilloduck</B>
You got some bad info there Jose--the "conversion of infidels" has gotta be last on the list of Jewish doctrine (if it's even there).

Right on Dillo

There&#8217;s absolutely no historical record of the jewish people trying to impose their religion on others.

I believe the author of the article was referring to some literary exortations to violence in the Old Testament.

The bible experts here will have to forgive my lack of biblical knowledge but there are some passages in the OT that go something like this:

<B>&#8220;Go to all the places inhabited by the enemies of Israel and unbelievers and kill them all, burn their villages and idols, do not spare even the children etc etc&#8221;</B>

I&#8217;m not his spokesman, but I think he included Judaism because of this kind of literary incitement to violence.

Question for the bible experts:

Do these passages threaten only the enemies of Israel or there are passages threatening unbelievers in general?

 

[José]

Originally posted by <B>kurtsprincess</B>
Jose........I'm the wife of a career soldier, and I am pretty patriotic, however, I have to tell you that if our country devolved into a society governed by a despotic dictator, who was killing us by the millions, and the Russians invaded and toppled the existing regime to that we, the natives of this country, could gain control back, <B>I would be supporting them in every way I could.</B>

Thus, your statement above holds no validity under the same conditions as presented prior to the US "invading" (as you label it) Iraq.

Princess, would you support the creation of an international coalition of countries to invade and occupy the US in order to destroy its nuclear arsenal?

I believe the US, chinese and russian weapons of mass destruction are far more dangerous to humankind than a third world dictator.

We never know what kind of government these countries will have in the future and what use they will make of these weapons. So their destruction is clearly in the best interest of mankind. Only intellectually dishonest people can deny this.

But you probably wouldn&#8217;t support this international effort because, as an american patriot, <B>your nationalist opposition to any violation of US sovereignty overrides your concern about weapons that can destroy mankind several times</B>.

Most russians and chinese would oppose the military occupation of their countries for exactly the same reason.

But I&#8217;m not going to discuss this issue anymore (human psychology regarding nationalism, patriotism, tribalism (or whatever you want to call it)).

Everybody has already exposed their ideas...

Let&#8217;s not cross the line that separates good political debate from intellectual masturbation...

Let&#8217;s give people some time to digest everything we said.

But please keep on posting, princess. Let us know where you stand on all these issues.

I&#8217;m gonna reveal something I kept to myself so far:

I&#8217;m always fascinated when I see women like you, Kathianne, Bonnie, interested in international politics instead of fashion, gossip etc etc

Forgive me if this sounds a bit sexist but you know better than me this subject is not at the top of the list of most women&#8217;s interests.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Princess, would you support the creation of an international coalition of countries to invade and occupy the US in order to destroy its nuclear arsenal?

Is the arsenal being used against our citizens?

I believe the US, chinese and russian weapons of mass destruction are far more dangerous to humankind than a third world dictator.

I disagree that the weapons themselves are more dangerous. The people who have access to them are dangerous.

We never know what kind of government these countries will have in the future and what use they will make of these weapons. So their destruction is clearly in the best interest of mankind. Only intellectually dishonest people can deny this.

Call me intellectually dishonest then Jose, because I'm OK with the weapons. And while I agree that some of the countries that have them cannot be trusted, it is precisely why I'm not willing to give up ours.

But you probably wouldn’t support this international effort because, as an american patriot, <B>your nationalist opposition to any violation of US sovereignty overrides your concern about weapons that can destroy mankind several times</B>.

Jose, as an American patriot I feel I am being prudent in wanting to keep our arsenal first rate. Perhaps if the international coalition you propose goes into every other country, prior to invading the US, and destroys their nuclear arsenal, I would be willing to destroy ours.........as a realist I would only support this action if every other country got rid of theirs first.

Most russians and chinese would oppose the military occupation of their countries for exactly the same reason.

And rightly so.

But I’m not going to discuss this issue of human psychology regarding nationalism, patriotism, tribalism (or whatever you want to call it) anymore.

Everybody has already exposed their ideas...

Let’s not cross the line that separates good political debate from intellectual masturbation...

Perhaps some other time then.

Let’s give people some time to digest everything we said.

OK!

But please keep on posting, princess. Let us know where you stand on all these issues.

Why thank you Jose for your endorsement.

I’m gonna reveal something I kept to myself so far:

I’m always fascinated when I see women like you, Kathianne, Bonnie, interested in international politics instead of fashion, gossip etc etc

Forgive me if this sounds a bit sexist but you know better than me this subject is not at the top of the list of most women’s interests.

Well, Jose, this comment certainly is sexist because I know no such thing. In fact, some of the fiercest debates I've ever had are with women.....and they certainly weren't about fashion or gossip. As a military wife, who's entire life is affected in some way by international and domestic politics, I have to be interested and educated. Thank you for the recognition.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I’m always fascinated when I see women like you, Kathianne, Bonnie, interested in international politics instead of fashion, gossip etc etc

Looks like I've been relegated to the fashion and gossip group.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Looks like I've been relegated to the fashion and gossip group.

It's OK Abbey......what he doesn't know won't hurt him!!!

:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

 

[DFresh]

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.

but you are too stupid to figure things out for yourself.

 

[theim]

but you are too stupid to figure things out for yourself.

Says the imbecile who tried to make a his point in another thread using doctored photos.
:blah2: