"Why do they hate us?"

[theim]

Hmm...let's see. If being a college student has taught me how to protest, I guess being in the military (or military wannabes) has taught you all how to kill people. And I am sure you all enjoy it.



George W. Bush fits in well with this group. Though he has always reminded me more of Stalin.
"Hey Jeff, pass me a leg, will ya"
"Sure thing W. You want pretzels with that?"

This from someone who equates suicideal maniacs with anti-NAzi resistance fighters. What we have here ladies and gentlemen is what we will get when moral relativism becomes the norm. It's like Sheets Byrd lecturing someone on morality. Utterly laughable.

What has W done that compares to Stalin? I expect an intelligent answer. Actually nevermind that. I WANT an intelligent answer, I will GET a regurgitated DU platitude about how being forced to wet yourself is really the same as being forced to dig ditches in sub-zero weather before being gassed. And Stalin's first name was Joe, not Jeff.

Honestly now, please move to a country more suited to your idealogy. I would suggest the USSR, but they unfortunately no longer exist. How about Iran?

And just so we're absolutely clear: Yes, I am questioning your patriotism.

 

[Gabriella84]

And Stalin's first name was Joe, not Jeff.

I was referring to Jeffrey Dahmer. Get with the program!!

What has W done that compares to Stalin?

If you have studied Stalin, you will know that he had great contempt for the majority of his people. He liked his family and the people who kept him in power. Everyone else could die for the good of the Fatherland, with no personal remorse from Stalin.
Several million Russians died in the German attack on Russia. When the tide turned, Stalin sent waves of Russian solders in retribution attacks. Thousands of soldiers would die in battles to gain strategically meaningless targets. Stalin never thought in terms of individual losses. He thought only of the greater gains. Like Bush, Stalin didn't even want to know how many lives were lost. He wanted to know if they target was taken.

But you were right on torture, though. Stalin rarely bothered sending military enemies to torture camps like Gitmo. He merely had then killed on the spot.

"Yes, I am questioning your patriotism."

And I am questioning yours. Your views belong in a dictatorship.

 

[theim]

I was referring to Jeffrey Dahmer. Get with the program!!



If you have studied Stalin, you will know that he had great contempt for the majority of his people. He liked his family and the people who kept him in power. Everyone else could die for the good of the Fatherland, with no personal remorse from Stalin.
Several million Russians died in the German attack on Russia. When the tide turned, Stalin sent waves of Russian solders in retribution attacks. Thousands of soldiers would die in battles to gain strategically meaningless targets. Stalin never thought in terms of individual losses. He thought only of the greater gains. Like Bush, Stalin didn't even want to know how many lives were lost. He wanted to know if they target was taken.

But you were right on torture, though. Stalin rarely bothered sending military enemies to torture camps like Gitmo. He merely had then killed on the spot.

"Yes, I am questioning your patriotism."

And I am questioning yours. Your views belong in a dictatorship.

Prove your allegation that Bush has nothing but contempt for people.
Explain how my veiws belong in a dictatorship, when I didn't even STATE my views. I just lambasted your pathetic allegations of Bush=Stalin.

 

[dilloduck]

I was referring to Jeffrey Dahmer. Get with the program!!



If you have studied Stalin, you will know that he had great contempt for the majority of his people. He liked his family and the people who kept him in power. Everyone else could die for the good of the Fatherland, with no personal remorse from Stalin.
Several million Russians died in the German attack on Russia. When the tide turned, Stalin sent waves of Russian solders in retribution attacks. Thousands of soldiers would die in battles to gain strategically meaningless targets. Stalin never thought in terms of individual losses. He thought only of the greater gains. Like Bush, Stalin didn't even want to know how many lives were lost. He wanted to know if they target was taken.

But you were right on torture, though. Stalin rarely bothered sending military enemies to torture camps like Gitmo. He merely had then killed on the spot.

"Yes, I am questioning your patriotism."

And I am questioning yours. Your views belong in a dictatorship.

A truly pitiful attempt at comparison--why didn't you just say they both breathed air?
Do you support anything or anyone or can I just toss you into the pile of whiners who stand for nothing?

 

[Gabriella84]

It is not my fault that you are unable to grasp the basic concept.

And if Bush had any respect for the American people, why would he cut nearly every domestic program to the core in order to shift it all to military spending?

 

[theim]

It is not my fault that you are unable to grasp the basic concept.

And if Bush had any respect for the American people, why would he cut nearly every domestic program to the core in order to shift it all to military spending?

It might have a little something to do with the fact that we're in a war. Maybe?

 

[Avatar4321]

It is not my fault that you are unable to grasp the basic concept.

And if Bush had any respect for the American people, why would he cut nearly every domestic program to the core in order to shift it all to military spending?

If you had any respect for the American people you'd cut every single domestic program down to zero and let them live their own life without government interference.

 

[Avatar4321]

It might have a little something to do with the fact that we're in a war. Maybe?

No way. That can't possibly be it. I mean why would President Bush want to fight back to protect the people he has soooo much contempt for?

 

[Gabriella84]

What makes you think that Bush is defending the American people? He is defending the defense contractors who feed him money. He is defending Halliburton's right to earn billions in war reparations.
The American people have not been threatened. Except by the Bush administration.

 

[GotZoom]

The American people have not been threatened. Except by the Bush administration.

WTF?

Please explain this statement.

 

[dmp]

I hope somebody with more intelligence than i reads this thread and sees how Gabby throws out extremist-type comments and attacks against the US of A, then, when questioned, doesn't answer, but creates a NEW issue to blabber on about.

 

[ThomasPaine]

I was home on Sunday and my fiance was tormenting me by listening to one of those repetitive conservative radio talk shows. As always, they were discussing Iraq, and how horrible the Iraqi people were for defending their homeland.
This caller comes on and asks, in a very perplexed voice, "Why do they hate us?"

And I immediately thought: "DUDE! You invaded their country! You are an occupying force!"
That never gets through to anyone.
The average Iraqi is dirt poor, uneducated and just trying to survive. He doesn't understand the petty differences between two nations. He just wonders why some foreigner is walking around in front of his home with a rifle.
Regardless of what you think about Iraq (or any other country), it's still their country. No one asked us to intervene. And if you invade someone's country, they are going to defend themselves.
And why Iraq? Why not Thailand? Or Chad, Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, East Timor, North Korea or Indonesia? Lots of human rights abuses in those countries. Lots of government inflicted genocide.

During World War II, the Germans occupied France. The French people (aided by other Allies), organized a resistance force. They were known as "freedom fighters."
Now the Americans are occupying Iraq. The Iraqis (aided by others) has organized a resistance force. But they are known as "insurgents."

Iraq is not about "liberation." It is not about human rights. It is about one country imposing its will upon another country. If the United States wants to be respected, it needs to quit selecting its conflicts.

your average Iraqi. This is no Viet Cong. They have no real agenda other than mayhem. They cannot win. We only will be defeated from within by the likes of people as yourself.

 

[Gunny]

If they are medieval Islamic murderers, who really gives a shit why they hate us...they aspire to sending the planet back to a time when men ruled the planet, women gave birth, and could be killed for not cooking dinner.

Everyone worships the god "they" choose, or your head is severed from your torso.

I don't give it a second thought, on why they might hate us...if they support the Taliban or radical Islamic theology, or medieval thuggery, they should be vanquished without hesitation with extremem prejudice. I do not want the possibility of "them" coming to the US to try and destroy the freedoms that we have.

Their likes will be flushed down the toilet of history with Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Jeffrey Dahmer, Charlie Manson and Ted Bundy......they will not be missed...they bring no redeeming qualities to the human existence, nor should they be given any quarter.....

I couldn't agree more. Who cares what their problem is? They obviously don't want to get along nor negotiate, leaving the options of us or them on the table. I'm on OUR side.

 

[Annie]

Gabby, time and again members have asked you for links, in this case you would have been well served by providing them for documentation. One you may have tried is:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html which at least would have given you some grounds for something. But alas, you didn't. So my take in general: Iraq is a country that as President Bush has stated time after time, has been neglected to the point of creating a dirt poor nation, which sits on a virtual 'gold mine', which is Texas 'T,' Oil that is.

Oil that was abused by the leadership of that country, through the unscrupulous means of some members of the UN, through the corruption of that formerly well-regarded body. (See google: Oil for Food).

While literacy rates in Iraq at the present time are poor, especially for women, Iraq has a history of education and comparative secularism, compared to many in the Middle East: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1761-2004Jan31.html

Now for the rest:

I was home on Sunday and my fiance was tormenting me by listening to one of those repetitive conservative radio talk shows. As always, they were discussing Iraq, and how horrible the Iraqi people were for defending their homeland.
This caller comes on and asks, in a very perplexed voice, "Why do they hate us?"

And I immediately thought: "DUDE! You invaded their country! You are an occupying force!"
That never gets through to anyone.

Nope the caller didn't invade Iraq, rather the US and its allies did. After repeated attempts, with false promises by the French for another post 9/11 resolution, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...France+betrayed+Powell&hl=en&client=firefox-a the US/allies decided to proceed under prior UN resolutions. While some, later tied to the Oil for Food scandal, were dismayed, elections were held a year ago today. Further developments are due to occur, including a constitution during the coming Fall/ Winter.

The average Iraqi is dirt poor, uneducated and just trying to survive. He doesn't understand the petty differences between two nations. He just wonders why some foreigner is walking around in front of his home with a rifle.
Regardless of what you think about Iraq (or any other country), it's still their country. No one asked us to intervene. And if you invade someone's country, they are going to defend themselves.

Problem is Gabby, with the few exceptions of Saddam's party survivors, most of the 'insurgents' are foreigners:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30A11FB385F0C728EDDAF0894DD404482

There are not all that many Iraqis? Are you catching a trend here yet, Gabby?

And why Iraq? Why not Thailand? Or Chad, Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, East Timor, North Korea or Indonesia? Lots of human rights abuses in those countries. Lots of government inflicted genocide.

Well because, hard-hearted as it sounds, bottom line is they are unable to do us harm or stabalize a geographic area. Iraq is.

During World War II, the Germans occupied France. The French people (aided by other Allies), organized a resistance force. They were known as "freedom fighters."
Now the Americans are occupying Iraq. The Iraqis (aided by others) has organized a resistance force. But they are known as "insurgents." See above.

Iraq is not about "liberation." It is not about human rights. It is about one country imposing its will upon another country. If the United States wants to be respected, it needs to quit selecting its conflicts. Too lame for comment.

 

[xandy123]

I was home on Sunday and my fiance was tormenting me by listening to one of those repetitive conservative radio talk shows. As always, they were discussing Iraq, and how horrible the Iraqi people were for defending their homeland.
This caller comes on and asks, in a very perplexed voice, "Why do they hate us?"

And I immediately thought: "DUDE! You invaded their country! You are an occupying force!"
That never gets through to anyone.
The average Iraqi is dirt poor, uneducated and just trying to survive. He doesn't understand the petty differences between two nations. He just wonders why some foreigner is walking around in front of his home with a rifle.
Regardless of what you think about Iraq (or any other country), it's still their country. No one asked us to intervene. And if you invade someone's country, they are going to defend themselves.
And why Iraq? Why not Thailand? Or Chad, Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, East Timor, North Korea or Indonesia? Lots of human rights abuses in those countries. Lots of government inflicted genocide.

During World War II, the Germans occupied France. The French people (aided by other Allies), organized a resistance force. They were known as "freedom fighters."
Now the Americans are occupying Iraq. The Iraqis (aided by others) has organized a resistance force. But they are known as "insurgents."

Iraq is not about "liberation." It is not about human rights. It is about one country imposing its will upon another country. If the United States wants to be respected, it needs to quit selecting its conflicts.

To Answer you question or really your rehtorical question about why they hate us. The answer is they dont. Comparing Iraqi insurgents to French freedom fighters constitutes what most people call intellectual and moral relativism. Under that same logic all terrorists could be called freedom fighters and all freedom fighters could be called terrorists. Unfortunatley people who adopt this position tend to belive that human biengs are either all good and the victims of our enviroment or that we are all immoral. Therefore there is little difference between the terrorist and the man or woman he or she kills.
This brand of logic "relativism" is possibly the most dangerous form of thinking for humanity since by extention one can legitimize any action by anyone for any reason. Think of letting mass murders off scott free simply cause they were abused as children. There are people who argue that today.

Why you are wrong about the situation.
To begin with the insurgets are not freedom fighters mainly because most of them are not Iraqi ask yourself would a totalitarian like Saddam who brutalized his people have allowed terrorist cells to operate undermining his brutal control over his own country the answer is he would not have Saddam did not want terror cells operating in his country. The insurgents are mostly foreigners and the minority of people.

Comparing the U.S to Nazi germany is silly because we all know that Nazi germany was a totalitarian state that used fear to rule the French people. The U.S is trying to set up a democratic government in Ira, free elections have already been held. Ludicris comparison. If the U.S did not show restraint in its actions we could no longer be considered a democracy

Asking the united states to invade and set up a democratic stable government in every poor war torn country is like asking a 400 pound person to fit into size seven pants, they dont have the ability. The U.S simply lacks the resources to go into East Timor, Sudan,North Korea, or Indonesia and to set up a stable democratic government in all those places would take trillions of dollars. The Bush administration picked Iraq for very specific reasons.

They have always hated us (the United States) but I am reluctant to use the word they. There is a significant portion of the Muslim world that despises America, but their are also those who want democracy in their countries (note the reacent protests in Iran) The sad truth is these muslim countires are ruled by despots who draw money out of the ground (oil) and keep it to themselves. These countries (Saudi Arabia, Palestine,Syria,Jordan,Lebanon) have become empovrished and rely essentialy on oil to avoid becoming much like the african countires: ruled by gangs and warlords. Figuring out why they hate us is difficulty because their are many reasons all tying into one another. The only democratic nation in the middle east is Israel which is economically successful and therefore a source of hatred. It is commonly held in the middle east that Israel has somehow made the muslim countires poor. Thus by exstention the U.S, Israels cheif supporter is evil because it too has made the muslim countires poor. Also one important point, the depots and clerics who control the middle east are well aware of the impovrished states f their countries. Chanting the United States is the Great Satan is an easy cop out for a middle eastern leader who does not want to bring change to his people. They need someone to blame. Who better that the reason for Israels survival (the country of Israel would have been long since destroyed were it not for the U.S) The reasons why "they" hate the U.S could potentially even on a more general level stem from the failure of the muslim states economically. The once great muslim nations that conquered in the name of Allah were defeated by colonial Europeans in the area of trade. Once the colonies were dissolved warlords and clerics emerged to carve up the middle east. The war in Iraq is merely a new chapter in and old story. Middle Eastern conflict.

 

[xandy123]

Seems it's teaching you how to be a young Nancy Pelosi, just another moron on the horizon!

NACY PELOSI = FACE LIFTSNACY PELOSI = FACE LIFTs

you could bounce a quarter of that face

 

[xandy123]

What makes you think that Bush is defending the American people? He is defending the defense contractors who feed him money. He is defending Halliburton's right to earn billions in war reparations.
The American people have not been threatened. Except by the Bush administration.

Halliburton is feeding Bush money????? I've heard of a high fiber diet but that cannot be healthy for him. And what if they're feeding him silver dollars. The man must weigh a ton.

By the way toots there is nothing illegal about what Bush has done. Certain companies lobbied to have contracts to rebuild Iraq. And what about all the people inside and outside of Iraq that are helping rebuild? do you think those people are all working for free? Oh I forgot Bush, Cheney and a few wall street big wigs control all the money in the world and everyone else just works for free, Haliburtion is made up of people too you know, those people work hard and have families and bills to pay as well. Wow once again someone who belives that only a dozen people benefit from capitalism.

 

[Gabriella84]

I form opinions by reading what is written and stated. If you are curious as to why I write some of the things that I do, perhaps you should look it up. But I know you won't, because you don't consider many of my sources to be credible.

Well because, hard-hearted as it sounds, bottom line is they are unable to do us harm or stabalize a geographic area. Iraq is.

Translation: We only care about financial looting, genocide and massive human rights violations if we can gain public sympathy for a response. Who cares about millions of oppressed, starving people if they don't have any weapons?
North Korea has the whole enchilada. But we only wave a finger at them because we don't want to piss off China. Same with Pakistan and India. Not to mention Israel. Can't find public support for disliking them. And most people don't even know where Zimbabwe is.

 

[dilloduck]

I form opinions by reading what is written and stated. If you are curious as to why I write some of the things that I do, perhaps you should look it up. But I know you won't, because you don't consider many of my sources to be credible.



Translation: We only care about financial looting, genocide and massive human rights violations if we can gain public sympathy for a response. Who cares about millions of oppressed, starving people if they don't have any weapons?
North Korea has the whole enchilada. But we only wave a finger at them because we don't want to piss off China. Same with Pakistan and India. Not to mention Israel. Can't find public support for disliking them. And most people don't even know where Zimbabwe is.

This is becoming one of my favorite complaints about our Iraq policy. " If we were really serious about it, the USA would be invading ever other screwed up place in the world". This rationalization is really just plain ignorant but people insist on coughing up this garbage.

 

[Gabriella84]

The Bush Administration pukes up garbage on a regular basis. Then feeds it to the American public to re-digest.