World War II - Iraq - differences

[CSM]

I just try to be fair to all countries.

If, in a parallel universe, the US was invaded by a foreign power I would be here supporting the right of the american people to wage an armed struggle against the invader.

Somehow I doubt that. I have to ask then if the US has the right to defend itself against those who would "invade" and then plan and execute an act of war which resulted in the death of thousands of its citizens? Does the US have the right to prohibit the support of such "invaders"?

Why should I deny the vietnamese or the sunni iraqis the same right I grant to the american people?

While you are busy "granting rights", could you possibly grant the right for a country to defend itself against terrorists and terrorist supporters? Thanks.

Why should I deny their right to fight against an artificial division of their country and unify it just like americans fought against the artificial division of their country more than a century ago?

Just a wee bit simplistic and ignores a whole lot of other facts that have an impact on current events. I suppose if you examined ALL the facts, then you wouldn't be able to hold the views you do. I call that "willful ignorance" but I suspect you don's see it that way.

Why should I deny the right of sunni arabs to fight the invasion of their province located in an equally artificial country that force two different peoples and two religious sects to live under the same roof? A country that should never have been created in the first place?

Because they perpetrate the oppression, torture and murder of others (long before they were "invaded"). Again, just a bit too simple.

I hope sunni arabs will never be able to impose their autocratic rule on shias and kurds again but they have every right to shoot any american, kurd and shiite soldier that invades Anbar Province and tries to force them to accept an artificial country in which they do not wish to live.

You start this paragraph by admitting that the Sunnis were imposing autocratic rule on others and then say those who were oppressed have no right to try to change that; no right to have allies in trying to change it either. A little hypocritical, I think. At the very least it makes one doubt the sincerity of your expression of hope in the first sentence.

This is the most basic of all nationalist principles, CSM.

I am not in disagreement with the concept. However, every nation, society, religion and any other type of institution has to accept responsibility for its actions.

You invade my country (or region) to support an artificial country that never existed before or a country that should never have been created in the first place ruled by a puppet government and you get a bullet in the head.

If you are busy minding your own business and I invade, then by all means, give it your best shot. However, if you run around tossing rockets into another nation, or send suicide bombers to blow up weddings, churches, and anything else that may seem like a lucrative target, then you better have LOTS of ammo and some damned good air defense systems!

You, as an american nationalist, should be the first one to understand this most basic nationalist concept.

Believe me, I understand it very well. I also understand that if you come to my country and blow up buildings, kill my fellow citizens, and do the same to my allies or even support in anyway those who do, then such a concept not only allows for but essentially DEMANDS that I remedy the situation.

Nationalism is not an excuse for terrorism. Nor is it an excuse for genocide, ethnic cleansing or oppression. You cannot have it both ways; either a nation and its citizens has a right to defend itself or it does not. You cannot demand that right for Arabs and deny that right to those not Arab.

 

[Gunny]

Nationalism is not an excuse for terrorism. Nor is it an excuse for genocide, ethnic cleansing or oppression. You cannot have it both ways; either a nation and its citizens has a right to defend itself or it does not. You cannot demand that right for Arabs and deny that right to those not Arab.

Well, I'd say you didn't leave too much of THAT ass.

 

[trobinett]

Yep, might as well go ahead, and call it "mission completed", and move on to the pacification of Jose'.

 

[theHawk]

Probably the biggest difference between WWII and Iraq is in the former we had the balls to use nukes.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hello? We are trying to allow the Iraqis the same rights we have. You guys keep undermining our effort to make them free! How on earth can you honestly claim you want them to have the same right we do when you oppose everything we do to help them???

As for granting rights itself... governments cant grant rights. Rights are inherent.

 

[Gunny]

Hello? We are trying to allow the Iraqis the same rights we have. You guys keep undermining our effort to make them free! How on earth can you honestly claim you want them to have the same right we do when you oppose everything we do to help them???

As for granting rights itself... governments cant grant rights. Rights are inherent.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on your last statement. Governments DO grant rights, and NOTHING is inherent. Rights are only as good as the willingness to fight for them. If one isn't willing to fight for them, someone will eventually come along and take them away.

 

[jillian]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on your last statement. Governments DO grant rights, and NOTHING is inherent. Rights are only as good as the willingness to fight for them. If one isn't willing to fight for them, someone will eventually come along and take them away.

I agree with you as far as you've gone, but I'll go one step further, Gunny. Rights only exist to the extent that a) people are willing to fight for them; and b) government is willing to ENFORCE them.

 

[Gunny]

I agree with you as far as you've gone, but I'll go one step further, Gunny. Rights only exist to the extent that a) people are willing to fight for them; and b) government is willing to ENFORCE them.

The people can exist without the government. The government cannot exist without the people. The government exists as representative of the people and to carry out the will of the people.

When the government is not powerful enough to protect the people from anarchy, then it is up to the people to defend their own rights.

 

[jillian]

The people can exist without the government. The government cannot exist without the people. The government exists as representative of the people and to carry out the will of the people.

When the government is not powerful enough to protect the people from anarchy, then it is up to the people to defend their own rights.

But the fact is we HAVE government and we're ostensibly civilized people. We don't destroy our government since it was made to withstand all types of things. We just have to make enough noise and vote the sob's out of office when they mess with us.

The people defending their own rights outside of the system and not within it IS anarchy. This isn't the wild west.

 

[Gunny]

But the fact is we HAVE government and we're ostensibly civilized people. We don't destroy our government since it was made to withstand all types of things. We just have to make enough noise and vote the sob's out of office when they mess with us.

The people defending their own rights outside of the system and not within it IS anarchy. This isn't the wild west.

In theory, your first statement is correct. In actuality, it's just a choice between Dumb and Dumber.

As far as your second paragraph .... if you're attacked on the street, you're going to wait for the government to come protect you?

I'm not. The government can clean up the mess I leave.

 

[jillian]

In theory, your first statement is correct. In actuality, it's just a choice between Dumb and Dumber.

As far as your second paragraph .... if you're attacked on the street, you're going to wait for the government to come protect you?

I'm not. The government can clean up the mess I leave.

That isn't the type of "protection" I was talking about. It's our own responsibility to defend ourselves. (One of the reasons I took a self-defense course and learned how to take down someone way bigger than I am). I wouldn't carry a gun because I don't think I could pull the trigger so it would just be dumb for me to have one).

I was talking about the rights we're guaranteed in our Constitution. They are only as strong as the willingness to enforce them.

 

[Gunny]

That isn't the type of "protection" I was talking about. It's our own responsibility to defend ourselves. (One of the reasons I took a self-defense course and learned how to take down someone way bigger than I am). I wouldn't carry a gun because I don't think I could pull the trigger so it would just be dumb for me to have one).

I was talking about the rights we're guaranteed in our Constitution. They are only as strong as the willingness to enforce them.

If the law reflects the will of the people, there is no need for "enforcement" except where criminals are concerned. It's when the law does not reflect the will of the people that enforcement on the masses is required, but what's wrong with that picture?

But this all comes down to ideological difference. I don't need the government to babysit me, cradle to grave, and scratch my itches.

My example is very relevant in that a criminal attacker is out to deprive you of your Constitutional right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness by intruding on one or all. Big Brother isn't going to save your butt. He'll bag and tag you later, and might find the criminal who did it later. Some consolation.