Printable View
I appreciate your reply. I know you were not comparing Hitler to our President. The comparison was mine which I think could be made to all our Presidents. Even Presidents and citizens I disagree with are full and complete Americans participating in the freedoms of debate and speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
God bless . . . .
To get back to the original question and away from WW2, I would say that the invasion definitely wasn't worth it to anybody, other than oil companies and military contractors. At the time of Abu Ghraib scandal the joke doing the rounds in Iraq was the prison is doing business as usual, just under new management. That perhaps gives the man on the street view of the American liberation.
For all that is written about Iraq I'm shocked how little is about the suffering of the Iraqi people. They suffered in the Iran War, they suffered through 13 years of crippling sanctions, they suffered in the Iraq invasion, they suffered after the invasion and are facing the prospect of 10+ years more suffering. Suffering for 27 years and no end in sight. And now the focus of US attention is on how much Iraq is costing America and the 4,000 US fatalities. How many Iraqis have died?
Life under Saddam was not so bad; livings standard were good (until the Iranian war), religious freedom, women rights etc. Compare that to our friend and ally Saudi Arabia where Christians are arrested for worshipping and women aren't allowed to even drive a car. True Saddam had his secret police/torture chamber and came down hard on any who threatened his rule. Isn’t that's the same under any dictator. Saudi Arabia has is secret police (not to mention religious police) and its torture is so effective the US "renders" its prisoners there. When I lived in Saudi people would look with envy at the freedoms and lifestyle enjoyed by Iraqis under Saddam. Saddam at least held the country together, which is not easy as the US is finding out and yes he did that by "whatever means necessary".
Iraqis may wonder where it all went wrong and Saddam must have wondered how he went from hero to zero so fast. When Iraq went to war with Iran the USA lavished praise on him and armed his military. But the Kuwait invasion was to change all that. After the war Kuwait demanded repayment of war loans, lowered oil prices thus reducing Iraqi revenues and even stole Iraqi oil by slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Not to mention Iraq had historic territorial claims on Kuwait. Iraq was in a difficult position and Saddam wanted to improve the welfare of his people, unlike many dictators who impoverish their own people to enrich their Swiss Bank accounts.
The US ambassador April Galaspie gave Saddam the infamous green light by saying "we (the USA) have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait" which indicated the USA would not get involved. (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html) Then the shit hits the fan for Iraq. Incidentally, it’s no surprise Saddam with a weak army and impoverished nation wanted the Iranians to believe he had WMD. What is a surprise is that CIA agents were on “independent” UN weapons inspections.
I cannot help but see oil and US Presidents, from an oil state and with extensive oil interests and connections, at work behind the scenes here. I would say most Iraqis would prefer life under Saddam to life now and think that had sanctions been lifted then life could have been back to normal and no worse than under any Arab state.
Saddam ordered a reprisal against a village whose people tried to assassinate him. Saddam was executed for the reprisals. Bush ordered a reprisal against a country whose president tried to assassinate his father. Bush was re-elected for the invasion.
It's a strange world we live in.
There is an arabic proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Given that the US is seen by many Iraqis to be an enemy it's no surprise Iraq is now a fertile recruiting field for Al Qaeda.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Saddam would never support Al Qaeda for the simple reason it promotes theocracy which would threaten Saddam's position as a secular leader.
Thank you, that is why I posted to remark from an article on the Web, the "Aledged" links to Al Quida is just one of many reasons Bush used to invade Iraq and that as well as the supposed WMD's which were proven not to exist either, again a case of "Faulty Intelligence" and when you go to War you need to know who your enemey is and what thieir strengths and weakness are to fight a succefull War you do not invade a country on assumption you invade if you do based on documented fact, and most important you MUST verify your Intelliegence, not just assume it is correct, you have to know it isQuote:
Originally Posted by Moonraker
"Well, they looked like portable weapons labs, so we assumed they were" not real good logic there
"Hey, it looks like rain or snow is comnig" well let's see if it does before we send salt rucks out and as the sky'sa get darker and snow starts to fluury down, then you start the salting, because then you know it is going to snow
And there are some who have said Bush would have ised any excuse in the world to Invade Iraq once he had his ind set on doing so whic he did, History now speaks for itself
I question to what extent there is an Al Qaeda as portrayed by the USA and whether there is too much misplaced focus on this "enemy".Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
The US seems to be promoting the idea of a Smersh type organisation with a central leadership controlling cells around the world. You cut off the head and the snake dies. Really the problem is fundamental Islamic militancy. So the enemy is more of a concept than a single group. It's like the mafia, if you capture the Don of a New York family have you eradicated organised crime throughout the world? I suspect that, aside from 911, Bin Ladins importance was that he had money and experience. So if you had a scheme you could go to him and if he supported the plan you could get financing for it.
[QUOTE=Moonraker;582337]I question to what extent there is an Al Qaeda as portrayed by the USA and whether there is too much misplaced focus on this "enemy".
The US seems to be promoting the idea of a Smersh type organisation with a central leadership controlling cells around the world. You cut off the head and the snake dies. Really the problem is fundamental Islamic militancy. So the enemy is more of a concept than a single group. It's like the mafia, if you capture the Don of a New York family have you eradicated organised crime throughout the world? I suspect that, aside from 911, Bin Ladins importance was that he had money and experience. So if you had a scheme you could go to him and if he supported the plan you could get financing for it.[/QU
i believe that most Islamic Terrorists view Bin Ladin as a "Savior" or "God" and thus will do anything he asks them
And I amn not an expert on the Quran, but I have heard Islamic Clerks say infact that the Quran specificly prohbits killing or violence of any kind for any reason, thus BinLaden does not even follow his own holy book
and amaziing enough in the late 1980's Bin Laden was hired by the United States Governement (The CIA) to help fight off Russia when they invaded Afghanistan in 1989, now he is attacking us
Pure George Bush propaganda. I'm convinced there's no basis for this belief. You're mythologising the "enemy". I'm guessing you're reducing them to some evil fantasy creature to enoble yourself. To make you feel better about yourself and your countries actions. Few things pisses me off as much as this.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Islamic terrorists are just a bunch of half-wit losers. I mean, just check out Richard Read!!! There's no coherent ideology behind any of them. It's just random bouts of lunatic ramblings from poor and uneducated people who want at least a moment in the spotlight. I'm sure Bin Laden sees himself as some kind of prophet. I'm very doubtful anybody else does.
You do realise that by talking about Al Qaeda as some kind of international conspiracy of Islam, you're giving these poor sods in run down Ghettoes n the world an incentive to do terror? A method to make a mark in life. If everybody would assume that these guys are just random pathetic losers acting completely alone with very little support, (which the evidence in most cases seems to indicate) they'd have no incentive to carry out any acts of terror. Because then people would just feel sorry for them instead of feeling fear.... which is their goal.
I've studied both the Koran and the Bible. I'm very interested in religious history. The Bible and the Koran are interchangeable. The Koran is just less vague. But not a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
I am not disagreeing with you merely supporting your view. Everybody agrees that political decisions should be based on the available intelligence and that in this case the decision had already been made (according to reports well before 911) and intelligence was manipulated to justify that decision. Cart before horse if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
In the UK it was the same (coincidence we ask) we had the "Dodgy Dossier" which built the case for war on dubious facts and outright lies such that intelligence officers refused to put their names to it and one even commited suicide as a result. (sceptics think how convenient for the government)
thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Moonraker
I have read the Quran but cannot offhand point you to relevant texts. Suffice it to say that since beheading is the Sharia penalty for certain crimes and Mohammed fought several wars killing you may be in error here.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
This seems to be a popular US tactic, trying to use the Quaran to prove terrorist are not "real" muslims and thereby isolate them. I see this tactic as potentially counter-productive. If you are wrong about a terrorists act being "haram" (prohibited in the Quaran) it will just reenforce the view that westerners know little about Islamic culture religion and are telling lies all the time. This then alienates mainstream muslims pushing them closer to the extremists.
Similarly portraying them as crazies (as Tom of Sweden does) is also a risky tactic. For sure the suicide bombers are pawns but I don't think the planners who know precisely the optimum floor for the plane to hit its target are that stupid. It is often considered foolhardy to underestimate your adversary and I would hope those responsible for counter terrorism dont believe their own propoganda.
If, as Tom says, the Bible and Quran are virtually interchangeable, then the prohibition against killing seems only to apply to other Arabs (Quran), Jews (Old Testament) or Christians (King James Bible). In virtually every culture throughout history, killing of barbarians, heretics, outsiders, just "those who are not like us" has always been looked at differently than killing within the community. This is, after all, what makes wars possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonraker
Crazy does not necessarily equate with stupid. It's crazy to strap a bomb to your chest and explode it, knowing you are going to die. It's crazy to fly an airplane into a building, knowing you are killing hundreds of people, including yourself. It does take some intelligence to learn to fly that plane, even marginally, well enough to crash it. And it takes a lot of intelligence to plan and coordinate all the intricate elements of such a plan.Quote:
Similarly portraying them as crazies (as Tom of Sweden does) is also a risky tactic. For sure the suicide bombers are pawns but I don't think the planners who know precisely the optimum floor for the plane to hit its target are that stupid. It is often considered foolhardy to underestimate your adversary and I would hope those responsible for counter terrorism dont believe their own propoganda.
But I don't care how smart they are, I doubt very much that any of the planners truly expected the towers to fall as they did. I don't think anyone could have predicted that. It's only in hindsight, after much analysis, that we understand just how that happened.
I agree and when it come to Islamc Terroistss, please Allah(hope i spelled that right) and dying for him and the cause seems more important to most Islamic Terrosits the anything else, Islamic Terrorsists have no regard for any human lifeQuote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I agree crazy and stupid are not the same but I still think it unwise to underestimate or misrepresent your foe. You say the suicide bomber is crazy because he is going to a certain death. Does this mean the americans, military and civilians, who have willingly sacrificed their lives for a cause were also crazy. As regards 'no regard for human life' (mkemse) muslims ask the same question in regard to the countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of sanctions or bombs (90+% of which weren't smart). Portraying terrorists as crazy is bound to invite comparison with the actions of western countries. Were the IRA crazy terrorists when they bombed shopping malls. The USA didn't seem to think so, the IRA were openly raising funds in the US and weren't a proscribed organisation. Terrorist or freedom fighter is well covered debate topic, the IRA, ANC, PLO and Zionist Haganah have all been described as terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Until such time as you look at the cause of terrorism and address grievances there is no military solution. Many muslims accuse the west of having double standards and by simply writing isalmic terrorists off as crazies only confirms that belief and make it easier for the terrorists to convince potential recruits that he West is anti-Islam and the only thing it understands is the use of force.
PS - Yes nobody expected the Towers to collapse but the planes carried maximum fuel and hit where maximum damage would result.
thanks
i was reading an opinion poll of Iraqis at the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6983027.stm and then somehow stumbled across this site which has various polls http://www.iraqanalysis.org/INFO/55.
Moonraker,
Thanks for your post, I appreciate your controbution to the thread