No one LOVES war NO ONE wants to be there but that is why the draft is there. We need people to defend this country, and we need more people who control what is going like this guy here. I am also sick of George Bush being beaten and tromped on like he is the only one responsible for his actions. PRESIDENT BUSH IS NOT A ****** DICTATOR! Congress, his cabinet, and all other parts of the government of America is pushing him this way and that way and he decides whats best for the country. I'm sick of people like Bill Clinton who are scumbags getting treated like they are wonderful people. What would be happening now if John Kerry had been elected? We would be having homosexual marriages right now and be going even farther down the path of imoralness(heh.. new word). Every single day I hear someone ranting about George Bush, well you know what? If everyone hates him how the **** did he get into office TWICE???

being fair is more important than being "moral". Just because YOU don't agree with gay marriage doesnt mean that others dont. The are are more important matters at hand then gay marriage. People are starving on the streets of american and bush is worried about Gay marriage?? tell me there isnt something wrong with that picture...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh no! :XD: not on my thread, please, not on my thread :pray: !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i dont want to start a gay rights flame war here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

plz dont.

neither do I, but I can't stand it when people comment like he did, especially towards gay marriage. :x Isnt america and life, liberty, and hte persuite of happiness? gays are people and have hte right to persue happiness, if marriage makes them happy they have a right to it. I rest my case, I wont start a flame war :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You will be warned for the next flame you make Agunimon979. It's not welcome here. Bluelancer

wow..... i think that is the most correct thing i have EVER heard from that point. heck, that beats most news networks

Here's my view on this: He's right for the most part: who cares about a new plasma screen tv when you don"t have ammo?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America always brags to Canada about their army. So what? If all you do is try to make peace, build, and never shoot, then what's the point of having a military? Might as well call back the troops and send some builders over there. :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America easily has enough firepower stored to take down the corrupt parts of Iraq. Some soldiers will die in the fight, but they'll also die if they just stand around, do nothing, wait to get shot at, and if the target doesn't run away, shoot back. Too many lives have been lost already. You have two options the way I see it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Pull the troops out. This is a gigantic waste of the lives, ammo, and other costs that have been spent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Fight. Take down the terrorists. Use that army you keep bragging about. Apparently, the soldiers are itching to end this thing, even if it costs them dearly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People only sleep peacefully because the army are there ready to defend their nation. So go on, get defending! Don't just stand around and take this!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Fight. Take down the terrorists. Use that army you keep bragging about. Apparently, the soldiers are itching to end this thing, even if it costs them dearly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Half of the problem is that alot of people over-simplify the problems into Iraq. It's not just an us(coalition forces) versus 'the terrorists' situation, by making it that you're completely deep rooted religious & sectarian divisions in Iraq as well as the the fact that the Iraqi security services are being corrupted by insurgents and are completely undertrained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On top of that, Coalition forces are also incapable of finding a way to negotiate an end to the violence as there was no plan of how to rebuild Iraq when the invasion was being planned. At the moment it seems that the Bush administration is willing to just sit tight until after the Presidential election and let somebody else figure out how to sort this mess.

Well,it certainly is a great post and definetely the best one I've seen on this topic of Iraq. But I do have a few points.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom is a very broad word. If I ask you "What is Freedom?", it's one of them questions where we have a vague idea but we've never really had to sit down and think about it really. For me, freedom is the ability for one to live by the way that one wishes. In this sense, I believe that, for example, the people living under Hitler's or Lenin's rule were actually free. In Russia, there is a clear sign of a socialist popular movement, the evidence being the November Elections where the SRs (Socialist Revolutionaries) actually have a massive majority. In Nazi Germany, any people admired Hitler for the way he basically ripped the Treaty of Versailles apart - they felt free for the first time since pre-WWI! Both of these represtn freedom within themselves - both were popular movements even though there was no democracy in place. People had the freedom to set an autocrat as head-of-state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So really, can you say that you are making the Iraqi citizens "free"? Firstly, you lied to the about the reason for going to war. This isn't freedom! People live in constant fear of sectarian viloence. This isn' freedom! People don't actually have the power to change the political system, because a) The Americans have decided the system of government, not Iraqis and B) they can't vote or else they're blown to pieces by a suicidal bomber. This isn't freedom!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are right, here's famous saying:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Anyone who would sacrifice a little bit of liberty, to gain a little bit of security; will deserve neither, and lose both"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is improtant that people have control over their own affairs to a lesser or more extent. But the Americans staying there is not making the Iraqis free; if anything, it is making them more oppressed as the situation becomes slowly worse and worse. The coalition has to allow Iraq to manage its own affairs now - I don't think that there is much more the armed forces can do for Iraq. Not to mention the biggest point of all - most of Iraq wants us to leave! If we proclaim to be leaders of the free world, we should at least grant them this request...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ty, but im just passing this on to all.

Since you can tell what soldiers think, tell me what this one thinks too. Please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.worldpressphoto.com/index.ph ... width=high]?rss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warning: Not for people with easy stomachs.

Since you can tell what soldiers think, tell me what this one thinks too. Please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.worldpressphoto.com/index.ph ... width=high]?rss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warning: Not for people with easy stomachs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

knowing that this is a US marine, id wager he hates what happend to him, but still respects and believes in what he was fighting for. maybe not, but id bet so,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ps, im gonna add this to the original post. ty

wow, getting that link up was harder than i thought. :oops:

Thats a point of view of one soldier, out of all those who are there. It was interesting. He seems frustrated that everyone is taking decisions for the soldiers, without asking them their opinion.

Here's my view on this: He's right for the most part: who cares about a new plasma screen tv when you don"t have ammo?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America always brags to Canada about their army. So what? If all you do is try to make peace, build, and never shoot, then what's the point of having a military? Might as well call back the troops and send some builders over there. :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America easily has enough firepower stored to take down the corrupt parts of Iraq. Some soldiers will die in the fight, but they'll also die if they just stand around, do nothing, wait to get shot at, and if the target doesn't run away, shoot back. Too many lives have been lost already. You have two options the way I see it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Pull the troops out. This is a gigantic waste of the lives, ammo, and other costs that have been spent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Fight. Take down the terrorists. Use that army you keep bragging about. Apparently, the soldiers are itching to end this thing, even if it costs them dearly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People only sleep peacefully because the army are there ready to defend their nation. So go on, get defending! Don't just stand around and take this!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

 

Here's my view on this: He's right for the most part: who cares about a new plasma screen tv when you don"t have ammo?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America always brags to Canada about their army. So what? If all you do is try to make peace, build, and never shoot, then what's the point of having a military? Might as well call back the troops and send some builders over there. :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America easily has enough firepower stored to take down the corrupt parts of Iraq. Some soldiers will die in the fight, but they'll also die if they just stand around, do nothing, wait to get shot at, and if the target doesn't run away, shoot back. Too many lives have been lost already. You have two options the way I see it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Pull the troops out. This is a gigantic waste of the lives, ammo, and other costs that have been spent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Fight. Take down the terrorists. Use that army you keep bragging about. Apparently, the soldiers are itching to end this thing, even if it costs them dearly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People only sleep peacefully because the army are there ready to defend their nation. So go on, get defending! Don't just stand around and take this!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

true.

Thats a point of view of one soldier, out of all those who are there. It was interesting. He seems frustrated that everyone is taking decisions for the soldiers, without asking them their opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no, he didnt really care about thier opinions, he cares that the generals are doing their job correctly because of the media.

i dont think we should pull out our troops from iraq

 

 

 

that would make absolutely NO sense

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it would screw things up so much, we need to fix the problem

its really hard to say

 

 

 

actually no one likes the war, we all are eagor for a peaceful world.

 

 

 

i dont think thats the fault of the soldiers

 

 

 

who is responsible for that?

 

 

 

goverment?

 

 

 

However, abusing pows is their wish to do that? :shame:

 

 

 

that should not be forgiven

I may be a "juvenile with no opinion in these government decisions" but I do agree with this letter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the government. For them, declaring war is a long decision involving sitting at coffee table with fellow officers for 3 hours sipping coffee and discussing. For a soldier in the army or marines, the decision changes their life entirely. Onesecond they live in a nice, comfortable house with their family. The next second they're in a foreign country, huddling with other soldiers for support, and watching the land being blown up around them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, we have the morons on the news who have never had any military experience whatsoever. Then they go on TV and tell america what we should be doing. Later, there are people who say to send more troops to finish the war. Then those same people say later on, "war is not the answer!" These Iraqis have the threat of weapons of mass destruction! I think the troops are doing the world a favor by trying to eliminate them through war!

its really hard to say

 

 

 

actually no one likes the war, we all are eagor for a peaceful world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, the biggest governmental oxymoron in the history of ironic literature. War for a peaceful world? HOW was Bush voted in twice??

I may be a "juvenile with no opinion in these government decisions" but I do agree with this letter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the government. For them, declaring war is a long decision involving sitting at coffee table with fellow officers for 3 hours sipping coffee and discussing. For a soldier in the army or marines, the decision changes their life entirely. Onesecond they live in a nice, comfortable house with their family. The next second they're in a foreign country, huddling with other soldiers for support, and watching the land being blown up around them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, we have the morons on the news who have never had any military experience whatsoever. Then they go on TV and tell america what we should be doing. Later, there are people who say to send more troops to finish the war. Then those same people say later on, "war is not the answer!" These Iraqis have the threat of weapons of mass destruction! I think the troops are doing the world a favor by trying to eliminate them through war!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wow! someone who agrees with me! im amazed!

 

its really hard to say

 

 

 

actually no one likes the war, we all are eagor for a peaceful world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, the biggest governmental oxymoron in the history of ironic literature. War for a peaceful world? HOW was Bush voted in twice??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voted once, chosen twice :P Somehow that thing about "war for a peaceful world" reminds me of the stories how ww1 was the war that ended all wars. Oh well ww2 came and so did few others... ;)

 

 

its really hard to say

 

 

 

actually no one likes the war, we all are eagor for a peaceful world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, the biggest governmental oxymoron in the history of ironic literature. War for a peaceful world? HOW was Bush voted in twice??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voted once, chosen twice :P Somehow that thing about "war for a peaceful world" reminds me of the stories how ww1 was the war that ended all wars. Oh well ww2 came and so did few others... ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this isnt a political disscussian, sorry, no geting off topic

well, as a "soldier" in Iraq, let me explain a few things....it's not like a typical war where you have an identifiable enemy, blow up his war machine building factories, cut off his supply lines and then stomp the enemy until they wave a white flag....that's easy and we have done it time and again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is like trying to kill a huge ant hill with a pair of tweezers. Think of it as a big ant hill with two kinds of ants in it, to the human eye, they look the exact same, and the only way to know who they are, is to pick one up at a time with a pair of tweezers, close examine it, squish it if it is the "bad" ant and let it go if it is the good ant. These "bad" ants are so immersed into the ant hill, that the good ants don't even know who they are, or refuse to point them out if they do know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now the EASY solution would be to saturate the ant hill with gasoline and insecticide and light it on fire (bomb in real life), but that isn't a great option to the "good" ants, and would be viewed unfavorably by the rest of the ant populations. So we are back to option one, grab a pair of tweezers, and pick up one at a time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We can't go to the taliban HQ building, and kick in the doors and slap them around, there isn't one....we have to go house to house, search for weapons or evidence of insurgency, arrest, detain, question, feed etc the "bad" guys, who of course proclaim they are mistreated, and were simply skipping home from sunday school when we grabbed them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other option is you have to wait until you are fired upon, in order to identify who the bad guy is, and usually before you can fire back, he scurries into a mosque, where we know they have underground tunnels that lead out into a far away home because we have found them...and we can not enter, or fire upon the sacred building :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

welcome to our nightmare, meanwhile every left wing piece of crap points to the videos streaming in daily and loudly proclaims how the war is lost and we need to pack up and go home (who cares that pulling out will give hundreds of thousands an instant death sentence from the insurgents), at the same time all the latte sipping suit wearing idiot media narrators sit back and pontificate upon how the war should be fought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let us do our job, however we got here, we are here now, stop tying our hands behind our backs and let us whoop some butt and get it over with.

well, as a "soldier" in Iraq, let me explain a few things....it's not like a typical war where you have an identifiable enemy, blow up his war machine building factories, cut off his supply lines and then stomp the enemy until they wave a white flag....that's easy and we have done it time and again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is like trying to kill a huge ant hill with a pair of tweezers. Think of it as a big ant hill with two kinds of ants in it, to the human eye, they look the exact same, and the only way to know who they are, is to pick one up at a time with a pair of tweezers, close examine it, squish it if it is the "bad" ant and let it go if it is the good ant. These "bad" ants are so immersed into the ant hill, that the good ants don't even know who they are, or refuse to point them out if they do know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now the EASY solution would be to saturate the ant hill with gasoline and insecticide and light it on fire (bomb in real life), but that isn't a great option to the "good" ants, and would be viewed unfavorably by the rest of the ant populations. So we are back to option one, grab a pair of tweezers, and pick up one at a time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We can't go to the taliban HQ building, and kick in the doors and slap them around, there isn't one....we have to go house to house, search for weapons or evidence of insurgency, arrest, detain, question, feed etc the "bad" guys, who of course proclaim they are mistreated, and were simply skipping home from sunday school when we grabbed them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other option is you have to wait until you are fired upon, in order to identify who the bad guy is, and usually before you can fire back, he scurries into a mosque, where we know they have underground tunnels that lead out into a far away home because we have found them...and we can not enter, or fire upon the sacred building :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

welcome to our nightmare, meanwhile every left wing piece of crap points to the videos streaming in daily and loudly proclaims how the war is lost and we need to pack up and go home (who cares that pulling out will give hundreds of thousands an instant death sentence from the insurgents), at the same time all the latte sipping suit wearing idiot media narrators sit back and pontificate upon how the war should be fought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let us do our job, however we got here, we are here now, stop tying our hands behind our backs and let us whoop some butt and get it over with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the problem is, the distinction between "good" ants and "bad" ants is quite difficult to make. Someone else suggested that you could just "Fight. Take down the terrorists. Use that army you keep bragging about. Apparently, the soldiers are itching to end this thing, even if it costs them dearly. " But you can't just try really hard and take down the terrorists - it's not just terrorists who are "the enemy" at this point. What is happening in Iraq is a complicated situation akin to a Civil War. There are Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd populations, and they mostly live in isolated communities from one another. The Kurdish "community" is practically its own nation already, Kurdistan, and we're still trying to fight that by "killing terrorists." But it's just not a black and white case. Is someone who is fighting this civil war automatically a terrorist? What about if they kill a civilian accidentally? What if they kill civilians intentionally in order to speed up the war (the US has done that as well - think Hiroshima and Nagasaki)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As soon as you view what is happening over there as akin to a civil war (which, really, IT IS), you realize how complicated things are. It's not so simple as good guys and bad guys. And the problem is that it's a complicated problem of Iraqi cultures and religions clashing, and the US knows very little about how to solve it. And yet we keep bumbling around over there, mumbling about terrorism, and we're just confusing the situation further. Here's a fact: most Iraqis don't like the US presence. Sunni and Shiite alike, they see Americans as oppressors. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. Either way, it's clear that we aren't having the effect we intended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are we there to help Iraqis, or are we there for our own reason? If all we're doing is picking out the terrorists who are opposed to us, then we should admit that to ourselves. But anyone who is still trying to justify our place in Iraq by how we must be charitable to the Iraqis and help out a burgeoning country in need of freedom, needs to get off their high horse and stop thinking they're so great and noble, and reexamine the actual situation.

 

 

 

But the problem is, the distinction between "good" ants and "bad" ants is quite difficult to make. Someone else suggested that you could just "Fight. Take down the terrorists. Use that army you keep bragging about. Apparently, the soldiers are itching to end this thing, even if it costs them dearly. " But you can't just try really hard and take down the terrorists - it's not just terrorists who are "the enemy" at this point. What is happening in Iraq is a complicated situation akin to a Civil War. There are Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd populations, and they mostly live in isolated communities from one another. The Kurdish "community" is practically its own nation already, Kurdistan, and we're still trying to fight that by "killing terrorists." But it's just not a black and white case. Is someone who is fighting this civil war automatically a terrorist? What about if they kill a civilian accidentally? What if they kill civilians intentionally in order to speed up the war (the US has done that as well - think Hiroshima and Nagasaki)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As soon as you view what is happening over there as akin to a civil war (which, really, IT IS), you realize how complicated things are. It's not so simple as good guys and bad guys. And the problem is that it's a complicated problem of Iraqi cultures and religions clashing, and the US knows very little about how to solve it. And yet we keep bumbling around over there, mumbling about terrorism, and we're just confusing the situation further. Here's a fact: most Iraqis don't like the US presence. Sunni and Shiite alike, they see Americans as oppressors. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. Either way, it's clear that we aren't having the effect we intended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are we there to help Iraqis, or are we there for our own reason? If all we're doing is picking out the terrorists who are opposed to us, then we should admit that to ourselves. But anyone who is still trying to justify our place in Iraq by how we must be charitable to the Iraqis and help out a burgeoning country in need of freedom, needs to get off their high horse and stop thinking they're so great and noble, and reexamine the actual situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you are correct, it is very complicated and very hard to deal with, which for some reason all of our bleeding heart media types, and clamoring liberal democrats who scream "retreat!" don't understand. Retreat isn't an option, it would be a death sentence to millions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

civil war it might be, but you get classified as a terrorist when you pull up with your family next to some US soldiers, walk away with your wife and leave your kids inside as if it is just a brief shopping stop, then detonate the car in order to kill a few of us. That is not heroic, that is just beyond sick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now they have a video playing 24/7 over here on all the popular channels where a 4yo girl is singing about wanting to be the next "martyr", and blow herself up, like her mother did.....sick. Don't make them out to be valiant, they are just religious sickos who will kill their own kids in name of their cause.

Now they have a video playing 24/7 over here on all the popular channels where a 4yo girl is singing about wanting to be the next "martyr", and blow herself up, like her mother did.....sick. Don't make them out to be valiant, they are just religious sickos who will kill their own kids in name of their cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't all just "religious sickos." To make the war seem just by dehumanizing the enemy into "sickos" is tempting, but such rationalizations won't actually bring about justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, most Iraqis don't fall into the group of people who do consider martyrdom to be an ideal to strive for. However, in the groups of Iraqis that do think so, it must be understood where that feeling is coming from (even if, upon analyzing it, we still find it personally revolting, as I do). They think of themselves as being in the midst of a defensive war. Other people came and wreaked havoc and destroyed their way of life (even the same majority who are glad that Saddam is gone, often say they would take him back if it meant they could be rid of their current American oppressors!) and now they are trying to restore some order to their lives, through the means of temporary disorder to achieve a greater end. As in all war (not that this justifies it, but at least makes it understandable - an important distinction), atrocities occur for the "greater good".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying they're valiant; I'm saying they're human. I'm saying that the US army going in and "getting the terrorists" from each of the different groups - Sunni, shiite, kurds - won't actually change anything or improve the situation, because as we kill more people and the situation gets more "dire," more "terrorists" will rise up to take their place, because terrorists are not all that significantly different from the general population (and this is true of terrorists in many various cultures, i.e. in Palestine or in Ireland just as much, according to research done in social psychology and in sociology). If we want to actually make a difference in Iraq, we need to reexamine what we're doign and take a totally different strategy.

 

Now they have a video playing 24/7 over here on all the popular channels where a 4yo girl is singing about wanting to be the next "martyr", and blow herself up, like her mother did.....sick. Don't make them out to be valiant, they are just religious sickos who will kill their own kids in name of their cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't all just "religious sickos." To make the war seem just by dehumanizing the enemy into "sickos" is tempting, but such rationalizations won't actually bring about justice. LK-true, and I wasn't implying the 1.3+ billion Muslims in the world are sickos, just the select few who are fanatical to the degree that they think killing themselves or their children to cast out the disbelievers/"occupiers" is a viable option, brainwashing at it's finest, lifelong religious rhetoric showing it's true power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, most Iraqis don't fall into the group of people who do consider martyrdom to be an ideal to strive for. LK- True, I see them everyday, they smile and shake our hands and thank us for being here, that doesnt sell tv shows though... However, in the groups of Iraqis that do think so, it must be understood where that feeling is coming from (even if, upon analyzing it, we still find it personally revolting, as I do). They think of themselves as being in the midst of a defensive war. Other people came and wreaked havoc and destroyed their way of life (even the same majority who are glad that Saddam is gone, often say they would take him back if it meant they could be rid of their current American oppressors!) LK-yup, that is very disconcerting that they think they would be better off livng the life they had before, where as long as they didnt say anyhting against the governments daily cleansing and assaults on their women and children...they had a sorta stable life, or at least one they were used to living..sad how humans can become comfortable with that kind of travesty. and now they are trying to restore some order to their lives, through the means of temporary disorder to achieve a greater end. As in all war (not that this justifies it, but at least makes it understandable - an important distinction), atrocities occur for the "greater good". LK- I have stood over the bodies of dismembered children in the streets who came out smiling and crying before they blewup....nothing makes that okay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying they're valiant; I'm saying they're human. I'm saying that the US army going in and "getting the terrorists" from each of the different groups - Sunni, shiite, kurds - won't actually change anything or improve the situation, because as we kill more people and the situation gets more "dire," more "terrorists" will rise up to take their place, LK-excellent point, and i agree, so what's the answer?..because terrorists are not all that significantly different from the general population (and this is true of terrorists in many various cultures, i.e. in Palestine or in Ireland just as much, according to research done in social psychology and in sociology). If we want to actually make a difference in Iraq, we need to reexamine what we're doign and take a totally different strategy LK-true, the problem is you can not diplomatically work with zealots who view the fact that we try to talk to them as a sign of weakness, and use our rules against us, they only understand one thing, death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LK-answered throughout, and nice to talk with an intelligent person who quantifies his statements.

 

 

Now they have a video playing 24/7 over here on all the popular channels where a 4yo girl is singing about wanting to be the next "martyr", and blow herself up, like her mother did.....sick. Don't make them out to be valiant, they are just religious sickos who will kill their own kids in name of their cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't all just "religious sickos." To make the war seem just by dehumanizing the enemy into "sickos" is tempting, but such rationalizations won't actually bring about justice. LK-true, and I wasn't implying the 1.3+ billion Muslims in the world are sickos, just the select few who are fanatical to the degree that they think killing themselves or their children to cast out the disbelievers/"occupiers" is a viable option, brainwashing at it's finest, lifelong religious rhetoric showing it's true power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, most Iraqis don't fall into the group of people who do consider martyrdom to be an ideal to strive for. LK- True, I see them everyday, they smile and shake our hands and thank us for being here, that doesnt sell tv shows though... However, in the groups of Iraqis that do think so, it must be understood where that feeling is coming from (even if, upon analyzing it, we still find it personally revolting, as I do). They think of themselves as being in the midst of a defensive war. Other people came and wreaked havoc and destroyed their way of life (even the same majority who are glad that Saddam is gone, often say they would take him back if it meant they could be rid of their current American oppressors!) LK-yup, that is very disconcerting that they think they would be better off livng the life they had before, where as long as they didnt say anyhting against the governments daily cleansing and assaults on their women and children...they had a sorta stable life, or at least one they were used to living..sad how humans can become comfortable with that kind of travesty. and now they are trying to restore some order to their lives, through the means of temporary disorder to achieve a greater end. As in all war (not that this justifies it, but at least makes it understandable - an important distinction), atrocities occur for the "greater good". LK- I have stood over the bodies of dismembered children in the streets who came out smiling and crying before they blewup....nothing makes that okay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying they're valiant; I'm saying they're human. I'm saying that the US army going in and "getting the terrorists" from each of the different groups - Sunni, shiite, kurds - won't actually change anything or improve the situation, because as we kill more people and the situation gets more "dire," more "terrorists" will rise up to take their place, LK-excellent point, and i agree, so what's the answer?..because terrorists are not all that significantly different from the general population (and this is true of terrorists in many various cultures, i.e. in Palestine or in Ireland just as much, according to research done in social psychology and in sociology). If we want to actually make a difference in Iraq, we need to reexamine what we're doign and take a totally different strategy LK-true, the problem is you can not diplomatically work with zealots who view the fact that we try to talk to them as a sign of weakness, and use our rules against us, they only understand one thing, death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LK-answered throughout, and nice to talk with an intelligent person who quantifies his statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah - I think we do agree on most of stuff :) I guess, the judgment call which is difficult to make, but where I do differ, is that I don't think we should be sending more troops to Iraq. I think that the more troops we send in, the more Iraqis resent the "occupiers" who are mostly there for the best of intentions, and the worse the situation gets. I think that it also isn't really the place of the US government or military to decide whether there should be three separate states (think North and South Korea... not that that worked out so well) or whether the different regions should work things out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What has been proven to combat terrorism? Well, very little, unfortunately. One fairly effective strategy is to not be terrified when terrorists commit terrorist acts, taking the power away from them; unfortunately, this isn't very practical, because it's not so easy to ignore the fact that your friends and family could be harmed at any moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what can we do? I'm not sure I can really offer a solution. Still, I think it would be better overall if we did try to phase out the American/int'l military presence in Iraq, and instead tried to increase humanitarian aid, and also maintain some peacekeeping troops to make sure no genocidal acts (or similar, even if they don't get the official title of genocide) are attempted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Btw, likewise :D it is quite nice to talk to someone intelligent about this subject :D