What were they thinking

[nitefyre]

You can criticize any bureaucratic mechanism for bribery, corruption, etc; they're all very much the same. Whether it's the US government or the United Nations or the French Government. Some will be more corrupt, merely because of other factors, whereas others will not be, just because they're satiated by their hefty paycheck (and whatever they're making on the side). To just attack the UN as a whole as being one corrupt mass doesn't solve world hunger. To realize that there will be individuals in any organization, who will operate in the Hobbesian characteristic of mankind, but there is a greater general ideal to it, will probably take us a whole lot further.

It's also important to realize the UN consists of everyone, so whoever is stealing from the UN's programs are stealing from everybody, and can be equally loathed. Unless you think the UN is evil and should be sent to Europe, against the ideals of our past and probably worthier presidents, so that the US can wash its hands of world affairs as it did in the '20s.

I could just go on and attack the US postal service for not delivering more than 50% of the things I send via snail mail (to allude to the Seinfeld episode), and be criticizing the executive office of the US government. It's a vicious cycle, IMHO.

Both the UN and the US should be held responsible for what they do. I just happen to think that lives through bloodshed and foreign policy decisions weigh a little heavier on my conscience than some grinches who need and I believe, have been plucked. The US on the other hand, still maintains mostly the same people in office (sometimes even covering them up from the highest level), which I assume pisses a good deal of people off. Can we even put a pricetag on how much the traditional energy companies, the Saudi oil holders, etc, have an influence on the US government on its foreign policies?

[Schme]

Pie, I can barely read what you wrote.

I never said a Jordanian couldn’t go into Iraq and kill an American. I’m saying that not many Jordanians would. Would a Mexican go blow themselves up in Ireland to fight the Protestants just because he’s Catholic? Hell no. See what I mean?




I can’t really say that I care you find me rambling, Stan.


I’d like to explain something here.

Al-qaeda is not anything. Al-qaeda was Osama Bin Ladens bunch of friends he had in Afghanistan. He went over there, fought a while against the Soviets, then stuck around because nobody liked him back home. He just sat there and trained a bunch of people. When the Americans came, Al-qaeda dissolved. All it was was a group training people to fight. The America bombings were put together by him and the inner members. It no longer exists. The former members are still around, using their training in other groups, but Al-qaeda is long gone. What keeps it alive is the American government. They repeatedly talk about how “Al-qaeda” is doing things, and subsequently, Osama Bin Laden plays along, releasing tapes and pretending to be powerful when in truth he’s just sleeping on the couch at the homes of various friends (so to speak).

Al-qaeda, when it was around, primarily operated in Afghanistan, training Afghanis, Pakistanis, Uzbeks and so on. None of these people are Arabs. There are no arabs anywhere near the region. They’re all desis. If a desi man came to Iraq and tried to kill someone, it’d be like a German trying to do it. Not at all inconspicuous, and under martial law, someone’s going to ask some questions. There aren’t any desis in Iraq, see, and besides, Al-qaeda doesn’t arrange attack. Al-qaeda exists only in name.

Sure, there are some guys coming from Jordan and Saudi Arabia and wherever else, going out to kill guys in Iraq, but they’re numbers are negligible. Believe it or not, the Americans aren’t exactly allowing mass immigration in the region, and you know, there’s not many men who would actually be willing to do anything.

Furthermore, your claims that these attacks are made by highly organized, rich foreign groups are idiotic. Who would do it? The Saudi Arabians? The only rich guys in Saudi Arabia are close to the royal family (which is very big) and only an idiot would risk it, and too pull anything off would be even hard than convincing yourself to try.

Really, think about it. If China takes over America, who will oppose them? Canada and Mexicans? Acting independently? I don’t think so. (And no one’s talking about Spain. Spain doesn’t enter into anywhere.)

Violent religious zealots are not killing Americans in Iraq because they are religious zealots, they are attacking Americans because they want the Americans out, just as are all of the secular resistance groups.

Just as Christian Americans would likely brand themselves as Christians fighting godless Chinese soldiers, Iraqi’s do the same.

And too suggest that any of this resistance is coming from Saddam Hussein’s supporters is idiotic. Saddam Hussein never had supporters, he had friends and sub-ordinates, and people who dealt with him because he was the only guy around. Everyone was envolved with him because he was the only person to be involved with. Now he’s gone, it’s the same. The soldiers or Iraq’s army are the same guys, the beaurocrats are the same guys.

Nobody’s fighting for reward in the afterlife. They’re fighting to retake control of their homeland from some crazy guy from Maine.



It’s really very hard for me to right like this. I much more enjoy talking face to face. Much easier for everyone. At present, I feel like I’m trying to speak through a cloth.

[Stan]

I was just teasing you about rambling. You always make decent points, even though I disagree with you.

[Schme]

Oh, I know you were joking.

And no, I've never found my sandwhich.

[Nalaris]

My two cents is this; if those people aren't fighting for the afterlife, why on Earth is there a suicide bombing every week? You don't get that many people to kamikaze without some kind of manaical/imperial government behind it. It's also usually a sign of desperation. I doubt that people are sacrificing their lives (not in battle but in missions that are designed to kill them) to get the freaks from Maine out of their homeland. They don't get to enjoy the homeland afterwards, for certain, why fight for it? Three possibilities. 1) The terrorists are fighting to preserve their religion (which says that foreigners can't rule you) in anticipation of an after life. 2) The terrorists have been brainwashed a la Japan in WWII. 3) The terrorists are very very stupid.

I find 1 most likely, and 3 almost impossible.

Second, America's almost done with Iraq. The terrorists are sputtering and dying (like I said, increased suicide bombings is usually a sign of despearation, once again like Japan and the kamakazi pilots). They'll be easy to handle soon enough, not much more than street crime with occasional suicide bombers. If America's still in Iraq at that point then I'll agree we've gone two far.

[Stan]

This from the mouth of Iraqis per Reuters (liberal slant):

It is the first time I have tasted the freedom to express my view," said 60-year-old Sunni Arab Asmael Nouri in Kirkuk.

Religious voter Kadhmiya Alwan, 55, in Najaf said: "I demand they take my revenge on the regime that killed my two sons."

"We want freedom ... to drink alchohol, dance and go to nightclubs," said Allawi supporter Jasim Faisal, 34, in the southern city of Samawa.

Kurdish voter Hussein Garmiyani recalled repression at Saddam's hands as he smeared his own blood on the ballot paper in Kirkuk. "I signed for freedom with my blood."

This from an Iraqi per Fox News (conservative slant):

From Betty Dawisha a voter in Irag:

"I thank America and President Bush, everyone that doesn't like what America and President Bush has done for Iraq can all go to HELL."
(I posted this one more for comedic relief)


Slightly different tones but the same message.

[Nick]

How many million people in Iraq? And how much resources at the disposal of propoganda machines to find the few people that fit their arguements?

Are you seriously suggesting that Iraq wants you guys there? Half of America wants you out. Everybody out of America wants you out. So that's about, say 100 million people who agree with them being there. Out of 6 billion, that's a ratio of about 1/60.

[Nalaris]

Iran's already trying to get Israel out of the Middle-East, if America leaves Iraq undefended and still having a few dying terrorist factions to exploit, Iran will have expanded into it within a week. I don't want to see any one nation have that much power over the Middle East, that'd be like Saudi Arabia taking out Palestine and Israel.

[Stan]

It only took me 4 hours to find those quotes.

I'm kidding of course. But, come on Nick. Of course they want us out...eventually. But I don't think they want us out immediately. (Us meaning American/allied troops, of course.)

I believe they have a hope and postive outlook for their country's future that they just couldn't have before Hussein was removed.

Just my opinion.

[Schme]

Nalaris, you’re out of it.

A sign of desperation? No. It’s a sign of people blowing the shit out of people with bomb vests. Ever heard of Palestine? Well, if we go by what you’re saying, they’re nationalist fighters have been “sputtering and dying” for six decades.

And you know those mild mannered fellows the Tamil Tigers? Yes, the suicide bombings are a sure sign of they’re winding down. They sure our. It’ll all be over soon.


And you say “They won’t enjoy they’re homeland afterward”? The occupation of Iraq by America is the only thing that makes the country “enjoyable”. Yes, of course. They sure do love you guys, oh yes indeed. You’re universally loved, even.

And hey, guess what? Not everything’s about enjoying yourself. Patriotism isn’t about just having a blast. Remember the American Revolution? Think that was about fun? It was about indepence for the United States, about creating a new nation. Not about fun. The American civil war? Think that was for fun? Hell no.

Maybe you should think a bit. Perhaps the people who want America out of Iraq are thinking about the good of they’re country, and they’re children’s futures. Perhaps they don’t want they’re homeland dominated by a foreign power and exploited (which is being done too it, and America is without a doubt going to maintain ((or try too)) strong influence over Iraq even after they leave.) Maybe they don’t want American puppet governments and American style democracy.

And by the way, what the hell makes you think that the occupation is all that fun, eh? Believe me, it isn’t. Before, women weren’t raped daily, before, nobody would explode, before, people weren’t shot in the street, there was not martial law. It’s not all that fun at present, believe me.

As for your reasons for the terrorists fighting, it looks to me like you just made them up, very creative, but it doesn’t seem like you really know what you’re speculating about.

Firstly, Islam does not say “You cannot be ruled by foreigners” because that makes not fucki ng sense. What’s a foreigner? A Russian is a foreigner to a Turk, and a Turk is a foreigner too a Swede. Everyone’s a foreigner. Islamic scripture and teaching says nothing of the kind at all. And believe me, Islam isn’t in need of preservation at present. Believe me.

Brainwashed, sure, but by who? There aren’t great propaganda programs. Nobodies pulling any Nineteen eighty fours or Clockwork Oranges here. The guys killing people are for the most part made of people who are pretty fucked up, yes. But the only reason they’re killing Americans is because the Americans and there and doing things. Before, those kind of guys fought Saddam.

Also, now, because America has invaded, many people are angry, and ripe for recruiting by the various fuck.s running about. That’s how it goes, see.


As for them “Sputtering and dieing”, that isn’t how it works. See, sure, kill one, arrest one, great. But the thing is, Iraq is still not free from American control, and so there’ll always be other people too fight the American army and their sympathizers. Also, one American does something wrong and then tempers flare. Americans are supposed to be keeping the peace, so when one person slips up even a bit in duty or ethics, people are going to be angry. “If you’re not going to let us control our own country, at least don’t do a half assed and corrupt job of it.”, you know?

And when you kill one fighter, or put him in prison, (and I’ve said this before, this applies to everywhere, really.) his sons, his brothers, his cousins, his friends, they’re going to get angry and want revenge. The person becomes a personal martyr to them, and some more guys take up the cause, and so it continues.




As for Iran, like I’ve said before, (at the start of this thread), they’re government is all bark and no bite. They’re not going to actually ever take aggressive action against Israel. It’s all just ideological spewing. Now, the current president, he might if he had the chance. He’s a crazy fuc.k, and is the equivalent of our Doomsday rapture Christians over here. But you have to remember that it’s not actually his choice. The real power still rests in the hands of the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader, and they see the guy as an embarrassment and an idiot. Furthermore, look at a map. Iran could not directly attack Israel at all, and the only thing they could do would be covert operations and financial support to groups. As Iranians are mostly Persians, any Iranian agents in Israel would stand out full crazy, and probably be caught with swiftness (remember, Mossad has a lot of experience with catching people.). And even could Iran (or anyone were too) attack Israel, Israel’s Army is solid, aswell as being backed by the United States, and having nuclear weapons. So, there you are.


And the suggestion that Iran would invade Iraq is laughable. None of Iran’s leadership, nor Iran’s people, want any wars, especially with the last war they had with Iraq in mind. Nobody wants a war.

And even if Iran did try to conquer Iraq, it would be sad to see them try. To spite Iraq’s lack of an armed forces, infrastructure, solid leadership, national unity or enough light bulbs, they’re still a people, and it’s rather safe to assume that if Iran tried to conquer Iraq, the people would react much the same as they have to America’s army (and, if you ask me, much much more violently.)

In short, Iran could try, but wouldn’t be able to conquer Iraq. Couldn’t happen.


And Stan, like Nick said, there’s at least one person in each country advocating something stupid that no one agrees with. Take the Klan, for example. They’re there, and they talk a bunch, but they don’t represent the majority of America. Not even a considerable minority.

[Stan]

Yeah, you're probably right. I think most Iraqi's are probably saying like this:

"That election thing sucks. I'd much rather have Father Hussein telling me what to do. It's that much easier."

or

"It was much easier voting when there was only one person on the ballot. Remember, our last election before Saddam left power we had a unanimous vote...and all those great prisoners were released!"

Or maybe this,

"I wish Americans would leave today, because it would be really good for my handcuff business. Yeah, when they leave we're going to start arresting those people from the other branch of Islam that we hate."

Or finally,

"These damn Americans make this stupid ink that I can't wipe off my finger! I'm going to make a trip to Syria tomorrow to get some C4 and strap it to my body and walk into a crowded Baghdad market! That'll show 'em."

Come on....think about it. It makes no sense. Admit it. You've been wrong about this one.

[KiNG KiLL]

Hey, Stan...?

You know, many people think America is the no.1 terrorist country in the world? yes, it's true. What else would you call a nation that goes up against the UN and attacks another country, no matter how much it sucked before the invation? UN holds the global law, and America broke it. And the worst part? Yesterday (I do not have the original link from a american newspaper, and I don't think posting a link to a swedish newspaper would help much ) I read that Buch has recently, officially said that they attacled Iraq based on information that was wrong. And he said he takes full responsibility for that... is this something you've heard about? Or is it just in swedish newspapers? If it's true, you have to admit the invasion is a real tragedy? Think about the 160000 soldiers currently in Iraq, and the 2500 dead ones... imagine how it feels to be there, risking your life for your country, and you do it because... America's Intelligence was... wrong?


And one more thing... how would you feel if a really powerful Islamic country decided that it's time to attack America because they want to and because the fear America will invade them soon? And now they sure would have a reason to fear being invaded by America...

And Islam is no worse than Christianity. You tell me, wich religion is the most blood thirsty one? Wich one has been the more barbaric one through out the ages? Yep, it's christianity allright...

Nalaris, please tell us where you get your interesting opinions from? Iran invading Iraq, and taking over it within a week?

[Nixit]

The religion isn't bloodthirsty, but a lot of it's people have been.

[Stan]

Hey King,

We're aren't at war with Islam. What does that have to do with anything? As far as history of Christianity and violence. I don't know the answer to your question. I know there's a longer history with Christianity. I know the anecdotal evidence from the middle ages and the Crusades, but I don't know how many people died, do you. I know that both Islam and Christianity has members that are human beings. I know that human beings can't live up to the standards of God.

As far as Bush's admission, of course he admitted the intelligence was wrong. It was wasn't it? What should he have done? Do you think a man should lie when he was wrong or be a man and admit it? The UN was the entity demanding Hussein account for the WMD. What action should the UN have taken? They didn't do anything apparently. The sanctions were weakened by the Oil for Food program. That was a real punishment for Saddam Hussein wasn't it? In reality it was a great way for Europe to get the oil it needed at whatever cost. And Europe calls Americans oil crazed...ha.

I'm sure you're a well meaning smart person. But your dislike for America and/or your intense love for the UN has blinded you.

As I've said before the US covers 25% of the budget for the UN. The UN has lost all credibility with many Americans, and that was before the Oil for Food scandal. I had a vote. I would vote to withold all money to the UN until they cleaned it up and made it a functional working entity that backed up it's words with action.

--------added later------
One more thing, King.

I'm sure one of your reasons for not liking American policy or America in general is because you'll agrue that America's policy is arogant etc. You yourself said the rest of the world didn't like us.

Do yourself a favor and look in the mirror, bud. How arrogant does it sound to you to say, "None of us like you so you better change what you're doing because we're right and you're wrong." Doesn't that have an air of arrogance to it.

I think I can speak for most Americans on one point. We, as a people, don't really care what others think about us as long as what we think we are doing is right. Now not everyone in America agrees with this war, but I think almost everyone agrees that we could care less what others think when what we're doing is right.

It is why most of our ancestors came here. They came to seek liberty when they were oppressed. They came seeking fortune when their hard work was stolen by someone else. They came to get away from people who said, "None of us like you so you better change what you're doing because we're right and you're wrong."

It is the core of our being. So, I'll say it again. I don't care whether you like me as an American that supports the war. If that sounds arrogant then I'm sorry for you.

I know I don't go around wondering all day if I'm pleasing everyone. Do you?

[Nalaris]

Did I say that they thought their homeland was being improved by America? If I did, it was a mistake, a typo.

What I'd been meaning is that people don't make suicide bombings for a nation they'll never see the fruits of, not this many, at least. There's gotta be some incentive behind it, and since glory from the emperor probably won't motivate people much I bet an afterlife will.

The American Revolution did not have any suicide bombers. Nor would it have. Because the American soldiers were fighting for freedom, and very few of them would've committed suicide to get freedoms they couldn't possibly attain once dead.

Suicide bombings always, always are tied in to some sort of reward after death. And I said increased suicide bombings, not suicide bombings period, were a sign of desperation. They've got no other weapons to fight with.

I heard on the radio that one of the top lieutenants of a terrorist organisation committed a suicide bombing. He didn't do that because he didn't want any one of his ninety grunts to have to give their lives. He did it because there are no more grunts left.

Iran wouldn't need to invade Iraq. Iraq has no defenses. Except the American military. If the Americans pull out, Iran could just absorb Iraq. Furthermore, someone was saying near the beginning that Iran has one of the most powerful military's on the planet, matched only by a few world powers.

Now then, I happen to know someone who majored in Middle East studies. She teaches history. I think she might know a thing or two about Islam, yes? Now then, according to her, after Mohammad got kicked out of Mecca, he eventually waged a holy war to take it back. Since then, it's been Islamic law that no foreigners (those not of the Islamic religion) are allowed to rule you. And Americans are largely Christian. This is all according to the history teacher mentioned before. As she majored in Middle East studies, I consider her a reliable source.

So every point you made was based on a misunderstanding, except possibly the point on foreign rule, which I admit was quite vague.