Well Magiver,
Produce one well documented instance of “brainwashed arab”, and then we’ll talk.
Magiver, Brainwashed or not the fact is they dislike being invaded and occupied. If that is a sign of brainwashing then I think the entire planet is brainwashed. Nobody likes his country invaded and occupied by foreign people. To think a people will like the invader because he brings some material wealth is to not understand the most basic human emotions. People prefer to be independent before all. Or do you think Americans would like to be ruled by Russians if they were each given a new car? Is this because Americans have been brainwashed?
I’m not sure who you’re referring to as “Arab”. that is an ethnic characterization. If you mean Iraqis (who are predominantly Arab) then my original statement stands. Saddam had a Minister of Information. You could ask someone who questioned the truthfulness of the information but you would need a shovel.
If you’re referring to Muslims then you have to look at the Taliban. These are religious schools. Students are taught nothing but the Quran and to hate Israel and the United States. I call that brain washing. This has been done extensively in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Algeria etc… Kids are taken at a very early age into this indoctrination.
Quote: “The Taleban said their aim was to set up the world’s most pure Islamic state, banning frivolities like television, music and cinema”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/144382.stm
Type in Taleban or Taliban and see what you get. You will find a lot of the money for these schools comes from the Muslim requirement of charity. It’s pretty scary when you consider Osama started a lot of this 10 years ago. That is serious planning.
And while I’m on the subject of the Muslim religion, try badmouthing a Mullah (be sure to include your address so they can “discuss it” with you). I would certainly call it a complete lack of free speech. That’s pretty close to brainwashing when you can’t utter any discent or even question the wisdom of a cleric.
The United States has a clear history of defeating her enemies, and then bringing the defeated into the world community. This was a lesson learned in WW-I. We tried to make the Germans pay for the war. It crushed them to the point of WW-II.
This is a war. I don’t understand why you don’t under this. If you want to argue about the legitimacy of the war, start another thread.
The “feelings” of the Iraqis do not preclude the mission. We didn’t stop to listen to the feelings of the Japanese and they took a serious pasting. We organized a new governement and left (military bases that are there now are by permision).
I also think your definition of occupation is misplaced. English words have multiple meanings and you neglect the meaning as it applies in this situation.
Occupy: to take possession of and retain control over by force.
Occupation: the act of taking or holding possession.
The key word in both of these is “possession”. We do not possess Iraq, their wealth is not being taxed, the land is not being sold off. Money is not flowing into the United States in any form.
Your definitions do not match the common usage not the dictionary definition. Sorry. Or if I fiond some cites if government officials calling this “occupation” will you tell me they are wrong?
>> If you want to argue about the legitimacy of the war, start another thread
Please show me where I am talking here about the legitimacy of the war. I said Iraqis do not like the American occupation and that is causing problems. You might think they are worng and they should like it but the fact is they don’t like it and the problems are there and that is what this thread is about.
the fact is Iraqis are demonstarting daily against the American occupation. What are you gonna do? Kill them? Oh, wait, they are being killed and that is what the thread is about.
US winning hearts and minds: “tell me you like me or I kill you”.
Yes, if durring a war, someone shoots at me, I try to kill them. We’re at war, that’s what you do in war. It’s ugly. You can’t shoot at troops and then bitch about someone in your community getting hurt. And I don’t buy the argument about shooting guns in the air. If you’re in a crowd of 100+ angry people and you are discharging an AK47 you are an idiot.
That’s just weird. Who is saying this? Are soldiers walking up to people and demanding a hug? We are not over there to win their hearts and minds. The soldiers didn’t go to the crowd. The crowd came to the soldiers. We didn’t defeat Japan so we could engage in a love fest. We defeated Japan because we had a national interest in doing so. The Japanese weren’t expected to like it and neither are the Iraqis.
I see your solution is to kill more Iraqis and you don’t see that as a problem. Ok, I am not wasting any more time on this. The rest of us think it is a problem.
Tell us again what the US’s “national interest” in Iraq was? On second thought, scratch that. I’ve heard all the lies and distortions about a hundred times too many already.
You’re right in one thing though, the Iraqis don’t like your illegal and inmoral occupation. The ones that are left alive that is.
**
That is about as accurate as saying that the sun is circling around the moon. The ‘pay for the war’ after WWI was largely a French thing, based on not just that war, but that of 1870/71 as well. The contribution by the US to ‘bringing the defeated into the world community’ was merely partial, and to a large part, the US had no involvement in it. (Ever heard of the Elysee Treaties?)
Not the least, however, this isn’t the 1940s and 50s, and the failure to comprehend that is a chief factor in the fact that the US has blundered practically every single attempt thereafter.
No, the US does NOT have a clear history of defeating her enemies. Where did it do so in Vietnam? Even in Korea, the US birthed a dictatorship whose only virtue in the eyes of the US (and no one else) was that it was non-communist.
The point here is that the world community has a different view than neo-cons as to what a war should look like.
See above. To draw parallels between Japan and Iraq is a gross statement of ignorance on Iraq.
Sorry, but that is Orwellian newspeak. The meaning of occupation is clearly defined in international law, and your mimicking Saddam in his respect for international law is not going to give you more support for your ideas.
Oh, really? So what you say is that Halliburton is working for free there? They are NOT being paid with revenue from Iraqi oil? The US did NOT ask to be made the custodian of Iraqi oil revenues instead of the UN?
Eye witness to the second shooting:
'IT started when a young boy hurled a sandal at a US jeep - it ended with two Iraqis dead and 16 seriously injured.
I watched in horror as American troops opened fire on a crowd of 1,000 unarmed people here yesterday.
Many, including children, were cut down by a 20-second burst of automatic gunfire during a demonstration against the killing of 13 protesters at the Al-Kaahd school on Monday.
They had been whipped into a frenzy by religious leaders. The crowd were facing down a military compound of tanks and machine-gun posts.
The youngster had apparently lobbed his shoe at the jeep - with a M2 heavy machine gun post on the back - as it drove past in a convoy of other vehicles.
‘I counted at least four or five soldiers with binoculars staring at the crowd for weapons but we saw no guns amongst the injured or dropped on the ground.’
When interviewed last night on BBC Radio 5 Live he pointed out that there were bullet holes in the buildings opposite the US machine gun post, but no bullet holes behind the US troups.
In passing I also found this:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12892681&method=full&siteid=50143
which is another reason why the average Iraqi will learn to hate the US even if they do not do so already:
'AMERICA was at the centre of a new human rights row last night after four alleged Iraqi thieves were paraded naked in a Baghdad park by US troops.
The degraded prisoners had the words "Ali Baba, Haram’’ - “Thief, Unclean” - scrawled in Arabic on their chests.
…
Group Commander Eric Canaday, of 10th Engineer Corps, is quoted in Dagbladet saying: "I think our job is to keep people out of the park to prevent theft of weapons.
"We have started doing several things and I don’t think this is too much.’’’
**
I didn’t say “60% of the Shiite population.” I said “the 60% Shiite majority.” The Shiites constitute over 60% of Iraq’s population and therefore make up the majority.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030422/ts_usatoday/5089978
I will admit that “inevitably” was a poor choice of words. However, it sure does seem to be on the cards. You think that might be a bit of a fly in the ointment if the situation arises that a majority of Iraqis want a religion based sister-state to Iran? You think the Us will settle for that? It seems they might have to choose between instituting a government that is to US liking or institute a supposed real and fair democracy. I really don’t think that Iraqis will willingly vote an American puppet into power. So, my bet is that The US will hold an election and hand-pick the candidates to run. I can just see the headlines now: “IRAQ REALIZES FREEDOM WITH FIRST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.” And many hearts will swell with pride at how America is bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.
I think you’re in denial, msmith537. Here’s why I think so: You make out like I have said “all of Iraq” has a certain opinion. I realize that it may be easier to argue with some make-believe opinion than with what I’ve actually said, but please don’t delude yourself into thinking that I have this make-believe opinion that you have invented. Also “a couple of thousand” protesters is a gross misrepresentation that may be easier for you to deal with in justifying your views but it doesn’t correspond with the real world. I’m sorry.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030419/ts_nm/iraq_dc_1606
“Tens of thousands” is some multiple of 10,000. It would be generally accepted to be somewhere between 10,000 and 99,000. A “couple of thousand” is generally accepted to be about 2000. Do you understand the difference? And, no, this does not mean that all Iraqis hold the same view as these protesters. But it does indicate that a hell of a lot do. And since the demonstration was from among the Shiite population which constitute over 60% of Iraq’s population, I think you have a significant indicator at hand—that is unless you don’t wish to see what it indicates, in which case it is more convenient to go into denial.
Are you sure that you don’t wish the issue of America’s very presence to be irrelevant simply because it raises uncomfortable questions? Every single fuck-up that occurs in Iraq, every single clash with protesters, every single American casualty is a direct result of whether or not the US invaded so it is very relevant. I would contest that the entire deal is a no-win situation. The Iraq leader that the US government wants and the Iraqi leader that the Iraqis want is very unlikely to be one and the same. So Bush can stay true to his word and let Iraq put their leader in power or he can continue with his train of bullshit and not give the slightest fuck what the Iraqis want. My bet is on the latter, because they will want some return on their investment.
Do you really believe that the US is truly interested in leaving Iraq in better condition? Are you honestly that gullible? Doesn’t the fact that the US government countenanced Saddam’s atrocities for years give you some indication of how much they really give a shit about the poor Iraqis?
Here’s some dictionary definitions:
oxymoron: a figure of speech in which opposite or contradictory ideas or terms are combined
democracy: government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled
impose: to force (oneself, one’s presence or will, etc.) on another or others without right or invitation; obtrude
To force the population to live according to a system in which they themselves rule…when was the last time you tried to force someone to do what he wanted? Do you need any more help with this?
More accounts here
One way or the other it will be sold to the Iraqi people as a act of US aggression. Not a way to make friends and influence people IMO.
And it will be sold to the American people as US troops being attacked and defending themselves. Just like Americans will believe whatever they want so will Iraqis believe whatever they want. Some Americans will take the word of their military as gospel even if it contradicts plenty of other evidence. Why would we be surprised when Iraqis believe versions of events which are the contrary?
According to BBC news, many US servicemen have been injured in a revenge grenade attack in the same city- rumours suggest it was relatives out for revenge.
OK, here is the line I was talking about- from the SJMN, Wed 4-30, pg 15A 3 para from the end: “Other neighbors, however, conceded there had been shots fired into the air, but not at the soldiers”. I serached the MN online- and the article there is considerably shorter, and this paragraph is not there.
In todays MN, an Imam came forward and sai they there had beend shot fired at the US soldiers, but those shots did not come from the demonstrators, but from outside agitators.
So it appears liek there was a demonstration- which turned into a riot. The rioters began throwing rocks & things at the US soldier- and firing their AK 47’s into the air. Then, some outside agitator took advantage of both sides, and capped off a couple of rounds at our boys. Whereupon they began firing at anyone with a gun in their hands.
However, it is the height of stupidity to take an AK 47 to a violent demonstration- and then beging firing it- even into the air. The same action in the USA or just about any civilized country would get you shot just as dead.
Oh, sorry, only a partial contribution to the restructuring and rebuilding of Germany. So Where do I send the bill for the Berlin Air Lift? We could use the money to bring back our dead soldiers from France and Germany. By the way, the Berlin Airlift was more complex logistically than landing on the moon.
Lets see, the Vietnam War was a present from France (who ran away), and the Korean War was a present from the UN. Maybe we should have allowed the Russians and the Chinese to take over Asia.
I guess it’s OK when we’re Europe’s police dog. The Serbian war was total BS. Kosovo was not a Muslim enclave in the early 70’s. It didn’t exist until Tito carved the area out of Serbia to weaken their political power. He then INVITED Albanian Muslims to hop the fence and make themselves at home.
Yes, Halliburton will be PAID for their SERVICES from the sale of oil. These are services that could not be contracted for at the end of the war. There is no government to DO the contracting. The Iraqis will eventually get to choose whom they buy their services from. Hopefully they won’t be buying anymore nuclear power plants from France, or bio-weapons equipment from Germany. And yes, the US did NOT ask to be made custodian of Iraqi oil. Why WOULD we, we ARE the custodian’s! Is the UN planning on doing all the hard work ahead? Is France? Is Germany? NO, NO and NO. France is blocking the lifting of Iraqi oil restrictions until there is verification that there aren’t any WMD. Is this the same France that denied the WMD existed? By the way, if it turns out that France and Germany were getting Iraqi oil, against UN orders, from the Syrian pipline then you should soon learn we cut it off last week.
It takes real gall for France and Germany to object to the war, demand the US fix the Iraqi government, and then try to get contracts through UN intervention.
See, here’s the problem. Suppose the police come and knock down my door and cause substantial damage to my property (there was a hostage taking next door, they needed access to my property, and I wasn’t home), and then they contract with a construction company to repair the damage and garnishee my income to pay the construction co. And I’m supposed to be happy about this arrangement? They broke it; they can bloody well pay to fix it.
Why the heck should the Iraqis have to pay to repair the damage that was done to their infrastructure by a foreign government? If Halliburton wins a contract through fair bidding to repair war damages, the money should come from the US taxpayer, not Iraqi oil.
France NEVER denied there could be WMD. Its official position was that it had to be proven, and that inspections should be conducted to search for them and eventually destroy them if they were found. I don’t think the French government took any official position about the existence of such weapons.
Apart from the official position, I gather from what I read at this time that the french government believed there was some WMD, in limited quantity, and for the most part not usable (not maintened, too old, etc…), and absolutely no nuclear weapons or current programm which could result in their production in the foreseeable future, hence that from this point of view, the Iraki government wasn’t a threat, not even for its neighbors, let alone for Europe or the US.