<b>You say stronghold; I say democratic Republic. The US presence there does affect the way of life in their territory: IT BRINGS THEM HOPE. Look at their leaders-- that's all you have to do. You may not like GWB but he's not banking on our backs like Saddam or like Arafat! The US has helped Muslims the world over. We were invited into Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda prefers to take the law into their own hands and you want to make them an analogue?</b> brings them hope? how? can't see through your empty rhetoric. How have we helped muslims? why do we want to help them? why is it our business? isn't our relationship with saudi arabia strictly business? and since when did insurgents become al queda? none of your responses follow. <b>Who is supposed to be the racist here: you or me?! You have no evidence that I care not about brown people or their relligion. I await your apology for this awful insinuation. I care about having a democracy in Iraq because the world needs a democracy in Iraq.</b> if you like them so much, why do you want to change them? the comment was made tongue in cheek, its meant to be offensive only to the people it applies to. and why does the world need a democracy in iraq? there's no reasoning in this statement. <b>It's not hypocritical. That is the standard that the rest of the world is apparently willing to rest upon. I didn't pick it; it was put there long ago as a legitimizing standard.</b> ok, i'll grant that saddam broke UN agreements. i don't know if we'll invade other countries that break agreements because we haven't. stil the UN point didn't have much to do with what we were talking about. <b>It does depend upon where you are falling, doesn't it? Oh, and it does matter what side you are on.... sheesh!</b> time will tell, but i don't see much evidence that democracy is right for iraq or if it will succeed, im interested in your belief this is the magic pill. <b>Why don't you volunteer to go over and frisk the dead and dying enemy for booby-traps. I think the event is regrettable but it happens in war due to multiples of circumstance.</b> as long as your'e willing to accept that if they play dirty, theres nothing wrong if we do it too. thats a fair point of view.
I think you are spot-on Juan, I agree that we cannot "rush" to a conclusion or that the Marine simply executed this man and the assumption is forgone. HOWEVER, it's the flippant, cavalier attitude of those who are supporting the war effort at all costs, no matter the manner in which it's fought, it's reasoning, or effect on the region that is troubling. "Oh, he was a bad guy, we are the good guys and they are the ones lopping off the heads of hostages" War is NEVER that black and white, which I will apply to those who say the Marine must have been a cold-blooded killer. If in fact he was, he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military justice. Can the saber-rattlers out there agree with this or am I just being too gall' derned lib-uh-ryl?
Yes I was going on the facts I was presented. If some other facts shed new light on the story of course it would be different. But shooting a wounded unarmed man doesn't seem really seem like a situation of one person interpreting the situation one way and another person seeing it differently. Call me crazy but shooting an unarmed wounded soldier in cold blood just seems wrong, while it may not be the same as premeditated murder against children or anything like that, but I don't have a problem saying that it is wrong.
OK. What if a Marine from this guys company was killed the day before by a grenade a terrorist was hiding while pretending to be dead? Would that change your opinion of this incident?
Now THAT is spot-on. It is amazing how so many of us are unconditionally loyal to our political heroes. Friends, we are in the Twilight Zone.
There have been repeated instances of the terrorists rigging the dead & critically injured with explosives, prior to vacating their positions. US troops have taken several, if not many, casualties due to this tactic. Only solution is to use robots, ala the bomb detonating ones, to poke & move around the bodies prior to the Marines securing the scene & providing medical attention. However, it's doubtful the guys even have access to such equipment currently. It's a ****ty situation for the Marines, this will be thoroughly investigated & this guy will probably be prosecuted, but I'm not sure what I'd do in a similar situation. I'm really not sure.
Originally posted by nyquil82 brings them hope? how? can't see through your empty rhetoric. How have we helped muslims? why do we want to help them? why is it our business? isn't our relationship with saudi arabia strictly business? and since when did insurgents become al queda? none of your responses follow. <b>Empty rhetoric? I know you don't like my POV but come on... Muslims in the Bosnian conflict. Wasn't the first Afghan voter a 19YO woman-- was that her mother that the world saw get beheaded in the soccer stadium? How about those 35+ children that we delivered fresh water to their neighborhood? Oh that's right, the insurgents killed them before they even had a sip. Ah, the insurgents fighting so hard for those lttle Iraqi children. Bullcrap. I would imagine that a lot of the insurgents are al Quadedans. If they don't wear dogtags we have no way of knowing. At any rate, they are opposing our liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's clenches and opposing the establishment of a free nation.... or are you still hanging onto the American colonial wet-dream?</b> if you like them so much, why do you want to change them? the comment was made tongue in cheek, its meant to be offensive only to the people it applies to. and why does the world need a democracy in iraq? there's no reasoning in this statement. <b>Many of "them" want us there. The whole world craves democracy-- just beause they don't know it doesn't make it not so! Is there something in our genetic makeup or our cultural outlook that makes only us appreciative of freedom? I don't think so.</b> ok, i'll grant that saddam broke UN agreements. i don't know if we'll invade other countries that break agreements because we haven't. stil the UN point didn't have much to do with what we were talking about. <b>It would depend on what the agreements were and what the actions which led to the invoking of the agreements were. It does have something to do with it because Saddam had jerked the UN resolutions around for a dozen years. What makes you think that the man who once expressed a desire to kill Bush41, wouldn't eaglerly participate in the assasination of Bush43-- especially when the momentum was on AQ's side after 9/11?</b> time will tell, but i don't see much evidence that democracy is right for iraq or if it will succeed, im interested in your belief this is the magic pill. <b>Democracy has not really been instilled in Iraq. In the US how long did it take for black citizens or for women to get to participate? It's a just-underway process. I really can't figure out why you would have any doubt about a democratic republican government being right for any peoples....</b> as long as your'e willing to accept that if they play dirty, theres nothing wrong if we do it too. thats a fair point of view. <b>They play entirely dirty and we do once in awhile. I read in another thread that this guy's unit lost a guy to inury or death from an enemy pretending to be dead who did his suicide bomber number on one American Marine. What do you really expect these guys to do?</b>
It would lessen the severity of the crime, but it would still be a crime. Clearing the area and prodding the person might reveal if he was booby trapped. But you are throwing up defenses that haven't even been presented. Nobody has said that his company was recently wounded by booby trapped fake injured person. I haven't even heard of any rash of booby trapped bodies being used there. I am willing to listen to any evidence or accounts of what happened. But if it comes down to choosing between an eyewitness point of view and the point of view of people who concoct their own possibilities I have to go with what the witness saw. It isn't the whole story, and I agree we shouldn't decide without the whole story. If others came forward with a scenerio like you mentioned I would definitely listen to it, and let it affect my opinion.
ok, now im getting answers, good <b>Empty rhetoric? I know you don't like my POV but come on... Muslims in the Bosnian conflict. Wasn't the first Afghan voter a 19YO woman-- was that her mother that the world saw get beheaded in the soccer stadium? How about those 35+ children that we delivered fresh water to their neighborhood? Oh that's right, the insurgents killed them before they even had a sip. Ah, the insurgents fighting so hard for those lttle Iraqi children. Bullcrap. I would imagine that a lot of the insurgents are al Quadedans. If they don't wear dogtags we have no way of knowing. At any rate, they are opposing our liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's clenches and opposing the establishment of a free nation.... or are you still hanging onto the American colonial wet-dream?</b> for every tearjerker anecdote, there's one that goes against it. Anecdotes never tell the whole story, especially if they're selective. I think our basic issue of contention is that you have this very liberal notions that what we do is right for everyone else. I believe we have our own issues to deal with before we go into other peoples houses and force things on them. If they want something, there is a natural progression of things where they can do it themselves. Our country wouldn't be so proud if another country liberated us from the British, by being caretakers, we're also belittling them. I would rather have them create their own ideal government in 100 years than for us to push our ideal government on them tomorrow. I don't like mormons stepping on my doorstep to convert me just because they think they have the right way, i don't see why we have to convert people to what may work for us, but not necessarily them. <b>Many of "them" want us there. The whole world craves democracy-- just beause they don't know it doesn't make it not so! Is there something in our genetic makeup or our cultural outlook that makes only us appreciative of freedom? I don't think so.</b> scary statement, communists thought the same thing and that didn't work out so well. studying political science, i learned that you can't just plop down democracy and expect freedom. 40% of the countries in the UN are failed democracies, and have since posed the greatest threat to us. The problem here is that you assume that our form of freedom is the exact same as the freedom they want. take for example the PRC (hmm, their government seems to be doing pretty well) when human-rights liberals like you complained that chinese people didn't have any freedom (as defined by our bill of rights), the chinese countered with their list of what constituted freedom. At the top was freedom to work, while freedom of speech, elections were deemed unimportant. different cultures want freedom, i agree, but i don't agree they want the same freedom we have. i would be less skeptical of pro-war people using this argument if this was one of our initial reasons for going to war. <b>It would depend on what the agreements were and what the actions which led to the invoking of the agreements were. It does have something to do with it because Saddam had jerked the UN resolutions around for a dozen years. What makes you think that the man who once expressed a desire to kill Bush41, wouldn't eaglerly participate in the assasination of Bush43-- especially when the momentum was on AQ's side after 9/11?</b> a lot of people want to kill Bush43, but i don't see where this is going. <b>Democracy has not really been instilled in Iraq. In the US how long did it take for black citizens or for women to get to participate? It's a just-underway process. I really can't figure out why you would have any doubt about a democratic republican government being right for any peoples....</b> oh, im very concerned about what happens to us, America is my first priority. My question is why worry about other countries with their own problems, since we have our own, and why specifically THAT country when there are many more in worlds of hell. I don't hear you saying that we need to go to Rwanda and democratize them. <b>They play entirely dirty and we do once in awhile. I read in another thread that this guy's unit lost a guy to inury or death from an enemy pretending to be dead who did his suicide bomber number on one American Marine. What do you really expect these guys to do?</b> i agree that war is hell, but our soldiers are trained to be professionals, we either live up to that and punish those who play dirty, or we give it up entirely and screw the rules of war treaty. if we are to assume the entire city is evil, why don't we just use chemical weapons? anyway, theres an assumption of risk when we went in, and i don't think we measured that very well, I doubt there will ever be an end of insurgents ready to pick up a gun to shoot at us, that's their form of democracy, to get us out.
Of course, once it is revealed, your head might be blown off. I'm throwing up defenses that haven't been presented (even though I have heard of this tactic being used before, see Bucks post) to counteract accusations that do not have merit. At least until we get the whole story, which we haven't. None of us internet gangsta's know the whole story. That is my only point. Me? I'm willing to withhold judgement until I get the whole story.
Originally posted by nyquil82 ok, now im getting answers, good for every tearjerker anecdote, there's one that goes against it. Anecdotes never tell the whole story, especially if they're selective. <b>Tell me about it. I'm up against the national news every night which is replete with tragic stories of our stumbling through Iraq.</b> I think our basic issue of contention is that you have this very liberal notions that what we do is right for everyone else. I believe we have our own issues to deal with before we go into other peoples houses and force things on them. If they want something, there is a natural progression of things where they can do it themselves. <b>Who can doubt Freedom? I deplore many aspects of our culture which are promoted by our Liberal friends and, ironically, are one of the reasons that many Muslims despise American influence. I wouldn't make them watch HBO, but I think they should have a degree of freedom to decide if they want to pay homage to Saddam or not....</b> Our country wouldn't be so proud if another country liberated us from the British, by being caretakers, we're also belittling them. I would rather have them create their own ideal government in 100 years than for us to push our ideal government on them tomorrow. <b>Even we had help. I get your drift, but it is not an era of muskets anymore. That makes it tougher.</b> I don't like mormons stepping on my doorstep to convert me just because they think they have the right way, i don't see why we have to convert people to what may work for us, but not necessarily them. <b>It's liberation not conversion. Again, many of them want it and naturally should want it. We are not brainwashing them as does the enemy with all those virgins et al....</b> scary statement, communists thought the same thing and that didn't work out so well. studying political science, i learned that you can't just plop down democracy and expect freedom. 40% of the countries in the UN are failed democracies, and have since posed the greatest threat to us. The problem here is that you assume that our form of freedom is the exact same as the freedom they want. take for example the PRC (hmm, their government seems to be doing pretty well) when human-rights liberals like you complained that chinese people didn't have any freedom (as defined by our bill of rights), the chinese countered with their list of what constituted freedom. At the top was freedom to work, while freedom of speech, elections were deemed unimportant. different cultures want freedom, i agree, but i don't agree they want the same freedom we have. <b>The list of "freedoms" came from the communists in power-- not from an informed and freely participating people. Is there anything more to say?</b> i would be less skeptical of pro-war people using this argument if this was one of our initial reasons for going to war. <b>I think it always was. Go back and ready the 2003 State of the Union Address.</b> a lot of people want to kill Bush43, but i don't see where this is going. <b>Where it went was that Iraq was a declared enemy of the US.</b> oh, im very concerned about what happens to us, America is my first priority. My question is why worry about other countries with their own problems, since we have our own, and why specifically THAT country when there are many more in worlds of hell. I don't hear you saying that we need to go to Rwanda and democratize them. <b>Gotta start somewhere. Iraq offered a justifiable target because of Saddam's rejection of UN. He even admitted that he was obfuscating because he thought the sanctions would just go away eventually. That's no way (EVEN) to raise children... much less to deal with a ruthless, murdering dictator.</b> i agree that war is hell, but our soldiers are trained to be professionals, we either live up to that and punish those who play dirty, or we give it up entirely and screw the rules of war treaty. if we are to assume the entire city is evil, why don't we just use chemical weapons? anyway, theres an assumption of risk when we went in, and i don't think we measured that very well, I doubt there will ever be an end of insurgents ready to pick up a gun to shoot at us, that's their form of democracy, to get us out. <b>How about some moderation? You are "into" entireties all too much. I think that our soldiers exhibit marvelous discipline but I see very little to gain through these public trials of any of these military blunders. The soldier, apparently and understabdably, was fearful that the man was rolling over to explode a grenade. Would you not have shot him? I imagine that I would. I know John Kerry would have....</b>
It has happened. Prior occurances have been reported today on CNN. A friend of mine in Fallujah has told me the same via email. Just about anything you could imagine has been utilized at one point or another - doors, furniture, bodies, rubble/rocks, you name it. We can't possibly imagine the kind of minute to minute stress these guys have been under, where one misstep or moving the wrong thing can kill you & those around you.
<b>Tell me about it. I'm up against the national news every night which is replete with tragic stories of our stumbling through Iraq.</b> ok, for every tearjerker, there's one where we bomb a hospital, or one where we've killed more iraqis than saddam, or where we fired on women and children, or fired on civilians from leaving the city. Yes the previous regime wasn't the best in the world, but a lot of our tactical screw ups aren't exactly increasing the quality of life or saving lives directly. <b>Who can doubt Freedom? I deplore many aspects of our culture which are promoted by our Liberal friends and, ironically, are one of the reasons that many Muslims despise American influence. I wouldn't make them watch HBO, but I think they should have a degree of freedom to decide if they want to pay homage to Saddam or not....</b> Again, why your definition of freedom? can you even define it? I can tell you that after this war, muslims won't be hating america just for its liberals. but you realize that your promotion of your type of freedom and democracy is a very liberal idea? A conservatives tactic towards IR does not concern itself with such liberal notions of forcing liberal ideology because it doesn't believe that the enemy can be converted. im surprised you blame muslim hate on liberals and not american policy in general, both sides are at fault. <b>Even we had help. I get your drift, but it is not an era of muskets anymore. That makes it tougher.</b> i don't know, they seem to be pretty capable right now. they have access to weapons, if they wanted freedom so bad, they could have done it themselves. Maybe not today, but I believe a yearning for freedom comes from the inside, if the country wanted it so bad, they would wait for their opportunity, we don't have to spoil it and take away their right to do things for themself. <b>It's liberation not conversion. Again, many of them want it and naturally should want it. We are not brainwashing them as does the enemy with all those virgins et al....</b> explain liberation, compared to other crapholes in the world before we invaded, they weren't so bad off. now they are worse than the other crapholes. i don't know, telling people if they put a slip of paper with a name on it in a box will give them "freedom" seems kind of like brainwashing. <b>The list of "freedoms" came from the communists in power-- not from an informed and freely participating people. Is there anything more to say?</b> im going to ignore that ignorant statement. the list came from college students, workers, husbands, wives, etc. but I don't put it past you to say that asians are brainwashed. what happened to everyone wanting freedom? i think its a little too convienent to say who is brainwashed and who isn't. And why is it that overseas americans think that we're the ones that are brainwashed? <b>I think it always was. Go back and ready the 2003 State of the Union Address.</b> ok, one statement verses 200,000 others mentioning alqueda and wmds, that was loud and clear. <b>Where it went was that Iraq was a declared enemy of the US.</b> wait, i thought we wanted to liberate them? <b>Gotta start somewhere. Iraq offered a justifiable target because of Saddam's rejection of UN. He even admitted that he was obfuscating because he thought the sanctions would just go away eventually. That's no way (EVEN) to raise children... much less to deal with a ruthless, murdering dictator.</b> I fail to see where the justification fits in. why not north korea? why not Iran or syria, who actually was a threat? why iraq of all those four? <b>How about some moderation? You are "into" entireties all too much. I think that our soldiers exhibit marvelous discipline but I see very little to gain through these public trials of any of these military blunders. The soldier, apparently and understabdably, was fearful that the man was rolling over to explode a grenade. Would you not have shot him? I imagine that I would. I know John Kerry would have....</b> mr. everything they do is bad, and everything we do is good says im too much into entireties? I'm saying that if you are going to support the troops, you'd better be sure to criticize those who make the troops look bad and seperate him from the pack. as you say, we need a force to free these people's hearts and minds, if we don't condemn actions that work against us, we are only giving them a better reason to shoot at us.
Giddyup; Have you ever heard of the term "white man's burden" and "nationalism." White man's burden was the justification by the British for colonizing the rest of the World that it was their duty to enlighten the dark backward pagan nations. You're basically saying the same thing. Liberation as we see it is to a Western post-Enlightenment capitalist republic which probably isn't what most Iraqis want or expect and many are probably looking for a democracy and economy along the lines of Iran. Rumsfeld is on record for saying an Islamic theocracy won't be acceptable. I would also guess that allowing the Iraqis to nationalize their industry wouldn't be acceptable either. Even if most Iraqis were looking to establish a Westernized secular republican government that doesn't mean they're not going to fight us. Nobody likes having someone coming into their house and dictating what they think is best, even when it is better than what you have.
Originally posted by nyquil82 ok, for every tearjerker, there's one where we bomb a hospital, or one where we've killed more iraqis than saddam, or where we fired on women and children, or fired on civilians from leaving the city. Yes the previous regime wasn't the best in the world, but a lot of our tactical screw ups aren't exactly increasing the quality of life or saving lives directly. <b>No, you have reversed what I said. The national news stories are predominantly not tear-jerkers. They are far more critical and sensational-- take the initial handling of this story about the US marine.</b> Again, why your definition of freedom? can you even define it? I can tell you that after this war, muslims won't be hating america just for its liberals. but you realize that your promotion of your type of freedom and democracy is a very liberal idea? A conservatives tactic towards IR does not concern itself with such liberal notions of forcing liberal ideology because it doesn't believe that the enemy can be converted. im surprised you blame muslim hate on liberals and not american policy in general, both sides are at fault. <b>I would use our definition of freedom because we have the best damn one! If you want to see us as "forcing" freedom on a people who have been oppressed, I can't stop you. Also, I'm not talking about the enemy. I'm talking about the rank and file Iraqi people. Why would they oppose freedom? The enemy are killing Iraqi aid workers and Iraqi children celebrating the opening of a water processing plant. Freedom is the natural state of man (check the preamble to our constitution). The Taliban's posture was to detest everything Hollywood about America to begin with. I just find that ironic. I know it's not the major thing and I didn't say it was...</b> i don't know, they seem to be pretty capable right now. they have access to weapons, if they wanted freedom so bad, they could have done it themselves. Maybe not today, but I believe a yearning for freedom comes from the inside, if the country wanted it so bad, they would wait for their opportunity, we don't have to spoil it and take away their right to do things for themself. <b>They are the bad guys not the good guys. The good guys were under Saddam's thumb for decades. Mass graves prove it and survivors tell the tales. I guess they just didn't try hard enough. Good thing we had the Hessians and the French when we needed them, however I choose not to be limited in my thinking by the dynamics of our own Revolutionary War some centuries ago.</b> explain liberation, compared to other crapholes in the world before we invaded, they weren't so bad off. now they are worse than the other crapholes. i don't know, telling people if they put a slip of paper with a name on it in a box will give them "freedom" seems kind of like brainwashing. <b>What's going on in Falluja and Baghdad is not representative of all Iraq. They are the hotspots.</b> im going to ignore that ignorant statement. the list came from college students, workers, husbands, wives, etc. but I don't put it past you to say that asians are brainwashed. what happened to everyone wanting freedom? i think its a little too convienent to say who is brainwashed and who isn't. And why is it that overseas americans think that we're the ones that are brainwashed? <b>That "ignorant" statement was borne of your carelessness. You said that this list came from "the chinese" which is easily and likely translated as "the communists." If we say "the americans" are doing this or that, we typically don't mean the guy sacking groceries at Randalls or the guy cramming for his physics exam. I'd say that people that have "just" come out of a crushing regime have a relatively limited imagination as to what liberty entails. That list is more like a "freedom from" list than anything else.</b> ok, one statement verses 200,000 others mentioning alqueda and wmds, that was loud and clear. <b>It was the first and most important public remark. After all, it was the SOTUA. 200,000? You're exagerating.</b> wait, i thought we wanted to liberate them? <b>At the time it was Saddam's Iraq. No one else had any say that mattered. Isn't this the guy that regularly won elections with 100% of the vote?</b> I fail to see where the justification fits in. why not north korea? why not Iran or syria, who actually was a threat? why iraq of all those four? <b>Geography. History. Opportunity. What do you want... World War III?</b> mr. everything they do is bad, and everything we do is good says im too much into entireties? I'm saying that if you are going to support the troops, you'd better be sure to criticize those who make the troops look bad and seperate him from the pack. as you say, we need a force to free these people's hearts and minds, if we don't condemn actions that work against us, we are only giving them a better reason to shoot at us. <b>Well, they are the enemy. You have pre-judged this marine because it is scandalous to do so and suits your agenda. You act like we killed a grandmother. THis guy was the enemy; we don't even know if he was Iraqi. He could be the guy that placed most of the IEDs that have cost so many lives. If you can romanaticize him, I an demonize him.</b>
What drives me nuts is that they both bold in different ways. I think it's an evil conspiracy!!!! Keep D&D Civil!! And stop driving us CRAZY!!!
I was thinking the same thing. An interesting debate y'all but please bold consistently! Has anyone considered they might really be the same person with a split personality?
Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm through with the exhaustive back-and-forth for this one... unless nyquil says something really bizarre....
<b>Sishir Chang</b>: Do you think we are colonizing Iraq? If so, we can discuss this further... obviously I don't think we are. I haven't heard the US position being critical of Islam in general. We seem not to be concerned with their choice of religion-- only the lack of control of their zealots not their paganism. It's the pro-Saddam hard-liners who are making this all so miserable.
