| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"David Butler" |
| Date: |
14 Nov 2004 10:18:31 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What is the difference between what Bush is doing to Fallujah |
<waynecross@yahoo.uk.nomail> wrote in message
news:mondp0l83g8j7p0pj133umvt6nbs2soelq@4ax.com...
And what Saddam did to the Shites?
I don't see and difference.
In both cases they are being slaughtered for opposing a dictator in
Baghdad not
of their choosing.
The US and its allies are trying to target only combatants, combatants who
have been kidnapping, maiming and murdering mostly civilians for months now.
It's unfortunate the actual residents of Faluja have to suffer, but that's
what happens when you let your city be taken over by bands of violent
lunatics.
I might point out, as well, that unlike the citizens in Sadaam's time, the
people of Iraq now have a democratic outlet, that the present administration
is not engaged in widespread torture and executions, and that if all they're
concerned about is the US being there they should just stop killing people
so they'll go away.
.
|
|
| User: "Cosmic00" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the difference between what Bush is doing to Fallujah |
15 Nov 2004 12:50:21 PM |
|
|
"David Butler" <butlerD@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<AvGdnby5BeqmGArcRVn-qQ@rogers.com>...
I might point out, as well, that unlike the citizens in Sadaam's time, the
people of Iraq now have a democratic outlet,
No they don't, that's the exact reason why there are insurgents. If
it was truly a democracy in which the US government wanted to
establish, the type of government would NOT fit the mold Bush wants.
The question is not:
"Do you want Freedom and Democracy?
it is:
"Do you want an American-style Democracy, or to be labeled as an
'insurgent'?"
I can assure you that people that are promised security and freedom
wouldn't be fighting in the method they are. Has it ever been
considered the following question. If the people of Iraq truly don't
want an American-style Democracy, then what will they have? Not
everybody wants what the US has, especially when the US is a far cry
from a true Democracy.
So there you have it. You have people taking up arms, because of the
immense distrust between installed-government and citizen. Fallujah
will be followed by many other problems, all lying in the distrust
between installed-government and citizen. Now with the death and
destruction caused by a more aggressive campaign, the US will find
many more 'brothers, sisters, fathers, etc.' that have a bone to pick.
It will become less of a 'political thing' and more of a personal
vendetta. It is still possible for the US to have it way, since force
can ultimately bash people into submission. This, is not something to
be proud of...
-cos
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnsdale" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the difference between what Bush is doing to Fallujah |
16 Nov 2004 09:18:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:50:21 -0800, Cosmic00 wrote:
"David Butler" <butlerD@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<AvGdnby5BeqmGArcRVn-qQ@rogers.com>...
No they don't, that's the exact reason why there are insurgents. If
it was truly a democracy in which the US government wanted to
establish, the type of government would NOT fit the mold Bush wants.
The Bremer administration was intended to produce democracy
in a American mold. It failed abjectly. All the signs are
that Bush no longer is too bothered what type democracy
exits in Irak as long as it exists. The Bremer experiment
threw away the best chance of allowing the Irakis a chance
to find out for themselves what democracy means.
The question is not:
"Do you want Freedom and Democracy?
it is:
"Do you want an American-style Democracy, or to be labeled as an
'insurgent'?"
Please cite a group without an armed wing that
has been labeled as insurgent.
I can assure you that people that are promised security and freedom
wouldn't be fighting in the method they are.
Can you? And which insurgents are you talking about?
There was an interview in the London Guardian a few
days ago in which one of the insurgents said: "I haven't
come here to liberate Irak I've come to fight the infidel."
Has it ever been
considered the following question. If the people of Iraq truly don't
want an American-style Democracy, then what will they have? Not
everybody wants what the US has, especially when the US is a far cry
from a true Democracy.
It is difficult to say what the insurgents aims are,
not least because it involves several groups, but
the Taliban's regime is a pretty good indication
that it will not be democratic.
The real problem is that not having ever had
direct experience of democracy of any sort,
the Irakis are skeptical that a democratic
process is a solution.
So there you have it. You have people taking up arms, because of the
immense distrust between installed-government and citizen. Fallujah
will be followed by many other problems, all lying in the distrust
between installed-government and citizen. Now with the death and
destruction caused by a more aggressive campaign, the US will find
many more 'brothers, sisters, fathers, etc.' that have a bone to pick.
It will become less of a 'political thing' and more of a personal
vendetta. It is still possible for the US to have it way, since force
can ultimately bash people into submission. This, is not something to
be proud of...
Most of this I agree with. Except: The brutality of the
US forces is enough to alienate but doesn't come
close to the brutality of Saddam.
Machiavelli asked "Is it better to be loved or feared?"
The Americans are neither loved nor feared.
It is futile for the Americans to try and be
feared because to win Saddams way would be
a defeat so they need to try a little harder to
be loved.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cosmic00" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the difference between what Bush is doing to Fallujah |
17 Nov 2004 08:31:39 AM |
|
|
David Barnsdale <daividb2000@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.16.15.18.01.647716@spamfree.yahoo.com>...
"Do you want an American-style Democracy, or to be labeled as an
'insurgent'?"
Please cite a group without an armed wing that
has been labeled as insurgent.
What else do you expect people to do, especially when protesters
were/have been shot at by Americans? You really think that people
that resist this 'invasion' are just going to sit there and protest?
They are going to take up arms to avenge the death of their brother,
sister, father, 'way of life', etc. This has gotten personal for many
Iraqis. So if the US wants to convieniently label them as
'insurgents' so be it, but the mess has been caused by an extremely
selfish game-plan that our US leaders contrived.
I can assure you that people that are promised security and freedom
wouldn't be fighting in the method they are.
Can you? And which insurgents are you talking about?
There was an interview in the London Guardian a few
days ago in which one of the insurgents said: "I haven't
come here to liberate Irak I've come to fight the infidel."
There are many factors in this, perhaps I didn't go into as much
detail as needed. Yet, it's really impossible to determine what
'exactly' is happening in Iraq, because so much is still hidden from
us. The groups that have come into Iraq from other nations, might not
have the same stake in the battle, it's stupid to think all people
would think the same thing. Yet, I believe the majority of insurgents
are Iraqi people that believe that America has evil intentions for
their land.
The truth is that America CANNOT promise security and freedom to Iraq.
Perhaps security, if they expend a lot of money (which they are
already doing), but freedom comes from within. You cannot force
people to be free, freedom is one of the most misunderstood concepts
today. People in the US that have supported Bush and his 'morals' are
also the most apt to talk about 'terrorists hating freedom', yet their
own agenda is to LIMIT freedoms of Americans.
The real problem is that not having ever had
direct experience of democracy of any sort,
the Irakis are skeptical that a democratic
process is a solution.
Again, democracy is such a skewed word. The US doesn't even have a
democracy, and it's trying to establish a democracy... Isn't that
silly? The Iraqis are skeptical that an American Democracy is the
solution, and they are skeptical that they will own their land
afterwards. Think about it for a sec. Look at 'American Democracy',
is it really that 'democratic'? Bush started a war, and it's not like
I had a say, or my friends, or may family, etc. There's a lot of
things that our 'elected leaders' do without the voice of the people.
If I really had a say, and had a chance to fight for a type of
government "I" wanted, I wouldn't want this BS! I don't blame the
Iraqis if they are fighting. This war is a sham, and the evidence is
a mountain. I cannot believe that people can actually support what is
going on in Iraq.
Most of this I agree with. Except: The brutality of the
US forces is enough to alienate but doesn't come
close to the brutality of Saddam.
Well how can you be sure? When all is said and done, I guess we'll
really know.
It is futile for the Americans to try and be
feared because to win Saddams way would be
a defeat so they need to try a little harder to
be loved.
I agree. I just don't believe that Bush and his team really are doing
this for good. I think that this whole affair has 'shady'
foundations, and I'm ashamed that the US has been shoved into this.
-cos
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dag" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the difference between what Bush is doing to Fallujah |
14 Nov 2004 10:54:20 AM |
|
|
David Butler wrote:
<waynecross@yahoo.uk.nomail> wrote in message
news:mondp0l83g8j7p0pj133umvt6nbs2soelq@4ax.com...
And what Saddam did to the Shites?
I don't see and difference.
In both cases they are being slaughtered for opposing a dictator in
Baghdad not
of their choosing.
The US and its allies are trying to target only combatants, combatants who
have been kidnapping, maiming and murdering mostly civilians for months now.
It's unfortunate the actual residents of Faluja have to suffer, but that's
what happens when you let your city be taken over by bands of violent
lunatics.
In exactly the same way, it's unfortunate that the citizens of Lidice
had to suffer, but that's what happens when you let anti-government
insurgents operate in the vicinity.
dag
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the difference between what Bush is doing to Fallujah |
14 Nov 2004 06:09:40 PM |
|
|
"Dag" <dagny@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:41978DBC.B5287D73@whoever.com...
David Butler wrote:
<waynecross@yahoo.uk.nomail> wrote in message
news:mondp0l83g8j7p0pj133umvt6nbs2soelq@4ax.com...
And what Saddam did to the Shites?
I don't see and difference.
In both cases they are being slaughtered for opposing a dictator in
Baghdad not
of their choosing.
The US and its allies are trying to target only combatants, combatants
who
have been kidnapping, maiming and murdering mostly civilians for months
now.
It's unfortunate the actual residents of Faluja have to suffer, but
that's
what happens when you let your city be taken over by bands of violent
lunatics.
In exactly the same way, it's unfortunate that the citizens of Lidice
had to suffer, but that's what happens when you let anti-government
insurgents operate in the vicinity.
Yes, exactly the same. Well, except that Lidice was peaceful, and there were
no resisters, no armed people, no confrontation with the Nazis, and the
village was in complete control, and no one was allowed to leave, and the
Nazis rounded them up and shot them by execution ten at a time.
But except for all that, basically everything, it was exactly the same, yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dag" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the difference between what Bush is doing to Fallujah |
15 Nov 2004 02:29:55 AM |
|
|
David Butler wrote:
"Dag" <dagny@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:41978DBC.B5287D73@whoever.com...
David Butler wrote:
<waynecross@yahoo.uk.nomail> wrote in message
news:mondp0l83g8j7p0pj133umvt6nbs2soelq@4ax.com...
And what Saddam did to the Shites?
I don't see and difference.
In both cases they are being slaughtered for opposing a dictator in
Baghdad not
of their choosing.
The US and its allies are trying to target only combatants, combatants
who
have been kidnapping, maiming and murdering mostly civilians for months
now.
It's unfortunate the actual residents of Faluja have to suffer, but
that's
what happens when you let your city be taken over by bands of violent
lunatics.
In exactly the same way, it's unfortunate that the citizens of Lidice
had to suffer, but that's what happens when you let anti-government
insurgents operate in the vicinity.
Yes, exactly the same. Well, except that Lidice was peaceful, and there were
no resisters, no armed people, no confrontation with the Nazis, and the
Actually, the resistence was indeed active in the Kladno district and
may have been connected to the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, which
was the excuse for the destruction of Lidice.
village was in complete control, and no one was allowed to leave, and the
No one being allowed to leave is a similarity, not a difference; perhaps
you missed the stories about people trying to leave Falluja last week
being turned back into the city.
Nazis rounded them up and shot them by execution ten at a time.
Falluja of course was shot up block by block with artillery and aerial
bombardment, instead of ten by ten with small arms, if you want to call
that a difference. I'm sure the Nazis would have been happy to use
AC-130s and hellfire missiles to destroy Lidice, had the technology been
available.
But except for all that, basically everything, it was exactly the same, yes.
All analogies are necessarily inexact. The point was the moral and
ethical similarity, not detail by detail comparison.
dag
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnsdale" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the difference between what Bush is doing to Fallujah |
16 Nov 2004 11:24:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:29:55 -0500, Dag wrote:
Actually, the resistence was indeed active in the Kladno district and
may have been connected to the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, which
was the excuse for the destruction of Lidice.
Was there armed resistance when the Germans move into
Lidice?
Were the deaths caused by German action against a military
threat?
Were the civilian deaths an unintended consequence of the
a German action to defeat a military threat or was
the aim in fact to kill the civilians?
The Geneva conventions do not make unlawful *all*
killings of civilians but the intentional targeting
of civilians.
There is also an obligation of proportionality. That is,
even where the aim is to neutralize a military threat it
becomes unlawful where the civilian cost is disproportionate
to the military gain.
Whether the US response in Falujah was proportional is
arguable. It seems to me that in Lidice it is not arguable
but quite clear that the German response was not
remotely proportional.
David
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
