jross

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the Nazis followed Hitler willingly; the Iraqis didn't voluntarily participate in Saddam's actions (except his Republican Guard troops and secret police). You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm not even touching the rest of your stuff with a 10 foot pole.

Wow, crack pipes down people. I mean, seriously. Put down the drugs, step back, clear your mind for a second, and look at the situation, m'kay? 1) I never mentioned the Geneva Convention. Where the monkey did you pull that from, Inline? 2) We invaded a foreign country, commited atrocities on civilians, installed a government of our choice, and then are suprised when the citizens fight back, and because the government we appointed isn't taking part as well, we say they're "terrorists" or "insurgents". Yeeaaaa.. not so much. You make it sound like I'm supporting the Iraqis in what they're doing. I'm not. However, I'm pointing out that they're doing the exact same thing I would do if I was in their situation. And, frankly, I would hope everyone here would respond the same. Open your eyes, and look past a propiganda campaign that would make Goebbels proud. Greg -- They can be both. Those two aren't mutally exclusive. The British weren't exactly chummy with us in the revolutionary war. Inline -- There's a huge difference between the Nazis and the Iraqis. Seriously, would you people quit saying everyone else is a Nazi? The Nazis commited genocide and invaded their neighbors. The Iraqis stopped doing that after the first Gulf War, and we removed Saddam so they wouldn't do it again. Less knee-jerk, more thinking.

It's okay, it's just been a pet peeve of mine, that we keep calling them "insurgents" and "terrorists". They're Iraqis, in poking Iraq, defending their home soil against what they see to be a bunch of foreign :monkey:s who are trying to keep 'em down. They're not "insurgents", they're patriots. I mean, look at what are troops have done there -- we're not exactly angels (which is all I'm going to say about the idiocy of using trained soldiers as policemen). [edit: I want to point out that I'm not justifying what some of the Iraqis are doing to us, just that I can hardly blame them for wanting us out. I suppose you could chalk alot of what's going on to some of them just being rather direct in expressing that.]

Does anyone else find it interesting that we label them terrorists for defending their homeland? I mean, are they doing anything we wouldn't in the same situation?

Hey (stupid question) but is there a way for members to contribute to site upkeep/maint/costs, and things like that (*points to 1st post*)?

I voted! And, sadly, I had to explain my T-Shirt to the nice ladies at the voting place. This is the logo on my shirt: And they just didn't get it...

??? W T F

No, we know better than to believe THAT legend. Sorry Matt. The unspoken statement in my earlier post was that we only have ancedotal accounts of the life of Buddha, and realistically, all we have are legends about a enlightened character in India. That he fasted for 49 days, and spent a while surviving on a grain of rice and drop of water a day, is one popular legend. Another on is that he was the son of a wealth merchant (though some accounts place him as a prince). Most of the legends show a progression through various stages of his spiritual search, but to say the actual Buddha was thin, fat or anything... well, my point is there's no factual base any which way. All we have are stories. Just like with every other religion <_<

Yes, but he was also a merchant for a while, and by most legends, was fairly "large" at that time.

I read all his posts before posting earlier. The only reference he makes to our troops (that I could find) was protesting us sending them into harm's way over a lie -- a point I agree with him on. At no point has anyone mentioned them "killing and looting" their way through Iraq. Maybe you see what they're doing in that light -- and I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole -- but the context of your remark seems to attack sequestrum for alleging that; something he didn't do.

Where, at any point, has anyone made that accusation? No offense, but it looks like you just pulled that out of your jerk, and it really discredits your arguement when you start unjustifiably maligning people like that.

OnTheHeel -- No offense, but check your facts. Islam actually spread primarily through trading, and not warfare; there was a period where it was, as you described, expanded at swordpoint, but that came about the same time that the Christians were attempting the same thing. A large part of it was arguably rooted in the tribal nature of the Middle East. However, it did not expand to Indonesia and the South Pacific through violence, but through trade; merchants tended to be Muslim (Mohammed, in fact, was a merchant), and they took Islam with them when they travelled abroad. Doug -- It's spelled prophet. Otherwise, spot on (and well put!).

There is, but it's probably not what you're thinking. Terrorism stems from anger, greed, and the oppression and violence visited upon people by other people. Case in point: Afghanistan, where we began the international portion of our new "war on terror". In 1979, following political unrest in Afghanistan, the USSR invaded and began a brutal 10 year reign of terror which killed over a million Afghanis, and forced another 5 million to flee abroad. The Afghani people resorted to guerilla tactics to try and force out the occupying Soviet forces, giving birth to the US-supported Mujahidin, which proved to be fairly successful in harrassing the Soviet Army. The Soviet response took the form of Spetznaz operations which wiped out towns and families suspected of harboring guerilla fighters, and explosive booby traps in children's toys which where indiscrimiately distributed. Is it any coincidence that the generation growing up in Afghanistan in this period is also the one most active in terrorist activities? Another revealing example is to look at the largest threat to domestic security in America, the group which is (according the FBI) responsible for the majority of domestic terrorist incidents: White Power groups. The majority of White Power supporters historically come from lower-income whites displaced by minority groups (at least, in their perception), or who are in direct economic competition with a large minority population. Feelings of anger and inadequacy are unquestionably part of the subculture of White Power, and given their relative lack of political power (until the current administration took power), their only voice lay in violence. Terrorism must be addressed at it's source. When we must rely on violence to quell violence, we have made an incredible mistake. Terrorism is a human problem requiring human answers; inhuman violence will only exacerbate the threat of terrorism both now, and in the future.

Dude, Wattsat, chill out man. I mean, seriously.

Gah! Microbiologist? Begone, Evil-Doer!! (sorry, ex-gf was Micro )

Yea, but try explaining that to the American Public. I mean, think about how hysterical the news media gets over anything (ie, Fox aka "When Kittens Attack" ).

Give 'em low-velocity rounds, maybe somethign like the wax antipersonel rounds (instead of traditional lead or steel-jacketed rounds)... by the by, wax is supposed to be "non-lethal", but if you've seen any of the riot footage from the Middle East, in the hands of a good marksman...

Stewie is too young to run :(

Also, call me an idealist, but I think we would have had an easier time with world opinion with that as our cause. Not to mention, if we came saying "We're here because we feel you deserve better", we might have been better recieved. Of course, we would have also needed a good propiganda campaign there (not terribly difficult, I would imagine, if we "bombed" them with food & pamphlets -- but this time, we'd have to make sure the food parcels DIDN'T look like cluster munitions)

Well, let's see... he deployed chemical weapons against his own people (we should have gone in then), and has consistently and violently repressed them.. yea, I'd say we're okay. Or, ifyou don't like those reasons, he was threatening to switch oil pricing to euros/barrel.. we had a great discussion on what that means, in another thread.

Naw, we already knew about that. Besides, Zombies != WMDs (like I said, Iraq was worth it for the humanitarian reasons.. but we said we were going after WMDs, and we havn't found any. On a related note, we also havn't gone after India, Pakistan or N. Korea for their recently developed nuclear weapons, nor have we overtly badged Iran about theirs. I guess we can't just check our receipts like we did with Saddam.)

Right, and so is my office, but we're talking microrem vs. many rem. There's a huge difference.

I'm aware of what they are; I work in the nuclear power industry. It's still a nuke, and so is still a WMD. And yes, it's small-yield, but again, still a small-yield nuke. Terrorists spread terror, and big-yield or small-yield, a nuke does just that. Sure, it's probably on the order of the W54 1 kiloton yield, but it still does radiation damage.

Here's a better question for you: There's known Al-Qeuda members in Saudi Arabia, why aren't we building a link there too?

I agree, most people probably arn't ready for the real reason. However, there's at least a dozen good reasons for every lie that we should have gone for. So, why not use those? Iraq is worth it for humanitarian reasons alone. Why lie?