Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
LIKE A CONSTRICTOR
All the good intentions and oversight in the world wont mean dick if they decide to become a theocracy or dictatorship again. But they'll get to decide for the first time ever.
Well, then, this will all have been a rather colossal waste of... everything, won't it?
...democracy is a "fairer" system that theocracy.
Yes, and that's why we can't go around depositing it where we please.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's amazing how despite the clear threat of terrorist actions and the losing of one's head to any number of group that anyone would volunteer to go there. I hear the money is good, but I don't know if it's worth the risk. I've been to Bahrain which was a little more tolerant than most Middle East countries, the UAE even more so welcoming to westerners.
At this point though, it's hard for me to feel sorry for the victims. It's not as if they didn't know what was going on anymore. Not that I'm saying it's okay for the terrorists to keep chopping off heads either.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The money is very good I hear; up to several thousand pounds a week. And, let's face it, not all that many people have been kidnapped compared to the numbers of westerners out there. I'm not saying it's not risky but I can see why many people go.
quote:...democracy is a "fairer" system that theocracy.
Yes, and that's why we can't go around depositing it where we please.
Why ever not? A substantial portion of the world's democracies were imposed by outside force.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
"What few Iraqi police there are are targets of both the insurgents (terrorists), and indirectly by the people they're protecting -by the people's fear or apathy to make a stand- or even a phone call to the police when they have information."
So, you're saying that, since the people are afraid, it's their own fault they're in such a bad situation?
You know that's not what I'm saying. If they want change they can assist in their own defense by at least reporting terrorist activities when they witness them. Silence is viewed as consent....by both the terrorists and by far too many watching the news as well.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: It's at least a start: leaving now would allow Al Saudr (sp?) to establish a theocracy in short order.
I said they have a chance at democracy: they have to want it.
Why do they automatically "have" to want democracy? What if they actually do want a theocracy?
Then we've wasted our time money and many many lives and should cease relations with the new (voter-approved) theocracy and bug out. As pointed out, democracy cant be forced on a people that dont want it, so....
But untill free elections can be held, the US/UK/Un forces should ensure that the interim government is not topled by extremists, lest we find ourselves invading Iraq again with justifiable cause in the future.
After all, Al Sadur's power is based on his anti-american stance: how long after we're gone before he's directing attacks on US targets outside of Iraq as well?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Well, no, I don't. I mean, these people are in fear for their lives from both the insurgents and the American military/Iraqi police. And you seem to be saying "well, if they can't get over being scared a do something useful, they're just babies and they're screwed".
If you lived there, would you really want to call the cops on the insurgents, knowing that, if the insurgents don't kill you for it, it's just as likely that the Americans will kill you themselves in the process of taking out the insurgents?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Why ever not?"
Because, for one, imposing something by outside force runs contrary to the whole democratic process we so claim to love, and because it isn't too far removed from certain theocratic trends we so claim to hate, for two.
This is one of those cases where you have to practice what you preach, or just not preach at all.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
"(Fortunately I managed to protect my nuts after the first occasion so hopefully all is still working there so that I can still have kids)."
I sure hope not...
Did you insult me TSN? Did you? Is that the best that you can offer?
Believe me bubba - I've had far worse than that thrown at me. If that's all that you have to offer in the way of insults then I suggest you go away and don't come back until you become a real man who knows how to insult people properly!
Tell me something: do you have a nice thing to say about anyone other than yourself? Because it sure doesn't sound like it. I admit that I can be horrible to people at times, but your nasty streak appears to be embedded into you. How very sad.
Oh and one last thing:
quote:I sure hope not...
Right back at ya!
Oh and clear you PM box - wanna send you one!
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: "You know that's not what I'm saying." Well, no, I don't. I mean, these people are in fear for their lives from both the insurgents and the American military/Iraqi police. And you seem to be saying "well, if they can't get over being scared a do something useful, they're just babies and they're screwed".[/b]
No one said anything like that at all- as I've stated already- the locals need to be proactive their own defense: to have info on the insurgents whereabouts and plans and do nothing to stop them is to aid the insurgents. Not sharing that information costs both Iraqi and US lives every day.
quote:[qb] If you lived there, would you really want to call the cops on the insurgents, knowing that, if the insurgents don't kill you for it, it's just as likely that the Americans will kill you themselves in the process of taking out the insurgents?
I know there's the treat of the insurgents looking for payback but they cant expect US forces to protect them from insurgents while they turn a blind eye to insurgent activity.
You've got a very wrong view of what's going on there if you think civillians are "just as likely to be killed by US forces". US troops have gone so far out of their way to avoid civillian casualties that they wont engage insurgents in most public areas (unless fired on first) and they wont fire on holy sites even when insurgents fire from them at US troops.
No other army in the world has ever gone so far as this to keep civillians safe or to respect their holy places during wartime.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"You've got a very wrong view of what's going on there if you think civillians are 'just as likely to be killed by US forces'. "US troops have gone so far out of their way to avoid civillian casualties that they wont engage insurgents in most public areas (unless fired on first) and they wont fire on holy sites even when insurgents fire from them at US troops."
Um... You do know that the Iraqi Health Ministry is saying that coalition forces are killing more civilians that the insurgents are, right?
And they don't avoid firing at holy sites to stop civilian casualties. They do it to avoid pissing off even more Muslims than they already have.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Have to actually spoken with any troops that serve or served over there? I know several, and they tell me the orders are strictly non-engagment if civillians are comprimised unless fired upon. That's not to say that civillians dont get caught in crossfire after shooting starts but they're definitely not targets. That deathtoll bit is added to by airstrikes nad by several of the bombings being blamed on UK/US forces.
I've seen many reports of a bombing killing people nad then some Iraqi comes on canera decreeing that he saw a Apache fire a rocket into the area: though theres often zero evidence to support this it's still on the news.
I'd be intrested to see the figures though nad their sources.
It's still a matter of US forces fighting to stabalize the country nad insurgents orking to tear it all apart.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I say that because the ground troops (whom I was clearly talking about) are doing all they can to avoid casualties but the airmen have no discresion from the mile away that they fire from: dont try to put words in my mouth just to instigate a response. It's petty.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I think what TSN may have meant was that your tone, Jason, seems to suggest that the deaths of Iraqi civilians, if caused by the insurgents or US troopers with bad aim, is regrettable but not the fault of the US, whereas the majority of the world understands that every open-conflict casualty (Iraqi, american and european) since the start of the invasion is the responsibility of the US/UK since you came in uninvited and arbitrarily rewrote the rules of conduct.
Unless I put words in TSN's mouth... *shrugs*
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged