America, Iraq and the crimes of the 'coalition'

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

The terrorist acts of recent years are not justifiable, but they are defendable, they have a reason, but this reason does not necessarily justify the response that the terrorists retaliate with, yet this response is still understandable. I suppose the general point I am trying to achieve here is that people believe that the terrorists do not have an understandable reason to hate the US - This of course, is ridiculous considering the problems created by the US in many Middle-Eastern countries. The double standards with the illegal actions carried out by the IDF day after day after day for example, put a public face in a suit commenting and justifying these actions - for instance - a prime minister (Ariel Sharon in this case), and the world give it credibility simply because Israel is a democratic country.

I have heard many people on this board asking the media to concentrate on the 4 American mercenaries killed by Iraqi resistance fighters, in so brutal a way. Yet again this is understandable - but ignorant if ignoring the wider picture. If a foreign power attacked the US (Theoritically of course) and killed over 10,000 civilians, and more were dying every day. The reponse from the US and its Military would almost certainly be a nuclear strike. After all, the US were the only country to ever use a nuclear device on civilian targets - and the response from President Truman at the time "The greatest thing in history" is hardly incomparable to the actions of a terrorist.

I think now also that it has been conclusively proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt that these WMD did not exist. Based on the continual stalling of the ISG and the US and UK Governments, in addition to the opinions of the real experts such as Mohammed ElBaradei and Hans Blix. It comes as no surprise then that these names were slandered in the republican press.
As Noam Chomsky once said "The uniformity and obedience of the US Media would please any dictator."

The general point then in conclusion, is that acts commited against the occupation of Iraq, and yes despite the rhetoric that the Bush administration likes to plough out, it is an occupation. Acts like these (Including small scale Iraq skirmishes, to large scale terrorist attacks on the US) have a reason for happening and will continue to happen if the US does not just change its military policy in Iraq, but its foreign policy across the whole of the middle-east, Israel as an example is already given, another one could be the support of a Saudi Dictatorship that the people hate will lead to the upsurgence of religious fundamentalism, wasn't this proved in Iran - to great effect?

I believe personally that the US has shown time and time before that it is only interested in matters concerning it and its citizens, this of course is highly understandable, most Western Governments do this but this isolationist self procterate policy that has been the backbone of the state department's ideology for over 4 decades has a direct result on those not living in the US. Proved in Palestine for example:

Israel is seen as a 'policeman' of the Middle-East and therefore along with the immense power of the Jewish lobby in New York, US Foreign policy is geared towards protecting Israel's interests be it in direct vilation of human rights, Geneva Convention, International Law as governed by the World Court, and the Helsinki Agreement - this adversely effects Palestinians, and who is seen as the enemy? America and Israel of course, no surprises there.

I think I should sum it up now with the recent events of the Iraq war, and I couldnt have putter better than Dr. Blix myself:

"It's sort of puzzling, I think, that you can have 100 per cent certainty about the weapons of mass destruction's existence, and zero certainty about where they are."

 

[Cylleruion2012]

Welcome to politics buddy. And we can't possibly have 100% certainty that WMD exist.

You appear to be one of those people who reads a Noam Chomsky book, decides the USA sucks and is fascist, but is unable to realize how lucky you are to live here (assuming you do; if you don't, then you probably live in the UK which is just as nice).

 

[Jackal hit]

"It's sort of puzzling, I think, that you can have 100 per cent certainty about the weapons of mass destruction's existence, and zero certainty about where they are."

well i heard last night on the radio that there are photos soon to be released of convoys taking weapons out of iraq to syria. could be fake, could be real.

but seriously, that quote isn't a very intelligent thing to say... one can KNOW a thing, and not know exact locations. if saddam wanted to hide weapons, (and they're actually in iraq) then it's not exactly a difficult task, ya know. iraq is a large country. how would the US know about weapons being in iraq? well we supported saddam at one time, perhaps we sold him those weapons? perhaps he has scientists that can attest to weapons development(watch for this in the news in the next few weeks, i got a feeling about it)...and if i'm wrong, then i'm wrong, big f*cking woop. deal with it. okay flame away people

btw, i don't really care about the weapons. i just think it's good that saddam is gone ... okay NOW flame away at me, people.

edit: btw, cylleriun or whatever heh... mods are gonna ask you to shorten your sig to 4 lines of text.

 

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

I see what you are saying Jackal Hit but to call one of Dr. Blix's quotes stupid really doesnt make sense, he is, in my honest opinion one of the most intelligent, honest people in politics (when he was in the Swedish Cabinet).

He did not deserve the slander he recieved in the US press simply because he did not agree to go along with the 'Big America!' He told the truth, and and Powell hated that - because he looks like a complete fool at the UN now.

 

[Jackal hit]

i didn't say his quote was stupid, just that it wasn't intelligent, read: not thought out to its fullest. (of course it was a jab at our "rush" to get into iraq...)

but on the other side of things i DO respect the man. i think his honesty is pretty refreshing, and i think he IS an intelligent, good hearted person.

 

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

Welcome to politics buddy. And we can't possibly have 100% certainty that WMD exist.

You appear to be one of those people who reads a Noam Chomsky book, decides the USA sucks and is fascist, but is unable to realize how lucky you are to live here (assuming you do; if you don't, then you probably live in the UK which is just as nice).

I live in the UK.

Unfortunately democracy only exists in primative form in the US, if democracy is a media system that has to tow the line of the Administration in power, a place were you can get beaten up for wearing an anti-war t-shirt and somewhere where patriotism is levelled as an insult to denounce the pacifists. Then I really dont have much hope for democracy evolving into something like we have in the UK.

I'll leave you with a quote to ponder over...


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering, Head of Luftwaffe, at the Neuremberg Trials

 

[Cylleruion2012]

I live in the US... and I wear shirts that say No Iraq War, Dissent is Patriotic, Che Guevara shirts, and other stuff like that... I've never gotten beaten up, only complimented. The US isn't really even a democracy, it's a republic which is similar but not the same.

 

[Cylleruion2012]

Oh yes, jackal, I realized my sig was too long before reading this and shortened it. It's 5 lines now, I have to take out that break.

 

[The Mullinator]

I live in the UK.

Unfortunately democracy only exists in primative form in the US, if democracy is a media system that has to tow the line of the Administration in power, a place were you can get beaten up for wearing an anti-war t-shirt and somewhere where patriotism is levelled as an insult to denounce the pacifists. Then I really dont have much hope for democracy evolving into something like we have in the UK.

I'll leave you with a quote to ponder over...


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering, Head of Luftwaffe, at the Neuremberg Trials

EVERY democracy has that same problem, the US simply has it more so than most other countries. Its often an effect of being proud of your country, and its not necessarily the media or the government that is causing it.

In Canada during WW1 the majority of people capable of joining the army went into service, the media didn't ask for it, and the government didn't ask for it, yet they were swamped with new recruits. Alot of people who were physically capable but simply didn't want to go were called unpatriotic, unCanadian, etc.

EDIT: *Mullinator puts on flame suit for what may happen later in the thread

 

[Dedalus]

very interesting post. i hope this thread gets picked up by some of the other political commentators/satirists on these boards. hope it doesn't crash and burn in a flame war.

 

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

Thanks Dedalus.

 

[Cylleruion2012]

I doubt there will be a flame war here... and if another political commentator comes here, he/she'll just rip it to pieces.

 

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

And then I will rip their 'arguments' to pieces.
Expect more political commentary to come in the coming months, I'll have a big blowout about the education system of the UK and its endless exams after my GCSEs.

 

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

In addition, The US always seems to be intent to throw around accusations which are contracdictory to past US policy and inevitably hypocritical in the eyes of most who bear the brunt of this hypocrisy, especially around areas of the Middle-East.

An example of this was the 'Afghanistan Trap' Brezinski claims in his biography several times proudly of the fact that the Soviets were lured into an American made trap, as the US had been arming the Mujahidin for several years now, this led to the subsequent birth of a little known resistance group, which is now known as the Taliban. Of course the US did not see any need for change from the Communist System based on humanitarian reasons, as they now claim. It was simply an attempt to arm a group of rebels with no real ideological purpose to take over from the Communist regime, knowing Soviet intervention would be likely and as a direct result, the US would not have to continue talks on SALT 2 or any other efforts for Nuclear Diarmament that they so despised.

The Dramatic Irony of such an action hardly needs to be reiterated over and over again. I for one believe the use of language tools to back up ones argument is not necessary if the person in question has a valid point backed up with evidence.

However I will repeat it for those who dont know:
The Invasion of the Soviets did what the US intended. It removed any pressure off of them to continue Nuclear Disarmament, Non Proliferation and Human Rights acts already underway and gave them a valid excuse to pull out.

In addition this led to the subsequent birth of a little known fighting organisation which based its HQ in a small apartment block in Kabul. The name now known as 'Al Qaeda'.

The repurcussions hardly need to be retold. But the masterminding of a War which cost over 1 million lives and made 5 million refugees was evidently not enough for the US Smear Campaign. They actively backed groups like Al Qaeda, even offering them training from US Advisers.

However this is hardly surprising, The Idea of The Truman Doctrine, and the idea that it should be the backbone of US Foreign Policy became so distorted through different administrations that even the President hardly knew what 'containment' actually meant anymore.

Just another example of Hypocrisy.

 

[The Mullinator]

I guess that means the US should never again take part in world affairs again, obviously people are so upset with what they have done they should stop everything they do outside of themselves and ignore the rest of the world. Would you prefer that?

 

[lePobz]

It would stop people flying planes into their buildings, yes.

 

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

No, I would prefer the US takes a more proactive role, but since you havent offered anything by the way of a debate, apart from patriotism induced loathing of me and my views then I dont really care what your views are.

 

[Cylleruion2012]

No, I would prefer the US takes a more proactive role, but since you havent offered anything by the way of a debate, apart from patriotism induced loathing of me and my views then I dont really care what your views are.

*dies laughing* it's proactiveness that makes so many people hate us... because we generally meddle in other people's business. i don't loathe you at all, i don't think anyone does, but your arguments are pretty flimsy.

 

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

But since you have not posted any counter-argument other than republican rhetoric than how can you expect me to take you seriously?

"Its proactiveness that makes people hate us"

- No its the way you disguise your foreign policy as 'proactive' when really the basis of US Foreign Policy has always been to protect the US' Interests, albeit at any cost to the rest of the world.

 

[Cylleruion2012]

are you calling me a republican? how? I posted this:

I live in the US... and I wear shirts that say No Iraq War, Dissent is Patriotic, Che Guevara shirts, and other stuff like that... I've never gotten beaten up, only complimented. The US isn't really even a democracy, it's a republic which is similar but not the same.

I'm very liberal, but it annoys me when people act like their country is horrible. or in this case, mine. I'm not much of a patriot, but I realize that I'm lucky to be privledged enough to live here.

 

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

That priviledge does not mean that you have to abide by the invisible 'guidelines of patriotism' that the Republicans so desperately want people to believe so they dont have to question the way their Government is operating.


I quote from the US State Departments Definitions of Terrorism:
4) A group or individual that threatens the economic interests of the US.

 

[ComradeBadger]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be rather.. niave.

1. Firstly, you say America isn't a democracy, and then later say that America goes back on decisions etc..

I'd like to point out that Governments change and so do their policies.

2. Oh, and a country defending it's economic interests..

That's a rather stupid policy isn't it.

3. Oh, and the definitions of Terrorism...

Bet theres more than that 1 point there..

 

[Cylleruion2012]

Thats the best counter-argument you'll ever have, nickzer. Go read some more books.

 

[Eejit]

Ehh, it is only a counter-arguement to 3 of his (less important IMO) points.

Of course I fully support people reading more books, so I'll back you there.

 

[Nickzer_Teh_Pwn]

No, its just that a reason such as number 4) of the state departments definitions of what a terrorist is has such a wide definition.
Theoritically the UK Government could be defined as a 'terrorist' organisation because it disagrees with steel tarriffs, evidently Bush doesnt release revenge tarriffs were one of the main reasons for the bust in the lates 20's and early 30's - which happened because of the ignorance and complete trust in a totally laissez faire system that Cooldige and Hoover encouraged.

The US itself is not democratic in my eyes, the media is not 'free' it is still owned by unaccountable institutions with thier own thier own agenda's, in America's case, massive corporations which just happen to be fiercely Republican. How is that any different from having a President, Prime Minister or Sovereign having direct control of media outlets. In addition there isnt even any regulatory bodies to oversee how the media broadcasts certain new stories in America, the man at the top is free to do what he wants.
The President of the US has always been able to employ his own agenda since the 50's, the Senate and Congress are irrelevant in most cases - my honest opinion is that the gradual evolution of democracy we have experienced in Europe stopped in the US when FDR died - That was the end of any hope of some kind of social security state or discouragement of laissez faire in its purest terms.

3. Oh, and the definitions of Terrorism...

Bet theres more than that 1 point there..

Yes there are several, but I dont understand the point you are trying to get at. Having more than 1 point in there does not disguise the fact that a state or group can be grouped as terrorists simply because they 'threaten the economic interests of the US'. And if you dont believe me look at the examples:
Cuba is a 'terrorist' nation simply because it nationalised US owned industries operating in basic lawlessness were accounting for the fact that 80% of people in Cuba were in poverty. Cuba never made any attempts to attack the US, it was the US that attacked Cuba under the disguise of the Truman Doctrine with the Bay of Pigs disaster - yet the US imposed sanctions that have crippled the Cuban economy and sitfled any attempts by the Cuban Government to continue with thier own Socialist agenda, and you know why all this happened?
Because Castro wasnt Batista - He wouldnt allow unregulated US Industry to continue to operate in thier virtual lawlessness in Cuba, this damaged the US economically so what did they do? They attacked Cuba.

Thats the best counter-argument you'll ever have, nickzer. Go read some more books.

If thats the best counter argument I'll ever had laid against me then I'm certainly in for an easy ride for the rest of my life.
As for your sarcastic comments about reading books - I respond by saying I would rather read up on a subject from all angles and perspectives and then draw a relatively unbias conclusion (no opinion can be 100% unbias)than simply watching Fox News and CNN and taking it as Gospel.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Ok. Cuba had nuclear weapons, if you pretend otherwise then you're a ****wad.

Anyway, different administrations, different plans/policies. It's democracy

 

[hasan]

It's a democracy.. with only two parties who keep coming in and out of the white house. It's somehow like Saddam keeps changing ministers .. one day you are the minister of foriegn policy, next you are the minister of information.

and the foriegn policies aren't so much different begtween the two parties, it's just that one is harsh, while the other is more harsh. Bush and his son Bush favored war, while Clinton decided to keep the sanctions. (though the sanctions probably killed more than the war did)

Cuba had nuclear weapons

The US has nuclear weps, and so does Israel ... and alot of other people. You can't tell people "look, I can have them, but you can't". Either everybody can have them, or nobody can.

Yes, you need them to defend yourself, but so do others. If Saddam had nuclear weps the US wouldn't launch a war on Iraq. If you think you can have them because terrorists have them, then terroists can have them because you have them. It's an infinite recrusion problem.

 

[Tr0n]

Hey guys....it's another "Lets flame and bitch about America" thread.GFG! :thumbs:

 

[phantomdesign]

The ionic part of this and every other part of any defense for terrorists is that the "crimes of the coalition" have never been clearly identified. To have an intellectual discussion about this, making general statements, but not backing them up doesn't add much weight to an argument. We probably don’t have much time to get into specific details, however many of your general statements could easily be refuted.

You may be able to point out an unfortunate incident (usually accidental or performed by a small group of individuals) here or there, but usually the reciprocal crimes of the opposite parties are exponential in comparison. What about all of the middle-eastern countries that ar e ganged up against Israel? Do you seriously thing Israel has it easy with the land disputes with the Palestinians combined with the thread of every middle eastern country wanting to completely destroy them? Lets say you use the US prision abuse (a few individuals on their own initiative) as an excuse for terrorist actions? What about cases where the US accidentally kills civilians in the fighting? Are we forgetting Saddam Hussein's acts against humanity that occurred on a much large scale and to a much greater degree? Are we forgetting the Iraqi civilian casualties caused by the other side of the conflict are far greater? Such accidents or exceptions with in US or Israeli actions are nothing in comparison to what terrorists actions/intentions are.

These terrorists don't care about the US prison scandal or whether Israelis are taking Palestinian land. They only take those bits and combine them with religion to inflame situations and intentionally and purposefully attack targets of any kind, including civilian.

Are the terrorist actions defendable? Sure. So would be me firebombing your home due to your political differences or raping your sister because she dresses rather scandalous. Such justifications are merely laughable and ridiculous, and offer NO merit or justification behind such actions as cutting off a person’s head with a knife, suicide bombing public places, or destroying large civilian buildings purposefully to kill thousands of innocents..

 

[bigun]

He never said it was an excuse, he clearly stated in his thread that the terms 'having a justification' and 'having a reason' are completely different.

 

[A2597]

well, since no matter what we do is going to get people mad at us anyway...

all in favor of just nuking the entire middle east and ridding the problem at the source?


no more terrorist, no more middle east turmoil, no more pricks arguing the horrors of the US over a nation that is trying to kill everyone not from the middle east with the exact same viewpoint, no more justification....

gee, sounds good to me.

tell you what, YOU go up to some random Iraqi, tell them you want to help out, and see what happens. ten to one you get your head hacked off with a butter knife.

 

[bigun]

Are the terrorist actions defendable? Sure. So would be me firebombing your home due to your political differences or raping your sister because she dresses rather scandalous. Such justifications are merely laughable and ridiculous, and offer NO merit or justification behind such actions as cutting off a person’s head with a knife, suicide bombing public places, or destroying large civilian buildings purposefully to kill thousands of innocents..

Really, I cant understand the point you are trying to get at here. He never said the actions had justification, he merely said there was a reason behind them. If you choose you can live in George Bush's world of comforting illusion where it is all based around hatred of democracy and freedom or you live up to the fact that defeating terrorism revolves around removing the roots from which terrorism springs and the actions of US Foreign Policy which contribute towards this. Palestine being a prime example.

I think, like most other Republicans you simply wish to dismiss me, Nickzer_Teh_Pwn and other more left wing based individuals as 'unpatriotic' or 'a supporter and condoner of terrorism'.

Get your facts right before you start slandering the left.

suicide bombing public places

Would it be OK then, by your logic, to suicide bomb private places?

 

[bigun]

well, since no matter what we do is going to get people mad at us anyway...

all in favor of just nuking the entire middle east and ridding the problem at the source?

no more terrorist, no more middle east turmoil, no more pricks arguing the horrors of the US over a nation that is trying to kill everyone not from the middle east with the exact same viewpoint, no more justification....

Ill be interested to see whether he gets banned....

 

[Lil' Timmy]

wow.. everyone is an expert on middle-east politics and islam all of the sudden! where is the website?? i want to be an expert too!! :|

These terrorists don't care about the US prison scandal or whether Israelis are taking Palestinian land. They only take those bits and combine them with religion to inflame situations and intentionally and purposefully attack targets of any kind, including civilian.

are you sure about that statement? i wouldn't be so sure that they don't "care about" the israel and palestine issue, but i would probably also be of the opinion (uninformed as it may be) that the prison abuse was more of a political tool for them. however, they are not the only problem here. the problem that nickerz was refering to is the perception in most of the world (not just the middle east) that the US (as a poplitical entity) is a hypocritical, international bully. specifically in the middle east, the demonstration that the US occupying force is not universally benevolent in such graphic detail doesn't help our cause of "winning hearts and minds", which is, of course, vitally important for the current nebulous fight against terrorism, as well as the future of US credibility in foreign relations.

but why do you think that the US is seen that way? is it just plain jealously on the parts of lesser nations? maybe. the devious machinations of maliscious dictators twisting the minds of their people? perhaps. could there be any truth to the accusations of dissenters (like noam chomsky)? ..hmm..

well, everyone, regardless of whether you agree with his views or not, could use to read some chomsky. no one can question chomsky methodical compilation of facts, it's rock solid. a valuable example for anyone interested in edbate/history. read any of his accounts of biased/immoral/illegal US foreign policy (his view), and try to challenge the foundations of his arguments. you can't, they are a matter of public record and historical fact. you can disagree with his analysis, but if you've ever heard him speak, you know that he implores readers/listeners to not take anything he (or any other talking heads) says for granted.. go do the research yourself. that's wholly admirable regardless of politics.

at the very least, his work is a convenient review of the more questionable side of US foreign policy. which is, of course, what this all comes down to.

Acts like these (Including small scale Iraq skirmishes, to large scale terrorist attacks on the US) have a reason for happening and will continue to happen if the US does not just change its military policy in Iraq, but its foreign policy across the whole of the middle-east

this is the crux of the issue, and something i agree with whole-heartedly. many people can't seem to understand the difference between "justifying" terrorism and "understanding" it. if you want to win the "war on terrorism" you'd better try to understand it more than regarding your enemy as just barbarous maniacs and "evil-doers", this is the real world, not a video game.

but then again, it's just my opinion. i'm no expert.. yet..

 

[bigun]

Very refreshing to see an American who refuses to believe the endless rhetoric. Good post Lil' Timmy.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

all in favor of just nuking the entire middle east and ridding the problem at the source?

if i believed in god, i would thank it that you are not in charge of the situation.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Very refreshing to see an American who refuses to believe the endless rhetoric. Good post Lil' Timmy.

well, rhetoric is all this country is about anymore. there are very few free-thinkers left, just pundits that spend their time propagandizing for one view or another. i guess it's just laziness. we americans are a spoiled and entitled people. we don't like things to be complicated, nor do they want to have to think for themselves. it's a generalization, but i feel there's some truth in it.

leave chomsky for later, read some neil postman right now. better yet, just be a little curious about the world around and a little inquisitive about the reality you accept.

edit: wh00t double post!

 

[bigun]

Ill be sure to check up some Neil Postman

 

[clarky003]

I have to take this time out to say... I love American's, their way nicer than the majority of the people in the UK (Birmingham), ive met a load and they where really nice people.. I just wish for them that they all realise and disattach themselves from Bush's oil occupation in Iraq as its very much all aimed at pleasing the richer side of the population, and big bloated fat cat company's,. It's not doing their country any good and that one man is causing the problem.. when I say 1 man, I mean Donald rumsfeld,

 

[Korgoth]

Very refreshing to see an American who refuses to believe the endless rhetoric. Good post Lil' Timmy.

He isn't the only one...