Bodacious
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 1,052
- Reaction score
- 0
Micael Moore's Minutemen
- Thread starter Bodacious
- Start date
A
ALEXDJ
Guest
no more Saddams tight grip to hold all those wackos at bay
some cultures are just not fit for a democratic state
some cultures are just not fit for a democratic state
seinfeldrules
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 3,385
- Reaction score
- 0
If that wasnt bordering on racist I dont know what would. Do you think that you are the only one entitled to freedom just because you live in the West? It has to start somewhere.ALEXDJ said:
KoreBolteR
Tank
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 1
Iraq is a slow progress from tyrancy to democracy, isnt going to change overnight.
meanwhile i didnt know Talabani (Iraqs new president) wasnt arab..
(according to bodacious' post)
nice find.
if the US didnt get saddam out of power, tortures and an evil regime would have been going on for generations! jus think what the saddam sons would have done in power.
and today, there are elections and new prime ministers!, theres still some setbacks, but we'll be able to work through it, and at the end, the iraqis will be glad we stayed there.
meanwhile i didnt know Talabani (Iraqs new president) wasnt arab..
(according to bodacious' post)
nice find.
if the US didnt get saddam out of power, tortures and an evil regime would have been going on for generations! jus think what the saddam sons would have done in power.
and today, there are elections and new prime ministers!, theres still some setbacks, but we'll be able to work through it, and at the end, the iraqis will be glad we stayed there.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
what does moore have to do with this latest attack?
if it's in reference to freedom fighters well then I'd like to remind you of this:
Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability. - Ronald Reagan
- Referring to groups who were resisting Soviet rule of Afghanistan with U.S. support, which included the Taleban, the mujahideen, and Osama bin Laden, in Proclamation 4908 —( Afghanistan Day, March 10, 1982)
if it's in reference to freedom fighters well then I'd like to remind you of this:
Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability. - Ronald Reagan
- Referring to groups who were resisting Soviet rule of Afghanistan with U.S. support, which included the Taleban, the mujahideen, and Osama bin Laden, in Proclamation 4908 —( Afghanistan Day, March 10, 1982)
KoreBolteR
Tank
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 1
wait a minute.. didnt democracy kill communism? :upstare: ?
A
ALEXDJ
Guest
hey, i don't think that russia can ever have a proper democratic state, people are just different, it's not a bad thing if you are not democratseinfeldrules said:
A
ALEXDJ
Guest
noooo,KoreBolteR said:
humanity is just not ready for that kind of govermant, everybody is still too greedy, that's all
Foxtrot
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 6,016
- Reaction score
- 0
CptStern said:
Except that was entirly different, my memory is a little fuzzy but I don't think a terrorist group out of Afghanistan flew planes into World Trade Center buildings in Moscow...although I am not too good with history. Good job taking things out of context, you are great at this stuff.
Sprafa
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
"Why do you kill me?"
"Are you not on the other side of the water ? If you were on this side, I would be a murderer, and as such, it would be unfair to kill you; but as you are on he other side, I am brave and this is fair! Curious justice the river separates! Truth here, lies beyond. Robbery, incest and the murder of the children and the parents, all that is within virtuous actions!"
Blaise Pascal
I'm thinking of adding taht as my sig
"Are you not on the other side of the water ? If you were on this side, I would be a murderer, and as such, it would be unfair to kill you; but as you are on he other side, I am brave and this is fair! Curious justice the river separates! Truth here, lies beyond. Robbery, incest and the murder of the children and the parents, all that is within virtuous actions!"
Blaise Pascal
I'm thinking of adding taht as my sig
satch919
Newbie
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,208
- Reaction score
- 0
Is there more to that Michael Moore quote? Was it a response to a question or was it just an outburst? In general, what was its context?
Im sure some Iraqis see these insurgents as heros or martyrs. Its that kind of mentality that drives these attackers. Who seriously believed that these people would just lay down their weapons and accept some forced idea or outside government? They're doing what many people would do. If a foreign threat came in to your home country, what would you do?
Im not trying to say that these insurgents are in the right or are justified in their attacks. Im trying to say that we should have been a lot smarter about how we handled this situation. America is an occupying force. We're going to leave eventually. The native people of that land will remain and so will the hatred. How much more lives must be lost before we realize that this utopian idea just isn't feasible? Remember, the peoples of Iraq and the Middle East have known brutality and war far longer than America has existed.
We may just have to accept the fact that some may never know peace and as long as we make it our business to change it, neither shall we.
Im sure some Iraqis see these insurgents as heros or martyrs. Its that kind of mentality that drives these attackers. Who seriously believed that these people would just lay down their weapons and accept some forced idea or outside government? They're doing what many people would do. If a foreign threat came in to your home country, what would you do?
Im not trying to say that these insurgents are in the right or are justified in their attacks. Im trying to say that we should have been a lot smarter about how we handled this situation. America is an occupying force. We're going to leave eventually. The native people of that land will remain and so will the hatred. How much more lives must be lost before we realize that this utopian idea just isn't feasible? Remember, the peoples of Iraq and the Middle East have known brutality and war far longer than America has existed.
We may just have to accept the fact that some may never know peace and as long as we make it our business to change it, neither shall we.
Most don't - if they did, they would have heeded the calls to stay indoors and not vote in the elections. And yet 8 million of them in a country of 25 million did vote. So if there was popular support for the terrorist point of view, they would have boycotted the elections in droves and yet they did not. Even with the terrorists saying to them we will kill you if you vote, they still did.
Popular support? No one gets to vote for terrorists.
satch919
Newbie
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,208
- Reaction score
- 0
Calanen said:
If the majority of Iraqis didn't support the insurgency, why are there 1,546 dead Americans? Were they all accidents? These people are obviously harboring the insurgents. They blend back into society. Why have so many civilians been arrested and sent to prisons in Iraq?
Whats it going to take? Detention of the entire Iraqi population?
diluted
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2004
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 0
Reagan didn't kill communism, Soviet communism killed itself because it was a failed political system. As much as neo-cons like to blather about it, Reagan didn't really do anything to bring the end of communism in Europe.
/rambling
//off-topic
/rambling
//off-topic
Mr.Awesome
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2004
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 0
GiaOmerta said:
Moore is just crazy. We'd probably be less liberal.
satch919 said:
Your argument is flawed. If a gunmen kills 10 people, 1 gunman and gets away with it - does this mean anyone supports him?
If a carbomb kills 50 or 100 people, does this mean he has popular support? About 600 of those Americans died in the Iraq war before the occupation of Iraq. A good many died of accidents and friendly fire too. In the same way, the ordinary Iraqi could not express his dissent during Saddam's days - those Saddam loyalists still know how to implement terror on the masses.
I could take 30,000 terrorists and wreak absolute havoc across Iraq. You do not need that many people to blow up a lot of others. They would not even have this many. And thats in a population of 25 million. They are well funded with money from the fallen Saddam regime, Syria and Iran. They have weapons from ex-Saddam militarists. All can cause a lot of problems.
The only reason people don't inform on terrorists (and some courageous souls do) is because they get executed for doing so. So don't confuse popular support with fear. If you are a regular person in a Sunni neighbourhood, just minding your own business, the last thing you are going to do is speak out against the terrorists. The sensible thing to do would be to keep a very low profile and hope they did not look at what you were doing.
But the true test of whether or nor Iraqis wanted the terrorists were the elections. The terrorists said, dont vote or you will die. And yet, a huge amount of people risked death to vote. That says louder than anything else that the people of Iraq are saying to the terrorists, we don't like what you represent. More particularly, the terrorists have killed far more Iraqis than Americans.
PickledGecko
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 0
But thats the problem, if they cared about democracy they would inform, regardless of the risk. If they cared about democracy they would have revolted long ago. The fact is, Iraqi's have shown they don't care enough about democracy to die for it, and not only does that mean that neither Americans nor Brits should have to die for it, but it will eventually fail. If the Iraqi citizens cannot say in the future, "My Father/Brother/Son died for my freedom" like America and Britain can, then as soon as the next leader who makes himself a dictator comes into power, nobody will do anything. This is why democracy fails whenever it is "forced" on a country. Nobody cares enough to die for it now, noone will care enough to keep it in the future.Calanen said:
Sorry thats wrong. Its telling oppressed people, all you need to do is stand up and say 'Follow me! Viva La Revolution!' and all that happens is you get lined up against a wall and shot. Its like saying black people in the south, only needed to rise up against their slave masters in the south during the confederacy, but they must have 'wanted' slavery because they did not. Things are not so simple.
And I doubt you would be standing up publicly challenging such regimes or terrorists. I know I would not be......
And I should say that people, ordinary people did put themselves on the line for Iraq by voting. And joining the Iraqi national guard and police by the 100s of 1000s. Many more Iraqis than Americans have died trying to secure a free Iraq. But not everyone can fight - not everyone is able to for whatever reason. And some people, are too scared too - and I can't say I blame them. But it does not mean that they support the ex-saddam thugs and al quada.
Human instinct is to lay low when there is trouble. Very few people would willingly put their life on the line for any cause when not a professional soldier.
That can be said about anything any time. But the strain of spending on the arms race to match the USA, was something that the USSR could not afford and the USA could. Probably would have lasted a lot longer without Gorbachev. If someone like Stalin was in power - they would have massacred millions of people across Europe and kept the Berlin wall up.
satch919
Newbie
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,208
- Reaction score
- 0
Calanen said:
Hmm, do you have something to backup that claim?
Do you want to know why some Iraqis voted? They thought that it would mean an end to the American occupation. Here's an article about a large protest to end the occupation in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7430272/
satch919 said:
I thought this would have been self-evident, ie you see on the news, 50 Iraqis blown up in market place every few days. But apparently not. So - here are the Iraqi casualties for the month of March alone.
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
440 Iraqis killed by terrorists in the month of March. The US lost 36. About a quarter of all american deaths are due to accidents.
So far more Iraqis are dying at the hands of terrorists than Americans. And these are combat related incidents and explosions, may not necessarily include people having there throats slashed for giving americans a haircut - the details of Iraqi deaths would not be as precise as those for American casualties, that is the Iraqi deaths are likely to be higher.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7430272/
Nowhere in that article does it say or quote any Iraqi as saying they voted because they wanted an end to an occupation by the USA. And what if they did? Does not mean they support the terrorists - who opposed all voting point blank and said anyone who votes dies. If they supported the terrorists they would have stayed in home in droves. Thats what the terrorists wanted - so why not do it? Because they don't support the terrorists.
And one of the better bits in your article was this:
Terrorists are killing and injuring fellow Iraqis every damn day. They don't represent anyone except themselves. Which would be Iran, Syria, Al Quada, ex-saddam loyalists. You don't blow up your own people in a popular uprising.
And Iraq has told Iran and Syria to stop terrorists from coming over the border:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/08/content_398353.htm
It would suit your world view for the terrorists to be popular people's revolutionaries fighting the evil US. But this is not borne out by the facts.
satch919
Newbie
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,208
- Reaction score
- 0
Calanen said:
No, whats the overall ratio of insurgent caused deaths and US military type deaths? Is there a statistic on that?
From what I've seen, there's been a minimum of 17355 deaths by our military and a maximum of 19740 deaths. Reuters reports that the insurgency has killed about 6000 Iraqi civilians. Thats quite a gap there isn't it?
I know that the article itself doesn't have a direct quote from Iraqis stating that they voted because the wanted us out. However, a week after the election, some were saying that they voted because they believed that it would mean an end to the occupying force.
You're right, it is stupid of them to blow up their own people. I never said they were smart. Still, it doesn't take away the fact that some citizens sympathize with the insurgency.
Abu Ghraib is currently holding about 10,500. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7335415/ Now, all of them can't be insurgents, right? Some, if not most, have been arrested because we suspected them of aiding and abetting the enemy. So apparently, the insurgents have some kind of support. Why do you think Zarqawi hasn't been caught? The locals won't give him up.
Oh, about the comment on asking Syria and Iran to stop terrorists from coming over the border, thats laughable. Where do you think the terrorists are coming from? Its long been suspected that these two nation's governments support terrorism or actions against the West. Asking them to seal their borders is like the equivalent of asking a convicted felon inmate to be security in a prison. It just doesn't work.
How come we didn't secure the borders? Afterall, we started this war. With our military might, we could have done it. But wait a minute......***msfeld denied the use of more troops during the invasion. Darn. What a mistake huh?
KoreBolteR
Tank
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 1
CptStern said:
hes an insurgent of course :upstare:
satch919 said:
You said - where is the statistic that the terrorists were killing more Iraqis than Americans. I gave you that statistic. And now you want some other statistic to compare US kill ratios vs Terrorist kill ratios? Its meaningless. And you being misleading in comparing the deaths of 17-20k Iraqis killed by the US, by putting it next to the 6000 Iraqi civilians you say that the insurgency has killed. The USA is not deliberately killing Iraqi civilians with carbombs and IEDs.
But you answered your own question you have asked me, and then create a different one I say I have not answered it.
So what - does not mean they support the terrorists.
Some - not most, and not even a significant majority. As shown by the massive voting turnout in Iraq in defiance of terrorist orders.
I have no idea and neither do you what the people they have detained have done. And I imagine that the threat of having your head cut-off is a powerful incentive to stop people dropping a dime on Zarqawi - even if they knew where he was. And who says that they do? He might live in a basement and pass notes to people who run around up top for him.
Thats exactly my point - but you seem to feel that it is something you discovered. The reason these terrorists have no Iraqi support, is that they are often foreign invaders hated by the Iraqis, who are there to kill Iraqis and destabilise the government. What Iraqi would support foreign terrorists that are not there to help them at all? Your argument is internally inconsistent - you want us to believe that the terrorist movement is a popular peoples front - and then at the same time you joke about how they are coming from Syria and Iran.
Everything Rumsfeld ever did was a mistake as far as the critics on the left are concerned. Those borders are thousands of miles of desert on two countries. America polices those borders as best it can, but its priority is protecting the peace in the places where Iraqis live - the towns. Rumsfeld asked the commanders what
they needed and they got it. And if you want me to believe that you would have been cheering for another 100,000 troops to be sent in there I don't believe it. Every army would like a few hundred thousand more troops - but there is always going to be a limit on how many troops you can and should send into a theatre.
The USA cannot secure its borders in Mexico - and thats with everything that the USA has at home. And you expect that it can secure the borders of a foreign country with limited resources, while trying to prevent terrorists attacking the cities? Living in dreamland.
satch919
Newbie
- Joined
- May 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,208
- Reaction score
- 0
Calanen said:
You either misunderstood me or I should have been more specific. I wanted the overall Iraqi deaths from this campaign due to American occupation vs. the Iraqi insurgency. The only thing you provided me with was a statistic on how many civilians had died this month vs. US military casualties. So that didn't answer my question entirely. And what do you mean that its meaningless? Are you saying that the statistic on the number of civilians that we've killed isn't a big deal. We may have made more enemies by accidentally bombing peoples families.
When did i say that the US was deliberately killing people? Although, in some cases, they may have. There was a soldier who was just convicted of murder I believe. But overwhelmingly, we're not killing them on purpose. The fact still remains that we've killed a hell of a lot of Iraqis because of our occupation.
I suppose I did. I looked for information while I was typing up my response so that may answer some questions. But again, you didn't answer my question.
I know, it simply means that they want us out.
No, I don't but I've read articles about the types they detain. You might know this and you might not so I going to say it anyways. Sometimes they do house to house searches looking for weapons caches or anyone who might have ties to the insurgency. Whether they're right or wrong, thats an issue for another time but at the moment, they had reasonable cause to detain a particular person.
So you do admit that the insurgency is being helped by some civilians then?
I think you may be confused or you're not conveying your thoughts carefully. You said: And Iraq has told Iran and Syria to stop terrorists from coming over the border: Ok. What are you trying to do with that statement? You make it sound like Iraq has all the power to stop radicals from entering their land. So, how did I respond to that? In a nutshell, I said that its a joke. However, its nothing that I discovered myself. We've known that border security was a joke anyways. I don't know what you're trying to do but it seems like you're trying to make me out to be the bad guy. So you're telling me that these foreign invaders are slipping through the borders(thats not hard to believe) and making there way through the cities without contacting an Iraqi for a place to stay or stash weapons? Thats a little hard to believe considering that the Sunni's are a big supporter of these radicals. And who are the Sunni's? They're natives of Iraq. AH! What do you know?!? There are some supporters in Iraq.
Here we go.......another left vs. right debate?! The guy has even admitted that he made mistakes. He even considered stepping down from his job, TWICE!! However, he was denied both times by the President. Now, does that sound like a confident man to you? Thats another debate for another time though.
Yeah, it would be tough to secure those borders. What was stopping the President from holding off the invasion until we did have a plan or enough forces to secure the border? In case you didn't know, Saddam wasn't an imminent threat. What we had was insuffcient. We can't really keep the towns and cities safe if we have a constant flow of enemies flowing into the region. Why not stop them AWAY from the civilians? Doesn't that seem logical? We rushed into this war and you know it.
And you would like me to believe that Rumsfeld gave them all they needed huh? Do I even have to mention the lack of proper armor or supplies? Do I even need to mention that the requests for more Humvees haven't been fulfilled? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7397795/ Your response about the troop numbers sounds like it was pulled straight from Rumsfeld's response. If we were going to go to war, we should have done it th right way. I would have rather had too many troops than not enough.
Yeah, I know the US can't secure its own borders. The flood of illegals into CA, AZ, TX, NM clearly shows that. And wouldn't ya know it, the current Administration hasn't done anything about it. We've had to implement an all volunteer force(MinuteMan Project) to help secure the borders of our own nation. Sad? I think so. So much for Homeland Security.
Wouldn't it make sense to stop and say, "Wait a minute! We don't even have the resources to secure our own borders let alone another nations. Hey boss, we might want to rethink this one!" One has to wonder if that crossed the brains of any of the commanders. But what were they given? A force to small to secure a country. Great situation huh?
Rumsfeld: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." :dozey:
"I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty." :O
And you want that guy to be in charge of our armed forces?
Razor
Spy
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,314
- Reaction score
- 0
CptStern said:
"They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win." - Michael Moore, 4/14/2004.
Michael Moore was talking about "his" Minutemen, the people who will stand up and fight back against the Coalition, to "fight back against the evil oppressors". Their numbers aren't growing and they are not winning, this is what this post is about.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
so? do I need to point out Reagan's speech where he calls the mujahideen "freedom fighters"?
There's a razor fine line (excuse the pun) between the media's protrayal of a "insurgent" and a "terrorist" ..they're indistinguishable ...unless that is it suits their particular "spin"
There's a razor fine line (excuse the pun) between the media's protrayal of a "insurgent" and a "terrorist" ..they're indistinguishable ...unless that is it suits their particular "spin"
Similar threads
