| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/25/2005 10:11:48 AM · #126 |
"I do not agree with any country imposing its values and beliefs on another country. Who says that the US/UK/Western beliefs are right for the people of Iraaq or Afghanistan?"
[[[That seems a pretty foolish thing to say. I mean, gee, I would hope most here would have opposed the beliefs of the NAZIs and been agreed that we needed to impose our values and beliefs (that mass genocide in the millions should not be allowed) upon said nation state.
Do you really believe what you just said RiponLady or is it simply rhetoric?
]]]
"The women of these countries live under the religious conventions of their country."
[[[Should the world community oppose slavery? So if a woman was born in a country that believes it's okay to beat and rape women - that's none of your business. So who is going to come to that beaten woman's defense?
See, I am of the belief that if you see evil beind done and simply pass by and do not intervene when you have the means to do so - then you have failed humanity.
]]]
"I can sunbathe topless in France but not in some Caribbean islands. Is one wrong? Or do I obey the conventions of the country I am in?"
[[[Nicely simplified, but I think there's a difference...if you sunbathe topless in the caribbean you are not likely to be beaten and killed.]]]
"Yes, dictators who are guilty of genocide, mass killing and terrorist actions should be dealt with but don't change a culture just because it is not yours."
[[[ You have to realize when a cultural aspect needs to be changed. There are cultures that still practice cannibalism. Now this isn't mass genocide - just the occasional eating of another human being. Should this not be intervened? When a cultural aspect is a "culture of death" then yes...it should be opposed.
If the trend was simply to expel any woman who did not wear a head piece out of the nation/culture that'd be one thing. But to beat and/or kill for such violations is an entirely different thing.
]]]
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 10:16:59 AM · #127 |
The biggest problem is aligning beliefs of power hungry individuals with the beliefs related to a particular culture. Most attrocities are related to the former, not the latter. The culture does not need to be changed.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 11:44:14 AM · #128 |
Damn right, the culture doesn't need to be changed. Especially not a centuries old, traditional, more or less functional culture like the muslims' in the Middle East.
And when a self-proclaimed world police like the US comes along, a country that denies it's heritage by labelling anything pre-1491 as "pre-historic", you really have to wonder WHY Bush and co. think they have to bring peace and democracy to the rest of the world, especially those parts with traditions that date back to times way BC...
It didn't work for Native Americans, Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Japanese etc., yet your leader's are still convinced that they are the ones chosen to bring PEACE and FREEDOM to others - what's with the tens of thousands of liberated and democratized DEAD civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam...?
Care to explain?? ANYONE?
Irak wasn't waiting for your invasion and had it not been for the UN/US "food for oil" program, which, by the way, starved roughly half a million Iraqi children in 10 years, Saddam would have been widely accepted as the leader in Irak for many years to come.
Message edited by author 2005-08-25 11:45:45. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 12:31:36 PM · #129 |
Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going off the top of my head here, but Afganistan had only been under Taliban rule for 30 some odd years and things were different before the Taliban took over and forced their will on all of Afganistan.
Also, Saddam was in power in Iraq for about the same length of time and he changed things to his will there.
Their traditions are not all centuries old and we are not making them conform to our wishes. They are writing their own constitition with their own laws.
And, I'd like to see percentages of how many people in these countries would actually rather live under Taliban or Saddam's rule over the democracy they are now creating.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 12:56:49 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going off the top of my head here, but Afganistan had only been under Taliban rule for 30 some odd years and things were different before the Taliban took over and forced their will on all of Afganistan. |
I believe the Taliban were only in power for a few years, after we supplied them with the armaments necessary to drive out the Soviet Union. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 01:06:03 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by louddog:
Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going off the top of my head here, but Afganistan had only been under Taliban rule for 30 some odd years and things were different before the Taliban took over and forced their will on all of Afganistan. |
I believe the Taliban were only in power for a few years, after we supplied them with the armaments necessary to drive out the Soviet Union. |
Also, didn't the US (administration) have something to do with Saddam being in power as well? Nothing like doing something then later on deciding it may not be such a good idea so a new leader needs to be propped up.
A good read for history of the region (and US involvement):
//www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
Something else that may be of interest.
//www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1412.htm
(google "Saddam Hussein" + "United States" for more)
Message edited by author 2005-08-25 13:19:47.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 01:36:57 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Also, didn't the US (administration) have something to do with Saddam being in power as well? Nothing like doing something then later on deciding it may not be such a good idea so a new leader needs to be propped up. |
Not really, Iraq was mostly a French/Russian ally. We were actually strongly nestled with Iran before the revolution. We did not start really supporting Iraq until after the iranian revolution. So I believe the Ba'athists were fairly well established.
Even if you survey Iraq's weapon armaments. The U.S. was a fairly low percentage supplier compared to Russia, France, and others.
But, none-the-less, we did still supply an evil tyrant. And that is in part why we are spilling our blood today. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 02:05:49 PM · #133 |
Afghanistan:
The Taliban came into power around 1996 and many of the people of Afghanistan were in favor of their rule because the numerous war lord factions that were attempting to rule that country were all criminal in nature and very violent, especially against women. Rape and murder of women were not punished and were seen as a legitimate means for terrorizing a specific group.
So in comes the US and helps to kick out the Taliban (a good thing, as they too were doing horrific things), but then backs the Northern Alliance, a group of 5 to 7 war lords to help overthrow the Taliban and take over the country once again. Things are no better for the people of Afghanistan, and they live in fear of the ever present violence that these war lords dish out.
Iraq:
So far, the Iraqi parliment has agreed to make Islam the rule of law, and that means making its women second rate citizens. They are also having trouble passing it because they are trying to figure out how to divide up the wealth of their nation (meaning the oil wells, which are mostly in the Shiite controlled south. The Sunnis are not part of the constitution, the way it's written now, and have stated if they aren't included there will be civil war.
Does the Bush administration really want another Islamist country in the region? |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 02:09:51 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Iraq:
So far, the Iraqi parliment has agreed to make Islam the rule of law, and that means making its women second rate citizens.
|
Those two things don't equate (Islam and women as second class citizens). Now, the quest for power and treating women as second class citizens is really what is happening. Islam in and of itself does not equate to this.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 02:28:16 PM · #135 |
| Bush and all the brilliant people around him should have finished with Afghanistan before starting a new war somewhere else. At the rate they are going who knows maybe they will start a war in Iran next year, lets not forget Iran is part of the axis of evil. North Korea in 2007. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 02:32:01 PM · #136 |
I agree with you, and maybe I should have termed it Islamic extremists.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Iraq:
So far, the Iraqi parliment has agreed to make Islam the rule of law, and that means making its women second rate citizens.
|
Those two things don't equate (Islam and women as second class citizens). Now, the quest for power and treating women as second class citizens is really what is happening. Islam in and of itself does not equate to this. |
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 03:17:15 PM · #137 |
Yes, we assisted Iraq years ago by giving them intellegence when they were fighting Iran because we felt the world would be a better place if Iraq won that war.
Yes, we assisted the Taliban by giving shoulder launched stingers when they were fighting the Soviets because we thought it would be better if the Taliban won.
I believe we did the right thing both times as at the time Iran and the Soviets were the greater evil. So what.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 03:24:43 PM · #138 |
Those who forget history or brush it off as irrelevant are destined to repeat it.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 03:33:16 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Those who forget history or brush it off as irrelevant are destined to repeat it. |
let's not forget HERstory as well.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 03:34:11 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Those who forget history or brush it off as irrelevant are destined to repeat it. |
let's not forget HERstory as well. |
:oP
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 04:08:15 PM · #141 |
This thread makes me sick. Almost makes me want to jump on the bush-hating bandwagon... not. You guys should read up on some history books instead of filling your heads with michael moore hate-speech, if that is what you're reading. this is not an immoral war, and even if it were, you relativists would have no reason to judge because after all there is no right and wrong or good and evil right? and why the hell are you guys so worried about how the international community or simply europeans might "feel" towards the U.S. this isn't a popularity contest, it's the real world. after reading all of these posts i think i'm going to go vomit.
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." [Ayn Rand]
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." [H.L. Mencken]
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 04:26:52 PM · #142 |
i left out two other quotes that fit.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it."
"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."
both by Ayn Rand. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 04:57:36 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by quagmatic:
This thread makes me sick...after reading all of these posts i think i'm going to go vomit. |
"What? How much?"
--A woman working in a sweatshop somewhere in Asia that's been contracted by an American clothing label to stitch up shirts. She makes 10 shirts a day, at a total wage of US$2.50 a day (sans benefits). She was told that each shirt can be sold in the US for US$50.
UN finds global inequality rising
And you want to vomit???
Message edited by author 2005-08-25 17:14:58.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 06:09:25 PM · #144 |
During the 20 plus year reign of Saddam Hussein, nearly 5% of the people of Iraq , over 1 MILLION people, were killed or mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again. And that doesn't even count the half-million children who starved after the first gulf war because the Iraqi government did not honestly administer the "oil-for-food" program ( much of the food was found after the liberation in government warehouses ).
A MILLION people were murdered during Saddam Hussein's reign - that averages out to 45,454 deaths per year.
Since the Americans have been fighting in Iraq, even if one considers the HIGH-END count of civilian casualties posted by www.Iraqibodycount.net of 26,719 ( though many, if not most of the deaths were the result of terrorist attacks by the "insurgents" ) that averages out to 11,056 deaths per year
So, it would appear that the liberation of Iraq has dropped the rate of violent deaths from over 45,000 per year to just over 11,000 per year. That's a decrease of over 75% - or to put it another way, the liberation has resulted in saving just under 34,400 Iraqi lives each year.
There are only two reasons I can think of for why some folks would argue that that kind of result isn't "good" and "worthy":
a) they have an overriding hatred for George W. Bush, or
b) they're xenophobic, and just don't think that saving 83,128 lives in the last 29 months is worth the death of 2,068 Coalition Troops ( 1,874 from the U.S.).
Some folks, of course, see it differently:
a) they do not have an overriding hatred of George W. Bush, and
b) they are not xenophobic
I grant that there is a slight possibility that there are other logical reasons why folks are against the continuation of troop deployment in Iraq, though I can't think of any. If so, I would be interested in hearing what they are.
Ron
Message edited by author 2005-08-25 18:15:22. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 07:15:31 PM · #145 |
[quote=theSaj] "I do not agree with any country imposing its values and beliefs on another country. Who says that the US/UK/Western beliefs are right for the people of Iraaq or Afghanistan?"
[[[That seems a pretty foolish thing to say. I mean, gee, I would hope most here would have opposed the beliefs of the NAZIs and been agreed that we needed to impose our values and beliefs (that mass genocide in the millions should not be allowed) upon said nation state.
Do you really believe what you just said RiponLady or is it simply rhetoric? {/i}
Saj, you've accused me of this in other threads and it does annoy me! I do not say things for effect and find your inability to consider that I might just be honest, very condescending. As I said later in my post, yes evil dictators need to be dealt with but the culture of the country and its people do not need to comply with western ideals of a perfect life.
P
Message edited by author 2005-08-25 19:19:01.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 07:32:07 PM · #146 |
sorry, posted too early. Very tired!
:)
P
Message edited by author 2005-08-26 06:38:12.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 07:47:55 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
[[[Should the world community oppose slavery? So if a woman was born in a country that believes it's okay to beat and rape women - that's none of your business. So who is going to come to that beaten woman's defense?
"I can sunbathe topless in France but not in some Caribbean islands. Is one wrong? Or do I obey the conventions of the country I am in?"
[[[Nicely simplified, but I think there's a difference...if you sunbathe topless in the caribbean you are not likely to be beaten and killed.]]]
"Yes, dictators who are guilty of genocide, mass killing and terrorist actions should be dealt with but don't change a culture just because it is not yours."
[[[ You have to realize when a cultural aspect needs to be changed. There are cultures that still practice cannibalism. Now this isn't mass genocide - just the occasional eating of another human being. Should this not be intervened? When a cultural aspect is a "culture of death" then yes...it should be opposed.
If the trend was simply to expel any woman who did not wear a head piece out of the nation/culture that'd be one thing. But to beat and/or kill for such violations is an entirely different thing.
]]] |
Now to look at you other points:
1. Are you comparing the islamic women's mode of life as slavery? How many women who wear the clothes that cover them completely have you spoken to and discussed this with? Why do Islamic women living in the west also continue to keep to these rules? Maybe it is because they wish to adhere to that culture, that belief system. If those women in a western culture feel that way then maybe the millions living in an Islamic country feel the same way.
Yes I would hate it, find it inhibiting but I have not been raised in that culture so to me it is an alien way of life - as much as our flesh showing, cigarette smoking, sexual experimentation, swearing, career minded culture is to devout islamic women. Who is to say what is right? Yes I think that beating women, stoning women who have affairs or ssex outside of marriage is wrong BUT this can be changed by other means than war and not by changing the whole culture.
2. If I sunbathe topless in the Caribbean I can be thrown into prison - not what I would expect in the UK and to me would be horrific! Again a question of moral values. In countries where the death penalty is still used I find that abhorrent - should we invade those countries because it is against our moral code?
etarians?
3. Cannibals have rights too! Or do we condemn omnivores because we are vegetarians? Are you going to invade the rain forests and tell those tribes to stop eating each other? Why? I don't fancy it but it is the dare I say it, missionaries who decided these people were wrong but who decided that? Macdonalds on the corner of each bend of the Amazon may not be their idea of good nutrition! (or mine)
4. You must separate the culture you have been raised in and therefore are comfortable with, from the judgement of any thing different as wrong. You ( and I) are western children of western parents and have lived in a certain environment but it doesn't make it the only one that is right or the best or wanted by rest of the world. There are areas of the US culture I detest and think are wrong and I am sure you feel the same about UK values and beliefs but I do believe in the right of the USA to live by their beliefs.
I am sure a lot of this is garbled but as it is so late, I'm afraid I am too tired to edit/ rethink/express myself better so apologies to all I've upset or annoyed .
sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite!
Pauline
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzz zz z ..... (snore)
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:15:41 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by RonB:
During the 20 plus year reign of Saddam Hussein, nearly 5% of the people of Iraq , over 1 MILLION people, were killed or mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again. And that doesn't even count the half-million children who starved after the first gulf war because the Iraqi government did not honestly administer the "oil-for-food" program ( much of the food was found after the liberation in government warehouses ).
A MILLION people were murdered during Saddam Hussein's reign - that averages out to 45,454 deaths per year.
Since the Americans have been fighting in Iraq, even if one considers the HIGH-END count of civilian casualties posted by www.Iraqibodycount.net of 26,719 ( though many, if not most of the deaths were the result of terrorist attacks by the "insurgents" ) that averages out to 11,056 deaths per year
So, it would appear that the liberation of Iraq has dropped the rate of violent deaths from over 45,000 per year to just over 11,000 per year. That's a decrease of over 75% - or to put it another way, the liberation has resulted in saving just under 34,400 Iraqi lives each year.
There are only two reasons I can think of for why some folks would argue that that kind of result isn't "good" and "worthy":
a) they have an overriding hatred for George W. Bush, or
b) they're xenophobic, and just don't think that saving 83,128 lives in the last 29 months is worth the death of 2,068 Coalition Troops ( 1,874 from the U.S.).
Some folks, of course, see it differently:
a) they do not have an overriding hatred of George W. Bush, and
b) they are not xenophobic
I grant that there is a slight possibility that there are other logical reasons why folks are against the continuation of troop deployment in Iraq, though I can't think of any. If so, I would be interested in hearing what they are.
Ron |
So you're saying we(the USA) should just go ahead and invade ANY country having a high amount of genocide??....I must have missed the memo---I didn't realize that was our purpose and destiny as a nation... |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:53:06 PM · #149 |
Isn't it funny how when someone does something really stupid/morally wrong, or beleives absolute rubbish, they get called an American.
Unrelated coincidence?.. or is there something in it?..
hmm...
I feel sorry for those who get labeled unfairly from the "American Blow them up to help them, Media driven society" stereotype. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 09:08:36 PM · #150 |
You should see the people we call Australian up here :)
|
|
