Changing the Rules of War

[Firestarter 0]

what those fellows are saying goes against anything that I know about being American. It reeks of imperialism, and I'm not very comfortable with American as an imperialist power.

I don't know what you're talking about. Just because certain attitudes the article advocates (double standard on the use of force, &c) were found in imperialist countries in the past in no way means that the article is advocating imperialism per se. Even if it were, it wouldn't matter. The United States cannot become an imperialist power. The Constitution doesn't allow it, the economy doesn't need it, and the people wouldn't stand for it.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

And we didn't invade, we liberated.

And the Iraqi people are SOOOOOO happy to be liberated, what with the post-war death toll being higher than the one during the war.

Wow, because we've been there longer than a month? The war was over in a month, the fact that it only eclipsed the war death toll doesn't really in, oh, August when we've been there for around 4 or 5 doesn't really surprise me.

 

Just because people are fighting us doesn't mean the people don't want us there, moron. A vocal minority, silent majority. But hey, if you want to judge the will of many by the will of the few, I suppose everyone down south is a KKK member and every one in Michigan is like Tim McVeigh, right?

 

Liberate? Ha

 

Oh shut up. Explain to me how they were better off under Saddam.

Main Entry: lib·er·ate

Pronunciation: 'li-b&-"rAt

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing

Etymology: Latin liberatus, past participle of liberare, from liber

Date: circa 1623

1 : to set at liberty : FREE; specifically : to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power

2 : to free from combination <liberate the gas by adding acid>

3 : to take or take over illegally or unjustly <material liberated from a nearby construction site -- Thorne Dreyer>

synonym see FREE

- lib·er·a·tor  /-"A-t&r/ noun

 

You didn't liberate. Instead you took over the country and are going about installing a government that will favor America. Technically you are not the Liberators. The people fighting you would be the liberators.

 

Not that I agree with them. Not that Saddam was a better leader. He wasn't and he deserved to die. However you did not free Iraq. The people aren't free to install whatever government they want. Your troops are still everywhere. You are still in charge.

 

Now obviously it's only been a few months so realistically no one can expect you to have fully withdrawn from Iraq.

 

So no you have not liberated Iraq. You may slowly be going about the process of liberating Iraw but you have not in fact liberated Iraq yet.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

what those fellows are saying goes against anything that I know about being American.  It reeks of imperialism, and I'm not very comfortable with American as an imperialist power.

I don't know what you're talking about. Just because certain attitudes the article advocates (double standard on the use of force, &c) were found in imperialist countries in the past in no way means that the article is advocating imperialism per se. Even if it were, it wouldn't matter. The United States cannot become an imperialist power. The Constitution doesn't allow it, the economy doesn't need it, and the people wouldn't stand for it.

Let's hypothesize Marney, shall we?

 

Perhaps you start using the tactics that the terrorists have used against you. Perhaps it is successfull. Now think that sometime in the future America has problems with another culture. Let's pick the French for example. Now Instead of waiting for the French to strike America seize the inititave because afterall it worked so well before.

 

Once someone gets a taste of such drastic power it's not easy to relinquish it. Once you use it once you're going to want to use it over and over again.

 

 

Of course I'm not saying that America would ever stoop to terrorist acts. This was just a idea.

[Firestarter 0]

It was an idea that you yourself admit is completely unrealistic. Come up with a better hypothesis and I'll listen.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

not unrealistic. Just not likely.

[Guest MikeSC]

You didn't liberate. Instead you took over the country and are going about installing a government that will favor America. Technically you are not the Liberators. The people fighting you would be the liberators.

 

Not that I agree with them. Not that Saddam was a better leader. He wasn't and he deserved to die. However you did not free Iraq. The people aren't free to install whatever government they want. Your troops are still everywhere. You are still in charge.

 

Now obviously it's only been a few months so realistically no one can expect you to have fully withdrawn from Iraq.

 

So no you have not liberated Iraq. You may slowly be going about the process of liberating Iraw but you have not in fact liberated Iraq yet.

I have to disagree here. Yes, shocking, I know.

 

Saddam was a despot. We liberated them, much as we liberated Germany from Hitler and Japan from the military that basically ran the country at the time.

 

There are some who are fervently pro-Saddam. That is how it is. The few polls that have been done there show that the Iraqis don't want a theocracy and we are trying to help them figure out how to create a gov't that won't permit that to happen. It is rare that a country can go from being totally dominated to being able to handle freedom. Heck, the U.S is one of the few countries I can think of that did a pretty decent job of doing that --- and even WE had our huge problems (i.e slavery).

 

We are going to help the Iraqis develop a gov't that is what they truly want. If we leave now, the tiny minority of Saddam loyalists will simply butcher anybody who doesn't agree with them and the "silent majority" will, once again, have to live in tyranny.

-=Mike

...And even with our troops there, they are FAR more free than they were in, say,January

[Jobber of the Week 0]

1. Landmines are used extensively in the DMZ between North and South Korea, yes. And yes, they serve a vital strategic purpose there.

 

2. US landmines are far more advanced than any other country's, and are equipped with standard remote detonation/deactivation systems, which means they pose practically zero threat to civilians after a given conflict is over.

That makes sense. Interesting.

[Guest JMA]

When the war was just starting I was very divided on it. But now I've come to learn that the Middle East SHOULD be changed by force. Their theocracies and anti-semitism can NOT be tolerated. I'm not saying their aren't good Arab people (because there are) but their minds are being corrupted at a young age by fundamentalist Muslims. If we can take out their theocracies we can take a step in ending or reducing bigotry. We can't take out a theocracy and leave another one in its place. That would accomplish nothing.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

If we can take out their theocracies we can take a step in ending or reducing bigotry.

Well, it wouldn't end bigotry... but it would end or reduce the ability to act on that bigotry.

[Styles 0]

When the war was just starting I was very divided on it. But now I've come to learn that the Middle East SHOULD be changed by force. Their theocracies and anti-semitism can NOT be tolerated. I'm not saying their aren't good Arab people (because there are) but their minds are being corrupted at a young age by fundamentalist Muslims. If we can take out their theocracies we can take a step in ending or reducing bigotry. We can't take out a theocracy and leave another one in its place. That would accomplish nothing.

Bingo.

[Guest MikeSC]

When the war was just starting I was very divided on it. But now I've come to learn that the Middle East SHOULD be changed by force. Their theocracies and anti-semitism can NOT be tolerated. I'm not saying their aren't good Arab people (because there are) but their minds are being corrupted at a young age by fundamentalist Muslims. If we can take out their theocracies we can take a step in ending or reducing bigotry. We can't take out a theocracy and leave another one in its place. That would accomplish nothing.

A few things:

 

1) Iraq was many things, but it was not a theocracy.

2) We can't make changing their minds to be a major priority in that we likely lack the resources to do that.

-=Mike

...However, I do agree with somebody else that we can punish people for acting on their evil impulses