Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

cybercoma · July 22, 2005

Over 100, 000 people have died in Iraq and you are worried about 2,000 soldiers. Give us a break. As they said in an Irish paper today, Iraq has 100 Londons every day!
What I was referring to is that if we don't get a handle on dealing prpoerly with the world community, we are going to lose all our freedoms in the name of security. Do you want the world to become a giant Israel and for us to all live like the Israelis do now? Thanks but no thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're living in a fantasy world if you think these bombings will miraculously stop because the United States leaves Iraq. I don't know what else to say to you.

cybercoma · July 22, 2005

Oh man, don't bring the UN into this. That whole idea is an abortion. There are 19 Arab countries that would like nothing more than for the ONE Jewish country to be wiped off the map. As far as the security council goes 16 Arab countries have sat on it, Israel has NEVER been on the security council.

It doesn't exist to defend the rights of nations, it would seem as though it exists so that the tyranny of the majority can try to wipe out the minority.

Black Dog · July 22, 2005

I don't think anyone was arguing that Bush's war has not created more suicide bombers. The point is that their demands will never be met as long as they intentionally target and murder civilians. Just because they've taken it upon themselves to make people hostages in their own countries by blowing up trains and buses, doesn't mean we should give in to their demands and leave Iraq. The task at hand is to make sure democracy gets going in Iraq and if the UK or US just walks away from it now, the 2000 soldiers that have died would have been in vain.

But since, clearly, invading Iraq (regardless of whether the intentions were pure or not) as not made both Iraqis and westerners less safe. Therefore it stands to reason that the longer the occupation (and the accompanying degredation of the people of Iraq-we may like to ignore Gitmo or Abu Ghriab, but they have not forgoten) continues, the less safe we'll all be. So how is that a winning strategy?

A big part of the problem Israel has faced since 1948 is interference of the UN, which created the "refugee camps" on "Palestinian land" and encouraged the "Palestinians" that they had a all-or-nothing "right" to one day return to their former homes. The UN has been happy to fight for the "rights" of "Palestinians" while completely ignoring and taking zero repsonsibility for terrorist activities in the "refugee camps" that they maintain. I think it's fair to say that without the incompetence of the UN a peaceful reintegration of the "Palestinian" Arabs would have happened a long time ago.

Why the scare quotes around Palestinian?

As for the rest of your gibberish (its worth reminding you that without the UN, there would be no Israel), I can't help but point out that Arab integration is antithetical to the Zionist vision. If Israel had wanted to "integrate" the Palestinians into a binational state, they could have done so regardless of the UN(really: what power does the UN have, particularily when ever single UN resolution critical of Israel has been vetoed?) However, since such a move would mean an end to the Jewish majority, Israel's leadership has never been interested in a one-state solution.

mirror · July 22, 2005

The 100,000 figure isn't worth posting about. As has already been stated numerous times on this forum, that figure is off by as much as 98%.

BHS

I know that for you the only deaths in Iraq are the US ones. Fortunately the rest of the world know the reality. It sounds like you would be a good journalist in some some extremely conservative publication in the US, there is no market for such garbage in Canada, where you could do all the red or Commie baiting you want.

Black Dog · July 22, 2005

The 100,000 figure isn't worth posting about. As has already been stated numerous times on this forum, that figure is off by as much as 98%.

Stated, but never supported.

cybercoma · July 22, 2005

I don't think anyone was arguing that Bush's war has not created more suicide bombers. The point is that their demands will never be met as long as they intentionally target and murder civilians. Just because they've taken it upon themselves to make people hostages in their own countries by blowing up trains and buses, doesn't mean we should give in to their demands and leave Iraq. The task at hand is to make sure democracy gets going in Iraq and if the UK or US just walks away from it now, the 2000 soldiers that have died would have been in vain.

But since, clearly, invading Iraq (regardless of whether the intentions were pure or not) as not made both Iraqis and westerners less safe. Therefore it stands to reason that the longer the occupation (and the accompanying degredation of the people of Iraq-we may like to ignore Gitmo or Abu Ghriab, but they have not forgoten) continues, the less safe we'll all be. So how is that a winning strategy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you figure the longer the US and UK are in Iraq the less safe we'll be? When Iraq is the bastion of democracy in the middle east and the rest of the people in the middle east realize how much better the Iraqis' quality of life is, then we'll all be safer.

Black Dog · July 22, 2005

How do you figure the longer the US and UK are in Iraq the less safe we'll be? When Iraq is the bastion of democracy in the middle east and the rest of the people in the middle east realize how much better the Iraqis' quality of life is, then we'll all be safer.

But in order for Iraq to reach bastion status, the security situation (to name but one facet of an completely shattered society) needs to drastically improve. According to you guys, the security situation can only improve through the continued prescence of US and UK troops in Iraq (pulling out, the conventional wisdom goes, will lead to civil war). However, the US has so far been unable to make any significant improvements to the security situation, and seems to make matters worse by stirring up more resentment and presenting a target for insurgents. As long as there is violence, Iraq's chances of becoming a viable independant democracy are significantly diminished and, as long as the US stays, there's little chance the violence will abate. As long as the US stays, the more resentment they'll create, the more recruits they'll send to Al Qaeda's way and the more likely it becomes that we'll get hit with more terrorism.

GostHacked · July 22, 2005

The Isreal Point and how it is similar to the attempt for security of the US.

Security in Isreal is pretty tight. You have to be scanned by metal detectors and the like in order to get into PUBLIC places, like malls, city hall, ect. Now we can all look at why Isreal is as big as they are. After WWII, Jewish people were given a small part of the land in Palestine. Isreal used to be a small new country. Now Isreal has taken over the land (regardless of the reasons) and have disposed the Palestinians to small localized control areas.

How DID Isreal get so big? And what are the reasons? Taking away the land from the Palestinians did contribute to their being a target for suicide bombers. it goes back and forth, for years. Isreal grabs more land, pisses off more Palestinians, contibuting to more attacks by the Palestinians, which Isreal retaliates by throwing missles into the Gaza Strip, plowing down houses which disposes more Palestinians. This again, turns around to more suicide bombers. Then the Isreali reaction to all this is to build a big wall around them. To prevent the suicide bombers from attacking. So by taking over someone elses land (ok you can argue the Jews have historical rights ect...regardless) someone will retaliate. The cycle continues.....

All this security the Isrealis have will not prevent the attacks. The more security they have the less free they are. The Palestinians are definatley not a free people. They are checkpointed at every turn when they enter and exit Isreali controlled areas.

Let's take this into consideration when we look at the US and their war on terrorism. Patriot Act, Homeland Security, MDS, tighter border control, detaining many people without reason indefinately, ect. I can see the Isreali situation on a larger scale with the US.

Now onto Iraq :

It has been stated here that Freedom cannot be borne out of Tyranny. I say that is wrong. After the USSR break up, Georgia and other break away states are trying really hard to be democratic. This is a drastic change for these people used to a tyrannic style government. It can be done. Freedom has to come from within. The people will WANT to have it that bad and will risk anything for it. Now I would love all people to be free, but sometimes you have to let things take their course and democracy will some out if they want it that bad. Not to say that the Iraqis did not want freedom and democracy, but if they are not willing to stand up and fight for themselves against a Dicktator they no longer want, there is nothing we can do to help them out in this case. Hence the reason I am thinking (but not hoping) that this will all fail in the end. Iraq is a very messed up place.

I know I have more to say, but that will come later.

cybercoma · July 22, 2005

Here's a video that shows just how much the Americans are hated:

http://www.m90.org/gallery/video/baghdad_patrol1-7585.wmv

mirror · July 22, 2005

The question for all of us is do we want to end up living under the conditions that Israel lives under? We are definitely headed in that direction unless saner heads prevail.

cybercoma · July 22, 2005

The question for all of us is do we want to end up living under the conditions that Israel lives under? We are definitely headed in that direction unless saner heads prevail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is stupid nonsense and didn't deserve a reply the first time you said it.

cybercoma · July 22, 2005

Egypt has just been bombed, perhaps they too should pull out of Iraq to avoid further bombings. :unsure:

GostHacked · July 22, 2005

Egypt has just been bombed, perhaps they too should pull out of Iraq to avoid further bombings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it has happened. I am reading up on that now .. Just wow. More will come out as we get it.

Argus · July 22, 2005

I agree, about restricting arms sales to repressive regimes. You might have a tough time convincing the Europeans though

And we'd have a tough time convincing the Americans, the globes top supplier of arms.

Saying the Americans are the "globe's top supplier of arms" is both true and, in this context, somewhat dishonest. The Americans, after all, sell multi-billion dollar systems to places like, er, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK and Australia, among others. The systems they sell to the likes of Saudi Arabia also tend to be on the high end, ie, sophisticated fighter jets, few of which ever get used for anything. Meanwhile, the Chinese and Brazilians, among others, are pouring out the low dollar orders for AK-47s, mortars and grenades to every little bandit group and third world dictator around the globe.

That study has long been discredited. It had a possible error rate of something on the order of 98%

Citation?

Lancet survey propaganda for weak minds

What is the "intent" behind all those wacko suicide bombers in Baghdad? Try to reach beyond the obvious (expell americans). Are they outraged at the mistreatement of their people? Unlikely, as most appear not to be Iraqis. Do they want to bring "freedom" to the Iraqi people? Unlikely, as Iraq is clearly on the road, at a brisk pace, to self government with a new constitution and a democratically elected government.

Intent is irrelevant.

Intent is irrelevant!? :blink: You try to compare morality of conduct and then state that the intent of those commiting that conduct is irreleveant?!

Do you really lack such basic understanding of what constitutes morality? :huh:

mirror · July 22, 2005

Egypt has just been bombed, perhaps they too should pull out of Iraq to avoid further bombings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everything is so simple, so black and white, eh! And Egypt is allied with who? Speak up I can't hear you. And Egypt is holding what prisoners?

Argus · July 22, 2005

Which brings us back to the suicide bomber at the checkpoint. Supposing he was trying to stop the violence be perpetrated against the Iraqi people, then his actions are morally just.

Possibly. If the US were perpetrating violence against the Iraqi people. However, it appears that by far the greatest violence being perpetrated on the Iraqi people is coming from the "insurgents". Nor do these insurgents seem to care a fig about who they kill, including kids

You are trying to cast this into the mold of a local insurgency fighting against an oppresive occupying power when everyone knows that the Americans want nothing more than to leave as soon as possible. Were it not for the insurgency they'd already be gone. Also, were the insurgents to win Iraq would hardly become a land of freedom. Instead it would be far, far more oppressive than anything the Americans would ever dream of. These are not people fighting for freedom. They are fighting for an intollerent theocratic state which slaughters anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.

Obviosuly, the Americans don't want to go

No, sorry, but that is an obviously idiotic statement. The Americans are desperate to get out of Iraq without seeing the place immediately collapse behind them. That much should be painfully obvious to anyone with more than half a brain.

which uis why they invaded in the first place. Were it not for the insurgency, perhaps we'd see Iran being menaced next. Whatever. And, given that the core of the insurgency is secular in nature,

The "core of the insurgency" appears to be run by a man who calls the Shiites dogs and Jews, and wants them exterminated, who despises democracy because it goes against the apparent will of Allah in how nations should be run, and whose major weapon are religious wackos from around the Muslim world. That hardly seems secular in nature.

So you are suggesting we radically adjust our way of life in order to attempt to placate some religious wackos who, by your own claim, are a small minority of the Muslim world?

No I am suggesting we radically adjust our way of life (an inevitablity we will have to confront sooner or later anyway) to curb the conditions which create fertile ground for the radical ideaologies that threaten us through terrorist tactics.

And yet you have no idea whether or not adjusting our way of life will have any correspondingly positive results on the conditions you speak of. I'd think most people would require a little more assurance of results first.

1) China, Brazil and North Korea are huge arms sellers to the third world. No one ever seems to be particularly outraged at this.

Pikers who's total arms sales don't even come close to equalling those of the U.S. and U.K.

Let me explain this so that even you might understand. The US sells, say, fighter jets to Canada, Taiwan, Australia and Pakistan for fifteen billion dollars. So? How many people get killed as a result? Meanwhile, China is selling cheap pistols, automatic weapons, mortars and grenades by the boatload to dictators throughout Africa and the middle east. The amount they get paid is pretty small, in comparison, but the affect in arming dictators and supressing disent is far, far greater.

You really have to take more into consideration than mere price.

In any case, this is another example of the classic Argus Deflection (a cousin of the patentened Argus Strawman): "look over there at what those other guys are doing! why isn't anyone looking?"

It's merely elementary logic. If you ever used logic you'd understand the inference.

You claim the US is being attacked for making arms sales to dictators. I say,

"But wait, so are those guys and those guys and these guys and nobody is attacking them." And you say "But that's not important!"

Sorry, but it is. It discredits your argument.

Isn't this:"they're uneducated, unsophisticated, backward and stupid" exactly what you used as a reason why Africa needs to be recolonized? Oh, but I'm sure your reasoning has nothing to do with race, any more than your talk of "crazed turbanheads" is a racial remark.

I don't believe I ever said "crazed turbanhead". Could you show me a cite? And the arguments are similar but not the same. What I said was that these "nations" were abandoned with almost no educated residents, with borders which were impossible and foreign, and had since developed cultures of corruption and violence. In any case, I'm openly stating they seem incapable of progress and suggesting we take over, establish order and proper education systems, and put them on the right path towards proper self government. This is at the very least a consistent argument. The other said says they are equal, independant nations worthy of respect on the international stage - but at the same time want to treat them like welfare lifers, pouring in charity money, forgiving debts (many of which were stupidly or corruptly incurred), and expecting the other world nations to be nice and pat them on their collective heads and not treat them like we do each other.

Argus · July 22, 2005

One final word: since 2001, and the start of the war on terror, the threat of terrorism has not diminished.

Didn't you post a cite not two minutes ago which told of how ordinary Saudis were inspired into religious fervour by the sight of the passenger jets going into the WTC? Are you going to blame the Americans for that?

So my question is, having written off disengagement, what course of action would people like Argus pursue? The status quo? Escalation? Clearly, any solution that calls for the "us" to change our ways at all is a non-starter, so what's their answer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no single solution, of course. A combination of hunting down and eliminating terrorists, and, to my mind, those who inspire terrorism, along with dialogue with Muslim leaders and, what I believe they're doing now, trying to set up political choices for Muslims by bringing about democratic change in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. I think I would also put heavy pressure on the Saudis (probably already being done) to stop funding all those madrassas schools around the world combined with a very harsh law against any foreign money coming into the US (or Canada or the UK) for religious purposes. The Saudis have been funding, among other things, the takeover of mosques by their wacko wahabi sect members all across the western world. An enormous number of mosques in Canada and the US are now controlled by Wahabi immams. This is helping to inspire more fundamentalist Muslim followers in the west.

You can say what you like about Western imperialism, supporting dictatorships, historical misdeeds and whatnot, but in my view the chief source of the growing Islamist movement is the Saudi royal family and their funding of ultra-orthodox religious schools, mosques and clerics around the world.

Argus · July 22, 2005

Here you have it folks. Canada's most right-wing daily newspaper

Uhm, you do realize that if the Post was in the US it would be considered one of that country's most left-wing daily newspapers, don't you? There simply are no small c conservative daily newspapers in Canada. The closest you could find would probably be the Sun chain. And even the Sun chain supports same sex marriage, abortion on demand, and most other allegedly "left-wing" causes.

Argus · July 22, 2005

Over 100, 000 people have died in Iraq

Most unlikely.

What I was referring to is that if we don't get a handle on dealing prpoerly with the world community,

Which means what? Exactly? Specific proposals, please.

Argus · July 22, 2005

But since, clearly, invading Iraq (regardless of whether the intentions were pure or not) as not made both Iraqis and westerners less safe.

Yes. Sometimes it takes more than a couple of years to build a nation. Especially when you're beset by outside agitators. Do you really think the Saudis, Syrians and Iranians want to see a successful, functioning democracy on their doorstep? Imagine the pressure that would put on them.

No, I believe that if the US and and its allies can set up a functioning democracy in Iraq then it can serve as an inspiration and become the main objective for reformers throughout the Arab world. Right now the only alternative to their dictators is religious theocracy, which is helping to inspire Islamists.

In addition, if the US control Iraq I think they'll be able to put more pressure on the real source of terrorism and Islamism in the world today; Saudi Arabia.

Argus · July 22, 2005

The 100,000 figure isn't worth posting about. As has already been stated numerous times on this forum, that figure is off by as much as 98%.

Stated, but never supported.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lancet report pure political propaganda

mirror · July 22, 2005

Lancet is a scientific medical journal, but you know better, I'm sure.

For those of you who have attacked Livingstone it appears that actually he is quite a reasonable and responsible man:

There has to be a shoot-to-kill policy, concedes Ken Livingstone

But Mr Livingstone said: "If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them, and therefore overwhelmingly in these circumstances it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy."
Speaking of yesterday's operations, he said: "With each of these attacks, we have responded more rapidly and effectively and I'm glad it went as well as it did."

Police sources and security experts said it was clear that officers were operating under revised guidelines.

"Clarification has been issued in response to the threat from suicide bombers," said Charles Shoebridge, a security analyst and former counter terrorism officer. "In the past, shooting at the person's trunk was considered the most effective way of disabling a person. However, this approach could detonate a suicide bomb, so the only realistic alternative is a shot to the head."

Argus · July 22, 2005

The 100,000 figure isn't worth posting about. As has already been stated numerous times on this forum, that figure is off by as much as 98%.

BHS

I know that for you the only deaths in Iraq are the US ones.

Simpering drivel - as is your wont.

I have already stated my objection to this figure, and the fact that in order to actually attribute blame, which you seem desperate to do, you have to figure out how many deaths are caused by the insurgents. In fact, I think at this point we can say that virtually ALL deaths can be laid at their door. If they would just stop killing people Iraqis could get on with rebuilding their nation (including the power, water, communication and sewage facilities the "insurgents" keep blowing up) and voting in a new government.

Fortunately the rest of the world know the reality.

You've never struck me as someone overly comfortable with reality. Quite to the contrary, in fact. You appear to flee reality squealing and flailing your hands at it like a small girl frightened of getting bats in her hair.

It sounds like you would be a good journalist in some some extremely conservative publication in the US, there is no market for such garbage in Canada, where you could do all the red or Commie baiting you want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is certainly no market in Canada for honest journalism. I'll grant you that. I'll also suggest that journalism which aims pegs its message at a grade eight education level (which, btw, is the case in Canada) would still seem to fly quite a distance over your pointy little head.

mirror · July 22, 2005

Argus

It is too bad you have such a low opinion of Canada, and Canadians.

What is keeping you from living somewhere else?

Argus · July 22, 2005

How do you figure the longer the US and UK are in Iraq the less safe we'll be? When Iraq is the bastion of democracy in the middle east and the rest of the people in the middle east realize how much better the Iraqis' quality of life is, then we'll all be safer.

But in order for Iraq to reach bastion status, the security situation (to name but one facet of an completely shattered society) needs to drastically improve. According to you guys, the security situation can only improve through the continued prescence of US and UK troops in Iraq (pulling out, the conventional wisdom goes, will lead to civil war).

Well, pulling out at this point certainly would. After a constitution is created and an Iraqi government is legitimately elected I expect the situation to change. I think at that point Iraqi's Shias will start thinking of the government as "theirs", and with Al Sistani and company urging them on, the Iraqi military and police (with the inevitable new recruits from the Shia mosques) will find a new purpose and will in fighting the "insurgency". I expect this to result in poor treatment for Iraq's Sunnis until the insurgency is brought under control. But it will be brought under control.

What happens thereafter is a crap shoot. In a perfect world there would be some kind of consolidation with the Kurds, and then more moderate members of the Sunni minority would be allowed more influence. Will that happen? Dunno.