Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
2012
unknownj
I'm not sure I'm so keen on this talk of "invasion", and US troops "capturing towns". Especially against a country that hadn't committed an act of aggression against us...

Sixty years ago, the allies liberated, and it was the Nazis who invaded. Draw parallels where you like.

As for sending missiles at Saddam's houses, and those of his family.. Well I'm sure it's just so that they can try to hit him, but I really doubt he'd be there. Sounds a lot more like "we're going to hurt you and everybody you know and love".

And with massive assaults on the capital.. well, let's just say I feel rather like the German anti-war civilians must've felt like in WW2... My country and its allies are doing a terrible thing, and I can only sit back and watch.

I'm still hoping the "coalition of the willing" gets creamed. It's the only thing that will make Bush change his mind about his idiot crusade against 'evil'.

  • 1
(Deleted comment)
In 1936, just as now, there would have been other ways to deal with the threat than just invading the country.

Furthermore, back then there was no UN to go to.

(Deleted comment)
If there was no other way, it was because Germany was a super-power, that's all. Iraq is not a super-power, and can be dealt with by other means.

Same thing as Afghanistan - "Lets blow everything up so that we'll never know if he died or not which is preferable to outright failure"

sorry, man, but;
I'm against Bush too, like you wouldn't believe.
I'm against this war too, cause it's unjustified.
BUT drawing parallels between the Nazis, who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their own people under a dictatorship (and, no matter how you delude yourself with witty rhetoric, America under Bush is SO far from a Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini-esque dictatorship that I can't even begin to explain it), before invading other countries on an unashamedly expansionist policy, and the UK/US who, as much as they want oil and domination over the middle east, ARE reacting to a percieved (whether real or not - none of us have military intelligence) threat to national security, and on behalf of the Iraqi people (who don't want war, but want rid of Saddam like you wouldn't believe - if you don't believe me read http://dear_raed.blogspot.com) is just ridiculous, overreactionary rhetoric. You can't compare every act of unsavoury foreign policy with Hitler. Each instance is unique. New mistakes.
There's a point where we have to realise that protesting is futile, as is complaining and bitching. I'm glad to know that you'd like a 'creaming' of international armed forces. Personally, I'd like a swift, bloodless (or relatively so) victory, with Saddam killed, and a nation-wide UN-supervised election, which installs a democratic government in Iraq, independant from any other country. I just CAN'T believe that the slaughter of hundreds or thousands of Brits, Americans, Turks, and other europeans is worth it to spite one idiot who got into power on daddy's name.
At this point, we just have to accept that this has happened, and hope the casualties are as low as possible. Hope that there are as few needless deaths as possible. Hope that it's over in a few weeks. Hope that there's a victory for COMMON FUCKING SENSE.

I said to draw parallels where you want. All I did was pass comment on the terminology people are using.

The only parallel I used myself was "My country and its allies are doing a terrible thing, and I can only sit back and watch", which is valid enough.

As for the US and UK doing it for the Iraqi people - that was an afterthought, a justification after the decision to go to war had been made. If liberation was the goal, they would have taken that to the United Nations.

There's a point where we have to realise that protesting is futile

Pathetic. No true act of protest is futile. Just because it's finally happening doesn't make it right. What if China, Russia, Germany and France stopped arguing about the war because it was already in place? What sort of message of acceptance would that send the world?

I just CAN'T believe that the slaughter of hundreds or thousands of Brits, Americans, Turks, and other europeans is worth it to spite one idiot who got into power on daddy's name

It's got nothing to do with Bush. It's about the American public. The thing they hate the MOST is the idea that Americans will die in the war. They're all for liberating Iraq, but not at a cost to them.

If the war works, and is bloodless, then that's good. For now. But then Bush will go ahead and work on the next target, and the next after that, and trust me, he's got a list.

If soldiers die, the American public won't stand for it. They won't allow something like this to happen again, because they hate to lose people, and perhaps the momentum of Bush's little crusade will be halted.

Ideally, a US failure with no loss of life would suit me just fine. Alternatively, China, Russia and France outright TELLING the USA that they can't do anything like this works for me. But if any soldiers have to die here (and in war, they do), it would be best for the world if it was coalition soldiers.

Victory for common sense passed long ago. Common sense lost long ago, the best we can hope for at this point is an outcome that means this can't happen again.

And giving up just because the war has started is the lazy cowardly way out. If I disagree with the war, it doesn't matter if it is already happening, I still disagree.

No true act of protest is futile. Just because it's finally happening doesn't make it right.

Hear, hear. True, to protest the start of a war after it's started is futile - but that's only a trivial truth. In deed, the protest simply becomes a protest of the continuation of the war. And in both cases, the heart of the protest is against the war itself.

The thing they hate the MOST is the idea that Americans will die in the war. They're all for liberating Iraq, but not at a cost to them.

Wheww... Very, very broad generalisation. There have been plenty of anti-war protests in the US, protests conducted by Americans, by Americans who hate the idea of anyone dying in a war.

If the US gets "creamed", it won't solve anything. Look at how much was accomplished when Iraq got "creamed" the first time around. Suffering a dramatic loss does not necessarily make for a deterrent.

History has shown that defeated agressors do not suddenly think twice about repeating their aggression. Prussia/Germany, Napoleon, and others, have been great powers that were defeated, and yet their successors elected to try again. Frankly, even a half-hope that anyone gets creamed in this war is nothing to be proud of - especially if you're on the side of a peaceful resolution.

The problem is, polls show quite a bit of support for the war. However, the Americans I know don't support it, nor the Americans that they know... So in order to draw conclusions about what your average pro-war American thinks, I have to watch TV. It's a shame because the media tends to be crap, but still...

And from what I've seen, there's a large chunk of the pro-war population who are very very worried that US troops might be lost in this operation. The general impression I got was that they really didn't want to lose American citizens to this war - it was the same in Afghanistan. In my experience of the American people, nothing cures their bloodlust like a bit of demoralisation about troop losses.

(or it might just galvanize them into trying harder)

As for the remark about getting creamed, it was mostly just an angry outburst after watching yet another Bush address - those things really get on my nerves. But the way I see it is this - if there are to be military casualties, then which side would I rather they were on?

The coalition troops, who have good intentions, but are the aggressors here, and are occupying a country without broad international support.

The Iraqi troops, who believe they are protecting their homeland from invasion by the worst possible nation, who are clearly the underdogs in this conflict.

I can't help but side with the Iraqis. If any soldiers have to die, as far as I'm concerned, I think it would be less wrong if it was coalition troops (doesn't make it right though). Plus, as I said, I think the way to halt the momentum of this whole thing is to make the US public reconsider how much they'd be willing to sacrifice to make Iraq safe.

People have complained that I'm not looking at the bigger picture. Well here's the big picture - Bush needs to be stopped. Afghanistan, now Iraq, then Iran (well, since the troops are in the area..), then North Korea... It needs halting now. The big picture is that this is a very slippery slope, and Bush shows no sign of stopping. He has to lose support either at home, or with his allies.

The way to do that is that either US troops have to lose, and die, or sufficient civilians have to die that his allies can't risk the condemnation of being affiliated with his coalition of the willing. It's a shit situation, but if this continues, it threatens to tear the international community to shreds, and plunge the world into another cold war or something.

The third option, which is what I really hope for, is that France, Russia, Germany and China tell Bush to stop. That'd be good....

And I quote:

"I'm still hoping the "coalition of the willing" gets creamed. It's the only thing that will make Bush change his mind about his idiot crusade against 'evil'."

- The only thing I really have against your arguement. There's a place where protesting becomes more an irrational reflex than a measured decision. This frankly disturbing comment, wishing needless deaths so you can have a moral victory is exactly that, a reflex, irrational hatred of Bush and all associated things.
People always die in war. I'd rather those deaths went to democracy, IE the deaths of those defending the regime.

I've already explained that that comment was a reflex after seeing Bush delusionally rambling on about saving the world, and that there are many eventualities I'd rather see.

However, I'm still on the side of soldiers who are defending their country against an invading force who are acting unprovoked, without international consent (or indeed, without the support of many people in their own countries).

And like I said - in the long run, coalition troops dying will reduce the momentum of this idiot crusade.

I'm still hoping the "coalition of the willing" gets creamed.

Hmm. Shut up.

kthxbi

Is it true?

... Is it really bliss?


(Translation: If you're going to say anything, Mr. We're-spending-120-billion-to-do-the-world-a-favour, then say something worthwhile. Of course, your reply did provide me with this wonderful opportunity to give a someone a nice barb, guilt-free.)

I don't really see the point saying anything worthwhile - I see naive people like you everywhere who can't see the wood for the trees, however much I explain the quite obvious train of thought. Hazy-minded pacifist idiots that would have us all speaking a Japanese/German hybrid seem to have cross-bred with the rest of the population in recent years - to our inevitable downfall. Here's a clue for you, one of your first I suspect: Go read some history. Then, try to understand it. Don't forget to savour that bliss first, though...

I don't really see the point saying anything worthwhile

Sounds like your M.O. ;o)

Recall, if you will, that Germany invaded half of Europe before we stepped into the war. Under similar conditions, I would not be advocating peace. I'm not a pacifist, I just disagree with this war because it's pointless and whimsical.

There we go. That wasn't so hard, was it? Definitely a step up from "Shut up".

Here's a clue for you, one of your first I suspect: Go read some history.

Very well. Let's see... Ah, here we go. "The Vietnam War". Well, yes, quite an insightful read, I must say! Ah, here's another one, "The War of 1812". So that's why the White House is white!

Well, thanks for the clue. I understand now. You have shown me the error in my ways. Star Spangled Banner, anyone?

Sounds a lot more like "we're going to hurt you and everybody you know and love".

Saddam's two son's are essentially as powerful as he is. One is in charge of the elite section of the Republican Guard. They're part of the Iraqi leadership and command structure.

Saddam and his sons are hardly going to be hanging out with family at a time like this. Bombing his wife's palace is just another way to piss him off, nowt more.

Does he even have a wife? I remember seeing an interview from one of his "mistresses" who mentioned he had a few more.. I think he also has daughters, since there was something about him murdering his sons-in-law..

I think when they said family places they were referring to the many huge palaces he has, nothing more..

Well the report I heard said that one of the places they attacked was owned and occupied by his wife. So....

For your metaphor: Remember that America INVADED Europe on D-Day, for the purpose of LIBERATION. Not saying I'm pro or anti-war, but your reference is weak.

I was merely pointing out an interesting fact about the coverage so far. People aren't using the word "liberate" as much as I would hope they would....

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account