US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out)

Agreed. None of this addresses what I said. I was against the Iraq War and feel the next gov't will not necessarily be the best they could have had.To use that to argue we should end the occupation is to be willfully ignorant in support of a grand theory which even if well meaning is dangerously naive.When Katrina came through and knocked out the internal resources of New Orleans it was vital to move in new resources that could deal with the chaos so that local order could be restored. Without them NO would still be in chaos.Just because we created the chaos in Iraq, does not change the fact that Iraqis are in no position to "move in" new resources so that local order can be restored. We are the best equipped to do so and already in theater.We create the buffer that will allow Iraqis interested in restoring order, to do just that.If you have a practical suggestion on how Iraqis should stand up for themselves without our help at this time, I would be interested in hearing it.I think its funny that there are many people critical of the US for not helping in natural and manmade disasters that result in the same catastrophes, yet criticize our doing so here. It doesn't have to be and it likely never will be. I wish it were because I hate war. How can "we" change "policy" when war is the result of the fact that there is no such thing as we, and policies are sometimes fought with violence if necessary. Essentially you are stating what everyone since the beginning of time has stated: if everyone were to think the same thing (usually the same as me) then there will be peace.But that cannot happen. Wars certainly would end if we all agree to be good Xians and live by the values of fundamentalists. Would you agree to that if it meant an end to war? Or when they came for you as a thought criminal (or worse) would you stand as their enemy and fight to defend your way of life?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

we are not assisting the government in iraq. we are just getting ourselves killed. if we really wanted to stop the insurgents, we'd demonstrate our force in the area by moving our troops to the borders and putting pressure on the neighboring countries (where the insurgency is getting it's support).war is not the result of person issues. war is the result of national differences that could easily be solved in other ways if they understood that violence wasn't an option. murder and massacre are not war.

Are you honestly telling me that Iraq would be better off right now with none of our troops in there, and that we are actually preventing a new gov't from forming?If you wish to say that we could be doing a better job, then you are right. Of course to do a better job and especially using the suggestion you have made would involve a much more massive number of troops to be moved there. That might be possible if there was not a huge number of people suggesting that the best way to help the Iraqis and protest the Iraq War is to pull troops out.As it stands you seem to not know much about the situation. While some of the insurgents are coming from or getting assistance from neighboring countries, there are also groups within Iraq that are fighting us. IEDs do not require assistance from outside. Closing off the borders would not necessarily end the insurgency.I might also add that your very recommendation undercuts your original position and supports mine. What is putting pressure on someone using military assets, other than war or threat of war? But that is the problem with your theory, war is an option. War will almost always be an option. Whether its the worst or the best will depend on the person's point of view, but it is always there. And even if it seems one of the worst (in terms of lives lost) it is sometimes necessary.Can I ask how the Iraqis were going to remove Hussein themselves without war of some kind?If China invades Taiwan, what are the Taiwanese to do?Nations are like persons in that they have ways of doing things and some of them are violent. Recommending that war is never an option and would end if people would just realize it is like suggesting people should not learn self defense because there is no reason for violence and things like fights and rape will never happen if we just realize we don't need them.Its a nice idea, but people think and feel differently and will be willing to commit to violent action whether you want them to or not.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

but war is not violence. well. it is violent but it's inherently different. it's a different method of placing great economic pressures on another society in order to force a policy shift in your favor. genocide, rape, and other crimes are different.and yes. if we pulled our troops out of the cities and placed them at the borders, it would be better. our troops are doing NOTHING but being killed in the cities. if the iraqis want democracy, they have to do it themselves... that's why it's called RULE BY THE PEOPLE. if the people don't demand it, it will never work.

Agreed, though it may also be a physical removal of a threatening military or political entity, with no interest on economics. Our war in Afghanistan was not about economic pressure, neither was our war in Germany and Japan. There is no way that we can put our troops on all the borders, especially with the numbers we have and the realities of the communities in certain areas. If you have some different info I'd like to see what it is.And whether we are doing the right things in cities or not to ensure greater safety for our troops is an open question, but they are doing more than just getting killed. That is a patently ridiculous claim. They are there doing multiple different things and in the course of their activities they are getting killed. But that is what military assets in a dangerous area face.Many more Iraqis than US troops are getting killed. Would you argue that all they are doing is being killed? That's pretty damn heartless. Analogously then if the people of New Orleans wanted democracy, they should have just done it themselves? If the poor want to be rich they just have to work harder?The fact is we wrecked their central system of gov't and much of the physical infrastructure. That doesn't just come back online by people "wanting" it. There is poverty and there is destruction which hampers clean reorganization and there is rampant crime as well as violent insurgents (some which will NOT be shut off by guarding borders). Iraqis at this time need protection while setting up a gov't and infrastructure which will not collapse at its first test.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

it doesn't have to be about economics. i didn't say anything about being 'about economics'. war is expensive. when a country can no longer afford the expense, they will fold to the dominant policy.i don't care if it's heartless. the only reason we have a democracy is because we wanted it and we fought for it. we had no guarantees; we had no protection. you can't install democracy. oh and democracy has nothing to do with economic equality. it has to do with suffrage, enfranchisement. a vote is all democracy guarantees. capitalism guarantees a free market with opportunity for anyone to make it big if they work hard enough... or at least that is the idea. if you don't like it, then change your vote to socialism.you have to understand. it's not that i don't want to help them, it is simply that democracy can only work if the people demand it and are willing to give their lives for it. notice the people of iraq aren't in the streets fighting for their new constitution. you remember how this country started? you remember how france got rid of their monarchy? you see that democracy isn't working in russia? why? because you can't install it. it has to be won.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-21-2005 03:27 PMThis message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-21-2005 04:13 PM

Check again, that is exactly what you said. How else is anyone supposed to interpret a comment that war is a different way of applying great economic pressure on another to induce change of policy? We also did not have a manmade disaster to deal with... they do. They had no infrastructure or mechanisms for employing solutions on a mass scale.To try and make comparisons between a relatively rich country with a functioning system (the US circa 1780), and an impoverished nonnation on the point of chaos without any system at all (these people didn't even have complete electricity, much less records and communication systems) is simple absurd. That is true. Capitalism does NOT guarantee a free market at all. That is the problem with capitalism. Working hard is not guaranteed to make one succeed. You might try and show me where capitalism says that.Even in communism hard work is supposed to get you benefits of some kind... in theory.What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand? WTF??? Where to start?1) The US and even France did not achieve victory all on their own. You do understand that right?
2) This has nothing to do with whether people in a crisis situation (which is what Iraqis are in) need help during their crisis
3) You are now arguing for war which is the exact opposite position from where you started.You claim people must give your life in war for democracy, and criticize Iraqis for not being in the streets fighting for a new constitution. How is that consistent AT ALL with your original position that war is not necessary and people need to realize that?Its seems that you are now arguing that everyone needs to fight if they are to have democracy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Afghanist an's Karzai condemns Taliban body burning (click) This is another violation of the Geneva Convention.Where is the public outrage from our elected officials? Specifically the leader of this country?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

exactly. that's why i said 'to induce a change of policy'.we didn't have electricity when we gained our independence.it guarantees a free market, not a fair market.
and the idea behind capitalism is that one mustn't be of noble birth to succeed. why do you think they invented it? because suddenly people weren't satisfied with what had always been... aristocracy and serfs. so people worked harder and made more than they needed. boom. capitalism. thus. if you work hard enough, you can succeed. if you work 3 jobs and take classes in your "spare" time and don't sleep and you are smart and advance to managerial positions in your work and you graduate and you apply to the right places and you work really hard... you too can take over the world. yes it takes some amount of luck but much less than being born into the right family. i didn't say it was easy, i said it took work. at least that's how it's supposed to go. but then i don't really like capitalism either.i said willing to fight... even if merely by words. but then i don't like democracy. i like oligarchy, i like monarchy. i don't think people are smart enough to rule themselves. i know the us and france didn't achieve freedom on their own. but they didn't have it installed for them. the iraqis had nothing to do with the decision to make iraq a democracy. this country has been a puppet show since it's inception. these are tribal people. sure they've had cities long before we ever did, but they are not like us. they are not at the place where democracy will be useful to them. it's a whole different world. they wouldn't have a crisis if we'd minded our own business. oh sure big mean evil dictator. if desire for change had been great enough, they'd have done something no matter how big and scary he was.besides. now that the majority in iraq will have rule (if the whole debacle actually works) it'll be the same majority as our enemies. oh great. put in a democracy to empower a people who will ally with our enemies. brilliant.under the current world mindset, yes, war is a reality. but, it is not human nature; it is a learned response. if we learn better responses, war will end.and i don't know how this has anything to do with anything. i tried to answer the questions you asked me. if they led off topic, that's not my fault.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-21-2005 07:14 PM

I am definitely stunned by the positions and arguments you are using here. Yes we did not have electricity when we gained independence, but we didn't need it either, given that our living conditions were maintained without electricity.In modern Iraq many things, many important things to standard living conditions, require electricity. To pretend that when electricity goes down a modern nation can function as normal is almost delusional. That is not to mention the overt lack of food, water (in part because of the electricity), distribution of goods, and command/control of a defense force (police and military).These people were in a crisis situation. The equivalent of a natural disaster which took out all there gov't agencies on top of infrastructure. In 1780s US, they had all of their infrastructure and gov't intact... and they STILL needed foreign help. You lost me on that one. Captialism was not invented by the US. The concept of free markets had existed, even within feudal states. Although feudalism did effect taxation, and perhaps some licensing, it was mainly a political/power structure like democracy is. While the lower working class was screwed, there were merchants and craftsmen who functioned like today and made profits, vast profits.Your limitation was how you rose to "political" power, not economic. I think your comments are sort of comic given that much of the capitalist world is still monarchical. You are definitely limited in the Netherlands how high you can go in society simply by birth. No, even that extreme will not guarantee anything. I think the catch was "advance to managerial positions". Work and smarts do not generally help that, and sometimes can hinder it. Connections are better than anything else.I think we can look at who is currently leading this nation and who he has working at all of his appointed positions to refute your claims on this. ??? You are pretty ignorant. I can only assume you know absolutely no Iraqis. Tribal? Not like us? Not at a point where democracy is useful to them? I just can't believe what I am reading.I do agree that this has been thrust upon them unfairly. But that is a case of timing and mechanism, not whether it could succeed nor whether they might want it. It also says nothing about why we shouldn't be there now that the invasion occured.We cannot go back in time. If so I'd say yes let's not invade, like I said the first time around. Pulling troops now will not change what happened. What it will do is remove assets that are helping people out of a crisis situation. How can that help them? Totally agreed on this. But STOP LIVING IN THE PAST! The question I am addressing is not what we should have done (where I agree), it is what to do now. How will pulling troops out help them out of the crisis that they are in now because of us? War has existed since humans have existed. Indeed other species war on others. If you have some evidence to support this claim I'd like to see it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Margaret Mead, John Vasquez, John Alcock, Patrick Bateson, Stuart Bremer, the entire study of war... war is learned. sorry. it's the accepted field standard.

quote:

---

??? You are pretty ignorant. I can only assume you know absolutely no Iraqis. Tribal? Not like us? Not at a point where democracy is useful to them? I just can't believe what I am reading.

​

I do agree that this has been thrust upon them unfairly. But that is a case of timing and mechanism, not whether it could succeed nor whether they might want it. It also says nothing about why we shouldn't be there now that the invasion occured.

---

the wymar government failed in germany for two reasons. it was installed by a minority and foreign powers and had no support from the people, and the economy was a disaster. the people wanted a strong leader. when one arose, they embraced him because he stood for something.democracy doesn't work unless the people initiate it. we've seen it in latin america; we've seen it in europe; we've seen it in africa. and yet you still ignore it. if a people want to rule, they have to demonstrate that they can by sheer force of will. they don't have that, and i'll bet they want a strong leader. will we get a new dictator? probably.i'm not suggesting that we flat leave iraq. but we need to leave the cities. we are murdering our own children to assist a people who aren't working for the goal you claim they want. the best way to control the insurgents is to block resources from coming to them from neighboring countries. the way to do that is to park at the borders, not sit like ducks in the cities. we don't even have to cover the whole of the borders, just put pressure on each. we just have to let the neighbor states know that we understand that this is a regionally strategic activity, not a singular nation rebirth.when i say they're not like us and i say they are tribal, i mean that each family, each city has a single paternal leader. they are culturally distinct from us. if you deny that you are a fool. by not at a point for democracy i do not mean that they are lower or less evolved or whatever bullshit. i just mean they are on a different path from us and a great deal would have to change for them to be on our path... what's more, i don't think they should be on our path. bunch of fucking automotons people want this world to be. disgusting.if i'm so ignorant, why can't you read? and why am i quoting people from the field while you're tripping the life ideological?

Wow what a brilliant response. Brilliant in that it is glaringly obvious as a logical fallacy. How on earth did you ever think that a list of names and a blank assertion would work as an argument?I studied war, it isn't learned... unless you are discussing tactics and strategy?As a start maybe you can describe where ants learn militancy. I'm not ignoring shit, but you seem to be ignoring the contents of my posts. I agree that people have to initiate and maintain a democracy.The point... if you will please read this carefully and understand it... is that the US has already removed the gov't of Iraq. In doing so we not only set up a political crisis, but a very real life crisis. There is much that must be done to keep the cities operating and not allowed to fall into chaos which would be much much worse.Now eventually a gov't must replace the old one. A gov't must replace the void that currently exists, or chaos will reign and the humanitarian catastrophe will be enormous.I think I am quite on record that I don't believe the next gov't will be truly democratic. Though of course they might pull on off in time. Regardless of the nature of the next gov't, pretty much ANY gov't will be better than pure chaos and a humanitarian catastrophe. As such we have a duty to help Iraqis put into place some gov't so that it can function and not collapse. Heheheh. I notice you switched from they to we. You are probably right. WE will get a new dictator. Americans have been clamoring to hand more power to the gov't for a long time. Most do want a new gov't. The question is which kind. They are working for it. Iraqis are being blown up in greater numbers than US citizens as they work for that system.As far as your strategy it is devoid of facts. Being outside a city does not magically make us less vulnerable to attack. And as I have said there are insurgents and criminals within the cities which have no connection to outside nations. Pulling out of cities will do nothing but create a power vacuum which criminals and insurgents will be free to operate within.Hey, I think it would be great to pull our troops out asap, and out of cities before that. But what is required is a force to replace our own first. That's the p in asap. Yes they have a different culture. The idea that it is incompatible or indicative of whether they would enjoy democracy is foolish. Calling it tribal is ridiculous.Frankly I don't know what the majority wants, but they will not be getting a true democracy anyway because of our own security concerns.I also do not think they have to have a democracy to be alright. As much as I like republics, I believe there are many different types of gov'ts which can work okay... even if I wouldn't want to be a part of them.That does not change the fact that they need a new gov't and an infrastructure of some kind before we leave. What quotes? Where? I am telling you what I know from ordinary Iraqis as well as people from many different fields. I have yet to see anything from you that was consistent with that.Maybe if you provided some pertinent quotes, and better than that, some solid arguments with data, I might be encouraged to believe you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Heheheh. I notice you switched from they to we. You are probably right. WE will get a new dictator. Americans have been clamoring to hand more power to the gov't for a long time.

---

i meant will the world have to deal with him, but yes i agree.

quote:

---

Calling it tribal is ridiculous.

---

i don't mean like living in huts and painting themselves tribal. i mean like " A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.".there's a book you should read. John Vasquez - The War Puzzle.then talk to me.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-22-2005 01:46 PM

How is that not true of America? Another winning argument. Okay, if/when I get the time and find the book I'll read it.But regardless of that, I have already presented an example and you should be talking to me about it yourself. Ants have wars. If wars are only learned behaviors, please explain this phenomena.There will be more to follow.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/...of all the animals in the world, ants are the only other example of war you can bring up? if that's so, then i think we're doing pretty good with war being learned. either way. you're going to excuse war as determined for perpetuity because ants do it too? chimps practice genocide. is that excusable then? ducks rape, even rape their dead fellows. so are we going to just accept that it's going to happen and there is nothing we can do about it? i'm not. i refuse to believe that we can't overcome the practice of war whether it is learned or intrinsic. however. animal precursors of human activities are not sufficient proof that humans are prone to them, or that they are not learned. some animals sleep in caves... precursor of seeking shelter. cause no one wants to get rained on. so does that mean we instinctually build houses? no. chimps and some birds and other critters fish worms and grubs and ants out of hard to reach places with sticks. is fishing with a line thus instinctual, or did we learn it? sure testosterone and other hormones lead to agression in humans. does this mean that war is the natural result? does the warring of ants over territory and resources mean that we as 'higher,' sentient, calculating creatures can't find other ways to settle our difference? i refuse. i think it is learned and i'm going to do everything in my power to see that we unlearn it. changed display lenth of URL to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-22-2005 02:31 PMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 10-22-2005 01:37 PM