Its Time to get IRAQ

by Amazing 87 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Realist: You are not very realistic. You state many historical inaccuracies. Much of your presentation is based on old Marxist propaganda which was designed to deceive and mislead. Historical revisionism is not an uncommon trend, but certainly can be harmful. I will briefly address one example of yours:

    The USA v American Indians: The European colonists who landed in North America were the minority, and often overwhelmed by some tribes. Indian tribes were not all alike. Some were peaceful farmers, and held similar values of land ownership as the Europeans. Some were warrior tribes, and would kill anything they found, including fellow Indians. Some held that all the land belongs to all the people. Some allied themselves with the Europeans to get help to fight other tribes. Eventually, as the Europeans kept arriving and settling, they formed governments that eventually united and became the USA. In time the USA had to deal with Indian wars. The USA did break many treaties, most in fact. Indians also did terrible things, like butcher women and children, burning homes and farms, and making life hell for peaceful European settlers. The USA Army also butchered Indians, including women and children. This is a terrible spot in history with many sides to the story. Eventually, Indians were moved onto Reservations that became smaller and smaller. As an American I am not proud of my ancestors in general or how they treated the Indians. I am also not heppy with how many Indians treated innocent European settlers and expansion. BOTH sides did wrong and both did right. However, that era ended 100 years ago, and has nothing to do with the current American generation and its dealings with Iraq. Using it now is a red herring.

    Use of History: Of course history should give us lessons. But in time mistakes of nations need to be forgiven and forgotten, that is, not forever hung around their necks. Recently, I used German history of the Nazis in another discussion, and one poster felt I was being inflammatory. To me, the Nazi past is still a little too recent in German history, and it was far worse than anything any nation has done, save the Soviet Union's killing of millions more than the Nazis did. But the poster who objected to my citing the Nazis has a point, in that in time, maybe another 10 to 20 years, we will no longer have a legimate basis to cite the Nazis with the then contemporary Germany. By then every last member of that old generation will be dead, and Germans need to live this piece of history down. I think the USA has pretty much lived down its history with the Indians ... and, its history with them was no where near as evil as that between the Nazis and Jews. Rather, the Indians were a much more mixed issue, some having long standing good realations with Europeans, and some were evil. Whereas the Jews were entirely innocent, helpless, and the Nazis were entirely evil.

  • Realist
    Realist

    hello amazing,

    let me just make clear that i am not against the US citizens! what i am against is the double standard in US foreign politics.

    as you said germany is still held responsible for what they did 50 years ago (regardless of if the jews were entirely innocent or not). in 1942 the the war against the indians was also only 50 years ago. therefore i think the US didn't have the right to view themselfs as such highly moral people (at least at that time).

    one difference between the indians and the europeans was that the land belong to the INDIANS and not to the europeans. another is the number of victims. how many indians were killed or starved because of the europeans and how many europeans were killed by indians? i htink this is not really comparable.

    and then lastly, how can you hold hussein accountable for occupying kuwait if you at the same time view it ok for the settlers to take the land from the indians? how is this not a double standard?

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Realist,

    If we want to look back in history then lets discuss Iraq's role as Babylon in the destruction of the Jewish Temple, shouldn't they make restitution?

    Our past in the US is muddied, everyone admits that. We do our best to make up for it now as best we can. Were we to do something like this TODAY. Then you'd have an arguement.

    What is the answer with Iraq? Do we wait for Saddam to get the Bomb and then launch it against Israel and NYC. Do you know how easy it would be for Iraq to slip a cargo ship into NY Harbor with a nuke on it?????

    What's the solution to the current problem?

  • Realist
    Realist

    why would hussein attack the us? that would be idiotic since it would mean his certain destruction.

    the result of arabs having a nuclear weapon would be a stalemate between the US and Israel and the arabs on the other side.

    in this situation the US could not longer do what they wanr...they would have to make agreements with the arabs. i don't think that would be the end of the world.

  • Crazy151drinker
    Crazy151drinker

    Realist,

    (regardless of if the jews were entirely innocent or not).

    Please explain what you meant by this.

    Also, when Saddam gets a nuke (which he will if we dont step in) he will be able to invade any Middle Eastern country and we will not do a damn thing about it. If worse came to worst and we Had to do something about it then ALOT of people would die becuase he would use a nuke to save his ass.

    We need to prevent Saddam from getting nukes and the only way thats going to happen is if we take him out. We need to take the Whole regime out. His sons are just as bad as him.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Yeru,

    : If we want to look back in history then lets discuss Iraq's role as Babylon in the destruction of the Jewish Temple, shouldn't they make restitution?

    Perfect! You just took Realist's lame arguments and slayed him with them!

    Farkel

  • Realist
    Realist

    ok how far in history should we go back ? either we hold every country that acted against humanity in the last 100 years accoutable or none. you cannot say germany, japan, russia, hussein were bad for what they did but in the case of the US, israel, britain say it was either correct or just tooo long ago.

    the jewish world congress declared war on germany after hitler was elected and they put a boykott on germany. it was also the jewish lobby that was interested to get the US into the war and that greatly profited from the war. this is not an excuse for what happened however, to say they were absolutely innocent is not correct. also of course the average jew had nothing to do with the actions of the jewish world congress...but neither did the average german has something to do with what happened during the war.

    if hussein gets a nuke he might invade another arab country...that is true however unlikely. does that give the US the right to intervene? wouldn't that have given the rest of the world the right to bomb israel for it occupation of the arab territories? or france, britain for their colonies? in what respect is that different?

  • freeman
    freeman

    From what I see, the public is a bit divided on this issue. After September 12, I think many more here in the states will be onboard when president Bush in a UN address will present highlights of recent intelligence. Scary stuff I am told.

    Unfortunately I dont have access to raw intelligence, however from what I have gleaned from my personal sources that do, Iraq, in the last 14 months or so has become more of a threat then they were over the last several years. Why? I am told it is because they have regained much of their lost weapon capability and also because of what they retained after the gulf war ended. Most people dont know this but before the gulf war, Iraq had a fully functioning atomic bomb casing. This is a very complex device but is useless without a fissionable payload. Before the gulf war, the only thing they needed to complete this weapon was enough fuel. They had some, but not enough.

    One of the problems with Iraq is not their possession of nuclear or biological weapons, its their propensity to use them against their neighbors and those they have ideological differences with, i.e. Israel.

    Many nations retain nuclear and some even have chemical and biological capability. However all nations to date have shown that the nuke, chemical and biological option is reserved as a very LAST option. Not so with Iraq. Is their anyone that seriously questions the fact that if Saddam has them he will use them, and that if he cant deliver them to his target, he will put them in the hands of those that can?

    I pose this question; why are so many supposed supporters of the UN and its past sanctioned actions in Iraq now allowing virtually every important resolution of the UN signed with the Iraq government to continue to be flouted? Even the UN itself seems very reluctant to enforce its own resolutions. If it doesnt enforce it own resolutions, then exactly what is their function and why must my taxes pay for their continued existence?

    One last point, the cessation of hostilities is a result of a surrender agreement, much of which the Iraqi government is now in clear violation of. So exactly what is to be done about that, nothing?

    The credibility of all UN member nations and the UN itself is now on the line, and I question why other nations seem unprepared to put actions to their words and written agreements. I hate the thought of war, but I sincerely hope it will not be the US and possibly a reluctant Britain be the only nations to stand up once again. And shame on you all if it is.

    Freeman

    Edited by - freeman on 10 September 2002 9:54:31

    Edited by - freeman on 10 September 2002 9:56:52

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit