Adam

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 259 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Adam

• 
  6

  What do you think?

  by Adam in

  1. social
  2. current

  i've heard several comments on this site about how oppressive dictatorship and lopping heads of women, while repugnant to us, is simply part and parcel of the culture in the middle east.

  about how we should not be trying to force freedom on the people of iraq because the freedom and happiness known by the average joe in western culture is directly at odds with the culture of the middle east.

  about how even thought many hate saddam they will fight on his side against the us and brittan because they see it as our culture vs their culture instead of as a liberation from opression and forced poverty.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  Obviously your answer is no.

  To clarify, I am not saying I think that the answer is yes, I was just asking a question to see what people thought. I should also point out that I'm not talking about a power grab by the US or even specificly about the current war. I'm talking about the free and open culture that exists in nearly all of Europe and North America, as well as in places like Japan and South Korea and how it is obviously more progressive and contributes more toward the future of humankind as opposed to the culture, prevalent in the Middle East but in existance elsewhere, where a severe minority accumulates all the wealth at the cost of placing the rest of the socity in abject poverty and keeps all the power, using it to brutalize and quell the populace thru fear. Also, even if the answer is yes, I don't believe we've yet reached that "point" that I speak of in my original post.
• 
  6

  What do you think?

  by Adam in

  1. social
  2. current

  i've heard several comments on this site about how oppressive dictatorship and lopping heads of women, while repugnant to us, is simply part and parcel of the culture in the middle east.

  about how we should not be trying to force freedom on the people of iraq because the freedom and happiness known by the average joe in western culture is directly at odds with the culture of the middle east.

  about how even thought many hate saddam they will fight on his side against the us and brittan because they see it as our culture vs their culture instead of as a liberation from opression and forced poverty.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  I've heard several comments on this site about how oppressive dictatorship and lopping heads of women, while repugnant to us, is simply part and parcel of the culture in the Middle East. About how we should not be trying to force freedom on the people of Iraq because the freedom and happiness known by the average Joe in Western culture is directly at odds with the culture of the Middle East. About how even thought many hate Saddam they will fight on his side against the US and Brittan because they see it as our culture VS their culture instead of as a liberation from opression and forced poverty. About how, when taken in the context with, and with an understanding of, Middle Eastern culture, the suicide killings of innocent women and children is not so incoprehensable as a way of forwarding one's cause. My question is this:

  Is there a point where one widely practiced culture becomes so overwhelmingly more progessive and benificial than another, when viewed thru the scope the history of humankind, that it becomes moraly acceptable (or even moraly required) for the higher culture to make an effort to phase out the lower one for the sake of the future of the people stuck in that culture and for humankind in general?
• 
  9

  Human Shield: "I Was Wrong"

  by Double Edge in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting change of heart as reported in the london daily telegraph:.

  "i was a naive fool to be a human shield for saddam".

  by daniel pepper.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  I've heard Iraqi's say "all Iraqis this" and "all Iraqis that." Just because this guy used the term all Iraqis dosen't plant doubt in my head. Doubt was already there. I doubt nearly every report I hear, wherever it comes from. But regardless of the credibility of this single story, it does show a side of this issue that a lot of idealistic liberals don't want to hear. It's good for them to read this.
• 
  9

  Iraq!!!....Will JW's go to where the 'need is greatest' after the war?

  by digderidoo in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after iraq has been invaded/liberated.....will congregations begin to sprout up?

  at the end of the cold war the witnesses increased their numbers in the eastern bloc quite dramatically from what i remember.. will the same happen in iraq?.

  who will go to 'spread the good news'?....how many will say 'here i am send me'?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  But Gopher, you forget. Every single last living person on the earth must have a chance to hear and reject the true word from the humble Witnesses before Jehovah can brutally murder 99% of humanity. So the "work" MUST go into the Middle East.
• 
  9

  Iraq!!!....Will JW's go to where the 'need is greatest' after the war?

  by digderidoo in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after iraq has been invaded/liberated.....will congregations begin to sprout up?

  at the end of the cold war the witnesses increased their numbers in the eastern bloc quite dramatically from what i remember.. will the same happen in iraq?.

  who will go to 'spread the good news'?....how many will say 'here i am send me'?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  Ohh, I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, that area has enough religious extremists already and doesn't need any more. On the other hand, extremists of the JW kind don't committ suicide bombings against innocent people. Lesser of two evils I guess. Lets hope Bill Gates goes over there and converts them all into secular entrepreneurs.
• 
  10

  Time for a Negotiated Settlement?

  by ISP in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  surely it is?.

  the coalition has the entire country overun...with just a few principal cities in the control of iraqis.

  the coalition should be able to determine what wmd exist.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  P.S.

  "Its going to take too long, cost too much money, and kill too many innocent people, so cutting a deal is worth considering."

  I'm sure Saddam's pet, the Iraqi misinformation minister, would be happy to know that his propaganda machine has worked so well with you.
• 
  10

  Time for a Negotiated Settlement?

  by ISP in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  surely it is?.

  the coalition has the entire country overun...with just a few principal cities in the control of iraqis.

  the coalition should be able to determine what wmd exist.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  Saddam has killed more innocent people than the US ever will in this war no matter how long it lasts. He will continue to do so unless something is done. If you truely valued human life, you would support a regime change in Iraq. The only way that is going to happen is by force. Negotiating with Saddam is an exercise in futility.
• 
  62

  Opposing war = passive support?

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  before everyone gets all huffy about another war thread, i tried to reply in the original thread, but it buggered up.

  simon, if you want to move it there and get rid of this thread, please do.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  H S,

  Not at all an attack on your points made above. I simply did not want Trauma Hound to go off about why we're not liberating other opressed people or about how it's not the US's job to liberate them or any other anti-US, anti-Bush, or anti-war issue. I wanted him to stick very specificly to my quesiton and used your response as an example of what I was hoping not to get from him.

  Not interested in a discussion about alternatives to war in Iraq at the moment as the war is already on and the discussion moot, but thank you for the invitation.
• 
  62

  Opposing war = passive support?

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  before everyone gets all huffy about another war thread, i tried to reply in the original thread, but it buggered up.

  simon, if you want to move it there and get rid of this thread, please do.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  Trauma Hound,

  Please use the example of Hillary Step of how NOT to respond to the question. Using irrelevant rhetoric to divert from the subject of question will only make you look lame and unable to defend your position. I seriously would like to hear your views on how to solve the humanitarian problem without the use of force.
• 
  62

  Opposing war = passive support?

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  before everyone gets all huffy about another war thread, i tried to reply in the original thread, but it buggered up.

  simon, if you want to move it there and get rid of this thread, please do.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Adam

  Trauma Hound,

  Obviously you are concerned about the people in Iraq. More than once I have heard you mention the harm that depleted uranium shells are causing. I must assume then that you are also appalled by the children who have been orphaned when their fathers have been killed as suspected enemies of the paranoid dictator. You must weep at the starvation and malnutrition brought on by misappropriated funds and by the sanctions from the world community that the current regime has brought on its self. The thousands and thousands of soldiers that have died in agressive wars against neighbors must break your heart. Since you care so greatly about the welfare of the citizens of Iraq, you must desperatly want to put an immediate end to the death and misery. I would like to know what your solution to the problem is? Sanctions have not worked. Popular, internal uprisings have not worked. Begging, asking, requesting, and demanding all have not worked. What is the answer? If you could please refrain from listing all of the things that America has done wrong in it's dealings with Iraq and keep to answering the question I would appreciate it.