How the hell did Bush get back in??

Re: History

What rubbish , you cannot be serious. As the population of the US is so big , this is much more extreme than even claiming Cork and Kerry have an average IQ on 89, and voted SF, and Antrim has an average IQ of 110, and voted DUP.

To get back to Iraq, foreigh terror groups are exploiting Iraqi civilians for their own ends , against the coalition forces. The US wants peace , the UK wants peace, they want to establish free elections and be out of there. Did you know there was another election last week. It was in Afghanistan, and it was successful. If it were not for the US and UK, the Taliban would still be in control there, allowing Bin Laden free reign to run terror training camps etc. Perhaps the likes of Piggy and Marie would prefer if this were still the case ?

By the way Marie, stop whining about the injustices done by the Brits 400 years ago. They done much good as well, in times which were not perfect anywhere in the world. At least they are standing up to oppression now in the past century better than many of the other old colonialists eg France and Spain - who stood up to ( and defended others from ) the Nazi in WW2 , the Russians in the Cold War, Saddam after he invaded Kuwait , etc?

IRA

But Marie, the IRA grew out of the grass roots resistance movements that opposed the plantation of Ulster (circa 1600) and the occupation of this island by the Brits!

Their lineage can be traced back beyond the United Irishmen and Wolffe Tone in the 1790's, all the way to the 1642 attempt by Owen Roe O’Neill and a small army from Spain to kick the Brits out.

This fact raises uncomfortable questions.

Given your stated recognition of the FACT that people will fight for their land, and that the IRA are merely a continuance of that struggle, you tacitly support the IRA by recognising the right of a native people to resist occupation! Thats the logical extension of your argument.

Or do you think that there should in fact be limits to this perpetual resistance...as the IRA themselves seem to have concluded?
If so, why not in Iraq?

I'm not familiar with your own shade of politics, but normally the liberals on this BB (the type of people who jump to criticise the US) would also be right quick to damn the IRA and all their works.

So, as I said before, it will be interesting to see you struggle with the dilemma you've now presented yourself with...on the one hand terrorism (Iraqi resistance) is only to be expected, therefore condoned in a way...and on the other hand (the IRA) it is condemnable under all circumstances and cannot EVER be rationalised or excused under any circumstances.

So which is it?

Please someone explain this dichotomy to me...I'm fascinated to know the difference.

Re: History

Its not a question of which is it. Both are / were wrong.
The IRA did not have the support of most of the Irish people.
The insurgents in Iraq do not have the support of most of the Iraqi people. Full stop.

IRA

Hi Rabbit. Replying to my post might confuse Dan the Man, he thinks we are one in the same. :lol

I'm not sure your answer reflects what Marie said.
Maybe its what she meant though.
Perhaps you should allow her to answer for herself?

However I agree with your comment, and I'm sure most people would too...given that the alternative is a position of pure hypocrisy.

I suppose everyone will therefore gladly join me in wishing the US forces every success in the upcoming assault on the terrorist stronghold in Fallujah, and in calling for the insurgents to lay down their guns first to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.

Dons tin hat and retreats to bunker.

Re: IRA

Given your stated recognition of the FACT that people will fight for their land, and that the IRA are merely a continuance of that struggle, you tacitly support the IRA by recognising the right of a native people to resist occupation! Thats the logical extension of your argument.

I'd be very surprised if that was Marie's point.

I think you need to differentiate between the Old IRA and the splinter group of the 1960's.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iri...he_Old_IRA

As for support that the Republican movement had, it was widespread.

"However public opinion shifted gradually, initially over the executions without due process of 16 senior leaders--some of whom, such as James Connolly, were too ill to stand--and people thought complicit in the rebellion. As one observer described the drawn out process of executing the leaders of the rising, it was like watching blood seep from behind a closed door. Opinion shifted even more in favor of the Republicans in 1917-18 with the Conscription Crisis, when Britain tried to impose conscription on Ireland to boost its World War I war effort."

But this debate is not about the IRA. Marie is merely drawing a comparison. You're looking at Iraq purely from a Western perspective, but it's not happening in the West. It's happening in the Middle East. When you begin to try to look at it from their perspective then you might begin to understand the point Marie was making.

Love of freedom and democracy
Christian ideals
Caring loving father
God on my side
Straight shootin' son of a gun

thats why

why Bush?

Given your stated recognition of the FACT that people will fight for their land, and that the IRA are merely a continuance of that struggle, you tacitly support the IRA by recognising the right of a native people to resist occupation! Thats the logical extension of your argument.

Or do you think that there should in fact be limits to this perpetual resistance...as the IRA themselves seem to have concluded?
If so, why not in Iraq?

Asimov - If we go back to the invasion of Iraq by the coalition (USA and UK) this was objected to at the time (by Hans Bick and by Koffe Annan to name but two) as unprovoked and unjustified aggression. Diplomacy and the work of the Weapons Inspectors was de-escalating the Iraq "problem" which all would agree was one Saddam Hussein, who is a brutal, ruthless and autocratic tyrant. However - and most importantly - he ruled Iraq at a specific historic moment of transition from tribal to centralised state system, and that's a tricky business!

Bush and Blair tried to sell the invasion of Iraq as (1) a necessary pre-emptive strike to prevent the free world being blown up by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (which did not exist); (2) a defense of the freedom, justice and equality of the Iraqi people who were being "freed" from the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

However - and this was the point of my allusion to the Irish precedent - the Iraqi people themselves were not consulted before Iraq was to the amazement of the entire world who watched on T.V. and were aware Bush and Blair had no mandate from their respective nations and no evidence base justifying their attack. Thus summarily occupied by foreign soldiers ("infidels" who did not respect the holy places or know anything of their language or culture) the Iraqis watched their energy resources commandeered by the occupying forces, their ruler (however unsavoury he was, he WAS their head of state!) removed and imprisoned as a war criminal, followed by their freedom of movement severely curtailed, their jobs lost as the infrastructure was supplanted by Saddam Hussein's enemies driven abroad in establishment of the regime. To their protests at the "invasion" they were told it was "war". Then at the discretion of Bush and Blair, the "war" was declared "over" as abruptly as it had begun.......since when they have continued to have to stand by and watch their homes and cities flattened by bombs, their families and neighbours killed........

So my point in response to a posting which suggested the Iraqis should now submit and throw down their weapons before more people were killed was this. If you are aggressively attacked and outraged and violated, if the attacker goes so far that death is almost preferable to how awful life has become, if you have been a shopkeeper or a teacher or a mother and your life has been upended for reasons you cannot understand and not of your making........you then take up (not lay down!) arms because you have nothing further to lose; everything has already been lost. This is big trouble........and by he looks of things Iraq is going to be very big trouble and the coalition is now outpaced by events in what is turning into a long-drawn-out guerrilla resistance!

One of many analogies from history which came to mind was the Irish situation at the beginning of the Plantation which other posters have picked up very ably.

The Iraqis were not insurgents, terrorists, when the coalition entered the country. They will be before the coalition leaves. Bush and Blair have created this and my posting was taking issue with the view that the Iraqis themselves had somehow created the mayhem. This inversion of truth is being manufactured and manipulated by the media and what were short months ago ordinary people going about their lives are now gunmen, thugs and enemies of freedom connected somehow with Isama Bin Laden (who many of them - like many of us - had never heard of until the 9/11 terrorist attack).

If I'm defending anything Asimov, I'm defending peoples right to not be embroiled in murder and mayhem not of their making or choosing.

as a postscript, perhaps Bush "got back in" because the USA needed to manufacture some backyard far away into which to deposit the excess of aggression fear and frustration in which it now drowns. Iraq, Afghanistan, in fact anywhere with "different" values will do as a receptacle for this, and Bush is the "act-don't-think" agent for this?

Re: why Bush?

President Bush got back in because the majority of votors in the most powerful country on earth wanted him to. They know freedom is precious because they have fought so hard for it in the past. If it was not for America, the likes of Piggy and Marie would be speaking German or Russian. The Americans established their own standard of living, they did not get it from anywhere else , by way of grants or factories from bigger neighbours.

As regards the IRA, they certainly do or did not have majority support in this island, any more than the insurgents / terrorists have popular support in Iraq. In 1915, the IRA was booed on the streets of Dublin. Many more Irishmen choose to fight in WW1 and WW2 in British uniforms than ever joined the IRA. The US, UK , Polish, Australian etc troops are in Iraq at the request of the govt. there, until free and fair elections are held. This is what most Iraqis want. Who killed those 21 Iraqi policemen in cold blood a few days ago - it was the insurgents, not the US or UK. Who saws off heads with penknives ? - it is not the US or UK.

If it was not for America, the likes of Piggy and Marie would be speaking German or Russian.

Click to expand...

I have heard variations of this so frequently. It must be such an insult to those (non-American) soldiers who did fight in WWI & WWII.

Re: why Bush?

a shto luchelas pruski?

Re: why Bush?

Who killed those 21 Iraqi policemen in cold blood a few days ago - it was the insurgents, not the US or UK. Who saws off heads with penknives ? - it is not the US or UK.

You have the most black and white view of the world I've ever seen.
Do some Googling for victims of the bombing campaigns in Iraq from 1991 to the present day. Many of the pictures of children with most of their limbs missing will turn your stomach.
One form of murder does not outweigh another form.

I think you need to differentiate between the Old IRA and the splinter group of the 1960's.

Click to expand...

Are you splitting hairs Piggy?

Its important to differentiate?

WHY?

Is one terrorist more legitimate than another terrorist?
Who decides their legitimacy?

Let me play Devils Advocate for a moment.....

The 'modern' IRA (your 'splinter group') came about as a result of persecution and disenfranchisement in NI. Persecution that didn't finish when the ROI had secured independance for itself.
The fact that you (or anyone in the ROI) doesn't agree with the IRA is myopic and beside the point. They had widespread support in the areas and communities that were sufferring persecution. I know because I lived there and experienced it first hand. Were the nationalists of NI to simply sit down,shut up,and fade away because you were alright Jack?

By the standards outlined by Marie (...you are aggressively attacked and outraged and violated... the attacker goes so far that death is almost preferable to how awful life has become... your life has been upended for reasons you cannot understand and not of your making...) the modern IRA had a perfect right to resist, and were, by her standards, entitled to fight!

The 'Old' IRA carried on a murder campaign to further their aims. What makes them different from the modern IRA? The fact that they were succesful?

The point I'm making is...if you DO think the Iraqi insurgents are legitimate, then you legitimise the IRA, and ETA, and the Red Army Faction, and all the other nutjobs who choose to take up arms and murder indiscriminately.

Be honest with yourselves....maybe you truly believe that terrorism is excusable when the provocation is sufficient?

It reminds me of that old GB Shaw story.
He's in a train carriage with a very attractive young lady. He asks her...'my dear, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?'
She smiles and says..."well, for a million pounds... yes!"
So he asks, 'would you sleep with me for ten pounds?'.
To which she replies angrily...'What do you think I am, a prostitute?'
'We've already established that' says Shaw, 'now we're just haggling over the price'!

What is the price of your principals on terrorism?
If you can see an excuse for it at all then you have accepted the principal and now all you are doing is haggling over the body count.

I detect a whiff of ambivalence, if not glee at seeing Americans getting a good hard kicking.

if you DO think the Iraqi insurgents are legitimate

There's a subtle differnce between understanding why something naturally exists and legitimising it.

f you can see an excuse for it at all then you have accepted the principal and now all you are doing is haggling over the body count.

What's the difference between terrorists killing innocents and governments killing innocents?

The point I want to make here is that I see no difference between those in Iraq killing (call them what you will) and American soldiers killing. The spin might be different but the result is the same. But then you might hold a different view if you believe that the British and Americans are there to bring freedom, democracy and the Amercian way to the poor people of Iraq. Frankly I don't.

very Good Post Asimov.

President Bush got back in because the majority of votors in the most powerful country on earth wanted him to.

Click to expand...

Makes me wonder where you put China in that list. I think in a war between the two, the US would be hammered.
Economically, China is getting there. In fact, the US would be in big trouble if China changed to link their currency against the Euro instead of the dollar.
The US would also be in big trouble if the price of oil was linked to the Euro, but with the close Saudi ties in the current administration, I don't think that is likely.

They know freedom is precious because they have fought so hard for it in the past.

Click to expand...

I am sure the people of central and South America would have a different opinion to that.
They done very little that was not in the interests of themselves. Full Stop!
A matter of fact, one of the few things I think they done for the good of the world with nothing in return is the Marshall plan, but I could be wrong, because they got to open loads of military bases in return.

If it was not for America, the likes of Piggy and Marie would be speaking German or Russian.

Click to expand...

I am sick of posting about this issue that it was not just down to America that the war was won by the Allies. If Hitler didn't attack Russia after their truce, the Germans probably would have won. They did attack, the Russians entered the war, opened a new front. The Germans were being hammered by the sheer number of Russians, and therefore, it is not just the Americans which won the war.
As for speaking Russian? When did the Russians ever invade anywhere west of a few hundred miles of Poland?
Why would we be speaking Russian?

[quote/The Americans established their own standard of living, they did not get it from anywhere else , by way of grants or factories from bigger neighbours.[/quote]
No, they established their way of living because of the gun. Did you know that Iraq was the most technologically advanced nation in the 1100's (until Khan destroyed it).
America, and the West in general had the biggest guns so invaded anyone they could.

As regards the IRA, they certainly do or did not have majority support in this island, any more than the insurgents / terrorists have popular support in Iraq. In 1915, the IRA was booed on the streets of Dublin.

Click to expand...

and a year later when the leaders of the rebellion were killed, the Irish public stood behind them.
I am also sure (asimov?) in the late 60's, early 70's, the IRA were supported by almost all nationalists in the North, and therefore a majority there?

Many more Irishmen choose to fight in WW1 and WW2 in British uniforms than ever joined the IRA.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I know we had a lot of men die in WW1, but I am not that sure about WW2. Either way, the IRA weren't paying people to be members, unlike the British army, so you just can't compare.

The US, UK , Polish, Australian etc troops are in Iraq at the request of the govt. there, until free and fair elections are held.

Click to expand...

The Iraq government? You mean the American puppet who used to work for the CIA.

Do you think there will be free and fair elections? They have already banned certain people from standing.

This is what most Iraqis want. Who killed those 21 Iraqi policemen in cold blood a few days ago - it was the insurgents, not the US or UK. Who saws off heads with penknives ? - it is not the US or UK.

Click to expand...

The place is bordering on civil war, just like we were 80 years ago.
Just because their skin colour and beliefs are the same, and they want the West out of their country does not make them the same people.

History will be the judge, as long as it is not whitewashed by the American media.

There's a subtle differnce between understanding why something naturally exists and legitimising it.

Click to expand...

Yes Piggy....so subtle that it is here that the lines become blurred beyond all recognition.

To give you an example...I had an old uncle back in Belfast who, like you, said that he 'understood why the IRA existed'. He 'understood' when they carried out the La Mon bombings. He 'understood' when they carried out the mass bombing of Belfast on Bloody Friday.
He 'understood' when they murdered Airey Neave, and when they bombed the Guards in Hyde Park, or the shopping center in Warrington.

Like you and Marie, he was able (in his mind) to separate his desire for freedom and his love of the IRA 'Freedom Fighters' from their brutality and murderous actions...because even though he didn't AGREE with all they did... he UNDERSTOOD it.
This ambivalence is widespread in this country, and especially in the North.
It helped to perpetuate a pointless war that cost thousands of innocent lives.

The point I want to make here is that I see no difference between those in Iraq killing (call them what you will) and American soldiers killing.

Click to expand...

Yes, because like my old uncle you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier.

The spin might be different but the result is the same.

Click to expand...

The result is the same...dead people.
But the INTENT is the difference Piggy.
From your perspective a terrorist is as legitimate as a uniformed soldier fighting on behalf of a democratically elected government.... if only because you UNDERSTAND the terrorist but DON'T understand the actions of a soldier.
Thats a prescription for anarchy.

But then you might hold a different view if you believe that the British and Americans are there to bring freedom, democracy and the Amercian way to the poor people of Iraq. Frankly I don't.

Click to expand...

They are there...right or wrong...and the alternative to the 'Pax Americana' is Islamic fundamentalism and more tyranny. I'll take US democracy over that any day...even if it has to be imposed.

As someone who was brought up in NI and lived through the war there, and lost innocent friends and relatives, I can tell you that whatever you think of some Iraqi's rights to resist, and however much you 'undestand' their terrorism, you are forming your opinions at a safe remove, and you don't have to live with the consequences of that mindset. You don't risk death on the streets of Iraq.

Your 'understanding' provides succour to terrorism.

One day this will all be sorted out around a negotiating table...as is happening in NI now, and you will have to live with your share of the responsibility for the thousands that were killed unnecessarily because the terrorists felt they had a sympathetic audience, even in the west, from people like you.

Maceface, thanks for your plaudit, I hope you realise we have differing views though.

As someone who was brought up in NI and lived through the war there, and lost innocent friends and relatives, I can tell you that whatever you think of some Iraqi's rights to resist, and however much you 'undestand' their terrorism, you are forming your opinions at a safe remove, and you don't have to live with the consequences of that mindset. You don't risk death on the streets of Iraq.

Your 'understanding' provides succour to terrorism.

One day this will all be sorted out around a negotiating table...as is happening in NI now, and you will have to live with your share of the responsibility for the thousands that were killed unnecessarily because the terrorists felt they had a sympathetic audience, even in the west, from people like you.

Asimov - I respect that your perspective comes from intimate experience of living in a divided community and through dangerous times.

Some issues and debates are so important and urgent as to demand detailed factual historic knowledge, statistics and contributions from different perspectives, and to be carefully considered in quiet places. E-mail forums can sometimes be too much of "sound and fury, signifying nothing" to fit the requirements of that deep debate.

So a caveat! I am very interested in this freedom/violence issue but feel in this present forum there are limits on what can be achieved and communicated and I am aware of how much must be censored and "deleted unsent" in the present discussion.

Implicit in your most recent post is the issue of legitimacy and perhaps the exchanges here are a disagreement over what constitutes legitimacy.Is it "the people" or "the (official, elected) leadership". If one believed that the leader (whether Saddam Hussein, Bush, Ahern, Chirac, Putin) has authority and legitimacy to declare war (or peace!) then the (natural, species-specific) self-preservative response of individuals or groups (e.g. the father who elects to ward off attackers to protect his threatened children, the Town Mayor or priest who rallies the people in the Mexican town to defend the community from the bandits etc.) is problematised since by definition they are in the followership/servant relationship to the legitimate authority, local warlord or whatever and "should" conform, even if that conformity involves their own destruction.

Perhaps where one stands on that determines whether the current actions of the Iraqi people in - say - Falluja - are tenable and categorised as understandable or as terrorism/insurgency.

A corollary is your remark that the coalition forces are in Iraq so the game must go on. Again, your position is (if I have understood you correctly?) that whether this is "good" or "bad" "right" or "wrong" is not debatable since their deployment in Iraq is legitimated by elected leaders (Bush and Blair).

I now understand why we are talking at cross purposes as my concept of the relationship of elected leader and "the people", elected leader and decisions of state, and the role of public and private opinion and pressures of all kinds (including, in our times, media pressure for sensationalism!) is very different to what I now begin to understand your views on authority to be.

It's late, it's a weekday so too tired to go further with this now but will post again (hopefully!) tomorrow.

In reply to "Many more Irishmen choose to fight in WW1 and WW2 in British uniforms than ever joined the IRA."


Someone said "I don't know about that. I know we had a lot of men die in WW1, but I am not that sure about WW2. Either way, the IRA weren't paying people to be members, unlike the British army, so you just can't compare."

I think they should check their facts. In one small west of Ireland county thousands volunteered to serve in WW1 alone.
Many more served in WW2. However, those who were part of the British forces kept a low profile by and large when they returned to Ireland, for reasons which we will not go in to here. However, I think we do owe them a hell of a lot, as many gave their tomorrows so we can have our todays.

As regards the point that if it were not for the Americans we would be speaking German or Russian, someone made little of this. It is not an insult to other countries who fought in defeating oppression. They know they played their part as well. The British and Aussies for example have a proud history, but they could not have defeated Hitler and the Japanese without the Americans. Likewise, the cold war.
The first Gulf war was fought by these same countries for the liberation of Kuwait. If they advanced on Bagdad then, the Kurds may not have been gassed by Saddam. The west is right in finishing off the job now and establishing democracy in Iraq.

Marie, late as it is, I want to reply to you.

As regards the 'legitimacy' of States declaring and waging war...in a democracy the people get the government they voted for. In America the people have just re-confirmed their choice, so like it or not, under the democratic system President Bush has both the legitimacy and backing of his people through the democratic process.

Given Americas leadership role in the world, and its economic and military power, then it is a simple fact that this power will be brought to bear to protect and further the interests of the US - and among those interests is a free and peaceful Middle East.

Most of the time (happily for us) US interests have been coincident with our own (as Bertie knows only too well) and have been pursued in a generally reasonable manner, given their ability to obliterate troublesome enemies at the mere push of a button.

The Iraqi people were never given any say in the policy or government of their country, and if the men you propose as 'freedom fighters' in Iraq have anything to do with it...they never will have any say. That to me means that although it was a sovereign state, it had far less legitimacy than the US has, and it will never have any in the future if the terrorists prevail.

As a yardstick of legitimacy I think the democratic system is the best we have.

I personally don't agree with Americas invasion of Iraq. I think it is a bloody waste of young American lives and a lot of taxpayers money.

Some might say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam!
I guess that would have depended largely on how 'well-in' with the Saddam regime an individual Iraqi was.

The people of Iraq were dying by the million under Saddam.
Meanwhile he was building palaces.

I believe it was up to the Iraqis to instigate 'regime change' if they wanted it. But there was a strange shortage of 'Iraqi freedom fighters' in Saddams day.
Of course we now know that Saddam had far fewer scruples than the Yanks when it came to dealing with trouble makers.

In a way the Iraqis are sufferring the cost of their own political inertia.

I believe the Yanks were naiive, both as a Government and as a people, and were egged on by emigre Iraqis (like Chalabi) who convinced them they'd be welcomed by the people of Iraq.

However, given that the Americans went ahead and invaded, then yes, my view is that they are there now for the long haul, like it or not, because the alternative is unnacceptable. That is a marque of their sense of responsibility for their actions (which are costing them dearly) rather than some perverted Empire Building exercise. Whatever your views on America under Bush, at least they'll not be taking the easy option and doing a runner, as many others would in the same circumstances.

What I just cannot get my head around is how sane individuals in this country can nod their heads toward these terrorists and say 'yes, we told you so, its perfectly understandable, they're just fighting for their freedom'...while the same people would condemn Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness for once having done the very same things in this country. And done it with a lot of support too.

I ask again...WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Yes Piggy....so subtle that it is here that the lines become blurred beyond all recognition.

To give you an example...I had an old uncle back in Belfast who, like you, said that he 'understood why the IRA existed'. He 'understood' when they carried out the La Mon bombings. He 'understood' when they carried out the mass bombing of Belfast on Bloody Friday.
He 'understood' when they murdered Airey Neave, and when they bombed the Guards in Hyde Park, or the shopping center in Warrington.

Like you and Marie, he was able (in his mind) to separate his desire for freedom and his love of the IRA 'Freedom Fighters' from their brutality and murderous actions...because even though he didn't AGREE with all they did... he UNDERSTOOD it.

It's very difficult to hold any sort of reasonable debate with you Asimov when you insinuate that I in any way condone violence. I don't.
When I talk about the difference between understanding and legitimising it's very simply this. People were shouting from the rooftops before the invasion that if the British and Americans went into Iraq they'd open hell's gate. It's as simple as that. We all knew what would happen. That's an understanding of what's going on.
As I've had to previously state an untold number of times for your benefit - I DON'T CONDONE ANY VIOLENCE.