How the hell did Bush get back in??

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.

You can't understand how people would raise arms against an invading force that had killed thousands of your countrymen in bombing campaigns and if we're to believe the stories coming out from soldiers - that they're gunning down innocent civilians too?
It's not about 'I told you so'. That's something you have in your head. It's not about being happy to see any of this going on. Again, that fits into the nice little box that calls anyone who oppose this war anti-American. Everyone knew what was going to happen. Look at what happened in Vietnam as an example. Look at that history and what the Americans thought would happen before they invaded and what actually happened.

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.

A lot of people would disagree with that last statement. This current President's view towards the Palestinians might be used as a yardstick.

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

Forcing democracy on a country actually goes against what democracy stands for.

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.

What about the massive loss of Iraqi life? Do they not count? Are they not as important as Americans?

Some might say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam!
For the record, I don't.

Quote: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.



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

Incorrect. I can tell the difference quite easily. I think you need to let go of this problem you have with your uncle. I'm not your uncle. I don't condone or support ANY violence.
I can understand just wars. There is little that is just about this war and the way a lot of those soldiers have behaved I see little difference between their acts and the acts of terrorists.

As regards the point that if it were not for the Americans we would be speaking German or Russian, someone made little of this

They probably did so because...ahem...the Russians fought against Hitler in WW2. You might like to look that one up.

I have to say I agree with Asimov here.
I think his last post is on the marque; if you "understand" the people who will disarm police officers, tie them up and then shoot them in the back of the head then you have to "understand" the IRA. That sort of understanding goes hand in hand with the horse c**P that is talked on LOS and in this country in general about the Palestinians and Israel.
Thank God that the murdering terrorist dictator that has held them back for the last 30 years is dead.

By the way Piggy if it wasn't for the Americans we would all be speaking Russian, the only reason they didn't enslave the rest of Europe in 1945 is because the USA and Britain invaded on D-day not to stop Hitler because he lost the was when the snows started to fall on the Russian front, but to stop the Russian advance across Germany.
The dropping of the H-bomb on Japan was to end the war in the Pacific before the Russians invaded China and got their hands on warm water Pacific ports as well as resource rich Manchuria.

if you "understand" the people who will disarm police officers, tie them up and then shoot them in the back of the head then you have to "understand" the IRA. That sort of understanding goes hand in hand with the horse c**P that is talked on LOS and in this country in general about the Palestinians and Israel.

purple,

Your desperately misinterpreting my understanding of terrorism/insurgency (call it what you will).
An understanding of something is as simple as recognising that every action has an equal but opposite reaction. I also "understand" why the IRA formed and why they splintered in the 60's etc etc...that doesn't mean I condone what they did. I understand why terrorism is growing in Chechnya...but I don't condone the actions of what they did recently in Beslan. Not for one second. In the same breath I don't condone the way the Russian government is holding Chechnya in a death grip - murdering it's people queitly.
So - I understand why there are many many factions working in Iraq (working for different goals - be they money, hatred of America and the occupation or islamic fundamentalism). They exist. Whether you agree with them or not they exist for a reason. Not to understand them is to turn around and stick your head in the sand.
It's far too easy to call them terrorists and point out what some of them have done while all the time ignoring what the coalitions legitimate soldiers have also done - and what our legitimate, democratcially elected governments have done too.
For (hopefully) the last time I deplore both forms of violence. I am not trying to be anti-American...I'm merely trying to balance the equation. Cutting off people's heads is just as disgusting as dropping a bomb on a house where a family lives and the father has to search through the rubble the next morning to find his children's body parts. The difference from our point of view in the West is that we see the terrorists every day but we're rarely shown the horrors of this invasion.
You cannot understand the one without understanding the other.

Piggy you continue your circular argument.

You UNDERSTAND why terror exists and (are against it - and all violence you said).
But you can...
....understand how people would raise arms against an invading force that had killed thousands of your countrymen in bombing campaigns and if we're to believe the stories coming out from soldiers - that they're gunning down innocent civilians too?

The scenario sounds just like NI Piggy, and the vast majority of people in this country cannot understand it, because it was pointless Piggy.

So what is the relevance of your understanding?
Is it merely a semantic point you wish to make?
You understand - but don't condone? Is that it?
Fine.
Where does that leave us in the real world...I mean who cares?
Why should we care about the fine semantic cartwheels you've turned in your own head to justify your understanding of terrorists (but not their violence - heaven forbid)?

Your 'understanding' makes no difference to the US, less to the terrorists, and none to me.

Forcing democracy on a country actually goes against what democracy stands for.

That would be the purists viewpoint. But they 'forced' democracy on Afghanistan and it seems to be working very well.

What about the massive loss of Iraqi life? Do they not count?

As I said already Piggy (read the posts please) the Iraqis were dying by millions already under Saddam. Yes they matter. But I think they could have dealt with Saddam themselves and saved America the trouble.

This current President's view towards the Palestinians might be used as a yardstick.

This current President took over from a President who went to great lengths to encourage a peace deal in Palestine.

Clinton set up the Oslo Peace Talks and stayed involved with the peace process right up to the point of a potential settlement.

That settlement was 99.9% agreed by both sides, but Araffat walked out when he couldn't get his own way over ownership of Jerusalem.

He held interviews afterward in which he told the world that the intifada would now start up again.
The result of that was as UNDERSTANDABLE to me as TERRORISM is to you.

The Israelis reacted to the violent Intifada by electing a hardliner - Sharon...his clampdown escalated the violence further...suicide bombings against civilians started (you understand WHY Piggy)...further repression followed, including the destruction of Araffats compound, his house arrest, and the effective end of the Palestinian authority...this enraged muslims worldwide and gave Osama and his cohorts the green light to attack anyone associated with Israel, specifically America....the result was 9-11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and of Iraq by a newly elected American President who also chose to take a 'hardline' .

So you see Piggy, the whole thing can be distilled down to Araffats destruction of the Oslo accord.

HE opened the gates of hell (as you so dramatically put it) and now he is about to enter them himself. Good riddance.

He, more than any other single man, was responsible for plunging the world into all this chaos and bloodshed.
He's the Ian Paisly of the Middle East, and like Paisley he dragged down the hopes and desire for peace of millions of people...even his own people...all because of personal arrogance and bigotry.

So don't blame Bush for the consequences we see now, any more than you blame the terrorists for the war in Iraq.
Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

If you can UNDERSTAND one concept you can easily grasp the other.

It seems to me that you certainly DO come at this from only one side of the equation. You only UNDERSTAND one side of the issue in fact.

Finally Piggy, I recommend you try to restrict yourself to ONE posting at a time...you just appear hysterical when you flood the thread.

You do a fantastic job of twisting people's words Asimov. Well done.

So what is the relevance of your understanding?
Is it merely a semantic point you wish to make?
You understand - but don't condone? Is that it?
Fine.
Where does that leave us in the real world...I mean who cares?
Why should we care about the fine semantic cartwheels you've turned in your own head to justify your understanding of terrorists (but not their violence - heaven forbid)?

Actually, the point (in relation to these threads) to understanding terrorism, or freedom fighting, or insurgency, or any violence for that matter is extremely important. Unless you understand why something exists you can't deal with the facts properly. That is the relevance of it.
The sniping sarcasm about me not condoning violence - what was the point in that?

Your 'understanding' makes no difference to the US, less to the terrorists, and none to me.

If you don't understand then I suggest you should stop asking then.

That would be the purists viewpoint. But they 'forced' democracy on Afghanistan and it seems to be working very well.
That remains to be seen.

But I think they could have dealt with Saddam themselves and saved America the trouble.
Except that America didn't have to! But then your viewpoint on that largely depends on whether or not you believe the bullsh*t about why they went in in the first place.

I could talk about Palestine and Israel but it's too broad a subject to get into here.

It seems to me that you certainly DO come at this from only one side of the equation. You only UNDERSTAND one side of the issue in fact.
I'm not surprised that it seems that way to YOU. It doesn't alter the fact that I'm quite caable of looking at both sides of the coin - just that I choose to highlight the parts of the argument that I do.

Finally Piggy, I recommend yopu try to restrict yourself to ONE posting at a time...you just appear hysterical when you flood the thread.
Back to your childish insults again I see. Whenever you grow up please feel free to post again.

I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you here Piggy but do you think it was right to force democracy on Germany in 1945?
After the initial resistance do you think the German people were better off than under a dictator?

I understand why the terrorists do what they do as well piggy but I also condemn it outright. To keep saying that we must understand the why's (and you are right, we must) makes you sound equivocal in the face of brutal murderers.
I also don't think you can equate the behavior of the US forces with the actions of car bombers and be-headers.

The US responds to the actions of the terrorists, not the other way around.
The US may kill civilians when it targets the terrorists, the terrorists target the civilians.

I'm quite capable of looking at both sides of the coin - just that I choose to highlight the parts of the argument that I do.

Click to expand...

Please highlight the other side to show this then.

purple,

I'll deal with the rest of your post when you answer these questions please.

I also don't think you can equate the behavior of the US forces with the actions of car bombers and be-headers.

Why do you think this? What about Abu Ghraib? What about Guantanemo Bay?
Is a car bombing any different to bombing civilians? If so I'd love to know how. Have you ever compared the carnage after a car bomb with the carnage after cluster bombs have been dropped. Read a bit about what cluster bombs and depleted uranium does to civilians and then tell me that it's any different to car bombing.

The US responds to the actions of the terrorists, not the other way around.

Hmmm...by invading Iraq. Saddam was a lot of things. I've already made my views on him very clear. Was he a terrorist? He was certainly a cruel and vicious dictator...but not a terrorist (by what we understand one to be). So - when the Americans were bombing civilians - were they responding to the acts of terrorists? Remember, from Clubman's earlier posting in the Iraqi dead post - the IraqiBodyCount have estimated between 14 and 16 thousand dead.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
These are verifiable deaths from reports. So - one can easily surmise that the figure will probably be higher.

As for looking at this war from both sides of the coin - well, the other side of the coin (for me) is that the US are there now and must deal with the mess they're in. Full stop. Actually, I don't see that they have a choice.
I cannot look on this war as being a just war - if that's what you want me to say. That would just be lying to mysef.
There are a lot of myths which surround this war and all wars. I don't pretend that I'm right about everything. Perhaps I have some of my facts or understandings wrong. But I think that believing that America is fighting this war for the reasons as espoused by George Bush is very naive.

I've already posted one US soldiers experience in Iraq. That was a ten year veteran, who's experince of killing innocent civilians on a daily basis left nothing to the imagination. Abu Ghriab gave us a small glimpse into the real horrors of war. I think it's naive to believe that soldiers act like gentlemen in a war zone.

What about Abu Ghraib? What about Guantanemo Bay?

Re Guantanamo...I support the US detention of terrorist fighters in Guantanamo. After what they've done I'm surprised they are being treated as well as they are. Personally, I'd be prepared to get harsher if I had some of them in my hands and I knew they had information I needed to save lives. Abu Ghraib would have been a holiday camp compared to what I would do to them. The fact that the US military put its people on trial over that, and then jailed them was further evidence that the Yanks do try to use restraint and proper process.

The west has its hands tied behind its back in this war by the system of civil and human rights we operate under.

The animals we are fighting have no such constraints. They hold televised decapitations...and all you can do is squeal about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? Give me a break!

Is a car bombing any different to bombing civilians? If so I'd love to know how. Have you ever compared the carnage after a car bomb with the carnage after cluster bombs have been dropped.

Ahhh...so carnage is all relative?
My carnage is worse than your carnage?

To answer your question...I've seen the aftermath of several car bombs. They are every bit as effective as cluster bombs on the people standing near them.

Read a bit about what cluster bombs and depleted uranium does to civilians and then tell me that it's any different to car bombing.

The difference AGAIN (sigh) is that the terrorist who plants a car bomb does so with the INTENT to kill innocent bystanders in a civilian area.

Cluster bombs were designed as a battlefield weapon and are intended to kill enemy fighters on the open battlefield.
They have NEVER been used against civilians on the streets of Iraq because it would be an unconscionably stupid way to use that weapon.
Laser guided bombs have been used against specific targets in urban warfare in Iraq. But 'cluster bombs' and 'carpet bombing' sound much more SEXY terms, don't they Piggy?

when the Americans were bombing civilians - were they responding to the acts of terrorists?

When the US began bombing Baghdad they accurately targetted the Iraqi leadership and their infrastructure using precision weapons. They DID NOT target civilians. Here is a link to a series of 'before and after' images showing exactly that...Saddams villas and ministries destroyed, neighbouring civilian buildings totally untouched.
So much for carpet bombing.
Satellite Images

Remember, from Clubman's earlier posting in the Iraqi dead post - the IraqiBodyCount have estimated between 14 and 16 thousand dead.

In a war innocent people get killed... for instance over 3,000 Americans were killed in ONE DAY on 9-11.

Your estimate puts Iraqi deaths at around 15,000 over the 20 months to date?

In 4 days of bombing of Belgrade by the Nazis in April 1941 - 17,500 civilians were killed!

The Iraq bombardment started in March 2003.
The highest estimate of the number of Iraqi deaths for that month (mainly soldiers) was 586.
[broken link removed]

On the first night of bombing in Baghdad I can find evidence of only 3 deaths in the city according to YOUR website: [broken link removed] (Scroll to bottom of that page)
The three (estimated) deaths were all associated with the bombing of government buildings.

If the US didn't care about Iraqi civilian casualties then the numbers would have been very different.

Re Guantanamo...I support the US detention of terrorist fighters in Guantanamo. After what they've done I'm surprised they are being treated as well as they are. Personally, I'd be prepared to get harsher if I had some of them in my hands and I knew they had information I needed to save lives

I see.
This hatred of these people of course blatantly ignores the innocent people who are being held there - some of whom have been released after over two years - with stories of horrific treatment at the hands of their capture including sexual humiliation. Where have we heard that one before?

The animals we are fighting have no such constraints. They hold televised decapitations...and all you can do is squeal about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? Give me a break!

I've already made my stance on violence quite clear and in particular my disgust at this sort of treatment of foreigners and Iraqis alike.

hhh...so carnage is all relative?
My carnage is worse than your carnage?

No. It's not. My point on that was quite clear.


To answer your question...I've seen the aftermath of several car bombs. They are every bit as effective as cluster bombs on the people standing near them.

I see. But that's exactly what I'm saying. What's your point then?

Widespread use of cluster bombs, depleted uranium weapons and napalm.
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_de...efault.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2860759.stm
www.globalsecurity.org/or...iraq01.htm

In the weeks leading up to D-day about 50,000 French civilians were killed by allied bombardment. 500 US marines were killed the day after D-day by shells from US ships.
The French accepted this as it was in the context of the fight for their freedom.
The US went into Iraq to protect their economic interests. That's it, nothing else.

After what they've done I'm surprised they are being treated as well as they are.

Click to expand...

Oh, when were the trials then? - I must of missed those.
I didn't realise that they had actually been found guilty of anything.

There was me thinking that it was just a concentration camp.

People are talking about yard sticks here.
Wars are brutal and savage and those that suffer most are civilian non combatents. Using the yard stick of every war for the last 200 years the Americans are a model of restraint and humanity.

purple, are you suggesting that American Troops somehow have 'human nature' removed from them as part of their training?

Has the American military dractically changed from the days of the Vietnam war when they were napalming villages? (That's not so long ago)

The main difference here is we only see what the media wants us to see - war faught with surgical precision. I suspect the reality is far more gruesome.

Hi AP,
Vietnam was no worse than any other war, we just saw more of it. All war is gruesome and savage and surgical strikes with bombs that weigh half a tonne still kill lots of people.
I am suggesting that the European view is that the lies and torture and heart break and overwhelming grief that go with this war is in any way unique is false. This war, with all it's faults, is being conducted no worse than (and probably better than) any other war.
As I have said before the case for the legality of the war is not strengthened of weakened by the actions of the troops on the ground. On that issue they score quite well.
The real world can be a cold and brutal place. The reality is that cold and brutal people shelter us from it. The Romans didn't let the legions into Rome because they were barbaric killers and didn't belong in the soft civilised city that they protected.
Little has changed.

Asimov wrote at 10.07 on 10/11/04:-
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 wonder if you have any theories as to why George W. Bush, intolerant of what he felt to be the slowness of the work of the UN Weapons Inspectors led by Hans Bick, did not propose sorting his differences with Saddam Hussein out around a negotiating table?.........why he chose instead to "open the gates of hell"?

The answer to this has much to do with the issue raised in a number of posts on what constitutes legitimate leadership, statesmanship and humanity and I look forward to your response.

Re: interesting link

Deleted post from family member

Marie, you clearly do not understand the type of person Saddam Hussein was or the type of regime he led. Do you not know anything about his past history? You cannot negiotiate with someone like than any more than you negiotate with the hostage takers in Iraq.