Gross, I agree completely that America absolutely must hold itself to a higher standard than the rest of the world. That is why the right to dissent in the United States is so important. The citizens of this country must be allowed to make sure the government is kept fair and moral, because we all know the government won't do it themselves. For the same reason the United States must hold itself to a high standard, it must not hold itself to a low standard when dealing with the rest of the world. I agree with Gross' premise, but I also believe that it is the duty of the United States to oppose evil and brutality if we are to truly hold ourselves to a high standard. I realize that we are not perfect in that respect, but we should be.
In your post you forgot to discuss the world economy, or aids victims, or jews be killed in WWII . . . oh wait your post had nothing to do with these topics. As my post had nothing to do with how Saddam treated his prisoners. And Ben truthfully do you think that the federal government has always protected freedom of speech and people still don't get black listed (maybe not as a significant extent as in the past) for doing things that are unpatriotic. My post was aimed at the fact that just because it happens in Iraq doesn't mean it is automatically a horrid thing or an incriminating thing against Iraq but rather some things that happen in other parts of the world happen in this nation as well, and as we criticize a nation a dictator, who should be criticized to say the least, we must shine that same light on our selves and not believe that we are a superiour nation than the rest of the world and that we have no wrongs in this nation.
First of all, I don't see how anyone can make an argument that what we are doing in Iraq is still bad after you've seen the pure and unrestrained joy that the Iraqis demonstrated after the highly symbolic toppling of the statue of Hussein. I think that that proves to all of you who thought Iraq loved Saddam were sorely mistaken. Nobody loves being oppressed, and the filter that Saddam had in place for foreign countries such as the US were complete lies. Now, in address to the restructuring of Iraq, I don't see where the UN should even be considered. They made it extremely obvious that they did not want any part of war, save a few countries. We took this task upon ourselves, we spent our soldier's lives, and to let a third party try and control what we sweat and bled for is incredibly illogical. We went in there with a purpose, otherwise we would not have went in in the first place. Now that we have done the dirty work, let us establish what we see as best fitting. Then Gross, if the UN sees our new regime in any way inadequate, then let them propose any new changes for Iraq. The bottom line is, the quicker we establish a new government, the less likely it is that a new facist party will seize power, and the vicious cycle repeats itself.
-Erik Greene
Gross, I did read your post, and what I saw was you comparing the United States to Saddam Hussein. If it wasn't that, I don't understand the point of you getting so angry at me. "I agree that the number of prisoners in itself is not enough to condemn Saddam" is a direct quote from my post. Obviously your post had a lot more in it than just the statistics don't reflect that Saddam is bad. I agree with that part. You ignore the fact that Saddam did his horrid things to anyone who dissaggreed with him. You call them "traitors" and say that we too punish traitors. The law in the U.S. does not define a traitor as anyone who disaggrees with the government. If that was so, you would have been arrested by now. I don't think that all your logic is bad. We only talk about foreign policy too much on this forum. I probably agree with you much more on other issues.
We leave. Seriously. Just get the hell out of there. As soon as all the military threats are mopped up, and it's quite obvious that Sadaam and the Fedayeen are dead or in prison, we just walk out. We let the Iraqi people figure it out themselves. Everybody assumes that some governing body has to make all the decisions here... can't we just let the Iraqi people do it?
"But that will just leave the country open for another dictator!" you say.
No. A dictator needs some means of support for establishing power, such as a militia or political route. Once we get out of Iraq, it will be completely decimated. We can make sure there are absolutely no weapons of any kind, and we can make sure that every last trace of the previous government is eliminated. It will then be every man for himself. Give anarchy a brief chance. I'm sure someone will rise to power eventually, or maybe very quickly. It would be interesting to see what results from a more or less blank slate.
And Paul... I'll bet you watch Fox News, don't you?
heh heh
Hmm why don't we talk about twisting arguements Ben. You have never once answered anthing directed at you ever. And in addition in my article, you fucking moron, I said that I was not comparign the conditions of American prisons and Iraqi, but I was merely saying that we had numerous persons in jail. You decided to make some dumb ass post about something that I never ever said. "Ben and Paul I know you are going to say some dumbass thing about how the people are treated so much worse, and so on, which is obvious. My point though is that in a sheer numerical comparison we are probably right up there is not passed Iraq in number of prisons and prisoners percentage wise." That is a direct quote from my post, maybe you should fucking read something before you make some dumb ass comment about it. Secondly Ben . . . what the fuck are you talking about. I never said that people who found against Saddam were not in the right but rather I said that we treat have the same emotions and opinions regarding traitors as does Saddam, and therefore I was saying that it isn't that horrid of a thing if Saddam hates his traitors and we hate our traitors as well. You then spew this pity shit about the Iraqis and how long they have suffered in a effort to demonize me, when I never said anything of the sort. Once again fucking read a post before you make some stupid fucking counter to it. And lastly I really don't give a shit what you think happend With Walker, because what I have read both online and from the NY Times supports what I said, and you talk about political idealogy blinding someone, you have just as much of a blind fold around your head as you accuse me of. Also when did I say I wasn't happy that Saddam wasn't out of power . . . when did I say that Iraqis were not treated horridly by Saddam, and please explain how none of my arguements make sense . . . go through every arguement that i have ever made on this forum and discredit it, and also how is my logic twisted, I guess if I believe what I read by credible sources I must be twisted . . . or is that I am twisted because I don't agree with you.
And lastly lastly fuck you, you write these stupid posts that are completely unfounded ina manner to discredit me, and make up shit that I never said in my post. That is fucking bull shit and should not be allowed on this site. If you want to argue with someone good, but use actual facts no bull shit that you thought would have been convienent if I would have said. Also
Gross, let me address your points.
1) About the prisons, we have a lot of inmates in the United States to be sure. I guess you can twist anything I say andrew. When I say that Iraq had children prisons where they placed children of Saddam's political opponents, you would say that we have Juvenile prisons. When I meantion torture chambers, you would say that American prisons aren't such great places either, such is your twisted logic. I agree that the number of prisoners in itself is not enough to condemn Saddam, but the reasons for which they were being held and the conditions they were kept in speaks volumes about the regime. I am glad it has fallen and you should be too. Unfortunately, your political ideology has blinded you.
2) The prisoners that "had fought wars against Iraq" are the lucky ones, for they were not killed as most people like them were. When they say that they were "fighting wars against Iraq," it is another way of saying they were opponents of Saddam Hussein. These were the people Saddam was most scared of, the Iraqis who rose against him. According to one iraqi in Baghdad, "he killed millions of us." There is a reason why Iraqis were jubilant when his regime fell. It was their fellow countrymen who were imprisoned by Saddam. It was their fathers, Uncles, and cousins who were tortured, given chemical baths, and put in human shredders. This imprisoning of political opponents would never happen in the United States (Don't even think of fucking jumping on me for that). It would be like Bush putting Ted Kennedy in prison for opposing the war.
3) Finally, your Johnny Walker conspiracy theory is incredible. He did not get arrested and sentenced for his beliefs, he was because of his actions. If you went to a military base and started shooting at soldiers, you would be arrested too. Why, of all people, would they choose to arrest this one 19 year old? If makes no fucking sense, but neither do the rest of your arguments or your twisted logic.
I dont' actually mean that obviosly but the topic shall come to an end soon after this, but there are still some fundamental errors that I want to clear up. Firstly, Ben you said a while back that the UN is looking forward to the prospect of an ICJ . . . umm Benny they have had the ICJ for quite some time now. Also I would like to clear up something that Frason said about how could the UN depose a leader, and actually the UN is able to go into a country and remove a dictator forciablly if neccessary if he is convicted of war crimes . . . which Hussien prolly could have been convicted of. I think that about clears it up for blatent miss understandings of the UN, a body that has done a great deal to increase peace and stability in this world, while at the same time in desperate need of nations to be supportive of it and to pay their dues . . .
I heard three very funny things on the televesion from a man by the name of Dan Rather a couple of seconds ago and I thought everyone would like to hear them.
1) Dan Rather was talking about how there are so many prisons in Iraq and how many prisons there are. I found it some what humurous because in the US we have over 2,000,000 prisoners, and yet we make it sound like Iraq is such a horrid place because of the number of prisons . . . Ben and Paul I know you are going to say some dumbass thing about how the people are treated so much worse, and so on, which is obvious. My point though is that in a sheer numerical comparison we are probably right up there is not passed Iraq in number of prisons and prisoners percentage wise.
2) Dan Rather said something about how many of the prisoners had been detained for fighting in wars against Iraq and speaking out against Iraq. Firstly, if any American were to join the Iraqi side and fight against the US we would detain them and throw them in the slammer for being a traitor . . . which isn't a bad thing it is just hypocrital that Rather was making a big point out of it.Then next he talked about how they were arrested for speaking out against the government . . . John Walker Lindh was basically black listed and accused of the ultimate treacheroury against the US. This isn't true as we now know that he went to Afganistan to study what a jihad was and to become familiar with Islam. What makes it even worse that is that a women who reported the story was basically black listed by the government and lost her job and was unable to get a new job.
3) Dan Rather said in a perfect world we our coverage of the war would be completely unbiased . . . hmmm, does this seem unsettling to anyone else, I would think that in a perfect world we wouldn't have any need for war, hahaha, I guess I stand corrected. I know what he meant and I am just making a joke, he probably would like peace as well, but who knows, he is making lots o cash of this war!
And last I hope you conservatives are happy because I criticized a less conservative person, but don't come back and say that oh well the conservatives would never say anything like this and that everything that you just mentioned is just a liberal thing . . . the points he made are more heavily argued by the right so don't give me any of that backwards ass bull shit.
Paul that is the same arguement that you have said over and over and over again, but nontheless you still have fundamental issues that are wrong. THe UN can go into any nation as long as that nation gives consent . . . therefore the UN is not a police force of any kind, but yet it is an agent to rebuild nations. It rebuilds them by reducing poverty and aids and getting humanitiarian help to the citizens. Also it helps maitain stability in a region by employing troops for a short resolution to a problem. And lastly it through its body allows for the democratic process in a country to work, while at the same time introducing the nation into a world economy and not just that of US's allies.
And to Ben, you don't understand aspects of the UN to well either, when I am talking about Koffi as a person I am not talking about the UN because he has no more control over the UN than I do. The only difference is that who is and his posisition gives him respect from the securtiy council to advocate what goes on in the UN, therefore I am not saying that one man should rule over Iraq, as Koffi wouln't have any power in Iraq, and instead I am advising that an actual coalition (not Bush's three nations) rebuilds Iraq.
