# Who is responsible for Iraq's future?



## Everness

Two of the US generals said today that the surge in sectarian violence in Baghdad could mean that Iraq may descend into civil war. What's new, right? At least someone in Washington isn't in denial. 

But what really p*ssed me off were Rumsfeld's words: "Ultimately the sectarian violence is going to be dealt with by Iraqis." He said that Iraq's future lies in the hands of Iraqis, beginning with a reconciliation process that has yet to get under way. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2270566&page=1

So we, Americans, recklessly launched an invasion with a flawed plan and a worse approach to occupation that created this huge out-of-control violent mess but now we expect Iraqis to deal with it? We created the conditions for a civil war but all of a sudden that's someone else's problem? 

Do you agree with Rumsfeld? Who is responsible for Iraq's future? How do you envision America's role (if you think the US has one)?


----------



## moura

Many times, before Iraq invasion, voices from International Community, to political analysers, and common people advised about the opening of a Pandora box if that event took place. Now, the worse predicts came true. As the US, together with their allies, decided to be responsable for Iraq's "present", now that responsability must not be dismissed towards the its future. But the UNO should have always a prime and desisive position within this context.


----------



## Everness

moura said:
			
		

> Many times, before Iraq invasion, voices from International Community, to polictical analysers, and common people advised about the opening of a Pandora box if that event took place. Now, the worse predicts came true. As the US, together with their allies, decided to be responsable for Iraq's "present", now that responsability must not be dismissed towards the its future. But the UNO should have always a prime and desisive position within this context.



Moura, please read "Fiasco. The American Military Adventure in Iraq" by Thomas Ricks. It's true that several European countries tried to stop this military adventure and their predictions are now coming true. However, this book shows that even some US military leaders were against waging this war or, at least, changing the way it was being waged. A great example is General Anthony Zinni, former chief, US Central Command. In the fall of 2003, he began speaking out again bitterly denouncing Rumsfeld, criticizing the Iraq occupation, and saying it lacked a coherent strategy, a serious plan, and sufficient resources. 

I'm not justifying the American invasion of Iraq. The invasion shouldn't have happened in the first place. Invading Iraq was the wrong way of conducting the war on terror. This was a decision that civilians in Washington made and asked the military to carry out. Now all Americans are embroiled in this colossal mess. 

I just hope that the UN and all the countries that unsuccessfully tried to talk us out of launching this military adventure bail us out. It's too late to try to save face...


----------



## Etcetera

My strong opinion is that America shouldn't have invaded Iraq. But once she did it, she must as well take the responsibility for what is going on now. 
No one was forcing Bush and his men to start this invasion!


----------



## panjabigator

Everness said:
			
		

> So we, Americans, recklessly launched an invasion with a flawed plan and a worse approach to occupation that created this huge out-of-control violent mess but now we expect Iraqis to deal with it? We created the conditions for a civil war but all of a sudden that's someone else's problem?
> 
> Do you agree with Rumsfeld? Who is responsible for Iraq's future? How do you envision America's role (if you think the US has one)?


Hell no! It is not just Iraq's problem anymore...unfortunately it is our problem too. The US has failed and they know it. The polls, I believe, are not remotely in Bush's favor anymore and now the government is catching on. "Oh my God...we screwed up!" So with statements like that, it makes me feel that Bush is going to really pull out. 

I believe Afghanistan is in some sort of anarchy today.  Will this be the condition of Iraq for years to come?


----------



## danielfranco

America's role should be to build a time machine and go back in time just before the invasion was approved and to have somebody bitch-slap Bush and the boys before they went in half-cocked.
Alternatively, America should help get those people back on their feet after yanking the rug from underneath.
The problem is that nobody is entirely sure as to how this can be done. I'd dread throwing my taxes and my children (when they are of recruitable age) into this awful pit...


----------



## panjabigator

danielfranco said:
			
		

> America's role should be to build a time machine and go back in time just before the invasion was approved and to have somebody _*bitch-slap Bush*_ and the boys before they went in half-cocked.
> Alternatively, America should help get those people back on their feet after yanking the rug from underneath.
> The problem is that nobody is entirely sure as to how this can be done. I'd dread throwing my taxes and my children (when they are of recruitable age) into this awful pit...



OH YES!  I agree there!


----------



## Etcetera

panjabigator said:
			
		

> OH YES!  I agree there!


Me, too. 
Anyway, I hope this all will at least teach America not to meddle in other countries' business. 
But the hope is so tiny...


----------



## panjabigator

I wonder what the international support will be with Iraqi affairs.  It cannot just be left to the US to deal with it...everyone has a stake in things, and perhaps the middle eastern view of the west will improve with a group effort.


----------



## Etcetera

panjabigator said:
			
		

> I wonder what the international support will be with Iraqi affairs.  It cannot just be left to the US to deal with it...everyone has a stake in things, and perhaps the middle eastern view of the west will improve with a group effort.


Frankly, I hope that this time, Russia will have enough sense to stay away! 
I think that the UN must keep a sharp eye on the situation. I can be mistaken, but it seems to me that the UN is far more effective in such affairs than any single country, even America.


----------



## Everness

Hillary, the future president of the US, criticized Rumsfeld in person earlier today during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

_"Under your leadership, there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are," she said. "We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq." 
_
Now he's asking him to resign.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton then called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign, hours after excoriating him at a public hearing over what she called "failed policy" in Iraq.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2271711

This proves that cojones aren't exclusive property of the male species...


----------



## djchak

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Me, too.
> Anyway, I hope this all will at least teach America not to meddle in other countries' business.
> But the hope is so tiny...



I think you will get your wish... but the price will be that America will become isolationist..... it already seems that it is becoming "anti-world" in a way....

So it goes both ways. The situation between Lebanon and Isreal is showing what the US can't do ...which is basically satisfy the wishes of the world.

Get ready for a much more multi polar world.


----------



## Everness

djchak said:
			
		

> I think you will get your wish... but the price will be that America will become isolationist..... it already seems that it is becoming "anti-world" in a way....
> 
> So it goes both ways. The situation between Lebanon and Isreal is showing what the US can't do ...which is basically satisfy the wishes of the world.
> 
> Get ready for a much more multi polar world.



Wait! Are you saying that we'll stop exporting democracy, our most valuable product next to MacDonald's hamburgers? 

For your information, the US became isolationist in 2003 when we decided to move ahead in our plan to invade a sovereign country disregarding the requests and warnings from most of our allies in the West. “As you sow so shall you reap.” Our soldiers are dying and Iraq is on the brink of being engulfed in a civil war that will translate into thousands of Iraqis dying. 

Ah, no one asked us or is asking us to satisfy the wishes of the world. We decided to play that role.


----------



## mora

hello

THe US had no business going into Iraq in the first place, and should leave immediately. Any justifications for remaining based on fears of what the Iraqis might or might not do are self-serving and patronizing. Leave Iraq to govern itself. They are not infants. Sure, it will be a mess for a while (look at post-Soviet Russia) but that is for them to sort out. Maybe civil war, maybe two or three way partition- maybe a simple end to hostilities when the US is no longer meddling- who knows. Any temporary foreign presence in Iraq should be UN peacekeepers, if they are requested by Iraq. Along with getting out of Iraq, the US should forget about Iraqi oil, and find other sources /other means to deal with that issue. 

mora


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:
			
		

> Two of the US generals said today that the surge in sectarian violence in Baghdad could mean that Iraq may descend into civil war. What's new, right? At least someone in Washington isn't in denial.
> 
> But what really p*ssed me off were Rumsfeld's words: "Ultimately the sectarian violence is going to be dealt with by Iraqis." He said that Iraq's future lies in the hands of Iraqis, beginning with a reconciliation process that has yet to get under way.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2270566&page=1
> 
> So we, Americans, recklessly launched an invasion with a flawed plan and a worse approach to occupation that created this huge out-of-control violent mess but now we expect Iraqis to deal with it? We created the conditions for a civil war but all of a sudden that's someone else's problem?
> 
> Do you agree with Rumsfeld? Who is responsible for Iraq's future? How do you envision America's role (if you think the US has one)?



IMO, the sooner America leves, the better off Iraqis will be! They have a right to decide their own future - honestly, now we _all_ know the weapons of mass destruction were a lie, it's easy to see that with a 90% literacy rate and a modern infrastructure, they were not that bad off under Saddam Hussein! (At least, 100,000 more of them were still alive!) 

Sorry, this incences me so much!


----------



## ireney

If the US leaves now leaving behind a huge mess there will be very, very bitter feelings towards the US from people who depend on it. I am a bit worried about the Kurds in N. Iraq for instance. Turkey wants to attack in N.Iraq claiming (I have no information if their claim is right or wrong) that the Kurds of PKK are launching their attacks using N.Iraq as their base.

Up to now, the US have said "no" to such an attack (although PKK has actually killed and not abducted 6 Turkish soldiers lately) but what will happen if they wash their hands off Iraq? Why wouldn't Turkey attack then? How do you think the Kurds will feel then?


----------



## Victoria32

ireney said:
			
		

> If the US leaves now leaving behind a huge mess there will be very, very bitter feelings towards the US from people who depend on it. I am a bit worried about the Kurds in N. Iraq for instance. Turkey wants to attack in N.Iraq claiming (I have no information if their claim is right or wrong) that the Kurds of PKK are launching their attacks using N.Iraq as their base.
> 
> Up to now, the US have said "no" to such an attack (although PKK has actually killed and not abducted 6 Turkish soldiers lately) but what will happen if they wash their hands off Iraq? Why wouldn't Turkey attack then? How do you think the Kurds will feel then?



Granted, Ireney, the American politicos have created a great stinking mess, 'un macello' basically, and they probably have to clean it up - but before the American attack, all groups had a 'modus vivendi' - but it annoys me to say the least, to see them there!


----------



## ireney

It annoys me too but the 'whoops! we made a mess so we're going to leave you take care of it yourself" has been tried and failed before. I am not saying that they should continue there as they are now but just packing and leaving the various Iraqui religious sects etc slug it out is just wrong.


----------



## djchak

Everness said:
			
		

> Wait! Are you saying that we'll stop exporting democracy, our most valuable product next to MacDonald's hamburgers?
> 
> Yes. The "great experiment" has been tried, and failed. Not many people want to keep "exporting" if it's at our own detriment financially.
> 
> For your information, the US became isolationist in 2003 when we decided to move ahead in our plan to invade a sovereign country disregarding the requests and warnings from most of our allies in the West.
> 
> If you say so, but isolationism and antipathy for the "rest of the world" has always  risen and fallen in America. It can be unpredictable as well. Think post WW1...tarrifs anyone? There is also an element of wanting to protect the US for "hostile cultures". Only 23% of american citizens have passports, but how often to they get used for more than a once in a lifetime trip to europe?
> 
> “As you sow so shall you reap.” Our soldiers are dying and Iraq is on the brink of being engulfed in a civil war that will translate into thousands of Iraqis dying.
> 
> That could also happen if we join the UN in putting peacekeeping trops in Lebanon. Already about 800 US citizens were killed by Hezbullah.
> 
> Ah, no one asked us or is asking us to satisfy the wishes of the world. We decided to play that role.



You actually think that no other countries ask anything of the U.S.A?


----------



## GenJen54

It seems to me that the U.S. always falls into the position of "damned if we do, damned if we don't," yet everyone's a critic no matter what. 

When major crises occur, we are asked to step in.  
When we intervene, we are asked to then pull out.  

I did not agree with our going into Iraq in the first place. Our administration (after flat-out lying to us) completely underestimated the level of committment of the insurgency, and had no plans whatsoever for a recovery or exit strategy. 

What remains now is sectarian and religious infighting, a problem that ONLY the Iraqis can solve at this point. No one but the Iraqi people with help perhaps from other countries in the Middle East can decide what is best for the Iraqi people. 

If the U.S. were to pull out now, however, the situation would only get worse, and I fear that ethnic genocide would soon become the order of the day with one "sect" trying to get rid of the other/s in a quest for power. 

There is no easy solution.


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:
			
		

> But what really p*ssed me off were Rumsfeld's words: "Ultimately the sectarian violence is going to be dealt with by Iraqis." He said that Iraq's future lies in the hands of Iraqis, beginning with a reconciliation process that has yet to get under way.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2270566&page=1


Reading the article, it seems to me that Mr. Rumsfeld's remark should be interpreted in its proper political context. It looks like he was being pressured by journalists into stating whether the U.S. will leave Iraq if things get too difficult down there. This is a sensitive issue. On one hand, replying "Yes" would give an impression of weakness. On the other hand, replying "No" might be unpopular with the American public, which is beginning to feel uneasy about this war. So he diverted attention away from the matter, by placing the burden on the Iraqis.

I don't think the U.S. will leave Iraq alone anytime soon.


----------



## maxiogee

As I have said before on other threads - the UN needs to be reformed and given unconditional backing by the more powerful (militarily and economically) nations. The messing about which went on in the past (particularly during the Cold War) whereby nations could fail to obey UN resolutions and get away without sanction needs to be eliminated - as does the backing by the powerful of smaller recalcitrant states - and yes, I'm speaking plainly here of Israel - which has gone on for too long.

Maybe Iraq could be the focus for a revitalisation of the UN. And the formation of a properly footed and funded UN peace-keeping and security force.

Maybe, but I won't be holding my breath. 
We here have seen too many UN peace-keeping tours by Irish soldiers and police which were run on a piecemeal basis and were never given the backing of all the member states.


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> Reading the article, it seems to me that Mr. Rumsfeld's remark should be interpreted in its proper political context. It looks like he was being pressured by journalists into stating whether the U.S. will leave Iraq if things get too difficult down there. This is a sensitive issue. On one hand, replying "Yes" would give an impression of weakness. On the other hand, replying "No" might be unpopular with the American public, which is beginning to feel uneasy about this war. So he diverted attention away from the matter, by placing the burden on the Iraqis.
> 
> I don't think the U.S. will leave Iraq alone anytime soon.



Same article, same idea, different guy:

_Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war." He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

"Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other," Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome. "The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government." _

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2270566&page=1

*"Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other"*

Can you get more condescending and/or insulting than that? Who on earth does this general think he is to make this type of blanket statement insinuating that Shiite and Sunni moms and dads don't love their children enough or that they hate each other too much? This has nothing to do with Iraqi parents loving or not loving their children. This has to do with one of the most egregious f*ck-ups in recent American foreign policy. But because we don't know how to get out of this unholy mess and we don't want to take any responsibility, we basically blame dads and moms who we believe don't love their children enough to put aside their hate to one another.

What's next? Are we going to send a team of American psychologists to teach them how to parent appropriately?


----------



## GenJen54

Please! 

I agree we have, for lack of better parlance, f*cked things up. 

But I also see some "right" in what General Pace is saying. Can you not see the need for the Iraqis to put aside their differences and work together for a country that is based not on a singular theocracy, but a peaceful governmental practice, whatever definition they want to put on it? 

It's not similar to some of the welfare states and welfare recipients in the U.S. Sooner or later people need to pick *themselves* up, work to plant the seeds for a better future for *everyone*, including their children, and quit relying upon governmental agencies, foreign or otherwise, to provide them with what they need to forge ahead. 

As far as I can see it, the decision lies of where they want to go lies squarely in the hands of the Iraqis.


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Can you not see the need for the Iraqis to put aside their differences and work together for a country that is based not on a singular theocracy, but a peaceful governmental practice, whatever definition they want to put on it?


*Why* should a people who have (shall we say) a strong attachment to their religious beliefs want a government which is not based on their religion? Most religions attempt to influence politics where they can, and when they can they exploit that influence as much as they can.
You are looking at this from the point of view of someone who believes without thinking that democracy is the best form of government (and I'm not saying it isn't!) - but other cultures see government differently.




> As far as I can see it, the decision lies of where they want to go lies squarely in the hands of the Iraqis.


 And what if that decision is totally opposed to the opinion of the current administration in America?


----------



## djchak

Um, just because a democracy is based on Islamic ideals, and is conservative, doesn't mean it isn't a true democracy.

The problem has more to do with secretarianism, militias, and foreign terrorists then anything else.

That's why many people want the U.S. to leave. They think all these problems will go away.

I think it's more complicated then that.


----------



## GenJen54

maxiogee said:
			
		

> *Why* should a people who have (shall we say) a strong attachment to their religious beliefs want a government which is not based on their religion? Most religions attempt to influence politics where they can, and when they can they exploit that influence as much as they can.
> You are looking at this from the point of view of someone who believes without thinking that democracy is the best form of government (and I'm not saying it isn't!) - but other cultures see government differently.


 
You're making an assumption which is not quite true, as there are many, many flaws in the "democracy" in which I live (which I do not believe is a true democracy, but that is another topic). 

However, given the current religious and _ethnic _make-up and Iraq, and in particular its fractious history, a government where people are allowed to worship (or not) as _they see fit_ better serves _all _of the people. 

If you allow either one of the two prominent sects to have complete control of the state, you are otherwise devaluing the long-held beliefs of the other sect. This is where the warring and ethnic cleansing tend to come into play, when a "convert or die" mentality is established (remember the Spanish inquisitions?) 

If the Iraqis wish to form a theocracy or any other governmental structure that goes against what the U.S. wants, who am I to argue that, as long as it is _their choice. _That doesn't mean I think it is right.


----------



## Etcetera

Everness said:
			
		

> Wait! Are you saying that we'll stop exporting democracy, our most valuable product next to MacDonald's hamburgers?


Exporting democracy isn't that good, actually. 
The point is that democracy itself may have different forms. French democracy, for example, vary a lot from the Russian one. The American form of democracy isn't that bad - in fact, I think it's very good. But you shouldn't expect that the scheme which is good for America will work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Sudan, and whatever else.


----------



## Outsider

I've just noticed that when people hear about violence in Iraq, they tend to assume that it's _sectarian or ethnic violence_. There does seem to be a bit of that going on, but surely there's another kind of violence there that we're all forgetting about: violence _against the occupiers_. Not Shiites against Sunnis, or Kurds against Baathists, but Iraqis against the Coallition (and its supporters)? I wonder which kind is the most common on the ground...

Another thing I would like to note is that most replies to this thread have focused on the issue of "responsibility" (according to the title). But, if we are to discuss the future of Iraq, and the broader implications of Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks, then the value of "responsibility" should be weighted against another one, "trust". Can we _trust_ the same group who misled the American public, if not the world, into this war and prepared itself so poorly for it, to now do an effective and honest job of picking up the pieces?


----------



## Everness

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> When major crises occur, we are asked to step in.
> When we intervene, we are asked to then pull out.



I'm sorry but who asked the US to step in in Iraq? Let's be specific and avoid generalizations. Show me any evidence that we were asked to intervene in Iraq. Actually, the opposite is true and easily verifiable: most Western countries plead with us to refrain from launching this military adventure. Let me remind you that we were the ones who created this major crisis and that now we don't now how to get out of it. 

By the way, I don't think anyone is asking the US to pull out either. We created the mess and we now have to stay and clean it up. How are we going to accomplish that? Don't ask Washington for answers.


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:
			
		

> By the way, I don't think anyone is asking the US to pull out either.


Have you listened to the Iraqis yet?


----------



## ireney

The "they have to think like us" is one of the reasons we don't understand each other. Don't get me wrong; I too think that it would be best for people in _any_ country to have a sort of goverment that treats all religions and dogmas (or sects) as equal and so on and so forth. 

What if they don't? What if they really trully believe that it will be a better place for their children if they country is run another way? Are they wrong? Perhaps. The way I see it, yes. Saying that they don't love their kids because they believe something that we see as wrong is really insulting them.

If they have to fight it out before they come to a conclusion then this is more than sad but it doesn't mean they are worse.

You know I know a lot of wars for independence in which people thought that what they fought would mean a better future for their kids. I know of civil wars in which people thought the same. No one said they didn't love their children.

And I also know of civil wars that errupted with no external force present; it was then deemed that an external force was necessary to intervene.


----------



## moura

> Etcetera said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exporting democracy isn't that good, actually.
> quote]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quite agree with you, Etecetera. What is good for a nation may not be equally good for other. Mainly, when there are so different realities regarding  ethnical and tribes history and the particular relation between religion and politics. The worst mistake the West world may do or did is to force the transition of a concept within a system to a system totally different. And Irak is the result of that. In African countries, for example, the adoption of a constitutional system with European characteristics may have cause some disturbs, because Africa and Europe realities are tottally different.
Click to expand...


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> Have you listened to the Iraqis yet?



_The poll also indicates that there is a strong body of opinion in 20 of the 35 countries surveyed that believes US-led forces should withdraw from Iraq in the next few months.

*In Iraq itself, opinion is evenly divided with 49% favouring an early withdrawal and the same number wanting US-led forces to stay. *
_
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4755770.stm

But I think you are missing the most important point: we liberated Iraqis from Saddam and also introduced them to democracy. They were living in the darkest of civilizations and we were the ones who pulled the curtains so the sun of Western democracy could shine in their midst. 

If it weren't for us, Iraqis would still be under Saddam's dictatorship. Don't get me wrong: they are good people but clueless when it comes to knowing what's better for them. That's why we had to intervene. So it's hard to understand why half of their country wants us out. As the saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished!"


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:
			
		

> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2270566&page=1
> 
> *"Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other"*
> 
> Can you get more condescending and/or insulting than that? Who on earth does this general think he is to make this type of blanket statement insinuating that Shiite and Sunni moms and dads don't love their children enough or that they hate each other too much? This has nothing to do with Iraqi parents loving or not loving their children. This has to do with one of the most egregious f*ck-ups in recent American foreign policy. But because we don't know how to get out of this unholy mess and we don't want to take any responsibility, we basically blame dads and moms who we believe don't love their children enough to put aside their hate to one another.
> 
> What's next? Are we going to send a team of American psychologists to teach them how to parent appropriately?



I fully concur, Everness... It's the kind of thing that makes me wonder if military mind is a contradiction in terms...


----------



## Victoria32

Outsider said:
			
		

> I've just noticed that when people hear about violence in Iraq, they tend to assume that it's _sectarian or ethnic violence_. There does seem to be a bit of that going on, but surely there's another kind of violence there that we're all forgetting about: violence _against the occupiers_. Not Shiites against Sunnis, or Kurds against Baathists, but Iraqis against the Coallition (and its supporters)? I wonder which kind is the most common on the ground...
> 
> Another thing I would like to note is that most replies to this thread have focused on the issue of "responsibility" (according to the title). But, if we are to discuss the future of Iraq, and the broader implications of Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks, then the value of "responsibility" should be weighted against another one, "trust". Can we _trust_ the same group who misled the American public, if not the world, into this war and prepared itself so poorly for it, to now do an effective and honest job of picking up the pieces?



I concur with you too, Outsider, and I wonder why this point isn't more widely made... Fighting against occupiers is perfectly understandable.


----------



## djchak

Tell it to the Māori's.


----------



## Victoria32

djchak said:
			
		

> Tell it to the Māori's.



I do not want to get cross about that, djchak, but I have to. 

I have had other Americans on boards bring up the Maori (not Maoris or Maori's, please) as if they have won some kind of point that way... but I have  _Maori family members, _and know considerably more about the condition of Maori, and the history of NZ than you ever could. 

New Zealand is unique in having as its founding document a treaty made with the indigenous people, and that treaty is taken seriously and has the force of law - all legislation is required to give weight to the Treaty of Waitangi in its effect.

http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/treaty/principles.php


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> Can we _trust_ the same group who misled the American public, if not the world, into this war and prepared itself so poorly for it, to now do an effective and honest job of picking up the pieces?



The vast majority of people outside the US don't trust this group or Americans in general. You might have already realized that some of us (Americans) aren't into self-criticism or easily accept others' criticisms. This is explained by *the myth of goodness of the US*. Here's an article written back in 1999 in connection to the shootings and suicide at Columbine High School. It was written before 9/11 but it shows that there's nothing new under the sun.  

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/1904-cn.htm

First, the article emphasizes that the US sees itself as the universal and ultimate arbiter of what's right and what's wrong. 

_The appropriation by the US and its surrogates of universal arbitrage of right and wrong, and its own games of infantile omnipotence directed at rogue regimes, pariah states, outlaw governments on the international stage, have a curious echo of the mindless rage of the killers of Colorado. _

We like to play God or, at least, we believe that we are the country that best interprets God's will. Like Moses, we are the only ones who can climb up to the top of Mount Sinai and have a tête-à-tête converstation with the Almighty and then communicate the message to the rest of the world. "Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel" (Exodus 10.3). Change some of the characters and some of the content and you'll get the picture.

Second, the article points out the consequences of having too much self-esteem. 

_When the US sets out to 'punish' Saddam, Castro, Gaddafi or Milosevic, it creates demons, conjures forth monsters and aliens against whom it must unleash its military power; and is unable to understand why a whole world does not bow down in grateful recognition of its providential intervention._

This is exactly what happened in Iraq. We created Saddam. We depicted him as the incarnation of the devil himself. At Mount Sinai, the Almighty had given us hard intelligence data that showed that he had stockpiles of WMD and that he was going to us them against us. So we went after him militarily. But now we don't understand why the rest of the world is p*ssed at us. "Ungrateful bastards! Next time, we won't intervene at all and eventually you'll beg us to change our mind and come in your rescue."

Third, the article points out the crux of the problem. 

_In the same way, when the society which projects itself outwardly as the incarnation of wisdom and truth, suppressing its own contradictions and imperfections, also provokes acts of 'gratuitous' evil and epic wrongdoing, it is compelled to repudiate these as exotic and imcomprehensible aberrations. 
_
It's not that America has no redeeming virtues but that it doesn't know how to deal with its own imperfections. We project ourselves outwardly as the incarnation of wisdom and truth because that's how we inwardly see ourselves. We are unable to take a good look at ourselves and see both the good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly within ourselves. Only God is perfect and can act perfectly. So when we embark in these military adventures and f*ck up big time, we repudiate them as incomprehensible aberrations that have nothing to do with who we really are. This disconnect is very dangerous and is what gets us into deep sh*t. We want to continue protecting this image of moral perfection or untainted goodness that in reality only belongs to the gods.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness, I think you take too much on-board when you use the USA in what you say. Any superpower does the same. The British and other Empires (and America is an Empire as much as any which went before it, it doesn't do 'colonies' or 'dominions', it has multi-national global businesses which have sub-contracted that work ) were the same in their time.

As to the future - how much of America's GDP (or even that of "the West" in general) is down to the Arms industry?
Were peace to suddenly erupt all over the world America would probably the worst-hit, and that is a point one doesn't want to dwell on too much, it leads to unpleasant concepts.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Everness, I think you take too much on-board when you use the USA in what you say. Any superpower does the same. The British and other Empires (and America is an Empire as much as any which went before it, it doesn't do 'colonies' or 'dominions', it has multi-national global businesses which have sub-contracted that work ) were the same in their time.



You're right. Actually the title of the article is THE MYTH OF THE GOODNESS OF THE WEST, not just the US. Although I argue that America and its surrogates have appropriated the universal arbitrage of right and wrong, I'm not suggesting that the US should become, as someone pointed out, isolationist. 

We should just avoid at any cost getting ourselves into another Iraq by promoting ourselves as saviour, model and arbiter of last resort of the fate of the peoples of the earth. In the past, and in other major international crises, America did a great job when it worked jointly with the rest of the world community and especially under the auspices of the UN. For some reason, Cheney decided that with Iraq we were going it alone. 

This is what needs to happen but we'll never happen because of the goodness myth. Bush needs to send this message to the world: "Look guys. We f*cked up big time in Iraq. We acted upon faulty intelligence and, to be honest, we had already decided that we were going to invade Iraq regardless. We were looking for excuses not reasons. We took the wrong path in our war against international terrorism and this has backfired on us big time. We didn't say this before because we didn't want to give the wrong message to our enemy. So we are now getting off our high horse and need your help in figuring out how we get out of his mess. We went it alone and we learned our lesson. There are things that can't be undone so let's take it from here. We are willing to work with the rest of the international community."

Yeah, I'm high as a kite!


----------



## Outsider

*Everness*, the article has some interesting reflections, but I don't like to frame this discussion in terms of "there's something wrong with American/Western society". I prefer to think that poor decisions were made because many people were given faulty information. I think they should acknowledge this, and do their best not to make the same kind of mistake again.

*Maxiogee* rightly notes that the U.S. haven't done anything that hadn't been done before by previous powers (though perhaps not on the same scale). But the point is: are we, mankind, going to keep behaving this way forever, or do we intend to improve some time? This is the 21st century...

*Victoria32*, I agree with you, but I also think that the Iraqi rebels, and their supporters, must share some of the blame. I know it's easy to talk from afar, but I really can't bring myself to condone the degree of violence, often harming innocents, and the reckless infighting, that's been going on in Iraq. It's like they've gone mad; which is understandable, given the circumstances, but a damn shame.


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> *Everness*, the article has some interesting reflections, but I don't like to frame this discussion in terms of "there's something wrong with American/Western society". I prefer to think that poor decisions were made because many people were given faulty information. I think they should acknowledge this, and do their best not to make the same kind of mistake again.



There's nothing wrong with American/Western society. I never argued that point but I've heard fellow Americans say, "If you don't like it here, why don't you move to the Middle East?" I'm very happy being a creature of post-modern Western civilization and living in my beautiful US. 

The myth of goodness is a mentality problem that can happen in the West or the East and should be denounced and renounced. I'm sure that the SOBs that perpetrated 9/11 and killed 3000 people think in those exact terms. And don't expect them to change their mind. Unfortunately, terrorists need to be killed and I don't shed a single tear everytime this happens. 

But let's focus on us, not on them. It's not that all of Western countries are at fault. It's just the superpowers that decide to go it alone. The article I quoted above has a great closing paragraph.

_Imperial powers are always thus. Their wealth and might conceal their faults from themselves. Inflated with arrogance and pride, they universalise their values, diffuse them unthinkingly at home and abroad, and are without insight into the extremism and violence they engender in the process; indeed, they demand the tribute of the world which they compel to emulate the truths they embody, no matter what destruction they sow, both within their own heartland and in the territories they wish to subjugate to their limitless power._ 

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/1904-cn.htm

Sobering, uh?


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> Imperial powers are always thus. Their wealth and might conceal their faults from themselves. Inflated with arrogance and pride, they universalise their values, diffuse them unthinkingly at home and abroad, and are without insight into the extremism and violence they engender in the process; indeed, they demand the tribute of the world which they compel to emulate the truths they embody, no matter what destruction they sow, both within their own heartland and in the territories they wish to subjugate to their limitless power.



Again, let's think differently about this statement — not that I disagree with it, or fault Everness for bringing it into the discussion, but think about it, what in that does not apply to _religion_ also? 

I'm not sure that being a superpower enters much into this, or being big, it is a humanity thing, I think. 
It is how we are when we let ourselves.
I have said elsewhere that I think humankind needs enemies. We are a species that thrives on an 'us' and 'them' situation. This may be genetic and may be what drove us to become the dominant species on earth - all our competitors for food resources were "them" and we formed units to build walls and fences to keep them out and our food in.
We have, nowadays, little need to concern ourselves with any non-human "them", and have turned upon ourselves. There is always a bogeyman, an "other" in our folk-tales and mythology. We seem to live by believing, often against the evidence, that someone, somewhere, despises us and wants to deprive us of what we see as ours.
Look at the immediate-aftermath analysis of 9/11. It was seen as an attack on democracy, on "the West", on capitalism, lots of things other than as an attack on America. That thought was not to be countenanced - even relatives of mine, Irish people living in America and Canada, could not bring themselves to believe that America could have people who hated _it_ that much, or who could strike so daringly at the very heart of it.
What appears to be new about the post-9/11 world is that the "us" has grown so big as to encompass a lot more than the tribe, the village, and even the nation. And conversely the "them" is equally large and amorphous — and, probably more importantly, unidentifiable. We do not know who the enemy is. They are not in an enemy army's uniform, they do not live in a particular place, they do not speak an identifiable language, they do not worship in strange ways — in short, they could well be the man or woman next door.

I think that, if we have enemies, we have partially made them ourselves and we need to acknowledge that before we can even begin to come to terms with them - and come to terms with them we must or they and we will destroy ourselves, be it physically or mentally.

So, back to the topic. Who is responsible - as this world is such a tiny and fragile place and as we have no choice but to share it, we all are.


----------



## djchak

"but I don't like to frame this discussion in terms of "there's something wrong with American/Western society"

Well, I don't think you have a lot of company on this one. All western societies are actually extremely self critical. But it doesn't always show, as it usually never gets past personal conversations between people of the same nations. The critisims of other nations are usually much mure common.

"There's nothing wrong with American/Western society"

If this weas the case, we wouldn't get any critisism. There wouldn't be British playrights posting polemic, academic articles that some people take as non-theoretical facts. Journalism invovles double checking of facts, but opnion and anayisis is what sells in the media. Provided it suits what we already want to think anyway.

Who is responsible? Everone on all sides. However, most people don't want to accept this as it would make the situation too complex and multi layered.
Best to keep it simple, that way all sides can blame the other and stall for time.


----------



## Outsider

djchak said:
			
		

> "but I don't like to frame this discussion in terms of "there's something wrong with American/Western society"
> 
> Well, I don't think you have a lot of company on this one. All western societies are actually extremely self critical. But it doesn't always show, as it usually never gets past personal conversations between people of the same nations. The critisims of other nations are usually much mure common.


Pointing our fingers at one's neighbours is not being self-critical. It's much harder to take a critical look at one's own country.



			
				djchak said:
			
		

> "There's nothing wrong with American/Western society"
> 
> If this weas the case, we wouldn't get any critisism. There wouldn't be British playrights posting polemic, academic articles that some people take as non-theoretical facts. Journalism invovles double checking of facts, but opnion and anayisis is what sells in the media. Provided it suits what we already want to think anyway.


You are countering a statement I never made. 



			
				djchak said:
			
		

> Who is responsible? Everone on all sides. However, most people don't want to accept this as it would make the situation too complex and multi layered.
> Best to keep it simple, that way all sides can blame the other and stall for time.


Everyone may be responsible, but not equally responsible, because some have more leverage in what happens in the war and in the occupation than others.


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:
			
		

> ....This is exactly what happened in Iraq. We created Saddam. We depicted him as the incarnation of the devil himself. At Mount Sinai, the Almighty had given us hard intelligence data that showed that he had stockpiles of WMD and that he was going to us them against us. So we went after him militarily. But now we don't understand why the rest of the world is p*ssed at us. "Ungrateful bastards! Next time, we won't intervene at all and eventually you'll beg us to change our mind and come in your rescue."
> 
> Third, the article points out the crux of the problem.
> 
> _In the same way, when the society which projects itself outwardly as the incarnation of wisdom and truth, suppressing its own contradictions and imperfections, also provokes acts of 'gratuitous' evil and epic wrongdoing, it is compelled to repudiate these as exotic and imcomprehensible aberrations. _
> 
> It's not that America has no redeeming virtues but that it doesn't know how to deal with its own imperfections. We project ourselves outwardly as the incarnation of wisdom and truth because that's how we inwardly see ourselves. We are unable to take a good look at ourselves and see both the good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly within ourselves. Only God is perfect and can act perfectly. So when we embark in these military adventures and f*ck up big time, we repudiate them as incomprehensible aberrations that have nothing to do with who we really are. This disconnect is very dangerous and is what gets us into deep sh*t. We want to continue protecting this image of moral perfection or untainted goodness that in reality only belongs to the gods.


 
Exactly right!


----------



## Everness

djchak said:
			
		

> Who is responsible? Everone on all sides.



“Perhaps it is better to be irresponsible and right, than to be responsible and wrong.” -Winston Churchill


----------



## bernik

Most of the arguments in this thread are wrong and shockingly anti-american. It is impossible to reply to all of that. Just one thing: Saying that the White House lied about the weapons of mass destruction is a lie. There were many weapon experts in Iraq before the military invasion, not all of them American. They had been there for years, and still could not evaluate the danger properly. If Saddam Hussein wanted to remain in power, he should have given his full cooperation to the international weapon experts.
Bush has never said that the invasion was about exporting democracy to Iraq. It was about weapons of mass destruction. I think the US government also wanted to eliminate the threat of another agression against Saudi Arabia or another oil producing country. Securing the oil supply of the industrialized world is a vital question. And it was seen as a good thing to rid Iraq of a murderous dictator. Now we know that no nuclear or chemical danger will come from Iraq in the near future, so we can say the job has been done. Bush was kind enough to try and give Iraq a new government in replacement of the old one. I think trying to inject some sanity and democracy in the middle East was a generous idea, but it is getting too expensive in American lives and money. I think the US army should now leave the country and let the Iraqis kill each other if they feel so inclined.
The USA should keep its forces for a military intervention in Iran. It is naive to think that there will not be a few atomic wars in the near future if every country is allowed to get the bomb. The radiation fallout will affect us all. Somebody has to stop that. Since the Europeans will do nothing about it, it will be left to the USA to do the job, once again.
Now, what about establishing democracy in Iran after the military intervention ? We don't care ! The only important thing is to prevent a nuclear war.


----------



## Victoria32

bernik said:
			
		

> .... Just one thing: Saying that the White House lied about the weapons of mass destruction is a lie. There were many weapon experts in Iraq before the military invasion, not all of them American. They had been there for years, and still could not evaluate the danger properly. If Saddam Hussein wanted to remain in power, he should have given his full cooperation to the international weapon experts.
> quote]
> 
> Where do I begin? I don't think I can... there are three years worth of events to talk about here.
> 
> That's nonsense to say the White House didn't lie - they did, absolutely. No weapons of mass destruction have been found or ever will be. Saddam Hussein did not throw out the weapons inspectors, they were withdrawn, or withdrew themselves... and their return is the last thing W., wanted!
> 
> The fact is that Saddam Hussein wanted to co-operate at the time, and the American military went "into thwart mode"  a phrase they used at the time, to my shock!
> 
> It's worth pointing out (though it should not be necessary) that Iraq had exactly nothing to do with the 9/11 event.


----------



## Everness

bernik said:
			
		

> Most of the arguments in this thread are wrong and shockingly anti-american.



Bernik, I think you'll benefit from reading this dialogue between an American father and his American child.

http://develnet.org/ThisAndThat/DaddyWhyDidWeHaveToAttackIraq


----------



## danielfranco

My comments were not anti-American, they were anti-Bush, is all. It'd actually be anti-American to disagree with something and not speak out against it just for fear of the status-quo.
But I digress. It's us, the people of the USA that elected the government that went and punched Iraq in the nose and then didn't know how to stem the nosebleed. It's not as if our feeble "here's a kleenex" approach is going to solve the problem. So, yea, verily, 'tis us who bear some responsability for the future of Iraq.


----------



## luar

bernik said:
			
		

> Bush has never said that the invasion was about exporting democracy to Iraq. It was about weapons of mass destruction.


Maybe he changed his mind: 
"_Today I'm going to speak in depth about another vital element of our strategy: our efforts to help the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy in the heart of the Middle East. I can think of no better place to discuss the rise of a free Iraq than in the heart of Philadelphia, the city where America's democracy was born"._
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-4.html 




			
				bernik said:
			
		

> The USA should keep its forces for a military intervention in Iran. It is naive to think that there will not be a few atomic wars in the near future if every country is allowed to get the bomb. The radiation fallout will affect us all. Somebody has to stop that. Since the Europeans will do nothing about it, it will be left to the USA to do the job, once again.


Did you know that the US has been the only country to use the atomic bomb against another nation? I bet the Japanese people can give you first-hand data about its effects. The anniversary of this painful event is today, August 6th. 




			
				bernik said:
			
		

> The only important thing is to prevent a nuclear war.


 
Too bad Reagan is not alive!


----------



## bernik

Victoria32: _" That's nonsense to say the White House didn't lie - they did, absolutely. No weapons of mass destruction have been found "_

Before Iraq's invasion, there was much speculation about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We could hear interviews of the weapons inspectors, and basically, they did not know what to think, and we knew that the White House relied partly on them to find the truth. So, no one ever thought the White House had perfectly reliable information.
But we know that Saddam would've had his weapons of mass destruction if the USA had not placed the country under surveillance, with weapons inspectors and a trade embargo.
Now, if you think weapons of mass destruction were never a real issue, and Bush did not really care about Saddam's mass killings, I wonder what is your theory. Do you think the White House is just a bunch of perverts who enjoy bombing people ? That is what the anti-Bush crowd has been implying. And it has always been the tactic of the extreme left. Instead of discussing a problem seriously, you will just question the morality of your political opponents !

Danielfranco: _" It's us, the people of the USA that elected the government that went and punched Iraq in the nose and then didn't know how to stem the nosebleed. "_

Not at all. It is the Iraqis who started the problem and are still making trouble now. It is the USA that stopped the Iraqis from causing more mass-murder. It is the USA that is paying a huge price to help the Iraqis get back to living like decent people. And it is you who are taking sides with the Iraqi murderers. I wonder why. Most Iraqis probably hope the United States will stay longer.

Iraq was a threat to peace. The Iraqis had already attacked Iran and Kuwait and killed hundreds of thousands of people. They would have built their atomic bomb and may have used it if the United States had not intervened. With just one bomb, the Iraqis could have destroyed Tel Aviv or Tehran, and there would have been radioactive fallout everywhere. I think we should rather give the Iraqis a bloody nose than wait for them to go about exploding atomic bombs, or gassing more people. Now that the Iraqis are no longer such a threat, the United States doesn't owe them anything. In fact, the Iraqis owe the world an apology.

_" and then didn't know how to stem the nosebleed. "_

Who knows how to stop Arab terrorism ? There is something wrong with the Iraqis. A number of them clearly enjoy committing mass murder of their fellow citizens. The United States can not be held responsible for their appalling behavior. When a criminal kills someone, you should blame him, not the police.


Luar: _" Maybe he changed his mind: "Today I'm going to speak in depth about another vital element of our strategy: our efforts to help the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy "_

I am aware that the USA is trying to create a system that looks like democracy in Iraq, but it was not the reason for going there in the first place.

Luar: _" Did you know that the US has been the only country to use the atomic bomb against another nation? "_

So what ? Is that an argument for allowing Iraq and Iran to have nuclear weapons ?

Everness: _" I think you'll benefit from reading this dialogue between an American father and his American child. "_

Are you making fun of me ? It is a worthless and dishonest argumentation. For example, it says that the United States should have done nothing about Saddam, because it does nothing about China ! How old is the author ?

--
PS for Everness and Danielfranco: how can you say "we, the people of the USA" when you are not Americans by birth ? Especially when you make wild accusations against that country.


----------



## tafanari

The US. We broke it, we bought it.


----------



## danielfranco

bernik said:
			
		

> ...And it is you who are taking sides with the Iraqi murderers.
> 
> ...PS for Everness and Danielfranco: how can you say "we, the people of the USA" when you are not Americans by birth ? Especially when you make wild accusations against that country.


 
Look, pal, I respect your points of view and perspective even though I think they are askew and confrontational.
Fine, I say.
Well done, as a matter of fact; thank you for expressing yourself.

But you have to really think things through before you type insulting remarks as the ones I've highlighted for you. I have no need to debate with you the inappropriateness of personal attacks on these forums. It's self-evident.
I really entreat you to take advantage of the built-in delay of posting a written remark, and try to remember civility and honor as you compose your thoughts on this matter.

Daniel Franco


----------



## bernik

_" try to remember civility and honor "_

Try to remember common sense.

Go to China and tell them you are part of the Chinese people.
If they disagree, tell them about your conception of self-evidence, their lack of honor, their insulting behavior, and the inappropriateness of making personal attacks against you.


----------



## danielfranco

Well said, thank you!
What's the score so far?
Who's winning?


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> Saying that the White House lied about the weapons of mass destruction is a lie. There were many weapon experts in Iraq before the military invasion, not all of them American. They had been there for years, and still could not evaluate the danger properly.


If that was known to be the case - and American intelligence is reputed to be the best in the business - why did the White House say WMD existed? Why not say that they might exist? There were some pretty positive assertions at the time.






> If Saddam Hussein wanted to remain in power, he should have given his full cooperation to the international weapon experts.


Why? 
Who goes after other murderous dictators in the way America set the UN on Saddam?
Saddam played a mighty bluff and in the end was found to have been bluffing. He talked himself up, and was found to be lacking.




> Bush has never said that the invasion was about exporting democracy to Iraq. It was about weapons of mass destruction.


 Which haven't been found —> there, but which exist in other countries…
Why wasn't Libya invaded for its WMD? And its use of Mustard Gas in 1987?
Why wasn't Turkey sanctioned for its use of chemical weapons against the Kurds as far back as 1988?
Why isn't there an inspection team in Syria?
Why wasn't Egypt stopped from selling chemical weapons technology to other states?
What about Israel's nuclear and chemical weapons programs?

Iraq was not about WMD. WMD was the front under which Bush's Iraqi adventure was prosecuted.



> I think the US government also wanted to eliminate the threat of another agression against Saudi Arabia or another oil producing country.


Saudi Arabia is as dictatorial and malignant as Iraq. Iraq posed no threat to the Saudis - they funded him - they are Sunnis and they wished to see the end of the Shi'ite rule in Iran.
Check the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists!





> Securing the oil supply of the industrialized world is a vital question.


No it isn't! 
That's possibly the worst reason for going to war - to steal the natural resources of a sovereign state.
Where will be next - will the deposits of dilithium crystals in Ruritania be up for grabs?




> And it was seen as a good thing to rid Iraq of a murderous dictator. Now we know that no nuclear or chemical danger will come from Iraq in the near future,


… And we know that such danger wasn't going to come from there before the war began, so nothing was achieved in that regard. What we do know is that nothing is going to come from Iraq for a very long time. The invasion so degraded the infrastructure in Iraq that it will be years before it can be considered a stable country economically - regardless of who ends up ruling it.




> Bush was kind enough to try and give Iraq a new government in replacement of the old one.


He had to - he destroyed the old one. That's not kindness! And he didn't see what sort of government they might like, he decided that they would have Brand X whether they wanted it or not.




> I think trying to inject some sanity and democracy in the middle East was a generous idea, but it is getting too expensive in American lives and money. I think the US army should now leave the country and let the Iraqis kill each other if they feel so inclined.


The Americans funded the Ba'ath party in its early days, they assisted Saddam in his rise to power. They assisted his attack on Iran, they caused his downfall - and you think that walking away is an _honourable_ option? 




> The USA should keep its forces for a military intervention in Iran. It is naive to think that there will not be a few atomic wars in the near future if every country is allowed to get the bomb.


I thought MAD was what stopped the two sides of the Cold War from using their weapons - that's what America kept telling the rest of the world when it was building its massive arsenal - still the world's largest! Why should it be different now? (Why does the US still need over 3,000 submarine launched nuclear missiles?) Surely the "balance of terror" would hold opposing sides in check.



> The radiation fallout will affect us all. Somebody has to stop that. Since the Europeans will do nothing about it, it will be left to the USA to do the job, once again.


I think you mean 'since the Europeans will do nothing (that America likes) about it.




> Now, what about establishing democracy in Iran after the military intervention ? We don't care !


I think the Iraqi people would settle for stable government and for once in over 90 years, one free of covert US manipulation.




> The only important thing is to prevent a nuclear war.


Let us not forget that America is the only country which has ever publicly threatened to use nuclear weapons on an opponent.


----------



## djchak

Outsider said:
			
		

> Pointing our fingers at one's neighbours is not being self-critical. It's much harder to take a critical look at one's own country.
> 
> You are countering a statement I never made.
> 
> Everyone may be responsible, but not equally responsible, because some have more leverage in what happens in the war and in the occupation than others.



I don't agree. If one side claims that it it less responsible, isn't it just trying to avoid responsibilty in certain cases? It takes two to tango...


----------



## Everness

bernik said:
			
		

> Everness: _" I think you'll benefit from reading this dialogue between an American father and his American child. "_
> 
> Are you making fun of me ? It is a worthless and dishonest argumentation.



I guess it isn't a rethorical question... Ah, for the record and to avoid further alienating a pro-American French (a rara avis indeed), I declare that I wasn't never part of the movement to rename french fries freedom fries.


----------



## bernik

Thank you.
You are very considerate.


----------



## Victoria32

bernik said:
			
		

> Victoria32: _" That's nonsense to say the White House didn't lie - they did, absolutely. No weapons of mass destruction have been found "_
> 
> ....
> Now, if you think weapons of mass destruction were never a real issue, and Bush did not really care about Saddam's mass killings, I wonder what is your theory. Do you think the White House is just a bunch of perverts who enjoy bombing people ? ...


 
Oh of course not! 
But their motives were not pure and solely aimed at preventing an attack on the USA. Did you read the dialogue Everness linked to? It answers better than I can right now... 

. 





			
				bernik said:
			
		

> They would have built their atomic bomb and may have used it if the United States had not intervened.


Where on earth did you get the idea they had or were getting a nuke???


----------



## bernik

_"Where on earth did you get the idea they had or were getting a nuke???"_

It had been all over the media for several years before Iraq was finally invaded. In 1981, Israel bombed a Iraqi nuclear plant built by the French in Iraq. They were afraid it would be used to make nuclear weapons.
If you type Iraq + nuclear in Google, you find plenty of material about Iraq's nuclear weapon programme.
However, when Bush mentioned weapons of mass destruction as a reason for invading Iraq, I am not sure what he meant exactly. Maybe no one was really worried about an Iraqi nuclear bomb being built in the immediate future. Now, we are even less worried.


----------



## Victoria32

bernik said:
			
		

> _"Where on earth did you get the idea they had or were getting a nuke???"_
> 
> It had been all over the media for several years before Iraq was finally invaded. In 1981, Israel bombed a Iraqi nuclear plant built by the French in Iraq. They were afraid it would be used to make nuclear weapons.
> If you type Iraq + nuclear in Google, you find plenty of material about Iraq's nuclear weapon programme.
> However, when Bush mentioned weapons of mass destruction as a reason for invading Iraq, I am not sure what he meant exactly. Maybe no one was really worried about an Iraqi nuclear bomb being built in the immediate future. Now, we are even less worried.


Oh good grief! The thing about the Internet is that you have to check your sources!!! Some are (obviously) more reliable than others. 

I could be wrong, but I thought it was a nuclear power plant in *Iran* that Israel bombed! Iran is now 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb. *10 years -*  and never had any thought of developing any such thing until the latest threats from the USA. (I can scarcely blame them, now they need one for self-defence, whereas they never did before.) 
I find you to be very naive - Bush said it, and you believe it? Bush is not God, far from it.... 
Frustrating...


----------



## bernik

_I thought it was a nuclear power plant in Iran_

No, it was in Iraq, 11 miles to the south-east of Baghdad (says wikipedia).


----------



## cuchuflete

All of the--in my view accurate--bleating about the role of the US in creating many of Iraq's current problems does nothing to point to a solution.

There are two wars going on in Iraq today, if not more.  One is against an occupying force, which is primarily the US.  If the US leaves, I don't know what those armed insurgents will do with their weapons, and their anger.  I can only assume that they will not put down their weapons.  Will they continue their assault against the current Iraqi regime, due to its obvious alliance with the US?  Probably.  If they succeed in overthrowing that regime, what will replace it?  Again, I don't know.
Does anyone have facts about the makeup of the insurgency?
Is it mostly of one religious or tribal faction, or does it include many or all?  Again, I have seen no press reporting that addresses this topic.

In short, I have no idea if the departure of US troops will make things better or worse, and I look to more knowledgeable people to offer an answer, together with a factual rationale.

The other war is a sectarian civil war.  It will continue, with or without the presence of US troops.  US troops have neither caused nor prevented that particular bloodletting, which claims dozens of innocent lives every day.   Much of it is about settling old scores, and more recently, new ones.  It's about vengeance and hatred, power and fear.  It began before US troops arrived, and will, sadly, continue after they depart.

As to responsibility, the US bears much, maybe most of it, but not all.  Assigning guilt is so easy. Proposing any kind of viable solution is so difficult.


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> There are two wars going on in Iraq today, if not more. One is against an occupying force, which is primarily the US. If the US leaves, I don't know what those armed insurgents will do with their weapons, and their anger. I can only assume that they will not put down their weapons. Will they continue their assault against the current Iraqi regime, due to its obvious alliance with the US? Probably. If they succeed in overthrowing that regime, what will replace it? Again, I don't know.


I know if I were an Iraqi insurgent, I'd not stop with getting the USA out, the puppet government (which is essentially what it is) would be next.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Does anyone have facts about the makeup of the insurgency?
> Is it mostly of one religious or tribal faction, or does it include many or all? Again, I have seen no press reporting that addresses this topic.


It's hard to separate fact from fancy, but afaik, the 'insurgency' comprises all factions at present. If there was no one enemy to fight, sure they'd fight each other to a standstill. There was a balance of power before the American invasion, that kept the country relatively stable, Sunni on top... 
It wasn't ideal, but it was a _modus vivendi..._ That was destabilised by the American invasion. Just as Iraq had the highest literacy before 2003 and now has one of the lowest... 

.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Proposing any kind of viable solution is so difficult.


Absolutely! AFAIK,  the getting out of it, of US troops is an absolute essential. There'll be trouble, it'll be an outpost of hell for a while, but no more of a one than it is right now...


----------



## djchak

"I thought it was a nuclear power plant in *Iran* that Israel bombed!"

Uh, No. The Osirak plant, that the French helped to build, in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

"I know if I were an Iraqi insurgent, I'd not stop with getting the USA out, the puppet government (which is essentially what it is) would be next."

Gee, this seems a lot what happened in Afghanistan. Only it happened to the Soviets. And eventually the insurgents of thier time did the exact same thing, leading it to be a failed state. Perfect time for the Taliban to come over from Pakistan and rule.

The "insurgents" don't just target US Soldiers. If they did, there would be a lot less Iraqis dead.

The US is responsible for a lot of what Iraq is today. But the Iraqis that keep planting bombs in marketplaces where people shop for groceries...they don't have any responsibility?

I'm still waiting for the Maori to kick all the "occupiers" out of NZ. Oh wait a minute. They formed a treaty so there wouldn't have to be insane bloodshed from that point on. Maybe the Iraqi "insurgents" could learn something from them, as the US has no permanent plans to occupy, and could have left by now.


----------



## Everness

Victoria32 said:
			
		

> Oh of course not! Did you read the dialogue Everness linked to? It answers better than I can right now...



Victoria, the dialogue is a little gem. On the one hand, it contains a series of facts craftily put together. Even a Huguenot would have a hard time challenging their verisimilitude. But the dialogue is even more telling because it reflects how many Americans think. We tend to compartamentalize our knowledge. And when it comes to connecting the dots, we tend to connect them selectively.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> All of the--in my view accurate--bleating about the role of the US in creating many of Iraq's current problems does nothing to point to a solution.
> 
> There are two wars going on in Iraq today, if not more.  One is against an occupying force, which is primarily the US.  If the US leaves, I don't know what those armed insurgents will do with their weapons, and their anger.  I can only assume that they will not put down their weapons.  Will they continue their assault against the current Iraqi regime, due to its obvious alliance with the US?  Probably.  If they succeed in overthrowing that regime, what will replace it?  Again, I don't know.
> Does anyone have facts about the makeup of the insurgency?
> Is it mostly of one religious or tribal faction, or does it include many or all?  Again, I have seen no press reporting that addresses this topic.
> 
> In short, I have no idea if the departure of US troops will make things better or worse, and I look to more knowledgeable people to offer an answer, together with a factual rationale.
> 
> The other war is a sectarian civil war.  It will continue, with or without the presence of US troops.  US troops have neither caused nor prevented that particular bloodletting, which claims dozens of innocent lives every day.   Much of it is about settling old scores, and more recently, new ones.  It's about vengeance and hatred, power and fear.  It began before US troops arrived, and will, sadly, continue after they depart.


Somalia may be an interesting case study for comparison. About ten years ago it was in pretty bad shape, politically. There was a civil war, and the official government was toppled. The West was outraged. A nation without a central government? We can't have that! So American troops were sent there to try to sort things out, but it didn't go very well. The Clinton administration decided to pull out.

So, what's happened to Somalia since then? Has it fallen into a bottomless pit of anarchy? What I've heard is that a sort of feudal situation eventually emerged, with each warlord controlling a little bit of the country, and the bigger fish progressively eating up the little fish. Then the bigger warlords reached the limit of their capabilities, and had to begin dealing with each other more calmly. The general trend seems to have been a gradual political stabilization, though things are still far from nice down there.

And this without outside guidance from superior civilizations! It makes you wonder... Well it's what I heard. I'm not terribly well informed about Somalia.


----------



## bernik

_" The West was outraged. A nation without a central government? We can't have that! "_

Nobody cares what form of governement they have in Somalia. The problem was that the civil war caused mass starvation. Can't you remember the news reports ?

_" American troops were sent there to try to sort things out, but it didn't go very well. "_

American troops were attacked by the local militias. What else to expect ? But still, before the US army pulled out, I think they did save a few thousand people from starvation ? What's wrong with that ?

_" So, what's happened to Somalia since then? Has it fallen into a bottomless pit of anarchy? "_

If you want fresh news, try typing the words somalia + islamic in google news.

_" The general trend seems to have been a gradual political stabilization, though things are still far from nice down there. And this without outside guidance from superior civilizations! "_

The last I heard, they were shooting people who tried to watch the soccer world cup on television.


----------



## Everness

"I hear people say `Civil war this, civil war that,' " Bush said at a news conference at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. "The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/08/08/bush_says_iraq_voted_to_resist_civil_war/

So let's join forces and publicly denounce those who are irresponsibly spreading these unfounded lies by stating that Iraq is going down the path of civil war. 

Who?* Gen. John Abizaid,* *chairman of the U.S. Central Command, Commander of United States forces in the Middle East.* What did he say? _"Sectarian violence probably is as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular. If not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."_

Who? *General Peter Pace*, *chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.* What did he say? _"We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war."_ 

Mr. President. I did my patriotic duty. I denounced at least two guys, clearly unpatriotic, who are saying "Civil war this, civil war that." I hope my fellow Americans follow my lead and join me in this campaign to silence those misinformed individuals who don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## bernik

If it gets worse in Iraq, the terrorists should be blamed.


----------



## Victoria32

bernik said:
			
		

> If it gets worse in Iraq, the terrorists should be blamed.


But what terrorists do you mean? 

It's all a matter of definition... one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter! 

This whole _macello_ is the fault of the invasion in 2003.That may seem harsh but it's true.


----------



## bernik

_" one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter! "_

When a terrorist explodes a bomb in a street of Baghdad, there is no way you can call him a freedom fighter.

In fact, the Iraqis have never had more freedom than they now have. 
They even have a free press !


_" This whole macello is the fault of the invasion in 2003. "_

No, it is the fault of the terrorists. 
Who sends them in the street to kill people? Not Bush.


----------



## Everness

bernik said:
			
		

> _" This whole macello is the fault of the invasion in 2003. "_
> 
> No, it is the fault of the terrorists.
> Who sends them in the street to kill people? Not Bush.



I think you should revisit Montaigne who once said “The question is not who will hit the ring, but who will make the best runs at it.” In other words, the aim is to properly exercise our judgment.

Let's see if this helps you: 

"In January 2005, the CIA's internal think tank, the National Intelligence Council, concluded that Iraq had replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for a new generation of jidahist terrorists. The country has become 'a magnet for international terrorist activity,' said the council's chairman, Robert Hutchings. There was no question that there were more terrorists in Iraq in 2005 than there were early in 2003, when President Bush had accused the country of harboring terrorists."  

Thomas Ricks - "Fiasco. The American Military Adventure in Iraq- p. 430


----------



## bernik

Everness said:
			
		

> I think you should revisit Montaigne who once said “The question is not who will hit the ring, but who will make the best runs at it.”



Montaigne knew a lot about basketball !


----------



## Everness

bernik said:
			
		

> Montaigne knew a lot about basketball !



I think he would have invented it if he had been given the opportunity but we must give alll the credit to a Canadian living in Springfield, Mass, my beloved state. What's next? Are you going to confess that you are a Knicks fan or that you never read Montaigne?

Oops... I forgot to include the original quote that I freely translated into sports English. 

III 8, F 860; VS 928b. “Ce n'est pas à qui mettra dedans, mais à qui fera les plus belles courses”.


----------



## Victoria32

bernik said:
			
		

> _" one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter! "_
> 
> When a terrorist explodes a bomb in a street of Baghdad, there is no way you can call him a freedom fighter.
> 
> In fact, the Iraqis have never had more freedom than they now have.
> They even have a free press !
> 
> 
> _" This whole macello is the fault of the invasion in 2003. "_
> 
> No, it is the fault of the terrorists.
> Who sends them in the street to kill people? Not Bush.


 
Oh for goodness' sake! Can't you see that the American invasion gave the "terrorists" the means, motive and opportunity to explode bombs in the market place? 

If I were an Iraqi woman I'd consider the free press an ill bargain if it meant being scared to go to the marketplace! 

Of course Bush doesn't send terrorists into the street, but how would you feel if say Indonesia invaded the USA and anyone who resisted the occupiers was labelled a terrorist? 

(You live in France, but you are emotionally American it seems to me.)


----------



## Everness

Victoria32 said:
			
		

> (You live in France, but you are emotionally American it seems to me.)



Just emotionally? Bernik should have flown to Connecticut to help his buddy Joe Lieberman keep his job. 

Oh, don't tell me that you didn't know? Senator Joe Lieberman just lost the Democratic nomination for a fourth term. Why? Because of his support for the Iraq war. 

America is waking up... finally!


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:
			
		

> Just emotionally? Bernik should have flown to Connecticut to help his buddy Joe Lieberman keep his job.
> 
> Oh, don't tell me that you didn't know? Senator Joe Lieberman just lost the Democratic nomination for a fourth term. Why? Because of his support for the Iraq war.
> 
> America is waking up... finally!


 
I did see something about Lieberman, but I didn't read the item, I should have! Good news, basically. I discuss this on two other boards, one British and one American, and I am stunned at how naive some people seem! I really should try and govern my impatience and anger about it all, but I have been arguing about it since 2002, on the British board.


----------



## bernik

_" how would you feel if say Indonesia invaded the USA and anyone who resisted the occupiers was labelled a terrorist? "_

Much of the US army's job in Iraq is to try to prevent the mayhem.
While the terrorists are killing innocent people in the street.
How can you call that "resisting the occupiers" ?

You can be sure they would keep committing atrocities if the US army pulled out now. That's why most Iraqis do not want the US to leave immediately.

PS: How would you feel if Indonesia had invaded Iraq ?
I bet you would not care !


----------



## Victoria32

bernik said:
			
		

> _" how would you feel if say Indonesia invaded the USA and anyone who resisted the occupiers was labelled a terrorist? "_
> 
> Much of the US army's job in Iraq is to try to prevent the mayhem.
> While the terrorists are killing innocent people in the street.
> How can you call that "resisting the occupiers" ?
> 
> You can be sure they would keep committing atrocities if the US army pulled out now. That's why most Iraqis do not want the US to leave immediately.
> 
> PS: How would you feel if Indonesia had invaded Iraq ?
> I bet you would not care !


 
Of course I would care! The point I was making is, that resisting the occupiers, which is how it started, has given an opportunity for terrorists to confuse the issue. As Everness said (and supplied back up) there are many more thousands of terrorists in Iraq than there ever were before the invasion.

Listen to the BBC World Service - occasionally they interview the ordinary Iraqi in the street, and I assure you, they all have mixed feelings to say the least. They wouldn't be facing what they are facing, if not for the invasion...


----------



## Outsider

bernik said:
			
		

> _" how would you feel if say Indonesia invaded the USA and anyone who resisted the occupiers was labelled a terrorist? "_
> 
> Much of the US army's job in Iraq is to try to prevent the mayhem.


Didn't you say earlier that their job was to track down and dismantle the weapons of mass destruction? Well, that's over and done, so what's keeping them there?



			
				bernik said:
			
		

> You can be sure they would keep committing atrocities if the US army pulled out now. That's why most Iraqis do not want the US to leave immediately.
> 
> PS: How would you feel if Indonesia had invaded Iraq ?
> I bet you would not care !


Would _you_ care if Indonesia had invaded Iraq? If so, then why don't you care when the invader is the West? 
If not, then why do you care whether atrocities are committed there if the Coallition leaves?



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> I think you should revisit Montaigne who once said “The question is not who will hit the ring, but who will make the best runs at it.” In other words, the aim is to properly exercise our judgment.


But you really can't do better than Voltaire: 

"Anyone who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities."


----------



## bernik

Outsider said:
			
		

> Would _you_ care if Indonesia had invaded Iraq? If so, then why don't you care when the invader is the West?


 I won't pretend I care deeply about Iraq. What irritates me is the left-wing anti-western rhetoric. I don't know if Bush was right to invade Iraq, but at least he had arguments for doing it. There were good arguments both for and against the war. But what I can't stand is that the antiwar movement has been dominated by the anti-american hard left.

Contrary to what you think, the American invasion of Iraq is not the same thing as Napoleon invading Europe, Indonesia invading Timor, Iraq invading Kuwait, or the Arabs devastating Darfur. The Americans went there to topple a dangerous tyrant. Now they would like to get out as soon as they can, but Iraq's interest is that they stay longer. Personally, I think they should pull out anyway.

Here is another message you wrote a few days ago :
_" I've just noticed that when people hear about violence in Iraq, they tend to assume that it's sectarian or ethnic violence. There does seem to be a bit of that going on, but surely there's another kind of violence there that we're all forgetting about: violence against the occupiers. "_

So, you think it is natural that some Iraqis would turn to violence because they find the American presence unacceptable. Then, what about Arab immigration in western countries ? There are several million of them in France, and their number is increasing. They are unwanted, but unlike the Americans, they have no intention to leave. They are building mosques everywhere. They forbid mini-skirts, ruin the school education, and commit most of the crime. How would you feel about Europeans resorting to violence against them ?

Why is it okay for Europe to be repopulated with Arabs, but unacceptable for Americans to stay 10 years in Iraq to help create a workable political system ? Not all Iraqis are terrorists. It makes no sense to support the terrorists. In fact, some of the "insurgents" in Iraq come from Western Europe. I think they have been listening too much to the BBC or other anti-western media.


----------



## djchak

"but you are emotionally American"


----------



## bernik

In fact, I am an Armorican: Armorica is the name given in ancient times to the part of Gaul that includes the Brittany peninsula and the territory between the Seine and Loire rivers (wikipedia).


----------



## Outsider

bernik said:
			
		

> So, you think it is natural that some Iraqis would turn to violence because they find the American presence unacceptable. Then, what about Arab immigration in western countries ? There are several million of them in France, and their number is increasing. They are unwanted, but unlike the Americans, they have no intention to leave. They are building mosques everywhere. They forbid mini-skirts, ruin the school education, and commit most of the crime. How would you feel about Europeans resorting to violence against them ?


That's not an even comparison, for several reasons that should be obvious. Here are two of them:

1) Even though there's a considerable number of Muslim immigrants in parts of Europe (many of them 2nd generation, 3rd generation, etc. "immigrants", really), they have not taken control of Europe, not by a long shot. The older brand of Europeans is still the one you find at the top of governments, parties, corporations, police, etc. -- not Muslims. This makes all the difference.

2) Muslim immigrants did not force themselves upon Europe; they were invited in, or at least lured in. Here's a reality check: even though some sectors of the political spectrum pretend that they'd like to "clean" Europe of immigrants, that's just for show. They would never really do it, because the truth is that immigration, especially illegal immigration, is good for business, and they will keep letting it happen through the back door, all the while they deplore it in their empty rhetoric.


----------



## bernik

Outsider said:
			
		

> Muslim immigrants did not force themselves upon Europe; they were invited in


 And still more of them are being invited to Europe by the leftists, the same people who tell us that the American presence in Iraq is unacceptable, probably a desecration of Arab soil.
In the real world, most Europeans resent immigration, and most Iraqis would like the US army to stay longer. However, the Iraqis would not accept to receive millions of European settlers, even if the settlers stayed out of government.

_" they have not taken control of Europe, not by a long shot."_

Try to go out at night in an immigrant district. I would rather be ruled by Saddam Hussein for ten years than have half the European population replaced with third-world immigrants. Besides, the United States provide better government than Saddam Hussein. 

_" immigration, especially illegal immigration, is good for business "_

Tell that to the Japanese.
Do you think everything is about business ?


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> Try to go out at night in an immigrant district.


*Try*? Why?
Is it illegal?
Will one be prevented?
Will one be detained?​

[/quote]I would rather be ruled by Saddam Hussein for ten years than have half the European population replaced with third-world immigrants.[/QUOTE]

What is going to happen to the half which is "replaced" - will they be killed, exiled? How is this "replacement" going to be effected?

*Why* would you rather have Saddam Hussein rule you (for any length of time) than have third-world emigrants share with you your ample living space and resources? 
Is it in any way connected to the problem you seem to have in sharing your part of the continent with French people?


----------



## bernik

maxiogee said:
			
		

> How is this "replacement" going to be effected?


Without the immigration, Europeans would have more children.
There is clearly a population replacement.

Even if there was no population replacement :
Let's say you are in a country with 100 million Europeans, and you receive 50 million third-world people. Now you are 150 million people. In your personal life, you won't start seeing more people than you used to. So, you will see less Europeans. For example, when I was living in Paris, most people in my building where Arabs, so I had less social contact with Europeans.


----------



## Outsider

bernik said:
			
		

> [...] most Iraqis would like the US army to stay longer.


Not according to the poll that Everness linked to on page 2 of this thread.

By the way, what's wrong with "third world immigrants", as opposed to other immigrants?


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, I've discussed enough about this topic in my life and for what...? For nothing! It makes me sick and it's just a waste of time.

All I wanted to say is that calling Iraqis terrorists is just... well, I don't have words to describe that. I just can't believe that after having their country invaded they are seen as terrorists for fighting in *their own* land.

Just one more thing: some time ago a couple of British soldiers were found dressed up as Iraqis (with beard and so on) and they carried bombs with themselves. 

That's all.


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> Without the immigration, Europeans would have more children.


What evidence is there of that?



> There is clearly a population replacement.


I think the correct word is "augmentation".



> Let's say you are in a country with 100 million Europeans, and you receive 50 million third-world people. Now you are 150 million people. In your personal life, you won't start seeing more people than you used to.


*Why not?*
The population of Dublin has grown by 100% since my childhood. I *do* see more people - the streets are busier, the buses are more crowded, the shops (which are larger than they used to be) are more crowded than they were — what makes you think that these people will be occupying no space? They must be somewhere, and they must be there in the ratio of 3:2 compared to previously.



> So, you will see less Europeans. For example, when I was living in Paris, most people in my building where Arabs, so I had less social contact with Europeans.


You "had less" in comparison to what? 
Less than in Brittany? — I'm not surprised.
Less than in Dublin? — Probably.
Less than in London? — I doubt it.​


----------



## Benjy

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, I've discussed enough about this topic in my life and for what...? For nothing! It makes me sick and it's just a waste of time.
> 
> All I wanted to say is that calling Iraqis terrorists is just... well, I don't have words to describe that. I just can't believe that after having their country invaded they are seen as terrorists for fighting in *their own* land.
> 
> Just one more thing: some time ago a couple of British soldiers were found dressed up as Iraqis (with beard and so on) and they carried bombs with themselves.
> 
> That's all.



when was that??


----------



## Benjy

*Puts on mod hat*



> Citation:
> Posté par bernik
> Without the immigration, Europeans would have more children.
> 
> What evidence is there of that?
> 
> 
> Citation:
> There is clearly a population replacement.
> 
> I think the correct word is "augmentation".
> 
> 
> Citation:
> Let's say you are in a country with 100 million Europeans, and you receive 50 million third-world people. Now you are 150 million people. In your personal life, you won't start seeing more people than you used to.
> 
> Why not?
> The population of Dublin has grown by 100% since my childhood. I do see more people - the streets are busier, the buses are more crowded, the shops (which are larger than they used to be) are more crowded than they were — what makes you think that these people will be occupying no space? They must be somewhere, and they must be there in the ratio of 3:2 compared to previously.
> 
> 
> Citation:
> So, you will see less Europeans. For example, when I was living in Paris, most people in my building where Arabs, so I had less social contact with Europeans.
> 
> You "had less" in comparison to what?
> Less than in Brittany? — I'm not surprised.
> Less than in Dublin? — Probably.
> Less than in London? — I doubt it.



Someone reading this dialogue would have great difficulty in  guessing  the title of this thread (not a dig at you Tony.. it's just the way the thread has gone ).

It is therefore locked.. and may be reopened a little later.


----------

