Why have 500 US soldiers been killed in Iraq?

[The idea]

This is a poll.

[davefoc]

I didn't vote in your poll.

I don't know the answer but I suspect that the reasons are varied and not exactly any of the answers you have provided in your poll.

My thoughts:
1. People are jockying for control in the post US/UK Iraq. They want to make any current Iraqi administration as unstable and unpopular as possible to make it as likely as possible that their particular group will seize power when the Americans/British leave.

2. They are pissed off at the Americans/British and they are seaking vengence.

3. They want to make sure that US/UK are encouraged to leave quickly.

4. Some of them, like soldiers everywhere, get so caught up in the violence that it is not easy to adjust to peace so they continue to commit violent acts even after it is rational to do so.

5. There might be some Muslim/Christian friction going on too. Sort of a continuum of the enmity that dates from the crusades.

Edited to add:
6. The diverse factions in the country make a civil war a real possibility. What we are seeing are just opening shots in what might be a very bloody civil war and the Americans/British are just standing in the way right now of that

[shemp]

You forgot to add this option: "They were sent to die for the Bush re-election effort."

[davefoc]

I personally believe it is unlikely that the war was started for political gain as Shemp suggests.

I find it very hard to believe that this American president or any American president would do something like this that involved such enormous risks based on self serving motives.

But given the history of the world where leaders have routinely embarked on wars for purposes that don't seem to have much to do with morality or benefit to their respective countries I suppose my belief that American presidents are immune to immoral motivations when it comes to wars might be naive.

Still, it might be noted, that the far more straightforward war that the first Bush led against Iraq didn't result in a victory for his dad in the election that followed. So if the second Bush went to war to win an election he did it in the face of the knowledge that it's sure not a guaranteed ploy.

[The idea]

Originally posted by shemp
You forgot to add this option: "They were sent to die for the Bush re-election effort."
The poll question is not "why were they sent?" The poll question is: "why were they killed?"

[Mr Manifesto]

You forgot, "Some people are just funny about having their country run by an occupying force".

Failing that, you forgot the option most likely to attract votes, "To become the subject of a biased BB poll".

[The idea]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You forgot, "Some people are just funny about having their country run by an occupying force".
What is an occupying force?

There are various islands -- actual physical places -- that are considered part of the nation known as "Japan." Now, suppose you live on one island (and suppose that your parents, grandparents, etc. also lived on that island) but the national political and judicial authorities are on another island. Is your island being run by an occupying force? Why not--because the national political and judicial authorities resemble you racially?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You forgot, "Some people are just funny about having their country run by an occupying force".
During any given ten-month period when Hong Kong was a British colony (pre-1997), were 500 British soldiers killed by illegal combatants in Hong Kong?

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by The idea

What is an occupying force?

There are various islands -- actual physical places -- that are considered part of the nation known as "Japan." Now, suppose you live on one island (and suppose that your parents, grandparents, etc. also lived on that island) but the national political and judicial authorities are on another island. Is your island being run by an occupying force? Why not--because the national political and judicial authorities resemble you racially? Try applying your argument to North America, and the Native Americans.

[The idea]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Try applying your argument to North America, and the Native Americans.
What argument? I asked a question: "what is an occupying force?" Also, it might be good to learn why one would think it natural for people to try to kill the soldiers of an occupying force.

Was Saddam Hussein the leader of an occupying force when he controlled Iraq? If not, is it because he racially resembles Iraqis?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by The idea

During any given ten-month period when Hong Kong was a British colony (pre-1997), were 500 British soldiers killed by illegal combatants in Hong Kong?
Ever heard of the opium wars that led to British siezure of Hong kong? Just because it happened over 150 years ago doesn't mean it didn't happen. Did you imagine that the chinese welcomed the colonizers?

[ceptimus]

And we all know how the Indians used to kill the cowboys....

People get a little angry when invaders come and take over their country. Strange isn't it?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

It's the white man's burden.


The burden was the British Empire's; now it belongs to the U.S.A.


Rudyard Kipling (http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/kipling/kipling.html)

To veil the threat of terror

[The idea]

Originally posted by ceptimus
People get a little angry when invaders come and take over their country. Strange isn't it?
If you were an ordinary Iraqi, would you say that, before the soldiers arrived, Iraq belonged to you, but now you are doomed to have less influence over Iraq unless you fight the soldiers?

Which is more important: the policies of the political authorities or the geographical origin (race) of the political authorities?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shemp
You forgot to add this option: "They were sent to die for the Bush re-election effort."
You will of course get an argument about that.
What is undisputed is that it is to achieve an undefined goal for an unspecified/unlimited cost.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33655

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The idea
Which is more important: the policies of the political authorities or the geographical origin (race) of the political authorities?

That's a great question. I wonder if anyone will have an answer that supports the race side?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mycroft


That's a great question. I wonder if anyone will have an answer that supports the race side?

You mean an actual answer as opposed to sarcastic quips? I'd like to see one, too.

[Nasarius]

I think a lot of people are massively pissed about having Great Satan take over their country. But I don't think that's really "religious intolerance". It's what happens when you overthrow a government that enough people fanatically support.
In any case, all your poll options are ridiculous. They remind me of the options on Fox News polls...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by epepke


You mean an actual answer as opposed to sarcastic quips? I'd like to see one, too.

Can you give me any examples of countries where the ruling group is a different racial group to the general population? The only ones I can think of are colonial regimes and occupied areas. I could ask republicans if they would rather see a democrat government or a foreign power in government....but I'm not really sure of the answer I would get...some may even prefer a foreign power! I suspect not many would.....

I suppose in the end peoples overwelming natural reaction would be to resist foreign rule, even if the home rule was completely incompetent.
If, however, the home rule was dangrous to its own people then maybe the priority desire for immediate personal safety would see people cheering in the foreign power... Human nature (in my view) tends to see this rapidly disappear once the people see the old regime well and truly gone and the desire to remove the foreign rule quickly emerges.

For more on this I would suggest reading the views of Mohandhas Gandhi.

[epepke]

Originally posted by The Fool


Can you give me any examples of countries where the ruling group is a different racial group to the general population?

You seem to be taking what I said as an argument, but I'm just asking for some defense.

But, hell, I'll even bite at straw men sometimes. Limited to the town I have lived most in, there have been some times when the mayor and the majority of the commissioners in Tallahassee were Negroid, while the majority of the population are Caucusoid. As far as I can tell, hardly anybody gave a wet slap about the fact, and there were ugly names for the few who did.

I'm skeptical of the concept of "race" even so, but certainly if anything the distinction was much clearer than the slight difference of shades of brown that somehow magically become of supreme importance whenever people speak of faraway places.

I suppose in the end peoples overwelming natural reaction would be to resist foreign rule, even if the home rule was completely incompetent.

But it's still a worthwhile question to ask, what constitutes "foreign rule?" It seems to me that the answer "race" is woefully inadequate. For example, I'm sure people can come up with endless "yeah but" or "it's different in some other way" reasons for dismissing the Tallahassee example. This leads me to conclude that the race answer is just one of those ad hoc things.

What, exactly, is "home rule"? I, personally, am by genetics more English than Queen Elizabeth.

It's an interesting anthropological question. Possibly, some good things could be said about it. Maybe, for instance, in Iraq, the concept of Americans and English as having recently come in from outside is more important than some rarefied racial distinction on the Brown-O-Meter™. Maybe there's a religious and/or cultural distinction that hasn't much to do with race, either. Maybe it's just "I've lived here for twenty years, and you haven't." I'd like to see some thoughts on this and related subjects, but I seldom do; mostly the discussion seems to assume that the number on the Brown-O-Meter™ is both obvious and obviously significant, for some reason, and anyone who doesn't jump up and down and say "Yahoo!" is some kind of reactionary.

[Troll]

500 died for several reasons. Lack of training for the type of battle they are in, though some have trained, so its not a military issue so much as an "has everyone had the chance for the training" issue.

Lack of the best equipment available.


Even these items being corrected would not have prevented al deaths. People are mortal and people try to kill other people at times and sometimes the succeed.

sorry I didn't offer you a liberal or conservative excuse, but the real facts are that there are no liberla or conservative reasons for their deaths.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by epepke


You seem to be taking what I said as an argument, but I'm just asking for some defense.

But, hell, I'll even bite at straw men sometimes.

You can bite me too if you like...


Limited to the town I have lived most in, there have been some times when the mayor and the majority of the commissioners in Tallahassee were Negroid, while the majority of the population are Caucusoid. As far as I can tell, hardly anybody gave a wet slap about the fact, and there were ugly names for the few who did.

I think I was talking about "ruling groups" I would't classify mayors and local commissioners who's biggest worry is what day the trash is collected qualify as rulers.


I'm skeptical of the concept of "race" even so, but certainly if anything the distinction was much clearer than the slight difference of shades of brown that somehow magically become of supreme importance whenever people speak of faraway places.

Race is always the subject of great debate among anthropologists My view is that race is like a large extended family...where an accumulation of common traits lead a group of people to identify together... This often does include physical appearance but behaviors are probably more defining.



But it's still a worthwhile question to ask, what constitutes "foreign rule?" It seems to me that the answer "race" is woefully inadequate. For example, I'm sure people can come up with endless "yeah but" or "it's different in some other way" reasons for dismissing the Tallahassee example.

Not endless, I just had one reason to dismiss it...That reason being that it has no relevance to the discussion.

What, exactly, is "home rule"?

Government of the people, by the people, for the people sounds fairly close to me...how is it for you?


Maybe there's a religious and/or cultural distinction that hasn't much to do with race, either. Maybe it's just "I've lived here for twenty years, and you haven't."


Or the fact that the Government consists of or is appointed by people who are citizens of a foreign country....No "brown-o-meter" needed.




BTW have you figured out your obligations under Florida common law yet?

[epepke]

Originally posted by The Fool
I think I was talking about "ruling groups" I would't classify mayors and local commissioners who's biggest worry is what day the trash is collected qualify as rulers.

Seems pretty ad hoc to me, as it seems that getting the trash collected, maintaining the police force, etc. are just the kinds of things that the American Iraqi Overlords are doing. Not that they're doing a terribly good job of it.

Race is always the subject of great debate among anthropologists My view is that race is like a large extended family...where an accumulation of common traits lead a group of people to identify together... This often does include physical appearance but behaviors are probably more defining.

This runs the risk of being construed as an interesting statement.


Not endless, I just had one reason to dismiss it...That reason being that it has no relevance to the discussion.

Phew! I was getting worried there for a moment, as it seemed to be getting interesting. But you've corrected the error.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people sounds fairly close to me...how is it for you?

That's fine for me. Does this constitute an assertion that the displaced Iraqi government was government of the people, by the people, for the people, or is it entirely unrelated?

You see, I keep getting the impression that underlying all the arguments about US imperialism and all that it a tacit assumption that is some variation on "those Wogs don't know any better."

I'd love to be disabused of this impression, but it would require some actual argument. Sarcastic quips are fun and are sometimes appropriate (see previous paragraph), but when that's all that one sees, it isn't particularly enlightening.

Or the fact that the Government consists of or is appointed by people who are citizens of a foreign country....No "brown-o-meter" needed.

Fine statement, but as opposed to what? As opposed to a guy taking power by force, trading ration coupons for votes, supported and propped up as we are constantly reminded by the US government and others, which is different exactly how?

It seems to me that the Saddam Hussein government was, by any reasonable interpretation, and according to the consensus of the plurality of critics of the US, such a clear example of government by a foreign power as to make the current pro tem government, inasmuch as it actually exists, pretty lukewarm by comparison.

Again, I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but it would require some actual argument, extending beyond quips.

BTW have you figured out your obligations under Florida common law yet?

Wow. You remember me. I guess I have some status, then.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by epepke



You see, I keep getting the impression that underlying all the arguments about US imperialism and all that it a tacit assumption that is some variation on "those Wogs don't know any better."


I can't say I disagree with that...Many americans have trouble comprehending how people could feel that being governed by Americans is highly undesirabe. To the extent of prefering a non american dictator.

It seems to me that the Saddam Hussein government was, by any reasonable interpretation, and according to the consensus of the plurality of critics of the US, such a clear example of government by a foreign power as to make the current pro tem government, inasmuch as it actually exists, pretty lukewarm by comparison.

Interesting idea, baath party was a foreign government.... Well they were all Iraqi born, so I'm assuming you are saying that they were foreign installed and/or controlled. There is some evidence that they were foreign supported but I have never heard anyone suggest that they were installed by a foreign power...


Again, I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but it would require some actual argument, extending beyond quips.

go ahead....make your proposal...."The Baath government of Iraq was a foreign government"by Epepke. Please don't wait around to long expecting me to disprove it....its your baby, you have to teach it to walk first.... so your first piece of supporting evidence is???

[epepke]

Originally posted by The Fool
I can't say I disagree with that...Many americans have trouble comprehending how people could feel that being governed by Americans is highly undesirabe. To the extent of prefering a non american dictator.

You know, you're going to ruin your reputation if you continue to post thoughtful replies.

I'm at least partially an anthropologist. And, even though I'm an American, I can see many ways in which some people could prefer a non-American dictator, or even a system that is completely incompatible with any form of democracy.

As an anthropologist, I can see that every culture has ways of dealing with every basic human need. Furthermore, I accept the doctrine of cultural relativism, according to which it is stupid to make a judgement of any particular aspect of a culture without understanding how it relates to all other aspects of the culture. Some cultures might function perfectly well under a dictatorship or a monarchy or an oligarchy; it depends on how the other aspects of the culture have evolved to fit.

For example, in America it is considered bad for police to take bribes, and in the context of American culture it is bad. In the context of Mexican culture, which I know pretty well because I lived there, having police take bribes works perfectly well, just as well as tipping your server when you are in a restaurant.

To take something on the other side, consider Europe. Tipping is rare in Europe and not expected. All European countries have socialized health care systems, yet in many of them, it's hard to find decent care. America has no health care system, yet it is still possible for any wino with a bellyache to go into any emergency room and get a CAT scan that night. How does that work? Well, there's medicare, which doesn't pay enough, but every single hospital cooks the books, and so long as the discrepancies aren't too obvious, it's overlooked.

Cultures work this way. I'm sure that under the Sadaam Hussein government and the Baath party there were informal ways of working stuff out in a similar way.

Interesting idea, baath party was a foreign government.... Well they were all Iraqi born, so I'm assuming you are saying that they were foreign installed and/or controlled. There is some evidence that they were foreign supported but I have never heard anyone suggest that they were installed by a foreign power...

I don't have a proposal. I don't know. If I had lived there, as I did in Mexico and England, I'm sure I would be able to make scintillating and astonishingly accurate observations, as I can about those places.

What frustrates me is this. 'Most everything I hear about Iraq I think probably goes through a half dozen spin doctors before it gets to me. Occasionally I see something by an Iraqi native, but this is rare enough that I cannot form a reasonable picture. Practically all of the debate, including that on this here forum, consists of people taking all of this spun, filtered, munged, pre-digested information and evaluating it according to how it jibes with their preconceived ideas.

The idea that the Baath party and the Saddam Hussein government were installed by US imperialism isn't my baby; it's simply something I've heard shouted over and over again. I don't have enough unfiltered, undigested information to make an actual claim about its truth or falsehood. What I can do, however, is compare it to other claims made often by the same people, and from that analysis, there seems to be something fishy going on.

go ahead....make your proposal...."The Baath government of Iraq was a foreign government"by Epepke. Please don't wait around to long expecting me to disprove it....its your baby, you have to teach it to walk first.... so your first piece of supporting evidence is???

OK, again, it appeared for a time that you were interested in discussion. Perhaps it couldn't last. If not, how's about I grant you Total Victory and five million bonus points?

[davefoc]

Fool asked:Can you give me any examples of countries where the ruling group is a different racial group to the general population?

I can think of a few examples in history. Cleopatra was the last Greek in a dynasty of Greeks that ruled Egypt for about 300 years.

Prior to WWII there were lots of colonies, many of which involved different races for the rulers and the ruled. Even now there are some colonies left where that is the situation.

Even in Iraq, one might argue that Hussein was a foreign ruler and occupier with respect to the Kurds. I wonder if that part of Iraq isn't essentially self governed right now. It probably at least has more autonomy now than it did under Hussein.

[subgenius]

I wonder how high a stack of 500 soldiers would be? Wouldn't they fall over? Were they worth anything?
"Flesh farm" is what the head of the US Army Reserve calls it

"Improving Iraq"? By how much?
And why Iraq?
Why not improve Mozambique? Guatemala? Detroit? Brazil? Sierra Leone? Gary, Indiana? Washington, DC? Can't he see out his window?
Many questions. No answers. Many corpses. Many tears. Much money. Few rich. Many poor. Them belly full, but me hungry. Them pot a cook, but me food no nough. A hungry mob is an angry mob.
The snake of the nation.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/282619|top|01-20-2004::18:48|reuters.html
Sorry couldn't get this link to work for anything.

[Garrette]

subgenius,

Though often presented as such, the question of "Why not other places with dictators/problems?" is not an argument against war in Iraq. If it were, then there could logically be no social safety net in the US. Why Medicare when there are homeless people? Why minimum wage when some commodities cost too much? Why conservation in Alaska and not in New Jersey? Why anything if something somewhere else?

It's empty posturing. Your position may have merit, but this does nothing to further it.

-----

davefoc,

The Kurds are essentially self-governing and have been since the No Fly Zones about a decade ago. They fit your list of examples quite well, though, since they have never had their own country. They dread when the US military pulls out because then they will have to face Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran, all of whom are vehemently against a separate Kurdish state and who are jealous of the resources there.

[subgenius]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Garrette
[B]subgenius,

Though often presented as such, the question of "Why not other places with dictators/problems?" is not an argument against war in Iraq. If it were, then there could logically be no social safety net in the US. Why Medicare when there are homeless people? Why minimum wage when some commodities cost too much? Why conservation in Alaska and not in New Jersey? Why anything if something somewhere else?

It's empty posturing. Your position may have merit, but this does nothing to further it.
___________________

I will certainly cogitate on your thoughtful response. I trust that you will do the same.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Garrette
The Kurds are essentially self-governing and have been since the No Fly Zones about a decade ago. They fit your list of examples quite well, though, since they have never had their own country. They dread when the US military pulls out because then they will have to face Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran, all of whom are vehemently against a separate Kurdish state and who are jealous of the resources there.

And the countries mentioned fear the state-sponsored terrorism which will erupt from a Kurdish state. They are concerned that the Kurds will start to ethnically cleanse Turkish and Arab peoples from the part of the world which would be known as Kurdistan and are fearful that they will start to lose part of their own lands to a greater Kurdistan.

Of course our view in the West is that the Kurds are a thoroughly decent set of chaps and chapeesses who have been brutally subjugated by the Turks/Iraqis/Iranians/Soviets or whoever else was our enemy at the time.

An alterative view is that they're as bloodthirsty a group of ruffians as everyone else in that part (or any other part for that matter) of the world

[Garrette]

The Don,

My post and yours are not exclusive.

I've no illusions about the ultimate decency of the Kurds (though I suppose if I did I wouldn't know it).

It is only Turkey and Iraqi who fear losing part of their countries to an independent Kurdistan, not without reason. The Kurds are already maneuvering to increase their sphere here, particularly into Mosul and Kirkuk.

The fear of state-sponsored terrorism is not one I will readily concede, however. Can you add to your comments, please?

I've spent a fair amount of time with the Kurds in the Kurdish provinces. I work on a daily basis with a Kurdish ex-pat (he's been living in Holland for 30 years); it used to be two of them.

They have been brutalized. They have also been brutal themselves. No one is better at killing Kurds than the Kurds. That does not change the facts that:

1. They have an economy that functions separately from the rest of Iraq.

2. They have a national identity even if they have no nation.

3. They have made great strides in improving their internal relations (Talibani and Barzani)

4. They have made, on their own and without external requirements, progress in multi-culturalism. I can speak from first-hand knowledge of this within their two Ministries of Education. Over the past decade they have established a curriculum that allows (or will allow--implementation is not fully complete) education in native languages for the Turkomen, Assyriacs, Chaldeans, and Arabs. (For those who don't know, the Kurds speak Kurdish and for the most part do not understand Arabic; Kurdish is more closely related to Farsi than to Arabic). They have also instituted religious education for each of the separate religions including Yazidi.

Does any of the above proscribe violence or neutrality as the result of independence? Of course not. But the obverse is not a certainty, either.

[Jon_in_london]

You left out

-They got shot

and

-They got blown up

From your poll.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
It's the white man's burden.

The burden was the British Empire's; now it belongs to the U.S.A.


I rather like Kipling's poetry, although its very imperialist and therefore a Crime Against Political Corectness (CRAPCO).

However, I do like this parody By Ernest Crosby
(Substitute Iraq for Phillipines):

http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/kipling/crosby.html


Take up the White Man's burden;
Send forth your sturdy sons,
And load them down with whisky
And Testaments and guns.
Throw in a few diseases
To spread in tropic climes,
For there the healthy n!ggers
Are quite behind the times.

And don't forget the factories.
On those benighted shores
They have no cheerful iron-mills
Nor eke department stores.
They never work twelve hours a day,
And live in strange content,
Altho they never have to pay
A single cent of rent.

Take up the White Man's burden,
And teach the Philippines
What interest and taxes are
And what a mortgage means.
Give them electrocution chairs,
And prisons, too, galore,
And if they seem inclined to kick,
Then spill their heathen gore.

They need our labor question, too,
And politics and fraud,
We've made a pretty mess at home;
Let's make a mess abroad.
And let us ever humbly pray
The Lord of Hosts may deign
To stir our feeble memories,
Lest we forget -- the Maine.

Take up the White Man's burden;
To you who thus succeed
In civilizing savage hoards
They owe a debt, indeed;
Concessions, pensions, salaries,
And privilege and right,
With outstretched hands you raise to bless
Grab everything in sight.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Garrette
The fear of state-sponsored terrorism is not one I will readily concede, however. Can you add to your comments, please?
[/B]

Absloutely,

One of the techniques employed to try and undermine someone's credibility when they're trying to establish a homeland or nation is to brand them as terrorists and to try and imply that these people will be in charge of the new country.

I'm sure that Turkey will claim that with a Kurdish state in place (with sympathies towards groups like the PKK no doubt (they will claim)) and fuelled by oil revenue, a wave of attacks throughout Turkey will result.

Even of this is an unreasonable fear, it is still a fear. I should have enclosed the "state-sponsored terrorism which will erupt from a Kurdish state" in quotes to show that it is my perception of their thoughts.

And of course if we're indulging in hyperbole about state sponsored terrorism this includes (in order or reducing directness)

- Direct funding of/training of terrorists by a government
- Covert provision of money for terrorists by a government
- Allowing fundrasing activities to support terrorist organisations
- Sheltering terrorists within one's borders
- Allowing fundrasing activities to support organisations linked to terrorist organisations
- Sheltering dissidents within one's borders
- Failure to fully condemn terrorist activities

Where the definition of terrorist is a person or group who apply violence against the current (not necessarily rightful) government.

Iraq, for example was probably guilty of number 4 on that list. the U.S. was guilty of number 3 w.r.t the I.R.A. the U.K. was guilty of all of the above at one point in time. It's how you cut that particular cake

[Garrette]

Ah, we may not disagree after all.

You are saying the bordering states will have the fear of terrorism (plus the other fears, too), separate from whether or not the fears are either justified or realized, yes?

If that is the case, I agree.

I had taken your post as saying there actually would be state-sponsored terrorism (by the Kurds).

[The Don]

Yes, I do not believe that the Kurdish state will directly fund or resource terrorist activities in neighbouring countries. I'm also almost certain that money will not find its way from government coffers to these organisations.

I do however believe that a Kurdish state will allow dissident Kurds from other countries to live there.

I'm almost certain that there will be fundraising for Kurdish welfare groups or political organisations which neighbouring countries claim are associated with terror organisations.

I'm fairly sure that at some point in time someone implicated in some future act of "terrorism" perpetrated by a group claiming to act on behalf of the Kurds in a neighbouring country will have spent some time in the Kurdish state.

I suspect (with about 50% certainty) that in some bar in some part of a Kurdish state there will be someone at some time taking up a collection for "the brave lads in the XYZ who are fighting the Kurdish cause in xxxxxxxxxxx"

It's a perception game. We classify some states as "supporting terrorism" for doing less than we are quite prepared to do ourselves.

[Garrette]

The Don,

You force me to reiterate my sworn position to never ever under any circumstances agree with anything you say. Consider it reiterated: you are always wrong.

That being said, I agree with you. Well said and spot on.

So there.

[c4ts]

Um, sorry I ruined your poll. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

[Freakshow]

"Many americans have trouble comprehending how people could feel that being governed by Americans is highly undesirabe. To the extent of prefering a non american dictator."

If it makes you feel better, Fool, I'd also prefer being governed by Australians to living in a dictatorship. In fact, I'd prefer being governed by just about any democracy (except maybe France) than living in a dictatorship.

So which current dictatorships would you rather live in than be under US rule? Could you list them, and explain precisely why you would rather live in them than the US territories? Iraq is still a work-in-progress, and it will be years before we know how that turns out. So for now, look at the US territories.

[The Fool]

So which current dictatorships would you rather live in than be under US rule? Could you list them, and explain precisely why you would rather live in them than the US territories? Iraq is still a work-in-progress, and it will be years before we know how that turns out. So for now, look at the US territories.
No I won't list them..because you have misread what I said and are asking a question that is irrelevant. I was talking about foreign rule V rule by your own people...even if they are a dictatorship. Why are you now asking me to select foreign dictators V american rule??

In any case...This thread is nearly 2 years old....I cannot imagine why it was bumped....The original premise of 500 american dead in Iraq has blown out somewhat....

[Freakshow]

No I won't list them..because you have misread what I said and are asking a question that is irrelevant. I was talking about foreign rule V rule by your own people...even if they are a dictatorship. Why are you now asking me to select foreign dictators V american rule??

Because your previous statments implied that some dictatorships were preferable to rule by the US. If that is the case, then lets have some examples.

[The Fool]

Because your previous statments implied that some dictatorships were preferable to rule by the US. If that is the case, then lets have some examples.
My previous statement was..

"Many americans have trouble comprehending how people could feel that being governed by Americans is highly undesirabe. To the extent of prefering a non american dictator"

ok...are you suggesting that there are not people in the following list of non democratic nations that would prefer to stay as they are and not be taken over by a foriegn power?

Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Nepal
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Swaziland
Tonga
Iran
Vatican City State
People's Republic of China
Eritrea
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Laos
Libya
Syria
Turkmenistan
Vietnam
Myanmar

and please note...Under Australian rule Americans would have no vote and we would force you to play Cricket and ban Baseball....as well as take all your guns....maybe you would choose to stay with president for life Badnarik? :)

[Freakshow]

My previous statement was..

"Many americans have trouble comprehending how people could feel that being governed by Americans is highly undesirabe. To the extent of prefering a non american dictator"

ok...are you suggesting that there are not people in the following list of non democratic nations that would prefer to stay as they are and not be taken over by a foriegn power?

Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Nepal
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Swaziland
Tonga
Iran
Vatican City State
People's Republic of China
Eritrea
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Laos
Libya
Syria
Turkmenistan
Vietnam
Myanmar

and please note...Under Australian rule Americans would have no vote and we would force you to play Cricket and ban Baseball....as well as take all your guns....maybe you would choose to stay with president for life Badnarik? :)
The implication of making a statement such as you made is that we Americans are somehow wrong for believing that. It was apparently made with a negative tone, as yet another criticism against the US. That leads me to believe that their view has merit. You may have said "this is what some people think", but you implied "this is what some people think, and it is reasonable for them to think that". Maybe I'm reading too much into it, due to your frequent anti-American views.

[The Fool]

The implication of making a statement such as you made is that we Americans are somehow wrong for believing that.
It was apparently made with a negative tone, as yet another criticism against the US. That leads me to believe that their view has merit. You may have said "this is what some people think", but you implied "this is what some people think, and it is reasonable for them to think that". Maybe I'm reading too much into it, due to your frequent anti-American views.

Maybe its due to your frequent anti-australian views rather than my frequent anti-american views?.....at least thats what I pick up from your apparent tone and implied views and anything else I can read and think I understand...

[Freakshow]

Maybe its due to your frequent anti-australian views rather than my frequent anti-american views?.....at least thats what I pick up from your apparent tone and implied views and anything else I can read and think I understand...
Actually, I rather like Australia, myself. :)

ETA: Oh, and by the way...if I didn't like Australia, believe me, you'd know it. I'm not one to mask my true feelings behind couched language. :)

[Mycroft]

Maybe its due to your frequent anti-australian views rather than my frequent anti-american views?.....at least thats what I pick up from your apparent tone and implied views and anything else I can read and think I understand...

If your views are frequently misunderstood, why don't you clarify them?

[Freakshow]

If your views are frequently misunderstood, why don't you clarify them?
For the same reason that certain other's don't...it would mean taking a strong, definate stand, and having to defend their views. Its easier to just dance around issues and post links to news articles, and couch lanugauge carefully. You get to kind of say what you want to say, but without having to take the negative conseuquences of defending what might be a very unpopular view. Sort of like a politician. Life gets tougher when you stamp your foot down and say "THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE!!!"

I'm amazed at how many non-US people here will constantly talk around the issue of different reasons that they don't like the US, but don't have the guts to just step up and express their own opinions bluntly and clearly.

[CFLarsen]

I'm amazed at how many non-US people here will constantly talk around the issue of different reasons that they don't like the US, but don't have the guts to just step up and express their own opinions bluntly and clearly.

Who are you talking about?

It doesn't seem to me as if we lack non-US people who are afraid of expressing their own opinions bluntly and clearly.

[Freakshow]

Who are you talking about?

It doesn't seem to me as if we lack non-US people who are afraid of expressing their own opinions bluntly and clearly.
If I start naming names, I might get my posts reported. :rolleyes:

You and I likely just have a very different view of what it means to express things "bluntly and clearly".

ETA: Here's an example (without naming names, so it won't be very specific) of what I mean. Someone creates a thread with some sort of topic that leans against the US. The OP in the thread has nothing but a link to a news article, and may or may not include a copy of part of the article. But the poster doesn't express their own views in the OP. They don't have the guts to step up and say something like "This is an example of why I don't like the United States. It's because the US keeps doing stuff like XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. I don't think a decent country would do that. The US is going to have to change XXXXXXXXXXXXXX before I could consider it to be a good country again."

When there is a continuing theme from some posters, but they so rarely (if ever) own up to their true views, I begin to lose respect for them. With the exception of reprehensible views (like racism, anti-semitism, religious fanaticism, etc.), I won't disrespect someone for their views. I will respect people that own up to their opinions and proudly proclaim them to be their own, even if I disagree with them. Some of my closest friends have very different political views than my own. But I can't respect people that try to hide their views, while trying to get their point across without ever owning up to their own true feelings on the matter. It's why I can't stand most politicians.

[CFLarsen]

If I start naming names, I might get my posts reported. :rolleyes:

You and I likely just have a very different view of what it means to express things "bluntly and clearly".

ETA: Here's an example (without naming names, so it won't be very specific) of what I mean. Someone creates a thread with some sort of topic that leans against the US. The OP in the thread has nothing but a link to a news article, and may or may not include a copy of part of the article. But the poster doesn't express their own views in the OP. They don't have the guts to step up and say something like "This is an example of why I don't like the United States. It's because the US keeps doing stuff like XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. I don't think a decent country would do that. The US is going to have to change XXXXXXXXXXXXXX before I could consider it to be a good country again."

When there is a continuing theme from some posters, but they so rarely (if ever) own up to their true views, I begin to lose respect for them. With the exception of reprehensible views (like racism, anti-semitism, religious fanaticism, etc.), I won't disrespect someone for their views. I will respect people that own up to their opinions and proudly proclaim them to be their own, even if I disagree with them. Some of my closest friends have very different political views than my own. But I can't respect people that try to hide their views, while trying to get their point across without ever owning up to their own true feelings on the matter. It's why I can't stand most politicians.

Without the actual names of the posters you had in mind, how are we supposed to discuss exactly what they said?

It serves no purpose to discuss what you think people said, but won't tell us, other than to spread (more) venom in the forums.

If you have gripes about other posters, come out and say so. But don't make nameless accusations. We don't need that.

[The Fool]

If your views are frequently misunderstood, why don't you clarify them?
They are not frequently misunderstood and there is little point in clarifying something over and over to someone with an agenda...

I'm going leave this ancient old bumped thread to Freakshow and his conspiracy theories....At least it gives Claus something silly to pick to bits..In my case there is only so many times you can suggest someone provide something other than thier theory that what you don't say indicates what you think (or whatever his latest method of witchhunting is)...

[Skeptic]

Ever heard of the opium wars that led to British siezure of Hong kong? Just because it happened over 150 years ago doesn't mean it didn't happen. Did you imagine that the chinese welcomed the colonizers?

I'm sure the Australian aboriginies didn't...

[The Fool]

I'm sure the Australian aboriginies didn't...
I'm sure you are correct...your point?

[Mephisto]

The poll question is not "why were they sent?" The poll question is: "why were they killed?"

Isn't that just tapping into a circular argument?

I'm sure none of those soldiers would have died had they not been in Iraq. So you could answer the "why were they killed?" question by saying, "because they were sent."

Why they were sent, obviously, is a much more complicated question.

[Mephisto]

For the same reason that certain other's don't...it would mean taking a strong, definate stand, and having to defend their views. Its easier to just dance around issues and post links to news articles, and couch lanugauge carefully. You get to kind of say what you want to say, but without having to take the negative conseuquences of defending what might be a very unpopular view. Sort of like a politician. Life gets tougher when you stamp your foot down and say "THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE!!!"

I'm amazed at how many non-US people here will constantly talk around the issue of different reasons that they don't like the US, but don't have the guts to just step up and express their own opinions bluntly and clearly.

I have no problems with anything The Fool has ever said, and I don't find him to be particularly anti-American. Hell, I'm American and I complain about the same things he does all the time.

I'm also not one to skirt a subject or hide behind innuendos. I feel that a good many countries in this world don't want to be ruled (or guided) by Americans, I'm an American and I don't like the way we're governed.

I think it's particularly ethno-centric to believe that we are the greatest country in the world. How many people who make that claim have ever actually lived anywhere else? America has turned sour these past few years - religion is rampant (prayer in the schools, defending God in the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments in the courthouse, Intelligent Design in the schools, etc.), the "war on terror" has served to solidify previously unrelated Muslim extremists groups against us, Republican spending is unchecked, our cities are unprepared for natural disasters, we are involved in human-rights abuse scandals, key members of our government are under investigation for felonies, there are a growing number of serious security violations, large corporations win no-bid contracts in a country we invaded and lose BILLIONS of dollars, and so on and on and on . . .

It's not unAmerican to criticize our government. It's unAmerican to sit idly by and watch as our reputation regarding freedom, justice, compassion, the freedom of/from religion, and the "land of opportunity" are dashed to pieces. If an American can have those feelings about the U.S. why can't an Australian? Is it bad to criticize another country?

Remember "Freedom Fries?"

[The idea]

I'm sure none of those soldiers would have died had they not been in Iraq. So you could answer the "why were they killed?" question by saying, "because they were sent."

1. Are you sure that none of those 500 soldiers would have been killed in Afghanistan? Perhaps service in Afghanistan is much less hazardous than we have been led to believe? Given a group of 500 soldiers serving in Afghanistan for a given length of time, we can be sure that not one of them would have been killed?

2. Now I will attempt to study the structure of your reasoning.

Assume that if none of the 113 people who died in the crash of Air France Concorde flight 4590 on July 25th, 2000 had taken that flight, then none of them would have died on July 25th, 2000. If you accept that assumption, then you could answer the "why did they die?" question by saying, "because they took that flight."

I put it in quotes, but I'm not quoting you. I'm quoting an imaginary person. To fully answer the question "why did they die?", shouldn't we explain why there was a crash?

Isn't that just tapping into a circular argument?

You tell me.

[Freakshow]

I have no problems with anything The Fool has ever said, and I don't find him to be particularly anti-American. Hell, I'm American and I complain about the same things he does all the time.

I'm also not one to skirt a subject or hide behind innuendos. I feel that a good many countries in this world don't want to be ruled (or guided) by Americans, I'm an American and I don't like the way we're governed.

I think it's particularly ethno-centric to believe that we are the greatest country in the world. How many people who make that claim have ever actually lived anywhere else? America has turned sour these past few years - religion is rampant (prayer in the schools, defending God in the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments in the courthouse, Intelligent Design in the schools, etc.), the "war on terror" has served to solidify previously unrelated Muslim extremists groups against us, Republican spending is unchecked, our cities are unprepared for natural disasters, we are involved in human-rights abuse scandals, key members of our government are under investigation for felonies, there are a growing number of serious security violations, large corporations win no-bid contracts in a country we invaded and lose BILLIONS of dollars, and so on and on and on . . .

It's not unAmerican to criticize our government. It's unAmerican to sit idly by and watch as our reputation regarding freedom, justice, compassion, the freedom of/from religion, and the "land of opportunity" are dashed to pieces. If an American can have those feelings about the U.S. why can't an Australian? Is it bad to criticize another country?

Remember "Freedom Fries?"
I do plenty of criticizing of my own government, believe me! And I don't have a problem with people criticizing the US. Just depends on how its done. In the same way that I have issues with the way that some of my fellow Americans criticize other countries. It isn't the message I have a problem with sometimes. It's the delivery.