AMERICANS JOLTED BY IRAQ ATROCITIES

Acquiunk wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't see us as an oppressive occupier.

We do not get to define whether or not we are perceived of as an oppressive occupier. It is how others perceive us that determines that. We can assume that we are the soul of compassion and going about God's work. But if the people whose country we are occupying do not see us as such, then they will react as if oppressed. As it is in Iraq, there are widely divergent attitudes toward the American occupation. Those communities that have reacted most strongly to the American presence, are those communities that were favored under Saddam, and have lost status and wealth with his fall. Those communities that suffered under his rule, have been better disposed towards the American occupation. There is no blanket generalization that can be applied to Iraq.

There is an objective reality, independent of people's opinions about it. There are certain features that characteristize oppressive occupations. In general, a situation in which a conqueror replaces a dictatorship with a constitutional democracy cannot realistically be called an oppressive occupation. I could write thousands of words about it, and pin it down with a lot of details, but I'm sure you see what I mean.

0 Replies

I see what you mean but it does not really work. Opression is how people
percive their situation regardless of any objective reality. To offer an example, by any objective standard for the 18th century or even now, the British government in the 1770's was remarkable tolerant of the behavior of its American colonies, particularly New England. But that is not how New Englander's perceived their condition and the saw the attempts by the London government to "rationalize" imperial control to be an oppressive infringment on their liberties. Even in modern tax despising US we expect to pay at least minimal taxes for the government service we receive, New Englander's thought they should receive them for nothing. Hence they were oppressed, in their opinion.

0 Replies

Acquiunk, what you've said is clear, correct to a point, and interesting. However, if I followed your logic, the conclusion would be that any occupation could fairly be termed oppressive, no matter what its characteristics, since it might be oppressive from someone's viewpoint. My point is that based on the information I have, if you stack this occupation against the total history of the occupations of the past couple of centuries, ours does not rank as very oppressive, particularly since we are creating a constitutional democracy and returning the government to the inhabitants in a relatively short time.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

However, if I followed your logic, the conclusion would be that any occupation could fairly be termed oppressive, no matter what its characteristics, since it might be oppressive from someone's viewpoint.

Declaration of Independence (second paragraph)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is the theory on which your own government is founded. It says nothing about comparing relative degrees of out side intervention and accepting those which are judged least oppressive or best intended based on an objective standard of comparison. Neither does it say that a people must accept someone elses opinion what what is best for them. Given the history of the Hussain regime, out intentions can be fairly said to be nothing but the best. But, as the declaration points out, it is not our interests or intentions that are paramount.

0 Replies

Nonetheless, if it is even meaningful to discuss whether an occupation is oppressive, then it must be possible for someone to conclude that some particular ccupation does not seem oppressive. And I am asserting that compared to other occupations in recent history, this one is relatively benign.

If I turn to the person sitting next to me on a park bench and say, "Nice day isn't it?" he can say that in his opinion I was mean to him, and he is entitled to his opinion, but if analysis can be applied to life at all, the most reasonable interpretation is that I wasn't mean to him. He may be in some life situation in which discussion of the weather is terribly unwelcome, but nonetheless, the most reasonable characterisation of what I said to him is that it was benign.

If you do not accept even this idea, then everything is completely relative, and nothing can ever be meaningfully discussed.

I am saying that if objective analysis has any applicability to the world at all, one can evaluate our occupation based on customary standards and yardsticks.

0 Replies

That passage sets an absolute universal standard:
"laying its foundations on such principles, organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness".

The operative word here the "them" not a standard set by some one else. That is where the concept of a benign occupation becomes a problem.

0 Replies

If you are denying that it is possible to characterize an occupation as oppressive or not according to conventional norms of ethics and human behavior, then I must simply disagree. Opinions vary, of course, and everyone is entitled to his own, but there are such things as norms of behavior, and, indeed, if I politely ask someone about the weather, it is possible to say that according to normal human standards of behavior, most would not call it a mean question, even though, conceivably, some would.

0 Replies

We're screwed. Mired down in a 100% lose lose conflict. There is no solution. Period. To make matters worse, the current dickheads in Washington will never leave as long as there's a profit to be made from the war for them and their corporate partners.

One positive thing. We have absolutely answered the question "Did we learn anything from Viet Nam"? The answer is no......

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

We're screwed. Mired down in a 100% lose lose conflict. There is no solution. Period. To make matters worse, the current dickheads in Washington will never leave as long as there's a profit to be made from the war for them and their corporate partners.

One positive thing. We have absolutely answered the question "Did we learn anything from Viet Nam"? The answer is no......

In the future, many other countries and groups will attempt to develop WMD. As the technology of the world progresses, more and more players will enter the game. Some of these will be terrible dictators and terrorists. When it gets to the point where dozens of countries and private groups have WMD, civilization ends.

In the future, we will continue to be faced with apparent attempts both by latter day Hitlers and also by terrorist groups to obtain WMD. When we see such an entity attempting to obtain them, we ought to say, "Please don't do that," but if they seem to be doing it anyway, it is in our interest to aggressively prevent them from obtaining them. Whether Iraq had WMD or not, we will be faced with many, many similar cases in the future. Bear in mind how much damage even one single use of one WMD could do in a populated area.

0 Replies

In Falluja there are tactical differences. Few Iraqis see a need to resort to suicide, nor do they primarily choose to target civilians. The US base three miles from town produces a ready flow of potential military victims, supplemented this week by private contractors working closely with the occupation authorities. Military convoys trundle through or near Falluja every day. The usual tactic is to ambush them with homemade bombs, followed by grenades and small arms fire when the survivors jump out of their vehicles. Then the resistance runs off into the suburban side-streets.

The American response is heavy-handed and indiscriminate. "The US is indirectly supporting the resistance by targeting innocent people. It makes us more sympathetic to the resistance," Shaban Rajab, 45, a taxi-driver, told me.

For Tha'ir Turki and his family the Americans piled insult on injury. They were attending the wake for their father, who had been killed on Thursday, when more grim news arrived. "Don't go home," a group of neighbors warned them. "The Americans are there." The grieving family had to sleep with friends.

"Even if there was some resistance among people here, what have we done? Our women and girls are not part of it," said Tha'ir Turki, as he showed the chaos the marines left after sleeping in his house. Cupboards were ransacked, a computer had gone, and empty brown bags which once contained army rations littered every room. He was particularly upset at finding them in his teenage sisters' bedroom. Little jewelry boxes were scattered across the dresser, their lids off. Women's clothes had been pulled out of drawers.

If this isn't a hostile occupation, then only the Devil himself must know what constitutes one.

But let the Bush loyalists continue to deny reality. The polls show the American people are turning on Bush and have especially had enough of his guerilla war in Iraq.

This will help Kerry tremendously in a scant 7 months.

0 Replies

Republican Senator Richard Lugar and Dem Joe Biden talked tonight on PBS Newshour on the turnover timetable insisted upon by Bush. It's not available online yet, but will be tomorrow.

You can imagine what Biden says. The thing is, Lugar doesn't disagree, and what he says about this adminstration's policy is something the Bush fans present really ought to read tomorrow.

0 Replies

Hi blatham:

The vaunted 06.30.04 handover seems unlikely. Even if the handover involves keeping 100,000 US troops in Iraq, this is no guarantee civl war won't follow.

In fact, based on recent events, civil war now seems inevitable in post-Saddam Iraq.

I would be interested in 3 examples, no let's make it easy for the Bush loyalists, 1 example of a guerilla war where US troops played a hand, and democracy followed.

0 Replies

Titus wrote:

....The American response is heavy-handed and indiscriminate. "The US is indirectly supporting the resistance by targeting innocent people. It makes us more sympathetic to the resistance," Shaban Rajab, 45, a taxi-driver, told me.....

If this isn't a hostile occupation, then only the Devil himself must know what constitutes one.....But let the Bush loyalists continue to deny reality.......

Could you please provide some documentation for the idea that the US is targetting civilians? By repeating the taxi driver's claim, you would seem to be endorsing it, since why would you repeat it if you didn't yourself believe it, and I've noticed that you seem to specialize in claims that you can't back up.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Titus wrote:
....The American response is heavy-handed and indiscriminate. "The US is indirectly supporting the resistance by targeting innocent people. It makes us more sympathetic to the resistance," Shaban Rajab, 45, a taxi-driver, told me.....

If this isn't a hostile occupation, then only the Devil himself must know what constitutes one.....But let the Bush loyalists continue to deny reality.......

Could you please provide some documentation for the idea that the US is targetting civilians? By repeating the taxi driver's claim, you would seem to be endorsing it, since why would you repeat it if you didn't yourself believe it, and I've noticed that you seem to specialize in claims that you can't back up.

do you not see that what matters is that the Iraqis, many of them perceive that we are targetting civilians? And in our arrogance our response is merely "No, we're not, you're a stupid head, and you can take or leave our way of doing things because we're right, so there".
Typical kindergarten methodology for this administration. Time for a change.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

do you not see that what matters is that the Iraqis, many of them perceive that we are targetting civilians? And in our arrogance our response is merely "No, we're not, you're a stupid head, and you can take or leave our way of doing things because we're right, so there".
Typical kindergarten methodology for this administration. Time for a change.

It seems to me that there are a few vital things that you don't see. Titus has made an extremely serious specific accusation against the US military - deliberately targetting civilians for murder. It is the height of irresponsibility to make such an accusation without evidence. Making all sorts of false statements is not a valid method of debating or discussing, and it is important that such claims be challenged. If the only way that someone can make his case is to make a lot of false statements, then that case must be very weak indeed.

0 Replies

An excellent debate... a couple of mud-slingers, but nothing too extreme. I have to admit, I was furious when we invaded, I honestly felt that Afghanistan/Pakistan was the root of evil and we should concentrate on the terrosist networks. Now I'm thinking:"Jeez, you guys voted for the sheriff and now you're leaving town like it's "High Noon". My question: Is it better to say"excuse me, we made a mistake, so sorry, we're outta here". Or:" Hey! You kids calm down, or there's gonna be an ass-whuppin"? Or is there some wiggle room here?

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

An excellent debate... a couple of mud-slingers, but nothing too extreme. I have to admit, I was furious when we invaded, I honestly felt that Afghanistan/Pakistan was the root of evil and we should concentrate on the terrosist networks. Now I'm thinking:"Jeez, you guys voted for the sheriff and now you're leaving town like it's "High Noon". My question: Is it better to say"excuse me, we made a mistake, so sorry, we're outta here". Or:" Hey! You kids calm down, or there's gonna be an ass-whuppin"? Or is there some wiggle room here?

We were right to invade, and the best thing we can do now is to leave these people with a stable consitutional democracy.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Titus wrote:
....The American response is heavy-handed and indiscriminate. "The US is indirectly supporting the resistance by targeting innocent people. It makes us more sympathetic to the resistance," Shaban Rajab, 45, a taxi-driver, told me.....

If this isn't a hostile occupation, then only the Devil himself must know what constitutes one.....But let the Bush loyalists continue to deny reality.......

Could you please provide some documentation for the idea that the US is targetting civilians? By repeating the taxi driver's claim, you would seem to be endorsing it, since why would you repeat it if you didn't yourself believe it, and I've noticed that you seem to specialize in claims that you can't back up.

do you not see that what matters is that the Iraqis, many of them perceive that we are targetting civilians? And in our arrogance our response is merely "No, we're not, you're a stupid head, and you can take or leave our way of doing things because we're right, so there".
Typical kindergarten methodology for this administration. Time for a change.

I think just the opposite is true, we have faught this battle so PC and sometimes fall into the trap of thinking they will fight like we do. A very bad mistake on our part, we need to use more force because they view tolerance as weakness.

They attack and kill those guys in Fallujah and we didn't react quick enough so Sadr says, hey, let's try that, they won't do anything, they're trying to win our hearts and minds.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
do you not see that what matters is that the Iraqis, many of them perceive that we are targetting civilians? And in our arrogance our response is merely "No, we're not, you're a stupid head, and you can take or leave our way of doing things because we're right, so there".
Typical kindergarten methodology for this administration. Time for a change.

It seems to me that there are a few vital things that you don't see. Titus has made an extremely serious specific accusation against the US military - deliberately targetting civilians for murder. It is the height of irresponsibility to make such an accusation without evidence. Making all sorts of false statements is not a valid method of debating or discussing, and it is important that such claims be challenged. If the only way that someone can make his case is to make a lot of false statements, then that case must be very weak indeed.

Do you deny then, that perception by a great many Iraqis and others, and do you think that the current administration has a concerned eye for the perception of the mission which can be as important as the mission itself in "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi population and the middle east in general that we claim to be so interested in partnering a new sprit of democracy and freedom with?

Do you think we have made any headway towards a peaceful and democratic Iraq, and what do you think the average "Abdul Lunch Box" thinks?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
do you not see that what matters is that the Iraqis, many of them perceive that we are targetting civilians? And in our arrogance our response is merely "No, we're not, you're a stupid head, and you can take or leave our way of doing things because we're right, so there".
Typical kindergarten methodology for this administration. Time for a change.

It seems to me that there are a few vital things that you don't see. Titus has made an extremely serious specific accusation against the US military - deliberately targetting civilians for murder. It is the height of irresponsibility to make such an accusation without evidence. Making all sorts of false statements is not a valid method of debating or discussing, and it is important that such claims be challenged. If the only way that someone can make his case is to make a lot of false statements, then that case must be very weak indeed.

Do you deny then, that perception by a great many Iraqis and others, and do you think that the current administration has a concerned eye for the perception of the mission which can be as important as the mission itself in "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi population and the middle east in general that we claim to be so interested in partnering a new sprit of democracy and freedom with?

Do you think we have made any headway towards a peaceful and democratic Iraq, and what do you think the average "Abdul Lunch Box" thinks?

I find that many people attempt to win arguments in which they are wrong by changing the subject, and I will not be sidetracked onto a dozen other issues while I am trying to make a single point. My point is that Titus has as much as accused the US of targetting civilians for murder, and I continue to request that he, or anyone who agrees with him, support this with evidence. If he does not in fact have evidence to support this claim, then it was the height of irresponsibility to post it.

0 Replies

AMERICANS JOLTED BY IRAQ ATROCITIES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know