Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's the one that has always bugged me about the US, and still bugs me now that I live here. If one raises concerns or criticisms about the gov't, or on the "war" on terror, one is immediately labelled unpatriotic or un-American, or Fishdude's signature . I would think that holding one's elected officials accountable for their actions/laws is one of the most democratic things one could do!

As I said, I think there is a degree of soft racism at work. Back in the 18th - 19th century the British for example, were convinced we were doing everyone in Africa and India a favour. Slavery and exploitation are apparently a small price to pay for "bringing civilization to the savages".

Seeing as Charles brought it up, I'll gladly indulge him. What I see in the west's attitudes towards Iraq and the middle-east is essentially an update of that. We are so clearly convinced that we are doing a great thing there, people are fixated on this idea that we are saving the world through "spreading democracy" and stopping terrorism that we can't see beyond it.

I think we (everyone in the developed world) treats the citizens 2nd/3rd world (Iraq being one such place) like second class human beings. Why worry about the death of a few bystanders here and there - because its all for a greater good. I just wonder if the husband who loses his wife and child in order to kill a wanted terrorist leader would agree with that.

If its not acceptable to do this in developed countries which have problems with domestic terrorism, why is it ok to do it in the 3rd world?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As I said, I've made my position clear where I stand - Liking the country does not mean you should like the government or refrain from subjecting it to criticism, although as I said YOU brought it up in this thread. My whole commentary on this issue has been on a general ethical issue, which you've seen fit to ignore in your desire to attack me for what you clearly perceive as unpatriotic sentiments.

Amen to the bolded section!

It's just a shame that Captain America here doesn't understand that.

It's the one that has always bugged me about the US, and still bugs me now that I live here. If one raises concerns or criticisms about the gov't, or on the "war" on terror, one is immediately labelled unpatriotic or un-American, or Fishdude's signature . I would think that holding one's elected officials accountable for their actions/laws is one of the most democratic things one could do!

That would be true, if we hadn't put away with accountability of the government to the people. That pesky part of governance got in the way so we were told that the President can do whatever the ** he pleases based on nothing but being the President. I think the creeps in the White House got the Presidency somewhat mixed up with a Monarchy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the creeps in the White House got the Presidency somewhat mixed up with a Monarchy.

Rome was a Republic until Julius Caesar decided he wanted more power.

[dalegg 143]

If its not acceptable to do this in developed countries which have problems with domestic terrorism, why is it ok to do it in the 3rd world?

What developed country has a problem with domestic terrorism that is even remotely close to that which is going on in Iraq?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If its not acceptable to do this in developed countries which have problems with domestic terrorism, why is it ok to do it in the 3rd world?

What developed country has a problem with domestic terrorism that is even remotely close to that which is going on in Iraq?

Likewise, what developed country has to deal with an unwelcome foreign occupation following an illegal act of aggression against it? I mean, we created the atmosphere in which the terrorists strive over there in the first place. It's not like they've been there doing their dirty deeds prior to our illegal invasion. Let's not forget that.

[slim 1,533]

If it aint broke... don't fix it.

We broke it. Why are we blaming the insurgency on anyone other than ourselves?

(I don't hate America, I'm not being unpatriotic... I'm once again asserting my rights, AND RESPONSIBILITY, as an American to voice my oppinion on something that I disagree with.)

Charlesandnessa, and many other "Bush is doing a great job in Iraq and we're winning the war on terrorism" people continue to post that "war is bad and people die... small price to pay to kill the terrorists" but then complain about the American service members and civilians being killed, the folks killed on 9/11, and just any other Americans in general. Really drives home Fishdude's point that the soft racism is there.

Kill 3,000 Americans in a building and everyone's upset. Kill 2,500 more of their troops and we want retribution. But.... invade two sovereign nations, kill 30,000+ of their citizens, occupy their countries for years, change their governments and lifestyles..... "ah, no big deal. They're all terrorists anyway."

WHAT IF THIS HAPPENED IN AMERICA??? Since you're so much of a "patriot" wouldn't you then become an insurgent too? And it would be too bad, because then the occupying force (China maybe? NWO for all those conspiracy theorists.) would label you as a "terrorist" and hunt you down and drop bombs on you and your family.

WONDER IF YOU'D STILL SAY THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU NEED TO BE KILLED????

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Kill 3,000 Americans in a building and everyone's upset. Kill 2,500 more of their troops and we want retribution. But.... invade two sovereign nations, kill 30,000+ of their citizens, occupy their countries for years, change their governments and lifestyles..... "ah, no big deal. They're all terrorists anyway."

And yet, there are still so many people out there still wondering where all that anti-Americanism in the world comes from. Our very own arrogance, as perfectly described above, is where it originates.

[dalegg 143]

If its not acceptable to do this in developed countries which have problems with domestic terrorism, why is it ok to do it in the 3rd world?

What developed country has a problem with domestic terrorism that is even remotely close to that which is going on in Iraq?

Likewise, what developed country has to deal with an unwelcome foreign occupation following an illegal act of aggression against it? I mean, we created the atmosphere in which the terrorists strive over there in the first place. It's not like they've been there doing their dirty deeds prior to our illegal invasion. Let's not forget that.

I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that if you are going to compare the way developed countries deal with domestic terrorism vs the way they deal with foreign terrorism, you have to take into consideration the scale of the threat. I think anyone would love to be able to just deal with terrorist leaders like we deal with any criminal, taking your time, building your case, considering innocent lives, but when you have dozens of innocent people being killed everyday there has to be a point where you have to make a grusome choice.

The last time a developed country seriously threatened another developed country- causing mass deaths of civilians- was when the Germans invaded it's European Neighbors, and correct me if I'm wrong, but England had no problem retalitating by bombing cities they knew had caucasion German civilians. So don't tell me countries deal with threats to their populations based on the ethnicity of the person perpetuating the threat.

The only group that even comes into the same catagory as this is the IRA attacks, but as bad as the IRA attacks were, they did not carry on close to the extent that the Zarqawi led attacks did. If they did, I'll bet the British citizens would have been calling for indiscriminant missle attacks also.

[babybunny 2]

Coz, G. Dubay said so...

[slim 1,533]

I'm glad you brought up "the big one."

The US firebombing of Kobe and Tokyo, Japan, in 1945 killed over 100,000 civilians, then the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 200,000 more.

This is what ultimately ended the war.

The US determined that in order to capture Tokyo, (in much the same manner as Berlin was captured) the troop losses would be too great. The Japanese mindset differed greatly from the Germans, so to defeat the Japanese it was necessary to deliver the message that EVERYONE would be killed if they didn't give up. The US had the capability to sustain a prolonged war with Japan, but chose not to. Why not?

BECAUSE THEY WERE THE SNEAKY JAPANESE THAT "TERRORIZED" PEARL HARBOR!!!

[Peter Miami 1]

Could not have had it happen to a better guy!

Peter Miami

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

I'm glad you brought up "the big one."

The US firebombing of Kobe and Tokyo, Japan, in 1945 killed over 100,000 civilians, then the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 200,000 more.

This is what ultimately ended the war.

The US determined that in order to capture Tokyo, (in much the same manner as Berlin was captured) the troop losses would be too great. The Japanese mindset differed greatly from the Germans, so to defeat the Japanese it was necessary to deliver the message that EVERYONE would be killed if they didn't give up. The US had the capability to sustain a prolonged war with Japan, but chose not to. Why not?

BECAUSE THEY WERE THE SNEAKY JAPANESE THAT "TERRORIZED" PEARL HARBOR!!!

let's not forget the firebombing of dresden, which made the japanese firebombings look like a boy scout cookout.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The last time a developed country seriously threatened another developed country- causing mass deaths of civilians- was when the Germans invaded it's European Neighbors, and correct me if I'm wrong, but England had no problem retalitating by bombing cities they knew had caucasion German civilians. So don't tell me countries deal with threats to their populations based on the ethnicity of the person perpetuating the threat.

That comparison lacks credibility as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq did not invade any country. Iraq is actually the invaded country here. The US and UK are the aggressing and occupying nations in this case. So, now you are wanting to justify "retaliations" on the population of the invaded nation same as one might justify retaliations on the population of an aggressing nation? That leaves a rather odd aftertaste, doesn't it?

[*Robert* 2]

Kill 3,000 Americans in a building and everyone's upset. Kill 2,500 more of their troops and we want retribution. But.... invade two sovereign nations, kill 30,000+ of their citizens, occupy their countries for years, change their governments and lifestyles..... "ah, no big deal. They're all terrorists anyway."

And yet, there are still so many people out there still wondering where all that anti-Americanism in the world comes from. Our very own arrogance, as perfectly described above, is where it originates.

Amen brother Reinhard!

[slim 1,533]

Dresden, (by modern-day German estimates) 25,000-35,000.

Additionally, the attack on Dresden was to prevent the reinforcement of German troops on the Eastern Front in the face of the advancing Soviets.

NEXT???