We're the good guys... right?

[Dirty Hippie]

I feel the issue of "good guy" and "bad guy" with respect to Iraq/Afghanistan is an interesting topic and there's so much complexity to it that it deserves its own thread.

Here's a hypothetical situation. Say there's an extremist group of US citizens who REALLY hate China. They do some planning and eventually make it over to China and blow up some buildings over there and kill a couple thousand people. China responds by going all out and really fucks us up bad. We end up having Chinese soldiers patrolling our streets and building military bases out in our corn fields. They regularly stop cars to conduct random vehicle searches and it's a pretty common occurrence for them to kill innocent US citizens. In the meantime some patriotic, gun-toting citizens decide to stick up for themselves. They organize together and start attacking the Chinese soldiers, which retaliate and kill some more innocent citizens, etc. This ends up going on for 10 years.

So who are the bad guys and who are the good guys? Of course we would all say that the Chinese are the bad guys and these patriotic militia folk are the heroes for trying to fight off these foreign invaders. Now why, when the situation is reversed and we are now the aggressors and invade another country and kill innocent civilians (most of the time on accident, a few times on purpose), are we the good guys and these people sticking up for themselves suddenly the bad guys?

[Dirty Hippie]

From what I gather it seems like most posters here are either current/former military or military spouses so this will probably rub some people the wrong way. I'm not trying to condemn anyone in any way, I just want to hear what other people have to say about it and perhaps shine light on the situation from an angle you may not have seen before.

[CrAnIuM]

I'm yer huckleberry .... just not right now.

Will come back to this tomorrow ... thumb keyboards are sloooow to use.

[Dirty Hippie]

Well if you're my huckleberry then I must be your dingleberry. You know, cause you always leave me hanging.

[KommieKat]

Say there's an extremist group of US citizens who REALLY hate China. They do some planning and eventually make it over to China and blow up some buildings over there and kill a couple thousand people.

First, if you're going to do an anology, do it right. This one of yours sucks.
You doing the towel heads attacked us first and blew up our towers so we went over there and occupied their country reversal is completely wrong.

Not going to work. Try sticking closer to the truth of things.

[Dirty Hippie]

Well obviously I don't know the "truth" of things, so go ahead and make your case. That's what this whole message board thing is about you know.

[CrAnIuM]

I don't think this subject is as complicated as most folks make it out to be.

First, there is definite truth to the idea that the "winner writes the History books". Seems to me that throughout human history the Big boys have always invaded or usurped or taken or obliterated, etc, all in the name of National survival or pride and such.

Today is only different because the Big Boys have to deal with public sentiment in a much more direct way.


The argument can certainly be made that a freedom fighter can be called a terrorist and an insurgent bent on murder and mayhem against a legitimate government. In cases where there appears to be a "Legitimate government" in place then according to the rules most countries agreed to ( UN, NATO .. etc) they are the one that should decide who gets classified as a bad guy or good guy. Of course, some countries agree to this type of thing in order to sustain their own legitimacy against internal strife.

Basically might makes right. Sure its not fair, or right at times but 100 years from now Ahmed the camel herder's strife will not be in a History book, but Timmah Milken, PFC Infantry hero of the day, will most likely have an entire page.


We don't really need to extend this to war time because the Good Guy-Bad guy Thing is happening all around us.

And really, the only way to stop this is by total destruction of all global, cross border and internal politics. Yup total anarchy is what I mean, no rule of law, no constructive and organized power brokers in government. Have it be every man for himself where every day is a struggle for identity and survival.


That's the only way to be fair right take what you need or die trying?


Yeah right ...

What we have on the planet with 7 billion A-holes running about is a system of strife and war and mayhem coupled with victory and praise and national pride. It works for most, kinda.

Global fairness will most likely mean global melt down of all services and infrastructure while we try and be "fair" and equitable to each other.



bah...

In the grand scheme what's a few million deaths compared with the hundreds of millions of prosperous persons.

[Zeabot]

Perhaps a good way to look at it is "Us" vs. "Them" rather than Good vs. Evil. It is part of being human to cherish the decisions you make and community you live in (even you dirt bags who live out in the middle of no where). So, in your situation, the Chinese are the bad guys... in the situation with Iraq, they are the bad guys. Anyone trying to kill us is the bad guy.

Now, of course, this is a large generalization. There have been civilizations that were trying to do inherently evil things, such as all of Europe during the expansionary period in the 15th and 16th century. To speak on Cranium's point, the winner writes the history books -- so people don't care much about the Aztecs or other natives of North America (except of course, their remnants.) Sure, they get talked about, but it is not a tragedy anymore.

[KommieKat]

in the situation with Iraq, they are the bad guys.

But they didn't do anything wrong. Bush Sr. says they were bad and goes in their with the mindset of raping the country bare of it's resources.

Question is, what exactly did they do that was bad to Americas way of life? Did they actually threaten our sovereignty?
Now, it no longer matters about such honorable justified reasons. Seems they make things up as they go along. Fucking Christ already.

To speak on Cranium's point, the winner writes the history books -- so people don't care much about the Aztecs or other natives of North America

But the truth does come out, eventually and it adds up. Look at Vietnam. I mean, what the fuck was all that about? What exactly did they do to piss off Prez Johnson and Nixon? Turns out it was a bunch of lies made up (Gulf of Tonkin:In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[7] that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding August 2: Wiki) and now we've got the truth about there being NO WMD in Iraq.

This stuff adds up and people get sick of it. One bogus lie on top of the other, just so MR. Industrialist Plantation Munitions owner gets his pay check with a bonus and runs for office so he can thereby help his capitalist buddies expand their global businesses (Revolving Door).

It's only a matter of time when we find out who actually demolished the Twin Towers and all hell will break out.

[Firestorm]

It's only a matter of time when we find out who actually demolished the Twin Towers and all hell will break out

Read the 9/11 report, its so full of lies and outright alterations of historical fact that you might as well give it a prize for award winning fiction. Funnily enough, I don't see the American sheeple doing much if they find out it was a joint CIA/NSA operation to bring in the Patriot Act, who cares if a few thousand Americans were killed?

[CrAnIuM]

It's only a matter of time when we find out who

find out it was a joint CIA/NSA

[Firestorm]

^^

I likes me some cocoa puffs, but they don't taste as good without the MSG...

[Zeabot]

But the truth does come out, eventually and it adds up.

Don't turn this into some sort of crazy conspiracy theory bullshit. Especially since it does not apply to the example of the Aztecs I brought up. People knew what they were doing, but because of their times, it was totally acceptable.
That probably applies to this, too. Who gives a shit about why we went into Iraq? We disposed a shitty, maniac leader.
And just to feed into your crazy conspiracy theory, prove we didn't find a WMD in Iraq. Prove to me they didn't move it out of the country.

[KommieKat]

Don't turn this into some sort of crazy conspiracy theory bullshit.

And why not? Because there are other reasons contrary to yours?
I know it sucks to hear other versions but seriously, wake up.

People knew what they were doing, but because of their times, it was totally acceptable.

So it's acceptable today to place an embargo on a country (Iraq) and starve people to death and let them die without needed medicine(fact)?
It's OK to occupy other nations (fact)?
It's OK to murder other people who are fighting off the aggressors (You in this case)-fact?

We disposed a shitty, maniac leader.

And that's that? That's what that was all about?
Deposing a dictator that was placed in power by the United States in the first fucking place (fact)?

So, if disposing crazy dictators is our responsibility, why we didn't do the same with North Korea?
I mean, doesn't the whole fucking country of crazies pose a greater threat or was it because the U.S. was too chicken shit to fight an enemy that was well armed with WMD and close ties to China, which is an even bigger well equipped country?
If you ask me, I think the U.S. is nothing more than a fucking world class BULLY which means....COWARD.

Who gives a shit about why we went into Iraq?

Is this a serious question? Who gives a shit? Well, I'm sure the Iraqi people do.

And just to feed into your crazy conspiracy theory

Which one?

prove we didn't find a WMD in Iraq

I think it was Bush Jr and Rumsfield:

I never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

We have tons of WMD. So what if they had some. What makes the US better then them in this case of WMD?
Kommiekat


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-bush-iraq-wmd
"Bush, in his revealing interview, claimed he wished "that the intelligence had been different", but that was never really the point. Bush, like so many others, had made up his mind regarding Saddam independent of the facts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Try as he might to spread responsibility for his actions by pointing out that "a lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein," the fact is WMD was simply an excuse used by the president to fulfil his self-proclaimed destiny as a war-time president who would avenge his father's inability (or, more accurately, sage unwillingness) to finish the job back in 1991, in the aftermath of the first Gulf war."

"As pre-war British government discussions with Bush administration officials reveal, there was never a solid case to be made on Iraq's possession of WMD in the months leading up to the decision to invade, simply a sophomoric cause-effect relationship linking regime change (the preferred policy) and WMD (the excuse) "in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD" (quoting Blair)."

"The intelligence on Iraq's WMD was whatever the president and his cronies (including his erstwhile ally at 10 Downing Street) wanted it to be."

http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
CIA
THURSDAY, SEP 6, 2007 7:16 PM CHINA STANDARD TIME
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again."


OK, so there is my proof.

Question for you:
Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

[KommieKat]

Here's a question for anybody to answer:

The U.S. armed al-Qaeda to fight off the Russians in the 80's.
The CIA trained the al-Qaeda fighters in Terrorist techniques.

So, who's the real terrorist, the U.S./CIA or al-Qaeda?

Oh, and one more, if I may. What were they (al-Qaeda) doing in Libya fighting along side NATO just last year?

[KommieKat]

Fighting in Panama: Latin America; U.S. Denounced by Nations Touchy About Intervention

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/21/wo...ervention.html

By JAMES BROOKE, Special to The New York Times
Published: December 21, 1989

From Mexico to Argentina, Latin American governments today roundly condemned the use of force by the United States against Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega of Panama.

Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela and Peru criticized the action as interference in the sovereign affairs of a fellow American nation.

Nicaragua placed its troops on alert, Peru recalled its Ambassador to the United States and Venezuela said it would not recognize the new Government of Guillermo Endara until United States troops were withdrawn.

Leftist groups in Argentina, Uruguay and Mexico planned public rallies to protest the move. United States diplomatic employees across the continent were instructed to be on the alert for anti-American demonstrations. 'Vehement Appeal' by Brazil

Brazil, Latin America's most populous country, deplored the American action and made ''a vehement appeal that a pacific and an immediate solution be found for the crisis.''

Calling the attack by the United States ''a step backward in international relations,'' Brazil's President, Jose Sarney, said, ''We profoundly lament this event.''


Now, what the FUCK was that all about??
I think BUSH Sr. was covering his ass on some Drug related money laundering schemes he had going. Prove me wrong.

[CrAnIuM]

LoL ..


Clown.

[KommieKat]

LoL ..


Clown.

Yep, Bush Sr. and Jr. sure were, weren't they.

[CrAnIuM]

Yep, Bush Sr. and Jr. sure were, weren't they.

I don't think any amount of debating the statements you made will change your mind on anything. Plus I'm no longer in the business of defending my country's political idiocy and dark hallway dealings by CIA chiefs of bygone years. ( Note .. I was in Honduras in 88 and Panama in '89.. again in 90 for some ...stuff)

That being said, I want to make it clear that the USA has no monopoly on shady deals, nation splitting, assassination coups ..etc.

I also KNOW I'd rather take the mess I know than move and deal with another country's mess. To ME the US is a great place and still has opportunity for individual freedoms far more so than most any other place on the planet. Yes, I fear the police state and the ever present protectionism (not the economic kind ..)that is growing in the US. Still .. I'll be dead in ~50 years or so and won't give a fuck at that point.

[KommieKat]

Plus I'm no longer in the business of defending my country's political idiocy and dark hallway dealings by CIA chiefs of bygone years.

But you sure are into name calling in the Red Zone. Make up your fucking mind. Allow it or don't allow it, but your reply CLOWN needs something to back it up.
Simply stating CLOWN means shit dick lick in of-itself and has no bearing on the discussion or was it, in your case, name calling. You should know that by now.

I don't think any amount of debating the statements you made will change your mind on anything.

By all means, be my guest. ( this always seems to be your excuse to NOT debate the issues. WEAK = FAIL )

[Firestorm]

But you sure are into name calling in the Red Zone

This is the Green zone. Carry on.

[Josie]

Global fairness will most likely mean global melt down of all services and infrastructure while we try and be "fair" and equitable to each other.

nail on the head.

[Zeabot]

So it's acceptable today to place an embargo on a country (Iraq) and starve people to death and let them die without needed medicine(fact)?
It's OK to occupy other nations (fact)?
It's OK to murder other people who are fighting off the aggressors (You in this case)-fact?

Yes, it is proper to place an embargo on countries with shitty leaders.
Not all people in Iraq think we occupied them. In fact, a lot of people were pretty happy we did what we did. And if the Iraqi people weren't shut shitty soldiers, we could have been out of there a long time ago. But they suck at KEEPING PEACE, which is why the country is going to fall back into turmoil in the next few years.

And that's that? That's what that was all about?

Yes, disposing of a shitty leader is a pretty good reason. No one complained when other shitty leaders were removed, because... well... people didn't whine and cry as much in the past. With the new information age, everything is a god damned conspiracy.

why we didn't do the same with North Korea?

That place is no where near as volatile or important to OUR peace. The middle east has been a disgusting pile of war since the beginning of human civilization (literally.) Secondly, North Korea is in check. Last I heard, even the Chinese were telling the crazy Koreans to shut the fuck up and stop acting crazy.

I think it was Bush Jr and Rumsfield:

I never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

Now to my favorite part. I asked for proof that we didn't find anything over there. What do you give me in return? Quotes from US Officials. This is the problem with you conspiracy theory fucks. If the US is so dumb and evil and can't keep a straight story, then don't go around and quote them as your proof. Too many times have I seen, in the same damn conversation, that the US is on its way out of power because it is so dumb and awful. The politicians are all corrupt, liars, who have their own agenda. Yet, here you are, quoting them as your proof that we didn't find WMD. Try a different source than the ones you are constantly dismissing.

So, who's the real terrorist, the U.S./CIA or al-Qaeda?

al-Qaeda. Going back to my original statement, the "good" guys and "bad" guys are not clearly defined terms. To the US, they are the terrorists because now they are using the techniques we taught them to attack us. Times change, motives change, and the "bad" guys change.

[KommieKat]

This is the problem with you conspiracy theory fucks.

You stepped over the line with this remark and that's where I high tail it out.

Thanks for the fun, everybody! Glad we can discuss things peacefully.

[CrAnIuM]

Thanks for the fun, everybody! Glad we can discuss things peacefully.

Bye !!