Is protesting still good?

Squiggy said:
Apparently you all missed the point so I guess I have to accept responsibility for poorly communicating it. I recognized, prior to the first attack on Iraq, that it was rather hypocritical to attack them in defense of Kuwait because kuwait was no better than Iraq when it came to human rights. I'm asking the same question about the current situation. I'm not arguing about the war anymore. I'm asking why none ever seem to realize that some leader is bad unless W points at them and says "evil doer"......If he started talking up the evidence tieing SA to 911, I think you would all fall in line with attack slogans...despite the arguments you're putting forth now. Put me on ignore if you like oli. I don't give a fuck. I've got one of those buttons too. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Since everybody wants to flame, instead of give coherant answers, I'll attempt to answer.

1. Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia?

Not as complex as most would like to think, it's actually a 2-fold answer. Mecca and Medina. If you think, for one second, that attacking the country that was created to protect those 2 monuments to the religion of Islam is going to be easy and/or swift, you're not thinking things through. It's too tough a fight for us in this time period, so we chose to bypass SA until we're ready.

2. Why don't we attack Kuwait?

Because it would inflame most of the civilised world. I'm not saying we should, or shouldn't, get rid of Kuwait, but, once again, these things need to be done on a schedule...our schedule. Just like Rome wasn't built in a day, the current crisis won't be ended in a day. Right and wrong have nothing to do with this. It's all timing.

3. Why did we attack Iraq if sanctions were working?

You fight your battles starting with the lowest level, and then moving up. That way, your troops get the battle conditioning they need to survive higher up that chain. Sound military strategy, if not morally agreeable.
 
Those are rather grey answers, Gato. Not that you didn't state your point but moreso that it sounds like 'after the fact' reasons as opposed to 'real' reasons. If they were valid points they would undermine all of the reasons we've given for our actions because Kuwait is as bad as Iraq, and the terrorism is tied to SA. We left NO allowances for Mecca and Medina in our proclaimation of war on terrorism. And its NOT good strategy to leave the stronger force on your flank while your resources are being depleted by the lessor force.
 
3. Why did we attack Iraq if sanctions were working?
Click to expand...

If sanctions were working, why were France and Russia so determined to keep the UN outta Iraq? Maybe because they were sumggling in everything Saddam wanted and the sanctions were giving them one helluva customer?

Well, the last laughs on them. Looks like the world bank's gonna forgive the billions in debt the Iraqi nation owes. And it's biggest creditors are ...

You guessed it. The frog and the bear. This could well cripple their economies.
 
Squiggy said:
Those are rather grey answers, Gato. Not that you didn't state your point but moreso that it sounds like 'after the fact' reasons as opposed to 'real' reasons. If they were valid points they would undermine all of the reasons we've given for our actions because Kuwait is as bad as Iraq, and the terrorism is tied to SA. We left NO allowances for Mecca and Medina in our proclaimation of war on terrorism. And its NOT good strategy to leave the stronger force on your flank while your resources are being depleted by the lessor force.
Click to expand...

Not as grey as you think, Squigg. Like you, my ex-jarhead friend, I've gotten pretty jaded on how low the brass will stoop to prove a point. Besides...we really havent lost much in this here war. Even the casualties are extremely light for such a large force. Besides...who'd you rather have in a battle...Someone who's been there, or a raw recruit?

As for the Mecca and Medina reference, I think most, if not all, Muslims would be a bit inflamed if we partake in military action in SA without pacifying the entire area first. If we go into SA before we 'limit' the other ME Islamic countries, we'd be in for a fight for the fate of the world...:eek:
 
Kuwait isn't as bad as Iraq.

Sanctions weren't working to disarm Iraq.

I wrote a long post addressed to Squiggy a week ago on why we shouldn't attack SA first, and I repeated the answers yesterday in another thread, so I won't go into them again.
 
Gato_Solo said:
If we go into SA before we 'limit' the other ME Islamic countries, we'd be in for a fight for the fate of the world...
Click to expand...
Good point Gato. I think one of the problems we'll run into as this progresses, is that we don't take the time to understand the history (both secular and religious) and ethnicity we are delaing with.
 
Ardsgaine said:
Really? Why not? Are you not confident in the reasoning process that led you to conclude that it's wrong? If you're uncertain of your conclusion, then have you gone back over it to recheck it? If you have checked it and rechecked it, then what makes you afraid to conclude that you're right and they're wrong?
Click to expand...




simple. what makes me right and someone else wrong. simple as that.
 
freako104 said:
simple. what makes me right and someone else wrong. simple as that.
Click to expand...

Well... what makes any statement true is its correspondence with reality, so what would make you right is if your beliefs correspond with reality. I guess what I'm asking is, do you believe that reality is unknowable, or do you just lack confidence in your own ability to identify what is real?
 
So am I real or is this all just my imagination? If it's my imagination, then I must be real to have an imagination, but then I'm real, so it's probably real. But if it's real then it's not my imagination. If it's not my imagination, maybe I'm not real.
 
...and in the end, we have only our faith in history to let us decide which was real and which was an illusion....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top