Solaris, after reading a few of your replies, I have come to the conclusion that you're incapable of seeing things from a different point-of-view, and have an unbreakable (and incorrect) connection between US actions and Nazi Germany. You also lack basic understanding of what it takes to run a country and what it takes to reconstruct a country. Nor do you understand what a country has to do in a complicated position such as this one, and dismiss everything as imperialism. You also don't seem to understand that Iraq is not one big issue, but a large set of them. Being pro one thing doesn't make one pro-invasion, for example, something you obviously miss.
You also seem to be extremely arrogant with your name-calling, but that's a different topic altogether that I have no right or want to discuss.
quote:
Why, so that the U.S. can do all of what Nazis did but its the U.S. so its ok!
Hah. What you're doing is called "
propoganda." In actuality, the only similar thing between Nazi Germany and the US is that both participated in armed conflict with a different country over something that's not respectable. By your logic, every war is an action compareable to Nazi Germany.
quote:
Nope!
If people like you can say well, the holocaust was evil but the U.S. has done nothing of the sort I will continue to correct you.
Correct me over what? (This is rhetorical, so don't get your panties in a knot.) You seem to be extremely lacking in knowledge of WWII. The "holocaust" describes (in modern days, the phrase has actually been changed since WWII) systematic ethnic cleansing. Are you telling me the US is committing ethnic cleansing? I think we both agreed it was not.
quote:
What the hell? There is nothing 'anti-american' about it. If you are stupid enough to repeat history then you whine when people label you.
I may have been a bit overboard when I said your statements were anti-American. Sorry, I'm used to replying to people who immediately assume Bush's actions represent America's people and ideals. Sorry about that.
Unfortunately, I don't see how I'm (?) repeating history. And what's this about me whining about being labeled? What what what? Try not to be so vague.
quote:
ts VERY peecific! I have not brought this issue in EVRY SINGLE ONE OF MY REPLIES.
I'm talking about the replies in this thread.
quote:
I have posted already other tpoics as well as I have proven the topics that you have givin the caption of. If this whole bush thing upsets you that much stop posting it then.
Don't mix-and-match different topics please. Read the reply in the other thread if you haven't already done so.
quote:
How thick are you?
A cheap troll on your part, Solaris.
quote:
No you are doing that. Stop twisting things around. Its obvious in what is going on.
Ha. I'm not doing that at all! Although, if you look at your replies in this thread (I guess I'm going to have to be extremely specific with you), you'll notice an enormous majority of your sentence responses have to do with Iraq and outrage that doesn't actually have anything to do with the topic at hand, and are responses to things that are out-of-context. Speaking of twisting things around, eh? Once more, this doesn't actually have to do with this, we're just creating more arguments when we're not done with the first one. Save it for another time, all right? Also, what's going on? It's not so obvious to everyone else.
quote:
How does it not? Ah yes, its america so its ok then.
It's cool how you can reply with a snappy comeback like that without even taking into account the arguments. Bravo.
quote:
Bush has proven you wrong. No argument. There is enough knowledge out there.
If anything, Bush has proven me *right*. His stances against socialism or anything that reeks anything other than cut-throat capitalism are wack, so to speak. You need to brush up on the definitions of fascism and Nazism. Take a look at dictionary.com--I believe this isn't the first time I have to correct you on the difference between a word's definition and its stigma. (I believe the word was "dictator," but don't quote me on that. It was a long time ago.) Look at the propaganda link I posted earlier. It often applies to your posts--maybe on purpose, maybe not. I'm waging not, just because.
quote:
The invasion of Iraq and Afganisitan, the cause of 9/11 and the U.S. patriot Act proves otherwize.
The difference is that the cause of 9/11 (assuming you mean it was staged or something along those lines) is currently not a fact, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are under completely different pretexts (Hitler's reasons were sharp "NEED LIVING SPACE FOR THE MASTER ARYAN" sort of things, America's being oil, if you follow the common line of thought). If you'd like to learn more about Hitler's ideas, I suggest you begin reading Mein Kampf. From what I've read so far,it's quite a shocker.
quote:
I have done. Thats why the definition fits. Whether YOU disagree with me or not you cannot change the hard facts of reality.
The problem here is that it doesn't sound like you have. Look up "Nazism" in dictionary.com. Can you honestly tell me the US operates under "racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy?" ("National expansion" does not apply because in the US' case, it's not national, and it's not permanent.)
quote:
Other than the ethnic cleansing everything else IS the same.
Almost everything is different, right down to the causes, economic conditions, interests, operation, military operation, and ideals. One of the few parallels would be blind patriotism (well, in Germany, it was a combination of blind nationalism and blind patriotism)--this is a trait that's common in a large amount of countries, though. Pre-WWI France was full of that sort of thing, for example.
quote:
Ah yes. For the U.S. its a set of 'pretext.' For germany it was not. Even though they have DONE THE SAME THING!
Well, Germany had a set of pretexts as well. Every country does, to justify unjust military action to its population. As I said before, though, Nazi Germany and the US are completely different.
quote:
Yes read that sentence GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!!! you ARE guilty of doing the same things!!! Expecialy when you yourself DENY it!
Sorry, that makes no sense. At all. This is what I'm saying, and what you're not understanding: I do not agree with the invasion. I think that the whole idea of invading Iraq was stupid, especially for the reasons given. HOWEVER, I understand that because this has happened anyway, the US must at least pretend (PRE-TEND--a key word in this post and my previous one) to be following through with its goals. It's just a dirty fact of live. Understand this: we are in the same camp. Both of us oppose the war--it's just that you are blindly plunging to the conclusion that the US simply must leave immediatly, no questions asked, and must not do a single thing there, and I think that if we're there, the US must at least justify its actions and fix what it has broken (Iraq, that is).
quote:
They DON'T it has been PROVEN ALREADY!!!
And I agree. Did I say I didn't? Stop being so angry. It's just that if WMDs are suddenly found, and are proven to be WMDs, I will say "well, I guess I was wrong and there were WMDs."
It's kinda like how most people didn't belive the earth was round, until one day, it was proven. Except in reverse. Err... Kind of a silly analogy, but it makes enough sense. Understand?
quote:
THEY DO know this.
I'll roll with that, as long as you realize you actually don't know this for a fact. As long as you're not a general and haven't seen a paper that said "no WMDs exist," I will take that as something that's very probable, but not 100% sure.
quote:
Sure, if thats what you want to imagine. Hitler
If that's what "I want to imagine?" Example: the Polish uncovered a dozen of missiles they suspected were WMDs. They were not. Still, they were out looking for them. Even sources like Al-Jazeera confirm this.
Also, don't you ever fucking dare call me that ever again. My entire family has been involved in WWII, an enormous number of people in my family were killed (I'm half Jewish), and my grandfather was one of the first Russians to step into Germany. You are nothing but a troll. Should have realized it earlier.
quote:
If they did have enough 'tact' to do this then by you hitler was right. After all he had enough 'tact' to say that poland, England and france etc... were threats to germany.
Nope! America has no rights in Iraq.
Irrelevant. France and England both declared war on Germany before a single German stepped into either country.
The invasion of Iraq has been purely economic, concealed behind a curtain of liberation, democracy, etc. etc. Helping out Iraq, rebuilding Iraq, and improving the quality of life is an obligation that comes along with our intentions.
On the other hand, the invasion of Poland was a crooked act that is in no way compareable to Iraq. Germany did not invade with the intentions of later pulling out. It invaded to create "living space" for the Germans. Polish life was not improved. Poland had a large amount of population killed (I'm not talking about a number like 3,000, which is also terrible, but not even close to what happened there). The Poles themselves were treated as sub-human.
You could compare the invasion of Iraq to, let's say, the Commodore Matthew Perry and what he did in Japan, on a grander scale. It's pretty bad, but miles away from being as bad as what Nazi Germany did.
quote:
They cared enouogh to give him power. To make him an exuse for their invasion.
That's bull. Up until 1979, the United States was pro-Iran, and anti-Iraq. This was due to the pro-Western dictatorship in Iraq. In 1979, there was a coup, and Islamic fundamentalists took power. The pro-Western view was suddenly turned 180 degrees. Saddam began his journey to the top using the Baath party back in 1963, was then jailed when the government collapsed, and then freed when in 1968, the Baath party took control once more. He was then able to earn himself a seat in the Iraqi Council, or whatever it was called at the time. Coinsidently, in 1979, Iraq's president of twenty-something years stepped down because of his health. Saddam was his "vice president," so to speak, and assumed power. Iran, being a Shite, angered Iraq by trying to instigate a revolution in Sunni Iraq. Thus started the 1980 war between Iraq and Iran. Only at this point did the US decide to be buddy-buddy with Iraq (and partially with Iran--America did some baaaad things during that war), it being more friendly to the Western world, and fighting Iran--something that could, at the time, benefit America and the Western world at large. To understand the logic behind this, you must understand Cold War politics, which is extremely off topic. The point is that you're wrong.
quote:
No saddam called the U.S. out. To discuss diplomaticaly and resolve the conflict. Bush said no.
That's not the only definition of that phrase, but yes, that happened. And I don't think what Bush did was right.
quote:
It does not carry just 'his legacy.' If discussed this already. No you still have no right to change the flag!
Indeed, but it carries some of it. It is not right that the US changed it, but considering the fact that the US went in there saying they were "liberating" the Iraqi people and "removing Saddam from power," it seems like the proper thing to do with the American point of view. Are you with me?
quote:
Furthermore, you have to be extremely ignorant, extremely naive, or both, to think that the occupation forces can continue to stay there and plunder everything insight while giving the exuse that its 'for the good of the people' when everything else proves otherwize! ITS NOT ignorant to say that they should leave. Expecialy when they wern't supposed to be there in the first place.
Yes? All it does is plunder everything in sight? Silly you. If you mean oil, that's nearly impossible. Iraq can't pump as much oil and it could before, and it's not exactly being sold at rock-bottom prices. Gas prices here in the United States haven't dropped sharply by any means. On the contrary...
Also, I think you're forgetting all the improved facilities that are being constructed, the schools being opened, the operational clinics being opened up... Not that what the US did was right, but the US has to fix what the US broke. Indeed, the US wasn't supposed to invade, and as such, must leave. Agreed. But first, Iraq has to be fixed. Remember those bombs you were talking about? Well, they broke some stuff. Like powerplants. You think they'll fix themselves?
quote:
Maby but even AFTER the sanctions THAT YOU put on them they STILL served their purpose!
Heh. Please refrain from saying "YOU" when you mean the US. I don't represent the US, and I'm not a citizen. The sanctions were not decided on by the US, but rather by the UN, due to Iraq's failure to comply with the cease fire declared after the Gulf War. Whether or not the facilities "served their purpose" or not before the war is irrelavant--they're now destroyed, or are in need of repair.
quote:
While you are there yes.
How do you propose taking a census of 25,000,000 people without even having the basic tools to do so? And elections? How do you propse they accomplish that, without having any means of transporting the votes? How about the power plants--do you think that Iraq is in any shape to repair and add powerplants? They certainly can't afford it! And what about the destroyed infastructure? Do you think Iraq has the expertise, money, and equipment to rebuild it?
quote:
Of course it is so why doesn' the occupation leave so the prossess can begin.The process can't happen without the occupation, as you call it. Read my previous paragraph.
Yes it has Nazi germany was trying to set up what *it* thought was right. Surprise they failed too.
That's completely out of context. I was refering to the task or rebuilding a country's basic needs (roads, power, sewage, etc.). As I said, take a look at Japan's reconstruction.
I'm not going to even touch the Nazi comment, because I addressed it a few times already.
quote:
I will look it up when I have time.
Excellent. It's a neat topic and I wish you luck.
quote:
Yes saddam was removed but its up to THE IRAQIES to decide that. How many times have I repeated this?
And you call me 'thick skulled!'
All right, it's up to them. The US changed it because the US thought it was the proper thing to do. Evidently, it was morally not. Fortunately for the Iraqi people, they are able to change it already. If you think the current government is a puppet one (which it semi-is, of course), then they'll be able to change it once a new government is elected. Back to the census and infastructure issue, etc. etc.
quote:
From an occupation point of view the opposit is always 'evil'. For Nazi jermany it was the jews that were 'evil.'
That's a silly example. The US never said Iraq's people were evil, like the Nazis declared the Jews to be subhuman and the reason for all of Germany's problems.
The US decided to declare the leadership as evil, which actually wasn't too far off the mark. Are you saying he wasn't evil? That's objective, I suppose, but all the Iraqis I know (and I know a few), and their families (who are living in Iraq) dislike Saddam a whole lot. By the coalition's logic, Saddam is evil, they "liberated" (in their opinion) Iraq, and now they should remove all traces of him, because he is evil.
quote:
As for 'shooting rifles or gassing his own people.'
Do I have to remind you again that it was the U.S. that put him in power in the first place, that gave him those weapons and who told to attack Iran when all of a sudden they changed their mind!
Do I have to remind you that alot of people that were 'gassed' in iraq were related to Alqguida and other terroist organizations. Yes thats right Saddam never got along with alquida and the like. However bush is very buddy buddy with the bin ladins.
Seems you need alot to be rememberd of.
Seems like you need a history lesson, actually.
The bit about gassing and shooting rifles was a bit of sarcasm. No one in their right mind would assume he was only that. BUT! The US did NOT put him in his place. I explained this already. Also, the US did _not_ tell him to attack Iran. The US was never in a position to do so. Iraq attacked Iran on its own accord, and the US, realizing this, supplemented Iraq with weapons. Once more, Cold War politics. The US has a right to change its mind just as any other country or group of people has the right to. Bangladesh and Pakistan used to be one country and on extremely friendly terms. Now look at the situation! A country's foreign policy is always changing--especially in a democracy, where a new POV emerges every four to eight years.
Yes, you are totally right. Saddam indeed did gas lots of people, including members of Al Queda--but not only. Are you now defending Saddam? Well, post a new thread about that. I'll debate on that as well, but I'll that's all I'm going to say on the matter in this thread. As for the bin Ladins connection: indeed. That is true. What are you saying? Not all Bin Ladins are terrorists, you know.
quote:
How about I remind you about the Iraq and Iran war where BOTH sides lost a number of people!
(Taken from the previous quote.)
This is true. It was, after all, a war.
quote:
Could explain your ignorance on the subject and why you are twisting words. A pro bushie would of mentioned the word 'liberal' or 'leftie' by now.
My "ignorance" on the subject? Ha ha. Pot. Kettle. Black. And I'm not "twisting words." I'm not the one taking quotes out of context and what not.
quote:
Everything concerning the flag.
While it is true that the flag can and does represent the US leadership, it does not do this visually. The Iraqi flag represents Saddam. Visually. Fifty years down the road, one might look at the old Iraqi flag and ask, "who wrote that?" And the response will still be "Saddam Hussein." This is not the case with the US flag.
Also, because the US leadership changes on a regular basis, the connotation which you speak of will soon be gone. This is something that's impossible with the Iraqi flag.
quote:
He didn't have to. He invades a country, calls it his own by changing that flag.
The US and Bush never assumed Iraq to be their property. This is why the US plans on leaving, and this is why the US and the UN are working on implementing the needs for the democracy.
quote:
So we have two things here. Your continuing imagination of me mentioning bush in every post and complain that I'm not spesific. Yet you are clouding this conversation with that assumption which has no grounds.
You think just because its the good ol' U.S of A thats trampling over people its not the same as Nazism.
We have one thing here. This is one topic. The other one I already responded it, with the problem being miscommunication. Don't use your lack of understanding of the English language as an argument, because it's a really bad one. If anyone is clouding anything here, it would be you. You take one issue, then take another, and another, and then another, and assume they all mean the same thing. Everything I say _does_ have grounds. Reread out conversation.
I already explained to you what Nazism is, and how it is totally different from what the US is accomplishing. I will do so once more.
This is the definition of Nazism, taken straight from dictionary.com:
quote:
The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
Not a single one of those things applies to the United States. You are clueless.
If I did not make myself clear: I oppose what we did to Iraq. This does not mean that I will stand idly and allow you to make silly claims.
