Why We Fight

[Lonevoice]

To the OP:

For some odd reason, I took your question personally. (not in a BAD way…)

It’s my nature. All my life, I figured someone had to do the dirty work. I was good at it, and as the DGF says, SOMEONE has to pick up the sword, and be willing to walk into battle. When I was a soldier, it was the same way

Put on your boots.
Pick up your ruck.
Charge your weapon, and let’s go to work.

SOMEONE has to do it.(for all those that are unwilling)

Remember, an activist is one that CLEANS UP the problem, not the one that complains about it.

JMHO

 

[gilliam]

Norwich,

Your redefining the term to suit your political agenda. The US is not technically an imperialist power.

Most all countries defend their population’s economic interest. Sorry if you don’t like that, but all countries do this, even, gasp the UK. In democracies and republics, when they don’t, they get voted out of office.

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

Norwich,

Your redefining the term to suit your political agenda. The US is not technically an imperialist power.

Sounds like you are redefining the term as well to the same ends. Not “technically”? Then, only “de facto,” I suppose.

 

[Richardols]

Norwich:

Lets pick just one simple example of American economic imperialism kiiling the livelyhood of one little country.

Ever heard the phrase “fair traded” coffee? It’s a movement to get poor farmers just and fair payment for their crops, and it’s the only coffee I buy. Major American coffee roasters have for decades forced low wages on those farmers, making them economic slaves to the likes of Folgers et al and denying them the ability to raise their families decently. You don’t need the backing of an administration to qualify as an economic imperialist.

 

[Matt25]

cestusdei:

Matt,
. You folks sure did want us to interfere back in WWII. Tell you what. Let’s just put it back the way it was.

Well I wasn’t born until 24 years after the war began and 22 years after Germany declared war on the USA so I never expressed an opinion about US ‘interference’ at the time.

I am always fascinated though by the notion that because of the sacrifices so many Americans made when they eventually joined the war in Europe in the 1940’s Europeans in the 21st Century must support every twist and turn of US Foreign policy. It is even more absurd when you consider that the worldview of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was completely different from the epigone now inhabiting the White House.

Even if it was valid to suppose that we are bound by the blood sacrifices of the past would not Russia have a greater claim on our loyalty than the US? Some Twenty Million Soviet Citizens died in the Second World War of whom about Eight Million were in the Red Army. Total US casualties were about Three Hundred Thousand. Since Russia was against the invasion of Iraq do you think the UK was disrespecting their sacrifices by joining with your country in that attack?

cestusdei:

The taliban can regain power and we can put Saddam back in his palace. Would that satisfy you?

It would not.

cestusdei:

I mean according to you that would be wonderful

Where did I say that?

.

cestusdei:

While we are at it we can give Kosovo back to the Serbs and let Milosovic loose. Hey what’s a little genocide here or there? We could even pass a meaningless UN resolution. Boy that will scare them! Grow up Matt.

Around half a million Iraqi’s died as a result of the UN sanctions regime. Meaningless, pointless deaths perhaps but not caused by meaningless UN resolutions

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

Even if it was valid to suppose that we are bound by the blood sacrifices of the past would not Russia have a greater claim on our loyalty than the US?

The Russians did not participate in liberation of Western Europe. In fact, the USSR didn’t liberate any country, they occupied them. If it were not for the US the USSR would have taken over ALL of Europe, including the UK.

Then the US stood guard for 50 years on the plains of Europe making sure the USSR didn’t invade.

Yes, you owe us a lot.

…

your welcome…

 

[jlw]

Matt25:

Iraq did not attack the United States in September 2001

But terrorists did. Are we not fighting terrorists right now???

 

[Norwich]

Richardols:

Ever heard the phrase “fair traded” coffee? It’s a movement to get poor farmers just and fair payment for their crops, and it’s the only coffee I buy. Major American coffee roasters have for decades forced low wages on those farmers, making them economic slaves to the likes of Folgers et al and denying them the ability to raise their families decently. You don’t need the backing of an administration to qualify as an economic imperialist.

Nope, but like insanity, it helps!!!

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

The Russians did not participate in liberation of Western Europe. In fact, the USSR didn’t liberate any country, they occupied them.

Sheer and utter nonsense. The Red Army liberated Poland, and were the first soldiers into Auschwitz. The Red Army liberated Czechoslovakia and freed hundreds of American POWs in Stalags there and in eastern Germany. They freed Hungary. They were also the first into Berlin and took the capital only after very stiff resistance by the German Army. The Red Army met US and British forces at the Elbe completing the liberation of Europe. If it were not for the Red Army, Germany would have won the war. Russia took the brunt of Allied casualties during the war and it was in Russia that the back of the German Army was broken. We should be eternally grateful to the Soviet Union for that, otherwise, as the right-wingers like to say, “we’d all be speaking German.”

Then the US stood guard for 50 years on the plains of Europe making sure the USSR didn’t invade.

Where? In the Fulda Gap? In Poland? What plains are you talking about?

Besides, the US Army would have been beaten in a ground war with the Russians in the decades after WWII. There was never any parity between their forces and ours. They had all the numbers. The reason there was no war was the MAD doctrine -the threat of atomic warfare, not the small number of U.S. Forces in Europe.

 

[Norwich]

Richardols:

Besides, the US Army would have been beaten in a ground war with the Russians in the decades after WWII. There was never any parity between their forces and ours. They had all the numbers. The reason there was no war was the MAD doctrine -the threat of atomic warfare, not the small number of U.S. Forces in Europe.

Not only US but Brits and other western countries. For those of us in Europe at that time the general concesus of opinion and military thinking was that it would take the Russians a maximum of three days to reach the Chanel. As you so rightly point out the only deterent was nuclear and it certainly wasn’t a fear of a ground war that stopped the Russians. There were many jokes about Hairy A**ed Cossacks riding into western Europe but they were tinged with a real fear that if such did happen we had nothing of consequence to stop them. That was a military reality, not some half baked dream of John Wayne type hero’s winning the war.

And for another point don’t be to proud of your officer core. Remember it was many of the stupid systems established in Vietnam that caused the horendous casualty’s suffered by the average American grunt which were set up by your officer corp. As I said before we trained many of them in Borneo before they went to Vietnam and we KNEW which would survive and which would get their tails blown off. Some were very very good, the vast majority had seen too many John Wayne films AND BELIEVED THEM. OK, thats fine for them, the problem was the number of good lads they took with them. Vietnam was a carnal house and, for whatever reason, never forget, YOU LOST.

 

[gilliam]

Richardols:

Sheer and utter nonsense. The Red Army liberated Poland, and were the first soldiers into Auschwitz. The Red Army liberated Czechoslovakia and freed hundreds of American POWs in Stalags there and in eastern Germany. They freed Hungary. They were also the first into Berlin and took the capital only after very stiff resistance by the German Army. The Red Army met US and British forces at the Elbe completing the liberation of Europe. If it were not for the Red Army, Germany would have won the war. Russia took the brunt of Allied casualties during the war and it was in Russia that the back of the German Army was broken. We should be eternally grateful to the Soviet Union for that, otherwise, as the right-wingers like to say, “we’d all be speaking German.”

Where? In the Fulda Gap? In Poland? What plains are you talking about?

Our forces during the Cold War were designed to respond to a Soviet armoured breakthrough on the plains of northern Europe. The Moravian Gap, Brenner Pass, and a major line through France to the Rhone valley are also important corridors.

Besides, the US Army would have been beaten in a ground war with the Russians in the decades after WWII…

There have obviously been debates but the general history of the Korean War is it was Stalin’s first attempt to move against the West and the West expected the next thing would be the tank divisions to come over on the plains of Europe. The truth of the matter is they did not go any futher into Western Europe because we were there to stop them… for 50 years.

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

The Russians did not participate in liberation of Western Europe. In fact, the USSR didn’t liberate any country, they occupied them.

Austria. If it wasn’t for the Red Army California would have another Governor.

Pesky Soviets

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

The truth of the matter is they did not go any futher into Western Europe because we were there to stop them… for 50 years.

If by we, you mean our nuclear capability, I agree. Of course, they had the same means of gentle persuasion to keep us from going east.

If you mean our ground forces - as Norwich said, the Red Army would be refilling their canteens in the Seine in a matter of days. US and British forces (BAOR) would have been no more than sacrificial. Their nukes and ours would have decided any war in Europe, which is why, both sides knew that there would never have been a war in Europe. Both sides spent decades posturing towards each other.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

condan:

• Iraq is a stronghold in the region.
• Saddam needed to be overthrown for not complying with 1441.
• Saddam was not a secularist. Rather, he was a moderate Islamic. Islam considers all of the non-Islamic world to be infidels.
• Saddam funded, directly and indirectly, Islamic terrorists.
• Democracy (outside of Israel) is necessary in the region.

This is an excellent and accurate summation; I agree with you completely!

 

[Matt25]

Iraq is a stronghold in the region.

Not after 12 years of sanctions it wasn’t. Did you notice how quickly it militarily collapsed during the invasion.

Saddam needed to be overthrown for not complying with 1441.

Why? Violating UN resolutions doesnt normally precipitate invasions. Ask Israel. Anyway it is for the UN to decide how to enforce its own resolutions not the President of the USA. Particularly a President who ignores international opinion as a matter of principal unless it suits his agenda to pretend otherwise.

How did Saddam violate 1441 exactly?

Saddam was not a secularist. Rather, he was a moderate Islamic. Islam considers all of the non-Islamic world to be infidels.

Saddam was a secularist, he suppressed Shia pilgrimages to Najaf and Kerbala. While Saddam Hussein’s Baath party ruthlessly persecuted the Muslim Brotherhood for the first 20 years of his rule, Hussein’s severely weakened status after his huge setback in 1991 led him to publicly embrace Islam as a means of strengthening his legitimacy, ie US Foreign Policy made Saddam less anti_Islamist than he would otherwise have been. See usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr108.html

Islam does not consider the non Islamic world to be infidels islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=7602
Qur’an does not instruct Muslims to kill non-believers to guarantee them a place in Heaven, as you have said. On the contrary, God commands the believers to invite others to His way in the most peaceful manner. In this call, the Muslims are commanded to appeal to their common sense and to their own faith in truth and justice. Most certainly God has categorically prohibited forcing anyone to accept Islam, let alone killing! The Qur’an says what means: {Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things} (Al-Baqarah 2:256).

{Say: “The Truth is from your Lord.” Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject [it]} (Al-Kahf 18:29).

{Goodness and evil can never be equal. Repel [evil] with good: then will he between whom and you was hatred become as it were your friend and intimate} (Fussilat 41:34).

{Invite [all] to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His path, and who receive guidance} (An-Nahl 16:125).

From these verses it is clear that anyone who uses force to convert a non-Muslim or harm any human being on that score, breaks the divine command; and such a person is not what a Muslim should be.

.

Democracy (outside of Israel) is necessary in the region.

So, why is the Second largest recipient of US aid in the whole world the brutal Mubarak regime in Egypt?

 

[jlw]

Matt25 what, in your opinion, is the difference between a general UN resolution and a UN Security Council Resolution?? Do they carry the same weight with you???

 

[Matt25]

jlw:

Matt25 what, in your opinion, is the difference between a general UN resolution and a UN Security Council Resolution?? Do they carry the same weight with you???

You mean like Security Council Resolution 446
The Security Council,

• Having heard *the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council,
• Stressing *the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
• Affirming once more t*hat the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. *Determines *that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
2. *Strongly deplores *the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;
3. *Calls once more upon *Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;…

Adopted at the 2134th meeting by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America).

Text of the resolution taken from *http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc!OpenDocument

And jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html

                                   **             Palestinian have the right to Self-Determination.**

                                                 [             General Assembly Resolution 3236](http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/docs/A_RES_3236.htm),              November 22, 1974 

                                      

                      Affirms "the              inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine...to              self-determination without external interference" and "to national              independence and sovereignty."

Or are you really meaning to ask me about Chaper VI or Chapter VII Resolutions?

 

[cestusdei]

Matt,
So you don’t want the Taliban or Saddam back in power. How very nice. You can express your thanks to us anytime. Yes, in WWII we did bail you out and we do expect a little appreciation. If I saved your dads life wouldn’t you feel a tad obligated? Given how Europe is acting it won’t be long before you are crying for US help again. You did in Yugoslavia, remember? Your tired kneejerk anti-Americanism is no longer a concern to us. Americans are becoming immune to the opinions of quisling Europeans. We realize you hate us no matter what we do. “The only thing that allows evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Wise words from Burke. Heed them. We are not pacifists. We can fight justly and have done so. You point out how UN sanctions failed. No help there then eh? You forget though how many hundreds of thousands were killed by Saddam. Think of how many Iraqi’s are alive today because he isn’t in power. Thanks to US.

 

[jlw]

Nice example AND…

answer the question as though we were havings a couple of pints after work please.

 

[condan]

Matt25:

Not after 12 years of sanctions it wasn’t. Did you notice how quickly it militarily collapsed during the invasion.
Why? Violating UN resolutions doesnt normally precipitate invasions. Ask Israel. Anyway it is for the UN to decide how to enforce its own resolutions not the President of the USA. Particularly a President who ignores international opinion as a matter of principal unless it suits his agenda to pretend otherwise.

How did Saddam violate 1441 exactly?

Saddam was a secularist, he suppressed Shia pilgrimages to Najaf and Kerbala. While Saddam Hussein’s Baath party ruthlessly persecuted the Muslim Brotherhood for the first 20 years of his rule, Hussein’s severely weakened status after his huge setback in 1991 led him to publicly embrace Islam as a means of strengthening his legitimacy, ie US Foreign Policy made Saddam less anti_Islamist than he would otherwise have been. See usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr108.html

Islam does not consider the non Islamic world to be infidels islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=7602

Qur’an does not instruct Muslims to kill non-believers to guarantee them a place in Heaven, as you have said. On the contrary, God commands the believers to invite others to His way in the most peaceful manner. In this call, the Muslims are commanded to appeal to their common sense and to their own faith in truth and justice. Most certainly God has categorically prohibited forcing anyone to accept Islam, let alone killing! The Qur’an says what means:{Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things} (Al-Baqarah 2:256).

{Say: “The Truth is from your Lord.” Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject [it]} (Al-Kahf 18:29).

{Goodness and evil can never be equal. Repel [evil] with good: then will he between whom and you was hatred become as it were your friend and intimate} (Fussilat 41:34).

{Invite [all] to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His path, and who receive guidance} (An-Nahl 16:125).

From these verses it is clear that anyone who uses force to convert a non-Muslim or harm any human being on that score, breaks the divine command; and such a person is not what a Muslim should be.

Certainly this isn’t the entire Koran, is it? I have heard other verses that support a completely different point of view which hardly demonstrates a “religion of peace”. You seem to have a pre-disposition towards supporting Islam and denigrating the United States, your alleged ally.

Maybe you should consider relocating. You would probably be much happier living in an Islamic state rather than in a democracy. However, I doubt that you would be able to practive your Christianity freely nor would you be able to express opinions that did not agree with the ruling faction.

Good luck.

(By the way, that Neville Chamberlain was quite the statesman. A real visionary. Just think where you folks would be if you had continued along his path.)