Do Barbaric Peoples Really Deserve Freedom?

[skywalker]

Originally posted by johnny: What happened to "neutral" ?

Hey don't look at me, these are the words of the Fearless Leader of the USA. I never said I agreed with them.

Mark

[John D Harris]

Skunk, I don't beleive the average Sunni participated in the rape and torture of the other ethnic groups. But the average Sunni was aware of most favored treatment, for as you say they lived in utopia, (or as close to it as the Iraqi government alowed) They average Sunni does know that has ended, and they are no longer going to get the best just because they are who they are. I would bet the average Sunni was aware that the Shia were not living the the same standard, or to put it in western terms "in the same class" as the Sunni. They average Sunni knows the game is up, and their power base is gone. For generations these people have fought and argued amoung themselves, the average Sunni would be well aware that for the last 25-30 years they were top dog, the power rested in their hands, or at least on their side.

Granted the other groups did not bow and scrape as a Sunni walked by, but they were aware their side was in power. Just as the average Republicain is aware their side is in power currently in the U.S.A., the average Republicain is not in the government. But the side they agree with is in power, and they don't want the other side to get power, same goes for the average Democrat if they were in power currently. The culture of the U.S.A. doesn't alow for acts of terrorism or attacks in a phsyical way on the other side, verbal attacks and name calling yes. But in Iraq and the area surrounding Iraq, violent actions are not frowned on, the 5,000+ years of history bare this out, with the possible slight exception of the Mede(sp?) & Persian empire starting under Cyrus the Great. The ones that ruled, ruled by fear and intimidation, ruthlessness is how they held power. Their culture would dictate,that they will expect the same type of treatment their side dished out, to be dished out on them by the new group in power. Since their culture accepts acts of violence, they will do acts of violences to try and keep what they see as their downfall, or their coming downfall from happening. On the individual level, person to person the use of kindness can work. But on the group level violence must be stomped, crushed, destroyed first. As Cyrus did with the Babylonian empire. kill it crush it drive it into the ground. Place their foot on the necks of the fallen first, then after control has been established. Pick them up and say all is forgiven you shall not be treated as though you are cattle by us, you shall have the chance to live in peace, watch you chilren grow up and your grandchilren come into this world.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: Iraq will continue to take a terrible toll on marines, foriegn civilians, and it's own nationals that "collaborate". It will happen up to any handover of power, and it will continue after that handover of power. Let's not make any pretence that just because some guy in the White House said the war is over that this war is really over.

Davros, President Bush never said the war was over he said MAJOR combat opperations are over. The word Major is a modifier to the word combat. Thus making an entirely differant statment then the statement "combat is over" or the "war is over" Now if you wish to define war as armies in the field fighting then indeed the war is over, for there are not still armies in the field fighting each other. If you wish to define war as people being killed by each side then the war is not over.

[johnny]

Well, weren't the exact words he used "mission accomplished" ? That sounds to me like he thinks it's a done deal, while in fact the "real" mission only just begun. It wasn't exactly a unique feature to defeat the Iraqi army, since they didn't have much of an army to begin with, not after the last war anyway. The "real" job is gaining favour of the people, and i'm afraid that's a battle nobody can win.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by johnny: Well, weren't the exact words he used "mission accomplished" ? That sounds to me like he thinks it's a done deal, while in fact the "real" mission only just begun. It wasn't exactly a unique feature to defeat the Iraqi army, since they didn't have much of an army to begin with, not after the last war anyway. The "real" job is gaining favour of the people, and i'm afraid that's a battle nobody can win.

In the context of speaking to the troops that were coming home, so for them it was "Mission accomplished" and for the troops fighting the Iraqi army it was also "Mission accomplished" for they had finished that mission, the Iraqi army had ceased to exsist as a Viable fighting force. anybody that understands what the word viable means, knows it does not mean zero shots fired in anger. There are and can be more then one mission at a time, one can end, and another start, one can end and another continue, or several continue. The problem is in the effort to make President Bush look bad and wrong many people forget to veiw things in context, or bother to even acknowledge there is context to things.