Uncensored Iraq Footage

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

Actually, he, like myself, would have been a slave, not a torey. This little analogy falls short of your intended impact when you are trying to convince decendants of people who were still in slavery when America “won” it’s independence. The point of what ProfX was saying was obviously lost here. [/quote]

I would expect one whose ancestors were slaves to have a greater love of freedom than most, for they, more than anyone, should appreciate how shitty life is without it. And besides, not all black colonials were slaves. Crispus Attucks anyone?

[quote]
Slaves didn’t get freedom, honor and dignity from the Revolutionary War that was imparted to the white ruling class. However, slaves did learn a great deal about survival and their survival is what kept them around long enough to fuel and maintain the belief that they can finally achieve freedom and regain their honor and dignity.[/quote]

You are absolutely right. I am merely saying that survival without at the least striving for freedom is really not worth it.

[quote]
In addition, comparing the Iraq war to the American Revolution is ridiculous because it is missing one key component. The American Revolution was instigated by the American people. The Iraq War was not instigated by the Iraqi people. The will of the American people is what drove the American Revolution. The will of the Iraqi people is not driving the Iraq war. Without this will, the Iraq war will be lost, period. There will be no great democracy, only the resulting chaos that we see now.[/quote]

Try telling this to a Kurd. It is also important to keep in mind that only 1/3 of the colonists wanted independence from Britain. And how do you know that the will of the Iraqi people is not in the war? The fact that for every American killed, dozens of Iraqis are, yet they line up outside of the police stations means nothing?

mike

22

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That you sit here today and question whether he would have continued along this same path, or somehow changed over night is somewhat naive.

For the third time, no one is saying that at all. I wouldn’t expect Saddam to change a thing. I asked whether he would have killed as many people compared to those who have died in this war. That is the question that was posed, not whatever tangent you are whining about.

Suggesting that LESS people would have been killed under Saddam is foolish (as I pointed out).
[/quote]

It is not foolish at all. Saddam Hussain has executed far fewer people in his entire regime than have died as a result of the war.

There is no way you can execute over 150 thousand people in fewer than four years without losing the loyalties of your army.
You kill enough families and you end up killing quite a few of your soldiers families.

Think about the impact 2000 families losing members in Iraq has in the U.S.
Now hypathetically, there are 150 thousand deaths in the Iraqi populace through execution. You think the soldiers just ignore the death of their families? Keep in mind, these soldiers aren’t Islamic extremists, they are a proffesional army.
You’ve got Iraqi revolution any way you cut it.

With Iraq the U.S. has traded the deaths caused from the systematic execution of those threatening Saddam’s regime for local rampant murder.

Even if their eventually is a relavently stable government in Iraq, do you really think even then there will be less militirist killing then existed under saddam Hussain?

Isrealis and Palastinians have been fighting for centuries and only relatively recently Isreal and Palestine have elected figures. Do you think that really changed anything as far as the deaths of people on both sides yearly?

What difference does it make when or if Iraq is stabilized. Mass murder or execution or militirist killing or whatever you want to call it will always be blood spilt by other Iraqis.
Add the death of a few thousand Americans and you’ve got a real nice shithole.

The only real difference is instead of totalitarian pivate shithole, now you have a Democratic/Islamic etremist public shithole.

23

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Suggesting that LESS people would have been killed under Saddam is foolish (as I pointed out).[/quote]

No, suggesting that Saddam would have killed an average of over 30 civilian Iraqis per day for the past three years is what is really foolish. In fact it is just plain bullshit, and I’m sure you know that.

And the fact that YOU pointed it out doesn’t even begin to make it any less stupid. You always try to make that sound like because YOU said it, it should therefore be taken as fact, without question, except by people who simply aren’t smart enough to know that you are always right.

Stick to bible verses, wave your pom-poms for jesus instead of bush.

24

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
ALDurr wrote:

… It is also important to keep in mind that only 1/3 of the colonists wanted independence from Britain.

[/quote]

Only 1/3 wanted independance, but most wanted better treatment. The debate was whether to keep asking for better treatment while taking it in the ass or to take charge through independance. After Lexington there was no real going back.

If the Iraqis wanted a war, there would have been a war before we entered.

If people are lining up to represent their voice peacefully that doesn’t mean the next day they won’t do it by violence.
They use whatever they have.
They have access to a vote, they use it.
They have access to a bomb or an AK, they use that too.

25

[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That you sit here today and question whether he would have continued along this same path, or somehow changed over night is somewhat naive.

For the third time, no one is saying that at all. I wouldn’t expect Saddam to change a thing. I asked whether he would have killed as many people compared to those who have died in this war. That is the question that was posed, not whatever tangent you are whining about.

Suggesting that LESS people would have been killed under Saddam is foolish (as I pointed out).

It is not foolish at all. Saddam Hussain has executed far fewer people in his entire regime than have died as a result of the war.

There is no way you can execute over 150 thousand people in fewer than four years without losing the loyalties of your army.
You kill enough families and you end up killing quite a few of your soldiers families.

Think about the impact 2000 families losing members in Iraq has in the U.S.
Now hypathetically, there are 150 thousand deaths in the Iraqi populace through execution. You think the soldiers just ignore the death of their families? Keep in mind, these soldiers aren’t Islamic extremists, they are a proffesional army.
You’ve got Iraqi revolution any way you cut it.

With Iraq the U.S. has traded the deaths caused from the systematic execution of those threatening Saddam’s regime for local rampant murder.

Even if their eventually is a relavently stable government in Iraq, do you really think even then there will be less militirist killing then existed under saddam Hussain?

Isrealis and Palastinians have been fighting for centuries and only relatively recently Isreal and Palestine have elected figures. Do you think that really changed anything as far as the deaths of people on both sides yearly?

What difference does it make when or if Iraq is stabilized. Mass murder or execution or militirist killing or whatever you want to call it will always be blood spilt by other Iraqis.
Add the death of a few thousand Americans and you’ve got a real nice shithole.

The only real difference is instead of totalitarian pivate shithole, now you have a Democratic/Islamic etremist public shithole.
[/quote]

I tend to think that more Iraqis are dying per day now than were under Saddam, as a result of a low level civil war going on, but I highly doubt your figure of 150,000 dead Iraqis, which I bet you’re basing on the discredited Lancet study. 40,000 to 50,000 is probably a much more reasonable estimate. Still a tragedy, and largely our fault in that we didn’t send enough troops to secure the country and prevent much of the violence that followed Saddam’s fall. You break it, you buy it.

But Mike’s right in that freedom (assuming it becomes the real freedom of a stable and peaceful state) is something you can’t put a price on.

26

[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
…
It is not foolish at all. Saddam Hussain has executed far fewer people in his entire regime than have died as a result of the war.

There is no way you can execute over 150 thousand people in fewer than four years without losing the loyalties of your army.
You kill enough families and you end up killing quite a few of your soldiers families.
…
[/quote]

Saddam was in control for approximaely 30 years, not 4.

Between his wars of aggression and his murdering of his own people it is estimated he killed more than 150,000.

His sons were reputed to be more violent than he was.

His regimes killing would likely have continued for a long time.

27

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You fail to take into account all of the people who would have either been killed or tortured over the last few years had Saddam still been in power.

Are you aware of how many of his own countrymen were killed or tortured during Saddams rein?

And who knows how much regional power he would have had had the US not taken him out?

There are also other things that you fail to consider with your myopic view.

[/quote]

Yes, and as HE failed to consider what you justed posted, YOU have failed to consider who enabled Hussein, supplied him with weapons, supported him in a war of aggression.

See, every side in a political debate suffers from myopia. They each wear their own corrective lenses that allow them to see just far enough to support their views, but never any further.

28

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

I would expect one whose ancestors were slaves to have a greater love of freedom than most, for they, more than anyone, should appreciate how shitty life is without it. And besides, not all black colonials were slaves. Crispus Attucks anyone? [/quote]

First, my dad was a history teacher. This one I do know about. Historians know little real truth about Attucks, and they have constructed accounts of his life more from speculation than facts. Most documents described his ancestry as African and American Indian. His father is thought to have been a slave brought to America from Africa and that his mother was an Indian. Some researchers have identified Attucks as a direct descendent of John Attucks, an Indian executed for treason.

Besides that, I am amazed that someone would look for ONE individual who they think wasn’t a slave while overlooking the thousands who were as if the exception was the norm. Who are you fooling? What point were you trying to make?

Then why not back the fuck out of Iraq and let those people fight for their own freedom? We fought for ours. How is it your will is now substituted for their’s?

29

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You fail to take into account all of the people who would have either been killed or tortured over the last few years had Saddam still been in power.

Are you aware of how many of his own countrymen were killed or tortured during Saddams rein?

And who knows how much regional power he would have had had the US not taken him out?

There are also other things that you fail to consider with your myopic view.

Yes, and as HE failed to consider what you justed posted, YOU have failed to consider who enabled Hussein, supplied him with weapons, supported him in a war of aggression.

See, every side in a political debate suffers from myopia. They each wear their own corrective lenses that allow them to see just far enough to support their views, but never any further.[/quote]

The Soviets and Europeans supplied Saddam with the overwhelming majority of his weapons.

What does that have to do with this discussion?

30

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The Soviets and Europeans supplied Saddam with the overwhelming majority of his weapons.[/quote]

Really, since when?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
What does that have to do with this discussion?[/quote]

Everything. History doesn’t begin on the date you find most convenient.

31

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The Soviets and Europeans supplied Saddam with the overwhelming majority of his weapons.

Really, since when?

Zap Branigan wrote:
What does that have to do with this discussion?

Everything. History doesn’t begin on the date you find most convenient. [/quote]

(I should admit I invented wikipedia as a method of getting the lazy to accept misinformation, but I still like to use it at times)

32

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That you sit here today and question whether he would have continued along this same path, or somehow changed over night is somewhat naive.

For the third time, no one is saying that at all. I wouldn’t expect Saddam to change a thing. I asked whether he would have killed as many people compared to those who have died in this war. That is the question that was posed, not whatever tangent you are whining about.

[/quote]

but prof, he would have done all that, AND sold his oil to people we (AMERICA) do not like. so there.

by the way, i do NOT think that is a bad idea at all. there are limited resources left in the world, if we (America) do not fight to secure said resources for ourselves, do you honestly think another country wont???

33

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That you sit here today and question whether he would have continued along this same path, or somehow changed over night is somewhat naive.

For the third time, no one is saying that at all. I wouldn’t expect Saddam to change a thing. I asked whether he would have killed as many people compared to those who have died in this war. That is the question that was posed, not whatever tangent you are whining about.

but prof, he would have done all that, AND sold his oil to people we (AMERICA) do not like. so there.

by the way, i do NOT think that is a bad idea at all. there are limited resources left in the world, if we (America) do not fight to secure said resources for ourselves, do you honestly think another country wont???[/quote]

Oh, so it WAS about the oil. Who knew?

34

[quote]tme wrote:

Stick to bible verses, wave your pom-poms for jesus instead of bush.[/quote]

Just a little bitter that that one thread didn’t work out for you huh?

Ha ha…stick around there are plenty more lessons coming your way!

:wink:

35

[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrot

It is not foolish at all. Saddam Hussain has executed far fewer people in his entire regime than have died as a result of the war.

There is no way you can execute over 150 thousand people in fewer than four years without losing the loyalties of your army.
You kill enough families and you end up killing quite a few of your soldiers families.
[/quote]
.
Are you kidding me here? Why do you think he had loyalty of armies? They feared him, they feared for their lives, for their family?s lives. Recall the first Gulf war when they surrendered by the thousands? They were happy to see the Americans because their current situation sucked.
One thing you cannot deny about Iraq, is that the people hated him, hated him with a passion, and are glad he is gone. What’s going on now is the big time power struggle of the many different groups who want power. They are doing whatever it takes to get it., and discredit what is already there. They will kill each other; kill the coalition forces so as to undermine what they are doing.
Another point? you are absolutely in sane if you think that Sadam wasn?t a threat to the area, and the world. In sane to think that he didn?t have chemical weapons, etc. He used them many times! Do you think that nice guy Sadam woke up one day and decided to just destroy his weapons for the better of man kind? You should really be asking yourself, where did they go, and who has them?
(In the fairness of full disclosure, I am in Iraq right now.)

36

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ha ha…stick around there are plenty more lessons coming your way![/quote]

Yeah, whatever. Vaginal lavage syringe.

37

[quote]tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Ha ha…stick around there are plenty more lessons coming your way!

Yeah, whatever. Vaginal lavage syringe.

[/quote]

LOL…you gotta do better than that man!

38

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I would expect one whose ancestors were slaves to have a greater love of freedom than most, for they, more than anyone, should appreciate how shitty life is without it. And besides, not all black colonials were slaves. Crispus Attucks anyone?
[/quote]

You missed the point again. As ancestors of slaves, we have a greater appreciation of freedom and an understanding of how that freedom can be taken away better than many (not all, but many) other groups in this country. You also need to understand that survival and freedom are not always mutually exclusive of one another. However, at any given moment one can take precedence over the other and survival is much more powerful than the concept of freedom.

Survival is part of our genetic make-up. Given very extreme conditions, most people will do what they can to survive. You don’t know unless you are put into that situation. Freedom, on the other hand, is more of a concept that is relative to the situation. Your example of Crispus Attucks is a prime example. He may have not been a slave, but from what historians pieced together is that his father was a slave and he was just living in the right area of the US colonies to not have been a slave. It was a given that if he was traveling in South Carolina by himself (i.e. without a white escort) he could have been legally kidnapped and made a slave. His freedom was relative to the situation and subject to the discretion of others. He was still a slave in a sense. He could not travel in the all same places as a white man without trouble.

In your mind, survival without the striving for freedom is really not worth it. However, not everyone is made up of the same fiber. It has to do with a combination of environmental and genetic-based factors.

For example, during slavery there were House Negroes and Field Negroes. In general, they were both slaves. However, the house negroes felt that they were better off than the field negroes because they were in the house and living off of master’s scraps. Life was good for them because, in their viewpoint, they had more freedom than the field negroes. The idea of running away to the north for their freedom was not first and foremost in their minds. Field negroes obviously had a different viewpoint and felt that running away to the north was preferable than their current existence.

In each case, survival takes the lead in their mindset. Both groups are doing what they can to survive. However, their viewpoints on freedom and slavery are not the same. Please keep in mind that these are generalities and not absolutes. They are just there to illustrate my point that survival is going to be the priority.

[quote]
Try telling this to a Kurd. It is also important to keep in mind that only 1/3 of the colonists wanted independence from Britain. And how do you know that the will of the Iraqi people is not in the war? The fact that for every American killed, dozens of Iraqis are, yet they line up outside of the police stations means nothing?

mike[/quote]

Again, you missed my point. Only 1/3 of the colonists wanted independence from Britian, but it was the COLONISTS that instigated the revolution. It was internal, not external. They did not have another country come in and do the work for them. They did it themselves. That is how all successful great revolutions are formed. The American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, the Anti-Aparthied Movement in South Africa, The Boxer Rebellion etc. The will of the people drove them to action, not foreign military action.

How do I know that the will of the Iraqi people is not driving the war? I know that because they are not doing the fighting, the USA is doing the fighting. They didn’t bring the fight from the inside and build the fires of revolution. Someone else came in and did the work for them. Standing at voting booths that are run and guarded by US troops is not standing up for yourself. It means nothing if that fire is not there. Even President Bush said that the US will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. He is saying that they aren’t standing up. So that shows that their will isn’t the driving force behind the war because they are not standing up without us doing the work for them.

Please don’t give me the line about them not having the means and way to do so. Does anyone believe that black South Africans has the means? They took to the streets with sticks and rocks. They fought armed soldiers and died by the thousands. Despite the odds, after years of fighting (mind you, without any US or other foriegn military intervention) they successfully won their struggle. They beat a better armed and better funded (some of their income coming from good-old US corporations) adversary and won. It can be done, but the will of the people needs to be there.

39

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
It can be done, but the will of the people needs to be there.[/quote]

Unfortunely, there have been so many talking points fed to the American people that many truly believe that a picture of an Iraqi woman with paint on her voting finger somehow means we have created freedom in that country. If these people don’t gather together and fight for it, they will lose it the moment “big brother” isn’t guarding their every move. Why are our people dying for that?

40

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You fail to take into account all of the people who would have either been killed or tortured over the last few years had Saddam still been in power.

Are you aware of how many of his own countrymen were killed or tortured during Saddams rein?

And who knows how much regional power he would have had had the US not taken him out?

There are also other things that you fail to consider with your myopic view.

Yes, and as HE failed to consider what you justed posted, YOU have failed to consider who enabled Hussein, supplied him with weapons, supported him in a war of aggression.

See, every side in a political debate suffers from myopia. They each wear their own corrective lenses that allow them to see just far enough to support their views, but never any further.[/quote]

A most excellent point.