No, as in the other thread I'm happy with what I've had to say. Your interpretation of that is yours not mine. Let's call it a dead end then

Seems to me those deaths would not have occurred if not for the invasion orchestrated by Bush and his buddies. Therefore that is where the true responsibility lies.

As for the tactics of those fighting against them - e.g. the suicide bombers that you despise so much - hypothetically, imagine that an invading force vastly superior in power overran the USA. Quickly you found yourself in an occupied territory, with civilian settlements of the enemy quickly setting up all around. Presumably, as you are such a patriot and all that, you become an active part of the resistance. But your weapons are no match (not even close) for the enemy's sheer numbers and firepower. Your numbers continue to dwindle and the enemy's power just grows larger. Where do you draw the moral line in your military tactics against them?

You're asking me to put myself in their place. How would it be if the shoe was on the other foot?

Let's see. Given the choice between putting a bomb vest on my child and sending him to blow up a bus stop or wedding, and deciding to vote in the elections the invading force made possible so I could play some small part in deciding who I'd be governed by..... hmmmmm...... decisions decisions...... It's a real close one, but I guess I'd choose to vote over blowing my kid up.

Being the patriot and lover of freedom that I am, were I ever to face what the people of Afghanistan and Iraq faced - a home-grown dictator who had taken away all our freedoms, ruled with an iron fist, opressed my fellow countrymen, did what the Taliban, Hussein, and terrorist groups are did and are doing to those countries, I'd welcome the "invading force," and help them however I could until the U.S. were a stable, free, self-reliant country again where everyone could practice their religion or lack therof in peace, where women were treated as equals again, where minorities were no longer exterminated, where everyone was able to safely pursue happiness again.

But that's not why Iraq was invaded was it? My understanding was that it was because they continued to produce weapons of mass destruction despite warnings not to do so. We are all still waiting for the evidence that such activities were occuring.

If the reason Iraq was invaded was to depose an evil dictator then your arguments may have some reason. That however was not the official position given at the time and is still conveniently glossed over when justifying the injustices that have occured.

Are you asking questions or telling us something? Either way, my post above was my answer to kevmartin's challenge - if you read it, you'll see he didn't ask me to describe why we invaded, he wanted me to put myself in their place and explain what I'd do in that situation. I did.

You need only review the speeches given by the president shortly before OIF began to know that removal of WMDs was not the only reason, several others were given, including the liberation of the Iraqis from the Hussein regime. The policy for this regime change was established in 1998 by the Clinton Administration.

I could go on, but facts seem to be wasted on you.

Yes several others were given at the time but the main one was removal of WMD's. As time went on the other reasons such as liberation of the Iraqi people on humanitarian grounds gained prominence principally because of the failure to discover any valid evidence of WMD's.

I could continue but feel the link below to a report by the Human Rights Watch explains it better than I can. Hopefully the facts contained within won't go to waste. Even on me

Human Rights Watch World Report 2004: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

Which facts from that article would you like to draw my attention to? It looks like a loooonnnng opinion piece to me. I read up to the part where he said its not really a humanitarian mission because the genocides and all had happened before 2003.

Anyway, its been called OIF from the beginning. That stands for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Not Operation get oil. Not operation find WMDs.

As I've said time and again, I respect anyone's belief that going there was a mistake, but we did, and we're there. That president is on his way out and we're in the process of choosing who'll govern in the coming years. Attatched to that is the decision about what to do NOW. We can't undo 2003.

My position is that it would be highly irresponsible to retreat now. It would be irresponsible for several reasons.

1. It would jeapordize our national interests.
2. It would embolden our enemy.
3. It would be unfair to leave Iraqis at the hands of whatever totalitarian regime would fill the vacuum.

Yes I agree that 2003 can't be undone and that the US needs to fix the mess they have made. I also agree that it would be unfair to the Iraqi people to leave them in such a state. How this situation came about you and I will probably never agree upon and how the situation is now solved is complex and problematic.

I have empathy for the incoming Presidential regime as they have a very difficult problm to solve.

I guess one thing you are missing, which throws the hypothetical off somewhat, is the difference in belief system about the exclusive value of life in this world above all else. This is a pretty fundamental difference that changes the whole perspective on things considerably.

As I'm not talking specifically about Iraq here, but about the concept of how far one would stretch one's morals in different circumstances, some of your assumptions are giving you easy ways out of facing the moral dilemma I am trying to present. I wasn't suggesting there would be any elections in the hypothetical occupation.

However, given your response, it sounds like you would probably fall into the "bend over and take it like a man (while waving a stars and stripes flags to demonstrate your loyalty) brigade", rather than ever becoming part of a resistance movement - a 'freedom fighter'. This is of course another, entirely valid way to avoid the moral dilemma.

I've been watching the 3rd series of Battlestar Galactica on DVD recently, where this issue is raised quite nicely (but reasonably subtly). If you are not a Sci-Fi hater, I thoroughly recommend it (starting from series 1 of course, to know what the hell is going on).

On a side note ... you really believe that women are "treated as equals"?

I'm really not seeing why non-military ways to 'clean up the mess they made' are not being considered. Maybe, just *maybe* they could think about bringing in The United Nations and play their part in cleaning up from the outside in the form of funding - lots and lots of funding.

Currently the US Government effectively owns and runs Iraq, which is a military invasion/occupation, ignoring International Law (that whole pesky thing about not invading sovereign nations). They had no right to do this 5 years ago, but as has been said that can no longer be changed. The future however can be changed, and the occupation should end, in favour of whatever the World deems appropriate, in the form of the UN's decision. That's not to say the UN is perfect of course - some reform is needed there too, but that is a separate issue.

Agreed on all points

Yeah, my belief system about the value of life is different than theirs. As they say, I love life, they love death.



If I faced a situation where we were invaded and our freedoms were taken away by an oppressive enemy, I would most certainly resist. I have been defending other's freedom for twenty years in various shit holes around the world, no reason I'd stop now if it came to defending my own freedom on my own ground. I would not resort to killing innocent bystanders as a tactic. Nor would I hide behind innocents to increase civilian casualties on my side and make the enemy look bad. (Not that our current enemy would need the help making them look bad - they target innocents anyway.)

My career and what I've already sacrificed speaks for what I'm willing to do. If you have specific questions, ask away. You presented a challenge - it looked like you were asking me what I'd do if I were an Iraqi - I gave you my answer.

I have established my world view on things more solid than Battlestar Galactica. Thanks anyway.

In my country? Yes. And then some.

As if the U.N. has a great track record in solving and preventing problems. Their incompetence is one of the reasons we're there.

You might also want to keep in mind that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda don't answer to the U.N. Countries like Iran don't either. They do respond to superior firepower.

Even though I disagree with many of them I admire your dedication to your beliefs Eric. One thing I have noticed out of this discussion is that there is a genuine desire for love and compassion towards others. We just have different beliefs and ways of showing it.

That's how it goes with most conservatives and liberals - they both want what's best for everyone, but disagree on the best way to reach mountain top.

Now that you're satisfied my motives and intentions are in order, I hope you'll be able to keep an open mind to the methods and means I advocate.

I'll always listen and stay open to what anyone has to say as long the courtesy is returned. I can't see that we'll share much in common but that's what makes the world go round I guess

Seems like a vast oversimplification of the ideas to me - so much so that it indicates you either don't understand, or just think it's silly because it's so different from yourself.

Yeah yeah, I'm sure you are a real hero, soldier boy. Strike up the band, let's have a parade in your honour.

What you're willing to do? Sacrifice? What a load of crap! It's a job, and I'm willing to bet you were well compensated - that doesn't make it sacrifice, it makes it a career decision.

I'm not sure whether this is supposed to say that you don't think the Arts are a legitimate place for political expression, or you just don't understand the concept of sub-text. To break it down for you a little, sub-text is a message designed to mae people think for themselves, by just burying an idea below the surface of a plotline etc. So as far as "establishing one's world view", getting an idea from a book, movie, or other quality dramatic work, then thinking for one's self about it seems entirely valid to me. Are you perhaps saying that an idea is only valid if someone else has previously done the thinking and laid it all out for you in crayons in a text book or on a blackboard/lecture? For me, I prefer to think for myself, and I find the seeds of self-thought to lie all over the place, including inside sub-text in dramatic works.

This sounds like you are either extremely naive, or have some strange chip on your shoulder about equal opportunity - or perhaps both. The legislation may be in place, so they may be treated as equals by the Government, but that isn't what I'm referring to.

Fair enough if you have a low opinion on the UN's effectiveness, but saying 'to hell with them, we'll just do what we want' does not seem a solution to me.

International Vigilantism is your answer, rather than fixing the problem with moves for reform in the UN?

And, once again, we return to that popular point - what the hell do Al Qaeda have to do with the decision to invade Iraq in the first place? It's widely known that 'they' hardly existed there before the invasion, if at all. (Note the 'they' is an abstract concept to an extent as Al Qaeda is not a formal organisation.)

There was a coalition of how many countries that went in to Iraq? You make it sound like the U.S. went in alone. Vigilantism? We enforced the U.N. sanctions and resulutions. If anyone violated those sanctions and resolutions (besides the Saddam regime of course) it was the U.N. itself. By making all those resolutions, then being unwilling to enforce them - it was worse than if they'd just done nothing all along. When you take on the mantle of authority, make rules, then don't enforce them, you might as well beg dictators to misbehave.

And for the last time, because I really hate repeating myself this much, our reasons for the regime change and our reason for remaining there now are two different things.

You are right that Al Queda wasn't very active in Iraq before the invasion - odd being it was probably less Muslim a regime than the new, elected government, but all the sudden Al Queda wants to go there to fight. And they aren't just killing Americans. They're killing Iraqis - other Muslims. Think about it. Let's see if you can connect the dots. What changed? Al Queda hates freedom, and so does every other terrorist we're fighting there. The spread of freedom is a threat to them.