Confrontation or Cowardness
Let’s suppose you live in a city where there is the rule of law, but a gang of thugs overruns a neighboring city and they are threatening to spread to your city next.
What should your city do?
1. Do nothing. Who cares about the other city?
2. Send in your police to help. It is the proper thing to do, and we want to stop them before they grow big enough to harm us.
Those are really the only two choices…do nothing or do something.
The real problem is the other city has no real rule of law, and how do you handle lawlessness? The problem is not that your city is an “Imperial City” because it wants to do something to help stabilize the lawlessness.
How do you handle a bully?
If you ignore him because you are “against violence, (or war)”, then you are just allowing the bully to continue his acts of violence against others and he only will get stronger.
If you confront him and try to stop him in order to bring stability to his area of control of lawlessness, then that is the only thing that will help the situation.
People who say we should “stop the war” are really being naïve, since they are thinking that by “running away” from the lawlessness, they are “stopping” it.
By ignoring or not confronting a bully, especially when he is in your area, you become a coward and the bully grows stronger.
When I was in High School I was “picked on” by a bully. He only stopped “picking on me” when I confronted him and had a fight with him. After that he not only stopped bullying me, but he left my friends alone as well.
Again only the naïve believe in pacifism when there is lawlessness next door, and they look like cowards when they do it.
It is easy to be a pacifist when there is a proper “rule of law” in your area, but what do you do if you begin to have lawlessness in your area? Hide? Bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away?
posted by Free Agency Rules @ 5:32 AM
30 comments
30 Comments:
Oh stop.
You're suggesting that the world's largest and strongest military power is being bullied by some backwards religious hooligans?
That's pretty pathetic if that's the propaganda that has to get sold to keep this folly going.
A grown up with a full arsenal of weapons is being bullied by a beligerent child. Almost laughable.
ii,
Nope, I am saying that the bully, the terrorists, are picking on the good muslims in Iraq and around the world, and that we are the good helpful neighbor that is saying....stop, your goal of destroying a duly elected democratic government so you can impose your form of government is not going to work.
The idea that it is a civil war is laughable. When a bomber blows up both suni and shia, how can it be one side against the other? It can't.
It is the bad guys trying to destablize the area so the ones who hate women and treat them as second class citizens can rule with their shria.
We are not there to fight against Islam, we are there to help the voters of a democracy fight against those whose sole purpose is to kill as many innocent people as possible so our lawmakers will say..."Gee, they are killing at random, both shia and suni, but who cares about them, we only care about our boys, so even if they keep blowing up each other and they kill half the population to do it, they want to destroy the democracy because they want a talaban type of government."
It really matters little to them that we are there, there goal is the same...a talaban government.
It is not suni vrs shia, it is shria vrs secular.
IMHO.
Terrorists are picking on good Muslims around the world?
Who told you that? On what do you base this statement?
Somehow Iraq was just fine and SECULAR until the US got there, but this is a fight over Islamic bullies?
Dude, the propaganda is getting old. The Iraqi government was not democratically elected - a bunch of party names were put on a ballot (no names) and people just picked randomly. If you call that democracy, you need a refresher civics course.
With regard to whether it's a civil war, it's irrelevant. The U.S. has gone in there, told the heads of the clans that if they can control the oil-rich regions, they can get the pittance of the oil money that the oil companies will give. So everyone's fighting it out for control over the oil-rich areas. That's not terrorism - it's the reality of using divide and conquer as a military strategy.
How do you know this has anything to do with Sunni v Shia other than by what the corporate media tell you?
Terrorists are picking on good Muslims around the world?
Who told you that? On what do you base this statement?
Sudan? Darfor?
Iraq was just fine and SECULAR
Saddam?
they can get the pittance of the oil money that the oil companies will give
Source?
How do you know this has anything to do with Sunni v Shia other than by what the corporate media tell you?
Quotes from dozens of returned soldiers.
Again, if it is Sunni v Shia, why are the bombers targeting "both" Sunni and Shia? The "insurgents" don't just target one or the other.
FAR
FAR,
I can't believe you've bought into the media overexaggeration that is Darfur. To date, I thought it was an issue that kept do-gooder hippies busy.
Read this interview -
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/04/1334230&mode=thread&tid=25
Your entire discussion of "insurgents" seems to assume that they are one, cohesive group and they are not. There are some ex-Baath party members who are secular, varying religious groups and people who outright don't appreciate having an occupying force in their country.
The fact that tribes vying for control of the oil might divide along religious lines doesn't make it a religious conflict.
Saddam was no peach, but the U.S. tolerates much more vicious leaders such as the House of Saud, the Shah of Iran, Parvez Musharraf, etc. And there are plenty of articles about Iraqis saying that they never though they would wish that things were back to when Saddam was in power. Sad.
As far as pitting the groups against each other, that was exactly the point of the Iraq Study Group and the criminal oil law drafted by the U.S.
In addition, the current Constitution of Iraq is ambiguous as to whether control over Iraq's oil should be shared among its regional provinces or held under the central government. The report specifically recommends the latter: "Oil revenues should accrue to the central government and be shared on the basis of population."
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/45190/
ii,
people who outright don't appreciate having an occupying force in their country.
But, they would keep doing what they are doing now even if we are gone, so the occupying angle doesn't seem like a good reason to me.
I still think it is about power in the hands of those who hate the idea of a secular government, but I could be wrong.
Do you agree that us leaving would not stop the bombers?
FAR.
Do you agree that us leaving would not stop the bombers?
What does that have to do with anything?
The people of that region have had civilization for longer than America has existed. They have been through turmoil and have figured it out. If people still bomb stuff, the Iraqis can fix it.
This White Man's Burden nonsense is just that, nonsense.
I guess why I asked that question is related to my concern for those people and the Jepordy we have put them in.
I was against going in as I am sure you remember me being consistant on not attacking a country that did not attack us.
Having said that, now that we are there we have a moral obligation to not leave there if it means making it worse, and I am positive that us leaving will cause much more death than is happening now.
There will be those who have been friendly to us who he and his family will, as one Iraqi soldier told one of our soldiers, surely be murdered.
Meaning if we pull out too soon, we will be abandoning those whom we have promised to help, and even more important, we will be getting them murdered.
Do you think things will be better or worse for the Iraqi People if we leave this year?
FAR.
Better or worse than what? Constant raids on their homes by American forces, aerial bombardment that isn't reported in the US corporate media but still occurs daily, the lack of electricity in 120 degree heat, bodies strewn around Baghdad?
Better than Suicide Bombers?
Few Soldiers are being killed compared to the innocent civilians that are blown up by the people trying to disrupt their new government, that however imperfect it may be, it is surley better than a life under Saddam or a life with women treated like cattle, which is not the Islam way from what I know about it.
Radicals are the ones causing the problems, not the good muslims, but I am afraid it would be the Radicals who would run the country if we leave too soon.
I am for a secret ballot by the people of Iraq. If they vote for us to leave, then we should leave.
I hear so very often that the people are afraid to voice their hope that we don't leave too soon because the walls have ears, but they tell our soldiers when no one else is around that they really do want us to stay but fear saying so in public, and in polls where someone knows their vote.
FAR.
The N.Y. Times ran a article last week saying that if we leave right away that there will be a "Killing Fields" of ethnic cleansing that will be like none seen in modern days.
All those who helped us including those 350,000 now in the Iraq military will be slaughtered.
Remember the Times is a Liberal Paper that has nothing good to say about Bush or the war.
FAR.
FAR,
I can't believe you're quoting that shit rag the NYT as support for your argument. Come one now, keep some credibility. You can't bash the so-called liberal media on some occasions and devoutly cite them as gospel for other propositions. You don't get it both ways. You put the disclaimer that it is a "liberal" paper (whatever that means), but they sold the war and have propagandized for it since day one.
In any event, you have no idea what Iraqis are experiencing or want. Women weren't treated like cattle under Saddam and now the U.S. is supporting a Shiite-led government and arming Sunni militias. How is that promoting women's rights?
It is remarkable to me that you purport to suggest that life for Iraqis is better now than under Saddam. You're not Iraqi, you don't live in Iraq, you didn't live there when Saddam was there and you have no basis to peddle such unsubstantiated myths. I am sure there are people thrilled to see him gone, just as there are people who were sad to see him die. Depends on who you are talking to.
I don't agree that the situation in Iraq is about "radicals". It's a problem with the U.S. arming all sides and telling them to fight to the death to win the right to get a cut of the oil money. It's sickening.
Also, given that Saddam was militantly secular, has it ever occurred to you that he was the reason that the so-called "radicals" never had strength before the U.S. showed up?
ii,
You're not Iraqi, you don't live in Iraq..
I, like you, can only go based upon what I hear and read from sources who are/have been there.
So, I am taking it that you don't believe that there will be a "killing fields" if we leave too early?
I am sure if there is one, the "spin doctors" will certially make sure it won't be because we left too early.
I personally am convinced based upon what I have read from both sides of the issue, that there will be.
On this I guess we will have to disagree, but I do respect your opinon as always as I know it is sincere.
On my side of the political world, those of us who think that it was a mistake to go in, but that it will be a bigger one to leave too early.....
We get accused of just being bad people and insincere. Just in it for the oil and all that stuff.
I just hope that there are a few people like you who don't assume that I don't truely believe what I believe. :)
FAR.
Also, given that Saddam was militantly secular, has it ever occurred to you that he was the reason that the so-called "radicals" never had strength before the U.S. showed up?
Yep, occured to me a long time ago.
But again I believe with all my heart that the "radicals" who blow up innocent children are not the same ones who occasionally shoot at our soldiers. They know they can't win a "front on" war, so they believe that if they can destablize the country, to force us to leave, then they believe they can win.
If we put all of our soldiers on a base somewhere and never ventured out on the streets, the radicals would still be blowing up innocent children to destablize the country, of that I am sure.
FAR.
I fundamentally disagree with you about the so-called "radicals", but we can go in circles over this all day.
You have a paternalistic view of Iraq, a very White Man's Burden approach to it, whereas I believe that even if there are further deaths, the Iraqis will figure things out.
Somehow humanity has made it thus far without "peacekeeping" forces and other misnamed troops of empire.
Staying there to defend the Iraqi people from "radicals" is a feel-good justification to keep the empire guarding oil. It makes you feel like you belong to a nation that has a warm, fuzzy heart. It's a myth that helps Americans sleep at night and obscures the reality of the ugliness of empire.
Hmmm, I see where you are coming from and I find it interesting.
I don't think of it as being paternal, but see it as being responsible for the current mess and not wanting to leave and "dump" it on them.
They may be able to figure it out on their own, but there is a reason why so many of the Mullahs (sp?) who say they want to kill all the Americans and all the Jews also say they want desperatley to have us leave.
I only hope and pray that you are right because I am afraid you will soon get your wish and you know the old saying...."Be careful of what you wish for, because you just might get it..."
FAR.
but there is a reason why so many of the Mullahs (sp?) who say they want to kill all the Americans and all the Jews also say they want desperatley to have us leave.
Can you please provide support for this statement? What mullahs? Some random yahoos who know they'll get a microphone and a dinner-time appearance on the BBC if they say something that justifies American troops being there?
I read the actual transcripts from here:
http://www.memritv.org/default.asp
They have Mullahs making statements like that all the time.
Like the statement from Mullah Krekar who says "The influence of AL-Queda is greater than that of some countries."
And then Ali Nouri Zadeh saying that "The Al-Qaeda movement is based on suicidal ruin and destruction, and on the killing of innocent people."
Which is the same thing I have been saying. It is folly to say that people just say things when it is clear they have a goal and we can see the fruits of their efforts daily.
FAR.
I'd be very curious to know who funds these yahoos and gives them a platform.
Could be Saudi Arabia and probably is.
The sad thing is that the princes are afraid of these guys and that is why they let their country be governed by a form of Caliphate and pacify them by throwing money at them for fear of being overthrown...(IMHO)
And even sadder is the notion of the number of sympathizers these yahoos have in the Middle East.
The number of good muslims who hate Israel and the United States and actually sympathize with the Jihad movement because of the love of the idea of having a Caliphate is probably in the Hundreds of Millions.
I bet if there were a vote in all of the middle east as to having a Caliphate all but maybe Turkey would have the majority for it.
Something like 40% of British Muslims sympathize with the Bombers if my memory of a few recent polls show.
FAR.
The number of good muslims who hate Israel and the United States and actually sympathize with the Jihad movement because of the love of the idea of having a Caliphate is probably in the Hundreds of Millions.
FAR, this is nonsense.
The "jihad" movement, whatever that means, is not a unified movement. Each country presents its own struggles. Stop repeating that propaganda nonsense.
What the hell is a "good" Muslim as opposed to a "bad" one?
Hundreds of millions of Muslims want a caliphate? What a crock of shit!! Hundreds of millions of Muslims want to live in peace without repeated colonial interventions in their nations.
There are over 1 billion Muslims on the planet. if they really had all these idiotic notions about jihad and a caliphate that Fox News dreams of, there would be much more havoc and chaos than there is now.
The "good" muslims are just what you said...."want to live in peace without repeated colonial interventions in their nations."
But like Christians and Jews who long for the day when the "Mesiah" rules the Earth, I was trying to say that Hundreds of Muslims dream of a similar rule and therefore they sympathize with those who want to "force" that idea on others.
I have no respect for people regardless of their faith that want to "force" their idea of "utopia" on the rest of us (Socialism, Communism, Marxism, or Wahabism), and that was the point of the next post after this one.
I think all religions are wonderful in as much as their teachings preach peace and how to better one's life by improving on their own faults and leave others to worry about their faults unless they are infringing upon others.
That is what the founding fathers wanted as well. "Don't tread on me", etc.
P.S.
Please don't misunderstand what I am saying.
I think 90% of all Muslims are wonderful people, some of the finest people on the planet. I worked for one of them and never met a finer person.
I am merely saying that there are quite a few misguided people who subconsciously if not consciously dream of utopia, even if it means having to "break a few eggs."
Some people think Bush is one of those people.
I am merely saying that there are quite a few misguided people who subconsciously if not consciously dream of utopia, even if it means having to "break a few eggs."
If this is what you really meant, then it is not something that is unique to Muslims. Anyone who believes the US can export and impose "democracy" subscribes to such utopian dreams, there are Christians in this country who are lobbying and doing everything they can to impose their utopian vision on the rest of America and the world, so how is it that you accuse Muslims of something that is generally human nature?
I think it is just a matter of what we see all the time in the news is the ones who are the more destructive in their methods.
I don't know any Christians who would want to "force" this nation to be under a Christian government.
Most Christians I know, if not all of them, ascribe to the idea that a "National Religion" is a bad idea.
We are a Nation who has Judeo-Christian values as a Nation but, (thank God), a Secular Government.
And while there have been a few, and I mean a very few, nutjobs who blew up Abortion Clinics, most of the Christians and Jews in this country codemed those acts as immoral, (and rightly so), and consequently we don't have that stuff happening anymore. But everyday we see people who in the name of Allah do evil to innocent people, not just buildings ( clinics), so its not quite at the same level.
We need to here more Muslims condem the acts of those nutjobs who all over the world are trying to hijack the muslim religion in the name of their evil vision. But instead we get CAIR and others refusing to say bad things about them.
P.S.
I agree completely that we shouldn't be trying to "force" Democracy, if I did I would not be consistant.
I am against "Nation Building" and that includes trying to force Democracy on the people of Iraq.
Having said that, I still believe we owe the people of Iraq to not pull out so quickly as to leave a vaccuum and then another "killing fields."
Two wrongs don't make a right. We were wrong to go in, and we would be wrong to retreat and leave them the mess we created.
Millions will be killed because they were friendly to the U.S. and the current Government in Iraq.
We need to here more Muslims condem the acts of those nutjobs who all over the world are trying to hijack the muslim religion in the name of their evil vision. But instead we get CAIR and others refusing to say bad things about them.
Why? What difference is it going to make to Osama Bin Laden or whoever else if some doctor turned imam in San Francisco condemns what he does? Honestly, why should someone in Pakistan give a rat's ass what so-called "moderates" have to say?
In addition, why should Muslims who don't commit violent acts be forced to condemn and apologize for violence committed by others? Last I checked, this nation was based on INDIVIDUALISM. Demanding that every Muslim apologize for what people who may or may not share their faith do or say is a feeble, collectivist attempt at group-speak, group punishment.
It's bullshit. Those who demand such apologies are self-righteous, racist people in need of rationalizations for their hatred. They are people who care not to build bridges so they use this collectivist, group guilt as a weapon to put others on the defensive and, thus, in a position of inferiority.
mmmm, good points!
The need to speak out is a need we all share to voice our displeasure of injustice, and "intentionally" blowing up innocent people needs to be condemed by all, but especially by those who get a bad rap because perhaps they are afraid of saying anything.
For instance, put a Bible in a jar of urine and you get a grant from the Endowment of the Arts, but put a Koran in the toliet and you get people put in jail or worse. He is being charged with a "hate crime."
FAR.
Let’s suppose you live in a city where there is the rule of law, but a gang of thugs (in a form a an army) overruns that same city, starts to OCCUPY it(with the excuss of hollywood HISTORY-REWRITING easter movies), and make your people - that historicaly have been living there for the last 20 or more centuries - flea away from their own homeland and become refugges for 60 or more years. (something like the martians taking over the world and make the humans slaves, in the movies etc..but in a striclty GLOBALISATION context)
WHAT SHOULD YOUR PEOPLE DO??
1.gather their stuff and abandon their homeland once and for all??
2. fight back the hardest they can, even if nobody provides them with the necesary means to do that - REAL 20th century heavy weapons- to win back their homeland.
Those are really the only two choices…do nothing or do something
The real problem is that the gang of thugs (that made the occupation of historicaly palestinian territories) has its own rule of law according to its own interest
israel its a fake state , existing mainly for territorial control perpuses (mideast area), just since 1948 at the expense of people that havent done anything to deserve that short of fate- the palestinians.
THE way of fighting that isreali gangs are using (from the begining of the conflict) is the DEFINITION of COWARDNESS, according to the vast majority of wolrds population critic and opinion.
what goes around ,comes around
WHO DO YOU THINK IS THE BULLY HERE MAN?? the poor and weaponless palestinians. if they had weapons, artillery, antiaircraft, and armoured vehicles, NOONE OF YOUR BRAVE SOLDIERS WOULD manage to survive for even a split of a second.
eg:just for the record, the 7day war was won by the israelis becouse it was the first war that STARTED WITH NO DECLARETION (ANOTHER ACT OF FISTTIMESEEING COWARDNESS as far as it concerns the WAY OF CONTACTING OFFICIAL WAR - US DO THAT OFFENLY TOO...you brave guys) against the arabs. (THIS HAVE NEVER HAPPENED UP TO THEN BEOFRE!!) and ofcourse it was US PLAINS THAT DID ALL THE JOB!!
WE all are watching CLUSTER BOMBS being fired at populated parts of gaza town and that isnot the first time...
GO S**P
Post a Comment
<< Home