We're not #1!

[Snorri1234]

And actually, we're mostly shutting the door on refuges that aren't escaping injustice. The ones who just want to live in a richer country so they can make more money. It's hard enough to find space for the people who come in escaping injustice already, allowing more people in would be stupid.

You sound like saints when you put it that way.

Would you mind cleaning up the Middle East while you're at it?

I'd love to, but sadly I don't give a f*ck about the middle east and see no reason to clean it up.

[TheProwler]

Besides, all that slavery and native killing and all that was done way back when America was young and still feeling the strong influence of its European heritage.

So?

So America has evolved from its European influence and has new ideal and values.

Some Americans may be tricked into feeling they have to defend the actions of their European ancestors, but that doesn't make it right to keep raising issues that are no longer relevant to America today.

[Snorri1234]

Oh and for the record. What the United States Military does is not really directed by the US government. It is handed down to the United States military commanders.
All of this, and I still hear about the actions of a few of the many military here.
America has also dealt with these individuals because their actions DO NOT fall in line with America's policy in Iraq.

Actually, torture is official policy. That's why I don't really blame the soldiers, because they are told it's allowed.

I know you people are also trying to rebuild the country and helping people out. Even though a lot of the mess was caused by the invasion itself, it's good that you're trying to repair the damages. Hell, you're even improving a lot of things. But that was never really what I was arguing. I was saying that the invasion was a bad idea and that some of the policies are truly horrible.

[got tonkaed]

And actually, we're mostly shutting the door on refuges that aren't escaping injustice. The ones who just want to live in a richer country so they can make more money. It's hard enough to find space for the people who come in escaping injustice already, allowing more people in would be stupid.

You sound like saints when you put it that way.

Would you mind cleaning up the Middle East while you're at it?

Can we put fixing Canada's mess on the list of things to do while we are at it?

[Snorri1234]

Besides, all that slavery and native killing and all that was done way back when America was young and still feeling the strong influence of its European heritage.

So?

So America has evolved from its European influence and has new ideal and values.

Some Americans may be tricked into feeling they have to defend the actions of their European ancestors, but that doesn't make it right to keep raising issues that are no longer relevant to America today.

Why not? It's funny to see people try to defend it. I would immediately admit it all, since I don't see what my ancestor's actions have to do with me, but some people are so rusted into the idea that America has never done any wrong.


And anyway, I'm sure that America would quite happily join in slavery if it ever came into style again. We all would. (Except for the slaves ofcourse.)

[TheProwler]

And actually, we're mostly shutting the door on refuges that aren't escaping injustice. The ones who just want to live in a richer country so they can make more money. It's hard enough to find space for the people who come in escaping injustice already, allowing more people in would be stupid.

You sound like saints when you put it that way.

Would you mind cleaning up the Middle East while you're at it?

Can we put fixing Canada's mess on the list of things to do while we are at it?

That would be appreciated. It's a bit of an embarrassment to be honest...

I am going to have to bail on these discussions...I find that I don't have the time to give proper responses.

snorri, no offense intended when I was a little sarcastic (whether you took it that way or not, I don''t know).

I really think snorri and solace19k agree on issues more than it seems.

solace19k, I really wish the media would emphasize the good the military is doing and not concentrate on the few mistakes made. Keep up the good work and know that your efforts are greatly appreciated.

[solace19k]

If you want to see the reason the US invaded Iraq then please refer to Jimbob for president 2012. It is a thread located in this very forum. It explains in a good amount of detail why I think the US is in Iraq. I think I have mentioned it quite a few times here too.

Not to insult your intelligence or anything, look up proxy....ok now look up war.....good, now add with Iran.....there we go. That pretty much covers it.


You had some good points about the whole war crime thing though.
Yes, war crimes are being addressed by their appropriate government. That's good because you are right. It does feed the terrorists and gives them reasons to recruit more people.
Honestly that is the only wrong I see in many of the "Warcrimes" that are commited here.
I know that seems controversial but here is my point. I said it violates the basic law of humanity to cause harm to innocent life. When you compare what happened in say... well Abu Gharib, to what generally constitutes as a war crime then it seems very minor. I know its a violation of human rights and I agree with the way that the people responsible were treated. However, I do not really feel that taking pictures of these criminals in embarrassing situations hardly constitutes as what is generally refereed to as a war crime. Do you have any idea what some of those people have done? Yes, they were VERY stupid for what they did.
It gives reason to fuel a fire for the terrorists and it gives them something to throw back at us. That is why I think it was stupid.

I disagree with you about it being in the best interest to tell its people everything.
It is not in the best interest to tell the world and the people all the reasons we invaded Iraq, because that would totally defeat the reason we went. Yes Saddam was a secular dictator that didn't even get along with Bin Laden. We didn't go after just Bin Laden, do you honestly think that terrorism will end with Bin Laden? Look at the map and tell me you don't think it is funny that Iran is totally surrounded now. We have blacklisted their national bank, we have surrounded them, we have taken a war to their front yard to lure them into supporting the terrorist cause. We have since been building a case against them and we are continuing to engage them in a "proxy" war. All out open war with Iran will cause the loss of a lot more life and cause many more problems than Iraq ever did.

But I think you are a smart guy Snorri, and I've seen some good posts by many people in this discussion. Prowler, I appreciate the kind words

[Snorri1234]

snorri, no offense intended when I was a little sarcastic (whether you took it that way or not, I don''t know).

Nah, I just read it all as sarcastic but that didn't keep me from responding without sarcasm. (You weren't sarcastic enough in the beginning though.)

solace19k, I really wish the media would emphasize the good the military is doing and not concentrate on the few mistakes made.

I agree there. But the media gets more viewers and readers if it covers mistakes and problems. People get some sick pleasure out of reading about things that are horrible, and just shrug if the story is positive. Hell, murders get big coverage while a story about a guy who didn't murder anyone but rescued a little kid doesn't.

[Genghis Khant]

but changed because we're barring more people from getting in.

You dirty inhuman bastards.

well, currently there are about 400 people per km^2 living here, so there isn't much room.

Per square mile? Not a good enough excuse in my opinion. Build up, not out. Is your country racist? Seriously, why would you shut the doors on refuges that need to escape injustice?

Square kilometer I mean, forgot to add the K. We're the most densely populated country in europe.


And actually, we're mostly shutting the door on refuges that aren't escaping injustice. The ones who just want to live in a richer country so they can make more money. It's hard enough to find space for the people who come in escaping injustice already, allowing more people in would be stupid.

Especially when you consider how much of the Netherlands has been reclaimed from the sea, and that sea level is set to rise by several metres in the next century.

[cutebastard71]

cutebastard71, we certainly disagree on some points. I agree that some professional associations in Canada might be protective of their status.

I think there needs to be a balance of skills and a good mix of manual labourers and professionals. We are always going to need houses built, roads paved, cars fixed, and garbage picked up on Wednesdays.

In my business, I find it frustrating and inefficient to work with people who are hard to understand. You think that the English skills of immigrants are sufficient and I think that they are not the vast majority of the time. Even if it is an accent that is too strong, it causes problems. But we have to agree to disagree on that one.

Anyways, I'm gonna bow out of this as I think it is a little off-topic now. People are discussing our good friends to the South.

Well I agree it is off-topic however since you made a reference to an accent I think that deserves at least a comment. The fact that as you say/think "it causes problem" is actual cause of discrimination in Canada. Furthermore some provinces have laws which forbid discrimination based on language (as far as I know the language criterion is not part of Charter of Rights). And there were quite a few court decisions (some of them actually against school boards) were it was clearly stated that you cannot discriminate based on accent as much as you may dislike it.

[Snorri1234]

You had some good points about the whole war crime thing though.
Yes, war crimes are being addressed by their appropriate government. That's good because you are right. It does feed the terrorists and gives them reasons to recruit more people.
Honestly that is the only wrong I see in many of the "Warcrimes" that are commited here.
I know that seems controversial but here is my point. I said it violates the basic law of humanity to cause harm to innocent life. When you compare what happened in say... well Abu Gharib, to what generally constitutes as a war crime then it seems very minor. I know its a violation of human rights and I agree with the way that the people responsible were treated. However, I do not really feel that taking pictures of these criminals in embarrassing situations hardly constitutes as what is generally refereed to as a war crime. Do you have any idea what some of those people have done? Yes, they were VERY stupid for what they did.
It gives reason to fuel a fire for the terrorists and it gives them something to throw back at us. That is why I think it was stupid.

Actually, the pictures weren't really the problem. That was just dumb. It was the things they did in the pictures, and the things that are being done in gitmo that are the problem. Sure, it is not as bad as what the other side is doing, but that is no excuse. You can't allow a little torture, because soon it will lead to bigger torture or the other side will start torturing even more as a reaction. You have to keep the stance of no-torture for your own credibility. I would love to torture a terrorist for all the harm he's caused, but I see that I cannot because it would make me as bad as the ones I'm fighting against. And worse, it affects the whole nation in this way because even if a soldier isn't told to do it he still represents the country he is fighting for.

And anyway, torture doesn't work. Hell, that's one of the other reasons it's bad. It is a form of revenge and not of justice.

I disagree with you about it being in the best interest to tell its people everything.
It is not in the best interest to tell the world and the people all the reasons we invaded Iraq, because that would totally defeat the reason we went.

Maybe, but that's what a democracy is about. If people cannot make an informed decision, why call it a democracy?
"Lead by example." Even if the decisions that are made aren't always good, it's always an informed decision. You lose credibility when one of the main building-blocks of your system is undermined. Secrecy by a government on this scale is not good.

Yes Saddam was a secular dictator that didn't even get along with Bin Laden. We didn't go after just Bin Laden, do you honestly think that terrorism will end with Bin Laden?

Not in the slightest. I don't think it will ever end, hence why I think it's silly to wage war on it. It's like the war on drugs, it doesn't work because it is not unwanted. People will be people, and angry, bitter people will be angry, bitter people.

Look at the map and tell me you don't think it is funny that Iran is totally surrounded now. We have blacklisted their national bank, we have surrounded them, we have taken a war to their front yard to lure them into supporting the terrorist cause. We have since been building a case against them and we are continuing to engage them in a "proxy" war. All out open war with Iran will cause the loss of a lot more life and cause many more problems than Iraq ever did.

But....what's the point of that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be smart here. I just honestly don't understand what the deal is with Iran. Why would you isolate them?

And I'm gonna read that thread later on. I did see it, but I didn't read it like so many other threads.

[solace19k]

Snorri I really don't think the United States is trying to completely destroy terrorism.
Terrorism is a criminal mindset. Its not even really a tangible thing. Which is why so many errors have been made trying to combat it. What needs to be done in my opinion is to isolate the causes of this kind of behavior and try to correct them. Just like we do with criminals, we will never get rid of the criminal mindset but we try to isolate and correct what causes people to think this way. I don't think the government is really the way to fix that because it starts with people. The government is doing what it can to help combat it.
Soon it will die out and fade into the background and not be such a global threat that it is right now. Terrorism too, like many things is a "fad". It will run its course and hopefully not too many more people will get hurt. I think the US intent is to try to control the damage it is doing right now. Cutting off a major supporter of terrorism, and taking the fight to their own countries instead of ours. AQI, I promise you, is pretty much dismantled. What is left is a loose bunch of groups that still maintain their ways but have pretty much lost all ability to be a real international threat. I'm afraid it doesn't end with AQI either, as Iraq really isn't the ultimate goal. It is only part of it. It is a stepping stone to achieve it. Regardless of the mistakes made by individuals the war is still helping thousands of people and it will contribute greatly to the overall success to what America and its allies that support it are trying to accomplish over there.

[mpjh]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

[solace19k]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

It is clear from the research of one person? I agree that is an interesting concept mpjh, but I am far from believing suicide attacks will stop when we leave the middle east. They didn't just come up with the idea of a suicide bomb when we invaded Iraq. Um, basically the planes that were used in the 9/11 attacks were a giant suicide bomb. I guess the suicide attacks throughout history and that are still on-going are directly linked to the US?

Invaded carries such a negative connotation don't you think?
Invasion to me is pretty much the complete control of another former sovereign country.
As far as I know Iraq still maintains its sovereignty and most of its programs and its resources are coming from US funding. But I appreciate you bringing facts with you man.

[herschal]

How long have you been in Iraq for?

[joe cool 360]

THAT IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY!

http://www.cia.gov
US GDP (2007) estimate: $13.78 trillion
Economic Aid – donor (2007): ODA $23.53 billion
http://www.america.gov
Private Aid (2005): $95.5 billion
Total Aid as a percentage of GDP: 0.88%

A very small percentage, indeed, but keep in mind that it is not so much quantity as it is quality.
Am I saying that the U.S. shouldn’t donate more? Of course not, but what I am saying is that the U.S. is a superpower and many of its citizens would like to keep it that way. In order to maintain this status and continue being the world’s largest total contributor of charitable money, there is a ton of other things that we need to spend our money on as well.

So to restate: Yes, the percentage of total charitable giving is tiny compared to the gross domestic product and we should of course donate more.
But on the other hand, there are a couple million different other things that we are spending our money on as well and what the U.S. needs to do is prioritize where the money is going. As far as I know, every citizen in America wants better government budgeting.

[solace19k]

I was in Iraq in may of 2003 during the initial push into Iraq. I participated in Operation Thunder Run with Delta company 1/64 Armor. After that I returned to America and I went back to Iraq in September of 2004 until January of 2006. That deployment I was located in Sadr City during the Shia' rebellion and later in the year I did some work in New Baghdad (rustamiyah). I then returned again to Iraq in April of 2007 and I am leaving this month.
This tour I have dealt mainly with the western area of Baghdad such as Monsoor and Amariyah. I was also based out of JSS Washash for the better part of 2007.

[TheProwler]

Vel I alree is oof-tobic hoseva svince jew mad za ruferunts....

Do you get the picture?

Regardless of what the Charter of Rights says or the courts say, it is a fact that it is not an efficient way to do business when it takes 25 "Pardon me?"'s just to convey a simple sentence. Time is money.

I think you'd have to agree with this fact.

Would you want to be the one on the operating table when there is an emergency and the surgeon yells "Nwerse, gwet ne na nonnadinsapot dow!!!"

And the nurse stands there scratching her head. "Sorry doctor, I don't understand."

"Nwerse, donna lizzenict do me!!!!! Gwet ne na nonnadinsapot dow!!! Dis mun ivst dieinna!!!"

?

[TheProwler]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

Yeah, then we'd just have to deal with the nuclear weapons headed our way.

[Snorri1234]

It is clear from the research of one person? I agree that is an interesting concept mpjh, but I am far from believing suicide attacks will stop when we leave the middle east. They didn't just come up with the idea of a suicide bomb when we invaded Iraq. Um, basically the planes that were used in the 9/11 attacks were a giant suicide bomb. I guess the suicide attacks throughout history and that are still on-going are directly linked to the US?

Stop? Not really.

Decrease? Most likely. There will always be crazy people willing to bomb, but the wars have increased recruitment quite a lot. Anyone with a brain can see that the most ripe soil for terrorist-recruitment is people who are angry at the US (or other european countries). War is counter-productive because every single war ever brings bad stories. And this makes pointing out how bad the foreigners are very easy for any recruiting terrorist. This is why the better solution is diplomacy and small armed conflicts.

Invaded carries such a negative connotation don't you think?
Invasion to me is pretty much the complete control of another former sovereign country.

Like it or not, what the US did was invasion. They took out the government, they controlled the country. I mean, what else does an invasion make?

[joe cool 360]

I was in Iraq in may of 2003 during the initial push into Iraq. I participated in Operation Thunder Run with Delta company 1/64 Armor. After that I returned to America and I went back to Iraq in September of 2004 until January of 2006. That deployment I was located in Sadr City during the Shia' rebellion and later in the year I did some work in New Baghdad (rustamiyah). I then returned again to Iraq in April of 2007 and I am leaving this month.
This tour I have dealt mainly with the western area of Baghdad such as Monsoor and Amariyah. I was also based out of JSS Washash for the better part of 2007.

Thank you for all your service, I really am grateful for what you've done overseas and I wish you a safe trip home.

[solace19k]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

Yeah, then we'd just have to deal with the nuclear weapons headed our way.

Another reason we are having issues with Iran

[Snorri1234]

THAT IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY!

http://www.cia.gov
US GDP (2007) estimate: $13.78 trillion
Economic Aid – donor (2007): ODA $23.53 billion
http://www.america.gov
Private Aid (2005): $95.5 billion
Total Aid as a percentage of GDP: 0.88%

A very small percentage, indeed, but keep in mind that it is not so much quantity as it is quality.

Your money is magically worth more than anyone else's money?

Am I saying that the U.S. shouldn’t donate more? Of course not, but what I am saying is that the U.S. is a superpower and many of its citizens would like to keep it that way. In order to maintain this status and continue being the world’s largest total contributor of charitable money, there is a ton of other things that we need to spend our money on as well.

Oh I can see that. But I was just saying that people who say "teh US donates far more money than yous!" is being silly. I don't particularly care about how much you donate, just that everyone realises it is not that much for you.

But on the other hand, there are a couple million different other things that we are spending our money on as well

Unlike every other country?

[Snorri1234]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

Yeah, then we'd just have to deal with the nuclear weapons headed our way.

Another reason we are having issues with Iran

You think Iran is gonna send nukes at you?

[mpjh]

Recent research by a professor at the University of Chicago shows that the use of suicide attacks by terrorists is directly linked to the presence of troops from an invader on the homeland of the suicide attacker. It is quite clear from this research, and common sense, that the suicide terrorist attacks will stop once we leave Iraq and the other Muslim countries we have invaded.

It is clear from the research of one person? I agree that is an interesting concept mpjh, but I am far from believing suicide attacks will stop when we leave the middle east. They didn't just come up with the idea of a suicide bomb when we invaded Iraq. Um, basically the planes that were used in the 9/11 attacks were a giant suicide bomb. I guess the suicide attacks throughout history and that are still on-going are directly linked to the US?

Invaded carries such a negative connotation don't you think?
Invasion to me is pretty much the complete control of another former sovereign country.
As far as I know Iraq still maintains its sovereignty and most of its programs and its resources are coming from US funding. But I appreciate you bringing facts with you man.

I know it might be tough for you, but read the summaries of the research before you go spouting off. The research is part of the development of the largest data base on terrorist activity in the world. It is more thatn the conclusion of one professor. By the way, what is your PhD in anyway?