Micael Moore's Minutemen

[Bodacious]

Bodies of 10 Iraqi civilians found shot to death (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.main/index.html)

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/michaelmoo169149.html



http://www.moorewatch.com/

[ALEXDJ]

no more Saddams tight grip to hold all those wackos at bay

some cultures are just not fit for a democratic state

[seinfeldrules]

no more Saddams tight grip to hold all those wackos at bay

some cultures are just not fit for a democratic state
If that wasnt bordering on racist I dont know what would. Do you think that you are the only one entitled to freedom just because you live in the West? It has to start somewhere.

[gh0st]

If that wasnt bordering on racist I dont know what would. Do you think that you are the only one entitled to freedom just because you live in the West? It has to start somewhere.
He's right. Theres nothing racist about it, some things just dont fit some demographics... like the the extreme, terrorist groups that exist in parts of the middle east.

[KoreBolteR]

Iraq is a slow progress from tyrancy to democracy, isnt going to change overnight.

meanwhile i didnt know Talabani (Iraqs new president) wasnt arab..
(according to bodacious' post)

nice find.

if the US didnt get saddam out of power, tortures and an evil regime would have been going on for generations! jus think what the saddam sons would have done in power.

and today, there are elections and new prime ministers!, theres still some setbacks, but we'll be able to work through it, and at the end, the iraqis will be glad we stayed there.

[GiaOmerta]

I'm sure glad Moore supports our troops. Great moral booster. Where would we be without him?

[CptStern]

what does moore have to do with this latest attack?


if it's in reference to freedom fighters well then I'd like to remind you of this:


Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability. - Ronald Reagan

- Referring to groups who were resisting Soviet rule of Afghanistan with U.S. support, which included the Taleban, the mujahideen, and Osama bin Laden, in Proclamation 4908 —( Afghanistan Day, March 10, 1982)

[gh0st]

- Referring to groups who were resisting Soviet rule of Afghanistan with U.S. support, which included the Taleban, the mujahideen, and Osama bin Laden, in Proclamation 4908 —( Afghanistan Day, March 10, 1982)
You win some you lose some. I say, take the worse, not the worst. Reagan and the Pope killed teh communism, mind your mouth.

[CptStern]

i think the communists killed communism just as equally

[KoreBolteR]

wait a minute.. didnt democracy kill communism? :upstare: ?

[ALEXDJ]

If that wasnt bordering on racist I dont know what would. Do you think that you are the only one entitled to freedom just because you live in the West? It has to start somewhere.
hey, i don't think that russia can ever have a proper democratic state, people are just different, it's not a bad thing if you are not democrat

[ALEXDJ]

wait a minute.. didnt democracy kill communism? :upstare: ?
noooo,
humanity is just not ready for that kind of govermant, everybody is still too greedy, that's all

[Foxtrot]

what does moore have to do with this latest attack?


if it's in reference to freedom fighters well then I'd like to remind you of this:


Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability. - Ronald Reagan

- Referring to groups who were resisting Soviet rule of Afghanistan with U.S. support, which included the Taleban, the mujahideen, and Osama bin Laden, in Proclamation 4908 —( Afghanistan Day, March 10, 1982)

Except that was entirly different, my memory is a little fuzzy but I don't think a terrorist group out of Afghanistan flew planes into World Trade Center buildings in Moscow...although I am not too good with history. Good job taking things out of context, you are great at this stuff.

[Sprafa]

"Why do you kill me?"

"Are you not on the other side of the water ? If you were on this side, I would be a murderer, and as such, it would be unfair to kill you; but as you are on he other side, I am brave and this is fair! Curious justice the river separates! Truth here, lies beyond. Robbery, incest and the murder of the children and the parents, all that is within virtuous actions!"

Blaise Pascal


I'm thinking of adding taht as my sig

[satch919]

Is there more to that Michael Moore quote? Was it a response to a question or was it just an outburst? In general, what was its context?

Im sure some Iraqis see these insurgents as heros or martyrs. Its that kind of mentality that drives these attackers. Who seriously believed that these people would just lay down their weapons and accept some forced idea or outside government? They're doing what many people would do. If a foreign threat came in to your home country, what would you do?

Im not trying to say that these insurgents are in the right or are justified in their attacks. Im trying to say that we should have been a lot smarter about how we handled this situation. America is an occupying force. We're going to leave eventually. The native people of that land will remain and so will the hatred. How much more lives must be lost before we realize that this utopian idea just isn't feasible? Remember, the peoples of Iraq and the Middle East have known brutality and war far longer than America has existed.

We may just have to accept the fact that some may never know peace and as long as we make it our business to change it, neither shall we.

[Calanen]

Im sure some Iraqis see these insurgents as heros or martyrs.

Most don't - if they did, they would have heeded the calls to stay indoors and not vote in the elections. And yet 8 million of them in a country of 25 million did vote. So if there was popular support for the terrorist point of view, they would have boycotted the elections in droves and yet they did not. Even with the terrorists saying to them we will kill you if you vote, they still did.

Popular support? No one gets to vote for terrorists.

[satch919]

Most don't - if they did, they would have heeded the calls to stay indoors and not vote in the elections. And yet 8 million of them in a country of 25 million did vote. So if there was popular support for the terrorist point of view, they would have boycotted the elections in droves and yet they did not. Even with the terrorists saying to them we will kill you if you vote, they still did.

Popular support? No one gets to vote for terrorists.

If the majority of Iraqis didn't support the insurgency, why are there 1,546 dead Americans? Were they all accidents? These people are obviously harboring the insurgents. They blend back into society. Why have so many civilians been arrested and sent to prisons in Iraq?

Whats it going to take? Detention of the entire Iraqi population?

[diluted]

Reagan didn't kill communism, Soviet communism killed itself because it was a failed political system. As much as neo-cons like to blather about it, Reagan didn't really do anything to bring the end of communism in Europe.

/rambling
//off-topic

[Mr.Awesome]

I'm sure glad Moore supports our troops. Great moral booster. Where would be without him?

Moore is just crazy. We'd probably be less liberal.

[Calanen]

If the majority of Iraqis didn't support the insurgency, why are there 1,546 dead Americans? Were they all accidents? These people are obviously harboring the insurgents. They blend back into society. Why have so many civilians been arrested and sent to prisons in Iraq?

Whats it going to take? Detention of the entire Iraqi population?

Your argument is flawed. If a gunmen kills 10 people, 1 gunman and gets away with it - does this mean anyone supports him?
If a carbomb kills 50 or 100 people, does this mean he has popular support? About 600 of those Americans died in the Iraq war before the occupation of Iraq. A good many died of accidents and friendly fire too. In the same way, the ordinary Iraqi could not express his dissent during Saddam's days - those Saddam loyalists still know how to implement terror on the masses.

I could take 30,000 terrorists and wreak absolute havoc across Iraq. You do not need that many people to blow up a lot of others. They would not even have this many. And thats in a population of 25 million. They are well funded with money from the fallen Saddam regime, Syria and Iran. They have weapons from ex-Saddam militarists. All can cause a lot of problems.

The only reason people don't inform on terrorists (and some courageous souls do) is because they get executed for doing so. So don't confuse popular support with fear. If you are a regular person in a Sunni neighbourhood, just minding your own business, the last thing you are going to do is speak out against the terrorists. The sensible thing to do would be to keep a very low profile and hope they did not look at what you were doing.

But the true test of whether or nor Iraqis wanted the terrorists were the elections. The terrorists said, dont vote or you will die. And yet, a huge amount of people risked death to vote. That says louder than anything else that the people of Iraq are saying to the terrorists, we don't like what you represent. More particularly, the terrorists have killed far more Iraqis than Americans.

[PickledGecko]

The only reason people don't inform on terrorists (and some courageous souls do) is because they get executed for doing so. So don't confuse popular support with fear. If you are a regular person in a Sunni neighbourhood, just minding your own business, the last thing you are going to do is speak out against the terrorists. The sensible thing to do would be to keep a very low profile and hope they did not look at what you were doing.
But thats the problem, if they cared about democracy they would inform, regardless of the risk. If they cared about democracy they would have revolted long ago. The fact is, Iraqi's have shown they don't care enough about democracy to die for it, and not only does that mean that neither Americans nor Brits should have to die for it, but it will eventually fail. If the Iraqi citizens cannot say in the future, "My Father/Brother/Son died for my freedom" like America and Britain can, then as soon as the next leader who makes himself a dictator comes into power, nobody will do anything. This is why democracy fails whenever it is "forced" on a country. Nobody cares enough to die for it now, noone will care enough to keep it in the future.

[clarky003]

i think the communists killed communism just as equally

communisim collapsed from the inside. all the battle against it was doing was nawing at the edges.

[Calanen]

But thats the problem, if they cared about democracy they would inform, regardless of the risk. If they cared about democracy they would have revolted long ago.

Sorry thats wrong. Its telling oppressed people, all you need to do is stand up and say 'Follow me! Viva La Revolution!' and all that happens is you get lined up against a wall and shot. Its like saying black people in the south, only needed to rise up against their slave masters in the south during the confederacy, but they must have 'wanted' slavery because they did not. Things are not so simple.

And I doubt you would be standing up publicly challenging such regimes or terrorists. I know I would not be......

And I should say that people, ordinary people did put themselves on the line for Iraq by voting. And joining the Iraqi national guard and police by the 100s of 1000s. Many more Iraqis than Americans have died trying to secure a free Iraq. But not everyone can fight - not everyone is able to for whatever reason. And some people, are too scared too - and I can't say I blame them. But it does not mean that they support the ex-saddam thugs and al quada.

Human instinct is to lay low when there is trouble. Very few people would willingly put their life on the line for any cause when not a professional soldier.

[Calanen]

double post..soz

[Calanen]

communisim collapsed from the inside. all the battle against it was doing was nawing at the edges.

That can be said about anything any time. But the strain of spending on the arms race to match the USA, was something that the USSR could not afford and the USA could. Probably would have lasted a lot longer without Gorbachev. If someone like Stalin was in power - they would have massacred millions of people across Europe and kept the Berlin wall up.

[satch919]

More particularly, the terrorists have killed far more Iraqis than Americans.

Hmm, do you have something to backup that claim?

Do you want to know why some Iraqis voted? They thought that it would mean an end to the American occupation. Here's an article about a large protest to end the occupation in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7430272/

[Calanen]

Originally Posted by Calanen
More particularly, the terrorists have killed far more Iraqis than Americans.

Hmm, do you have something to backup that claim?



I thought this would have been self-evident, ie you see on the news, 50 Iraqis blown up in market place every few days. But apparently not. So - here are the Iraqi casualties for the month of March alone.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

440 Iraqis killed by terrorists in the month of March. The US lost 36. About a quarter of all american deaths are due to accidents.

So far more Iraqis are dying at the hands of terrorists than Americans. And these are combat related incidents and explosions, may not necessarily include people having there throats slashed for giving americans a haircut - the details of Iraqi deaths would not be as precise as those for American casualties, that is the Iraqi deaths are likely to be higher.


Do you want to know why some Iraqis voted? They thought that it would mean an end to the American occupation. Here's an article about a large protest to end the occupation in Iraq.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7430272/

Nowhere in that article does it say or quote any Iraqi as saying they voted because they wanted an end to an occupation by the USA. And what if they did? Does not mean they support the terrorists - who opposed all voting point blank and said anyone who votes dies. If they supported the terrorists they would have stayed in home in droves. Thats what the terrorists wanted - so why not do it? Because they don't support the terrorists.

And one of the better bits in your article was this:

Also Saturday, in the troubled northern city of Mosul, a car bomb detonated near a police patrol, killing at least two policemen and injuring 13 civilians, Dr. Baha al-Deen al-Bakry of the Jumhouri hospital said

Terrorists are killing and injuring fellow Iraqis every damn day. They don't represent anyone except themselves. Which would be Iran, Syria, Al Quada, ex-saddam loyalists. You don't blow up your own people in a popular uprising.

And Iraq has told Iran and Syria to stop terrorists from coming over the border:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/08/content_398353.htm

It would suit your world view for the terrorists to be popular people's revolutionaries fighting the evil US. But this is not borne out by the facts.

[jondy]

I don't support Michael Moore. But he doesn't play on hate like Coulter or O'reilly do, and I respect him for that.

[Bodacious]

Thank you, Calanen, for fighting the good fight.

[satch919]

I thought this would have been self-evident, ie you see on the news, 50 Iraqis blown up in market place every few days. But apparently not. So - here are the Iraqi casualties for the month of March alone.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

440 Iraqis killed by terrorists in the month of March. The US lost 36. About a quarter of all american deaths are due to accidents.

So far more Iraqis are dying at the hands of terrorists than Americans. And these are combat related incidents and explosions, may not necessarily include people having there throats slashed for giving americans a haircut - the details of Iraqi deaths would not be as precise as those for American casualties, that is the Iraqi deaths are likely to be higher.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7430272/

Nowhere in that article does it say or quote any Iraqi as saying they voted because they wanted an end to an occupation by the USA. And what if they did? Does not mean they support the terrorists - who opposed all voting point blank and said anyone who votes dies. If they supported the terrorists they would have stayed in home in droves. Thats what the terrorists wanted - so why not do it? Because they don't support the terrorists.


Terrorists are killing and injuring fellow Iraqis every damn day. They don't represent anyone except themselves. Which would be Iran, Syria, Al Quada, ex-saddam loyalists. You don't blow up your own people in a popular uprising.

And Iraq has told Iran and Syria to stop terrorists from coming over the border:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/08/content_398353.htm

It would suit your world view for the terrorists to be popular people's revolutionaries fighting the evil US. But this is not borne out by the facts.

No, whats the overall ratio of insurgent caused deaths and US military type deaths? Is there a statistic on that?

From what I've seen, there's been a minimum of 17355 deaths by our military and a maximum of 19740 deaths. Reuters reports that the insurgency has killed about 6000 Iraqi civilians. Thats quite a gap there isn't it?

I know that the article itself doesn't have a direct quote from Iraqis stating that they voted because the wanted us out. However, a week after the election, some were saying that they voted because they believed that it would mean an end to the occupying force.

You're right, it is stupid of them to blow up their own people. I never said they were smart. Still, it doesn't take away the fact that some citizens sympathize with the insurgency.

Abu Ghraib is currently holding about 10,500. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7335415/ Now, all of them can't be insurgents, right? Some, if not most, have been arrested because we suspected them of aiding and abetting the enemy. So apparently, the insurgents have some kind of support. Why do you think Zarqawi hasn't been caught? The locals won't give him up.

Oh, about the comment on asking Syria and Iran to stop terrorists from coming over the border, thats laughable. Where do you think the terrorists are coming from? Its long been suspected that these two nation's governments support terrorism or actions against the West. Asking them to seal their borders is like the equivalent of asking a convicted felon inmate to be security in a prison. It just doesn't work.

How come we didn't secure the borders? Afterall, we started this war. With our military might, we could have done it. But wait a minute.......Rumsfeld denied the use of more troops during the invasion. Darn. What a mistake huh?

[satch919]

Thank you, Calanen, for fighting the good fight.

Somehow I knew you'd show up. :|

[jondy]

Thank you, Calanen, for fighting the good fight.

Kindof subjective isn't it?

[CptStern]

still dont see what this latest attack has to do with Moore

[KoreBolteR]

still dont see what this latest attack has to do with Moore

hes an insurgent of course :upstare:

[jondy]

hes an insurgent of course :upstare:

Heh, Kore, you're all...... feminine :E

[Lemonking]

seinfeld
they wanna stay stupid they want to have some religous wacko to have power why?
because that whole side of the world doesnt know it differnt
they want it that way

[Calanen]

No, whats the overall ratio of insurgent caused deaths and US military type deaths? Is there a statistic on that?

From what I've seen, there's been a minimum of 17355 deaths by our military and a maximum of 19740 deaths. Reuters reports that the insurgency has killed about 6000 Iraqi civilians. Thats quite a gap there isn't it?

You said - where is the statistic that the terrorists were killing more Iraqis than Americans. I gave you that statistic. And now you want some other statistic to compare US kill ratios vs Terrorist kill ratios? Its meaningless. And you being misleading in comparing the deaths of 17-20k Iraqis killed by the US, by putting it next to the 6000 Iraqi civilians you say that the insurgency has killed. The USA is not deliberately killing Iraqi civilians with carbombs and IEDs.

But you answered your own question you have asked me, and then create a different one I say I have not answered it.

I know that the article itself doesn't have a direct quote from Iraqis stating that they voted because the wanted us out. However, a week after the election, some were saying that they voted because they believed that it would mean an end to the occupying force.

So what - does not mean they support the terrorists.

You're right, it is stupid of them to blow up their own people. I never said they were smart. Still, it doesn't take away the fact that some citizens sympathize with the insurgency.

Some - not most, and not even a significant majority. As shown by the massive voting turnout in Iraq in defiance of terrorist orders.

Abu Ghraib is currently holding about 10,500. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7335415/ Now, all of them can't be insurgents, right? Some, if not most, have been arrested because we suspected them of aiding and abetting the enemy. So apparently, the insurgents have some kind of support. Why do you think Zarqawi hasn't been caught? The locals won't give him up.

I have no idea and neither do you what the people they have detained have done. And I imagine that the threat of having your head cut-off is a powerful incentive to stop people dropping a dime on Zarqawi - even if they knew where he was. And who says that they do? He might live in a basement and pass notes to people who run around up top for him.

Oh, about the comment on asking Syria and Iran to stop terrorists from coming over the border, thats laughable. Where do you think the terrorists are coming from? Its long been suspected that these two nation's governments support terrorism or actions against the West. Asking them to seal their borders is like the equivalent of asking a convicted felon inmate to be security in a prison. It just doesn't work.

Thats exactly my point - but you seem to feel that it is something you discovered. The reason these terrorists have no Iraqi support, is that they are often foreign invaders hated by the Iraqis, who are there to kill Iraqis and destabilise the government. What Iraqi would support foreign terrorists that are not there to help them at all? Your argument is internally inconsistent - you want us to believe that the terrorist movement is a popular peoples front - and then at the same time you joke about how they are coming from Syria and Iran.

How come we didn't secure the borders? Afterall, we started this war. With our military might, we could have done it. But wait a minute.......Rumsfeld denied the use of more troops during the invasion. Darn. What a mistake huh?

Everything Rumsfeld ever did was a mistake as far as the critics on the left are concerned. Those borders are thousands of miles of desert on two countries. America polices those borders as best it can, but its priority is protecting the peace in the places where Iraqis live - the towns. Rumsfeld asked the commanders what
they needed and they got it. And if you want me to believe that you would have been cheering for another 100,000 troops to be sent in there I don't believe it. Every army would like a few hundred thousand more troops - but there is always going to be a limit on how many troops you can and should send into a theatre.

The USA cannot secure its borders in Mexico - and thats with everything that the USA has at home. And you expect that it can secure the borders of a foreign country with limited resources, while trying to prevent terrorists attacking the cities? Living in dreamland.

[satch919]

You said - where is the statistic that the terrorists were killing more Iraqis than Americans. I gave you that statistic. And now you want some other statistic to compare US kill ratios vs Terrorist kill ratios? Its meaningless. And you being misleading in comparing the deaths of 17-20k Iraqis killed by the US, by putting it next to the 6000 Iraqi civilians you say that the insurgency has killed. The USA is not deliberately killing Iraqi civilians with carbombs and IEDs.

You either misunderstood me or I should have been more specific. I wanted the overall Iraqi deaths from this campaign due to American occupation vs. the Iraqi insurgency. The only thing you provided me with was a statistic on how many civilians had died this month vs. US military casualties. So that didn't answer my question entirely. And what do you mean that its meaningless? Are you saying that the statistic on the number of civilians that we've killed isn't a big deal. We may have made more enemies by accidentally bombing peoples families.

When did i say that the US was deliberately killing people? Although, in some cases, they may have. There was a soldier who was just convicted of murder I believe. But overwhelmingly, we're not killing them on purpose. The fact still remains that we've killed a hell of a lot of Iraqis because of our occupation.

But you answered your own question you have asked me, and then create a different one I say I have not answered it.

I suppose I did. I looked for information while I was typing up my response so that may answer some questions. But again, you didn't answer my question.



So what - does not mean they support the terrorists.

I know, it simply means that they want us out.


I have no idea and neither do you what the people they have detained have done. And I imagine that the threat of having your head cut-off is a powerful incentive to stop people dropping a dime on Zarqawi - even if they knew where he was. And who says that they do? He might live in a basement and pass notes to people who run around up top for him.

No, I don't but I've read articles about the types they detain. You might know this and you might not so I going to say it anyways. Sometimes they do house to house searches looking for weapons caches or anyone who might have ties to the insurgency. Whether they're right or wrong, thats an issue for another time but at the moment, they had reasonable cause to detain a particular person.

So you do admit that the insurgency is being helped by some civilians then?


Thats exactly my point - but you seem to feel that it is something you discovered. The reason these terrorists have no Iraqi support, is that they are often foreign invaders hated by the Iraqis, who are there to kill Iraqis and destabilise the government. What Iraqi would support foreign terrorists that are not there to help them at all? Your argument is internally inconsistent - you want us to believe that the terrorist movement is a popular peoples front - and then at the same time you joke about how they are coming from Syria and Iran.

I think you may be confused or you're not conveying your thoughts carefully. You said: And Iraq has told Iran and Syria to stop terrorists from coming over the border: Ok. What are you trying to do with that statement? You make it sound like Iraq has all the power to stop radicals from entering their land. So, how did I respond to that? In a nutshell, I said that its a joke. However, its nothing that I discovered myself. We've known that border security was a joke anyways. I don't know what you're trying to do but it seems like you're trying to make me out to be the bad guy. So you're telling me that these foreign invaders are slipping through the borders(thats not hard to believe) and making there way through the cities without contacting an Iraqi for a place to stay or stash weapons? Thats a little hard to believe considering that the Sunni's are a big supporter of these radicals. And who are the Sunni's? They're natives of Iraq. AH! What do you know?!? There are some supporters in Iraq.


Everything Rumsfeld ever did was a mistake as far as the critics on the left are concerned.

Here we go.......another left vs. right debate?! The guy has even admitted that he made mistakes. He even considered stepping down from his job, TWICE!! However, he was denied both times by the President. Now, does that sound like a confident man to you? Thats another debate for another time though.

Those borders are thousands of miles of desert on two countries. America polices those borders as best it can, but its priority is protecting the peace in the places where Iraqis live - the towns. Rumsfeld asked the commanders what they needed and they got it. And if you want me to believe that you would have been cheering for another 100,000 troops to be sent in there I don't believe it. Every army would like a few hundred thousand more troops - but there is always going to be a limit on how many troops you can and should send into a theatre.

Yeah, it would be tough to secure those borders. What was stopping the President from holding off the invasion until we did have a plan or enough forces to secure the border? In case you didn't know, Saddam wasn't an imminent threat. What we had was insuffcient. We can't really keep the towns and cities safe if we have a constant flow of enemies flowing into the region. Why not stop them AWAY from the civilians? Doesn't that seem logical? We rushed into this war and you know it.

And you would like me to believe that Rumsfeld gave them all they needed huh? Do I even have to mention the lack of proper armor or supplies? Do I even need to mention that the requests for more Humvees haven't been fulfilled? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7397795/ Your response about the troop numbers sounds like it was pulled straight from Rumsfeld's response. If we were going to go to war, we should have done it th right way. I would have rather had too many troops than not enough.

The USA cannot secure its borders in Mexico - and thats with everything that the USA has at home. And you expect that it can secure the borders of a foreign country with limited resources, while trying to prevent terrorists attacking the cities? Living in dreamland.

Yeah, I know the US can't secure its own borders. The flood of illegals into CA, AZ, TX, NM clearly shows that. And wouldn't ya know it, the current Administration hasn't done anything about it. We've had to implement an all volunteer force(MinuteMan Project) to help secure the borders of our own nation. Sad? I think so. So much for Homeland Security.

Wouldn't it make sense to stop and say, "Wait a minute! We don't even have the resources to secure our own borders let alone another nations. Hey boss, we might want to rethink this one!" One has to wonder if that crossed the brains of any of the commanders. But what were they given? A force to small to secure a country. Great situation huh?

Rumsfeld: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." :dozey:

"I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty." :O

And you want that guy to be in charge of our armed forces?

[Razor]

still dont see what this latest attack has to do with Moore


"They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win." - Michael Moore, 4/14/2004.

Michael Moore was talking about "his" Minutemen, the people who will stand up and fight back against the Coalition, to "fight back against the evil oppressors". Their numbers aren't growing and they are not winning, this is what this post is about.

[CptStern]

so? do I need to point out Reagan's speech where he calls the mujahideen "freedom fighters"?

There's a razor fine line (excuse the pun) between the media's protrayal of a "insurgent" and a "terrorist" ..they're indistinguishable ...unless that is it suits their particular "spin"

[Foxtrot]

so? do I need to point out Reagan's speech where he calls the mujahideen "freedom fighters"?

There's a razor fine line (excuse the pun) between the media's protrayal of a "insurgent" and a "terrorist" ..they're indistinguishable ...unless that is it suits their particular "spin"
Maybe you should read the thread before throwing out your generic attacks.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=77967&page=1&pp=15

[CptStern]

:upstare: that's my point

[seinfeldrules]

seinfeld
they wanna stay stupid they want to have some religous wacko to have power why?
because that whole side of the world doesnt know it differnt
they want it that way
I refuse to believe that groups of people cannot accept freedom.

[Korgoth]

well let me force you to eat peanut butter seinfeld, lots and lots of peanut butter, even though you've grown up to believe peanut butter is evil and totally goes against your religion, sure its delicious, but you don't want it.. And you refuse to except it because i'm force feeding it to you...

[GhostFox]

well let me force you to eat peanut butter seinfeld, lots and lots of peanut butter, even though you've grown up to believe peanut butter is evil and totally goes against your religion, sure its delicious, but you don't want it.. And you refuse to except it because i'm force feeding it to you...

Sure, but how long before he realizes how delicious PB is and how stupid his religion was from restricting it.

Liberty is a quality inherent in all humanity. Sometimes people just need some help finding their way.

[Calanen]

so? do I need to point out Reagan's speech where he calls the mujahideen "freedom fighters"?

I've made this point to your before Stern - and you ignore it. The people fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was just about *everyone* in Afghanistan and included a lot of different tribes, factions and shifting alliances. It included Osama Bin Laden and his followers. To say however, that those who opposed the soviets = al quada is simplistic and naive.

The Northern Alliance also fought the Soviet Union, as did many warlords that are now allied with it. These are not Al Quada, these people hate Al Quada and helped the USA crush it in Afghanistan. The reason that Afghanistan is now relatively trouble free is because the vast majority of native forces there do not want the Taliban or Al Quada there and are prepared to help the Northern Alliance crush them.

So it is just too simplistic too say we supported afghanistan in a war with the soviets, al quada was in the war, therefore all the people who opposed the Soviet Union were al quada and were supported by the US. Then you say Reagan was backing Al Quada. No. The USA supported the resistance to the Soviet Union, which included a whole lot of groups, some of which later as war veterans were in Al Quada. But many of those now in Al quada, are too young to have fought in the afghan soviet conflict.

The fact that a small proportion of the many afghanis who opposed the Soviet Union went on to form terrorist cells does not justify saying that the USA was a big al quada supporter. And it ignores the fact that the Northern Alliance, also 'mujahadeen' managed to capture all of Afghanistan with US help.

[PickledGecko]

I refuse to believe that groups of people cannot accept freedom.
Here in the UK we have very restrictive gun laws, and the majority of people would like to see more restrictions. In the US, you are "free" to own guns. The majority of people here want to give up their "freedom" for, what they believe to be, the good of the country, they believe more guns will mean more crime.

So, when should I expect the US army to roll over the hills, killing my family with their cluster bombs, imprisoning and torturing my friends indefinately with no proof? When will we be liberated from the UK's Dictator (3 terms and counting!!)? When will the marvelous US bring their version of "freedom" to my country? When will we be "educated" in the greatness of the US version of liberty? Acording to you, we all want these freedom's you talk about, we just, what? Don't realise it yet?

You say it's hard to believe that the majority of people don't want American "freedoms" forced on them. I say, step one foot on my country's soil, and you will die.

[seinfeldrules]

Here in the UK we have very restrictive gun laws, and the majority of people would like to see more restrictions. In the US, you are "free" to own guns. The majority of people here want to give up their "freedom" for, what they believe to be, the good of the country, they believe more guns will mean more crime.

So, when should I expect the US army to roll over the hills, killing my family with their cluster bombs, imprisoning and torturing my friends indefinately with no proof? When will we be liberated from the UK's Dictator (3 terms and counting!!)? When will the marvelous US bring their version of "freedom" to my country? When will we be "educated" in the greatness of the US version of liberty? Acording to you, we all want these freedom's you talk about, we just, what? Don't realise it yet?

You say it's hard to believe that the majority of people don't want American "freedoms" forced on them. I say, step one foot on my country's soil, and you will die.

You are looking far too into my comment. I meant freedom to choose. Freedom to do what they want without fear of reprisal by a dictator like Saddam. Dont you realize that living under Saddam was not some walk in the park? I dont care what form of government they establish. None of that matters, all that matters is the freedom to choose. I refuse to believe that people like you cannot accept that. You want the Iraqis to fail so you can blame it on Bush. I want to see them succeed and live peaceful and free lives. I never said American freedom (as if it is a bad thing), I said freedom. Now get off your agenda and go root for Iraq, not because the US told you to but because it is the right thing to do.

[PickledGecko]

I wasn't just answering your post but others that followed your's aswell. I don't give a f*ck who the President of the US is. The fact is, there were not WMDs, there was no link to Osama, and Iraqi freedom is their responsability. My point was, they chose to give up their freedom when they let Saddam take and keep power. They had many chances to revolt, sometimes some small groups did. But don't you see, if the majority cared about freedom, Saddam would have been ousted long ago.

Why should my family risk their lives in the armed forces for an Iraqi who isn't willing to do it himself. The Iraqi people made their bed, I say let them lie in it.

Also, my analogy was meant to describe a possible similar situation. The UK and the US have small differences in their society, it may seem like you're giving the Iraqi's a choice, but the choice to vote isn't that much different to the choice to have guns. Its all about freedom. Some people want lots of freedom, even at the expense of law and order, other people are willing to give some things up for the sake of safety. The Iraqi's made it clear, they didn't care about elections, if they did, they would have demanded them long ago. Just because the troops are doing something noble, i.e. giving them the choice in their lives, does not mean they are automaticaly welcome.

If Tony Blair gets voted out, but decides to stay in power regardless, I will be the first with an AK47 trying to get him out of power. That does not mean I'd be happy to have another countries troops, be they American, French, German, etc, attacking my people and imprisoning my friends and family. You step on my soil, even if your intentions are noble, you will die by my hand. Not because I don't want my freedom, but because I don't want your version of freedom at the expense of my family's life and liberty.

My freedom is my responsibility, an Iraqi's freedom is his responsibility.

[seinfeldrules]

Why should my family risk their lives in the armed forces for an Iraqi who isn't willing to do it himself. The Iraqi people made their bed, I say let them lie in it.


Kinda like what the French shoulda done with us Americans right? I think we did ok because of their help. You also forget the noble Iraqi police force. They under threat just as much, if not more, than Americans.

Not because I don't want my freedom, but because I don't want your version of freedom at the expense of my family's life and liberty.

What liberty? As an Iraqi you have never had it. With America leading the way, at least you have a future, an opportunity. Nothing signified this more than the recent elections.

The Iraqi's made it clear, they didn't care about elections, if they did, they would have demanded them long ago.
How do you know that? What were they supposed to do to signify their desire? Protest so that their families could be killed? I dont think so. At least they now have the opportunity to protest, something they never had under Saddam.

[Calanen]

The Iraqi's made it clear, they didn't care about elections, if they did, they would have demanded them long ago.

That would be why 8 million of them voted, even though the terrorists that the Left keeps saying are the voice of the people, said that they would die if they did......

And you could not have elections until the major resistance had been crushed to make it safe enough to have them.

[Edcrab]

Just because people act in a certain way doesn't mean they actually believe in what they're doing or saying. Look at Mugabe's manipulation of Zimbabwe's voting populace, for one thing.

But to realign the topic I just derailed- put the occupation to a vote. Even then the losing side is likely to rant about corruption- but we need to do something right.

If the Coalition pulled out now- when much of Iraq's infrastructure is in ruins due to their own actions- there'd be a bit of an international outcry, dissent from a few actual Iraqis, accusations all along the lines of us "not finishing what we started".

With our absence the terrorist attacks would not halt altogether- it would be naive to think as much. But we would be equally mistaken if we thought there'd be no marked decrease in their activity, or at least a change in the purpose of the attackers; opposing a democratically elected government rather than the slightly more understandable opposition to a force they see as opressive.

Some Iraqi's want us to stay, fix things up, and then leave for good. Others want our instant withdrawl. But I don't think any want us here on a permanent basis, and neither do the respective commander's of the Coalition.

If the majority of the Iraqi people want us to leave, we should. And then we can tell the UN to shut the hell up when their ill-managed relief forces find it equally difficult to bring the water plants back online. Although it's likely the Iraqi people wouldn't be enthusiastic about UN intervention either...

[CptStern]

I've made this point to your before Stern - and you ignore it. The people fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was just about *everyone* in Afghanistan and included a lot of different tribes, factions and shifting alliances. It included Osama Bin Laden and his followers. To say however, that those who opposed the soviets = al quada is simplistic and naive.

exactly my point: they didnt care who they were arming. When a contigent of mujahideen went to washington on "Afghanistan day" there was a famous confrontation between Barbara Walters and a member of the mujideen. Walters made a comment about women's rights in afghanistan which made the mujihdeen irate who then replied: "if you were back home I would discipline you for speaking out of turn"


reagan on Afghanistan day had this to say:


"All Americans are united on the goal of freedom for Afghanistan. I ask the American people, at the time when we are blessed with prosperity and security, to remember the Afghan struggle against tyranny and the rule of government-by-terror. We stand in admiration of the indomitable courage of the Afghan people who are an inspiration to all freedom-loving nations around the globe."


hogwash propaganda bullshit ..the afghani warlords were no worse than their oppressors .....but then again the soviets didnt have the west's propaganda machine



The Northern Alliance also fought the Soviet Union, as did many warlords that are now allied with it. These are not Al Quada, these people hate Al Quada and helped the USA crush it in Afghanistan.


no, the northern alliance are islamic fundamentalists just like the taliban ..they're the same group that splintered after the soviet withdrawal. Same people different goals. In fact many point to the fact that the northern alliance (loose groups of warlords) paved the way for the taliban to seize control because they couldnt get it together long enough to self-rule. Rabbani's bloody feuds with rival factions destabilised the region paving the way for the rise of the taliban. Human rights groups allege a litany of human rights abuses during their bitter feuds

Ironically enough some of the northern alliance is made up of former members of the soviet backed communist party that ruled afghanistan during the occupation ...the same people that the US was trying to expunge. Not too mention that the northern alliance is behind the revival of the heroine and opium trade which they openly cultivate in US liberated areas ..during the taliban era the heroine and opium trade was effectively shut down. BTW:


"it is estimated that up to 50 per cent of Afghanistan's population rely in some way on the drugs trade for a living. In some cases, Afghan women who were widowed by war and banned by the Taleban from working were often pressed into service as drug couriers."


The reason that Afghanistan is now relatively trouble free is because the vast majority of native forces there do not want the Taliban or Al Quada there and are prepared to help the Northern Alliance crush them.


fairy tale


reality:


Afghanistan is worse off than before US invasion:

One woman dies from pregnancy-related causes approximately every 30 minutes. One in five children dies before the age of five from diseases that are 80% preventable.

An estimated one-third of the population suffers from anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress. Annual per capita income is $190 (£100). Average life expectancy is 44.5 years. Its education system is now "the worst in the world".


source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1424800,00.html)


AFGHANISTAN: Country facing health disaster worse than the tsunami (http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=46535&SelectRegion=Asia)

Afghanistan: ‘Women Treated Worse Than Dogs’ (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/15632.shtml)

the world drug report cites this about Afghanistan's opiate trade:

"As production in that (afghanistan) country fell in 2000 and 2001 [during height of taliban: stern], the proportion of opiates in global seizure cases also fell. There seems to be a one-year time lag between the production and the subsequent seizure of opiates. Consistent with this, the massive decline of Afghanistan's opium production in 2001 had its main impact on seizure cases in 2002. This downward trend is, however, unlikely to continue. Given rising levels of opium production in Afghanistan in 2002, 2003 and probably in 2004 as well, it can be expected that opiate seizure trends will be reversed.

source (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2004/Chap1_dynamics_markets.pdf)


So it is just too simplistic too say we supported afghanistan in a war with the soviets, al quada was in the war, therefore all the people who opposed the Soviet Union were al quada and were supported by the US. Then you say Reagan was backing Al Quada. No. The USA supported the resistance to the Soviet Union, which included a whole lot of groups, some of which later as war veterans were in Al Quada. But many of those now in Al quada, are too young to have fought in the afghan soviet conflict.

dont blame me for your over-simplified interpretation

The fact that a small proportion of the many afghanis who opposed the Soviet Union went on to form terrorist cells does not justify saying that the USA was a big al quada supporter. And it ignores the fact that the Northern Alliance, also 'mujahadeen' managed to capture all of Afghanistan with US help.


misinformation and distortion of what I said

[Razor]

exactly my point: they didnt care who they were arming. When a contigent of mujahideen went to washington on "Afghanistan day" there was a famous confrontation between Barbara Walters and a member of the mujideen. Walters made a comment about women's rights in afghanistan which made the mujihdeen irate who then replied: "if you were back home I would discipline you for speaking out of turn"


reagan on Afghanistan day had this to say:


"All Americans are united on the goal of freedom for Afghanistan. I ask the American people, at the time when we are blessed with prosperity and security, to remember the Afghan struggle against tyranny and the rule of government-by-terror. We stand in admiration of the indomitable courage of the Afghan people who are an inspiration to all freedom-loving nations around the globe."


hogwash propaganda bullshit ..the afghani warlords were no worse than their oppressors .....but then again the soviets didnt have the west's propaganda machine






no, the northern alliance are islamic fundamentalists just like the taliban ..they're the same group that splintered after the soviet withdrawal. Same people different goals. In fact many point to the fact that the northern alliance (loose groups of warlords) paved the way for the taliban to seize control because they couldnt get it together long enough to self-rule. Rabbani's bloody feuds with rival factions destabilised the region paving the way for the rise of the taliban. Human rights groups allege a litany of human rights abuses during their bitter feuds

Ironically enough some of the northern alliance is made up of former members of the soviet backed communist party that ruled afghanistan during the occupation ...the same people that the US was trying to expunge. Not too mention that the northern alliance is behind the revival of the heroine and opium trade which they openly cultivate in US liberated areas ..during the taliban era the heroine and opium trade was effectively shut down. BTW:


"it is estimated that up to 50 per cent of Afghanistan's population rely in some way on the drugs trade for a living. In some cases, Afghan women who were widowed by war and banned by the Taleban from working were often pressed into service as drug couriers."





fairy tale


reality:


Afghanistan is worse off than before US invasion:

One woman dies from pregnancy-related causes approximately every 30 minutes. One in five children dies before the age of five from diseases that are 80% preventable.

An estimated one-third of the population suffers from anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress. Annual per capita income is $190 (£100). Average life expectancy is 44.5 years. Its education system is now "the worst in the world".


source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1424800,00.html)


AFGHANISTAN: Country facing health disaster worse than the tsunami (http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=46535&SelectRegion=Asia)

Afghanistan: ‘Women Treated Worse Than Dogs’ (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/15632.shtml)

the world drug report cites this about Afghanistan's opiate trade:

"As production in that (afghanistan) country fell in 2000 and 2001 [during height of taliban: stern], the proportion of opiates in global seizure cases also fell. There seems to be a one-year time lag between the production and the subsequent seizure of opiates. Consistent with this, the massive decline of Afghanistan's opium production in 2001 had its main impact on seizure cases in 2002. This downward trend is, however, unlikely to continue. Given rising levels of opium production in Afghanistan in 2002, 2003 and probably in 2004 as well, it can be expected that opiate seizure trends will be reversed.

source (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2004/Chap1_dynamics_markets.pdf)




dont blame me for your over-simplified interpretation




misinformation and distortion of what I said


The phrase "War makes for some strange bed fellows" comes to mind.

[CptStern]

I prefer to call it hypocrisy and propaganda

"we'll condemn human rights abuses ....as long as it isnt us doing it"

[Razor]

I prefer to call it hypocrisy and propaganda

"we'll condemn human rights abuses ....as long as it isnt us doing it"


Agreed, especially when it comes to the murders and torture that is carried out by the US government. The air around the White House is foul with the stench of death, murder and suffering of innocent people. Something i thought had left after Clinton got into office.

[Calanen]

You love the selective edit Stern. You posted a link to that Guardian article to say how the US was/is responsible for a terrible Afghanistan, worse than when they came, ie that Afghanistan 'is worse off than before US invasion'. This is something the Guardian would say, but upon reading the article, thats not what the article said. It did talk about the stats you mention. It did not say things were better before the US came. It also had this to say:

Not all is gloom. The report says Afghanistan's economy has expanded significantly since 2001. Nearly 55% of primary-age children are now in school.

About 2.4 million refugees have returned from Pakistan and Iran. The new constitution guarantees equal rights for women. And a democratically elected president holds office, although "factional elements" with their own militias still control much of the country.

Afghanistan's woes long predate the US war against the Taliban, stretching back to the 1979 Soviet invasion. But this present-day audit dramatically demonstrates the daunting scale of the reconstruction effort to which the west has pledged itself.

In one respect, Afghanistan is fortunate. Despite problems over merging US and Nato forces, the deployment of "provincial reconstruction teams", squandered aid and a booming heroin trade, a reasonably coherent and agreed long-term international strategy for Afghanistan does actually exist.

You also say how the US has made Afghanistan's education system the 'worst in the world' but neglect to quote that this article speaks of now 55% of school age children being in school.

When are you going to stop being dishonest with your quoting Stern? I keep catching you out. Its very clear to see your agenda. Grab a few quotes of bad things in Afghanistan, say that the US is responsible for them, do not mention anything that contradicts your position, and then neglect to mention that your source does not arrive at the same conclusion you did. That is, the Guardian says its problems predate the US involvement and that things are being turned around. But that does not serve the left agenda, so let's leave it out.

Girls can now go to school again, where they could not under Al Quada.

Btw - I always read your quotes/sources Stern. So if you post them thinking that I will not, think again.

no, the northern alliance are islamic fundamentalists just like the taliban ..they're the same group that splintered after the soviet withdrawal.

Interesting theory. All muslims are the same? If the Northern Alliance are the same as the Taliban, why do they hate each other? Why did the Northern Alliance rip up all their stupid laws. Its again far too simplistic too say, all afghanis all the same all extremists......

The problem with women and their treatment in Muslim countries was not caused by America and was in place and existed long before America had any involvemnet in the Middle East. You cannot (fairly) blame the USA for that. But certainly post Taliban Afghanistan women can again work, attend university and serve in the military, and speak on the radio.

As for me misconstruing your interpretation, I don't think I have. You have the view that everyone in Afghanistan has one outlook which is an extreme one. Thats not bourne out with any evidence at all, other than your vehement protests.

[CptStern]

naw ..it has nothing to do with who's in office ...bloody coups, support of questionable regimes can pretty much be linked to every president of the last 50 years, regardless of which party holds office

[CptStern]

You love the selective edit Stern. You posted a link to that Guardian article to say how the US was/is responsible for a terrible Afghanistan, worse than when they came, ie that Afghanistan 'is worse off than before US invasion'. This is something the Guardian would say, but upon reading the article, thats not what the article said. It did talk about the stats you mention. It did not say things were better before the US came. It also had this to say:

"Not all is doom and gloom"


still doesnt detract from the fact that it is worse now then before



You also say how the US has made Afghanistan's education system the 'worst in the world' but neglect to quote that this article speaks of now 55% of school age children being in school.

55% of the children benefiting from the worst educational system in the world still doesnt help much, now does it? ..you're distorting facts again

When are you going to stop being dishonest with your quoting Stern? I keep catching you out. Its very clear to see your agenda. Grab a few quotes of bad things in Afghanistan, say that the US is responsible for them, do not mention anything that contradicts your position, and then neglect to mention that your source does not arrive at the same conclusion you did. That is, the Guardian says its problems predate the US involvement and that things are being turned around. But that does not serve the left agenda, so let's leave it out.


:upstare: ..facts calanen ..read the evidence contained in the UN world reports ..things are worse than they were before ..there is no disputing it

Girls can now go to school again, where they could not under Al Quada.


al quada? surely you mean the taliban? anyways it doesnt deter from the fact that conditions are far worse for women in afghanistan than they were during the taliban ..women fear being raped, kidnapped or murdered ..that just didnt happen during the taliban

Btw - I always read your quotes/sources Stern. So if you post them thinking that I will not, think again.

really? maybe you should read all my sources ..not just skim the first link



Interesting theory. All muslims are the same?


:upstare: where did I say this? where do I say "all muslims are the same"?

If the Northern Alliance are the same as the Taliban, why do they hate each other? Why did the Northern Alliance rip up all their stupid laws. Its again far too simplistic too say, all afghanis all the same all extremists......

where do I say what you claim I've said?

The problem with women and their treatment in Muslim countries was not caused by America and was in place and existed long before America had any involvemnet in the Middle East.


stop twisting facts and words. First you say the taliban was responsible for treatment of women, now it's muslims in general? No the facts clearly say WOMEN of afghanistan are treated worse now then during the strict taliban era

You cannot (fairly) blame the USA for that. But certainly post Taliban Afghanistan women can again work, attend university and serve in the military, and speak on the radio.

really? maybe you should have read all my links as you claim you do:


"Half the population - women - face systematic and widespread violence. Everywhere they went our researchers heard that women were afraid even to leave their homes, in case they were abducted. A significant number of the women we met in prisons were in there for their own protection rather than as a punishment."

Zainab, a 19-year-old woman, was forced to marry when she was 16. From the first day of the marriage her husband beat her up and mentally tortured her. Zainab lived under virtual house arrest for a year and a half. Her husband continued to beat her even when she became pregnant, and she miscarried her first baby. Despite the beatings Zainab gave birth to a second child, but after her husband threw their three-month-old baby across the room, Zainab decided she could take no more, and ran away to her family. When her husband pursued her and threatened to kill the baby Zainab went back to him for a while. She is now back with her family, but feels she has nowhere to turn for help: her relatives want her to go back to her husband.

"Women are treated worse than dogs," said one woman interviewed in Kabul.


Dina, a human rights activist, was subjected to a drive-by acid attack four days before being interviewed by Amnesty International. Dina had been vocal against forced marriages in east Afghanistan. She was waiting for a shuttle-bus outside her home in Kabul when three men pulled up in a car. One jumped out and threw acid at her, burning her neck. Asked whether she would continue her work after the attack, Dina replied, "I will have to, there is no-one else to work on human rights violations against women. Who else is there?"

As for me misconstruing your interpretation, I don't think I have. You have the view that everyone in Afghanistan has one outlook which is an extreme one. Thats not bourne out with any evidence at all, other than your vehement protests.


you're twisting my words again ..I never said that ...all claimed was that the US aided questionable regimes in afghanistan as they have in Honduras, El Salvador, Chile, Niceragua, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia etc etc etc

[Calanen]

"Not all is doom and gloom"

[QUOTE]
still doesnt detract from the fact that it is worse now then before

There are problems in Afghanistan we know this. There were problems before the US was there and there will be problems after it goes. Your theory is that things have become worse after the USA has entered Afghanistan and you quote 'facts' to prove so.All those facts show is that there are problems. Not who caused them. And not whether there were worse problems before the USA and its allies got them

In fact, two of your sources don't say this at all. A third talks about the poor security situation outside of Kabul leading to violence against women. Although the answer that Amnesty International seeks is more not less foreign intervention:

Amnesty International urges the Afghan government and donor countries to increase security throughout Afghanistan, and to consider extending the mandate of the international security assistance force to this end.

Its funny that if your source sees the Coalition as the problem (it does not but that is what you would have us believe), they are asking for further assistance from them to maintain order.

In none of these articles that you say as your source for the proposition, does it show that life was far better under the Taliban, and it is worse now, and the US caused it. None.

really? maybe you should read all my sources ..not just skim the first link


Perhaps if there was any skiming done in relation to these sources it was by you, given that their authors have come to differrent conclusions than you have. And I have quoted bits of the sources that are demonstrably contradictory towards your own party line, which seems to indicate I did read them.


55% of the children benefiting from the worst educational system in the world still doesnt help much, now does it? ..you're distorting facts again

How is this a distorted fact - more children are in school when there were before. And certainly they are going to learn more at school than not at all, whether the schools fall short by Western standards. You have provided no source for saying that the school system was better under the Taliban. Indeed girls were not even allowed to attend school. They are now.

:upstare: ..facts calanen ..read the evidence contained in the UN world reports ..things are worse than they were before ..there is no disputing it


You speak of me skimming your sources and 'facts' - when I find quotes in them which directly contradict what your point of view is. I do not need to find an alternative opinion, I can quote your own sources.

Your premise is that this UN report shows that matters are worse now than under the Taliban. They do not. The UN report says:


“To stand by and allow a preventable disaster from occurring is unconscionable…. The long-term consequences for Afghanistan will overturn much of the progress made in recent years,” Ameerah Haq, the deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General said.

Now the invasion was in 2001. Recent years being, from 2001 - 2005?. Now how could the UN speak of 'progress' if as you say, this report shows that there has been a decline since US intervention? It could not and your words are just spin. You took a report about health problems in Afghanistan, said the US must be to blame, they have made matters worse, and here is my source. When in fact it shows nothing of the sort.

The UN report shows a set of figures relating to health problems, but there is no comparison to the Taliban regime. Indeed the UN report also has tangible 'facts' demonstrating the progress they refer to:

But despite the current problems, UNICEF believes considerable progress has been made. Reported cases of measles among children have fallen from more than 8,700 in 2001 to less than 500 in 2004.

“Nearly every province in the country now has a functioning emergency obstetric care facility and new programmes to train midwives and other female health workers are under way across the country,” Carwardine said.

Now how is your own source saying how things are worse now than under the Taliban?

They are speaking of health problems, and then give demonstrations of how matters have improved and are improving. Not a real good case in point for showing how the US has led to the decline of the health system, otherwise why would things be improving?


anyways it doesnt deter from the fact that conditions are far worse for women in afghanistan than they were during the taliban ..women fear being raped, kidnapped or murdered ..that just didnt happen during the taliban

You have not provided any evidence for this. You have provided examples of the problems facing women in Afghanistan, but nothing to demonstrate why things were better for women under the Taliban. You then make the bold claim that rape, kidnap and murder just 'did not happen during the taliban.'.....

How about, yes they did:

Taliban soldiers abducted many women and girls, perhaps hundreds or more, during their five-year rule of Afghanistan, according to Afghan families, officials of the incoming government and humanitarian aid groups. Many are still missing, and their stories are only now beginning to emerge in the wake of the Taliban's defeat.It is impossible to calculate the number kidnapped.

From the Washington Post for the full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62604-2001Dec18&notFound=true

There are many, many other examples. But we would just bore the good people further here by setting them out.

First you say the taliban was responsible for treatment of women, now it's muslims in general? No the facts clearly say WOMEN of afghanistan are treated worse now then during the strict taliban era


I don't know that I did say that. There are problems with the way women are treated in many muslim countries. But we were talking about the Taliban in particular. Your theory is that women are treated badly under in Afghanistan today, and that is caused by the USA, and incredibly, that things were better for women under the Taliban.

My point was simply that women do have significant issues in Afghanistan and in many muslim countries. They were there before the US came, and will be there after they have gone, including in Afghanistan. But it is wrong to say that the US intervention is the cause of them. Especially when the Karzai government is taking steps to make things better not worse. The fact that problems for women extend to other muslim countries is self-evident:

Until the Taliban came to power, Saudi Arabia was the most oppressive country on earth for women, and many of the Taliban's restrictions are rooted in that hardline Gulf state's gender apartheid. Saudi Arabia has also been financially supportive of the Taliban and the religious schools in which they are indoctrinated. "We have long regarded the Saudi kingdom
as our right hand," says the head of the Taliban governing council.

http://home.mtholyoke.edu/~mvcarmac/women2.html

I think you would be going it alone to say anywhere other than here, that the situation for women in Afghanistan was better under the Taliban. And none of your sources demonstrate this. All they show are examples of women being treated poorly. There is nothing to say that the Taliban was better or that the US made things worse.

really? maybe you should have read all my links as you claim you do:


I do read your links Stern. That's how I get the quotes which contradict your own point of view.

Yes there is violence against women in Afghanistan. Yes there is in other countries. Yes it should be addressed. But to grab a hold of a problem that has been going on for some time, and try and say that the brutal Taliban was better for women than the Karzai government is just wrong. And its not backed up under any of your own sources either.

The institutional repression of women in Afghanistan is gone - that is they can now join the military and work again, and attend school. Prejudiced treatment remains, but there are not the same level of socio-polical structures and laws designed to keep women down. Attitudes will take time to change. But to all but you, the Taliban were worse, and the situation has a better chance for improvement.

And simply quoting atrocities that occur towards women in Afhganistan does not demonstrate that things were better under the Taliban, or that they were caused by the US. That older article I had (1998), spoke of women committing suicide to avoid living under the Taliban:

Conditions are so deplorable for women under the Taliban that many are now severely depressed. Without the resources to leave the country, an increasing number are now choosing suicide, once rare there, as a means of escape. A European physician working in the city told me, "Doctors are seeing a lot of esophageal burns. Women are swallowing battery acid, or poisonous household cleansers, because they are easy to find. But it's a very painful way to die."

Certainly things were not good under the Taliban, and it would be a really brave person who would say that they were better than today's climate.

The examples you gave seem to be injury caused by private citizens, not as a result of the actions of government officials and government policy as was the case under the Taliban. I think that positive steps have been taken to improve things, but you are allowing your own agenda to cloud your reason so greatly, that you want to present that 'rape, kidnap, murder' did not happen under the Taliban.....

You gave the example of a woman being beaten during pregnancy as demonstrating your point of view being correct. While this is terrible, it does not mean that 1) things are worse now then they were before 2) that the US is responsible for making them so. Domestic violence against women, including during pregnancy is an issue in many places:

Overall, the survey found that of those women who had ever been married or had lived with a man in a common-law relationship, 29% reported having been physically or sexually abused by their partner at some point during the relationship. Twenty one percent of these women had been assaulted by their partners during pregnancy.3 Forty percent of the women who were abused during pregnancy reported that the abuse began during pregnancy.

Where was this survey done? Canada.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/rhs-ssg/factshts/abuseprg_e.html

The fact that I could find examples which may mirror those you have given in relation to a women being beaten in Afghanistan during pregnancy, demonstrates nothing other than it happens and is a serious problem in many places. It does not mean that things have not improved and are not improving in Afghanistan. Or that they are declining and the US is responsible for their decline.

In summary, your methodology is simple. You take any problem that is in Afghanistan today. You quote that it occurs. And then you say that things were better before under the Taliban and thus the US intervention has caused these things without any evidence to support it.

You say this despite none of your sources attributing the causes of the problems to the Americans, and none of them speaking of how much better things were under the Taliban. Some of your sources even speak of how much progress has been made.

So Stern - I think you need to be a bit more intellectually honest with what you quote in support of your viewpoint. You seize on any problem in afgahnistan or Iraq to prop up your extreme leftist viewpoint. But let's try and get some perspective on cause and effect.

[PickledGecko]

Kinda like what the French shoulda done with us Americans right? I think we did ok because of their help. You also forget the noble Iraqi police force. They under threat just as much, if not more, than Americans.
France made it clear that they did not want to be under Nazi rule, they did this by fighting a war. Even after they surrendered there was still resistance. Oh, by the way, one of the things the French Resistance did was kill collaborators. French people killed other French people because they were working with the foreign invaders (the Nazis). When the Alies, of which France was a part, invaded they fought the Germans, they didn’t capture, arrest, torture or kill French citizens.

What liberty? As an Iraqi you have never had it. With America leading the way, at least you have a future, an opportunity. Nothing signified this more than the recent elections.
How do you know that? What were they supposed to do to signify their desire? Protest so that their families could be killed? I dont think so. At least they now have the opportunity to protest, something they never had under Saddam. That would be why 8 million of them voted, even though the terrorists that the Left keeps saying are the voice of the people, said that they would die if they did......

In 1948 and 1953 Iraqi’s organized broad-based uprisings against the British. In 1954. with the temporary relaxation of state control, a coalition of Iraqi nationalists and moderate Pan-Arabists competed in the June elections, running a highly professional campaign and scoring impressive victories in 13 of the country's most important electoral districts in 2 of Iraq's main cities, Baghdad and Mosul. Efforts by sectarian elements, during the electoral campaign, particularly those from the Ba'ath Party, first formed in Iraq in 1952, to separate Arab nationalists from Iraqi nationalists, were unsuccessful and the electoral coalition retained its cohesion.

Iraqi nationalism received a strong impetus from the regime of Staff Brigadier 'Abdal-Karim Qasim, which took power after the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy in July 1958. After he was overthrown and executed by the first Ba'athist regime in February 1963, it was discovered that he had no personal wealth, having donated his military pension and his two government salaries as prime minister and defense minister to the poor. They had Democracy and they let it go, they had a Dictator who was far from brutal and they chose not to protest in favour of democracy. They allowed the Ba’athists to take power and did nothing to stop any abuse of the power.

And even under Saddam’s rule, they had their chance to revolt. Some did, but the vast majority decided that Saddam’s rule was better than risking their lives in a coup. I don’t care if 8 million people do want democracy, if they didn’t see it as worth risking their lives for it then they don’t deserve it, and it won’t last. When the next Dictator comes along, who’s going to say, “My brother/father/etc died for my right to vote, so I’m not going to put up with this. Where’s my AK47!”? Nobody, that’s who. Because they didn’t die for it, it was handed to them. Why? Because they didn’t want it enough to take it when they had the chance.

If 8 million voted then that leaves 16 million who didn’t. I don’t see how you can say that it shows that the Iraqi’s wanted democracy all along. It shows me that the majority don’t. Oh but of course, the tiny number of terrorists have made those 16 million people too scared, right? Either way, why the hell are we even bothering? Even if you are right, we can clearly see the majority obviously don’t care about democracy. If the terrorists are so low in number, the chances of being killed by one when you are 1 in 24 million is so slim it doesn’t even bear worrying about. But still, 2 thirds would rather live than live free. But, if a large proportion of those 16 million are terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers, then it just goes to show that the majority don’t want democracy if it comes with American and British soldiers.

So I ask you. Why should my family in the British Armed Forces risk their lives to give 24 million people the right to mark a piece of paper with an x when 2 thirds have clearly shown they don’t care?

[Calanen]

If 8 million voted then that leaves 16 million who didn’t. I don’t see how you can say that it shows that the Iraqi’s wanted democracy all along. It shows me that the majority don’t. Oh but of course, the tiny number of terrorists have made those 16 million people too scared, right?


The 'tiny' number of terrorists as you say are still a significant threat. It does not matter how few they are, because you never know when they will strike. And if you are killed, its little comfort that the odds against you being so were slim.

And as for you saying that the overwhelming majority of the total population did not vote, you need to consider that the USA did not give the vote to people under the age of 18. 10 million members of the population were 14 years or under so they could not vote:

0-14 years: 40.7% (male 5,103,669; female 4,946,443)
15-64 years: 56.3% (male 7,033,268; female 6,855,644)
65 years and over: 3% (male 348,790; female 395,499) (2003 est.)

http://www.answers.com/topic/demographics-of-iraq

But even so - what's the turnout in British elections? In 2001:

Fractionally over 18 million people registered to vote did not do so which represents 41% of all registered voters.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/2001_british_general_election.htm

No one threatening to shoot you if you vote in Britain.

And what's the turnout in US elections? Even less than this. Some people even if there is no one threatening to kill them still don't care. But most did, enough to risk their lives to vote.

The fact remains that even with the massive overwhelming threat, a large proportion of Iraqis did vote.

Nobody, that’s who. Because they didn’t die for it, it was handed to them. Why? Because they didn’t want it enough to take it when they had the chance.

I think they tried pretty hard but got absolutely massacred in 1992. By the 1000s. Its very hard to organise a coup when if you even whisper to another person something about Saddam they may report you and you and your family will be shot.

So you cannot overthrow the government on your own - you need to get supporters. 100s of 1000s of supporters. And in a police state thats very hard to do. The modern police state has too much organisation, backing, radios, money - it can massacre civilians at an alarming rate. And even the mightiest army in the world is still crushing elements of the resistance. What hope did civilians ever have against Saddam?

Its very easy to say that you would have led a revolution and throw Saddam out. In practice, it just would have mean that you were very dead if you ever did try. Because it just says, oppressed people - its your own fault - self-help and remove the dictator. Things are not so simple.

[Bodacious]

Here is a link to the original text in which the quote from page 1 appears.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14

[seinfeldrules]

France made it clear that they did not want to be under Nazi rule, they did this by fighting a war. Even after they surrendered there was still resistance. Oh, by the way, one of the things the French Resistance did was kill collaborators. French people killed other French people because they were working with the foreign invaders (the Nazis). When the Alies, of which France was a part, invaded they fought the Germans, they didn’t capture, arrest, torture or kill French citizens.


Reread what I wrote.

[Calanen]

When the Alies, of which France was a part, invaded they fought the Germans, they didn’t capture, arrest, torture or kill French citizens.

I can pretty much guarantee that they applied 'pressure' to those French citizens who had been working with the Nazis. Indeed the French took matters into their own hands after the Germans were expelled.

[ALEXDJ]

you all confused the f@ck out of me

here's the real MM

http://www.minutemanproject.com/

[Calanen]

For those who will not be bothered to click on the links, here is the jive from the Fatman himself:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?

[CptStern]

and you're point being? reagan said the same thing about the mujihdeen ...should we spend another 3 pages on hacking and misrepresenting words to suit our purpose? How is this moore rant any different than Reagan propaganda bullshit ..or George H Bush supporting a known and wanted terrorist by PARDONING him for his crimes. You're a hypocrite if you call one a traitor and the other a hero. SAVAK, Contra rebels, pol pot, saddam hussein ..the litany of murderous tyrants despots and terrorists the US has supported is a mile long ...and you people focus on Moore? name one person moore has killed with his statements/policies? Here's just a sampling of the US' blood on it's hands:


"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--WE THINK THE PRICE IS WORTH IT.

60 Minutes (5/12/96)"




...hypocrites

[GiaOmerta]

You respect Reagan, Stern.

[Calanen]

and you're point being?

Point being, I hate fat guys in baseball caps.

[kmack]

they won't win, but my God will they put up a fight. These people will go to any length to kill and maim their opposition. Hard to fight an enemy that will wear street clothes and blow themselves up. They are too dedicated to beat.

[Calanen]

Hard to fight an enemy that will wear street clothes and blow themselves up. They are too dedicated to beat.

Defeatist rubbish. As long as the government has a backbone, the troops will win the war. If pressure from the liberal left loudmouths means the troops have to fight the war with one hand tied to their balls like in Vietnam, they will not be able to.

[kmack]

Defeatist rubbish. As long as the government has a backbone, the troops will win the war.If pressure from the liberal left loudmouths means the troops have to fight the war with one hand tied to their balls like in Vietnam, they will not be able to.

can you explain that?

And please, explain to me how we will WIN against the insurgents? They just took 100 hostages and are threatening to kill them (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=7910). Every single day (this is a long time after bush sat under his mission accomplished banner mind you) there is an attack, mortars suicide bombers, and now this. How long will it take for this to stop? And what measures can we take to end this?

[CptStern]

Point being, I hate fat guys in baseball caps.


possible responses to your remark:

1. that describes almost half of america (slightly less so everywhere else)
2. Very constructive argument ...I have no idea how to counter that statement, except to let it speak for itself. Says more about you than it does about Moore
3. You should probably seek counseling, hate of people based on appearance is not exactly an admirable trait
4. I'll take fat over liar anyday ...especially when those lies lead to thousands of deaths