yeah it's not like they weren't human beings capable of understanding and analysis, and all the other things that go along with being a human, like looking after yourself. but then again, according to a socialist, it's just one of those things I guess where you wake up and all of a sudden, it just happened. like with fat people, they just wake up one day and they're 450 lbs. why didn't the government warn them that they might end up to be like that?
but how can one make a corrent analysis if they only have bits of information and not the whole picture? Do you think on their tv station saddam would say "oh, we just cold bloodedly murdered innocent women and children this morning" or did they forgot to even mention the "incidents" or maybe they even told people they are now safer because the "terrorists" were now neutralised?
caution : You'll not like what you see Video contains an American soldier throwing a little puppy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5VqLBu3cDI
Bush hasn't exactly came out and made a note of it to tell America all the people he's put in secret prisons in europe, or the list of people that are tortured every year, or the people taken away to be tortured because they were a "suspected terrorist" has he? He didn't come out and tell America about the Patriot Act at first did he? Nah, it's pretty simple actually, the same shit goes on here that goes on everywhere. if you sit back and think the world is revolving every day for your best interests, then you might just deserve to be like the rest. like i said, you don't just wake up one day and all of a sudden you're in a tyrannical government.. wasn't there some saying like, "if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it?" hmm, coulda sworn!
Nate, you're on the wrong path in this, man. You can never understand Iraq in an attempt to find universal correlations between American history and Iraq, that will simply fail.
no he didn't. It was the media who found out. Do you think you would have known about all that stuff if there was only one channel directly controlled by the state? Do you think you could have known about that stuff if newspapers and radio statios would be directly censored by the government? Oh, and exclude the internet from the picture too, because they didn't have that either. So how would you know what Bush is doing is you had no way of freely communicating in mass?! Well, maybe you as a person would somehow find out what's going on, but would the majority of the people even have the slightest ideea about what's going on? No, they wouldn't
Too bad so sad for the majority then, huh? I guess they don't want freedom, live and let live, apparently they liked how things were going then.
How can you make a comparison about how free you are and how free other people are if you can't get any external information?
Those are quite different cultures, almost opposite. Besides, the kind of tyranny Iraq had, was not unique to them, there are those a lot more tyyrant regimes which US is allied with, i.e. the Saudis, summary; regime wasn't their problem, it was the benefit conflict their regime posed with the global powers. There is no perfect regime, there are regimes that is best for a particular society, even it can be said that, for Iraqis, what they had with Hussein, was much more in their interest in a comparison with the fake installed democracy which puts a puppet as their leader on top, and that tears up their country into pieces today, for the benefit of others, not theirs.
how have other historical rebellions occurred? did they need the internet? at what point did the Iraqi government have complete control?
exactly, you're proving my point. to them, the regime was nothing. it doesn't matter, if it did, they would have rebelled. the fact that they're doing nothing with the opportunity now shows us that this is.. A) true, or B) they're lazy and stupid.
In fact, you are stating a need for rebellion. That's your "right". For Iraqis, there was no such need. You can't teach others how to live, that's just arrogant. Too many people accross the world, thinks America has no democracy and violates many international laws, the reason noone invades your country with such "valid" "excuses" is that there is no opposition at this time, that could efficiently do that against American military. On the other hand, creating enemies this way, puts a risk at your future freedom. I recall something Ron Paul said about what if one day China invaded America for a similar reason, that was a valid example, that's what could happen if whoever has a more superior army has the right to enforce their "right"s and "wrong"s upon others. If you believe this is the way things should work; one day, you can be blamed for not rebelling against this. Don't you think?
We are talking about an abused dog and it became a political debate again But boy am I glad for that dog!
i don't even know where you're trying to go with that, i don't think you understood my point to begin with.. so let me clearly define where i stand: -let the Iraqi's fight their own war. -don't care about other country's business. -the 'troops' who tortured the dogs should be gutted with a steak knife and i'd be glad to fill that position. -if you don't live in a country that allows guns then you're in the wrong country. -if you don't have a gun in a country that allows them then you're out of your mind.
You previously stated that people were given a chance to change the style of the government, and the fact that they didn't, puts them in a position which somewhat deserve what they go through now. So do you agree with the intervention and your "right"s enforced upon them for not changing the regime, or do you stand with the "don't care about their business", i thought there was a contradiction there, i might have misunderstood.
they probably never had complete control but that's not really needed in order to stop the population to be able to effectively remove that government. They had a propaganda machine, some of the population were on their side and they had a BIG army. That's enough to ensure control of the population. You have absolutely no ideea how it is to live under a opressive dictatorial regime so you should stop talking about something you know nothing about.
IMHO the Iraqis left to themselves would be in no position to rebel, Saddam courted the Sunnis which is the minority and the military powers are mainly at the hands of the Sunnis, Saddam being a Sunni himself. The Shiites could never rebel because a part of the population, the Sunnis are with Saddam and 1 million armed forces together with an extensive network of domestic police and spies kept the Shiites in check. A rebellion would not stand a chance. The 1 million armed forces may be nothing against the US army but against normal civilians they are more than capable enough to massacre all of them.
that's exactly what I think too but nate somehow thinks iraqi people are worth less than dogs because they didn't rebel
In American culture, we hate cruelty to animals. I hope that you do not think this soldier represents our values. The troops are angry about this besides regular citizens. If tape is found to be valid, he will be punished. Marines outraged by puppy throwing video