Thread: Iran's Proxy War

Yes. You keep saying it. But it is almost like a school textbook answer, like physics with "assume a frictionless surface". It isn't how life is lived in the real world. In the real world the initiator of force is often not easy to spot, force is itself often not easily spotted. In the same way you can hurt and be cruel to someone without inflicting any physical harm on them, countries can be coerced and subjugated without a shot being fired.

So your saying the US could possibley be the initiator of force in Iraq?

The first initiation of force against the US and the West by Saddam's Iraqi Government was the ceasing of privately owned oil wells. There is no dought about it, Iraq is the initiator of force.

Better wipe every last one of them out. Ban scientific research in the area. Ban access to foreign books, travel to foreign countries and access to the Intenret. We had better also ban any foreign companies from working over there and risk giving them technology. Oh wait. Saddam did all that ...
Are we like Saddam then?

Is this meant to be the pointless part of your post or did you actually believe that's what I am talking about?

You continuely appose these ideas (such as banning books, banning internet, etc) then go right back around and say it's all right for the Iraqi people to set a Government that does the very thing you oppose.

I am just not understanding your logic.

What I am proposing is exactly opposite to what your saying...

Set up a Constitutional Government where private property rights are protected.

Allow Iraqi's to trade with whomever they like.

Out of curiousity, Praxus, what is your stance concerning US government policies toward the Indian tribes that were democratic? Albeit they were democracies in a primitive sense, but they were democratic nonetheless.

Does oil belong to the people of a nation, or does it belong to the companies the colonial ruling government of a century ago gave the rights to exploit?

Praxus,

There are many issues that you have raised that does merit attention. However, they way you are stating them is not appearing acceptable.

All Islamic state except probably Malaysia and Indonesia are Theocracies. Even Pakistan, which is helping the US after US managed to persuade Musharraf, is a Theocracy! They are theocracies since the law is based on the Koran and it is binding on non Moslems too. Unfair you may say, but then that is how it is. In Malaysia and Indonesia, though Moslem countries, the law is not based on the Koran or so I learn.

Therefore, note how many Nations require to be addressed! I eqally have no idea how they can be addressed and made to see light that rules like an eye for an eye or stoning folks for adultery is barbaric. Sure, I too am with you that this type of unaldulterated barbarism is not in synch with the modern world.

Saddam was not a Koran thumping tick (not that I approve of his inhumane ways). In fact, he never allowed the Koran to dictate the way of life in Iraq. That is why the Shias, though in majority, could do damn all. He also gave Iran (one of Bush's axis of evil country) a bloody nose. What do we do to him? Throw him out on the flimsiest of excuses.

In fact, the US has done exactly the opposite to what you are advocating and the western fears of the funamentalist Islam! They have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Compare this with Saudi Arabia which is the fountainhead of the most hated form of Islam (as per Western and modern world beliefs) i.e. whahabis. Yet, the US molly coddles Saudi Arabia and now the US administration after 9/11 is forced to make appropriate noises to show that they are also bringing the Saudis to heel. I am afraid a leopard cannot change its spots. It will just rub some dust on it to obscure the spots from far!

Given the two examples above (Saddam and the Saudis), I remain confused as to what Bush means by war against fundamentalist Islam or militant Islam? Saddam who was not an Islamist and was a pariah amongst the Moslem countries is kicked out and Saudis the most militant of the lot given a warm hug!

Iran is worse than Syria and yet it is not getting its due share of breathing down the neck while Syria is. Of course, the reason is because of the Syrian relations with Israel. However, that is less important than having centres for exportation of Islamic hotheads i.e. Iran. Iran is more dangerous than Syria if Koran thumping at the pulpit is the index.

Shias and Sunnis cannot see eye to eye, even if they are Moslems. If Sistani or the Shias of Iraq become the arbiters of Iraq's fate, then there will be a Shia belt right from Western Afghanistan to Eastern Saudi Arabia. Imagine its import in the future.

In so far as imposing the US Constitution on others, it will not work. The cultural difference will not blend. They have to be educated to see the goodness of 'individual rights', though I doubt if they will care since the Koran is their law and it is a book that has medieval value system as its bottom line. However, I still have hope that with modern education and more visistation to western countries, they will realise the value of individual rights and while officially not accepting it, they will slowly impose them to make it acceptable. An example is that the use of condoms. It is not acceptable by the religious text or so says the local mullahs here, but Pakistan has an official programme to control birth since the economic realties have taken precedence over social and religious bigortry. Are you aware that seeing the TV or a movie or listening to music is anti Islam? How more antediluvian can one get. Yet, I have hope.

If Winter Comes, Can Spring be Far behind?

Originally posted by Praxus
My point is that the Japanese Government bears ALL responsibility for the deaths caused by that war.

Originally posted by Praxus
Civilized nations don't firebomb cities for no reason, however any civilian deaths that are incurred are the direct result of initiator of force (as I have said many times).

Doesn't work that way. Wartime cmdrs are not absolved of their personal responsibilities both to their men and to the Oaths to which they have sworn.

Patton, MacArthur cannot blame the Japanese for the meatgrinders that they insist upon. Bomber Harris and Curtis Lemay personnally decided to firebomb those cities.

They may have their reasons but they're the ones who made the decisions. As the saying goes, the buck stops here.

I've lost people under my command. It's damned hard to live with. To say that we don't sacrafice because I value my country, my flag above my own safety is horse pucky. The sacrafice is deeply felt and upfront when a little girl asks you why her daddy ain't coming home no more.

To deny my responsibility and blame the bad guys is an insult to the moral authority my people have given me to place them in harm's way. I put them there. I am responsible. It may not be my fault but it is damned well my responsibility.

Any cmdr who does not accept this terrible responsibility is not worthy to lead men.

Patton, MacArthur cannot blame the Japanese for the meatgrinders that they insist upon.

I was talking about civilians and soldiers in an enemies country, I agree with you on this.

The objective of the Generals should be to win the war with as few casulties on our side as possible, if they can not do this they should be replaced.

To say that we don't sacrafice because I value my country, my flag above my own safety is horse pucky.

I said "values" not "country" or "flag".

If you didn't hold your values/principles(like believing things that add happiness, fullfillment, etc to you life like family and friends are worth protecting) above your life, then why would you fight?

Originally posted by Praxus
I said "values" not "country" or "flag".

If you didn't hold your values(be it things that add happiness, joy fullfillment to your life like family and friends or anything else) above your life, then why would you fight?

Because I do value those things above my life and above the lives of my people but make no mistake, it's a sacrafice and a tremendous sacrafice at that, not only on our part but on the part of our families who has only have to endure the absense of a loved one but also to grieve for them.

We bleed in every sense of the word and quite frankly, I wished I didn't have to bleed. It hurts and hurts big time when you lose people. Words like Honour and Duty only takes the edge of the pain. There is nothing on earth that can heal it.

I think we are using different definitions of the word sacrifice.

I believe it means when you give one value for a lesser value or no value.

Originally posted by Praxus
But if you believe that it is better to die then have the things that add value to your life be destroyed then aren't you choosing the better of two options.

A sacrifice is when you exchange a value for a lesser value or no value.

Tell that to the little girl who's asking you why her daddy ain't coming home no more.

I'd tell her that he died to protect her, he did not sacrifice anything because he valued her life and her happiness greater then his own (he could not live in happiness without her). That he loved her that much.

I would never want to be in that position to have to do that.

Originally posted by Praxus
I'd tell her that he died to protect her, he did not sacrifice anything because he valued her life and her happiness greater then his own (because he could not be happy without it). That he loved her that much.

You've got alot more living to do. It's alot simpler than that and alot more complicated. You're using terms and concepts to which a 5 year old child would have no understanding. She doesn't even understand what death is. All she knows is that her daddy is not coming home and is gone forever, maybe even by choice, maybe even something she did, and you've got to give her something else that she can understand. That it's my fault that her daddy is gone is something she can understand, that there is someone to blame.

Of lesser value? I only wish.

Originally posted by Praxus
So your saying the US could possibley be the initiator of force in Iraq?

The first initiation of force against the US and the West by Saddam's Iraqi Government was the ceasing of privately owned oil wells. There is no dought about it, Iraq is the initiator of force.

Well, you gotta then pick your viewpoint. First off you have to look at it from the natives point of view, in their timeline. Then you gotta decide whose Oil it is when it is minding its own business in the ground, and whether foreign powers own oil or pipes.

Is this meant to be the pointless part of your post or did you actually believe that's what I am talking about?

You continuely appose these ideas (such as banning books, banning internet, etc) then go right back around and say it's all right for the Iraqi people to set a Government that does the very thing you oppose.

I am just not understanding your logic.

My point is that Iraq will end up with a government that the people support, or it will end up with anarchy. It will not end up with a government imposed on it If you don't approve of their government, you are going to be back in Iraq killing people again. The only other way is to prohibit their progression back to a sovereign nation status by denying them the means to defend themselves. I.e. you are going to have to use Saddam's tactics on the populous to sustain a government they don't support, or invade them again in a few years time.

What I am proposing is exactly opposite to what your saying...

Set up a Constitutional Government where private property rights are protected.

But you have said several times that you would do it rhough imposition. Through the bullet and the bomb.

Allow Iraqi's to trade with whomever they like.

I agree, however the current US led occupation forces don't.

Trooth, so you think that we should just let the Iraqis become another Muslim religious state like Iran and become just as dangerous as it was under Hussein?

But you have said several times that you would do it rhough imposition. Through the bullet and the bomb.

The Iraqis that want a theocracy would have to impose that will on the Iraqis that want a free Government.

Why do you insist on this one but reject the US doing it?

Further by instituting a free Government we wish to remove thoose who would force their will on the other Iraqis. If you objection is the imposition, then you should be chearing the efforts to create a Constitutional Republic like the United States.

Liberty is not an imposition.

tell me how Iran is dangerous today? What actions they have done to warrant such accusations and cries for war against them? Did they initiate any violence against US in the last 10 years?

Why is it a crime to develop a nuclear program? Is it because they are muslim fundementalism? Did they provide material support to terrorist organizations that have carried out violence against US and/or her allies?

If you answer yes to all of them or any of them, then by god, you are looking at the wrong country. You should be looking at Pakistan!