I Once Dreamed of Liberty (Op/Ed)

Grover:

Definition of a simple word shouldn't even be a consideration. Everyone knows what the word 'freedom' means, and if they don't, then they aren't free. This reminds me of President Clinton's infamous comment, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Kind of weird to think that anyone could misunderstand the concept of freedom, let alone it's definition.

TheBorg

no you misunderstand me...I know what freedom means, to me...but if we say to Afghanistan (for example) you have to practice religious tolerance (which I am all for) and it is then interperted as we are telling them how to practice their religion in their own country (which is indeed one interpertation of it current there) which might include intolarence...then according to those who hold that view, we are interfering with their freedoms. You see that here with certian funnymentalist groups who feel if you object to them voicing an attitude that some might consider bigotry (against gays for example) by someone objecting, we are denying them their freedom of speech. Is it spliting hairs, to some it might be BUT it isn't up to you or me to define how some other group feels about their freedoms (or lack thereof), they are quite capable of it themselves, after all it is their experince.

Originally posted by grover
no you misunderstand me...I know what freedom means, to me...but if we say to Afghanistan (for example) you have to practice religious tolerance (which I am all for) and it is then interperted as we are telling them how to practice their religion in their own country (which is indeed one interpertation of it current there) which might include intolarence...then according to those who hold that view, we are interfering with their freedoms. You see that here with certian funnymentalist groups who feel if you object to them voicing an attitude that some might consider bigotry (against gays for example) by someone objecting, we are denying them their freedom of speech. Is it spliting hairs, to some it might be BUT it isn't up to you or me to define how some other group feels about their freedoms (or lack thereof), they are quite capable of it themselves, after all it is their experince.

Which is why I'm asking anyone to explain to me why we're still in Iraq. We cannot force freedom on these people simply because WE think it's the right thing for THEM. Our ideals of freedom may not, and in Iraq's case are not considered free. They MUST be allowed to live the way that they believe they should live. No amount of force and occupation in the world is going to prevent them from going back to that line of thinking.

If it's so ingrained in their psyche that they have to have a dictator to lead them, then we cannot force Democracy down their throats. As soon as we leave Iraq, they'll go right back to the same kind of totalitarian rule that they've had for as long as I can remember. It's just wrong, and it also damages our image worldwide to try and force our ways of thinking on an unsuspecting populace. All that will do is breed discontent with us. I fear we may be creating another enemy instead of stopping one.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg

Which is why I'm asking anyone to explain to me why we're still in Iraq. We cannot force freedom on these people simply because WE think it's the right thing for THEM. Our ideals of freedom may not, and in Iraq's case are not considered free. They MUST be allowed to live the way that they believe they should live. No amount of force and occupation in the world is going to prevent them from going back to that line of thinking.

Force freedom on these people? The problem is that people like yourself have ingrained in your mind only what the liberal media, and some groups, want you to know, that everything is going bad in Iraq.... There are at least 14.6 million people who are free in Iraq on the north and southern portions of the nation, and they thank the coalition for what was done.

The discontent you see in the news is mostly from the minority of the people in the middle of Iraq, and from that minority comes most of the insurgents (90%), the rest of the insurgents/terrorists are foreign.

If the coalition leaves Iraq, the insurgents, which represents a portion of a minority group in parts of Iraq, and the foreign terrorist/insurgents as well as nations such as Iran and others will try to take over Iraq.

Originally posted by TheBorg
If it's so ingrained in their psyche that they have to have a dictator to lead them, then we cannot force Democracy down their throats. As soon as we leave Iraq, they'll go right back to the same kind of totalitarian rule that they've had for as long as I can remember. It's just wrong, and it also damages our image worldwide to try and force our ways of thinking on an unsuspecting populace. All that will do is breed discontent with us. I fear we may be creating another enemy instead of stopping one.

TheBorg

Again, that is what the liberal media wants you to have ingrained in your mind, but it is not the truth. Many Iraqi people wanted, and still want the freedom they have been given. The problem is that the terrorists/insurgents are not making it easy to restablish a new government in Iraq, although things seem to be improving since many Iraqi insurgents, which is a minority of Iraqis, have been involved in talks with the coalition and the other Iraqi groups to get to an agreement on what government will represent them all the better, which is going to be a bit hard, but it could be possible.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by MuaddibForce freedom on these people?

More like force the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians that never asked to be "freed." Are you going to tell the orphans and widows killed by coalition bombs to "Cheer up, you're free now..."? By the way, didn't the coalition go there for a different reason entirely? Those haunted WMDs...

If the coalition leaves Iraq, the insurgents, which represents a portion of a minority group in parts of Iraq, and the foreign terrorist/insurgents as well as nations such as Iran and others will try to take over Iraq.

Obviously when you screw up a place, you have a responsibility to clean it up.

...many Iraqi insurgents, which is a minority of Iraqis, have been involved in talks with the coalition and the other Iraqi groups to get to an agreement on what government will represent them all the better, which is going to be a bit hard, but it could be possible.

That sounds reassuring. Maybe I'd feel a little better if you said IT IS possible. Instead, you say it...could be... possible. So maybe someday in the future, a unified Iraq will be a possibility? But right now you're implying it's not possible, therefore, impossible?

gee....muaddib perhaps you should call the pentagon and inform them that their most recent estimates that violent attacks are up by 40% in the last 3 months is way off...I am sure they will be relieved everything is so peachy keen.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

More like force the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians that never asked to be "freed." Are you going to tell the orphans and widows killed by coalition bombs to "Cheer up, you're free now..."? By the way, didn't the coalition go there for a different reason entirely? Those haunted WMDs...

Not really...for the millionth time the wmd was one of the reasons why the coalition went there.... Why do you people keep wanting to claim the contrary when the facts have been presented time and again?....

Second, could you tell us how you differentiate civilians from terrorists/insurgents who have been killed when the insurgent/terrorists dress like civilians and use women and children?...

Yes, unfortunately there have also been innocent people who have died in the war, as in any other war.

BTW, the number of dead people in Iraq includes not only the insurgents/terrorists that have been killed but also those Iraqis who have been killed by insurgents/terrorists. But again, some of you would like the world to belive all those people were killed by the coalition....

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That sounds reassuring. Maybe I'd feel a little better if you said IT IS possible. Instead, you say it...could be... possible. So maybe someday in the future, a unified Iraq will be a possibility? But right now you're implying it's not possible, therefore, impossible?

i don't know about you...but i know there is a difference between "impossible" and "could be possible"... They do not mean the same thing.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by grover
gee....muaddib perhaps you should call the pentagon and inform them that their most recent estimates that violent attacks are up by 40% in the last 3 months is way off...I am sure they will be relieved everything is so peachy keen.

Gee grover, I wonder when you are going to spare us the drama..
and perhaps you should know the difference between the northern/southern parts of Iraq and those parts in the middle that is where most of the problems exist....

BTW grover...could it be that the increase in violent attacks has something to do with Iraqi insurgents also concentrating on attacking Al Qaeda insurgents/terrorists...

Six armed groups in Iraq have tentatively agreed to enter into national reconciliation talks aimed at ending the insurgency, amid increasing reports of growing conflict between nationalist-oriented resistance groups and Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda-affiliated movement.

www.rferl.org...

Local Insurgents Tell of Clashes With Al Qaeda's Forces in Iraq

By Sabrina Tavernise and Dexter Filkins

The clashes present a rare opportunity to enlist local insurgents to cooperate with Americans and Iraqis against Al Qaeda.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 11 - The story told by the two Iraqi guerrillas cut to the heart of the war that Iraqi and American officials now believe is raging inside the Iraqi insurgency.

In October, the two insurgents said in interviews, a group of local fighters from the Islamic Army gathered for an open-air meeting on a street corner in Taji, a city north of Baghdad.

Across from the Iraqis stood the men from Al Qaeda, mostly Arabs from outside Iraq. Some of them wore suicide belts. The men from the Islamic Army accused the Qaeda fighters of murdering their comrades.

service.spiegel.de...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Not really...for the millionth time the wmd was one of the reasons why the coalition went there....

Yes, that's what I said Muadibb. Don't throw a hissy fit. That's my point is that before it was WMD and now that the WMDs have become ghosts and vanished, people are trying to use this "we wen' thar to free them" attitude.

Second, could you tell us how you differentiate civilians from terrorists/insurgents who have been killed when the insurgent/terrorists dress like civilians and use women and children?...

First off, you're talking about post-insurgency again. Before the insurgency began, at the outset of the war, the tactic was "Shock and awe", you remember? Sounds familiar to Al-Qaeda's outlook on attacks, you know, their shock and awe during 9/11. Both even used the same line of thought, to hit at important symbolic centers of the country using an flawlessly coordinated string of attacks. The point of this, in each instance, was to terrorize the other side into defeat.

BTW, the number of dead people in Iraq includes not only the insurgents/terrorists that have been killed but also those Iraqis who have been killed by insurgents/terrorists.

I was talking before the insurgency, but we can talk about incidents post-insurgency as well. Maybe the Haditha massacre?

Originally posted by Jamuhni don't know about you...but i know there is a difference between "impossible" and "could be possible"...

You're right, but obviously you're not even confident in your own assessment when you don't even say that it is possible.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yes, that's what I said Muadibb.

Don't throw a hissy fit. That's my point is that before it was WMD and now that the WMDs have become ghosts and vanished, people are trying to use this "we wen' thar to free them" attitude.

Actually who keep throwing a hissy fit is people like yourself, claming that at first there was only the wmd as the reason for going to Iraq, when the fact has been that since the beginning, and before the war started, the president of the United States gave several reasons for ousting Saddam's regime...

It is people like yourself who want to throw a "hissy fit" trying to claim a lie...

Originally posted by Jamuhn
First off, you're talking about post-insurgency again. Before the insurgency began, at the outset of the war, the tactic was "Shock and awe", you remember?

The numbers, which can be found at www.Iraqbodycount.com includes all deaths, and noone has ever made any difference between civilians, and insurgents/terrorists who were killed. How can you tell who is who when the insurgents/terrorists dress like civilians, when they are dead their weapons are confiscated, either by other insurgents/terrorists or the coalition. The insurgent/terrorists also use women and children in battle, not only as suicide bombers, but as shields and as warriors. we will never know for certain who was only a civilian and who was a fighter.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
You're right, but obviously you're not even confident in your own assessment when you don't even say that it is possible.

I am really not in the mood to get into one of these "semantics discussions"....

Originally posted by Muaddib
Actually who keep throwing a hissy fit is people like yourself, claming that at first there was only the wmd as the reason for going to Iraq,

The fact is Muadibb that if the respective governments hadn't scared the public by crying "wolf"...errr..."WMD", there never would have been enough backing for the war in the first place. Only because the coalition has severely damaged the infrastructure, government, and way of life of the Iraqis do they have a responsibility to stay there and finish what they started.

It is people like yourself who want to throw a "hissy fit" trying to claim a lie...

Oh, cry me a river, Muadibb. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's a lie, you old grump.

The numbers, which can be found at www.Iraqbodycount.com includes all deaths, and noone has ever made any difference between civilians, and insurgents/terrorists who were killed.

First of all, you have the wrong website. The website is located at www.iraqbodycount.org....

On the front page...
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min Max
38059 42434

To keep my response and our discussion from going too far off-topic Muadibb, I'd also like to add that those Iraqi civilians cited above had probably dreamed of freedom too, but didn't imagine it would come like it did...

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Jamuhn]

The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks).

OH PLEASE!!!

Just read the site and not laugh at the way they are obtaining there figures. I mean some old man falls out with a heart attack in his house during the war and it counted as a civilian casualty. I have never read a more liberal bunch of bull and to actually see it posted on here as meaning something significant only shows where this thread has fallen.

It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available here and on various IBC web counters which may be freely displayed on any website or homepage, where they are automatically updated without further intervention.

Quotes courtesy of: www.iraqbodycount.org...

DISCLAIMER: Off-topic post

Originally posted by semperfortisI have never read a more liberal bunch of bull and to actually see it posted on here as meaning something significant only shows where this thread has fallen.

These are the same kind of formulas used to posit how many die in all conflicts. For your own curiosity and others'...
www.iraqbodycount.org...

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Jamuhn]

Well said SO. Thank you.

Somehow, I still manage to dream. Perhaps it's a medical problem?

Jamuhn,

You understand, of course, that you're wasting your time with these guys.

Not to say I'm not enjoying the show. It is entertaining. The bleeding limbs of their arguments are lying in the street while they try and bite your knee. But they're in that 19% or whatever that refuse to SEE and continue to support the fuhrer and the inept policies of death and destruction his administration is shoving down the world's collective throat.

I mean, with the information available out there ... and you know they have internet access ... but I suppose with the "liberal media" to blame for all the unfortunate truths there's no need to pull their heads out of their ... well, you get the idea.

But if you must encourage them, so be it. It is entertainment.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Force freedom on these people? The problem is that people like yourself have ingrained in your mind only what the liberal media, and some groups, want you to know, that everything is going bad in Iraq.... There are at least 14.6 million people who are free in Iraq on the north and southern portions of the nation, and they thank the coalition for what was done.

First of all, I don't want ANYONE to assume that I just take anything I'm told by any biased source as gospel. Please quit lumping me with all of the others that simply disagree with you. That's a line of faulty logic that leads to an argument with no substance. I'm an independent person, with my OWN views, and I will maintain them until someone shows me why my views are wrong.

As for the 14.6 million free Iraqis: Why don't THEY then join the military forces of their country to help curb the tide of insurgency? If the figures semperfortis has provided are accurate, then only about 200,000 Iraqis are in the army. That's a pathetic show of support of this new regime if you ask me.

The discontent you see in the news is mostly from the minority of the people in the middle of Iraq, and from that minority comes most of the insurgents (90%), the rest of the insurgents/terrorists are foreign.

Again, only 10% are coming from other countries. So yet again, here I sit, asking you why we're fighting against the Iraqi people when they themselves don't want us there?? I'm completely bewildered by the lack of foresight by some people.

If the coalition leaves Iraq, the insurgents, which represents a portion of a minority group in parts of Iraq, and the foreign terrorist/insurgents as well as nations such as Iran and others will try to take over Iraq.

Well, how about we amply train about 4000 of their people as troops, then provide the new regime with the necessary arms to make them able to continue training more after we leave? That way, the Iraqis will be fighting themselves then. The people of Iraq need to take a stand for their own freedom. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we CANNOT make them free when they do not want it themselves. If they want it, then they'll need to fight for it!!

Again, that is what the liberal media wants you to have ingrained in your mind, but it is not the truth. Many Iraqi people wanted, and still want the freedom they have been given. The problem is that the terrorists/insurgents are not making it easy to restablish a new government in Iraq, although things seem to be improving since many Iraqi insurgents, which is a minority of Iraqis, have been involved in talks with the coalition and the other Iraqi groups to get to an agreement on what government will represent them all the better, which is going to be a bit hard, but it could be possible.

Let me get this straight; we're trying to negotiate with terrorist insurgents? Did I hear that right? If so, then everything I've thought and worse is actually true. Why do these terrorists that Bush said we wouldn't negotiate with have any bargaining power whatsoever? Since when do they have a voice? Sounds to me like we went from killing the enemy to joining them. Hey semperfortis, does talking with terrorists work at all? What are your thoughts on this talking with insurgents thing?

Not really...for the millionth time the wmd was one of the reasons why the coalition went there.... Why do you people keep wanting to claim the contrary when the facts have been presented time and again?....

Because the sole reason for going over WAS because of the WMD's that Hussein SUPPOSEDLY had. They said they had PROOF that he had these weapons, and yet none exist. Either Hussein is a Master Magician, or someone was lying through their teeth when they said we had proof of said weapons. And for the million-and-oneth time, why can't you see that?

...could it be that the increase in violent attacks has something to do with Iraqi insurgents also concentrating on attacking Al Qaeda insurgents/terrorists...

How could the Iraqi insurgents mistake the US forces for Al Qaeda forces? Unless Al Qaeda has been stealing our clothes while the troops sleep. If so, then someone needs shot for missing watch.

It is people like yourself who want to throw a "hissy fit" trying to claim a lie...

...that can and HAS been substantiated as such by all intelligence in the area. Please stop dodging pertinent points.

The insurgent/terrorists also use women and children in battle, not only as suicide bombers, but as shields and as warriors. we will never know for certain who was only a civilian and who was a fighter.

Beginning to sound more and more like another Vietnam War to me with every passing day. I fear it may become as bad if not worse here soon.


semperfortis:

You never answered my previous response to you. I hope you just missed it by accident. If so, please go back and read it for me. I'd be very interested in your response on that.


To everyone watching, reading, and just enjoying this thread, I'm glad to be able to debate this with everyone. Without this, my day would be quite dull, as there's nothing more challenging than coming on here to debate these types of things with people so intelligent as yourselves. Here's to hoping there's more entertainment left in this thread..

TheBorg

It's the failure to acknowledge ANY aspect of this fiasco being wrong that irks me about the propaganda being pushed there and here.

For example, mauddib complains that Iraqi insurgents use children as shields. Where in heck does that claim come from? It's the first time I've heard or read that accusation and yet he offers NO documentation to support his assertion.

But I am familiar with Haditha, where some 20 innocent people (including children and their parents) were lined up in their home and executed by marines. Where's your outcry over that? Why aren't we posting photo's of that family's faces? Is the lack of outrage because they have brown skin and speak a different language and worship a different god? Is it OK because it was "our boys" that did the deed? Funny thing is, if they did that in the US you'd be the first calling for tougher criminal laws to keep them locked up.

Or is it because these children are simply more collateral damage to be tossed up onto the heap of tens of thousands of innocents or even the admitted 500,000 dead children from the US demanded economic sanctions? In the name of freedom. In the name of God. Some Christian leadership we have, eh?

Have you seen the film "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson? It's about the Revolutionary War and in the film the British field commander orders the murder of the entire town by burning them in a locked church. Why don't we ever see a Hollywood film that documents Mi Lai or Haditha or any of the dozens of other examples of US aggression and murder? Because we can't stomache it. We can't handle the truth unless its merciless eye is cast only on others. Illuminating our own misdeads would bring down the facade we've so carefully constructed over the last 200 or so years.

Semperfortis and the other jar heads on this site are right about one thing; most of us don't want to know what they're doing in the name of Exxon/ Mobil, the Saudis and the Israelis. No, we don't want our sleep disturbed with those images. And you know what, the grunts don't want to know why they're really doing it either. So keep your heads in the sand as you pop another rag-head in the ass. It's the only thing that will keep you sane. And keep waving the flag over the bullet ridden bodies semp and maud, the bloody flag.

And by all means don't point at the naked emporer who keeps shouting over and over again, like the wizard of Oz . . .

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Deny Ignorance? My ass.



[edit on 31-5-2006 by seattlelaw]

In the lead up to this G__Damned war all you heard from the bush administration was weapons of mass destruction weapons of mass destruction weapons of mass destruction ad nauseum the specter of a mushroom cloud, tons of nerve gas (only real gas was from the bush admin) anthrax botuslim (oh wouldn't all those cute little botox junkies have loved that) and so on, from Bush and Cheney to Rice to Powell....remember Powell didn't make his "case" before the UN on ridding the world of a dictator and bringing democracy to the region it was WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and it wasn't until he couldn't find any under his desk or behind his couch or even in Iraq for that matter did Bush start changing his reasons for invading to more realistic ones like getting himeslf reelected. I am so bloody sick of you people who bust your proverbial nuts defending this immoral and totally unnnecessary war...if you would only put some morals where your ideology is, it would be much better.

Borg,
Sorry, I had to get through all of the "mud-slinging" and emotional rhetoric going on between some of the others to get your question to me. Just got finished with "Bike" week here and it has been a mad-house.

Your question I believe was how do we bring freedom to those who do not want freedom.

Now we are hitting on my big problem with this action. Not the "reasons for going over there." If one actually listens to the speeches and refrains from an emotional reaction that is clear. Not the "our people are dying for nothing" syndrome, but the cultural impossibility of what we are attempting.

Around 600AD the Nomadic tribes in that area were "introduced" to a new religion by their prophet Mohammed. This introduction came at sword point and forced compliance. Exactly as the Quran dictates all non-believers must be. Converted or taxed or destroyed.
Now we are attempting to change over 1400 years of indoctrination and most of the American people want it done over night. I doubt it will ever be done at all, not because of some practical misunderstanding with Bush, the insurgents or even the newly elected Iraq regime, but because the mixture of Islam, three radically different groups of believers and their history.
One becomes accustomed and even comfortable (in a way) with that which is familiar. Even when the familiar is radical, outrageous and even horrible to our western eyes. Take the Stockholm Syndrome for example. There have been massive studies, yet no one really understands the mechanics of why a captive will eventually side with their captors. IMO it is a combination of the same ingredients we are trying to change in the Iraq people.
Take into consideration the radical Islamic disregard for what we consider the sanctity of life. How shocking is it to us that they so quickly strap bombs on their own children in what they consider to be an act of religious freedom. How can we as the "enlightened" west ever hope to understand much less defeat this mind-set. Democracy? Well first I think some on here should go back and understand that we do not have a democracy. We have a representative republic. A true democracy is basically mob rule and is not going to work in any country I am aware of. So addressing what we are attempting to implant over there loosely as a democratic process, I can not see us reversing that much cultural indoctrination. That entire area has been through so much turmoil over the centuries, so many people claiming to have conquered, defeated and subjugated them, yet they always manage to go their own way.
Saddam was a madman, a criminal against humanity and needed to be taken out. All except the most radical of anti-war protesters are agreeing with that. Now however, we are attempting to create another "great experiment in democracy", to coin a phrase, in a region devoid of our "brand" of democracy. Even our closest allies in that region are autocratic kingships or dictatorships. How many times have we heard of the direct and indirect support the Saudi's gave to any and all terrorist organizations?
So to directly answer your question, I believe we are doomed to eventually fail over there because a war attempting to change a cultures core beliefs is inevitably doomed.

That said, I still hold firm to my support of not just cutting and running as so many advocate. After responding to your last question I went back and read some old "Advisors" and feel that the Iraq people who believe that a change is possible, must absolutely have the opportunity to effect that change. Americans are dying over there, well; they are dying over here! and I do not hear the outcry over this. This war/conflict has been the single most successful engagement of it's kind on the planet. Heck the death rate in Baghdad is lower than that in NY. Watching the Iraq people line up to cast their first real vote in an election, they believe to be the first one in which their vote actually matters, brought me around to understanding that they deserve the chance.
We have put the proverbial "foot" in there now and we have to at least give them a chance. Just how long was the American Revolution anyway? Several years if my history is correct and then we had to effectively fight it again in 1812.
IMO, a rush to "judgment", for lack of a better term, is unwarranted and dangerous here. In many ways I feel our support of Israel is all that prevents major war from breaking out over there and I fear the consequences of showing any weakness.
Much like the war in Vietnam, they know that their greatest weapon is American anti-war sentiment. Reading the posts on here, the propaganda is working and they are winning. (on here at least)

semperfortis:

I think in many ways, we think pretty closely. I think though that a true Democracy can work, with some finer controlling factors placed on it. Failure to adhere to what the Founders wanted will surely lead us to a totalitarian regime in short order, and even they knew that. We must be prepared for when that day comes. Speaking of which, when are ya gonna make that thread about that? I may either make another thread or post it here in a little while when I reorganize my thoughts.

I must admit though that I don't agree with comparing our Revolutionary War with what's been done in Iraq for a couple reasons. Primarilly, it's the fact that the Iraqi people didn't start it; we did. That's not classified as a real revolution. That's what's called conquering. The Iraqis had no say in when or how the Americans acted, which really wasn't fair on their part. It took our founders around 15 years to solidify our presence in this country, but that was done by people truly interested in making change.

That should be the motivating factor for anyone in a situation such as this; they need to all know that what they're fighting for is the right thing. They then need to act on that, and make the statement to those that have the power that they're done with the way things are currently running. If they had done that, things would have gotten bloody, but at least they could all fight for something they believed in, and not something they were forced into by an outside invasion force. I guess in that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

TheBorg