I Once Dreamed of Liberty (Op/Ed)

Semperfortis? Ya there buddy? Anyone here? I'm feeling kind of lonely talking to no one in particular, heh.

TheBorg

I'm here my friend.

That little pesky thing (work) gets in the way of what I really like doing. HAHAHA

Yes, I agree that comparing the Revolution to Iraq is not accurate, except on the time line. Yet I must disagree with you on one key point.

you mentioned that it is not a real Revolution when the population in question is "forced" into it. There I must disagree, as I doubt there have been any truly definitive studies made on the general populous of Iraq.
The turn out for elections in which the voters faced violence when going to the polls to cast their first "real" vote in most of their lifetimes, is to me indicative of people that very much want what we are trying to offer. (The fact that I believe their core religious beliefs and historical precedence suggest that free elections will not last, not withstanding), I feel they are trying to reach out for the "tree of Liberty."

One thing I really worry over though is the ever increasing incidence of perceived and real atrocities. The longer we continue our presence there, the more disassociation the American soldier is going to have with basic respect for life. Again referring to Colonel Grossman's book and study "On Killing", the longer a soldier remains in such a situation, the more he begins to have a disregard for human life. This is a documented phenomenon and according to what I read, completely unavoidable. Being as some in the media and the public want to refer to Abu Grab as "torture", HA, then I fear we will see more and more incidents of a nature far more serious. Yet, what is the option? To just leave? It is a true lose - lose situation for the administration. If we leave, it becomes another Vietnam, if we stay we are "Nation building" or worse.

Just some thoughts before work.
Hope your still listening my friend.

Semper

Wow... I once Dreamed of Jeanie!!!!

[edit on 3-6-2006 by SNOOKER1]

I Once Dreamed of Liberty

Are you a sailor Skeptic because Liberty is something sailor gets when ship docks in a Harbour. Maybe I Once Dreamed of Freedom title would be more appropriate.

But I don't want to be smartypants. It's always nice to see someone waking up to reality.

Originally posted by semperfortis
I'm here my friend.

That little pesky thing (work) gets in the way of what I really like doing. HAHAHA

Yes, I agree that comparing the Revolution to Iraq is not accurate, except on the time line. Yet I must disagree with you on one key point.

you mentioned that it is not a real Revolution when the population in question is "forced" into it. There I must disagree, as I doubt there have been any truly definitive studies made on the general populous of Iraq.

I think that was taken out of context. What I meant was that for it to be a "real" revolution, the people of Iraq would have had to instigate it, as our American Forefathers did with this very currently-confused nation. They rose to the occassion and made the definitive statement that they'd had enough, and were forming thier own country. The Iraqis, on the other hand, made no such gesture, and continue to remain complacent to the concept of self-rule.

The turn out for elections in which the voters faced violence when going to the polls to cast their first "real" vote in most of their lifetimes, is to me indicative of people that very much want what we are trying to offer. (The fact that I believe their core religious beliefs and historical precedence suggest that free elections will not last, not withstanding), I feel they are trying to reach out for the "tree of Liberty."

And I contend that if they truly want said liberty, then they themselves will need to rise to the occassion and fight for it. Now I understand training troops. But I disagree with this plan to keep forces on the ground there for 5 or 10 more years wholeheartedly. Freedom is never free. They need to understand that to be free, they have to make a stand to those that oppose them.

One thing I really worry over though is the ever increasing incidence of perceived and real atrocities. The longer we continue our presence there, the more disassociation the American soldier is going to have with basic respect for life. Again referring to Colonel Grossman's book and study "On Killing", the longer a soldier remains in such a situation, the more he begins to have a disregard for human life. This is a documented phenomenon and according to what I read, completely unavoidable. Being as some in the media and the public want to refer to Abu Grab as "torture", HA, then I fear we will see more and more incidents of a nature far more serious. Yet, what is the option? To just leave? It is a true lose - lose situation for the administration. If we leave, it becomes another Vietnam, if we stay we are "Nation building" or worse.

Just some thoughts before work.
Hope your still listening my friend.

Semper

Well, it's already become another Vietnam, and we haven't even left yet. It's that way because of the rampant disregard for logic in this whole War on Terror Campaign. It's out of control. The constant fighting leads to only one conclusion: that the leaders of the supposed "free world" have decreed that we are to become an International Empire.

The simplest solution for the case of Iraq, IMO, would be to rotate troops in and out of there, therefore keeping said disorder from ever taking hold. Stop these long-term deployments there, and bring them home after about 6 months for a couple months, and then send them to another location on the planet for patrols there, if they're to remain in the military at all. That way, they won't be so desensitized to the violence, and will be even more apt to want to go back. There must be a reason to fight, or there will be no one to do so. If anyone understands that, you should.

And don't worry, I'm always listening. Seems to be what I do best, heh. Anyway my friend, I too must take leave, as I have other things to which I must attend. Until we cross paths again...

TheBorg

I can not disagree with you on the troop rotation, I'm just not sure if that has not already been considered by the administration and perhaps logistically impractical. Have to look that up.

You thought s on the people of Iraq fighting for their own freedom is admirable, yet I must fall back on my original argument as it relates to the historical indoctrination of a peoples.

We (Americans) come from a rebellious lot, to say the least. We have always historically fought for our personal freedoms and the establishment of this great experiment is a prime example of that. The people of Iraq on the other hand, have a completely different heritage altogether. They have been "ruled" by a single "all powerful" leader for generations/centuries. Even prior to Islam, the nomadic tribes still answered to a tribe leader and they to a religious icon. Their history is one of fighting, not for person freedoms, but tribal. The concept of freedom in the middle east, is one of interpretation and fundamental contradiction. Take for instance the Sunni's, Kurd's and Shia's. All three have basic belief in one religion, yet differ fundamentally on how those beliefs effect the person. They differ so much that several attempts at genocide have been attempted.

Our one most basic fundamental concept of religious freedom, (Though being undermined today, but another thread) is as foreign to them as decapitation is to us. They have been indoctrinated for centuries that either believe the way they do, or die. There are exceptions, such as extreme taxation, servitude etc. but they all are designed to further the subject along toward enlightenment, toward belief in the Islamic religion.
Though most clear thinking minds can see Isalm as a personal concept invented to give power or control to one individual over others, as most religions, the average Muslim believes the virgins are there waiting for them. All they have to do is obey.

Going to be difficult to break that catechetical instruction and impart to them religious freedom. OK not difficult, impossible. Yet simply because something appears impossible, does that mean we (Americans) still have no obligation to act?

semperfortis:

Trying to force anything on the Iraqis is not fair to them, no matter under what guise we put it. Since when is our way of thinking the right one for them? We can't have our cake and eat it too.

You see, to give them the same freedoms that we have, we must allow them to worship as they like. Obviously, we know what religion they'll choose. Based on that, is it not prudent to remember that if we try to deny them that simple freedom that we'll have denied them that very same freedom that we are supposedly there to impart? The fact of the matter is that we cannot make the Iraqis do or be whatever we want them to be.

We just don't have that kind of time, nor do I wish us to have any kind of power to do so. Because then we would appear to be nothing more than the very same dictator that we ousted, just with a different face and new rules. They are a people that appear to like to be subserviant to the powerful overlord. There's nothing that we can do to change the previous 2000 years of indoctrination. I hope you can see where I'm going with this line of thinking, as it's difficult to comprehend just how it could be possible for the Iraqi people to ever come back to the democratic way of thinking, if they ever will. The best way to incite change is by being an example. Let the US lead by being the shining example of what it means to truly be free by showing the rest of the known world that the people don't always agree with the notions that the few at the top project.

TheBorg

P.S.
In closing, I just want to say that if I've come across as kind of curt or abrasive, I don't mean to. I'm just stressed right now with work, and it's starting to take its toll. I'll be back fresh tomorrow. Good night to all.

I've gotten to know you well enough now Borg, no problem, I understand completely.

Seems we agree that it is a catch 22 over there. Frustrating to say the least. If we leave as it is, the fundamentals will most definitely take over and we will have created a worse situation. If we stay we will be seen by the world as "nation builders", "Occupiers" or "oil Mongers."

It is further frustrating to me that no one wants to speak the words that this is basically a religious battle. Perhaps the beginnings of a religious world war as terrible as that would be. I have read much of the Quran and was raised a Christian and I can not for the life of me, find any middle ground. Their goal is the subjugation of all religions under Islam and we want the opposite, religious freedom. Look at England and the IRA, how long it took for them to come to the relative peace they have now? And all that was over Catholic vs Protestant.

This thing is going to keep on for at least 2 more years and it will be very very interesting to see what happens if a Dem. gets the nod in 2008.

semperfortis:

The mitigating factor to me here is the glaring truth that our beliefs are in support of the freedom to choose what we want to believe in and what we don't. Their's are not.

I don't see any insurgents over here doing anything to us. So long as they don't mount an assault on my homeland, I see no reason to force our ways of thinking upon those that should have the right to choose what they want for themselves. If they choose to live under a dictator, then that's their choice, and they should have to live with it. When/if they get tired of it, they'll change it. Of this I can assure you.

At some point, we're going to have to cut our losses and get out of there, regardless of how long we're there. There will not be an end to this "war" that we're in, since the enemy that this "war" is designed to stop will never go away. Every day that goes by, people become terrorists because they disagree with our way of thinking. And frankly, that scares me more than anything else, since the future that my children will one day have to take over may be much worse off than this one. Their actions are due in large part to our prolonged occupation of lands that aren't our's to occupy. I agree with the ideals of the war, but the fact of the matter is that it breeds more discontent than it does peace.

Stopping all evil is a noble cause and all, but shouldn't we be going about it in a less-violent way? Since when does fighting fire with fire work? No one's a winner because both die of exhaustion. I think that's a very adequate analogy to describe this little "war" that we're in the midst of at the moment.

I predict that no one will win, simply because at no point will everyone around the world agree about the same things at the same times. No amount of "nation-building", "lobbying(*cough*bribing*cough*)", or "occupation" will change the outcome.

Semper, I feel that we're two sides of the same coin. We both want the same things for our people, but we each have a different approach as to how to accomplish that. I'm of a more passive nature because I am, in many respects, an Isolationist thinker. However, I have an indelible line marked in the sand that's plain for all the world to see. That line is attacking my homeland. Anyone attacks her, has to go through me and about 250 million other Full-Blooded Americans, and apparently 20 million illegals trying to make it here too. [sarcasm]Things worked so much better when the US wasn't involved in the bathroom habits of the leaders of the world.[/end sarcasm]

We just need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. We're dying over there, and there's no good reason for it, imho. This all needs to come to an end...

TheBorg

[edit on 8-6-2006 by TheBorg]

Borg,

Yes I am the aggressive type, prone to a violent solution when all else is exhausted.

I, as many other warriors, long for a time when peaceful means can be employed to resolve the issues that occur between nations, that time is not now however.

Mankind is a violent species and I fear we have generations yet before we truly learn to be peaceful.

As long as there are some that would do violence to attain their objectives, there must be men and nations willing to meet that violence to prevent those actions. As long as nations use violence to enslave and destroy people because of a difference in religion, or politics, there must be nations and men to resist that threat.

It brings to mind a scene from the movie "A few Good Men"

You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

There have to be violent solutions to violent problems as long as there are violent men willing to take advantage of weaker people.

Originally posted by semperfortis
There have to be violent solutions to violent problems as long as there are violent men willing to take advantage of weaker people.

And your noble cause requires the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis that were meant to be saved? What a true Robin Hood....War is ugly, and especially when foreign powers fight someone else's "war of liberation," noone is going to come out looking good.

But, Iraq's oil market is open for business, that's the good part I guess.

Actually your 10's of thousands are the liberal interpretation of every old woman that falls over from a heart attack in her sleep being blamed on the US. It is the 100's of thousands even millions we saved by going there and fixing what was wrong.

As for Iraq's oil, well if you would care to read some real sources you would know that it is very very crippled and has not contributed one dime to the effort. Of course that is also a liberal talking point isn't it? Just depends on which way the wind blows.

Yeah, everything you disagree with is a liberal talking point. It's the neocon knee "jerk" reaction to the reality that doesn't fit in with your model of the world.

Keep on dreaming of killing brown people to save them. That's your dream. Enjoy!

Originally posted by semperfortis
Actually your 10's of thousands are the liberal interpretation of every old woman that falls over from a heart attack in her sleep being blamed on the US. It is the 100's of thousands even millions we saved by going there and fixing what was wrong.

So you're trying to say the 10's of thousands reported dead in Iraq, not by me as you try to assert, but by an independent organization, were all heart-attack deaths? Do you have any proof of this? Of course not, that's a silly claim. I guess it's too hard to face reality that this "war of liberation" has killed thousands upon thousands of the people it was said to "free."

As for Iraq's oil, well if you would care to read some real sources you would know that it is very very crippled and has not contributed one dime to the effort.

Are you saying that there is no money going into the Iraqi reconstruction effort to repair all the descruction caused by coalition troops? Basically, that they have no money to pay for someone else's mess? Well, there is billions of dollars flowing, but most of it is not going to Iraq's gov.....

This document, produced by the inspector general of Iraq's ministry of oil and translated by Revenue Watch, describes corruption in the oil sector, and particularly the multi-billion dollar smuggling of crude petroleum and refined products.

www.iraqrevenuewatch.org...

I'm going to bring myself down to your labels for a second. Even people that you feel are NOT "liberal" realize that a major strategy for the US and coalition troops is to secure oil in the middle east, they even applaud that. So, is it still a "liberal" talking point? Or is it not one now because your "buddies" agree to it?

Of course that is also a liberal talking point isn't it? Just depends on which way the wind blows.

Of course that is the only thing you have to say...silly little rhetoric claiming a partisan agenda and pretending you don't have one. I am partisan and so are many others, we are partisan to the truth. That IS the way the wind blows.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by Jamuhn]

semperfortis:

Originally posted by semperfortis
Borg,

Yes I am the aggressive type, prone to a violent solution when all else is exhausted.

I, as many other warriors, long for a time when peaceful means can be employed to resolve the issues that occur between nations, that time is not now however.

Why? What about the situation over there prevents diplomacy from starting? Insurgent attacks didn't stop the first Democratic Iraqi elections in more than 40 years from happening. What makes us think that they would stop diplomacy?

Mankind is a violent species and I fear we have generations yet before we truly learn to be peaceful.

As long as there are some that would do violence to attain their objectives, there must be men and nations willing to meet that violence to prevent those actions. As long as nations use violence to enslave and destroy people because of a difference in religion, or politics, there must be nations and men to resist that threat.

No problems with that statement. I just want to make one point. I never said that we needed to be a pushover.

I'm just asking why it's our business what other countries do, and how they do it? Since when did it become our job to watch the world and make sure that no one is allowed to exercise the very freedoms that we give our own citizens, or to interfere in another nation's ruling habits?

There have to be violent solutions to violent problems as long as there are violent men willing to take advantage of weaker people.

Well, I'm not saying that we should ever be weak. I was merely making the point that there IS a time for violence; when it affects the US People, not some country of people that willingly live under the oppressive thumb of a dictator. Do I think it's right for them to have to live that way? Hell no!! But at the same time, I know that when they got tired of it, THEY would have changed it. We wouldn't have needed to go over there to do it for them. All we've done by going over there, is turned another country's citizens into weak pawns that will have to remain subservient to OUR needs instead of a dictator's.

I do think we need to remain as strong as we are right now, but I think that we have bigger problems back here at home that need addressed before we continue worrying about the rest of the world's problems. It should never have taken us putting troops on the ground in Iraq to complete this war. The intel is good enough to find people when the FBI wants it to be, and to prove that, let me interject the news that they used cellphone tracking of al-Zarqawi's(sp?) phone to trace him to where they killed him yesterday morning. My point is that it shouldn't have taken as long and cost as many lives to find Hussein as it did. There's got to be a reason why we put so many men and women there to die, aside from higher gas prices.

Pardon my negative thoughts on this, but I'm quite unnerved that the situation over there keeps getting worse, and all the while the administration says it's getting better. That cannot be possible, unless I've missed something major. Please inform me if I have.

And finally, I'd like to reiterate my support to my troops and my country. I love the US and the freedoms that she imbodies, but the constant fighting is starting to take it's toll on all of us. The US troops are the best out there, and if any are reading this, I truly DO love you guys and gals, ALL of you. I just want you to come home safe, and soon. I pray for a fast end to this "war".

TheBorg

Edited for clarity of thought.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by TheBorg]

Borg,
Not withstanding the previous two posters that apparently missed the que. But to you, I would love to send you a copy of the "Advisor." This publication is news from the people over there with no agenda except to put out the good things happening over there. I just don't know how to do it on here.

To answer your question, I will, with your permission, ask you a question.

How bad to we let it get over there before we intervene? At what point do we stop watching people suffer and die in the millions before we take action? When do we say that genocide is wrong and we need to step up?

Do we wait for another Hitler and hesitate longer this time until all of Europe is speaking Farsi? Do we wait too long and all of a sudden they are stronger than we are and our children have to fight a losing battle because we did nothing?
Almost happened in WWII.

Originally posted by semperfortisAt what point do we stop watching people suffer and die in the millions before we take action? When do we say that genocide is wrong and we need to step up?

Are you talking about the Darfur genocide?

Do we wait for another Hitler and hesitate longer this time until all of Europe is speaking Farsi?

The only people speaking Farsi in Europe are Iranian ex-pats and a few diplomats, you're just being a little bit paranoid I'm afraid.

Do we wait too long and all of a sudden they are stronger than we are and our children have to fight a losing battle because we did nothing?

By this logic, you are pretty much advocating the destruction of every country so that they do not get more powerful than the United States. And, if that's the case, you may want to set your eyes on China first.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by Jamuhn]

And BORG.....You are the MAN!!!...

And finally, I'd like to reiterate my support to my troops and my country. I love the US and the freedoms that she imbodies, but the constant fighting is starting to take it's toll on all of us. The US troops are the best out there, and if any are reading this, I truly DO love you guys and gals, ALL of you. I just want you to come home safe, and soon. I pray for a fast end to this "war".

semperfortis:

I'm gonna need to answer each of these individually, so bear with me one and all.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Borg,
Not withstanding the previous two posters that apparently missed the que. But to you, I would love to send you a copy of the "Advisor." This publication is news from the people over there with no agenda except to put out the good things happening over there. I just don't know how to do it on here.

Send it to my email. I'll U2U it to ya, if they send it through email, that is.

To answer your question, I will, with your permission, ask you a question.

How bad to we let it get over there before we intervene?

The people of Iraq should have decided when and how they wanted to make a stand. My main point out of all of this is that this "war", or whatever you want to call it, was entirely unnecessary, since it was based on a lie. To use history as a guide, since that's all we have here as a reference, let me again use our own revolution.

We made the choice to make a new nation after having busted our backs to make it what it was 230 long years ago. None of the English government did anything except to impose taxes on us for things that we were doing, so that they could profit off of our success. We snubbed our collective noses at them, and they fired back, quite literally, with troops. We defended ourselves the best way we knew how, by forming an independent government, ruled by the people(at the time anyway), and went about making that dream happen.

In the case of Iraq, I think the same thing should have happened, where they decided that it was time to make that move. Given time, I'm sure they would have. But we'll never know now, will we?

At what point do we stop watching people suffer and die in the millions before we take action?

That can be debated about any nation. Why don't we take care of our own homeless and underprivilaged citizens any better than we do? Why don't we make a bigger stand in Somalia, where this kind of thing has been going on for literally centuries off and on, with even MORE casualties than even Stalin inflicted?

The simplest answer I have for you is that it's not economically feasable for us to be doing that. The ONLY reason we're in Iraq is because there's a hidden financial agenda that someone's trying to get through, while trying to keep the rest of us completely oblivious to it by pumping us full of this holier-than-thou patriotic propoganda that says that we're after all of the bad guys, and that this is the only place that it can be effectively fought out. I simply disagree whole-heartedly to subjugating people to a new way of life, when they would have changed it on their own, had they gotten tired of it.

When do we say that genocide is wrong and we need to step up?

I think that there's nothing wrong with stopping genocide at anytime, and all other war crimes, but I maintain that there are other, more proper channels for that than just waltzing in there and killing everyone.

Go through the UN to get sanctions first. If they won't give them to you, they have a good reason why they won't. Listen to them and reconsider your options. If you still feel that something's not right, find the evidence to prove your case; don't just go invade them, capture their leader, and install a new government just because you feel like it. That's what's wrong with this whole mess. We're nothing more now than Hussein was.

Do we wait for another Hitler and hesitate longer this time until all of Europe is speaking Farsi? Do we wait too long and all of a sudden they are stronger than we are and our children have to fight a losing battle because we did nothing?
Almost happened in WWII.

I did an essay on that for my final college paper, and all of the sources I had couldn't make a good enough case that Hitler was anywhere near to that lofty goal. I was trying to prove that he was about 6 months away from a major breakthrough on the Soviet front. He could have taken out Moscow had he waited a while longer. He was too ambitious though, and in the end, it cost him. Those that rule now, however, know how to do it right, and have been doing so for a very long time.

To answer your question though, no we don't just let someone take over the world without intervention. I think the impetus for action should be when any nation acts on another nation in some militaristic way. We have no recourse left then but to react. Prevention is a good idea in some things, but in others, like this, it makes for a big nasty mess, as we're just beginning to see now. I don't see a good end here, and imho, it's all because we got cocky. Well, the administration did anyway. We the People have been screaming about this since the day we went there.

Also, isn't it true that we're fighting a losing battle right now?

And let me reassure you once again that I will stand by my fellow brothers in arms when/if someone invades the US. I'll die just like the enemy will, but by God, I'll take at least two of 'em with me!!

Semepr Fi,
TheBorg

Edited for P.S.

P.S.:

Originally Posted by semperfortis
And BORG.....You are the MAN!!!...

Yup, and don't let anyone tell ya otherwise.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by TheBorg]

Borg, did you get the Advisor?

All I can say in regards to your last post is WHEW!!! But seriously, we just differ in how we handle certain situations, and we differ radically.

I believe that evil needs to be hunted out where ever it lies in hiding and destroyed. I do not believe we should wait for it to come knocking here before we act. I truly believe after getting to know you that I would be honored to stand by you in defense of our country.(not many I say that about either)

I truly do subscribe to the quote. "All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."
There comes a time when the strong must act, simply because the weak will not. I agree with Grover, Grim and you in that there are other parts of the world that need our attention as well, yet that does not in any way diminish what we have and are accomplishing in Iraq.
Do innocent people die? Yes they do. I will tell you this small thing to get a better look inside of me as it were, I have seen death in all of it's forms my entire adult life. Friends, comrades, brothers in arms, I have lost them all, held some when they passed, and yet never once doubted what they died for, or what it was that I could have in their place.
I really enjoy the debates with you and appreciate your opinions. You have even in some ways, along with Grover and Grim, caused me to take a good hard look at some of my economic and basic structural beliefs, yet my convictions on the war in Iraq and the war on terror remain strong and clear eyed.
I have been in the middle east, fought there and have some small understanding of the people there and what they are subject too. I believe that what we are trying to accomplish is a good thing. I fear it is doomed because of the history of the people as we discussed before, yet the attempt is no less valiant to me.

I guess I am in many ways a modern day Don Quixote and I still tilt at the occasional windmill.

Semper