<p>I didnt mean to. Im sorry. But yeah, hes going to be in trouble at college.</p>
<p>Kiddies.....this is a COLLEGE DISCUSSION website. Lets talk about college :)</p>
<p>FutureNYUStudent: Answer the question.</p>
<p>I am not Futurenyustudent, but for my part, given the paltry choice between the "US backed" Iraqi government (hello imperialism) and the extremist insurgency, I would have to say I would chose the US backed Iraqi government...by a slimmer margin than I'd care to admit. However, as long as you have a puppet government in Iraq, you are going to have the insurgency.</p>
<p>Alexandre: Why was there no "insurgency" in Germany or Japan?</p>
<p>Good question. I'd say there are many reasons. </p>
<p>1) Germany and Japan started World War II by firing the first shots, so when they lost, they were willing to accept defeat as they were unquestionably guilty. Iraq on the other hand did not start the war. The US attacked preemtively without a legitimate reason (it is now established that there was no link between Saddam and 9/11 and that Iraq did not posses WMDs). As such, the enitre muslim world feels targeted.</p>
<p>2) World War II was a war that involved all the major powers on Earth. The US, Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and China were all involved. When the war was over, it was the entire world that worked to bring Germany and Japan on their feet. The war on Iraq did not involve 4 of the World's 6 most powerful nations; France, Germany, China and Russia. Without those 4 countries, 3 of which are permanent members of the UN, no international effort will be considered legitimate. </p>
<p>3) World War II was not a Holy war. Germany is a Christian nation, just like the US, France and England. Japan is not Christian, but the war was not religious in nature. The War in Iraq is partly religious. Bush uses Christian rhetoric and talks of good vs evil. </p>
<p>4) In the case of Germany, WWII was not even racial. The US, the UK and France are racially identical to Germany. The War in Iraq is perceived as being racial to an extent. The Spanish, Italian and US leaders are all clearly racist. They have used highly questionable language when describing Arabs. </p>
<p>5) The problem is also cultural. Culturally speaking, Germany was no different from France, the UK or the US in 1945. Even Japan, as different as it was culturally, still shared some similar values with the victors (well developped political and governmental insitutions, modern economies etc...).</p>
<p>6) The US and its allies really wanted what was best for Germany and Japan because they were such important nations in the large scheme of things. Europe without Germany would not be complete...just as East Asia without Japan would not be complete. However, the US does not want what is best for Arabs, it only wants control of oil fields.</p>
<p>7) The world was very different in 1945 than it is in 2006. In 1945, the US was 50% of the World's Economy, today, the US is more like 20% of the World Economy. Relatively speaking, the US is not nearly as omnipotent as it was bac then. Furthermore, the access to technology, information and military knowhow was very scarce in 1945 but is more widely availlable today. This definitely helps unoffical and ilegitimate insugent groups achieve their violent goals.</p>
<p>I am sure there are other compelling reasons, but those are the main ones if you ask me.</p>
<p>Now I remember why I don't take you serious. You think that the war in Iraq is racist and based on Christian mythology.</p>
<p>If the U.S. wants oil fields, why didn't they take and keep them back in Gulf War 1?</p>
<p>I never claimed that my points were factual. I am speaking of perception and legitimacy. Very little can be truly proven in the non-scientific universe.</p>
<p>It is too bad you don't take me seriously. I take you seriously. I'd say that gives me the upper hand.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the U.S. wants oil fields, why didn't they take and keep them back in Gulf War 1?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>don't you remember? Saddam burned them as they retreated back to Baghdad.</p>
<p>I don't think that your comments about race and religion have any basis in reality.</p>
<p>You are free to believe that religion, race and culture didn't and aren't playing a role in this current struggle in Iraq.</p>
<p>Thanks for your permission.</p>
<p>I don't recall questioning you or objecting to anything you said. It is you who seemed keen on questioning me and when I answered your question, it is you who went on to dismiss my opinion as being so devoid of reason that I no longer am worthy of being taken seriously. Not that it matters. This is just aninformal forum, but there is no need to act like it was I who provoked this discussion and went on to dismiss you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) The US nuked two major Japanese cities...murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. You can talk all you want about how the US was trying to bring an end to a costly war, there is no justification for murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There was justification. An invasion of Japan would have cost at least a million lives, soldiers and civilians included. Dropping the A-bomb was actually the humane thing to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At any rate, Iran is going to have nuclear weapons, whether we like it or not. Nobody can stop them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We can stop in 15 minutes with a push of a button. Is that going to happen? No. But we still could stop them if we really wanted to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At any rate, Iran is going to have nuclear weapons, whether we like it or not. Nobody can stop them.
[/quote]
Take out the ideological centers. Namely, Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan. Or nuke their factories (or better yet don't pressure Israel to hold back any more). There was no insurgency in Japan and Germany because the Allies firebombed/nuked the countries, and they didn't tip-toe around their holy sites.</p>
<p>Wait a minute Cuse, did you just argue that dropping the atomic bomb was the humane thing to do? Maybe it was a more strategic action, but certainly not more humane. And you're right, we can stop them in 15 minutes, so why don't we?...we came about the same situation several times during the Cold War. If we used "massive retaliation" on Iran, just like we could have against the USSR, they would eventually do the same to us.</p>
<p>Dropping the atomic bomb was humane. It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as hundreds of thousand Japanese lives. At the rates at which both sides were taking casualties "island hopping", the numbers speak for themselves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1) Nuclear weapons do not merely wipe out a target. The radiation fallout will affect residents living in the area for decades.
[/quote]
This is insane, the amount of radiation varies according to the blast of the weapon. We aren't talking about a 50 Megaton Nuke, we're talking about Nuclear Bunker Busters with limited nuclear power; enough to do the job. The "fallout" has been proven that it will remain underground, along with the damage it may cause.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) The US nuked two major Japanese cities...murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. You can talk all you want about how the US was trying to bring an end to a costly war, there is no justification for murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
[/quote]
You're wrong, those targets were strategically chosen, the U.S. warned Japan about the bombings in advance. Likewise, the Japanese were willing to die for their nation until the end, Hell, they didn't even repent after the first Bomb. It has been estimated that it would've taken at least 10 million casualties on both sides to take mainland Japan until they were defeated. Your call, 200K or 10 Million.
[quote]
3) I do not trust the Iranian government...nor do I trust the US government. In fact, I trust no government. But of all the governments out there, the US is one of those I trust the least.
[/quote]
Really? Why the hell so? Why is it that you do not trust the American government? I'm anxious to know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
4) Finally, the reason why your congressmen do not openly condone the desctruction of Muslims is because they aren't supposed to say such things out loud...not because they don't think or feel it.
[/quote]
Non-sense. It's called Freedom of Speech, they can say whatever the hell they want to, but they prefer NOT to, as they aren't dumb enough or stupid enough. After all, we select them based on their qualifications and political views, unlike in other countries, where leaders appoint themselves.
[quote]
At any rate, Iran is going to have nuclear weapons, whether we like it or not. Nobody can stop them.
[/quote]
So in other words: let's bomb Iran! Though I trust Israel to take care of the job like they did with Iraq in the 90's. Remember much?</p>
<p>In 1982 (I think) Israel took out one of Saddam's nuclear (or something) plant. They even timed it so that no civilians would be near the plant.</p>
<p>Wasn't 1982 when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Confusing dates. </p>
<p>
[quote]
After being lied to TWICE, you expect me to take their word on this?
[/quote]
This is assuming the "attack" on Iran is within the Bush administration, and LIED? What specifically are you referring to? Were we lied when Saddam gassed his own people? Saddam had been known to pursuit Nuclear/Biological weapons even before the Bush administration. This was no lie; this was proof. So we went into Iraq; no WMD's, GOOD! That was the worst fear that there actually WOULD be WMD's, would it make you happier if Saddam had Nuclear missiles? Infact, an occupation was never intended, but you couldn't leave the poor Iraqis on chaos and government less...ah...sorry, America to the rescue. America should in theory apologize for doing the world a favor by removing tyrants..you know, the good ol' boys..Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein...we will never "interfere" again. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"well they could have moved them."
[/quote]
Yes, they could have. And this isn't based on Bush's opinion, but Military intelligence. Let's not interfere with Syria, or neighboring countries, that's good right? IF I was Saddam, I would have personally moved those weapons to make Amrikka look bad.</p>