In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
A serious question on perspective
ElMuertoMonkey
Member Posts: 12,898
Okay, not trying to insinuate anything or cause a stir, but a have a serious question here.
The Iraqis, well... the ones fighting us anyways, are described as "insurgents" or even "terrorists." To many they are criminals deserving of nothing more than eradication. If they are humiliated or killed out of hand, so much the better, right? After all, they're only criminals.
But let's take a look at things in the absence of any emotion - you have an ill-equipped mob of relatively poorly-armed irregulars whose training and discipline are questionable to say the least. They're taking on the world's strongest military backed by the world's largest economy.
So why is it when we speak of the American Revolution, our forefathers are described as heroic and forthright while Iraqis are described as anything from ignorant savages to criminal insurgents? Why was the last stand at the Alamo considered heroic while Uday and Qusay's lasts stand near Baghdad considered the cowardly last stand of a couple of criminals?
Please take note: I am not saying the Iraqis are right and we are wrong. That is NOT the point of this post.
I am more interested in what grants folks their perspective on current affairs when compared with historic events. After all, the Japanese see nothing wrong with their role in World War 2 while we (and in my opinion, rightfully so) cast them as the basest of villains.
I mean, we can't all be blind nationalistic cheerleaders, can we? What is it that makes what we're doing in Iraq right and what the Iraqis doing wrong? Is there even an answer to that? All I know is that, taking the Iraqi conflict by itself and irrespective of its broader implications, the actions undertaken by both sides have some weird parallels in history and some role reversals that need explaining or discussion lest they become oversimplified.
The Iraqis, well... the ones fighting us anyways, are described as "insurgents" or even "terrorists." To many they are criminals deserving of nothing more than eradication. If they are humiliated or killed out of hand, so much the better, right? After all, they're only criminals.
But let's take a look at things in the absence of any emotion - you have an ill-equipped mob of relatively poorly-armed irregulars whose training and discipline are questionable to say the least. They're taking on the world's strongest military backed by the world's largest economy.
So why is it when we speak of the American Revolution, our forefathers are described as heroic and forthright while Iraqis are described as anything from ignorant savages to criminal insurgents? Why was the last stand at the Alamo considered heroic while Uday and Qusay's lasts stand near Baghdad considered the cowardly last stand of a couple of criminals?
Please take note: I am not saying the Iraqis are right and we are wrong. That is NOT the point of this post.
I am more interested in what grants folks their perspective on current affairs when compared with historic events. After all, the Japanese see nothing wrong with their role in World War 2 while we (and in my opinion, rightfully so) cast them as the basest of villains.
I mean, we can't all be blind nationalistic cheerleaders, can we? What is it that makes what we're doing in Iraq right and what the Iraqis doing wrong? Is there even an answer to that? All I know is that, taking the Iraqi conflict by itself and irrespective of its broader implications, the actions undertaken by both sides have some weird parallels in history and some role reversals that need explaining or discussion lest they become oversimplified.
Comments
White=Right
Merc
Insignia?
Nos nullus habitum rancidum insignia!
"Tolerating things you may not necessarily like is part of being free" - Larry Flynt
I concur with your historical comparisons, but since the victor (?)writes the history, it will be interesting to see how each country portrays itself in the future.
For my part, I'm still trying to understand why we went into Iraq anyway--there was no national interest--other than oil--no strategic concept--other than imperialistic aims in the Middle East--no threat to the US or Great Britain--the containment policy was effective and working--and the proclamations by the alleged conservatives--no nation building by Republicans--and yet, here we are. [?][?]
There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
Most revolutionaries have a specific, limited, secular agenda. They also have a following limited to the issue at hand.
The Palestinians are part of a far greater religious ideology that encompasses millions of zealots. Their beef with Israel is merely a by-product of their over-arching desire to wipe capitalist white Judeo-Christian culture from the face of the earth.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up all of them, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in," I would have." -Sen. Dianne Feinstein
By the way, we always judge in retrospect but I think most civilized people would agree that the Japanese should been condemned for their actions in world war II. They were the aggressors, attacking China and the United States, invading the Philipines and I think Korea as well. They tortured prisoners and civilians, performed medical experiements on prisoners and civilians, froze people to death to measure how long it took to die that way, performed dissections on people who were not only still alive but awake so they could observe the organs functioning in the body and measure the reaction to pain, and forced thousands of women into prostitution to service occupying soldiers. Some things transcend ideology and just plain wrong no matter what justification is offered. But Japanese history books used in schools tell of how the war started because they were the victims of oppression by European and American business practices and dwell on the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with no mention of their own atrocities. Sometimes the losers get to write the history books too but only for their own children.
If we didn't need oil, we wouldn't be sending people off to battle. Israel can handle every nation in the Middle East with their stock pile of over 100 nuclear weapons.
MOLON LABE!
An evil tree bears evil fruit. You can destroy as much fruit as you want, but it will always grow back, and it will always be evil.
Tear the tree out of the ground by the roots and burn it. Burn it to ash and grind out the embers with your boot until there's nothing left. Not a single spark. Not a single seed.
The difference is easy...
FREEDOM!
God Bless America and...
NEVER Forget WACO
NEVER Forget RUBY RIDGE
NEVER, EVER Forget 911
Lock and load
All it creates is unstability and hatred.
I think we should go back to being isolationist.It's hard to do that now that we are the worlds police force though.And why are we the worlds police force... refer to the root cause above.Unfortunatly we created this.How do we fix it is the question??
My answer.....For starters,cut Israel loose and let them fend for themselves....next,find an alterenitive fuel like biomass fuels, such as Corn and hemp oil.It would jumpstart our economy our unemployment and our farmers.We could create a whole industry right here in the good ole US of A.That would get us out of the Middle east,out of site and out of mind.The ARABS could sell their oil to somebody else.
Aw...I can dream can't I??
I have no speacial place in my heart for Palistine or Israel or the middle east in general
Muggster
God Bless America and...
NEVER Forget WACO
NEVER Forget RUBY RIDGE
NEVER, EVER Forget 911
Lock and load
Apparently I was wrong with what I said in my post about the Allies.
I just did a crash course in the history of Israel.It's a little hard to follow but it seems that a British mandate in the early 1920's played a large part in the formation of Israel.I didn't see anything about the Brits being thrown out but that doesn't mean that they weren't.I'm sure there are different histories depending on who's doing the talking.....
But the fact remains that we give Israel billions of dollars a year and provide them with weapons.Just seems like a lost cause to me and a thorn in everybodies side.
Nuts
I say let them fight but may I ask "why must we be in the middle of it"?
Muggster
When you throw morality into play, it helps that our forefathers were fighting off oppression, taxation without representation, and so forth. The Iraqi insurgents are fighting for oppression, more or less, and the last time I checked, we weren't taxing them.
How you doin'!
I'm not racist, I only hate stupid people. [:p]
Merc
Insignia?
Nos nullus habitum rancidum insignia!
"Tolerating things you may not necessarily like is part of being free" - Larry Flynt
What is so difficult in picking a side????????????[B)]
Either you are on THEIR side and THEY are right....[:(!]
Or you are on OUR side and WE are right........[:D]
Why it takes soo much dribble to explain this, is unexplainable.[V]
I call a spade a spade,, keeps the grey out of my sight picture.[^]
So, IMHO...pick a side so we can cut down on the friendly fire.[:D]
You may take the most gallant sailor,the most intrepid airman,or the most audacious soldier,put them together at a table.
What do you get?
The sum of their fears
-Winston Churchhill
Did he commit suicide by allowing the Jews to kill the son of God? God's chosen people? Isn't that against the rules and therefor bad?
I think Jesus Christ was a bad person and never made it to heaven.[:o)]
He's came back as Osama.[:D][:D]
J/k.
Jesus Christ, a perfect analogy.
Did he commit suicide by allowing the Jews to kill the son of God? God's chosen people? Isn't that against the rules and therefor bad?
I don't know if you're being sardonic or not, and I really don't want to get into a fight about this tangential topic, but the rule was that Jesus was begotten specifically to die for our sins. He followed the rule, so it's all good.
EDIT: Just noticed your "j/k". But the point stands for anyone who wants to take the analogy seriously. [:)]
Right is nothing but the interest of the stronger.
-Thrasymachus
It was STILL missed and turned into something wholly different.
Maybe that is why this board never gets very far in a discussion.
For the most part it just picks apart items, never solving anything.
There are several people I read that seem to have a grasp on the world, but then there are quite a few who just waste their time and the time of others by trying to look intellegent. Never looking at the whole problem, or even answering the question that was posted. Instead, just complainig and blaming..Sounds like Kerry HUH??[:o)]
You may take the most gallant sailor,the most intrepid airman,or the most audacious soldier,put them together at a table.
What do you get?
The sum of their fears
-Winston Churchhill
If this were to happen, they would be calling US the "terrorists. insurgents, and criminals." Why? Because we are the "opposition" and did not cower down before them. It only matters which side is writing the script, telling the tale, as to who is the good/bad, or was right/wrong.
P.S.
Just curious, do you think "any" people from Canada or Mexico would come and fight side by side with us, under the above mentioned scenario?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Imagine for a moment, that the shoe was on the other foot. Suppose THEY were over here, with the superior military, and WE were fighting for OUR homeland. An invading army from a foreign land. Is there any reason good enough for them to invade OUR country? Would YOU take up arms against them? I know I would.
If Bush had used mustard gas against American citizens on American soil, he would've most likely been impeached successfully and removed from office without a foreign military helping out. If you are in favor of a government that does that kind of thing, you'd be among the minority who'd take up arms against such an invader. This is the case in Iraq: those taking up arms are the minority.
quote:
If this were to happen, they would be calling US the "terrorists. insurgents, and criminals." Why? Because we are the "opposition" and did not cower down before them. It only matters which side is writing the script, telling the tale, as to who is the good/bad, or was right/wrong.
More matters than that, although those certainly are important factors.
quote:
P.S.
Just curious, do you think "any" people from Canada or Mexico would come and fight side by side with us, under the above mentioned scenario?
What would they fight with, sticks? Neither country respects its citizens enough to trust them with guns. That said, more Canadian troops are fighting the poorly-named "war on terror" than fought for Canadian independence from Great Britain, so I'd say it's really hard to predict whether any would come to our aid on our own soil.
The entire epic of the foundation of Israel is worth studying.
There are lessons to be learned from them.
Oh, yeah... also lessons to be re-learned from ourselves.
God Bless America and...
NEVER Forget WACO
NEVER Forget RUBY RIDGE
NEVER, EVER Forget 911
Lock and load
A gas FORBIDDEN to be used in war...
And many on this board CHEERED that action....[xx(]
That action was open to Presidental investigation by the PRESENT HERO WAR PRESIDENT..and he said.." That is in the past..let it rest.."...
The day this president stops lying about why we are in Iraq..is the day I start supporting him.
Which incident are you referring to...about the gas?
....and...have you read much about depleted uranium?
Muggster
As for DU, this is some truly hideous stuff. The majority of evidence now points to it being at -least- a major causitive factor in the series of ailments known as "Gulf War Syndrome." While DU in it's normal state is not hazardously radioactive, less than 1.10th normal background RaD, when it is burned and atomized ( as when a DU projectile strikes it's target ) the dust is/can be inhaled and bonds to the interior surface of the lungs, much like Asbestos. In this case, it releases a steady stream of radiation directly into the bloodstream at it's most sensitive point; the point of oxegenation. Thussly, it's effects are amplified over a relatively short period of time.
Then, of course, there are the various vaccine experiments carried out on our soldiers, under the "Military Informed Consent" doctrine...brass informes, you consent. Don't even get me started on these puppies.
Stand up and fight, or lie down and die; for it is better to burn than to ever fade away.
[:(!][:(!][:(!]FIRE![:(!][:(!][:(!]
How you doin'!
As for DU, this is some truly hideous stuff. ...While DU in it's normal state is not hazardously radioactive, less than 1.10th normal background RaD, when it is burned and atomized ( as when a DU projectile strikes it's target ) the dust is/can be inhaled and bonds to the interior surface of the lungs, much like Asbestos. In this case, it releases a steady stream of radiation directly into the bloodstream at it's most sensitive point; the point of oxegenation. Thussly, it's effects are amplified over a relatively short period of time.
That's got to be the dumbest thing I've read on here this year. Where in hell did you get this stuff? Absolutely and completely so far out in right field as to be comical.it releases a steady stream of radiation directly into the bloodstream at it's most sensitive point; the point of oxegenation. SAY WhAT!!
Clouder..
There MAY be plausible deniability..but I do not believe that Reno made the decision in a vaccuum...and the Buck stops on the Presidents desk.
DU ? Me,I don't know..but I am interested in the Dunedans response to the typically arrogance spouting from the resident "Elder Stateman"...
ZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Muggster
ZERODIN,
ZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Are you saying that Bush is primarily to blame for any repressive attack on American citizens on American soil? I don't know a lot about Waco, in part because I wasn't all that old when it happened, and would love to hear any proof that Bush is akin to Saddam in this way.
It certainly hasn't proven to be his modus operandi of controlling the populace, though, as it was for Saddam.
quote:
Just curious, do you think "any" people from Canada or Mexico would come and fight side by side with us, under the above mentioned scenario?
What would they fight with, sticks? Neither country respects its citizens enough to trust them with guns. That said, more Canadian troops are fighting the poorly-named "war on terror" than fought for Canadian independence from Great Britain, so I'd say it's really hard to predict whether any would come to our aid on our own soil.
AH they haven't got rid of all the guns just yet and Canadians didn't have to fight for freedom; Great Britian gave it to us. We are independent you know?[?]
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
quote:
quote:
Just curious, do you think "any" people from Canada or Mexico would come and fight side by side with us, under the above mentioned scenario?
What would they fight with, sticks? Neither country respects its citizens enough to trust them with guns. That said, more Canadian troops are fighting the poorly-named "war on terror" than fought for Canadian independence from Great Britain, so I'd say it's really hard to predict whether any would come to our aid on our own soil.
AH they haven't got rid of all the guns just yet and Canadians didn't have to fight for freedom; Great Britian gave it to us. We are independent you know?[?]
I do know, indeed. I contend that the reason Canada is any different from the US is for that very reason. We had to fight for our independence, whereas England got bored with y'all and dumped your country on its own. (Yes, I know it's more complicated than that, but what I know of Canada from living within 2 hours of the border and having many Canadian friends for the first 21 years of my life supports my assertion.)
"...just yet" is the bad part of your comment - they will get them all, sooner rather than later.
The diffrence between the heroic patriots of the usa and the insurgents of Iraq is the fact that the USA won their war. Remember history is written and taught by the victors. I would be certain that the prevailing thought of the day in England was that the "americans" were a bunch of insurgents and terrorists. I just thank god that the USA insurgents won........[:D][:D][:D]
There is a very thin line between a tyrant/traitor and a patriot. The only diffrence is who wins.....
muss