Is forced freedom still freedom?

[Willravel]

Note: Please feel free to move this to Philosophy if the conversation heads in that direction. I decided with all of it's real world connections, this question would yield better responses in Politics.

America wants to spread freedom. As we have turned on our televisions over the past 40 years or so, we have seen the great American superpower involved directly in the internal affairs of other countries in the name of freedom. As we are a relatively successful free democracy in the minds of our government, it is all right for us to introduce freedom to others, in the wide-eyed hope of bringing them the success we've been fortunate enough to have. Iraq was not the first time America has tried to switch another government to a free democracy. While we have had our successes (Japan, Germany), we have also had our failures.

Iraq could easily go either way at this point, and on the eve of the outcome of their first democratic election, I am considering what freedom means when it is forced upon a people. Bushco would have us believe that their freedom is a benevolent gift from the heroes of the world. Obviously, that is not entirely true. In the effort to free Iraq, we killed and injured hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. As a matter of fact, the citizens of Iraq never once asked for help in the possible coming revolution. We went in there (originally for WMDs and connections to al Qaeda, only to find that those were fictitious) to liberate their people from a dictator. Saddam has done some atrocious things. He needed to be removed for the good of the Iraqi people, but why did America do this? Is it our freedom to free other people? Does that interfere with their freedom?

In order to answer this, we must first explore what freedom is. Is freedom an abstract word like happiness, rich with favorable associations? There are many unpleasant things in human experience from which we would like to think ourselves free. But abstract words have only abstract meaning without reference to real situations. You must be free from or of something specific. We want to be free of tyranny? Of course. We want to be free of domination by someone else? Basically. Freedom represents that ability to live live without having to serve something that does not represent you. Freedom is not always the lollypop licking, flower planting word of the good people, though. Hitler loved to use the word freedom when he shaped war torn Germany after World War I into his empire. Clearly the word freedom does not have to represent the best of intentions.

Let's be more specific. What does freedom mean to a country like Iraq? Well, the idea that they were not free before suggests that a dictator (Saddam) prevents freedom in some major way, so let's get rid of the dictator and his followers. Now we are dictator-free. What is next? Well, we need to rebuild, because in our effort to free these people and give them a better life, we have destroyed lives and homes and businesses and such. So we rebuild. Now what? Well they need a government, so let's give them a Democracy (because it is the more free government, of course). We hold elections there... Wait a minute. This is our freedom. What if freedom means something else to the Iraqi people? We've already covered that freedom is different to different people. We know freedom can be good or bad. We know that freedom has failed in the past. America has even done it's part in taking apart a few democracies before.

Let's look at some successful and true democracies in order to see what might be best for Iraq. France, Germany and Canada are probably some of the best examples of democracy on the planet (everyone has their faults, but on the whole, they are the most successful). Wait a minute. Those are the same countries who told the US not to go to war with Iraq. They pleaded with us not to strike. America ignored them. We even changed french fries to freedom fries in defiance. I guess we can't use them as examples of freedom. We can't use Haiti or Venezuela either, as America deposed the democratically elected President of Haiti and tried to depose the elected leader of Venezuela. This is beginning to paint a different picture. Has France, Germany, or Canada tried to force democracy on anyone lately? I don't think so. They seem to seek peaceful resolution at all costs.

Let's get back to the questions above. Is it our freedom to free other people? Does that interfere with their freedom? I think not. Bush's promise of freedom was made from behind a bulletproof podium under the eyes of snipers and police dogs. It was made with missile batteries in plain sight and heavily-armored police menacingly occupying every corner of central Washington. In various parts of the world, Americans were keeping thousands of people in cages as he spoke. Torture, centuries after being banned in England, came to America's service in the fight for freedom. A plane, returning an Australian (that could not be found guilty of one illegal act) home after his release from Guantanamo's grotesque tortures, was refused passage across American airspace because the Australians refused to keep him shackled. Our freedom seems not to be freedom. If better democracies than us are not doing this, what gives us the right to impose "freedom"?

Freedom forced is freedom faked.

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." - George W. Bush

[uncle_el]

whoooooooooooooooooooooooo...!!!!!! you have, in my opinion, eloquently expressed what i've been wondering myself. not sure if there's much else to say, as i really agree with you.

to add to the picture of "freedom" you've already addressed as it stands in iraq... most of the political pundits say that iraqi's are merely voting to show defiance to the terrorists, and that the vote doesn't actually matter, seeing as how there are/were so many candidates for office... and they're only electing the parliament, which will choose the president, who will choose the prime minister; and collectively they'll write their own constitution...
governors of the states of iraq have already been chosen...

it doesn't really seem like they get to choose much. but then i guess you could say we here in the u.s. don't get to choose much either, lol.

also, bush and friends have a interesting way of looking at freedom, which you've already pointed out. to add to that, the terrorists have always hated us and attacked us for our freedoms (not my thinking, but that of bush and friends)... i've always found that odd, but i guess it works for bush and friends... we were attacked on 9/11 because of our freedoms, and the iraqi people get to vote in support of freedom and in defiance of insurgents who hate freedom...

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally Posted by willravel

Note: Please feel free to move this to Philosophy if the conversation heads in that direction. I decided with all of it's real world connections, this question would yield better responses in Politics.

America wants to spread freedom. As we have turned on our televisions over the past 40 years or so, we have seen the great American superpower involved directly in the internal affairs of other countries in the name of freedom. As we are a relatively successful free democracy in the minds of our government, it is all right for us to introduce freedom to others, in the wide-eyed hope of bringing them the success we've been fortunate enough to have. Iraq was not the first time America has tried to switch another government to a free democracy. While we have had our successes (Japan, Germany), we have also had our failures.

Iraq could easily go either way at this point, and on the eve of the outcome of their first democratic election, I am considering what freedom means when it is forced upon a people. Bushco would have us believe that their freedom is a benevolent gift from the heroes of the world. Obviously, that is not entirely true. In the effort to free Iraq, we killed and injured hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. As a matter of fact, the citizens of Iraq never once asked for help in the possible coming revolution. We went in there (originally for WMDs and connections to al Qaeda, only to find that those were fictitious) to liberate their people from a dictator. Saddam has done some atrocious things. He needed to be removed for the good of the Iraqi people, but why did America do this? Is it our freedom to free other people? Does that interfere with their freedom?

In order to answer this, we must first explore what freedom is. Is freedom an abstract word like happiness, rich with favorable associations? There are many unpleasant things in human experience from which we would like to think ourselves free. But abstract words have only abstract meaning without reference to real situations. You must be free from or of something specific. We want to be free of tyranny? Of course. We want to be free of domination by someone else? Basically. Freedom represents that ability to live live without having to serve something that does not represent you. Freedom is not always the lollypop licking, flower planting word of the good people, though. Hitler loved to use the word freedom when he shaped war torn Germany after World War I into his empire. Clearly the word freedom does not have to represent the best of intentions.

Let's be more specific. What does freedom mean to a country like Iraq? Well, the idea that they were not free before suggests that a dictator (Saddam) prevents freedom in some major way, so let's get rid of the dictator and his followers. Now we are dictator-free. What is next? Well, we need to rebuild, because in our effort to free these people and give them a better life, we have destroyed lives and homes and businesses and such. So we rebuild. Now what? Well they need a government, so let's give them a Democracy (because it is the more free government, of course). We hold elections there... Wait a minute. This is our freedom. What if freedom means something else to the Iraqi people? We've already covered that freedom is different to different people. We know freedom can be good or bad. We know that freedom has failed in the past. America has even done it's part in taking apart a few democracies before.

Let's look at some successful and true democracies in order to see what might be best for Iraq. France, Germany and Canada are probably some of the best examples of democracy on the planet (everyone has their faults, but on the whole, they are the most successful). Wait a minute. Those are the same countries who told the US not to go to war with Iraq. They pleaded with us not to strike. America ignored them. We even changed french fries to freedom fries in defiance. I guess we can't use them as examples of freedom. We can't use Haiti or Venezuela either, as America deposed the democratically elected President of Haiti and tried to depose the elected leader of Venezuela. This is beginning to paint a different picture. Has France, Germany, or Canada tried to force democracy on anyone lately? I don't think so. They seem to seek peaceful resolution at all costs.

Let's get back to the questions above. Is it our freedom to free other people? Does that interfere with their freedom? I think not. Bush's promise of freedom was made from behind a bulletproof podium under the eyes of snipers and police dogs. It was made with missile batteries in plain sight and heavily-armored police menacingly occupying every corner of central Washington. In various parts of the world, Americans were keeping thousands of people in cages as he spoke. Torture, centuries after being banned in England, came to America's service in the fight for freedom. A plane, returning an Australian (that could not be found guilty of one illegal act) home after his release from Guantanamo's grotesque tortures, was refused passage across American airspace because the Australians refused to keep him shackled. Our freedom seems not to be freedom. If better democracies than us are not doing this, what gives us the right to impose "freedom"?

Freedom forced is freedom faked.

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." - George W. Bush

First off, we helped people who couldn't help themselves. They once tried to revolt, they got stomped. I don't think that the country can "sway either way" at this point, you are crazy if you think the vast majority of Iraqi's want to subject themselves to baathist rule again.

Secondly your exaltation of "peaceful" countries like France and Germany is a joke. They were enablers plan and simple, the only reason they opposed this war was because of 1) selfish economic factors 2) because they had been violating sanctions for year 3) trying to get oil for themselves 4) to prevent us from getting to oil which would regulate them and other countries and 5) to act as a counter balance to US influence. I'm saying this as a general statement, but you are ignorant (either willingly or not) and warped if you think countries who voted in opposition to this war were doing it out of some great moral prinicple.

Your last paragraph about torture is a joke and at best unfounded. This board has already many arguments about it, so I'm not about to rehash it, however I will say that the system as far as Guatanmo bay is working. When someone murders somebody they are not allowed to roam freely until sentence is passed one way or another, they are detained; likewise when someone is accused of acts in violation of articles of war and conventions they are detained and they are relinquished to the proper authority, which is accordance with US law is the military, as stated in the constitution.

Your main point about freedom and being relative though is weak. We aren't instilling per say our type of democracy in Iraq. They just had their first free elections in 50+ years yesterday. They don't have a sitting government they only have a transitional authority. The specifics of their freedom is going to be decided in the next year, they don't have a constitution of their own yet, that's why they elected delegates, they are free to do with it as they please, that is the brilliance of freedom.

Forced: The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain
Freedom: The condition of being free of restraints.
(a la dictionary.com)
Willravel, I’ve run across you in similar threads to this, and as far as Iraq is concerned you and I are on the same wavelength. I wish I could provide answers, but ultimately all I have is more questions. What makes us so right/just that we can act as a police state to other countries? Last I checked things weren’t 100% over here (not to say that we're not significantly better off than most). I also wonder why the UN never stepped in and shut down our operations? It's been admitted, we screwed up, and the whole reason this started has been disproved... I guess we're just in too deep now. I feel fleeced having these things carried out in my name.

[uncle_el]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Secondly your exaltation of "peaceful" countries like France and Germany is a joke. They were enablers plan and simple, the only reason they opposed this war was because of 1) selfish economic factors 2) because they had been violating sanctions for year 3) trying to get oil for themselves 4) to prevent us from getting to oil which would regulate them and other countries and 5) to act as a counter balance to US influence. I'm saying this as a general statement, but you are ignorant (either willingly or not) and warped if you think countries who voted in opposition to this war were doing it out of some great moral prinicple.

one could argue that the u.s. did what it did for selfish economic factors... many countries are in violation of u.n. sanctions/resolutions... perhaps we're tyring to get oil for ourselves... and many people believe we're doing what we're doing for some overarching great moral principle, i.e. freedom.

Your main point about freedom and being relative though is weak. We aren't instilling per say our type of democracy in Iraq. They just had their first free elections in 50+ years yesterday. They don't have a sitting government they only have a transitional authority. The specifics of their freedom is going to be decided in the next year, they don't have a constitution of their own yet, that's why they elected delegates, they are free to do with it as they please, that is the brilliance of freedom.

i thought that one of the questions that willravel asked is, is this freedom? you admit that the specifics of their freedom will be decided in the next year... are they truly free?!? is their freedom being deferred? if so, is that in itself freedom?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

First off, we helped people who couldn't help themselves. They once tried to revolt, they got stomped. I don't think that the country can "sway either way" at this point, you are crazy if you think the vast majority of Iraqi's want to subject themselves to baathist rule again.

Desipte the fact we weren't around for it, most people thought the french would never be able to overthrow the monarchy. Fallujah was openly in defiance of Saddam long before America decided to liberate them. Who are you to say tehy couldn't help themselves? Do you watch Fox News and sit back in your big chair and consider what you've seen? I was in Iraq and saw actual protests. That's right, protests. They were openly defying Sasddam. Guess what? None of them were gased. The police showed up and made their presence known (non-violent methods) and the crowd left. No blood was spilled.

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Secondly your exaltation of "peaceful" countries like France and Germany is a joke. They were enablers plan and simple, the only reason they opposed this war was because of 1) selfish economic factors 2) because they had been violating sanctions for year 3) trying to get oil for themselves 4) to prevent us from getting to oil which would regulate them and other countries and 5) to act as a counter balance to US influence. I'm saying this as a general statement, but you are ignorant (either willingly or not) and warped if you think countries who voted in opposition to this war were doing it out of some great moral prinicple.

I think you know that everything is relative. No country is perfect, and they all have some degree of coruption. Do you think the people on the streets of France and Germany protesting were trying to get oil?! I dare say the ignorance is on your side. As France, Germany, and Canada are better democracies than us, they are better represented by their people, in addition to their governments. What does your morality tell you about attacking Iraq?

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Your last paragraph about torture is a joke and at best unfounded. This board has already many arguments about it, so I'm not about to rehash it, however I will say that the system as far as Guatanmo bay is working. When someone murders somebody they are not allowed to roam freely until sentence is passed one way or another, they are detained; likewise when someone is accused of acts in violation of articles of war and conventions they are detained and they are relinquished to the proper authority, which is accordance with US law is the military, as stated in the constitution.

If someone were to murder someone, they are found guilty on mevidence. We all know from those other posts you mentioned that these people cannot be found guilty, so they are heald indeinfatally without trial. The conclusion to draw form that is America believes that it's citizens are better than the other people of the world. We get to have a triel, but supposed enemies don't have to be proven guilty before we punish them.

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Your main point about freedom and being relative though is weak. We aren't instilling per say our type of democracy in Iraq. They just had their first free elections in 50+ years yesterday. They don't have a sitting government they only have a transitional authority. The specifics of their freedom is going to be decided in the next year, they don't have a constitution of their own yet, that's why they elected delegates, they are free to do with it as they please, that is the brilliance of freedom.

In order to get these elections, thousands of Iraqi citizens die at our hands.

The Nazi party had the freedom to commit the holocaust. Where was the brilliance in that?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally Posted by uncle_el

one could argue that the u.s. did what it did for selfish economic factors... many countries are in violation of u.n. sanctions/resolutions... perhaps we're tyring to get oil for ourselves... and many people believe we're doing what we're doing for some overarching great moral principle, i.e. freedom.

Well let's look at it this way, of moral principle. Saddam a man who is directly responsible for the deaths of millions would still be in power if it were up to the French and German.

i thought that one of the questions that willravel asked is, is this freedom? you admit that the specifics of their freedom will be decided in the next year... are they truly free?!? is their freedom being deferred? if so, is that in itself freedom?

So are we not free here in the states?

[uncle_el]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Well let's look at it this way, of moral principle. Saddam a man who is directly responsible for the deaths of millions would still be in power if it were up to the French and German.

touche. but i guess it depends on whether or not you think france and germany wanted everyone up and out of saddam and iraq's business, or if they wanted more dialogue... since there were no wmd's, etc. etc. perhaps it would have been prudent. idk. i think i'll end there, since this thread is about freedom, and not the reason(s) for going to war, and who was right/wrong...

So are we not free here in the states?

we're free... but with certain limitations...

i'm not sure what that means, as one could argue that if you're not 100% free to do whatever you please, you're not free, while someone else could argue that freedom has to have limitations...

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally Posted by willravel

Desipte the fact we weren't around for it, most people thought the french would never be able to overthrow the monarchy. Fallujah was openly in defiance of Saddam long before America decided to liberate them. Who are you to say tehy couldn't help themselves? Do you watch Fox News and sit back in your big chair and consider what you've seen? I was in Iraq and saw actual protests. That's right, protests. They were openly defying Sasddam. Guess what? None of them were gased. The police showed up and made their presence known (non-violent methods) and the crowd left. No blood was spilled.

What happened to the Shiite's in the southern marshlands when they tried to revolt?

I think you know that everything is relative. No country is perfect, and they all have some degree of coruption. Do you think the people on the streets of France and Germany protesting were trying to get oil?! I dare say the ignorance is on your side. As France, Germany, and Canada are better democracies than us, they are better represented by their people, in addition to their governments. What does your morality tell you about attacking Iraq?

Evil is complacency in the face of evil. 25 million people are now free in Iraq because we took action, Saddam will no longer be able to indiscriminantly kill them again. Likewise, 28 million people are free in Afghanistan who were living under a repressive and illegitimate regime. No more public stonings for not wearing a burka or women trying to read at olympic stadium. More good has come out of our taking action in Iraq then the complacency of the world, which admittedly the US was apart of, for the last 13-14 years.

If someone were to murder someone, they are found guilty on mevidence. We all know from those other posts you mentioned that these people cannot be found guilty, so they are heald indeinfatally without trial. The conclusion to draw form that is America believes that it's citizens are better than the other people of the world. We get to have a triel, but supposed enemies don't have to be proven guilty before we punish them.

Wrong. Illegal combatants aren't afforded the rights of citizenship, they are forfeited. If you read the 14th amendment foreign citizens in our custody are afforded the same protection as American citizens. And you are right, enemy combatants are subject to Napoleanic law, that's because they aren't in custody of civil authority.

In order to get these elections, thousands of Iraqi citizens die at our hands.

The Nazi party had the freedom to commit the holocaust. Where was the brilliance in that?

So you're comparing the unforuante instances of collateral damage and the extremely rare cases of soldier abuse, which has gone punished, to the holocaust? Nice.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

What happened to the Shiite's in the southern marshlands when they tried to revolt?

Of course, Saddam's regime was bad. I'm not arguing it was good by any means, but I am saying that his "evil" is shown to be much greater than it really is.

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Evil is complacency in the face of evil. 25 million people are now free in Iraq because we took action, Saddam will no longer be able to indiscriminantly kill them again. Likewise, 28 million people are free in Afghanistan who were living under a repressive and illegitimate regime. No more public stonings for not wearing a burka or women trying to read at olympic stadium. More good has come out of our taking action in Iraq then the complacency of the world, which admittedly the US was apart of, for the last 13-14 years.

What did you do to sop Saddam? Probably noting. Does that make you evil? Nope. It wasen't your responsibility to stop Saddam. You would run some terrible risks if you had tried to stop Saddam. We ran terrible risks trying to remove Saddam. Those risks included the loss of a lot of our own soldiers (what is the death toll at now for American soldiers?), the heavy loss of Iraqi citizens, and the international community condeming us for our cowboy diplomacy. We clearly did not consider these to be great consequences as we went in. There was a better way to do this.

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Wrong. Illegal combatants aren't afforded the rights of citizenship, they are forfeited. If you read the 14th amendment foreign citizens in our custody are afforded the same protection as American citizens. And you are right, enemy combatants are subject to Napoleanic law, that's because they aren't in custody of civil authority.

You're response agrees with mine. I'm not sure why you said "Wrong". The logic still applies. An American citizen charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. If guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the person is considered legally innocent. The same is not true of those in Guantanimo Bay. The burden of proof is not on the state if it cannot prove guilt, yet it still convicts the person.

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

So you're comparing the unforuante instances of collateral damage and the extremely rare cases of soldier abuse, which has gone punished, to the holocaust? Nice.

First, I was not comparing the abuse alone to the holocaust. I was comparing the lives of every Iraqi killed by an American bomb in the last 20 years, and the soldier abuse, and the restructuting that will eventually cost the Iraqis their econemy. And it's not by any means nice.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

To clarify. We are not necessarily in agreement on Gitmo, maybe you weren't understanding what I was saying.

Foreign citizens in custody of America = equal protection under our law
Illegal combatants = no dice, they forfeited their status as citizens after taking up arms and fucked themselves by fighting outside the rules of war, plus they aren't subject to common law, they are subject to military law which is a different ball game.

Hitler was perpetuating GENOCIDE with MALICIOUS INTENT. Our actions are unfortuante but they do not equate to anything that Hitler ever did, and it's perposterous that you would assert it as such (maybe you aren't that's just the way I am reading it).

[Willravel]

Being an illegal combatant means that you have been proven to be an illeglal combatant. These people could not be proven guilty of any crime. I was not comparing the abuse alone to the holocaust. I was comparing the lives of every Iraqi (shoot, every Middle Easterner) killed by an American bomb in the last 20 years, and the dishonerable soldier abuse, and the restructuting that will eventually cost the Iraqis their econemy.

[powerclown]

I am considering what freedom means when it is forced upon a people.

What is forced freedom anyway? Isn't that a misnomer, a nonsense word like honest thief?

Millions of Iraqis headed to the polls to vote because they were forced? I don't think so. They could just as well have stayed home. A higher percentage of the population voted in this election than in the US election. That millions of human beings IN THE MIDDLE EAST, of all places, showed their support for this form of government is surprising to me. It is extremely encouraging that the Iraqis so overwhelmingly rejected what the 'insurgency' stands for

Res Ipsa Loquitur.

[drakers]

I absolutely disagree with what Bush has done with Iraq, but I do hope that democracy succeeds though it will still be very difficult even after the elections. I just don't feel the end justify the means; meaning we went in to find WMD's and that search is over and nothing was found. But we have been given more than one reason why we are in Iraq, so I that is why I don't support the reasons why were over there. But I do support our troops because they volunteered to go into the army (though most didn't volunteer to go into the Iraq war) and are doing their duty honerably.

[Lebell]

Perhaps I am doing the original poster a disservice by answering a rather lengthy and well thought out post with a sound bite, but it seems to me the question was answered nicely on Sunday.

We set up the freedom "trough", but it was the Iraqis that chose to come and drink from it.

Doens't seem forced to me.

[Arroe]

willravel, do you even know what the holocaust was?

we're not commiting genocide here...

[irateplatypus]

will... just speaking for myself, it's hard to take your posts seriously because you corner yourself with too many made up figures and unfounded assumptions.

i think a little more moderation, source citations, and declaration of underlying premises would go a long way in presenting your argument to those who might not agree right away.

a very friendly, however unsolicited, .02 from me.

[Willravel]

Powerclown, it is in support of their country that the vote. You shouldn't assume that they welcome this form of government just because they go along. If they had been swithed to communism or socialism, I'm sure thye would have gone along, too.

Lebell, no disservice, I assure you. We organized the government there. We told them to set up poles and organize parties and bring fourth candidates. We told them to have a President by a certian date. It seems to me that "no" simply was not an acceptable answer. What if they wanted to return to a theocracy? I don't know how good that would be for them (I'm sure it would be bad), but it is their right. That is all I meant when I used the word "forced".

Arroe, do you remember when I first used the Hitler angle? It was back in the original post. "Hitler loved to use the word freedom when he shaped war torn Germany after World War I into his empire." What I meant was that the word freedom is not always used in the name of good. We seem to use freedom as the highest goal of society. We bring freedom to the world. Freedom is actually the opportunity to do more, good or evil. It is neutral; a tool to do what you please. Whether you use it isely or not depends on how ready you are for freedom. I was saying that the aweful holocaust is what happened whgen Germany gave it's freedoom to one man. Hitler was given the complete freedom to do terrible, terrible things. He did them. I made the mistake of responding on the fly, a I was just going out the door as I made my response (the one at 1:31 pacific time). I was simply trying to illustrate the point that freedom can cause just as much pain as it does relief.

irateplatypus, name one "made up figure" or "unfounded asumption". I'll be glad to add a link or give an argument to support them. Until then, your $0.02 aren't doing anything.

[irateplatypus]

it is not the responsibility of everyone else to point out the factual and logical fallacies in your posts. it is your duty to cite sources and back up assertions if you want to be given credibility to anyone who isn't like minded. however, i am feeling charitable...

Bushco would have us believe that their freedom is a benevolent gift from the heroes of the world.

this is a complete fabrication. the president has stated on numerous occassions in several important speeches...

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity."

"America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right for life. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life."

In the effort to free Iraq, we killed and injured hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

even iraqibodycount.net puts the number at 17,830. newspapers from the middle east (using their own methods of computing) go no higher than 30,000 as of late last year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep21.html
so, to say that there are hundreds of thousands (meaning 200,000 at a bare minimum) killed or injured is an unfounded statement. even if you could prove that half of that number were killed and injure, how could you prove which ones were innocent... terrorists and shopkeepers alike wear the same clothing. also, how could you furthur prove that those deaths were the result of our actions?

France, Germany and Canada are probably some of the best examples of democracy on the planet (everyone has their faults, but on the whole, they are the most successful).

they are? according to what standard? how do you judge success? in what way are those 3 superior to countries who did contribute combat troops like Breat Britain, Poland, and Spain? you gloss over this, expecting your reader to ascent... but there is no backbone to this argument.

Those are the same countries who told the US not to go to war with Iraq. They pleaded with us not to strike.

that's not the whole story. those are the same countries that passed a UN resolution authorizing force. their argument was not against a strike, it was that the strike was premature. also, if you put russia in canada's slot... you have the 3 countries most under suspicion for having under-the-table deals with saddam in the oil-for-food program. i don't even think i've seen you give much attention to that, which is breathtaking given your activity in tilted paranoia.

Has France, Germany, or Canada tried to force democracy on anyone lately? I don't think so. They seem to seek peaceful resolution at all costs.

this is ridiculous. if the cited nations really do seek peaceful resolution at all costs... then they would not engage in any expeditionary military action. they do engage in such actions (gulf war one, ivory coast, bosnia, afghanistan) therefore they do not seek peaceful resolution at all costs. they simply have their own motivations and criteria for when military action is justified. for france, the last time that happened was a couple months ago.

and again, what supports your implication that placing peace instead of justice as the thing we will defend at all costs is a good thing? there are many times when you cannot have both.

If better democracies than us are not doing this, what gives us the right to impose "freedom"?

again, this rests on bald assertions, not reasoned arguments. what makes those democracies better? why, it's because you say so apparently... that's all you've given your reader.

you asked, i've taken the time to respond.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

it is not the responsibility of everyone else to point out the factual and logical fallacies in your posts. it is your duty to cite sources and back up assertions if you want to be given credibility to anyone who isn't like minded. however, i am feeling charitable...

You kind of insulted me (spoek down to me), so I felt it necessary to ask what I was being insulted for. Thank you for being so charitable.

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

this is a complete fabrication. the president has stated on numerous occassions in several important speeches...

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity."

"America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right for life. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government because it does not come from government, it comes from the creator of life."

God did not invade Iraq, we did. The fact that we did it alone (without the direct help of God) makes us responsible for it, not God. Just because Bush claims that freedom is a gift from God does not mean we are acting as His right hand. If we were acting on behalf of God, that would make us a Christian theocracy.

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

even iraqibodycount.net puts the number at 17,830. newspapers from the middle east (using their own methods of computing) go no higher than 30,000 as of late last year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep21.html
so, to say that there are hundreds of thousands (meaning 200,000 at a bare minimum) killed or injured is an unfounded statement. even if you could prove that half of that number were killed and injure, how could you prove which ones were innocent... terrorists and shopkeepers alike wear the same clothing. also, how could you furthur prove that those deaths were the result of our actions?

You were good to point out fatilities, but you neglected injuries (the other half of "killed and injured"). Who was to say I was only talking about Desert Storm 2? I was actually referring to the whole of American caused deaths and injuries to the Iraqi people. That easily passes your 200,000 minimum. We have been trying to remove Saddam from power since Desert Strom 1, so it is correct to say we've been trying to liberate the Iraqis for well voer a decade.

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

they are? according to what standard? how do you judge success? in what way are those 3 superior to countries who did contribute combat troops like Breat Britain, Poland, and Spain? you gloss over this, expecting your reader to ascent... but there is no backbone to this argument.

If America went to war with the moon, Breat Britian would follow. That discounts them as being a great democracy in my mind. We say jump, they ask how high. Poland and Spain cannot compare to Canada as far as governmental success. My point is that we simply disregarded these valid peers objections. Do you remember what they said? Wait until you verify your facts, like WMDs and a liink to al Qaeda. They were right. We were wrong.

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

that's not the whole story. those are the same countries that passed a UN resolution authorizing force. their argument was not against a strike, it was that the strike was premature. also, if you put russia in canada's slot... you have the 3 countries most under suspicion for having under-the-table deals with saddam in the oil-for-food program. i don't even think i've seen you give much attention to that, which is breathtaking given your activity in tilted paranoia.

I also post in Entertainment, but that also has no bearing on the present conversation. Like I said before, they wanted to be sure before going in there. The legal right for America to attack was based on the WMD/al Qaeda link. Our country could have been at risk from Saddam. Now it's been proven that we were not at risk, therefore null and voiding our legal standing on an attack on a foreign, soverign nation. Everyone makes money off the oil from the Middle East. Even Canada. That does not invalidate their request to wait.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Edit: I appreciate your open disagreements. I'd rather have someone to go head-to-head with than someone who just blindly follows along.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

The point of freedom being a gift from god is not that we act on his behalf. It's one of the founding prinicples of our country, argueably one of the greatest countries that the world has ever seen. It's the basis of our own freedom, that we are endowed by our creator with power and freedom which we in turn lend to the government to rule, it is our own power with which we rule and are governed, god doesn't really factor in.

[Willravel]

Freedom (s it pertains to politics) should have it's grounds in morality, law, and virtue, not religion. That is just my opinion, but it seems to make sense to me. Law is made to enforce what is right. What makes something right? It is based in morality and virtue. We try to do the right thing for everyone. Laws were made to save those who are moral from those who take advantage of those who are moral by breaking their morality (I know it's an oversimplified argument, but it seems to work in this situation). Acts should be based in morality, laws should be based in morality, acts should follow moral laws, and thos who brake the laws should be punished with morality in mind.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Agreed, I think the only regarding your post is that it is extremely tough to seperate morality from religion, and to an even tougher extent morality without religion (not an opinion I hold of my own, but we know it is the case here in America and the world at large).