by William Penwell 148 Replies latest jw friends
I'm working as an NA (not certified because this hospital is too cheap) because I thought I should do something akin to "community service" in order to expand my horizons. Someday I'll get a real job, but this will do for now. I'm learning a lot about how to take care of people and stuff, which is useful experience.
CZAR
jelly:
blow me simon, if you dont like my comments delete them. Thats what your good at.
Bye
Tim, Do you actually believe this? You believe that there is a reasonable comparison to the American Revolution, and the situation that was/is in Iraq?
Direct comparison? No. Reasonable comparison? Yes. The Iraqis got help 12 years ago and they didn't do anything with it. The Kurds tried but failed. The Kurd have been fighting for many years in spite of poor conditions. In spite of no assistance. The horrible stories and the awful conditions are WHY they fight. The rest of the country were just not willing to try. With a population of 4 million in one city they could have organized and fought a guerilla type warfare. No they were willing to sit there and do nothing because it was happening on the other side of the city or because they stuck their heads in the sand thinking it might not happen to them if they keep their mouth shut. Yes, there are some brave soldiers there but for the most part the people are cowardly. That's why there is no direct comparison.
And in those days, any kind of communication, the transport of arms, and troops literally took several months because everything had to be transported by ship across the Atlantic.
And nearly all historians agree that the US would have remained under British rule if it had not been for France (Oh Gawd! I said France!) entering into the war. Though the Rebels had won a few important battles, for the most part, they were getting their butts kicked, ROYALLY (pun intended).
Let's see. They were getting their butts kicked and they fought anyway. It took months for the British to move troops and what? France was closer so it took them less time to move troops? Sorry. Doesn't jive.
The Iraqis don't have what it take? You just might have a point on that one. Considering they have been living with economic sanctions for over a decade, you are right. They don't. They are a beaten down, starved, frightened people. And to overthrow a government, one needs MONEY. Guns and ammo ain't free.
I'll respond to this with your own words:
Because of horrible conditions in which the Continental Army had to fight (and we have all read the stories about them marching in the snow with no shoes, let alone no food, and Congress not having any money to pay them) desertion was a never ending problem with which Washington had to cope. There were plenty of spineless ones amongst the rank and file.
Yes you will have desertion under those conditions. Men were dying from the cold before even getting a chance to fight. Let me add there were many that were loyal to the British. Yes and that made it even harder for the others to organize and fight against them. Hmmmm does that sound anything like the Iraqi situation?
And remember, what got the colonists all riled up was TAXES (Some things never change *Sigh*). Not freedom, or liberty. That didn't come until later.
Back to not having what it takes and not willing to make sacrifices. These are NOT a well fed, well off, American colonists. FYI: The colonists, as a whole, enjoyed a better standard of living than that of their Mother country. Well kept, and fed, they were. Again, the issue was taxes. Plus, there were PLENTY of people that remained loyal to the crown gambling that the Continental Army would never win the war. For many Iraqis, their loved ones ARE JUST about all they have. Would you risk your daughter under those conditions? Think about it.
No. The issue was not Taxes. The straw that broke the camels back was taxes. The real issue was freedom to govern themselves in the way they felt was best. Even if it was just the issue of taxation that they were fighting for you still make my point. Americans were willing to FIGHT for it. If they revolted for just the issue of taxes don't you know they would have fought even harder for getting rid of torture chambers and death squads killing their families. And yes, I would risk my daughter's life to help a noble cause. Please don't tell me I wouldn't either. Please don't tell me I don't know what poverty and oppression is. You don't know me.
Secretly grateful, yet, spineless? Ouch! Considering the conditions of which these people have lived, "spineless" is hardly the word I would use to describe them.
The conditions they were living in were all the more reason to fight. This regime was killing families. What more incentive do you need. Um let's see. The goon squad comes and takes my son or brother, tortures them and do you think I'm gonna just cower down in my house and hope they don't come for me. You don't know me so let me tell you. Someone would die.
TimB
Oooooops!!!!!!!!!!
The last post was mine. I was using Xena's computer and forgot to log her off.
TimB
Tim, you are absolutely correct in your claim that I don't know you. I don't and I never once claimed that I did. I merely asked a question and you answered. Thank you.
Please don't tell me I wouldn't either. Please don't tell me I don't know what poverty and oppression is. You don't know me.
If you knew me, you most likely would have never made this statement. Again, maybe you would. I don't know you. You see, I realize that there are actual people behind the computer screens with various life experiences. Whether or not you have known poverty, or oppression, is something of which I do not have any knowledge and have NEVER claimed to be knowledgeable about. It is not my style to speculate and then hurl accusations at posters on this forum. Again, I asked you ONE question. You answered.
Taxes was the issue which catapulted colonists into revolt. That, later became freedom and liberty. It was about money. Even with that, half the population was still willing to continue to live under British rule. So, not all colonists were willing to fight for the noble cause. And yes, there were many that fought with great bravery. And there were those that didn't.
When I mentioned England and distance, I was comparing it to Iraq. Not France. The rebels lived in the colonies. England then had to ship their troops across the Atlantic. Communication and supplies took a much greater time to arrive. France did not enter the war until much later. Geography was a great disadvantage to England. Whereas Saddam, and his henchmen, reside within the borders of Iraq. Also, the landscape of the regions cannot be compared. There were many more places of the rebels to hide.
What we would do and what we did do 200 years ago was get rid of the oppressor ourselves.
When I mentioned France, it was in response to the above statement. The fact is, we didn't do it completely ourselves. We had help. When Ben Franklin lived in France all those years, it was to secure their support in the war. Even with all the great advantages we had, we mostly likely would have not won if it wasn't for France.
As far as today, I don't think anyone really knows what exactly the American population would do in response to torture chambers and death squads. Especially if those had the support of our very powerful military. And any opinions to those reactions would be conjecture. We have never had to face such a situation on our soil.
You are certainly within your rights to believe that the Iraqi people, as a whole, are spineless. I think is was more of a matter of futility, not bravery.
The dynamics of this war in Iraq and that of the revoIutionary war are vastly different. I never once argued whether, or not, the causes were noble enough, or if there was enough incentive. I only argued the resources from which they could draw. The Iraqis have none. And in 1991, they didn't get nearly enough.
Andee
The Iraqis got help 12 years ago and they didn't do anything with it.
Hahahahahaahahahahahaahahahaahahahaahahaahahaahahahaahaha, that is complete BS! We liberated kuwait, we didn't help them. If you read the news, one Shiite Aytola was quoted in saying, they had an uprising shortly after the war, they expected american help, when it didn't come, they were slaughtered, that's why they are now afraid to except anything the american do there. It's our own damn policy, and you people just want to glaze over that.
they expected american help, when it didn't come, they were slaughtered, that's why they are now afraid to except anything the american do there. It's our own damn policy, and you people just want to glaze over that.
Hmmm. Charlie, are you saying we should have helped them out 12 years ago, but today, you take a stance of not helping them out?
You both seem to have detracted quite a way from the original topic which seems to have been long forgotten.
DakotaRed: I'm sure this war will bring some immediate relief to the Iraqi people. Whether it is good for them as a people in the long term we will have to see. I don't personally buy the whole "we're going to help the people" line ... I think it is just a reason to go in their in the absence (still) of any WoMD.
TH: Like it or not and whatever the reason they are there, they are just that ... "there". We all know that things have been done very badly in the past and just need to hope (and keep pressure on) so that things are done right this time.
The dynamics of this war in Iraq and that of the revoIutionary war are vastly different. I never once argued whether, or not, the causes were noble enough, or if there was enough incentive. I only argued the resources from which they could draw. The Iraqis have none. And in 1991, they didn't get nearly enough.
Resources are not what's missing with the Iraqis. Do you think you can just buy a war? It doesn't work that way.
Yes there are many differences between every war. Long and short of it is that the Americans used their brains and bravery to try. In this scenario only the Kurds have tried. The majority of Iraqis are just waiting and hoping something bad doesn't happen to them. Most of the people I know would band together and fight against a government like that. Did you see the amount of protesting surrounding Waco, Ruby Ridge and everytime there is a gross misconduct on the part of the police. There are people in this country prepared to fight and it has nothing to do with their financial condition. In fact I'll bet you would find that the more money a man has the less willing he is to fight. I'm guessing on that but I'd like to see if anyone disagrees. Let's not make excuses for people just because they're poor. There is always something that can be done. Look what they're doing in Venezuala right now. Most of the fighting in the world right now is from within. They may not always win but they do fight to change things.
Remember the French Revolution? Did those people have good conditions when they overthrew the government?
Speaking of Ben Franklin soliciting support from France...........What makes you think that there weren't some important Iraqis trying to get help from the US and UK? Maybe they succeeded. Maybe there was someone over there using his head. Hmmmmmm
Trauma,
In '91 they received 6 weeks of bombing as assistance. The Iraqi army was blown away in the South. But did you see anyone organizing to get rid of Saddam? There were some that were slaughtered but that was because there were only a handful willing to fight. If signifigant number crawled from under the bed they would have easily been able to stage a coup.
TimB
Ooooops!!!!!!!
I did it again. That was not Xena that made the last post. That was me using her computer.
Sorry
TimB
