NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine that you are living in America, not very happy with the current president, who is a stupid dictator that tries to control people and takes advantage of the workers.

And now imagine that there is a super-powerful arab country that has interest in the Alaska oil reserves and invades your country and gets rid of the dictator, bombing away and killing civilians in the process and making the streets even more unsafe, while subtly changing your culture, imposing islamic traditions or middle-eastern economic methods on you (let's call it Arabicalism), asking you to give away your guns (that the constitution allows you to have) and taking away the riches of your country.

How would you feel? Would you be glad that the middle-easterns came and took the dictator away or would you hate them for invading, changing your ways and taking your resources?

everyone already agrees that the Iraqi insurgents have a good case

everyone already agrees that the Iraqi insurgents have a good case
I don't.

I'd hate them for invading, of course, which is a simple point: the Iraqi's believe we're invading them and that they're fighting for their freedom. Frankly, that's not far off.

I don't.
if you were an Iraqi youd like having a foreigner invader destroying your house and taking your electricity and looting your country?

I would say...bite me, anyways the middle east has been living in the stone ages since like...forever

if you were an Iraqi youd like having a foreigner invader destroying your house and taking your electricity?
I wouldn't really enjoy it, but rather than fighting a war that only kills my countrymen and keeps the occupiers around longer I would participate in the electoral process so my voice could be heard and the invaders would leave.

I would say...bite me, anyways the middle east has been living in the stone ages since like...forever
No it hasn't.

Yes it has.

I'd fight to be free.

Yes it has.
The people from the stone age invented that little thing between the "Red" and "stang" of your name. Obviously with crude stone tools.

Nicely worded, obviously for thought ...
but a torch nonetheless.
My answer wouldn't be simple ... i either would have found a way to deal with the first prick and be pissed another prick is taking over, or i could have spent enough time studying the shortcomings of the first prick to appreciate a more powerful position with or against the next prick when they took power.
That, of course, coming from the perspective that already there was little actual "democracy" involved so much as what is usually involved, a balance of "power" and "influence".
As a US citizen i of course would have to look at it a little differently, though, to directly answer the explicit line ....
I would have despised and rejected anyone more who did more to depreciate my freedoms and capabilities as a citizen. I would of course deal in the way that i could with the freedoms i have/had. Were it not as such, i merely would be somewhat nomadic and under the radar and allowing that old The King is Dead Long Live the King axiom not to get to me but rather i'd be doing some adjusting .... Catch-22 seemed to cover that interestingly (Italy ...)
Invariably any invading country that actually invades is interested in doing something with "my" resources that i wouldn't condone, and almost all recorded conflicts of invasion tend to have a central theme of resource theft/remanagement.

Yes it has.
No, really it hasn't.

I would say...bite me, anyways the middle east has been living in the stone ages since like...forever
Wait, you'd say "bite me" in this situation where you're being invaded?
Why?
And what does the Middle East's state of development have to do with this?

Yes it has.
Wow, I *like* this form of debate!
I'd be really good at it!

Oh, and no, the Middle East is definately not running on stone age tech.

I wouldn't really enjoy it, but rather than fighting a war that only kills my countrymen and keeps the occupiers around longer I would participate in the electoral process so my voice could be heard and the invaders would leave.

Yet our government in Iraq, ooops, their government in Iraq says not everyone will be able to participate.

Ok, so i'm guessing that we are just full of middle east experts? Awesome, well since they have been out of the stone age (a little harsh, maybe a little more advanced), but they are unable to quell their own problems, they still ride around on camels, and still have an innefficient form of government in some places. Look at the Taliban for example. They aren't even "advanced" enough to tolerate other religous views. The muslim extremists declare jihad on anything and everything. My "bite me" comment may have been a little crude, but any middle eastern country coming to anyones aid is laughable. But i'm argueing with experts here, so i'm humbled.

its religions fault that their society was kept ignorant--religion made morons out of alot of red staters in the US as well tho

Religion affects only those who choose for it to affect them. I am Christian, but i'm not declaring that we slaughter the infidels or begin the modern crusades. I am tolerant of others views to a point, but I am not going to make me a vest of explosives and purge the land of the unbelievers. If you go to that much length, to where you cannot compromise and resort to the death of yourself for a religous statement, then in my opinion, your still in the stone age. The middle eastern news channels were blaming the tsunami disaster on the United States, c'mon seriously, open your mind.

Ok, so i'm guessing that we are just full of middle east experts? Awesome, well since they have been out of the stone age (a little harsh, maybe a little more advanced), but they are unable to quell their own problems, they still ride around on camels, and
still have an innefficient form of government in some places. Look at the Taliban for example. They aren't even "advanced" enough to tolerate other religous views.
Hmm, like another country we know of...
Starts with a "U", ends with a "S of A".
The muslim extremists declare jihad on anything and everything. My "bite me" comment may have been a little crude, but any middle eastern country coming to anyones aid is laughable.
This is something called a "hypothetical situation". Also, it's not a coming of aid from, it's an invasion by. At least if we're still talking about the OP.
But i'm argueing with experts here, so i'm humbled.
Was that flamebait?

everyone already agrees that the Iraqi insurgents have a good case
Oh? Well I don't agree with that at ALL! I guess you've been listening to the reality-challenged "ChessSquare" telling everyone that I'm no one and should just be ignored. :headbang:

Religion affects only those who choose for it to affect them. I am Christian, but i'm not declaring that we slaughter the infidels or begin the modern crusades. I am tolerant of others views to a point, but I am not going to make me a vest of explosives and purge the land of the unbelievers. If you go to that much length, to where you cannot compromise and resort to the death of yourself for a religous statement, then in my opinion, your still in the stone age. The middle eastern news channels were blaming the tsunami disaster on the United States, c'mon seriously, open your mind.
Save your breath. I've been over this sort of thing with these ... um ... people so many times that it's become painfully obvious that in order to have an open mind, you must first know how to use the one you have. :(

Was that flamebait?
No ... this whole damned THREAD is flamebait! :headbang:

its religions fault that their society was kept ignorant--religion made morons out of alot of red staters in the US as well tho
Do you EVER have anything upbeat and positive to say???? :headbang:

Ok, so i'm guessing that we are just full of middle east experts? Awesome, well since they have been out of the stone age (a little harsh, maybe a little more advanced), but they are unable to quell their own problems, they still ride around on camels, and still have an innefficient form of government in some places. Look at the Taliban for example. They aren't even "advanced" enough to tolerate other religous views. The muslim extremists declare jihad on anything and everything. My "bite me" comment may have been a little crude, but any middle eastern country coming to anyones aid is laughable. But i'm argueing with experts here, so i'm humbled.
i got to ride around on camels and couldnt stop laughing long enough to read the rest. been watching aladdin a bit too much have we?

Oh? Well I don't agree with that at ALL! I guess you've been listening to the reality-challenged "ChessSquare" telling everyone that I'm no one and should just be ignored. :headbang:

You're socially conditioned. It's understandable. However, the author is making a valid point.

lets see why should i tell everyone that eutrusca is no one and should be ignored, oh yes, he just agreed with red1stang talking about some uninformed crap about, well frankly, everything

and the use of but in that one sentence stang, means thta you are intolerant, not tolerant

"i am tolerant but i am not going to go around blowing up stuff", that implies you are intolerant

No ... this whole damned THREAD is flamebait! :headbang:

Including this:

Save your breath. I've been over this sort of thing with these ... um ... people so many times that it's become painfully obvious that in order to have an open mind, you must first know how to use the one you have.

And this is flaming:

Oh? Well I don't agree with that at ALL! I guess you've been listening to the reality-challenged "ChessSquare" telling everyone that I'm no one and should just be ignored.

its religions fault that their society was kept ignorant--religion made morons out of alot of red staters in the US as well tho
Kapow! :sniper:
Ska ... if y'are TRA & all them ... why change names so much? Boredom?
Btw, is there a Mick Jagger (Rolling Stones) smilie?

I recommend that everyone walk away from the computer for a few minutes, relax, and then come back.

Keep this discussion civil.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Was Iraq about WMD? No...

Was Iraq about human rights violations? No...

Was Iraq about oil? No...

Was Iraq about Halliburton? No...

Was Iraq about Daddy's War? Yes...

They had Foxbats buried in the middle of the desert, why the hell would they hide those? genius....i'm done with this arguement, once again, ignorance rules the day

They had Foxbats buried in the middle of the desert, why the hell would they hide those? genius....i'm done with this arguement, once again, ignorance rules the day
But what does that have to do with the hypothetical situation in the original post?

Posting to the response above mine

Posting to the response above mine
I don't see what it has to do with that either...
The post above yours stated the opinion that the war in Iraq was about continuing Bush's father's war, correct?

Can you not read?

Can you not read?

I can quite certainly read.


Was Iraq about WMD? No...

Was Iraq about human rights violations? No...

Was Iraq about oil? No...

Was Iraq about Halliburton? No...

Was Iraq about Daddy's War? Yes...



They had Foxbats buried in the middle of the desert, why the hell would they hide those? genius....i'm done with this arguement, once again, ignorance rules the day


I see no connection between those two.

By the way, I'm for the war in Iraq. I just think it's being fought the wrong way. And I do think Iraq had WMD. Where they went I don't know. My guess is the deserts in Lebanon and Syria where nomads are. With French & Russian help? Maybe...

With French & Russian help? Maybe...

Yeah?

Layarteb made a statement, I replied. He stated that the war in Iraq was just about revenge, I disagreed. Neo-Anarchists, I should have asked if you can comprehend. Understanding its tough I guess. Other opinions happen, I have no support that there are WMDs' in Iraq, you have no hard proof to prove me wrong. We are even.

Layarteb made a statement, I replied. He stated that the war in Iraq was just about revenge, I disagreed. Neo-Anarchists, I should have asked if you can comprehend. Understanding its tough I guess. Other opinions happen, I have no support that there are WMDs' in Iraq, you have no hard proof to prove me wrong. We are even.
Ah. I didn't understand that you meant WMD's, I was just going on the Foxtrots you mentioned. I hadn't considered what you were implying by the fact that they possessed(sp?) the Foxtrots.

Foxbats....

Foxbats....
Shit! Sorry about that...
I've always confused those two words.

No sweat, just had to clear it up, I read Foxtrot too though :D

everyone already agrees that the Iraqi insurgents have a good case
I dont what everyone you are talking about.
The premise is of this thread is idealic--but totally unrealistic.
The world is not Black and White.

I think it's a case of mixed feelings. On the one hand you are no longer under the oppresive reign of your previous leader and you're supposedly liberated. However, the changes in culture would be a bad thing because you're losing part of who you are. Then the deaths of your fellow countrymen would also have negative affect on you.

I think you'd find yourself caught in a moral dilemma of what do you do? Do you welcome those who have freed you, or do you rebel against the invading force which is forcing changes upon you you don't like>

That's the right answer.

And now imagine that you lack education and your family is almost starving and you're living in a destroyed house. Who would you follow? Those that give you food, shelter and promise a better future if you fight with them, or those invaders that are just standing there with weapons, waiting for you to "insurge"?

People must understand why there are insurgents in the first place. Just bombing towns is not the answer. It just makes it worse. If the US spent their money on shelters, food and education instead of bombs, believe me, peace would come much swifter.

nice try, but actually go to iraq, and ask just a few of the MILLIONS that voted, with their ballot slip in hand, tears of joy running down their faces.

ask them if they would give that back.

Ooooh ... look at this stone age city:

http://www.greatestcities.com/5765tpic/654/TCP2654.jpg/shahrake_gharb.jpg

Archaeologists are baffled. (It's Tehran, kids)

Check out this woman on her stone age cell phone:

http://stuarthughes.blogspot.com/iran%20mobile.jpg

Look at those camels these people are riding on:

http://www.greatestcities.com/4155pic/443/CP1443.jpg/IRA-Tehran3.jpg

Yeah, those camel riding cave dwellers are so beneath us Westerners. Oh, and the Taliban? Got news, kids, but that was Afghanistan .... Afghanistan isn't a Middle Eastern country.

But let's look at it anyway ....

Ooh look! Kabul has stone age airport where camels take off from!

http://www.junbish.org/Galleries/afghanistan-trip02/images/Airport%20Afghanistan%20Kabul.jpg

Bah forget it .... go ahead ... think these people live in the stone age ... what do I care?