Question of perspective....

[DasFX]

When is an insurgent, really a freedom fighter?

When does a liberator become a conqueror?

Is it wrong that there is a resistance to the American force in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why should they lay down and surrender, but in other conflicts, the Americans promote insurgence and rebellion.

If Bush really wants to spread democracy to the world, why doesn’t he start where the most people will feel it? That is in China.

What makes the American point of view right and the Iraqi or Afghani one wrong?

 

[the caracal kid]

to answer your last question, it stems from the idea that there is but one correct answer. In contrast, the reality is that there are several correct answers. If one only accepts one answer as correct though, and by extention that one's answer is the correct answer, then all other answers are wrong.

 

[Jay]

"What makes the American point of view right and the Iraqi or Afghani one wrong? "


There were certain demands placed on these countries....they didn't comply.

 

[the caracal kid]

so Jay, does that mean you support the notion of "might makes right"?

 

[Jay]

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

In this case I support America.

 

[Huck]

democracy is spread in countries that will return the most benefits

China is the infamous "bad and evil communism" that was to be ruled out of the world during the soviet era. but, because they give us the high quality of life we so desperatly want virtually for free, we are ready to shut our eyes on the truth that china is a human rights monster.

Africa is an other example of a continent where many countries are just oppreseed, yet no one cares. cuba: instead of saving the poor cubans (which would be so much more easy than freeing iraq), an ambargo (which only kills the real people) has been set for what, about 20 years now? (more or less, im not shure of how long its been in place)


so in short: spreading democracy is more like: "we will clean your evil governmenet if we feel we could plunder more if they were not there. If your country has no resources for us, well thats too bad, just suffer it"..

 

[Huck]

during the american revolution, the rebels which were traitors to england were later considered patriots by the new americas. Its all a question of perspective.

If someone fights for you, then he is 'your' hero.

 

[I think not]

When is an insurgent, really a freedom fighter?

When they try to remove an oppressive regime OR foreign occupiers, AND, *puts on philosophical cap* It's all a matter of perspective.

When does a liberator become a conqueror?

When objectives have been met and they remain the governing authority in the country.

Is it wrong that there is a resistance to the American force in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Not from their point of view.

Why should they lay down and surrender, but in other conflicts, the Americans promote insurgence and rebellion.

Because it is matter of interests

If Bush really wants to spread democracy to the world, why doesn’t he start where the most people will feel it? That is in China.

Because China isn't perceived as a threat.....yet.

What makes the American point of view right and the Iraqi or Afghani one wrong?

Are you speaking of all Iraqi's and Afghani's or just the ones that are resisting?

 

[I think not]

during the american revolution, the rebels which were traitors to england were later considered patriots by the new americas. Its all a question of perspective.

If someone fights for you, then he is 'your' hero.

I think that's a bad analogy, the majority of colonialists wanted to rebel, those who thought otherwise, fled towards your neck of the woods.

 

[Huck]

during the american revolution, the rebels which were traitors to england were later considered patriots by the new americas. Its all a question of perspective.

If someone fights for you, then he is 'your' hero.

I think that's a bad analogy, the majority of colonialists wanted to rebel, those who thought otherwise, fled towards your neck of the woods.

it comes down to the same thing: people are on one side or the other (no matter who).

i once read: "a nation's terrorist is another nation's freedom fighter".

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Huck]

When does a liberator become a conqueror?

Hmmm, this is a very interresting question.

My guess is that a liberator will go to another country and free the people for an unsupported and unwanted governing power. After winning the war, the liberator must then leave the newly freed without taking any riches, resources or compensation for the fighting. It must also promote the newly freed to then place the ones they wish into power, so that their culture remains. The liberator must not attempt in any way to change (to its liking) the culture and way of life of the freed, unless they explicitely demand it.


The conqueror on the other hand, will usually atttempt to get a country, not to free and help them, but to pursue a goal, that is in line with the conquerors liking. It may remove the governing body, even if it is in accordance with the people and their culture. After winning the war, the conqueror can then benefit from the new territory by assimilating the people, plundering the resources and controling how it will be governed.


in short, the liverator will free out of altruism, while the conqueror pursues a dream of expansion, at the expanse of others...


how does that sound?

 

[The Gunslinger]

It's a matter of perspective, just like everyone else said.

Insurgent vs. freedom fighter
This is one those either or semantic questions with tons of grey, and a tiny sliver of black and white on the ends

Liberator vs. Conqueror
Look at the Americans in Western Europe versus the Soviets in Eastern Europe as a good example.

Resistance?
In their minds, yah, they're justified. Drive out the infidels, etc. To the Yanks, insurgents.

War with China?
If you wanted to see the mother of all wars, yah, that would be it. The western world versus the PRC. The American navy rules the seas and saves Taiwan, China goes on a romp and conquers everything east of the Urals. You think Iraq and Afghanistan is bad, just wait until those countries casualties start puring in.

 

[unclepercy]

When does a liberator become a conqueror?

Up for a word game, I see. I read what ITN said, because I respect what he says, but let me try from my own perspective, as a Southern American.

I don't see America's role as either one of these things. I will have to invent word for it - re-socialization. The Islamic religion is WAY behind the global times - they are stuck in the 5th century. I am not saying Christianity didn't go through this phase - we did - but we have outgrown it, and it is time to Islam to grow up with the times. Let the women drive, no polygamy, educate the girls, and no killing for ridiculous aspirations.

It is not a matter of liberating anyone or conquering anyone, more it is like trying to update a social system that is hurtful and anachronistic.

Is it wrong that there is a resistance to the American force in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why should they lay down and surrender, but in other conflicts, the Americans promote insurgence and rebellion.

Wrong? It is understandable. As I said, Muslims are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century where certain basic human rights must be respected. Even Catholics have updated their dogma. I'm not Catholic, but perhaps someone who is can think of an update in the last 30 or so years and give us an example.


If Bush really wants to spread democracy to the world, why doesn’t he start where the most people will feel it? That is in China.

Another example of lagging social development. But, as ITN said, China is not necessarily a threat. Remember 9/11? We do.

What makes the American point of view right and the Iraqi or Afghani one wrong?

Which point of view? This a such a broad question, it's impossible to answer. Look at the social structure of the three nations mentioned, and basically you have your answer. As so many immigrants say, "In America you are free to become anything you want. No one is watching you." I've hear this a hundred times. In many other countries, you are locked into a social niche, and there is no hope of moving up.

Uncle

 

[FiveParadox]

Indeed, a complex question — the line is often blurred.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Question of perspective....

"What makes the American point of view right and the Iraqi or Afghani one wrong? "


There were certain demands placed on these countries....they didn't comply.

Who are we to place demands on other countries. Would Canada comply with any other nation's demands?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Question of perspective....

Who are we to place demands on other countries. Would Canada comply with any other nation's demands?

The UN does it all the time.

 

[DasFX]

The Islamic religion is WAY behind the global times - they are stuck in the 5th century. I am not saying Christianity didn't go through this phase - we did - but we have outgrown it, and it is time to Islam to grow up with the times. Let the women drive, no polygamy, educate the girls, and no killing for ridiculous aspirations.

But who are we to say that the Islamic way of life must grow up? Christian based nations took their sweet time become the modern society they have today, so why can't the Islamic nations?

If a 5th century life style is what they have so far evolved, who are we to interfer and change it. Did we not learn our lesson from the native populations in the Americas and Australia, when we tried to take these savages and tried to civilize them. That went well didn't it!

Don't make the west seem to modern. When did women become persons under the law? When did the west recognize equality between races? Not that long ago, when you consider how many thousands of years of modern history we have.

I'm not agreeing with the Islamic way of life, but is it right that I dictate how they should live? Who am I? I'm just another human being, no better and no worse.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Question of perspective....

Who are we to place demands on other countries. Would Canada comply with any other nation's demands?

The UN does it all the time.

So the UN is always right? If the UN is the one that gives the word, then is the invasion of Iraq illegal since no resolution to invade was given.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Question of perspective....

So the UN is always right? If the UN is the one that gives the word, then is the invasion of Iraq illegal since no resolution to invade was given.

I never said the UN was right, I said they do it all the time. The UN never gave the word on Serbia either, but you never hear anybody complaining about that.Why is that you think?