[J m HofMarN]

Civ, I have to see that movie. It's a film based on a comic book that was based on a film. Also the story of the three hundred spartans is just awesome as hell

"Their arrows will block out the sun!"
"Then we will fight in the shade"

And the spartans were fighting for freedom from foreigners, not for legitimate freedom. It's interesting, 300 people who were members of a fairly repressive dictatorial society fougth off an invading army of thousands of foreigners simply because they would rather be ruled by a despot of their own kind than be ruled by invaders.

[civilian_number_two]

Well, foreign oppression was typically worse than local, since it meant scary looking guys would likely be thrown into an arena or shipped off with a slave caravan. Not to mention that all the pretty girls would be taken away from their families.

But anyway, Hoff, it's just classic anachronism. The soldiers at that time surely had different concerns from the soldier of ours. If you read their own literature, it's all about dying with honour and pleasing the gods. You can't really translate that to our modern struggles, where soldiers sign up for foreign tours because the pay scale is a little higher and they're more likely to see promotion.

I've yet to see the film, but since Classical Greece was the birthplace of Democracy, I don't think the message will be simply that the 300 fought to repel a foreign power. I'm pretty sure we're going to hear about that "Democracy" like without these guys it never would have survived.

[Slade]

I can hear the classical history majors rolling over in their graves. :-P

[The Horror]

Well, foreign oppression was typically worse than local, since it meant scary looking guys would likely be thrown into an arena or shipped off with a slave caravan. Not to mention that all the pretty girls would be taken away from their families.

I agree with cn2. Invaders, usualy from different cultures would be much harsher on locals then a local. Since the Invader has no reason to be nice becouse they live in another country and do not have to worry about the aftermath of their actions or that of their nation.

This mentality has doomed most invaders, the greatest example is that of the Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union.

[J m HofMarN]

I was actually making a parallel between the Spartans and Iraqis, not the Spartans and the US. And no matter how much it blathers about freedom it cannot possibly reach the level of shite that King Arthur was. I swear that movie spends its nights having wet dreams about Braveheart.

[Supes]

History is written by the victors! Of course this is not so much the case now with our multi-media coverage and our on the spot reporter to tell us exactly how things are playing out...

Things do not change so much people. We are all still subject to that which we are feed by the people that can feed it to us. It is our responsibility now to step outside that which we are so easily given and look for that which actually is. The world ceased to be black and white thousands of years ago. Please stop viewing it that way.

[Renegade]

Saddam being considered a martyr would be like saying Hitler was a martyr against Soviet tyranny.

[Slade]

Thats a terrible comparison, but I don't have the energy nor desire to actually debate this. Goodwin's Law, special olympics, etc.

[J m HofMarN]

Hitler was the kind of martyr who had a massive fuck off army and eventually killed himself. Saddam was some backwater dictator who had a few tanks, got bombed into the stoneage, and was lynched. Suicides can't be martyrs anyhow, so the whole statement is moot. I'm not commenting on any of Saddam's deeds, but if you had to judge just by the last hour or so of his life, yeah, I'd say he looked like a martyr.

[Cobnat]

I wonder if people here know that in some parts of Uganda Idi Amin is still considered a national hero. Hitler is also considered a national Hero in parts of the world (mainly by white “nationalists“). Basically all dead dictators have a group of people who think of them as a martyr, Saddam is just lucky he got an entire religion instead of a single ethnic group to think of him as one.

Considering what Saddam knew about the United States’ shady deals in the Middle-East and that his death has caused him to become a resistance hero, I cant figure out if his execution was a smart thing or not.

[Jordan]

They should have let him live and have that country. Ya he was brutal, but muslims need a ruthless dictator to keep them in check. Look at the country now. Why bother rebuild or establish a government when you can car bomb one another.

Saddam was not liked by his neighbours and kept a good off balance in the middle east. WIth him gone, Iran has warmed up to Iraq and so have other countries.

They shouldn't have killed him or even over thrown him.

In hindsight, the war on Iraq was a total waste of time.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 20 June 2007 - 11:41 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Oh come on Jordan. I eat dinner every week with Muslims who don't yearn for a ruthless dictator, and who think that Saudi Arabia's lifelong protection of Idi Amin, followed by a military funeral with all the trimmings, was ridiculous and embarrassing. What's going on in Iraq now is the natural response to the destruction of a government by military action. The same thing happened in Ireland, for God's sake, and they didn't have a single Muslim among them. IIRC, even the US had a Civil War not long after independence. It's just the way nations build themselves.

[J m HofMarN]

"Oh come on Jordan. I eat dinner every week with Muslims who don't yearn for a ruthless dictator"

Probably because they have one, namely President For Life Civilian The Second.

"Pass the peas, or so help me I shall run your children through a meat grinder!"

And Jordan, Civ's right. Muslims live just fine in democratic countries. You can't just say that people are animals and need oppression to keep them in line. Look at what happened in the US after independence: Persecution of British loyalists, 2 or 3 more rebellions, war with Mexico, Britain, Canada, civil war, all in just 100 years. I suppose Americans are animals and need a ruthless dictator to keep them in line.

And hindsight is right. I recall you being quite a supporter of this war back when the view that the brownies would praise and fall at the feet of their white liberators was generally accepted.

It's that kind of attitude, NOT the attitude of the Iraqi people that lost this war. You know why so many Iraqis join militias? Because militias pay money and offer protection. You know what the alternative to that is? Fifty percent unemployment.

And why is this, you ask? Because when the great white liberators stormed in to "save" the poor backwards Muslims from their native ruler, they dismantled the army, the state factory systems, and bombed the infrastructure.

State factories employed over 100000 people, keeping them off the streets and fairly content. Do you know why they weren't reopened? Because the grand and enlightened Bush decided that socialism was a dirty dirty thing, and so he tried to sell those factories to private businesses, which did not buy them as they're kind of in a war zone.

So look at this scenario. Men cant feed their kids, there's not one damned bit of security, foreigners roam the streets killing who they please, people fucking disappear daily into the American gulag, or simply to the militias execution squads... And you expect people not only to be peaceful, but to build a fucking government?

I'd be more worried about feeding my family and getting rid of the occupiers. I'd join a fucking militia, and so would any other sensible person. The US has created this scenario. It was a bad idea to get rid of Saddam. Iraq was a stable secular state and the people were fairly well treated as long as they didnt get out of line. Saddam could not have dreamed of killing as many people as have been killed by Western bombings and sanctions.

But to take out Saddam, have a kangaroo court, lynch him, fail to provide jobs, fail to provide real police or security, mismanage the country's infrastructure, outsource work to American firms, fail to provide electricity or clean water, and shut down jobs that Saddam had in place. That's unforgiveable. A competent man would not have invaded Iraq on doctored intelligence, but if for some reason he had, I think Iraq could have been a victory if handled right.

I'm glad Bush is incompetent though. The US didnt deserve to win in Iraq.

[Slade]

I wonder how Bush's father's taking this whole war. Back in his day, it was the height of stupidity and irresponsibility to engage in a conflict with an absurdly blind naivity about the reaction of the people in the country and without an exit strategy, and the Republicans and Democrats alike would have had a field day about the carelessness that would have and has caused the deaths of so many innocent lives and so many not innocent (but still only killing one another because they're told to/they want the other force out) people.

I don't need to address Jordan's bigotry because it's already been done, but JM, another sensible thing to do would be to just get the fuck out of the country, and I believe many have done that. There are a lot of people who aren't going to go around killing, even if their country is invaded.

[Jordan]

Oh come on Jordan. I eat dinner every week with Muslims who don't yearn for a ruthless dictator, and who think that Saudi Arabia's lifelong protection of Idi Amin, followed by a military funeral with all the trimmings, was ridiculous and embarrassing. What's going on in Iraq now is the natural response to the destruction of a government by military action. The same thing happened in Ireland, for God's sake, and they didn't have a single Muslim among them. IIRC, even the US had a Civil War not long after independence. It's just the way nations build themselves.

France, Poland, Britain, Japan, Almost all of eastern Europe, etc.. These countries re-built, namely because they didn't hate one another from within. Political parties can argue and prolong things, but religions factions just blow the shit out of stuff and kill people.

I read a report that said Saddam ruled with an iron fist out of necessity. He supported a minority (not saying they were good guys just because they were small) group within Iraq, and his survival was ensured by his crackdowns on opposition. It was a despotic rule for survival.

You eat dinner with western Muslims, whose survival and quality of life is dependent on not causing shit. Not all of them are violent, but i have a feeling the passive ones do support the violent ones. Not every one has what it takes to kill or start gunfights. But where is the worldwide muslim out cry against shit happening all around the planet. From eastern Europe to the middle east to Northern Africa.

Why do people feel it's so evil to point out islamic wrong doings. Their religion is bollocks. And they cause violence and persection all over the place where their numbers are large. Ya i'm biggoted towards them, i'm not giving them a chance. I swear if muslims were all white you'd have no problem smashing down on them, you're probably afraid of being called a racist. I bet you think i hate them because they're camel jockies, which is false since i have two arabic friends (neither are muslim). I hate their religion and it's unfortunate so many of them worship it. Islam destroyed the Persian empire imo, Zoroastarianism was a peaceful religion for the most part to bad only a few still follow it.

Slade "i think some muslims are bad but most are good, and if you think the opposite then you're a biggot"

This post has been edited by Jordan: 20 June 2007 - 10:43 PM