Alien Invasion as a metaphor for the Iraq war

[Rhah]

I havent really got much of a comment to add, but i thought it was a fairly interesting article that would be worth sharing, so here it is:

Space Aliens From Luxembourg: A Horror Story

Its from Lewrockwell.com, which is (i think) a US based Libertarian website.

[PacSubCom]

History will not judge us kindly.

[Gaius Baltar]

Unlike Iraq, the US actually HAS weapons of mass destruction.

[Zuwxiv]

Unlike Iraq, the US actually HAS weapons of mass destruction.

And who are the only people to ever use a nuke? Two, in fact.

Don't worry, history will judge us kindly, because we will be writing it. In the blood of our "enemies."

[Tom Paine]

Don't worry, history will judge us kindly, because we will be writing it. In the blood of our "enemies."

Presuming you win against a foe who is like a shadow in the night, an elusive group at best and a more elusive concept or tactic of fighting at worst.

[Hub'ite]

And who are the only people to ever use a nuke? Two, in fact.

Actually they were atomic bombs.

[Tostig]

Wikipedia's Article on Nuclear Weapons:

In the history of warfare, nuclear weapons have been used only twice, both during the closing days of World War II. The first event occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945, when the United States dropped a uranium gun-type device code-named "Little Boy" on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The second event occurred three days later when a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man" was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. The use of these weapons, which resulted in the immediate deaths of around 100,000 to 200,000 individuals (mostly civilians) and even more over time, was and remains controversial — critics charged that they were unnecessary acts of mass killing, while others claimed that they ultimately reduced casualties on both sides by hastening the end of the war (see Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a full discussion).

Atomic bombs are a form of nuclear weapon, and "nuke" is a contraction of that. Nuclear weapons include warheads which work through nuclear fission reactions alone (such as A-bombs), as well as nuclear fusion reactions (hydrogen bombs, H-bombs, thermonuclear bombs, and fusion bombs.) There are a couple of others too, such as boosted fission weapons, neutron bombs and salted bombs, but these aren't the norm.

It's worth noting that there are estimated to be at least 29,000 nuclear weapons held by at least seven countries, though 96% of these are in the possession of just two (the United States and the Russian Federation), and only one nation has ever used them in war.

[LSJ]

A nuke is a nuclear weapon; an atomic bomb is a nuke.

The article is a funny one. Its so true in context. The US goes in to remove the gov't, bombs civilians, and wonder why the people aren't completely happy about being "liberated". Well, if another country saw G Bush as a bad leader, and went in to remove him, the same would happen. The people don't ask for it, they don't give them a chance, and they invade. The leader is removed, many civilians die, rebels are shot, people are wrongfully imprisoned, and then the invaders wonder why the US isn't a happy nation after. Sure, the new government could be better, but everything else doesn't exactly give good rep points.

[John I Tzimisces]

And who are the only people to ever use a nuke? Two, in fact.

Don't worry, history will judge us kindly, because we will be writing it. In the blood of our "enemies."

Eesh, I think we can both say millions more would have died if there was a ground invasion...on both sides.

[Red Harvest]

Eesh, I think we can both say millions more would have died if there was a ground invasion...on both sides.

Not to mention that the use of nukes on Japan was instrumental in keeping the Soviet Union from taking over the rest of Europe and has provided unprecedented global stability by demonstrating that we not only had the weapons, but would use them on an aggressor.

[Farnan]

Umm... This article is so flawed its not funny.

1st: People capture in Iraq are not sent to Gitmo
2nd: It "forgets" the fact that the no-fly zones were not implemented until after Saddam committed genocide in both of those areas.
3rd: People were alowed by the allies to leave Iraq.
4th: Iraq was not a democracy
5th: Rumors of rape? Where?

There are more I forget...

[Red Harvest]

That article simply sucks. It fails on the humor front, the analogy doesn't work, and the attempted comparisons are at best extreme distortions. I'm no fan of how Bush has handled Iraq, but this is garbage.

[Farnan]

According to that article, a "ray shield" prevented Americans from leaving America.

And how was the fact that the no-fly zones were there to prevent genocide, and yes it was genocide (ever hear of the draining of the marshes to kill the Marsh Arabs), nitpicking?

Also, a nation that is democracy can remove its leaders themself, and that is part of the nation's government system.

[PacSubCom]

And how was the fact that the no-fly zones were there to prevent genocide, and yes it was genocide (ever hear of the draining of the marshes to kill the Marsh Arabs), nitpicking?

Also, a nation that is democracy can remove its leaders themself, and that is part of the nation's government system.

Sanctions were genocide too. So we have two systems, both genocidal. Which one is better?

[Red Harvest]

Sanctions were genocide too.

Oh c'mon. Trying to classify sanctions as genocidal (which still allowed food and humanitarian aid) is simply ridiculous. What Saddam chose to do with his nation's resources may very well have been genocidal, but that is hardly the fault of outsiders. Instead, if one makes the argument that his abuse of the system resulted in genocide then it provides a strong argument for removing him from power. Your ball.

[Caesar Germanico]

Oh c'mon. Trying to classify sanctions as genocidal (which still allowed food and humanitarian aid) is simply ridiculous. What Saddam chose to do with his nation's resources may very well have been genocidal, but that is hardly the fault of outsiders. Instead, if one makes the argument that his abuse of the system resulted in genocide then it provides a strong argument for removing him from power. Your ball.

sanctions are bad also..yes suddam was a megalomanic dictator that killed thousand to keep power..but u know who given the weapons to fight against kurds and iran??US..the chemical ones maybe..probably was an american order for saddam to fight against iran..iran communist and it was the time of cold war..ah and dont get me wrong i dont like saddam either but some americans goverments werent so good too..americans created saddam the same with south america dictators yes saddam had to get out of power in some way..but there is un,diplomatic etc and then why not take other dictators out??there is nothing in africa??no oil??lol..and yes iraq sanction are bad as saddam "genocidal" if not even more..saddam was a dictator yes but u know if had some deadle disease or u would need some special cure or somenthing the saddam goverment before the sanctions would send u to swinzerland where the best clinics and doctors are..all free..free health care good school people lived incredibly well before the sanctions..and what happened after??iraqi population in a short time becomed from one of the richest people on heart to one of the poorest..yes hundred of thousands maybe died for the sanction..millions?maybe not i dont know but for sure a few hundred thousand..much more than saddam killings and this war..well i guess the iraquis should thank america..lol good job really ..freedom??what u guys know about freedom??what makes america always right and sure about its ideas??well yes the world its grateful for defeating the nazis..but from the times of south americ dictators to the iraq war..americans are now the bad guys

[Red Harvest]

sanctions are bad also..yes suddam was a megalomanic dictator that killed thousand to keep power..but u know who given the weapons to fight against kurds and iran??US..the chemical ones maybe..probably was an american order for saddam to fight against iran..iran communist and it was the time of cold war..ah and dont get me wrong i dont like saddam either but some americans goverments werent so good too..americans created saddam the same with south america dictators yes saddam had to get out of power in some way..but there is un,diplomatic etc and then why not take other dictators out??there is nothing in africa??no oil??lol..and yes iraq sanction are bad as saddam "genocidal" if not even more..saddam was a dictator yes but u know if had some deadle disease or u would need some special cure or somenthing the saddam goverment before the sanctions would send u to swinzerland where the best clinics and doctors are..all free..free health care good school people lived incredibly well before the sanctions..and what happened after??iraqi population in a short time becomed from one of the richest people on heart to one of the poorest..yes hundred of thousands maybe died for the sanction..millions?maybe not i dont know but for sure a few hundred thousand..much more than saddam killings and this war..well i guess the iraquis should thank america..lol good job really ..freedom??what u guys know about freedom??what makes america always right and sure about its ideas??well yes the world its grateful for defeating the nazis..but from the times of south americ dictators to the iraq war..americans are now the bad guys

Got any statements of fact in there? It looks like a series of innuendo questions. So which formerly autocratic country are you from?