Iraq Invasion

[Gandhi>Bush]

The fact remains that we are killing (terrorists). We are destroying (the archaic system of government that oppressed 28 million people and led to mass murders). And we're doing a lousy job of protecting (if by that you mean we're making it more safe in Iraq than it has ever been).

All the bombs we've dropped, all the bullets we've fired, and we've killed nothing but terrorists? We've destroyed nothing but an archaic system? That's pretty damned efficient.

And by doing a lousy job of protecting I'm talking about the innocents lost in this war. I'm talking about the innocents that will be lost. I'm talking about the terrorists that this war is breeding.

 

[Fantasea]

It was not unnecessary moreso than any other war, such as Korea, Gulf War I, or Spanish-American.

There were interests involved in all sides that led to the war, and such a thing was predicted decades before the actual war began.

Are you referring to the war in general or just US involvement.

In general, there are two types of war. War of liberation. War of agression.

I find your use of the double negative, especially coupled with the three conflicts you mention confusing.

 

[RightinNYC]

All the bombs we've dropped, all the bullets we've fired, and we've killed nothing but terrorists? We've destroyed nothing but an archaic system? That's pretty damned efficient.

And by doing a lousy job of protecting I'm talking about the innocents lost in this war. I'm talking about the innocents that will be lost. I'm talking about the terrorists that this war is breeding.

Of course there's collateral damage, there always is. But the destruction is less than it would be if Saddam were still in power, or if we hadn't taken extra pains to avoid civilian casualties.

This war is not breeding terrorists. It's breeding a generation that is experiencing something never before seen in the 6000 years of recorded history in this area. It's experiencing the fledgeling kicks of a democracy, and beginning to understand what that means. The generation that is growing up now is quickly losing their patience with the suicide bombers, and wants nothing more than for the foreign fighters to leave and let them work on their new form of government.

I still stand by the fact that in 10 years, you wont be able to find a person who will admit that they opposed the Iraq war.

 

[RightinNYC]

In general, there are two types of war. War of liberation. War of agression.

I find your use of the double negative, especially coupled with the three conflicts you mention confusing.

WWI was a war of aggression on the part of Austria-Hungary and Germany, and a war of liberation on the part of those trying to reclaim their homelands.

There are those who will claim that all war is unnecessary, so to forestall that accusation, I made the point that WWI was in no way more unnecessary than any of those other 3 conflicts, which are often cited as "unnecessary" wars. Sorry if I wasn't very clear.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

This war is not breeding terrorists. It's breeding a generation that is experiencing something never before seen in the 6000 years of recorded history in this area. It's experiencing the fledgeling kicks of a democracy, and beginning to understand what that means. The generation that is growing up now is quickly losing their patience with the suicide bombers, and wants nothing more than for the foreign fighters to leave and let them work on their new form of government.

No doubt they will see democracy. We've given them no choice. Democracy good say robot. I wonder what the "collateral damage" would think about your Democracy?

I still stand by the fact that in 10 years, you wont be able to find a person who will admit that they opposed the Iraq war.

In ten years I stand by the fact that America will be attacked by terrorists again, hell I wouldn't be surprised if it happened twice. Killing killers is an interesting concept much like the "War on Terror," but I don't think it will produce the results that you desire.

 

[RightinNYC]

No doubt they will see democracy. We've given them no choice. Democracy good say robot. I wonder what the "collateral damage" would think about your Democracy?

Democracy IS the best form of government, and instituting such a program helps any country. Ever hear of the Democratic Peace Proposition?

In ten years I stand by the fact that America will be attacked by terrorists again, hell I wouldn't be surprised if it happened twice. Killing killers is an interesting concept much like the "War on Terror," but I don't think it will produce the results that you desire.

You may be right. Doesn't mean Iraq won't have been a blazing success.

 

[teacher]

Close, but wrong or maybe just semantically incorrect. Representative republic is so far the best form of government. Democracy is:2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner:2 klu klux klan members and a black man voting on what to do with a piece of rope. A lazy poor man, a well meaning compassionate Democrat, and a hardworking self employed rich Republican voting on whether rich people should pay a higher percentage income tax then the not rich. The point here being that some democracy has crept into our system by the forming of alliances in the form of political parties. I am not a teacher by trade just picked this user name because after yesterday finding this website and reading some before I joined I figured that is what I would be doing.

 

[GarzaUK]

All else aside, the violence in Iraq is fanned by other Arab nations who, after seeing two of their neighbors replace their regimes with democratically elected governments, don't wish to follow suit.

They recall the infectuous desire for freedom that spread through the rest of the former sattelites of the USSR once the Poles gained theirs. It was unstoppable.

They want no part of that. So they will do what they can to keep Iraq destabilized. The mistake they make is to believe that the character of the Texas sheriff is the same as that of the Arkansas traveller who skedaddled the first time his nose got bloodied.

The democratic process of the former USSR states has hardly being enlightening. There is some states in Eastern Europe which still control the press. Organized crime buys out politicans. I have visited the black markets of Bulgaria, I have never seen such a poor nation in all my travels and it isn't the poorest nation in Europe. If you want to see how democracy should be formed, look at Yugoslavia. NATO didn't topple Milosevic, NATO helped the people topple Milosevic. Yugoslavia is a much more stable place than Iraq.
The EU will bring true democracy to eastern europe in time though and through peaceful means.
The less I say about all the Ubekistans and Blahstans, the better. Only African nations get more corrupt.

 

[teacher]

No doubt they will see democracy. We've given them no choice. Democracy good say robot. I wonder what the "collateral damage" would think about your Democracy?



In ten years I stand by the fact that America will be attacked by terrorists again, hell I wouldn't be surprised if it happened twice. Killing killers is an interesting concept much like the "War on Terror," but I don't think it will produce the results that you desire.

I think if we are attacked it will be by a solo non-state sponsored individual or group or some that go against the policy of their state because other nations now know we WILL come and give them a spanking, which in my opinion is the correct definition of what we are doing in Iraq. I would think the definition of the word war would imply the winner and loser is not known going into it.[A Army Captian who lost a leg in Iraq and is going back, "Freedom is not free."]

 

[teacher]

Re: Iraq Invasion in response to Fantasea

Nice to see someone else who sees the big picture. I agree to other Arab nations Iraq and Afganistan are shining beacons of hope and freedom undreamed of before America resorted to violence to force freedom down their throughts. If they had not done 9-11 we would have left them alone to be free to beat their women. Wake not the sleeping tiger.

 

[GarzaUK]

I think the DoD took a LOT of time planning this out, but the best laid plan of war goes out the window as soon as the first shot is fired.

Looking back, could things have been done better? Of course. Is it fair to say we should have known better? Not necessarily. Did they neglect planning on purpose? Of course not.

And we haven't bitten off more than we can chew. Nobody in their right minds doesn't think that if we wanted to, we could bring our full force to bear and settle this situation easily. It all comes down to the amount of opposition we get politically both domestically and internationally.

Opposition? Internationally? LOL, when have you given a care about what the world thinks of your actions?
Domestially? Well I would have thought Americans would be all for a quick end of the war don't you. So then bring your whole force to bear and handle it. I don't think the people will mind if this war was ended sooner than later.

Think about the war that is being waged. The only main way they can attack is through suicide bombings. They've backed off of us military targets, and now mostly attack civilians, inflaming Iraqi passions against them. That doesnt sound like a winning strategy to me.

I think you, like people in the DoD underestimated the enemy. The biggest victory you could have done against terrorism was to capture their poster boy - Bin Laden. Well so much for that, for all we know he could be eating a Big Mac in Hollywood.

These terrorists are not dumb or stupid. They are attacking civilians now for a reason. They are now targeting Shia clerics for a reason. They know that Iraq stands on the brink of civil war, the Kurds wouldn't mind breaking away - but they know they would loose US support if they do. So they bide their time.
They know if they break up Iraq, America would have failed and they will have won. They would love to see America get humuilated and they are prepared to kill fellow Muslims for that.

Terrorism created by ignorance and poverty. Well yes, but you left one out - hatred. The Muslim hatred for America and it's biased foreign policy in the Middle-East cannot be overlooked, muslims are sick of the US turning a blind eye to Israels doings. Israels has actaully broken more UN resolutions than Saddam ever did.
I've never come across a time when terrorism was defeated. Have you?

Gandhi is right, war = killings of innocents= hatred for those who killed those innocents = the wanting to carry out revenge = terrorism or insurgency.

What if a stray bomb killed all those who you loved and care about? Wouldn't you be pissed? I would.

 

[teacher]

(Sigh) Why would we want to capture the emasculated Bin Laden? I would think we know exacty where he is and we watch him and see who he talks to about what so we can prevent any acts they plan. It is the ones you have not identified that can really get you.

 

[GarzaUK]

(Sigh) Why would we want to capture the emasculated Bin Laden? I would think we know exacty where he is and we watch him and see who he talks to about what so we can prevent any acts they plan. It is the ones you have not identified that can really get you.

Ah so the people who lost loved ones in 9/11 don't get justice? I suppose though, if Bin Laden is captured, the people wouldn't want anymore war, they've got the guy responsible. But I guess the Bush Administration wants more war, more control.

I still think it's very cute that some Americans believe they can defeat terrorism.
"We're going defeat terrorism!"
"Great! Smashing! How?"
"Eh, hmmm, with force! Fight fire with fire!"
"Cool. But be more specific."
"We will spread liberty across the middle east."
"Yeah okay but how does that defeat terrorism?"
"Eh, Shut up you liberal pansy, american hating commie!"

I don't think Bush's administration wants to win it per se, he wants it to go on and on. He wants a Reagan style government, but he needs a cold war emeny, move aside Soviet Union, terrorism has took your place.
This war is not meant to be won, but be constant.

 

[teacher]

GarzaUK. Do you really feel that Bush is so evil that he is willing to put our sons and daughters in harms way for reasons such as greed or the lust for power? Really, do you think that? Does he do this as a way to keep Americans scared and more easily swayed to voting for him and his buds? Or perhaps to line the nest of the military industrial complex? Or as the first step to ruling the world? I'm interested in your line of reasoning that led you to your opinion.

 

[Hoot]

GarzaUK. Do you really feel that Bush is so evil that he is willing to put our sons and daughters in harms way for reasons such as greed or the lust for power? Really, do you think that? Does he do this as a way to keep Americans scared and more easily swayed to voting for him and his buds? Or perhaps to line the nest of the military industrial complex? Or as the first step to ruling the world? I'm interested in your line of reasoning that led you to your opinion.

If I can jump in here...I believe Bush and his administration conducted a marketing campaign, before, during and after the 2nd Gulf War. A campaign based on assumptions, distortions, arrogance and contradictions.
A campaign which led us into war...a war with disastrous consequences for our nation.

Who can be sure of Bush's reasons? WMD? Spreading Democracy? Avenging his father? Creating a legacy for himself? Getting a better grip on MidEast oil?

Whatever the reasons....Bush lied to the American people to justify this war.

If this doesn't fit the exact definition of "evil," then we're dealing with a man whose elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor.

Which situation is scarier?

 

[teacher]

Mr. hoot. I joined this site yesterday and find it fasinating. If you would sir name some politicians you think are not evil. Also what lies do you think Bush told? Please be specific. Finally, do you think there was ever WMD's in Iraq?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I think if we are attacked it will be by a solo non-state sponsored individual or group or some that go against the policy of their state because other nations now know we WILL come and give them a spanking, which in my opinion is the correct definition of what we are doing in Iraq. I would think the definition of the word war would imply the winner and loser is not known going into it.

Who do you think it would lead back to?

[A Army Captian who lost a leg in Iraq and is going back, "Freedom is not free."]

To the contrary, Freedom is free. War is expensive as hell.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Mr. hoot. I joined this site yesterday and find it fasinating. If you would sir name some politicians you think are not evil. Also what lies do you think Bush told? Please be specific. Finally, do you think there was ever WMD's in Iraq?

Of course there WMD's in Iraq. And we even have proof. I'm sure Bush Senior and Reagan have those reciepts some where. Pesky little devils, those reciepts. You know I hear you can write the sales tax off this year?

 

[RightinNYC]

Opposition? Internationally? LOL, when have you given a care about what the world thinks of your actions?
Domestially? Well I would have thought Americans would be all for a quick end of the war don't you. So then bring your whole force to bear and handle it. I don't think the people will mind if this war was ended sooner than later.

It would involve increasing troop numbers, short term increase in casualties, and more hard-line actions, none of which would be palatable to the public.

I think you, like people in the DoD underestimated the enemy. The biggest victory you could have done against terrorism was to capture their poster boy - Bin Laden. Well so much for that, for all we know he could be eating a Big Mac in Hollywood.

Perhaps they did underestimate the enemy. It happens. And just because bin Laden hasn't been captured yet, I don't think that constitutes failure. Nobody thought we'd get Saddam either, and you can look at the Sun to see how he's doing.

These terrorists are not dumb or stupid. They are attacking civilians now for a reason. They are now targeting Shia clerics for a reason. They know that Iraq stands on the brink of civil war, the Kurds wouldn't mind breaking away - but they know they would loose US support if they do. So they bide their time.
They know if they break up Iraq, America would have failed and they will have won. They would love to see America get humuilated and they are prepared to kill fellow Muslims for that.

They're attacking civilians because the rate of success is far higher than attacking US troops. They originally attacked US troops, then moved to the Iraqi troops, now as they're getting better trained, they have to focus on civilians. That seems like we're winning.

Terrorism created by ignorance and poverty. Well yes, but you left one out - hatred. The Muslim hatred for America and it's biased foreign policy in the Middle-East cannot be overlooked, muslims are sick of the US turning a blind eye to Israels doings. Israels has actaully broken more UN resolutions than Saddam ever did.
I've never come across a time when terrorism was defeated. Have you?

And yet Israel is a far, far better country than any other in the middle east. Perhaps that's the reason we're so biased. No, but I've come across times where terrorism was curbed.

Gandhi is right, war = killings of innocents= hatred for those who killed those innocents = the wanting to carry out revenge = terrorism or insurgency.

What if a stray bomb killed all those who you loved and care about? Wouldn't you be pissed? I would.

This point makes little sense. Know who is causing the majority of civilian deaths right now? The insurgents. Thus, by your logic, the people of Iraq will rise up and create an insurgency against the insurgents.

 

[RightinNYC]

I still think it's very cute that some Americans believe they can defeat terrorism.
"We're going defeat terrorism!"
"Great! Smashing! How?"
"Eh, hmmm, with force! Fight fire with fire!"
"Cool. But be more specific."
"We will spread liberty across the middle east."
"Yeah okay but how does that defeat terrorism?"
"Eh, Shut up you liberal pansy, american hating commie!"

There is a DIRECT correlation between the level of political freedom a group enjoys and the propensity toward terrorism.

So, actually, spreading liberty WILL help defeat (or drastically curb) terrorism.

 

[GarzaUK]

It would involve increasing troop numbers, short term increase in casualties, and more hard-line actions, none of which would be palatable to the public.

Ah, kinda like a band aid. You'd rather peel it off slow, it slowly hurts bit by bit, taken one step at a time rather than quickly ripping it off. Fair enough, it's your countrymen, not mine getting fired at.
I must admit I'm curious where this extra power in military might would come from?
Historically speaking the US has never liked Americans being killed in foreign places. But however you say that the US is holding back. The public can't handle it if the US stepped up a gear, most of your public are sick of this war and think it has been handled badly. Not to mention your poor boys in Iraq that might just want to get home! I mean seriously, let them go home if you are holding back. They deserve it.

Perhaps they did underestimate the enemy. It happens. And just because bin Laden hasn't been captured yet, I don't think that constitutes failure. Nobody thought we'd get Saddam either, and you can look at the Sun to see how he's doing.

The most powerful nation in the world for almost four years has not captured Bin Laden, I think that constitutes as a moral defeat at least. Maybe if you guys had concentrated on one country at a time, maybe you would have got him. Instead of concentrating on the mastermind of the GREATEST ATTACK ON AMERICAN MAINLAND SOIL, you choose to concentrate on a dictator who had nothing to do with the GREATEST ATTACK ON AMERICAN MAINLAND SOIL. I feel disappointed for the relatives of the victims of 9/11 more than anything. I think they derserve to know why the government at least postponed their right to justice.

Oh I know everything about the Sun, my dad is a reader. It is very much "selective news", I hate it more than Fox (The Sun is owned by Murdoch as well), at least Fox tries to be subtle.
I mean Saddam is going to die, let him have some shred of dignity before he steps up to the gallows. He might have not allowed that for some of his victims, but I at least I hope the West respect people evil or good or else we lower ourselves to Saddam's level. The Sun disproves that.

Bush was asked if the pictures would create more terrorists. He said "I don't know, who can get into the mentality of those murderers." Jeez George, talk about Know Thy Enemy Huh?

They're attacking civilians because the rate of success is far higher than attacking US troops. They originally attacked US troops, then moved to the Iraqi troops, now as they're getting better trained, they have to focus on civilians. That seems like we're winning.
And yet Israel is a far, far better country than any other in the middle east. Perhaps that's the reason we're so biased. No, but I've come across times where terrorism was curbed.
This point makes little sense. Know who is causing the majority of civilian deaths right now? The insurgents. Thus, by your logic, the people of Iraq will rise up and create an insurgency against the insurgents.

And the murder of Shia clerics does not arouse your suspicions at all? Give these terrorists some credit, they are not stupid.

Iraq is an unstable democracy at the minute right? The power of democracy is the people right? The more misery and suffering of the Iraqis only serves to make the democracy even more fragile. When people get threatened with theie lives they turn to clans/viglantes to protect since they realize that the Iraqi Security forces will not. Mix that in with 3 different cultures and you have the makings of a civil war.
This guys were trained by the CIA, they have already brought a superpower to it's knees (Soviet Union).

I have no doubt that the Iraqi population is p****d off with the terrorists and maybe they joined the Iraqi security forces to combat the forces that killed his family. But it is ignorant to assume that the family of the innocents killed accidentally or otherwise have not joined the terrorist ranks.

I feel the Iraqi people are could between two powers that they cannot identify, the uninvited occupiers and the ultra-fanatic explosive zealots. I'm sure the Iraqi people can't wait until both have gone.

 

[GarzaUK]

There is a DIRECT correlation between the level of political freedom a group enjoys and the propensity toward terrorism.

So, actually, spreading liberty WILL help defeat (or drastically curb) terrorism.

Really where is this source from?

Because the Nazis are still causing trouble in Germany.
In Spain, ETA seperatists bombs tourists resorts.
Terrorists carried out the UK's biggest bank raid in history no more than two miles away from where I type this.
The Olkahoma Bombing, the KKK, the bombings of abortion clinics in the US.
Israel receives and dishes out terrorism.
All these in FREE Western nations.

Yet Iraq (during Saddam) had no terrorism.
Iran has no terrorism.
Syria has dissent, but no terrorism.

Where are you sources from?

 

[Hoot]

Mr. hoot. I joined this site yesterday and find it fasinating. If you would sir name some politicians you think are not evil. Also what lies do you think Bush told? Please be specific. Finally, do you think there was ever WMD's in Iraq?

Of course I believe WMD's existed in Iraq...we gave them to Saddam. They were destroyed during the first Gulf War, as established and verified by our very own NIE ( National Intelligence Estimate) and the IAEA, both of whom stated there were no WMD's in Iraq before Bush invaded. ( Congress never got to see the classified version of the NIE's report until after the fact)

Is it evil to have intelligence that states there are NO WMD's in Iraq, and intelligence that states there ARE WMD in Iraq and still take our nation to war? If you were President, wouldn't that give you pause?

I'll pick one very easy lie, although I can name many, many others by the entire Bush administration...if you like?

"We have removed an ally of Al-Qaeda."
President Bush-May 1, 2003 on the deck of the USS Lincoln, in front of the 'Mission Accomplished' sign.

Do I really need to bore everyone with how there has never been any established connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? This has pretty well been established by now, don't you think?

As far as politicians...I don't believe John McCain is evil (why can't you republicans ever nominate someone like him?) I don't believe Kerry is evil, I don't even believe Clinton was evil, or Reagan for that matter, or our new Senator from IL, Barrack O'Bama.

I believe Bush likes to hide under the cloak of Christianity for political purposes. Is that evil? Could be?

On another note, yesterday marked the day when we have now been in Iraq longer then we were involved in WWII. Just something to think about.

 

[GarzaUK]

GarzaUK. Do you really feel that Bush is so evil that he is willing to put our sons and daughters in harms way for reasons such as greed or the lust for power? Really, do you think that? Does he do this as a way to keep Americans scared and more easily swayed to voting for him and his buds? Or perhaps to line the nest of the military industrial complex? Or as the first step to ruling the world? I'm interested in your line of reasoning that led you to your opinion.

First of all Bush is not good or evil, he is a politican.

Will politicans put people in harms way for power? Absobloodylutly. (Yes). Do you think he is different from every other politican in the world?

The more and more I hear about Iraq the more and more I doubt the US adminstrations reasoning for going to war.
The Downing Memo released to the British public proves that Bush had planned to go to war with Iraq in the summer of 2002, making the UN and run up to war a charade.

The Lifeblood of the US is oil. Think about it. The US military machine, by far the most powerful, is nothing without that thick black liquid.
Iraq has been on the minds of US politicans even since Clinton's reign.

 

[RightinNYC]

Ah, kinda like a band aid. You'd rather peel it off slow, it slowly hurts bit by bit, taken one step at a time rather than quickly ripping it off. Fair enough, it's your countrymen, not mine getting fired at.
I must admit I'm curious where this extra power in military might would come from?
Historically speaking the US has never liked Americans being killed in foreign places. But however you say that the US is holding back. The public can't handle it if the US stepped up a gear, most of your public are sick of this war and think it has been handled badly. Not to mention your poor boys in Iraq that might just want to get home! I mean seriously, let them go home if you are holding back. They deserve it.

I'd rather get it done asap, but its not politically feasible. The way we're going is an acceptable path, and will yield acceptable results.

The most powerful nation in the world for almost four years has not captured Bin Laden, I think that constitutes as a moral defeat at least. Maybe if you guys had concentrated on one country at a time, maybe you would have got him. Instead of concentrating on the mastermind of the GREATEST ATTACK ON AMERICAN MAINLAND SOIL, you choose to concentrate on a dictator who had nothing to do with the GREATEST ATTACK ON AMERICAN MAINLAND SOIL. I feel disappointed for the relatives of the victims of 9/11 more than anything. I think they derserve to know why the government at least postponed their right to justice.

I'm not really surprised...it's incredibly difficult to track ANYthing through the areas we've gone. Whether or not bin Laden himself has been captured, he's been rendered nearly impotent already, so I don't really see it as a defeat. He will not escape, so I'm patient.

Oh I know everything about the Sun, my dad is a reader. It is very much "selective news", I hate it more than Fox (The Sun is owned by Murdoch as well), at least Fox tries to be subtle.
I mean Saddam is going to die, let him have some shred of dignity before he steps up to the gallows. He might have not allowed that for some of his victims, but I at least I hope the West respect people evil or good or else we lower ourselves to Saddam's level. The Sun disproves that.

I love how you criticize "the west" for the actions of a British paper.

Bush was asked if the pictures would create more terrorists. He said "I don't know, who can get into the mentality of those murderers." Jeez George, talk about Know Thy Enemy Huh?

Would you have preferred him to claim something concrete, only to have people throw it in his face later? Honestly, people wonder why Bush vascilliates so much nowadays in his speeches. It's because everything he says is criticized.

And the murder of Shia clerics does not arouse your suspicions at all? Give these terrorists some credit, they are not stupid.

Compare the number of Shia clerics murdered to the number of average civilans murdered. It's not exactly a precision campaign. And yes, they are stupid. They only way they attack involves suicide bombings.

Iraq is an unstable democracy at the minute right? The power of democracy is the people right? The more misery and suffering of the Iraqis only serves to make the democracy even more fragile. When people get threatened with theie lives they turn to clans/viglantes to protect since they realize that the Iraqi Security forces will not.

...Except the security forces are getting stronger and stronger every day. Honestly, I feel like everyone on both sides should forget debating Iraq for a year until things are more stable, then all the naysayers will have avoided making fools of themselves.

Mix that in with 3 different cultures and you have the makings of a civil war.
This guys were trained by the CIA, they have already brought a superpower to it's knees (Soviet Union).

I have no doubt that the Iraqi population is p****d off with the terrorists and maybe they joined the Iraqi security forces to combat the forces that killed his family. But it is ignorant to assume that the family of the innocents killed accidentally or otherwise have not joined the terrorist ranks.

I feel the Iraqi people are could between two powers that they cannot identify, the uninvited occupiers and the ultra-fanatic explosive zealots. I'm sure the Iraqi people can't wait until both have gone.

You're right, they want us gone. But at least we're only 'opressing' them, not blowing them up.