Middle eastern politics

[amoona]

So have I which is why when you see family killed I have no desire to see other people killed. My stomach isn't strong enough to stand that. Even in movies if I see someone murdered it just reminds me of being back home and watching family die so I wont be watching the video of him being killed. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amoona So have I which is why when you see family killed I have no desire to see other people killed. My stomach isn't strong enough to stand that. Even in movies if I see someone murdered it just reminds me of being back home and watching family die so I wont be watching the video of him being killed. It's just not my cup of tea.

I can understand that.

 

[quandolak]

The choice unfortuantly isnt theirs. When they have foreign forces daily *accidently* killing civillians and also they dont get the last say on what THEY would like their government to be like.

What they have now there is more oppression than ever before. Being imposed upon them by foreign forces who are telling them to get on with it yet denying them the chance to at the same time.

 

[Shimmer]

I'm sorry, the choice IS theirs.
They can find a way to voice their thoughts, opinions, and behaviours, as well as their preferences for the way of life, without attacking anyone.
If BOTH sides are willing to lay down the weapons (whatever they are) and speak on terms and compromise on issues, progress can be made.

No progress can be made when combatants are disguising themselves as civilians with full intention of undoing any good.

Example? My exhusband and his group of guys just returned home. While they were tehre they were training the iraqi army. When met with a situation, it was the first instint of the Iraqis to simply kill the person and move on.
My exhusband's group helped support the building of a hospital and a school. Brand new. Our tax dollars paid for both of them. Our Army built them.

WHILE THEY WERE BEING BUILT insurgents were mortaring them. The new buildings, once completed when THREE WHOLE DAYS before being destroyed.
Why?
Because someone didn't get what they wanted...or it didn't go the way someone wanted.

Is that REALLY necessary?

 

[lemurian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I'm sorry, the choice IS theirs. They can find a way to voice their thoughts, opinions, and behaviours, as well as their preferences for the way of life, without attacking anyone. If BOTH sides are willing to lay down the weapons (whatever they are) and speak on terms and compromise on issues, progress can be made. No progress can be made when combatants are disguising themselves as civilians with full intention of undoing any good. Example? My exhusband and his group of guys just returned home. While they were tehre they were training the iraqi army. When met with a situation, it was the first instint of the Iraqis to simply kill the person and move on. My exhusband's group helped support the building of a hospital and a school. Brand new. Our tax dollars paid for both of them. Our Army built them. WHILE THEY WERE BEING BUILT insurgents were mortaring them. The new buildings, once completed when THREE WHOLE DAYS before being destroyed. Why? Because someone didn't get what they wanted...or it didn't go the way someone wanted. Is that REALLY necessary?

I assume that's a rhetorical question.. I'm sure the majority of Iraqis would agree with you that the fighting and the destruction isnt' helping anyone. The people who'd most like peace are the ones without a voice -- if you're not a politician or don't wield a gun or a bomb clearly your voice isn't going to be heard, and nor will you understand that what's going on in Iraq, as far as the violence among Iraqis goes, is a result of the actions of a few, not the majority. "They" can't sort it out among themselves because "they" are just a handful of angry zealots. And we (the US) aren't helping.. not that we could help, OR stop anything. At this poing my feeling is that our presence there is futile. I'd say let the crazies kill each other until they're all taken out, but unfortuately these crazies are hellbent on taking out people who don't have nor want anything to do with their crusade. It's not so simple as you'd like to believe. I don't know what the answer is, but it certainly isn't MORE US TROOPS. I'm sure we can agree on that

 

[quandolak]

Reply to shimmer:


Your talking about insurgents not iraqi civillians.

Bombing people then hoping a school will fix it wont work. its nice to build a school but the civillians would rather people not bomb their town into the ground then ask fpr praise when they rebuld part of it. This may not be the situation with ur ex but its a common one in iraq and afghanistan.

They cant choose because as you said boths sides have to make and effort. And when there is a tiny (in comparison to the american forces their) iraq insurgent numbers and the majority of iraqis just civillians. Then there are forces their saying it takes boths sides but refusing to stop bombing and torturing civillians that eg.kids are clearly not insurgents pretending to be civillians you can see how its not going to work.

Your seeing it as americans against iraqis. Afterall your ex is in the army he is going to come up against insurgants . When its american forces against a tiny proportion of iraqis and those insurgents have only come out to fight so they can get the forces to leave iraq alone and go home. They may be killing the odd solidier but its nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of civillians american soliders alone have killed.


So you seriously belive that there is some way for the average iraqi to somehow make changes for the better?


How?

When iraq was better before and forces come and destroy their infrastructure and controll their goverments decisions how are iraqis meant to have a real say?

America gets the final say over who runs the country..who they feel acceptable. Its not the iraqis choice one bit.

You giving the example of your ex there just shows my point that its outsiders who have the say and strangly when they pull out of town in iraq the insurgents stop the attacks. Its only because iraqis want to be allowed to make their own descisions without foreigners ramming their idea of democracy down their throats.



Quote* Because someone didn't get what they wanted...or it didn't go the way someone wanted.

Is that REALLY necessary?*quote*


No its not neccesary. But those reasons you gave seem to be the reasoning that foreign forces have applied to randomly going through houses and one by one wiping out everyone in whole streets..Democracy eh

The foreign forces have made life worse. The most likely cause of death now in iraq is at the hands of foreign forces...and you ask of iraqis to change theire *preferances* to their way of life wtf...

Whilst foreign forces continiue killing many times more than saddam ever did dont expect insurgent to stop and dont expect iraqis to take advantage of this false freedom that you bestow upon them.

So no progress will infact be made until ALL foreign armies are out of iraq. Its not *really neccesary* for foreign armies to be there and ask for iraqis to not attack anyone since its only a tiny minority. Maybe it would be nice if the americans (this is afterall how u want to label it...their whole nation against peace...imaginge if i applied that to all americans) stopped killing people and actually went about this is a humane and rational way.

*quote*
If BOTH sides are willing to lay down the weapons (whatever they are) and speak on terms and compromise on issues, progress can be made.

*quote*


I think American forces invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of civillians and makeing life worse in iraq...like i said the most likely cause of death now there is by being killed by foreign forces....i think all that shows the type of compromise that iraqis wanted to avoid...you want them to find other ways to voiuce their thoughts??!!...why imply that they are all at it killing forces when its quite clearly the other way around.

They never got a say before the war and they arent gettong it now .

Its very patronising to imply that iraqis have a choice.

 

[quandolak]

I'm sorry, the choice IS theirs.
They can find a way to voice their thoughts, opinions, and behaviours, as well as their preferences for the way of life, without attacking anyone.
QUOTE]

You yourself said in the other topic that you dont stereotype of judge people on false factors. But that sentance kind of proves that wrong if your seriously implying that *they* the iraqis are like that..they civillians included attack people...when clearly its the invaders that attacked. Not once did iraq attack america.

That kind of rationalising applied to americans then could mean all sorts of nasty things.

 

[amoona]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer My understanding from your post is that the oppression is a better option? Why can't the people of the region learn to disagree with each other without IEDs, EFPs, militia attacks, suicide bombers, etc.? Regardless of their political/religious stance, they could resolve the differences without the violence, and simply use the US presence as a peacekeeping/law enforcement group, as has been in the past. The choice is theirs.

No I don't mean oppression is the better option. My country has been oppressed for over 58 years I'd never vote for oppression. What I mean is that oppression is how they are used to living their daily lives. It takes baby steps for them to learn to live differently.

For example my cousins family in Palestine live in a refugee camp. My cousin's father built them a house in a town about 15 minutes away from the camp. The town is also a very safe town which doesn't usually have any fighting. They're too frightened to move outside of the camp because inside the camp even though they live horribly and in poverty they are protected by the United Nations. They don't know how to live life outside of the camp.

I hope that makes sense and examples what I was trying to say.

Yes the choice maybe their own choice but you have to remember the violent history of the country before hand. People are angry and sadly they're taking it out on each other. When you live in that type of life day to day you do what you feel is your last resort. People are desperate.

From my own personal experience I'll refer to my country. In Palestine people are desperate, they've been struggling for 58 years. There are people who give up all hope and then there are people who become desperate with rage and anger. It may not be something you see as ok or right but when you have their lives I think it's much easier to understand.

 

[lemurian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amoona No I don't mean oppression is the better option. My country has been oppressed for over 58 years I'd never vote for oppression. What I mean is that oppression is how they are used to living their daily lives. It takes baby steps for them to learn to live differently.

This is such an excellent point, and one that we cannot fully appreciate living comfortably in America. We want to force our ideals and values and way of life on a people who just don't understand it and can't conform to it, no matter how much better it may be for them, at the drop of a hat.

Amoona discussed this in another thread I think, referring to her shirt that says she voted for Hamas -- America is all for democracy, but when you give people choices, sometimes they make bad ones because they've never had a choice before and they don't know any better. And I'm not saying that having Hamas in power is a good thing, I agree with others that they are indeed a terrorist organization, even though they may have done good for their people. But we can't have it both ways, saying that we want to spread democracy but then say "oh.. wait!" when we don't like the outcome

 

[amoona]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemurian This is such an excellent point, and one that we cannot fully appreciate living comfortably in America. We want to force our ideals and values and way of life on a people who just don't understand it and can't conform to it, no matter how much better it may be for them, at the drop of a hat. Amoona discussed this in another thread I think, referring to her shirt that says she voted for Hamas -- America is all for democracy, but when you give people choices, sometimes they make bad ones because they've never had a choice before and they don't know any better. And I'm not saying that having Hamas in power is a good thing, I agree with others that they are indeed a terrorist organization, even though they may have done good for their people. But we can't have it both ways, saying that we want to spread democracy but then say "oh.. wait!" when we don't like the outcome

Exactly ... now I don't agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization ... from from it. But we can agree to disagree on that one, we both see them through different lives. BUT it's true that America tries to force their views on others ... even if they have good intentions you can't force your life or even your beliefs on someone when they are TOTALLY different then yours.

Example (I'm into using examples today) - My aunt is OVERLY religious, we seriously think she's a nutcase. Nobody listens to anything she says because all she does it try to push her ideas on us. To her everything is a sin and everything we do will result in us going to hell lol. Crazy huh? She herself used to wear mini-skirts and party with her husband and all that good stuff that she gets on us (me n my cousins) about. I tried to explain to her that we have to come to our own conclusions and our own beliefs when WE want to. Yet everytime I see her she nags us all about when we're gonna start covering our hair and praying. I was considering it in high school until my aunt opened her mouth and started pushing her over the top thoughts down my throat.

You can't force or expect people to be like you. You can't expect them to conform quickly either.

 

[geeko]

This is a highly interesting thread to read and i have to say that i agree with a lot of what lemurian and amoona and guandolak have to say.

As for the word terrorist. What defines terrorist? Resorting to violent means to gain independence is a form of terrorism? in this case, we can classify all civil wars in history as forms of terrorism. We can't just come to the conclusion that so n so is a terrorist group just because US say so. Although i have to agree with the US, that AL QAEDA is a terrorist group and is a threat to the world as they are trying to spread Islamic militarism to other countries.

Comparatively, HAMAs may commit suicide bombings in israel but they do it for a nationalistic cause and they have no motives to export islamic militarism to other countries. This is despite the fact that i think that suicide bombing is VERY WRONG. I'm giving this as an example that we always have to examine the reasons for certain behavior before totally dismissing a group as terrorist. Yes, i agree, HAMAS is an extremist group but if the western governments and the israelis had not created all these mess, will they be there in the first place?

Hence, i'm ashamed to say, the west...especially no thanks to Britain is the cause of all these instability in the middle east. To understand why, u have to know about how Israel was created after WWII and how the palestinians were driven out of their homeland and were denied of a say in the Israeli government which solely made up of jews alone. The carving out of Israel by the western governments definitely alienated the palestinians.

The Arab Israeli wars further strengthened the belief that the Israeli government wanted to expand their land.....US made things worse by siding with the Israelis. i'm sorry to say here, but what right does the Israel have to invade the surrounding countries when they weren't there in the first place. No doubt the bible promised the Jews their Promised Land...but to what extent? To the extent of invading other countries and killing people? No doubt, there were groups trying to overthrow the Israeli government and commited acts of terrorism on them thus triggering the invasion, but that reason is NOT good enough for Israel to invade other countries. (By the way in case u guys think i'm being racist or support terrorism, I am not. I am a christian but i don't believe and don't support both the violent acts commited by the Israelis and Hamas)

This was the time when the PLA and other so called terrorist groups such as HAMAs were formed. They were nationalistic groups that called for the return of their homeland. But because the Israeli government ruled with an iron hand and commited atrocities against the palestinians, they had no choice but to fight back with violence.

I'm just trying to point out that, in history no one is right or wrong. And no one party is solely responsible for the wrongdoings, violence etc. There are always 2 sides to a story.

I agree with Amoona on the following. No one country or one group has the right to impose their will or culture or the way of living on other countries, be it by violent means or more "peaceful" means like economic sanctions etc. Before saying that Saddam killed a lot of people and deserve to die, (i agree he's a sadistic evil guy), pls think about what the current Bush administration has done -> creating all these chaos in Iraq, resulting in a great no of both US soldiers and innocent iraqi citizens dying. Is that any better?? Are the killings of innocent palestinians in Israel also right? Just because Hamas and other extremist organizations commit suicide bombings on the Israeli government, does it give the right for Israel to react back with violence? Ultimately it's the innocent civilians that suffer, be it palestinains or Israelis. I'm concerned about the innocent lives that are being lost.

just a last word...Violence begets Violence. If u commit violence on a certain group, be certain that u will get it back...twice of what u have commited....and this is a vicious cycle that won't be easy to stop.
Just take the case of Israel for example

 

[amoona]

Very good point ... one man's terrorists is another man's hero. I also don't agree with suicide bombings and I wouldn't encourage them HOWEVER I do understand them and I can understand why people do it in Palestine.

 

[quandolak]

Terrorists in iraq is usually a misused word...many of them are just wanting iraq to be free from foreign forces and are not fighting for anything more than that.

If iraq invaded america and it defended itself(people and army) they would not get called terrorists for defending their country.

And yes iraq does need to be defended from the actions of various foreign troops.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by quandolak Terrorists in iraq is usually a misused word...many of them are just wanting iraq to be free from foreign forces and are not fighting for anything more than that. If iraq invaded america and it defended itself(people and army) they would not get called terrorists for defending their country. And yes iraq does need to be defended from the actions of various foreign troops.

Isn't that a rather self defeating method of acheiving a goal, if thats all that they want? It's been made rather clear, and has been for a while that the American government will pull out it's forces when the region stabalises enough to where the newly created government can do it's job. So why not just stop fighting?

It's like two people fighting... Person A, wants person B to leave. Person B says they will go, but person A need to stop hitting them so they can pack up their things and leave. But person A feels that instead of just letting person B leave, they need to throw person B out. But person A isn't strong enough to throw out person B.

The image of the older brother putting his hand on his younger brothers head, while the younger brothers arms flail about trying to hit the older brother, but can't, because his arms are too short, comes to mind.

American govt isn't going to leave until the mess in Iraq is cleaned up. The government already embarassed itself enough already, it faces way to much loss of power and credibility to say, "oops we fucked up, my bad." Having a 2nd Veitnam isn't acceptable. It's one of those points of no return. While I dont support the war, and never have, I think that it's irresponsible to leave the situation like it is, and just wash our hands of it. Too much blood on both sides has been shed to make this all end for nothing.

 

[lemurian]

Did I bring up the whole terrorist thing? Well, the reason that I think HAMAS is a terrorist group is because they've claimed responsibility for bombings in Israel that have, you know, killed people. I have friends in Israel. Simple logic, folks! I'm well aware of their motives, but to me Nationalism isn't justification for murder. I understand that HAMAS has done good things for the Palestinians, but that doesn't exclude them from having done bad things to Israelis! Furthermore, the problems in the Middle East did not begin with Israel, they began in earnest after WWI, as I mentioned in a previous post. But it's hardly surprising to hear someone blaming the jews for everything, because that just seems to be what people do no matter where they live... *sigh*

Anyhoo, as far as the terrorist element in Iraq... It would seem to me that the greatest cause of violence in Baghdad as of late has nothing to do with driving the US military out. To me it is just all out civil war AMONG IRAQIS. I don't see that improving if and when occupying US forces leave. As I said in previous posts, it's just a mess and the those suffering most are your regular moms and dads and sons and daughters, barbers and farmers and chefs and students and on and on and on.. There seems to be no end in sight and the US presence there is almost moot at this point :/

 

[quandolak]

Lets get this straight hamas and israel have both done wrong. Israel has one of the worlds strongest armies. It spends billions a year on weapons. Its kills thousands each year. Hamas on meagre funds whether you agree with them or not kills a handful of people each year. ..Its not right ...however i think getting things into perspective would help.


If one is an American and israeli tax payer funded killing spree is that somehow not terrorism?


Lemurian if you dont like hamas killing less than 50 people ..why do you not find israels killing of thousands each year slightly more of a threat?

.................................................. ............................................
Quote raerae*

Isn't that a rather self defeating method of acheiving a goal, if thats all that they want? It's been made rather clear, and has been for a while that the American government will pull out it's forces when the region stabalises enough to where the newly created government can do it's job. So why not just stop fighting?

...............American govt isn't going to leave until the mess in Iraq is cleaned up.

*raerae*

America forces wont leave until it stabilises eh. Im sure if they left it couldnt be any worse. Considering this all started when they arrived.

Going to foreign countries and installing an american approved government has become somewhat of an obsession . Its happened all over the world for decades and has caused so much death and destruction all for the sake of the american model of democracy. Which incedentally has never worked out not once in the countries they have installed new leaders of state in. Im thinking Iran,Chile,guatemala to name only a few.

I might be on my own here on this view but im sick and tired of American troops going around the world and killing thousands each year. Millions each decade . They are the biggest military killers in the world and invading countries who never posed a threat and wrecking the place then going well now your not allowed to try and stop us or else we wont leave.

All this and they are trying to make the other country look the threat to the world.

So person A (iraq) is attacked then told not to retaliate and gets told it somehow started all this. So they *need to stop hitting them * *a(america) despte the crystal clear fact that america was the one who attacked and kills hundreds on a daily basis and the one who made false accusations and the one that never needs to justify itself and the one who writes of all past killings with *its just in the past* and the one who claims all present killings are a part of war...a war which they started and they refuse to end. Iraqis have never fought like this betwwen themselves. These scenes have only happened when foreign troops have wanted to force their version of demporacy(via thousands of killings) on them.





Look if person A (iraq)wants person B(america) to leave they should.
Foreign forces have no right to be there and have nothing whaytsoever to show for the destuction they have caused.


Iraq was not in the mess its in now before they came along and killed thousands and bombed hospitals , schools and homes to the ground. Saddam was evil but not even he was as evil as those forces who have been brainwashed into thinking that killing hundreds of thousands and destroying the whole country in a rampage is doing some good...for democracy.





*lies down*

 

[quandolak]

And no im not anti american. Im anti every government who has chosen to kill thousands in the name of their safety and their idea of democracy. Im anti the government lies and decisions .
Im anti the self imposed ignorance that people hide behind saying that they have the right to protect themselves from iraq as if iraq was ever an actual threat. Im anti those who fool themselves into beliveing that the army is doing any good there as the iraqi reality is so beyond their *life experience* its not worth thinking about.

 

[Shimmer]

But, American troops are NOT randomly attacking Iraqi civilians. We've had this discussion before, and again, I can tell you that in all seriousness and truthfulness, CIVILIANS are NOT being attacked intentionally.
Collaterral (I butchered that) damage? Probably.

Creating havoc and chaos?

Quandolak, who do you think is responsible for building new hospitals in Iraq?
USACE.
United States Army Corp of Engineers.

New schools?
USACE.
New treatment centers for injurys inflicted upon civilians by insurgents?
USACE.
Who treats the Iraqi civilians?
Members of USAMedD. (United States Medical Department)
Who builds roads?
USACE.
Who builds apartment buildings for Iraqi families?
USACE.

Who pays for it?
US tax dollars.

Who is employed, making more than they've ever made in their lifetime by the USACE to work alongside our soldiers to build these things? Iraqi civilians.
The army isn't doing any good?
The Gulf Region Division has completed 99 percent of planned school renovations. Under the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, 807 school renovations have been completed to date and one is under construction. Three new school projects were recently awarded but have not yet started. Under the Development Fund for Iraqprogram, 29 additional school renovations have been completed. These projects will provide improved school facilities for over 320,000 students.

Construction of the Al HamzaBridge project ($738,000) in QadisiyahProvince has been completed. In addition to providing invaluable access arteries to vital throughout the province, this project will also help restore regional security.

Baghdad is facing some challenging times and for the situation to get better, most officials believe local residents need to see that their government is working and improvements are taking place.Maj. Robert Nash, Officer in Charge of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) International Zone office, points out his staff is overseeing about 150 projects worth $500 million to upgrade essential services in Baghdad. “We’re rebuilding gas stations, paving roads, repairing sewer lift stations, installing new potable water networks, and paving roads. We’re also renovating hospitals, building healthcare centers, installing neighborhood electric distribution networks, and rehabilitating water treatment plants.

These are people who, upon having the water treatment plants repaired, were ASTOUNDED at the idea of being told to shower in clean water. They had NO IDEA what the soldiers were talking about. They were bathing in sewer heavy river.

And guess what?
EVERY SINGLE DAY these projects, and more like them, face heavy setbacks.
Why? Because they're mortared, fired upon, and blown up, by the VERY PEOPLE WHO the projects are intended for.


The US Army isn't doing good in Iraq?
No, that's an incorrect statement.
The Iraqi people aren't doing good in Iraq. Is it a civil war? Likely.
Would pulling out benefit ANYTHING?
Probably not...and ANY good that has been done would be undone.
I'd much rather see the army not involve itself in the sectarian violence and simply be there as a means to keep Iraq as its own country than see the Army there policing up the violence between the groups.

 

[lemurian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by quandolak Lets get this straight hamas and israel have both done wrong. Israel has one of the worlds strongest armies. It spends billions a year on weapons. Its kills thousands each year. Hamas on meagre funds whether you agree with them or not kills a handful of people each year. ..Its not right ...however i think getting things into perspective would help. If one is an American and israeli tax payer funded killing spree is that somehow not terrorism? Lemurian if you dont like hamas killing less than 50 people ..why do you not find israels killing of thousands each year slightly more of a threat?

We're getting way off course here, but I feel like I need to point out that militant activity conducted by an actual military force against someone breaking the law isn't wrong, and it isn't terrorism. Militant activity (i.e. bombings) conducted by civilians on other civilians without just cause and simply for nationalistic reasons is terrorism. If those same civilians were to attack a military installation or an individual soldier, that would be retaliation. But terrorists take the cowardly route and kill unsuspecting civilians who are just out to lunch or at a club or grocery shopping. Can you see the difference?

I think it's also worth mentioning that many Palestinians live happily and comfortably in Israel. Palestinians have no more right to their land than Israelis do -- both countries were "made" by Western hands, and the West supports them: Europe hands over billions in aid each year to Palestine and the US does the same for Israel. I do, however, think that they have a right to live in peace. I don't know how to orchestrate that, and I do not blame Palestinians for being angry. I also do not blame any military force for doing their job, that is in this case, protecting Israeli civilians.

Anyway, back to Iraq: I feel absolutely confident in saying that America is not the reason that Iraqis are being killed by the dozens today. The reasons are more complicated than that, and if we were to up and leave, I think things would only be worse. And I'm sure you'd blame America then, too! I'm not defending our invasion of Iraq, I think it was a mistake, but you paint a picture that suggests that American soldiers are going around planting bombs in Baghdad, which is obviously not the case.

 

[Raerae]

I dont approve of the war, or why it was started... However...

I think, and truly do believe, that there would be a much greater amount of suffering in the country were the American troops to leave the region. I think the killings and retaliations would continue until one side had wiped the other out completely. And then once they had no one else to hate, they would look around at a ruined country and not know what to do with it. And more people would suffer.

Yes Sadam kept the country stable. But only because if you violated his rules, you died. You spoke out against him, you died. You took arms against him, you died. Shiite or Sunni, you were still under Sadam. While you can say Sadam kept the country free of the unstable open civil war we see today, I say, better death, than to live in a country where there is no freedom. The road to freedom has always been paved in blood.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Edit: Bombing civilians doesn't apply.