Who are the bad guys?

Question

The invaders or the invaded? Who would you support and hope succeeded?

Answer 1

To what are you referring? It all depends on the circumstances.

Answer 2

For most people, it depends on what side of the border you are on. If you're in the US, the US is the good guy. If you're in Iraq, the US is the bad guy.

However, the more intellectual of our society can usually differentiate and see who is really at fault. In the Iraq War, I think it can be reasonably inferred that the US is the bad guy, and the Iraqis were innocent.

Also, someone posted its either 'We Win' or 'We Lose'. If the US doesnt invade, Muslims will take over the US. This is completely incorrect, and an argument neocons have been using to push their agenda for the last 6 years. The Muslims have essentially become a scapegoat for American hegemony. They did it with the Indians, Irish, Japanese, Communists, etc. People are just too stupid to realize it though.

Answer 3

It's not always that black and white, though. Look at WWII. We invaded Germany to liberate the Nazi Concentration Camps. Did that make the Nazis good and us bad?

Answer 4

I feel as though I have to comment on Michael K's presumptions.

First, he assumes that he speaks for all Iraqis with the claim that they believe that the "US is the bad guy." Having been to Iraq myself, I can tell you that this assumption is incorrect; most Iraqis are quite happy that the US toppled Saddam for them, and most Iraqis seem to know a lot more than Americans back home what we've been doing for them and all the projects we've built and maintained for them, not to mention the rebuilding, training, and supplying of their police, ICDC, and Army. Most of the Iraqis who think we're the "bad guys" are Sunnis who no longer enjoy the preferred status they had under Saddam, or Shi'a who sympathize with/follow leaders like Muqtada al Sadr... most of the rest of Iraqis actually have a positive view of Americans, even if they don't want us to stay forever. They, at least, know full well what will happen to them if we prematurely leave.

Second, Michael assumes that the "intellectuals" assume that the U.S. is the bad guy here. Again, he is making an incorrect generalization. The definition of an "intellectual" is not someone who agrees with your point of view; it's someone that bothers to listen to both sides of an issue, get information from a variety of sources (American media isn't a terribly reliable or unbiased source), and at least bothers to listen to what most of the veterans of this war have to say about it, instead of brushing it off or assuming they're brainwashed killers (refer to one of Michael's recent questions). The Iraqis may not have been involved in 9-11; but this war on terrorism was never meant ONLY in retaliation of 9-11. It was against all forms of terrorism, of which Saddam Hussein had been guilty of many times against his own people and his neighbors, as well as state sponsorship of terrorism--another thing Saddam had been guilty of. Anyone who bothered to either read about or acknowledge recent history would know this. Any "intellectual" worth their salt would, at any rate.

As for his allegations that this is all a ruse for so-called "neocons" to victimize poor Muslims, think again. Muslims in this country have not experienced the kind of discrimination the Indians, Irish, Japanese, or Communists in the U.S. experienced in the past--particularly at a government level. On the contrary; this government has been careful from the beginning to express its support to the American Muslim community and has tried to make it clear that this is a war against terror, not Islam; the fact that most of the terrorists we're fighting around the world at the moment are Muslims is unavoidable, but it doesn't mean we're targeting them BECAUSE they're Muslim. You might as well say we targeted the Nazis because they were German, or Hirohito because he was Japanese. We have a curious tendency to assume that everything is always about race or religion, or that because one groups within that race or religion is being targeted that it must be BECAUSE of that race/religion... this is naive, and ridiculous.

Who is and who isn't the "bad guy" in this war is quite clear. The only ones who try to muddle that are the people who hate their own country and countrymen enough to make them out to be the enemy... and, of course, the enemy themselves do the same thing.

Answer 5

There are 2 choices.
1. We win.
2. We lose
If we lose then Islamic terrorism will expand from the middle and far east into Europe. There are around 50 million Muzzies in Europe, enough for a jihad?

Answer 6

In which situation? If you're talking Iraq, then one can make reasonable arguments that Saddam Hussein was the bad guy (I mean, of course he was BAD). Did that mean he deserved to be overthrown? Things get trickier, then. And whether you believe we had a right to go in or not, we defeated Saddam pretty quickly.

NOW who are the black hats and the white hats?

A sign of maturity is the realization that almost everyone is, in fact, a gray hat.

Answer 7

Bush & Cheney are the bad guys, the invaders

Answer 8

The "bad guys" are the ones who "caused" an invasion by violating international law and violating the obligations of an organization that it voluntarily joined.

Answer 9

Invaders. The invaded had nothing but OIL. :-(

Answer 10

The one, who make the big bucks. Like Bush said, early on in his carrier, the buck always rolls into my account.