View Full Version : This is YOUR war.
Kids die (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-4-2005_pg7_43).
Happy now?
Sean of the Thread
04-08-2005, 11:17 PM
It's war.. people die. Do you realize how many millions of civilians the allies killed in bombings AIMED at the civilians in WWII??
Stop being a dumbfuck.
Xandalf
04-09-2005, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
Kids die (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-4-2005_pg7_43).
Happy now?
You've got to be kidding. Did you actually read that article that you posted?
"BAGHDAD: A homemade bomb in Baghdad killed four children collecting trash on Friday, and masked gunmen killed an Iraqi Army officer in a restaurant in Basra, police said."
Last I checked, the US didn't use homemade bombs.
So damn the US for trying to stop the people who are killing the children!! Yeah!
Try thinking next time.
Warriorbird
04-09-2005, 10:18 AM
You'd stand still when your country was invaded, of course.
Some Rogue
04-09-2005, 10:53 AM
So you're saying it's ok for the Iraqi people to kill children and their military officers because they were invaded?
Xcalibur
04-09-2005, 10:57 AM
Irak people can kill themselves as long as they want.
It's their business.
Some people are more confortable with the idea of being treated as slaves than being free.
It's a personal choice that we can only accept even if it's really stupid.
[Edited on 9-4-05 by Xcalibur]
Parkbandit
04-09-2005, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
You'd stand still when your country was invaded, of course.
You make it sound like the good citizens of Iraq are bombing us.. making them freedom fighters.
Pretty pathetic attempt at spin. At least use some facts in it. Christ, your family has thus far done a piss poor job on your conversion to Republicanism.
CrystalTears
04-09-2005, 11:18 AM
They hurt each other before the war, they will continue to do so afterwards. It has nothing to do with us. Are you still going to post those news items when the troops leave too, saying that the bombings they impose on their own people is still our fault?
Originally posted by Xcalibur
Irak people can kill themselves as long as they want.
It's their business.
Some people are more confortable with the idea of being treated as slaves than being free.
It's a personal choice that we can only accept even if it's really stupid.
[Edited on 9-4-05 by Xcalibur]
You do realize that if the US took that stance to heart...
That France and England would be speaking German?
Perhaps the southern pacific hemisphere would be speaking Japonese?
Someone has to take a stand for people as a civilization and say that genocide and tyranny is not acceptable as a normal behavior for the human race. It is 2005 you know! sheesh!
Xcalibur
04-09-2005, 11:47 AM
Germany would never had won the WWII, in any way.
BUT, I was ALL the way for the war and I'm still for it.
It was a great done job and hopefully the ennemy (ies) of liberty will be captured/killed too.
This is American Imperialism, not WWII. Not by a longshot.
The point of the post is to illustrate what an unfortunate business war actually is. Isn’t the best thing about war when there isn’t any? Its 2005. Yeesh.
Xcalibur
04-09-2005, 12:01 PM
The glory of the black gold is almost over, hopefully, this non-sense is ending soon
:lol2:
American Imperialism = rerun's of Baywatch being shown all over third world countries with imbedded subliminal messages of capitalism and democracy hidden in all the beach/bikini scenes.
Democrazy is a gift from GOD! Do you realize just how fucking crazy that kind of mentality is? I can’t even begin to count the number of ways its so wrong.
2005 huh?
Who ever said democracy was a gift from God?
I think its a pretty successful model of a civilized style of government. And better than anything else that happens to be out there currently.
Dont hate, appreciate.
Warriorbird
04-09-2005, 01:38 PM
I was attacking the post. Sure, I think the Iraq government under Saddam sucked. Then again the Soviets and us funded it. As I said way back we would've been better suited to use a hit squad than an invasion force. Once we go, it'll be back to more of the same.
Apathy
04-09-2005, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Xcalibur
Germany would never had won the WWII, in any way.
Yeah...France was just trying to hustle them right?
Backlash and I are on the same page about this war. Saddam only became a monster when he stopped doing America's bidding. Yes the man was a tyrant but it never bothered Bush Snr when he was VP, as long as Saddam fought those evil Iranians for us. We weren't concerned about liberating the people of Iraq back then, as long as the oil was flowing and being paid for in US dollars, all was well.
Latrinsorm
04-09-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Apathy
Yeah...France was just trying to hustle them right? The largest-scale rope and dope of all time.
Did you move out, Backlash? I ask because of the "YOUR" part of the title.
ElanthianSiren
04-09-2005, 04:51 PM
I think it's sad that people in Iraq are so afraid of the U.S. that they are willing to take the risk of injuring their own. Further, I think it's very sad that immense opposition to the occupation is voiced, yet we remain because of a persistent arrogance that says 'we know better'. That sentiment DEFINITELY promotes free thought and independence. [/sarcasm]
Originally posted by xtc
Backlash and I are on the same page about this war. Saddam only became a monster when he stopped doing America's bidding. Yes the man was a tyrant but it never bothered Bush Snr when he was VP, as long as Saddam fought those evil Iranians for us. We weren't concerned about liberating the people of Iraq back then, as long as the oil was flowing and being paid for in US dollars, all was well.
In much the same way that most of the 9/11 terrorists were actually Saudis and we don't oppose China's less than humane working conditions or wages. We love China.
We were just a little preemptive with this one imo, striking a country that never directly attacked us. Further, a country that other members of the UN reported LACKED the ability to attack us. It sets a rather dangerous precedent that the US can bully its way for whatever it wants (in this case oil). I mean hell, I was then, (and still am) more afraid of North Korea.
In closing, I find the fact that we *are* still at declared war with Iraq offensive as an American. It is like an elephant stepping on an ant. Come on. Bush owes Hussein an apology.
-Melissa
Warriorbird
04-09-2005, 05:57 PM
Them I-rackys luv us.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4925535,00.html
Well of course the radical clerics want the US out... we all know that they represent the most stable of governmental tendacies. [/sarcasm]
Once the elected officials get their heads on straight and start agreeing on how to run the country then I would think that would be the signal for the US to leave. Why should we pull our forces out now and allow the violent backwash of the radical clerics and their militants run rampant and kill even more? How fair would that be to the Iraqui people who risked their lives so they could vote?
I dont like our soldiers over there getting killed anymore than the next guy, but I do understand why they are there and what they are trying to protect.
Originally posted by Ganalon
Well of course the radical clerics want the US out... we all know that they represent the most stable of governmental tendacies. [/sarcasm]
Once the elected officials get their heads on straight and start agreeing on how to run the country then I would think that would be the signal for the US to leave. Why should we pull our forces out now and allow the violent backwash of the radical clerics and their militants run rampant and kill even more? How fair would that be to the Iraqui people who risked their lives so they could vote?
I dont like our soldiers over there getting killed anymore than the next guy, but I do understand why they are there and what they are trying to protect.
We never should have invaded this country to start with.
Shi'ite’s make up the majority of people in Iraq and are the people who are protesting in the article. Saddam and his Ba'ath party were all Sunni's. The Shiites had no say under Saddam despite the fact they were the majority. The article goes on to say that the Sunni's also want us out. If the Sunni's and Shi'ites want us out who wants us there?
That said I think after being responsible for tearing this nation in two it would be morally reprehensible to leave until the country is stable.
<We never should have invaded this country to start with.> Sadly enough I agree, we faced a similar problem in Lebanon a while back with Khadaffi and now he's a toothless old man... perhaps... PERHAPS... the same could be said for Saddam but there were his sons behind him who were just as insane and I'm not an expert in international relations so I cant see all of the variables and how they would have unfolded had we not removed him from power.
<That said I think after being responsible for tearing this nation in two it would be morally reprehensible to leave until the country is stable.> My point exactly, we just cant get the elected leadership working together quick enough or smart enough, or get a decent law enforcement agency established quick enough.
Warriorbird
04-09-2005, 06:46 PM
We've ALLIED with the Shiites, folks.
Originally posted by Ganalon
<We never should have invaded this country to start with.> Sadly enough I agree, we faced a similar problem in Lebanon a while back with Khadaffi and now he's a toothless old man... perhaps... PERHAPS... the same could be said for Saddam but there were his sons behind him who were just as insane and I'm not an expert in international relations so I cant see all of the variables and how they would have unfolded had we not removed him from power.
<That said I think after being responsible for tearing this nation in two it would be morally reprehensible to leave until the country is stable.> My point exactly, we just cant get the elected leadership working together quick enough or smart enough, or get a decent law enforcement agency established quick enough.
It seems we agree.
Just for the record Momar Khadafi is the leader of Libya. Khadafi is/was another tyrant. The west said he was responsible for a bombing in a Berlin nightclub in the 80's and the downing of a civilian plane over Lockerbie Scotland. Khadafi said he did neither.
In the early 80's radical students in Lebannon took Americans hostage. This was in response to America sending troops in Lebannon prior. It was also believed by those in Lebannon that the US ok'd an Israeli invasion of Lebannon.
Originally posted by Ganalon
I dont like our soldiers over there getting killed anymore than the next guy, but I do understand why they are there and what they are trying to protect.
Really. Lets hear this Orwellian reasoning. What are we trying to protect by invading a sovereign nation that had not attacked us without the UN on board?
ElanthianSiren
04-09-2005, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Ganalon
Sadly enough I agree, we faced a similar problem in Lebanon a while back with Khadaffi and now he's a toothless old man... perhaps... PERHAPS... the same could be said for Saddam but there were his sons behind him who were just as insane and I'm not an expert in international relations so I cant see all of the variables and how they would have unfolded had we not removed him from power.
No one can, but the fact remains that the U.S. struck another country preemtively. It was a landmark in history. I can't think of any other major declared war where we attacked a country without confirmed reason. Saying Hussein was a bad bad bad man just doesn't cut it. Lots of bad bad men are in power. Is the U.S. going to step in every time? If so, where are we in China? The entire campaign is a propaganda stink.
If the U.S. didn't stick its nose in other countries' business so much, other countries wouldn't despise us so much, but as the comission report found, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11 attacks, so the two can't even be related that way.
There are leaders all over the world I detest and want out of power, should I start petitioning Bush to start wars with them just because I don't like them or approve of their methods? Yes, it sounds ridiculous, I realize. That's because it is.
Originally posted by xtc
That said I think after being responsible for tearing this nation in two it would be morally reprehensible to leave until the country is stable.
IMO that's exactly the mentality government is looking for on this war. I refuse to believe the officials we put in power are stupid, so I simply believe that they are corrupt. The best way to make money in/on Iraq is in occupation "until they're on their feet".
I'm just disgusted most of our country fell for it. The whole war struck me as suspicious when the UN wasn't in there and when it just happened to be Iraq, target of Bush 1st.
-Melissa
Xcalibur
04-09-2005, 07:49 PM
Not funny
Definately my bad, thanks for correcting xtc. It was Lybia not Lebanon.
Still waiting to hear how US being in Iraq protects US.
Originally posted by Backlash
Still waiting to hear how US being in Iraq protects US.
Re-read the other post, I never said the US was in Iraq to protect the US. So if you're attempting to pick a fight - you lose because you cant read.
You're assuming or attempting to put words in my mouth. My meaning was that the US was there protecting.... wait for it.... here it comes... the interests of the oppressed people of Iraq, can I verify that? Not really, because as I stated earlier - Im not an expert in international relations, nor am I currently over there. I only have what sources are available to me through the media and the internet.
Would we be justified if we packed up and left now? No. If we were to pull out now, only more bloodshed would entail. I suppose by your tone that would be ok.
If there's anything I can help you with you'll have to wait until after dinner oh impatient one.
US out of Iraq. People before profits.
Latrinsorm
04-09-2005, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
US out of Iraq. People before profits.
Originally posted by Ganalon
If we were to pull out now, only more bloodshed would entail.:?:
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I can't think of any other major declared war where we attacked a country without confirmed reason.Spanish-American War. At least a few of the Indian Nations we obliterated, no doubt. War of 1812.
As an aside, "slam dunk" is an aphorism for "sure thing", not "unconfirmed suspicion".
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
As an aside, "slam dunk" is an aphorism for "sure thing", not "unconfirmed suspicion".
And, all of a sudden, in recent weeks, the Republicans claim the Judiciary (which they have already monopolized and are trying to for the future through fillibuster reform) has too much power and are dirty “liberals”.
Sean of the Thread
04-09-2005, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
As an aside, "slam dunk" is an aphorism for "sure thing", not "unconfirmed suspicion".
And, all of a sudden, in recent weeks, the Republicans claim the Judiciary (which they have already monopolized and are trying to for the future through fillibuster reform) has too much power and are dirty “liberals”.
You are an ignorant douchebag..
Please explain. Because, if I am, I’d like to correct it.
SiKWiDiT
04-09-2005, 09:21 PM
If you really think that this war was about oil, you are a fucking dumbass.
Originally posted by SiKWiDiT
If you really think that this war was about oil, you are a fucking dumbass.
I’d like to point out SIKWIDIT was the first one who mentioned oil.
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Originally posted by Ganalon
If we were to pull out now, only more bloodshed would entail. :?:
I'm guessing, if the US were to pull out before the Iraqi Parliment has a chance to establish a secure seat of power, that you'll see a conflict between the Shiite and the Suni as compaired to what happend in Rwanda between the Tutsi and the Hutu in the 1990's.
Latrinsorm
04-09-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Ganalon
I'm guessing, if the US were to pull out before the Iraqi Parliment has a chance to establish a secure seat of power, that you'll see a conflict between the Shiite and the Suni as compaired to what happend in Rwanda between the Tutsi and the Hutu in the 1990's. What I was confused about was the juxtaposition of the two statements.
Originally posted by Backlash
And, all of a sudden, in recent weeks, the Republicans claim the Judiciary (which they have already monopolized and are trying to for the future through fillibuster reform) has too much power and are dirty “liberals”.Uh, ok. Politicians mouthing off is nothing new. I don't really get how that applies. Are any intelligence agencies controlled by the Judiciary branch?
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 12:14 PM
"I don't really get how that applies."
You must not be up on current events much.
Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Originally posted by Ganalon
If we were to pull out now, only more bloodshed would entail. :?:
I'm guessing, if the US were to pull out before the Iraqi Parliment has a chance to establish a secure seat of power, that you'll see a conflict between the Shiite and the Suni as compaired to what happend in Rwanda between the Tutsi and the Hutu in the 1990's.
Certainly that is a possibility. My other fear is that Al Qaida, who wasn't in Iraq before this war, was just given another opportunity to get a foot hold in an instable country.
Backlash and myself sing off the same song sheet where this war is concern. Where we differ is in what happens next. I am not so naive as to think that the US Government doesn't want to stay long enough to ensure that the next regime is loyal to the USA and will continue to export oil to the us and Israel freely. As much as I would love to see us pull out tomorrow, I fear for the consequences of that action.
Originally posted by SiKWiDiT
If you really think that this war was about oil, you are a fucking dumbass.
Lol, if you can't see how this war is about oil, the dominance of the US dollar and establishing a friendly regime in the middle east, to America, than it is you who is the dumbass.
CrystalTears
04-10-2005, 12:39 PM
So where is all this oil then that we acquired because of this war that was just for oil?
Originally posted by CrystalTears
So where is all this oil then that we acquired because of this war that was just for oil?
Iraq is now flowing its oil to US and other western nations refineries. The oil is in your gas tank.
CrystalTears
04-10-2005, 12:44 PM
Oil better not be in my gas tank. That would be bad. :P
Link please. Not because I don't believe you, but also because I want to read about it.
[Edited on 4/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 12:46 PM
Going through OPEC to various companies, and OPEC sure as heck isn't dropping the crude prices very much. None of them liked us much to begin with, and the whole "vastly offending Venezuela" incident by Rice made things worse.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oil better not be in my gas tank. That would be bad. :P
Link please. Not because I don't believe you, but also because I want to read about it.
[Edited on 4/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
Gas is derived from oil.
"The vast majority of Persian Gulf oil imported by the United States came from Saudi Arabia (71%), with significant amounts also coming from Iraq (19%)"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Originally posted by Ganalon
Sadly enough I agree, we faced a similar problem in Lebanon a while back with Khadaffi and now he's a toothless old man... perhaps... PERHAPS... the same could be said for Saddam but there were his sons behind him who were just as insane and I'm not an expert in international relations so I cant see all of the variables and how they would have unfolded had we not removed him from power.
No one can, but the fact remains that the U.S. struck another country preemtively. It was a landmark in history. I can't think of any other major declared war where we attacked a country without confirmed reason. Saying Hussein was a bad bad bad man just doesn't cut it. Lots of bad bad men are in power. Is the U.S. going to step in every time? If so, where are we in China? The entire campaign is a propaganda stink.
If the U.S. didn't stick its nose in other countries' business so much, other countries wouldn't despise us so much, but as the comission report found, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11 attacks, so the two can't even be related that way.
There are leaders all over the world I detest and want out of power, should I start petitioning Bush to start wars with them just because I don't like them or approve of their methods? Yes, it sounds ridiculous, I realize. That's because it is.
Originally posted by xtc
That said I think after being responsible for tearing this nation in two it would be morally reprehensible to leave until the country is stable.
IMO that's exactly the mentality government is looking for on this war. I refuse to believe the officials we put in power are stupid, so I simply believe that they are corrupt. The best way to make money in/on Iraq is in occupation "until they're on their feet".
I'm just disgusted most of our country fell for it. The whole war struck me as suspicious when the UN wasn't in there and when it just happened to be Iraq, target of Bush 1st.
-Melissa
You really have no clue. I'd respond to this thread, but then again I'm really tired. I've been killing kids all day.
HarmNone
04-10-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oil better not be in my gas tank. That would be bad. :P
Link please. Not because I don't believe you, but also because I want to read about it.
[Edited on 4/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
Gas is derived from oil.
"The vast majority of Persian Gulf oil imported by the United States came from Saudi Arabia (71%), with significant amounts also coming from Iraq (19%)"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html
I'd venture to say that the majority of Saudi's oil comes from the Ghawar fields on the Persian Gulf. Those fields have been being seawater pumped for over twenty years. They can't sustain the kind of requirement that will be felt over the next ten years.
I checked on the Abqaiq and Berri fields, and those aren't in any better shape. No new discoveries have been made since the 70s. The difficulties involved in extracting the oil from existing, and rapidly declining fields will serve to do no more than drive oil prices through the roof.
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oil better not be in my gas tank. That would be bad. :P
Link please. Not because I don't believe you, but also because I want to read about it.
[Edited on 4/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
Gas is derived from oil.
"The vast majority of Persian Gulf oil imported by the United States came from Saudi Arabia (71%), with significant amounts also coming from Iraq (19%)"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html
You might want to go a little bit farther into that report. For one, Iraq has some of the highest reserves in the Middle east and yet is only exporting 5% of the oil from the region.
Which shows that production of oil is hardly "Flowing" especially when compared to the amount of oil that came from the region through the Oil for food program.
Originally posted by RangerD1
You really have no clue. I'd respond to this thread, but then again I'm really tired. I've been killing kids all day.
Because we dislike this war and we dislike Bush for getting us into it, doesn't mean we hate the military. At least not me. I understand that the soldiers fighting in Iraq didn't make the decision to invade. Perhaps if I was fighting in Iraq I too would choose to believe in the war. It is pretty tough to put your life on the line for something you don't believe in.
For me people like Richard Clarke, who was a Defense Analyst and first hired uder Nixon, infuenced me. When he said that Rumsfeld was looking to invade Iraq on Sept 2, 2001 even after being told that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaida I was concerned. When Clarke says that Rumsfled repsonse was "There are better targets in Iraq" I was mortified.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
When the BBC wrote of Bush's secret plans for the oil in Iraq I was even more mortified.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
I wasn't actually talking to you XTC. I was referring to Melissa's asinine comments over the last 2-3 pages of this thread. I have no problems with people not agreeing with the war, in fact you can think whatever the fuck you want. I'm not the type of person to assume (or care) that you are against the troops because of your beliefs.
I certainly don't like Bush and many of the things he's done.
However, I find it hard to believe that anyone can wave the humanitarian banner with a straight face as they outright deny or downplay the horrible conditions that existed prior to the US going into Iraq, simply because they don't agree with the politics that went into it.
It makes absolutely no sense to say "Hey we shoulda left Iraq alone because hey other countries are fucked up too". To suggest that we should have turned a blind eye and let bygones be bygones, because some president 3-4 terms removed was cool with the guys or because some other bad shit happed in another part of the world, is the ultimate hypocrasy and is utterly devoid of any logical reasoning.
It's like you getting mugged in the street and some dude walks by and says "Hey buddy, some chick across town is probably getting raped right now so stop bitching and besides the guy mugging you is probably a douche bag but who am I to do anything to him? I mean fuck he might have kids".
[Edited on 4-10-2005 by RangerD1]
HarmNone
04-10-2005, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by RangerD1
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oil better not be in my gas tank. That would be bad. :P
Link please. Not because I don't believe you, but also because I want to read about it.
[Edited on 4/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
Gas is derived from oil.
"The vast majority of Persian Gulf oil imported by the United States came from Saudi Arabia (71%), with significant amounts also coming from Iraq (19%)"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html
You might want to go a little bit farther into that report. For one, Iraq has some of the highest reserves in the Middle east and yet is only exporting 5% of the oil from the region.
Which shows that production of oil is hardly "Flowing" especially when compared to the amount of oil that came from the region through the Oil for food program.
Iraq's oil reserves are second in the world, behind Saudi Arabia. However, their oil fields are in ruins, and there aren't that many wells, comparatively. A lot of expenditure of funds and effort would be required to get Iraq's oil production going. Yet, if that's done, they have the potential to produce more than enough to cover Saudi's coming deficiencies. That's expecially true since there has been little effort to explore Iraq for new sources, what with constant wars and struggle.
So, are you agreeing with me or saying something I should argue back against? If the former, cool. If the latter would you like a real response or would calling you a bitch suffice?
HarmNone
04-10-2005, 01:33 PM
Heh. I was agreeing with you, RangerD1. However, if you'd like to call me a bitch anyway, it's okay by me. :D
Kinky, but maybe some other time.
Originally posted by RangerD1
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oil better not be in my gas tank. That would be bad. :P
Link please. Not because I don't believe you, but also because I want to read about it.
[Edited on 4/10/2005 by CrystalTears]
Gas is derived from oil.
"The vast majority of Persian Gulf oil imported by the United States came from Saudi Arabia (71%), with significant amounts also coming from Iraq (19%)"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html
You might want to go a little bit farther into that report. For one, Iraq has some of the highest reserves in the Middle east and yet is only exporting 5% of the oil from the region.
Which shows that production of oil is hardly "Flowing" especially when compared to the amount of oil that came from the region through the Oil for food program.
America received very little oil under the food for oil program. Saddam’s Government had deals in place with China, France, and Russia.
Oil wells and the pipeline were a major target in this war as you well know there were 123 attacks between 2003-2004 . Now the oil wells are controlled by the US and a regime friendly to the US. Iraq’s technology in oil drilling is antiquated, as large oil firms move in on these oil wells and improve technology, production will increase. When the dust settles and Iraq is back at full production America will be the beneficiary of this nation's oil production. Already this oil has reached our gas tanks.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 01:47 PM
What were the first targets in the offensive, Ranger?
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 01:51 PM
" However, I find it hard to believe that anyone can wave the humanitarian banner with a straight face as they outright deny or downplay the horrible conditions that existed prior to the US going into Iraq, simply because they don't agree with the politics that went into it. "
A lot of those horrible conditions we contributed to. Many of the proponents of these "humanitarian acts" staunchly opposed similar in the Balkans or Africa. We also left the Kurds to get slaughtered.
You can't take events as a single occurrence. It is a continuum. I think things needed to be done about Iraq, sure, I'm just not sure if the right things are being executed, whether it will matter in the long term, and if those reasons had any bearing on the actions of the decision makers.
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/basicfigures.html
shows less oil being exported during the last 3 phases of the oil for good program which goes through 2003, which is where your report leaves off.
At the end of the report it's less than half of what it was at the peak for the Oil for food program.
Furthermore, the deals mentioned in that article you quote were of the illegial variety that would not have been good unless sanctions were lifted (A good reason to not go to war I'd say)
Prior to the toppling of Iraq's Ba'athist regime, Iraq reportedly had negotiated several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimated that $38 billion worth of contracts were signed on new fields -- "greenfield" development -- with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals came to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believed was highly unlikely). Now, the legal status of these agreements is up in the air, increasing the uncertainty level for companies interested in doing business with Iraq.
Of course none of this has anything to do with pre-war export levels to the United States prior to the war. My time is up on the computer but when I come back on I'll try and look up some numbers for you.
A lot of those horrible conditions we contributed to
^
So hey, fuck it. Just do nothing.
What were the first targets in the offensive, Ranger?
^
Personnel responsible for command and control of the Iraqi Army and military targets associated with the above which the intent of intimidating the military structures to the point of nonaction.
That's not to say that a couple houses weren't bombed.
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 01:56 PM
That's what we do in a lot of other cases. Tell me we don't.
That's what we do in a lot of other cases. Tell me we don't.
It's like you getting mugged in the street and some dude walks by and says "Hey buddy, some chick across town is probably getting raped right now so stop bitching and besides the guy mugging you is probably a douche bag but who am I to do anything to him? I mean fuck he might have kids".
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 01:58 PM
Add in the securing of various oil/construction projects.
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 01:59 PM
So... you saying that justifies us not acting elsewhere?
Curiously circular argument.
Uh okay. Wtf is your point? Your initial question was what were the initial targets of the invasion.
So... you saying that justifies us not acting elsewhere?
Curiously circular argument.
^
Uh... You've got to be shitting me.
I've never once said anything about whether or not we should intervene in other countries in other situations. I'm responding to the suggestion that we shouldn't have done anything in Iraq because shit happens in other places too and we're not gonna do anything about it.
The fact is we don't do anything about it because people like you second guess every action that is ever taken, never want to take any risk in life and even if you were inclined to do so you'd much rather debate the best possible outcome from your comfortable position in America for a couple decades while real people are suffering.
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 02:05 PM
We targetted military leaders, oil positions, construction projects for our companies, and attempted to "shock and awe."
Hardly the precursor to a humanitarian project.
Then we held elections when a third of the country wasnt' even at a negotiating table. That's like saying in the middle of the Civil War, "Woo hoo! Let's organize a new Consitution for the reunited USA!"
You can't break down all the aspects of this war into, "We're doing good for the people." That's as narrow-minded as saying "It is only about oil." Nothing's that simple.
But, then again, doing what you're doing, that's the type of attitude that needs to be built up for you to function properly and efficiently at your task. "Soldier, ask not." and all that. Your being there allows people to question as well as to praise the actions and results.
I don't think all the results of the Iraq War will be bad. I'm not like a fair portion of liberal or libertarian people who will claim that. I don't think you can whitewash things so cleanly, however.
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 02:11 PM
"The fact is we don't do anything about it because people like you second guess every action that is ever taken, never want to take any risk in life and even if you were inclined to do so you'd much rather debate the best possible outcome from your comfortable position in America for a couple decades while real people are suffering. "
Bullshit. I'd already be in the military if I was allowed. I'm not. I've done a fair amount more volunteering and helping Americans in need than most soldiers (discounting those responsible for things like Toys for Tots and humanitarian relief.) Right now, I'm hardly comfortable...I took a perhaps stupid stand and clung to justice. If I believed in comfortable and not consequences I wouldn't have whistleblown and dealt with the loss of my job, my livelihood, my career, and a lot of future money. I saved a lot of poor old people from being ripped off in their retirements and ripped out of their social securities by some scummy bastards associated with a large insurance brokerage. I can't eat on that, however.
As for second guessing... take a look at America's war record in the second half of the century. I think second guessing is pretty fucking healthy. And the folks who are in power now will second guess the hell out of anything the Democrats do if they ever get back to power. Then again, maybe America'll just end up shooting or jailing the people who second guess, making things a fair bit more hollow and a one party system. Baath 2.
[Edited on 4-10-2005 by Warriorbird]
SiKWiDiT
04-10-2005, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
I’d like to point out SIKWIDIT was the first one who mentioned oil.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
It sets a rather dangerous precedent that the US can bully its way for whatever it wants (in this case oil).
Really, now?
Originally posted by Warriorbird
We targetted military leaders, oil positions, construction projects for our companies, and attempted to "shock and awe."
Hardly the precursor to a humanitarian project.
Then we held elections when a third of the country wasnt' even at a negotiating table. That's like saying in the middle of the Civil War, "Woo hoo! Let's organize a new Consitution for the reunited USA!"
You can't break down all the aspects of this war into, "We're doing good for the people." That's as narrow-minded as saying "It is only about oil." Nothing's that simple.
But, then again, doing what you're doing, that's the type of attitude that needs to be built up for you to function properly and efficiently at your task. "Soldier, ask not." and all that. Your being there allows people to question as well as to praise the actions and results.
I don't think all the results of the Iraq War will be bad. I'm not like a fair portion of liberal or libertarian people who will claim that. I don't think you can whitewash things so cleanly, however.
Typical. Obviously, If I don't agree with your position then I'm spouting the lines force fed me by the military because as everyone knows that when you enlist you give up all your intellect and free will.
What other issue have you attempted to bring into light? What has been hammered is how the United States is doing this country a disservice by invading it, and doing harm to its civilian populace.
Helping Iraqi's is hardly the only aspect of the war, good or bad and I never once claimed it was. I am responding to the things that were brought into this discussion by you and other people.
If you want to talk about the weakening of the US prestige in the region over the apparent gains made in US diplomacy over the last few months then by all means do so, but don't fucking tell me what I think or need to subsist.
Oh, and about precusors to humanitarian relief, how exactly do you suppose to do things without military intervention?
I'll let you try going into Rwanda, or North Korea unarmed trying to help people. I Hope you had a nice life.
. "
Bullshit...
If the shoe fits then wear it. The fact of the matter is that American in general is too scared to act if it jeopardizes their piece of mind or that totally sweet fantasy baseball league.
I'm no more enamored with the republican party than I am the democratic. Right now, American society and politics is a festerting taint of pussies. If things aren't changed on all sides then we're in for some serious reality checks.
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 02:54 PM
America in general, and then I could buy what you're saying. I won't accuse you of not going all out and doing your best. Don't think because I'm not in the military I won't do the same.
On Iraqi imports of oil:
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=13941&BT_CODE=PR_CONGRESSTEST &TT_CODE=PRESSSPEECH
This is a report by the DOE, It has some interesting stuff that should probably be read, but what is of importance is the table depicting net oil imports by country and Volume to the US. Notice that Iraq is at 800,000 barrels a day in 2001, which is TWICE what is was in 2002-2004 (on a per year basis).
I also just noticed that the quote you made out of the report refers to oil imports from the middle east and not the entire world.
Take that for what its worth
okay, personal circumstances aside the point still stands.
Originally posted by SiKWiDiT
Really, now?
I stand corrected. And technically, its OUR war. My income has subsidized this war just like everyone else’s. Also, to say OUR, I’m speaking in the global sense.
I sit here in the comfort of my heated home, taking many of my amenities for granted, and get upset when I read stories about the reality of the war. GSPlayers is an outlet for me because discussions of current events in social situations can be pretty bland, that for myself and those I attempt to converse with hold back so as not to start shouting matches.
So what happens now? We’re there. 100,000 dead civilians, torture still in practice at Abu Garib, Osama still on the loose, gas prices rising and much of what came out of WWII disregarded. To save Iraqis?
To save Iraqis?
Of course not. The positive ramifications of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are being felt in Lebanon, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Egypt and several other gulf nations. I really don't have the time to go into as much detail as I'd like in this post, but I'll try and make a few points and see what comes of it.
The entire reason the war on terrorism is needed is not because we stick our heads into things, but because there are people in this world who perceive our culture as a threat to theirs. To be fair, there are people on our "side" that feel the same way but they are hardly indictive of the average person in western society (which is who these people are fighting, not just the US) and far from positions of power.
Iraq, as it stands is the example that all future relations between the west and middle east will be based upon. Afghanistan was important for different reasons but no one has ever really considered Bactria important and it's doubtful that anything good done there would have had effects throughout the middle eastern world. Iraq is a completely different story.
*if* (Heavy emphasis) the US can turn the situation in Iraq into a positive situation then results will be profound. Inversely, the same can be said if the results are bad.
The reason for this is that the region has been going through a transition of sorts for the last several decades and historically the west has been viewed in suspicious or downright hostile light. There's of course many reasons for this some rationale, some not so much, but the why's of the matter don't matter in this case it's the IS.
Only a fool can't see that the writing is on the wall for the old dictatorial regimes. Sooner, rather than later the people will be in charge of the region. The difference is how they come into power, and what stance they hold when they do. If the people of the region can look towards the setting sun and see some example of good, or at least non-evil actions then chances are that mideast-west relations won't come to a head.
The crux of the issue is whether or not we are capable of leaving a positive impression. Contrary to what many people would have you believe back in the industrialized world, is that there have been great strides in diplomacy and that there are large portions of the civilian population that *are* grateful for what has been done. However, there is no telling what the next 1, 2 ,3 or even 10 years may bring.
Will the US back down to international and internal pressures and leave the country in a state of dissarray?
Will the country degenerate into tribal and cultural warfare that has been endemic to the country for a couple millenium now?
I don't fucking know, and those are indeed the important questions. However, the thing is nobody knows at this point. Things are two volatile and the situation is too unprecedented to make a reasonable assumption to the outcome without betraying ones personal bias. However, there is one thing that I do know and its that if something hadn't been done then we'd all still be sitting around *talking* about the way things should and trying to come up with ways to combat the problem, and that we'd most likely be in the position ad infinitum until someone woke us up from our dream world by smacking the shit out of us.
Warriorbird
04-10-2005, 05:39 PM
"Only a fool can't see that the writing is on the wall for the old dictatorial regimes."
Apart from that, I'm following.
"is that there have been great strides in diplomacy"
And many steps backwards with the rest of the world.
StrayRogue
04-10-2005, 05:51 PM
Wow, a decent post Ranger. As you're in a none confrontational mood, I'll ask do you think that the "occupation" (I say this for lack of a better word), will or can leave a positive impression?
Not that me being impressed means a flying shit in the grand scheme of things... but I'm very impressed as well as agree with how Ranger has articulated the US presence in Iraq.
Only a fool can't see that the writing is on the wall for the old dictatorial regimes."
Apart from that, I'm following.
I actually meant to clarify that a little bit more. It has nothing at all to do with what Bush has done. It may have brought things about a little bit quicker, but in the end it's only a matter of time before the people of the area take control of their lives. President Mubarak in Egypt has had an iron clad grip on his country for several decades and yet he feels the need to at least present the facade of a true electorial process. The Saudi Royalty are opening up posts to free elections, something that would have been unheard of 2 decades ago. And of course the biggest example is the Islamic revolution in Iran.
I'll ask do you think that the "occupation" (I say this for lack of a better word), will or can leave a positive impression?
I think they can, and for the most part have left an overall positive impression on the country and the region as a whole. However, things are far from stable and there is no telling what will happen in the next few months or years.
for instance, if the current provisional government is unable to draft a working consitution that is at least supported by a majority of the people in the country then next Janurary we'll be right back where we started. There's no telling how long faith in a democractic system will last if it is unable to move forward and show results.
There is so many what ifs that go into the situation that it's really hard to say at this point.
Originally posted by Backlash
Still waiting to hear how US being in Iraq protects US. Yeah, me too.
The jist of it is that Saddam switched to euros for his oil which would have negatively affected our economy which is then considered a threat to our national security. Its simple really.
Originally posted by RangerD1
Fantastic
In response to your earlier eloquent and succinct post, RangerD1, I can only agree somewhat. I think its a stretch to group what happened in Lebanon/Syria and Lybia as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I agree things are up in the air. Do I have solutions? No. I could never offer anything more constructive than an outsiders opinion. My opinion is that Iraq, not saying Afghanistan, is a wound has scared the world for a good long time to come.
Also, in response to your post, does the end justify the means, and who really is the beneficiary in this scenario? Its pretty obvious to me that it was in the US best interest from the get go. Whats disturbing is the whole barrage of shit they tried to cram down our throats to justify it.
You made a premise that if we had not, someone would have woke us up. Well someone did. Suicide terrorists mainly from Saudi Arabia, trained in Afghanistan by another Saudi. So now our response is to conquer the entire Middle East to stop terrorism?
As you have said, and I agree, its hard to say what would have, or could have happened. Though I have a feeling there would be less dead people right now if we hadn’t. I suppose I should feel relieved no one has thrown a nuke yet.
I think its a stretch to group what happened in Lebanon/Syria and Lybia as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Really. Do you think you would have seen the same thing 4 years ago?
My opinion is that Iraq, not saying Afghanistan, is a wound has scared the world for a good long time to come.
My opinion is that you really don't appreciate what goes on in this world on a daily basis if you think Iraq is anything different at it's worst.
So now our response is to conquer the entire Middle East to stop terrorism?
It's like you didn't even read my post.
Lets topple the dominos of Democracy across the Middle East. Because it works for us, it should work for them, and everyone benefits. Sounds good to me. Had you said that 2 years ago, and went about it differently, I’d be on board.
Uncovered: The War on Iraq. I suggest that anyone, regardless of political affiliation, check out this documentary.
Edited to add that is it On Demand - cable access if you have it.
[Edited on 4-12-2005 by DeV]
Originally posted by RangerD1
On Iraqi imports of oil:
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=13941&BT_CODE=PR_CONGRESSTEST &TT_CODE=PRESSSPEECH
This is a report by the DOE, It has some interesting stuff that should probably be read, but what is of importance is the table depicting net oil imports by country and Volume to the US. Notice that Iraq is at 800,000 barrels a day in 2001, which is TWICE what is was in 2002-2004 (on a per year basis).
I also just noticed that the quote you made out of the report refers to oil imports from the middle east and not the entire world.
Take that for what its worth
I am not suprised exports are reduced now compared to 2001. As you know oil wells and the pipeline has been target of attacks which has affected production. As you have stated Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world which America now has unrestricted access to. I anticipate in the very near future exports from Iraq will easily surpass 2001 levels.
Originally posted by RangerD1
To save Iraqis?
Of course not. The positive ramifications of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are being felt in Lebanon, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Egypt and several other gulf nations. I really don't have the time to go into as much detail as I'd like in this post, but I'll try and make a few points and see what comes of it.
The entire reason the war on terrorism is needed is not because we stick our heads into things, but because there are people in this world who perceive our culture as a threat to theirs. To be fair, there are people on our "side" that feel the same way but they are hardly indictive of the average person in western society (which is who these people are fighting, not just the US) and far from positions of power.
Iraq, as it stands is the example that all future relations between the west and middle east will be based upon. Afghanistan was important for different reasons but no one has ever really considered Bactria important and it's doubtful that anything good done there would have had effects throughout the middle eastern world. Iraq is a completely different story.
*if* (Heavy emphasis) the US can turn the situation in Iraq into a positive situation then results will be profound. Inversely, the same can be said if the results are bad.
The reason for this is that the region has been going through a transition of sorts for the last several decades and historically the west has been viewed in suspicious or downright hostile light. There's of course many reasons for this some rationale, some not so much, but the why's of the matter don't matter in this case it's the IS.
Only a fool can't see that the writing is on the wall for the old dictatorial regimes. Sooner, rather than later the people will be in charge of the region. The difference is how they come into power, and what stance they hold when they do. If the people of the region can look towards the setting sun and see some example of good, or at least non-evil actions then chances are that mideast-west relations won't come to a head.
The crux of the issue is whether or not we are capable of leaving a positive impression. Contrary to what many people would have you believe back in the industrialized world, is that there have been great strides in diplomacy and that there are large portions of the civilian population that *are* grateful for what has been done. However, there is no telling what the next 1, 2 ,3 or even 10 years may bring.
Will the US back down to international and internal pressures and leave the country in a state of dissarray?
Will the country degenerate into tribal and cultural warfare that has been endemic to the country for a couple millenium now?
I don't fucking know, and those are indeed the important questions. However, the thing is nobody knows at this point. Things are two volatile and the situation is too unprecedented to make a reasonable assumption to the outcome without betraying ones personal bias. However, there is one thing that I do know and its that if something hadn't been done then we'd all still be sitting around *talking* about the way things should and trying to come up with ways to combat the problem, and that we'd most likely be in the position ad infinitum until someone woke us up from our dream world by smacking the shit out of us.
I think we may disagree in what will happen after this war. This is the first time America has attempted to change a part of the world. It hasn't always turned a positive result.
Egypt was an ally before the war and has been a large recipient of US Aid.
Saudi has been an ally of the US for many years. I doubt the war will change anything there.
Syria has been in Lebanon for years. I think the decision to pull out had more to do with Hezbollah's successful campaign to push the Israelis out of Lebanon. Before that even the Druze and the Sunni's supported Hezbollah. I also think the backlash from the assassination of former Lebanon Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri figured into the withdrawal.
My knowledge of Afghanistan falls short but from media accounts there does seem to be an opportunity for a stable regime. Of course we will see what happens with Pakistan, which could influence what happens in Afghanistan. Musharraf isn't popular with a large portion of the population and this is a country that is unfamiliar with the term coup.
Iraq, here I have major fears. With the Shi'ites in control in Iraq and the Iran being a nation of Shi'ites, I fear an alliance. Sunni's are currently the centre of power in Islam. Sunnis run Saudi Arabia. Iran hasn't always been happy with the Sunni's in Saudi Arabia as being the home of Islam. An Iran/Iraq alliance could become a major power and a challenge to the Saudi Arabia.
Iran, even a reformer in Iran is a hardliner. Even reformer Iranians want Iran to be a nuclear nation. The disagreement is over who will control the nukes if they are developed.
I don't think any of these people see the American way of life as a threat; certainly they don't want it to be forced on them at gun point. It is the same thing that we wouldn't want Sharia law to be forced on us. As long as America keeps to itself they really couldn't care. They get pissed when we come in their house and tell them how to live. They are suspicious of westerners but they have good reason.
Ranger, even though we disagree I give you props for an intelligent, articulate argument.
[Edited on 4-12-2005 by xtc]
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by RangerD1
On Iraqi imports of oil:
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=13941&BT_CODE=PR_CONGRESSTEST &TT_CODE=PRESSSPEECH
This is a report by the DOE, It has some interesting stuff that should probably be read, but what is of importance is the table depicting net oil imports by country and Volume to the US. Notice that Iraq is at 800,000 barrels a day in 2001, which is TWICE what is was in 2002-2004 (on a per year basis).
I also just noticed that the quote you made out of the report refers to oil imports from the middle east and not the entire world.
Take that for what its worth
I am not suprised exports are reduced now compared to 2001. As you know oil wells and the pipeline has been target of attacks which has affected production. As you have stated Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world which America now has unrestricted access to. I anticipate in the very near future exports from Iraq will easily surpass 2001 levels.
That is *not* what you said earlier. It wasn't too long ago. Surely you can at least go back and read what was said. The fact is US imports of Iraqi oil have *decrased* since the war, which totally goes against what you said earlier to CT.
I'd be surprised but this is hardly the first time you've conveniently forgotten what you were arguing for.
CrystalTears
04-12-2005, 04:11 PM
Yeah they were "flowing" here. :rolleyes: Of course now it's.. oh wow.. decreased. That's what I figured but I wanted someone to back up the idea that it's increased since the war.
This is the first time America has attempted to change a part of the world. It hasn't always turned a positive result.
What? This doesn't even make any sense. If this is the first time then how do you have any prior results?
Egypt was an ally before the war and has been a large recipient of US Aid
So? You miss the point, that President Mubarak is feeling pressure from his own people to reform the government, this in and of itself has nothing at all to do with Bush's policies. The point that I was making is that a successful Iraq only further encourages these positive changes.
Saudi has been an ally of the US for many years. I doubt the war will change anything there.
See above, except subsitute The Saudi Royal family for President Mubarak.
I think the decision to pull out had more to do with Hezbollah's successful campaign to push the Israelis out of Lebanon.
So, uh..Israelies and Syrians are on the same side now? What exactly does this have to do with Syria.
Musharraf isn't popular with a large portion of the population and this is a country that is unfamiliar with the term coup.
True enough, things are far from over in this region. I never suggested otherwise, but take into account the fact that the elections went off without a hitch and all the major power players in the region not raising any stink whatsoever in the process.
An Iran/Iraq alliance could become a major power and a challenge to the Saudi Arabia.
Well, this is certainly far from decided but I really don't see this as a bad thing for two reasons
1. It will undoubtedly cause friction within Opec giving it less power to determine the worlds oil prices and
2. Allowing Iraq to exist on it's own terms regardless of how we may feel about it is the exact kind of example we need to set if we want to avoid a cultural war between west-mideast. How hollow do arguments made by people like Osama bin laden sound in such a situation?
I don't think any of these people see the American way of life as a threat. It is the same thing that we wouldn't want Sharia law to be forced on us. As long as America keeps to itself they really couldn't care.
Do the common people feel that way? No of course not, but for hardliners like Osama bin Laden? Fuck yea.
Go out and read a few of his statements over the last few years. It's not just America, it's the entire western civilization which they perceive to be a threat to their way of life, and to them the only solution is the complete annhiliation of *our* way of life.
Is this indictive of the average Arab? No, I don't think so, but thats besides the point. I doubt many germans truly felt the way they did towards jews and other people until the Nazi party came into the power. However, when left with nothing but that in their lives it was only a matter of time before such thinking became not only tolerable, but completely understandable. Doing nothing isn't always an option.
Originally posted by RangerD1
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by RangerD1
On Iraqi imports of oil:
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=13941&BT_CODE=PR_CONGRESSTEST &TT_CODE=PRESSSPEECH
This is a report by the DOE, It has some interesting stuff that should probably be read, but what is of importance is the table depicting net oil imports by country and Volume to the US. Notice that Iraq is at 800,000 barrels a day in 2001, which is TWICE what is was in 2002-2004 (on a per year basis).
I also just noticed that the quote you made out of the report refers to oil imports from the middle east and not the entire world.
Take that for what its worth
I am not suprised exports are reduced now compared to 2001. As you know oil wells and the pipeline has been target of attacks which has affected production. As you have stated Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world which America now has unrestricted access to. I anticipate in the very near future exports from Iraq will easily surpass 2001 levels.
That is *not* what you said earlier. It wasn't too long ago. Surely you can at least go back and read what was said. The fact is US imports of Iraqi oil have *decrased* since the war, which totally goes against what you said earlier to CT.
I'd be surprised but this is hardly the first time you've conveniently forgotten what you were arguing for.
I haven't forgotten at all. My argument is this war was about oil, the dominance of the US dollar, and establishing a friendly regime in the middle east.
Now the US has another regime in the middle east who is friendly to it. A Government who is fashioning their Constitution on America's. A Government who claims that the US Constitution in the oldest in the world. Ironic considering the oldest written constitution is the constitution of Madinah in the 6th century. US companies like Haliburton have established themselves in Iraq. Iraq which has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. How much of this oil will end up in the US once this war is finished?
Here is what I said to CT, is it not true?
Iraq is now flowing its oil to US and other western nations refineries. The oil is in your gas tank.
CrystalTears
04-12-2005, 04:28 PM
Hasn't the oil been flowing for a while now, even before the war? It may only be one line, but it seemed you were trying to state that it's coming here more, when that's not the case, which is why I asked for facts.
ElanthianSiren
04-12-2005, 04:31 PM
I wasn't simply referring to oil when I said we were profiteering the war in Iraq.
Look at Haliburton. Their stock is crazy right now... most defense stock value has increased. You can say "Duh Melissa, that's cuz we're in a war." I agree, we're in a war. People move stock based on what is up and coming, (or what they think is up and coming). Oil and Oil Services charts, for the most part, look like roman candles.
What I don't understand is why we are in that war when we knew Hussein was not a threat. Similiarly, why are we NOT in a war with North Korea? Iraq -- no weapons of mass destruction and seriously overseen by the U.N.. North Korea -- having nuclear weaponry. RangerD, for all your eloquence, and it was vast, you've still not explained that.
Personally, I can't support a war with good consciense that we had no business getting involved in in the first place. Iraq having WMD's *was* *the* *justification* for THIS WAR from the Bush administration. They had none, as we now know.
You can spin it any way you want. Oh, we're helping everyone. Oh, Saddam was a bad bad man. It doesn't matter. Americans were lied to imo, and imo every life taken in Iraq, (on either side), is a wasted life. Shit is still shit, no matter how you dress it up.
-Melissa
Originally posted by RangerD1
This is the first time America has attempted to change a part of the world. It hasn't always turned a positive result.
What? This doesn't even make any sense. If this is the first time then how do you have any prior results?
Typo my fault, I meant it isn't the first time.
Egypt was an ally before the war and has been a large recipient of US Aid
So? You miss the point, that President Mubarak is feeling pressure from his own people to reform the government, this in and of itself has nothing at all to do with Bush's policies. The point that I was making is that a successful Iraq only further encourages these positive changes.
I got your point I just don't believe that Iraq has any bearing on Egypt or its policies.
Saudi has been an ally of the US for many years. I doubt the war will change anything there.
See above, except subsitute The Saudi Royal family for President Mubarak.
Again we disagree.
I think the decision to pull out had more to do with Hezbollah's successful campaign to push the Israelis out of Lebanon.
So, uh..Israelies and Syrians are on the same side now? What exactly does this have to do with Syria.
You talked about the changes in Lebannon. Syria has occupied Lebannon for years. Recently they decided to pull their troops out, I believe this was because the military arm of Hezbollah (which is Syria's poltical party in Lebannon ) pushed Israel out of the Golan Heights. The other reason I think they are leaving is because of the negative reaction from those in Lebannon to the assasination of the former PM. In other words it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Musharraf isn't popular with a large portion of the population and this is a country that is unfamiliar with the term coup.
True enough, things are far from over in this region. I never suggested otherwise, but take into account the fact that the elections went off without a hitch and all the major power players in the region not raising any stink whatsoever in the process.
An Iran/Iraq alliance could become a major power and a challenge to the Saudi Arabia.
Well, this is certainly far from decided but I really don't see this as a bad thing for two reasons
1. It will undoubtedly cause friction within Opec giving it less power to determine the worlds oil prices and
I doubt it as Iran and Iraq are OPEC members
2. Allowing Iraq to exist on it's own terms regardless of how we may feel about it is the exact kind of example we need to set if we want to avoid a cultural war between west-mideast. How hollow do arguments made by people like Osama bin laden sound in such a situation?
If Iraq forms an alliance with Iran, how much will it operate on its own terms?
I don't think any of these people see the American way of life as a threat. It is the same thing that we wouldn't want Sharia law to be forced on us. As long as America keeps to itself they really couldn't care.
Do the common people feel that way? No of course not, but for hardliners like Osama bin Laden? Fuck yea.
Go out and read a few of his statements over the last few years. It's not just America, it's the entire western civilization which they perceive to be a threat to their way of life, and to them the only solution is the complete annhiliation of *our* way of life.
Is this indictive of the average Arab? No, I don't think so, but thats besides the point. I doubt many germans truly felt the way they did towards jews and other people until the Nazi party came into the power. However, when left with nothing but that in their lives it was only a matter of time before such thinking became not only tolerable, but completely understandable. Doing nothing isn't always an option.
Here we agree somewhat the average Arab couldn't give a shit. However Hitler succeeded because he convinced Germans that the Jews were the enemy. I don't think Bin Laden has been as successful in his campaign.
CrystalTears
04-12-2005, 04:34 PM
Heh, you wanna go bomb North Korea? Let me know so that I can get the fuck out of the way and move somewhere FAR.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Hasn't the oil been flowing for a while now, even before the war? It may only be one line, but it seemed you were trying to state that it's coming here more, when that's not the case, which is why I asked for facts.
The reason more oil isn't flowing is because of disruptions to the oil wells and oil pipelines in the form of attacks. The other reason is Iraq's antiquated equipment. I doubt even Ranger would disagree with me on this. As Ranger has stated Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Once the wells and pipeline are safe and the likes of Haliburton and other firms update the technology on the oil wells I think we will see a sharp increase of Iraqi oil exports to America, way beyond prior levels.
In the past Iraq had completely shut off its oil exports completely. A fact I am sure did not go missed at the Whitehouse.
1999
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec99/oil_11-23.html
2002
http://money.cnn.com/2002/04/08/news/international/iraq/
[Edited on 4-12-2005 by xtc]
ElanthianSiren
04-12-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Heh, you wanna go bomb North Korea? Let me know so that I can get the fuck out of the way and move somewhere FAR.
No, CT that isn't the point. The point is, we KNOW what N. Korea is capable of, thus we've left it alone. We knew what Iraq was capable of, as the U.N. docs and The Comission report show. We won't screw with N. Korea in our 'campaign of freedom' but we'll screw with a mainly defenseless country like Iraq then wonder why other world regimes view US as the terrorists.
We then cripple that country's main production so they rely on us as their saviors and terrorize americans into supporting a war (that we say is against terrorism) by saying a country has WMDs.
My point is, there are absolutely, 110% larger threats imo across the globe, (like N. Korea), which you seem to agree with.
I don't care much for war in general, and I feel for the guys who are thousands of miles from their families every day doing a job that's unjustified. The entire business is just disheartening imo.
-Melissa
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Heh, you wanna go bomb North Korea? Let me know so that I can get the fuck out of the way and move somewhere FAR.
Kim Jong is the bomb...oops sorry I meant has the bomb. I doubt we will invade a nuclear nation anytime soon. However Iran has a lot of oil and Bush is been making his weapons of mass destruction squaks again.
Hell Canada has alot of oil, Canada better get the bomb quick so Dubbya doesn't invade. Actually I think we have alot of American bombs here, under our control, so we do have the bomb. Plus we have designed and made numerous reactors I am sure we could retrofit them into an ICBM.
Parkbandit
04-12-2005, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I wasn't simply referring to oil when I said we were profiteering the war in Iraq.
Look at Haliburton. Their stock is crazy right now... most defense stock value has increased. You can say "Duh Melissa, that's cuz we're in a war." I agree, we're in a war. People move stock based on what is up and coming, (or what they think is up and coming). Oil and Oil Services charts, for the most part, look like roman candles.
HOLY SHIT, HILTON STOCK IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH, THEY MUST HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE INVASION!!!
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
What I don't understand is why we are in that war when we knew Hussein was not a threat. Similiarly, why are we NOT in a war with North Korea? Iraq -- no weapons of mass destruction and seriously overseen by the U.N.. North Korea -- having nuclear weaponry. RangerD, for all your eloquence, and it was vast, you've still not explained that.
Let's see.. entire world believed Saddam had WMDs. We tried diplomacy.. didn't work after 12 years. We are still a country that believes in diplomacy first and then use of force.. not the other way around.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Personally, I can't support a war with good consciense that we had no business getting involved in in the first place. Iraq having WMD's *was* *the* *justification* for THIS WAR from the Bush administration. They had none, as we now know.
You would probably be first one to bitch when NYC is attacked and why we didn't do shit prior to it when we had all the warnings. It's called 20/20 and it's never wrong. Unfortunately, one does not have that type of intelligence for future events.
Originally posted by ElanthianSirenYou can spin it any way you want. Oh, we're helping everyone. Oh, Saddam was a bad bad man. It doesn't matter. Americans were lied to imo, and imo every life taken in Iraq, (on either side), is a wasted life. Shit is still shit, no matter how you dress it up.
-Melissa
If America was lied to.. I hope you are not pointing the finger to Bush since he was certainly not the first President to say that Iraq had WMDs.
Warriorbird
04-12-2005, 04:53 PM
I mean, you know, if it's all about WMDs, why not North Korea?
:snickers:
If we were scared of Iraq's "WMDs".
Originally posted by Parkbandit
HOLY SHIT, HILTON STOCK IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH, THEY MUST HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE INVASION!!!
Let's see.. entire world believed Saddam had WMDs.
You would probably be first one to bitch when NYC is attacked and why we didn't do shit prior to it when we had all the warnings. It's called 20/20 and it's never wrong. Unfortunately, one does not have that type of intelligence for future events.
If America was lied to.. I hope you are not pointing the finger to Bush since he was certainly not the first President to say that Iraq had WMDs.
1. Haliburton has had a meteoric rise in its stock, Hilton has not. ----> (my mistake it has had a meteoric rise, arrest Paris )
2.The world didn't believe it, which is why the UN did not invade. Bush believed it.
3. Iraq has never done a thing to NYC so why bring it up? Maybe to imply they had something to do with 9-11. The 9-11 commission stated Iraq had no involvement at all.
4. Why not blame Bush, he was the one who decided to invade.
[Edited on 4-12-2005 by xtc]
Originally posted by Warriorbird
I mean, you know, if it's all about WMDs, why not North Korea?
:snickers:
If we were scared of Iraq's "WMDs".
Bush claimed Iraq was developing WMD which is different from possessing WMD. North Korea has come out and stated that they have a nuclear bomb. Get it?
Warriorbird
04-12-2005, 05:51 PM
Oh.... riiight.
I got your point I just don't believe that Iraq has any bearing on Egypt or its policies.
The announcement, say Egyptian political analysts, follows months of growing outspokenness from Egypt's political opposition and within civil society to allow others to run against Mubarak. It also comes against a backdrop of growing pressure from the U.S. for political reform and democratization in Egypt. Indeed, the announcement followed hard on the heels of a decision by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to cancel a trip to Egypt, reportedly in response to the arrest last month of parliamentary opposition leader Ayman Nour — who had been pressing for the right of Egyptians to run for president when Mubarak seeks a fifth six-year term later this year. Recent elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories have also encouraged Egyptians to demand the right to democratically choose their own leaders.
Full Article:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1032765,00.html
You talked about the changes in Lebannon. Syria has occupied Lebannon for years. Recently they decided to pull their troops out, I believe this was because the military arm of Hezbollah (which is Syria's poltical party in Lebannon ) pushed Israel out of the Golan Heights. The other reason I think they are leaving is because of the negative reaction from those in Lebannon to the assasination of the former PM. In other words it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Otherwise they will be badly judged by history. Another important change is that in the past, the U.S. and France accepted the Syrian presence in Lebanon. There is a change after September 11 and after the Iraqi war. This encouraged the Lebanese leaders to raise their voices of resentment toward Syria. It is a liberation from many taboos
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1032284,00.html
This guy semeed to disagree with you.
----
I used time magazine because A) I knew the stories were there which wastes less time out of the 15 mins I have on the comp at a time and B) They have always seemed pretty non biased to me in msot things. This may or may not have any bearing on the quotes directly attributed to people.
I'd suggest that the war in Iraq has been felt by all countries in the middle east and most of it isn't bad. I don' t know why I'd have to argue that point when people are saying shit like "The war in Iraq will be a stain on the world for a long time"
I doubt it as Iran and Iraq are OPEC members
True enough but an alliance would effectively eliminate Saudi Arabian dominence in the organization. It's like saying that the US and its Nato allies always have to agree in everything because they are in Nato.
If Iraq forms an alliance with Iran, how much will it operate on its own terms?
I dunno. I doubt the world (let alone the other people in Iraq) at this point will allow it to degenerate into a sattelite state.
However Hitler succeeded because he convinced Germans that the Jews were the enemy
That was my point.
I don't think Bin Laden has been as successful in his campaign.
I think your being a bit overly optimistic to prove your point. There are independent reports out there that say Bin Laden would win if he were to run against the Al Saud family in Saudia Arabia. Now, that will never happen, but it just illustrates how much of a following he has.
The thing is, we can't allow him to get any more of a foothold than he already has.
ElanthianSiren
04-12-2005, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
You would probably be first one to bitch when NYC is attacked and why we didn't do shit prior to it when we had all the warnings. It's called 20/20 and it's never wrong. Unfortunately, one does not have that type of intelligence for future events.
Actually, on 9/11, I had a 2pm class. I went. I was determined not to give into terrorism by any regime. I was understandably angry, but not at the U.S. or the airline industry, so no, I am not one of those people, though I remember being terrified that another plane would fall and another and another all over as I made my way there. What it comes down to is several angry people took advantage of a faulty system and used it to permanently scar thousands. We are on our way to rehabilitating that system internally.
Like I inferred earlier: war is a nasty business. It's a sad day when a country/group/militia attacks another with nothing more than their morality to support that decision -- especially when that morality is the product of ignorance. That kind of attack on an entire culture breeds an anger and a resentment... well, like the one most of the U.S. felt for 911.
-But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and we had the intelligence to support that. We had the U.N. reports that clearly stated Iraq had no WMDs when Congress gave the okay to use force if the situation became dire. -Dirt poor, embargo'd country, with no weapons of mass destruction to speak of found by the U.N. over YEARS of investigation = not dire situation imo. Sorry, if you disagree.
-Melissa
[Edited on Tue, April th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]
Warriorbird
04-12-2005, 06:08 PM
Venezuela's our biggest OPEC opponent currently, D.
If the Middle East views the west with distrust the answer then is to invade and force on them our notions of what society should be.
I wasn't aware that we could have opponents in an organization we don't belong to.
Warriorbird
04-12-2005, 06:12 PM
We certainly can. People devoted to working against our interests.
I haven't seen any actions that suggest that Venezulea has actively done anything to go against Us interests. I know there has been some political heat in regards to several issues over the last few years.
Warriorbird
04-12-2005, 06:19 PM
Some research would be educational. It's nothing related to the military either, so you can be on the right side.
:grins:
Warriorbird
04-12-2005, 06:35 PM
I no longer have the original articles, but some googling can pull plenty of things up, biased towards either side of the aisle, or not.
Here's a timeline of sorts.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=venezuela
According to Saudi Arabian sources in OPEC, Chavez has advocated raising crude prices higher consistently, as a means of targetting America. The sales to China also trouble America, as Venezuela is/was our second largest supplier.
[Edited on 4-12-2005 by Warriorbird]
Artha
04-12-2005, 06:39 PM
What I don't understand is why we are in that war when we knew Hussein was not a threat. Similiarly, why are we NOT in a war with North Korea? Iraq -- no weapons of mass destruction and seriously overseen by the U.N.. North Korea -- having nuclear weaponry. RangerD, for all your eloquence, and it was vast, you've still not explained that.
Which of these guys would you rather get into a fist fight with?
http://www.skboxing.cz/galerie/tyson/Tyson/images/tyson-mike-photo-mike-tyson-6200591.jpg
or
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/gandhi.jpg
Warriorbird
04-12-2005, 06:41 PM
Tyson of course.
Latrinsorm
04-12-2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
The point is, we KNOW what N. Korea is capable of, thus we've left it alone.
Similiarly, why are we NOT in a war with North Korea?Please google the phrase "six party talks".
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11No one has ever stated that it did.
We had the U.N. reports that clearly stated Iraq had no WMDsI promise you I can find reports that state that North Korea has no WMD. The reason being that the findings of a report on a dynamic situation do not hold true forever. Add into it the fact that a number of UN members were awfully cozy with Iraq and corruption, and I'd much rather put faith in current US investigation than outdated UN investigation.
Warriorbird
04-12-2005, 06:44 PM
"No one has ever stated that it did."
Though the Latrinsorm chorus has claimed it supported Al'Qaeda.
"I promise you I can find reports that state that North Korea has no WMD"
You are so impressively deluded.
Latrinsorm
04-12-2005, 06:45 PM
Sure.
only thing in that link even worth mentioning is "Chavez may Sell some us oil interests in the region"
Which kinda goes along with...
I haven't seen any actions that suggest that Venezulea has actively done anything to go against Us interests. I know there has been some political heat in regards to several issues over the last few years.
Xcalibur
04-12-2005, 06:48 PM
The world will breath SOOOOOOO better when the dependance to the black gold will be "over".
I still don't understand why the "liberty" countries won't hurry their asses to develop every engines working with water/natural gaz/air
[Edited on 13-4-05 by Xcalibur]
Warriorbird
04-12-2005, 06:50 PM
As I said, I didn't have the original articles. Needless to say, there's tension.
Originally posted by RangerD1
I got your point I just don't believe that Iraq has any bearing on Egypt or its policies.
The announcement, say Egyptian political analysts, follows months of growing outspokenness from Egypt's political opposition and within civil society to allow others to run against Mubarak. It also comes against a backdrop of growing pressure from the U.S. for political reform and democratization in Egypt. Indeed, the announcement followed hard on the heels of a decision by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to cancel a trip to Egypt, reportedly in response to the arrest last month of parliamentary opposition leader Ayman Nour — who had been pressing for the right of Egyptians to run for president when Mubarak seeks a fifth six-year term later this year. Recent elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories have also encouraged Egyptians to demand the right to democratically choose their own leaders.
Full Article:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1032765,00.html
You talked about the changes in Lebannon. Syria has occupied Lebannon for years. Recently they decided to pull their troops out, I believe this was because the military arm of Hezbollah (which is Syria's poltical party in Lebannon ) pushed Israel out of the Golan Heights. The other reason I think they are leaving is because of the negative reaction from those in Lebannon to the assasination of the former PM. In other words it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
Otherwise they will be badly judged by history. Another important change is that in the past, the U.S. and France accepted the Syrian presence in Lebanon. There is a change after September 11 and after the Iraqi war. This encouraged the Lebanese leaders to raise their voices of resentment toward Syria. It is a liberation from many taboos
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1032284,00.html
This guy semeed to disagree with you.
----
I used time magazine because A) I knew the stories were there which wastes less time out of the 15 mins I have on the comp at a time and B) They have always seemed pretty non biased to me in msot things. This may or may not have any bearing on the quotes directly attributed to people.
I'd suggest that the war in Iraq has been felt by all countries in the middle east and most of it isn't bad. I don' t know why I'd have to argue that point when people are saying shit like "The war in Iraq will be a stain on the world for a long time"
I doubt it as Iran and Iraq are OPEC members
True enough but an alliance would effectively eliminate Saudi Arabian dominence in the organization. It's like saying that the US and its Nato allies always have to agree in everything because they are in Nato.
If Iraq forms an alliance with Iran, how much will it operate on its own terms?
I dunno. I doubt the world (let alone the other people in Iraq) at this point will allow it to degenerate into a sattelite state.
However Hitler succeeded because he convinced Germans that the Jews were the enemy
That was my point.
I don't think Bin Laden has been as successful in his campaign.
I think your being a bit overly optimistic to prove your point. There are independent reports out there that say Bin Laden would win if he were to run against the Al Saud family in Saudia Arabia. Now, that will never happen, but it just illustrates how much of a following he has.
The thing is, we can't allow him to get any more of a foothold than he already has.
Re: Lebanon, the guy in the Time article doesn’t disagree with me. He talks about how the assassination of the former Prime Minister had a lot to do with it. A UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops as well. He mentions France changed its position after 9-11 and the Iraq war; he doesn’t say it was because of it. It is also important to note that it was after Israel withdrew its troops from Lebanon as well. If anything the Time article re-iterates and solidifies much of my opinion.
Elections in Egypt are nothing new. Multiple parties have run in Egyptian elections for years. I don’t believe the Iraq war hasn’t changed a thing. Egypt is simply running through another cycle of elections. Certainly it seems that Mubarak needs to validate his leadership again at the polls. According to CIA fact book Mubarak won a fourth straight term through a national referendum.
http://www.country-studies.com/egypt/elections.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/eg.html
Regarding an Iran/Iraq alliance. Saudi Arabia, for all its problems, is an ally of America; I am not sure that an Iran/Iraq alliance would be. Hopefully I will be wrong and there won’t be an alliance.
I have no doubt that Bin Laden is popular in pockets of the world. I don’t know how in a country like Saudi, based on Sharia law, you could even take a poll to find out if Bin Laden would win an election. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy so I doubt we will be seeing elections anytime soon, but you conceded this.
I doubt Bin Laden is popular with the majority of Muslims worldwide. Since 9-11 Muslims have been characterised by many around the world as barbarians, uncivilised, evil, and soulless. Although the assholes you hold these myopic views can be blamed, I think many Muslims also blame Bin Laden for many he has brought blame and scorn among Islam. Muslims may not always be forthcoming with their views to non-Muslims.
By the way if your time on the computer is limited, why are you wasting it arguing with me. I would be surfing for porn and looking for females for my next trip stateside.
If anything the Time article re-iterates and solidifies much of my opinion.
Except for the part where Iraq has nothing to do with anything. I never once claimed that the issues were a direct result of the actions in Iraq, but rather that they gave a positive note towards the United States, which is of course dependent on whether or not things stay successful.
According to CIA fact book Mubarak won a fourth straight term through a national referendum.
Which at the time he was the only person on the ballot. This is the first time he has allowed other people to actually run against him. Now, I'm not gonna jump to the conclusion that he's totally letting things go, but it's an important indicator if he feels the need to at least give that illusion.
I doubt Bin Laden is popular with the majority of Muslims worldwid
What exactly are you basing these views on? I'm not arguing that bin Laden is an especailly popular person, but rather that he has enough support to continue his operations.
By the way if your time on the computer is limited, why are you wasting it arguing with me. I would be surfing for porn and looking for females for my next trip stateside.
Well, I'd get nailed for looking at porn, and I think you highly underestimate my ability to multi-task. Take that for what you will.
Which at the time he was the only person on the ballot. This is the first time he has allowed other people to actually run against him. Now, I'm not gonna jump to the conclusion that he's totally letting things go, but it's an important indicator if he feels the need to at least give that illusion.
It was a referendum where the people could vote yes or no as opposed to a ballot so the people could have chosen not to have him continue as their leader.
What exactly are you basing these views on? I'm not arguing that bin Laden is an especailly popular person, but rather that he has enough support to continue his operations.
Will he have enough support among Wahabi fanatics? Yes. Do the majority of Muslims support him? No, I base my opinion on conversations with Muslim family members, Imams and several Muslim shows I have seen, as well as the following:
http://www.cmcla.org/press_r/joint.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/11/madrid.anniversary/
Well, I'd get nailed for looking at porn, and I think you highly underestimate my ability to multi-task. Take that for what you will.
Nah I bet you are a champion multi-tasker with well calloused hands :lol:. If they are giving away cosmetic surgery to enlist then porn should be available for all enlisted men.
CrystalTears
04-13-2005, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by xtc
Which at the time he was the only person on the ballot. This is the first time he has allowed other people to actually run against him. Now, I'm not gonna jump to the conclusion that he's totally letting things go, but it's an important indicator if he feels the need to at least give that illusion.
It was a referendum where the people could vote yes or no as opposed to a ballot so the people could have chosen not to have him continue as their leader.
That nearly sounds like the situation with Saddam. He was the only one on the ballot, and there was a yes or no, but if you voted no you were shot. So much for voting. :D
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Originally posted by xtc
Which at the time he was the only person on the ballot. This is the first time he has allowed other people to actually run against him. Now, I'm not gonna jump to the conclusion that he's totally letting things go, but it's an important indicator if he feels the need to at least give that illusion.
It was a referendum where the people could vote yes or no as opposed to a ballot so the people could have chosen not to have him continue as their leader.
That nearly sounds like the situation with Saddam. He was the only one on the ballot, and there was a yes or no, but if you voted no you were shot. So much for voting. :D
There is a world of difference between Saddam and Mubarak. What they have in common is both were supported by America.
CrystalTears
04-14-2005, 03:11 PM
I supported my exhusband too once upon a time, so I guess that means I should let him walk all over me. I suppose change for the better means dick and we should suck it because we were stupid once and trying to make it right.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
I supported my exhusband too once upon a time, so I guess that means I should let him walk all over me. I suppose change for the better means dick and we should suck it because we were stupid once and trying to make it right.
Saddam was an asshole and a murderous tyrant when we supported him in the 80's but he was our tyrant. It would be similar if you supported your husband knowing he raped and murdered other woman and then trying to claim the moral hi-ground if he back handed you one day.
Latrinsorm
04-14-2005, 03:47 PM
We supported him because the Big Red Machine was a bit worse than some lunatic in the desert. This doesn't mean the lunatic in the desert wasn't bad, it means he wasn't the worst thing going. It would be similar to the cops teaming up with the Mafia to stop a Nazi invasion of America (ROCKETEER!!!).
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
We supported him because the Big Red Machine was a bit worse than some lunatic in the desert. This doesn't mean the lunatic in the desert wasn't bad, it means he wasn't the worst thing going. It would be similar to the cops teaming up with the Mafia to stop a Nazi invasion of America (ROCKETEER!!!).
The big red machine? I think you are confusing Iraq with Afghanistan.
ElanthianSiren
04-15-2005, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
We supported him because the Big Red Machine was a bit worse than some lunatic in the desert. This doesn't mean the lunatic in the desert wasn't bad, it means he wasn't the worst thing going. It would be similar to the cops teaming up with the Mafia to stop a Nazi invasion of America (ROCKETEER!!!).
Which again refers to the argument that Sadam was a bad bad bad man. There are many bad bad bad men in the world, and we have proof that some of them even have nuclear/chemical technology.
All in all, if we were told this was a humanitarian war from the onset, and if it was treated as such, I'd definitely support it, but it wasn't/isn't, and as per the original post, kids are dying. In addition to that, our guys are dying and we were lied to. There are/were no WMDs.
Aside from that, we turned our back on allies who said from the beginning that there were no WMDs. -But all those countries were in good with Iraq! It doesn't count, right? -Except that they were correct in their assessment. What did they know that we didn't, and what has that done to our credibility?
IMO those are important questions. If this war has done anything, I hope it's opened people's eyes to the fact that war shouldn't ever be entered lightly -- especially when your president dubs himself a "warhawk president".
BTW has anyone heard anything about the war in Afghanistan lately?
-Melissa
Warriorbird
04-15-2005, 07:45 AM
Yes. Afghanistan's heroin crop is now effectively doubling the rest of the world's again. Yeah, America!
The war on drugs was so 80s.
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yes. Afghanistan's heroin crop is now effectively doubling the rest of the world's again. Yeah, America!
Hey, as long as it shows the current administration in a bad light, it must be the only thing that matters out of Afghanistan!
ElanthianSiren
04-15-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Hey, as long as it shows the current administration in a bad light, it must be the only thing that matters out of Afghanistan!
Well, I haven't heard much else about our efforts to apprehend real terrorists, that intelligence confirms actually masterminded and executed attacks on the U.S. within this decade. Since we're discussing the war on terror, I just thought I'd ask. :saint:
-Melissa
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Hey, as long as it shows the current administration in a bad light, it must be the only thing that matters out of Afghanistan!
Well, I haven't heard much else about our efforts to apprehend real terrorists, that intelligence confirms actually masterminded and executed attacks on the U.S. within this decade. Since we're discussing the war on terror, I just thought I'd ask. :saint:
-Melissa
Yes, because it is SO easy to find someone who has kept himself hidden for years and has thousands of people covering his movements.
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
What I don't understand is why we are in that war when we knew Hussein was not a threat. Similiarly, why are we NOT in a war with North Korea? Iraq -- no weapons of mass destruction and seriously overseen by the U.N.. North Korea -- having nuclear weaponry.
-Melissa
The American public would not support that war because there would be far to large of a casualty list.
StrayRogue
04-15-2005, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yes. Afghanistan's heroin crop is now effectively doubling the rest of the world's again. Yeah, America!
Hey, as long as it shows the current administration in a bad light, it must be the only thing that matters out of Afghanistan!
Sorry PB, but your total ignoral of matters when it pertains to things resulting to war (because of the current administration of the US) is just stupid. You can't fob everything off by saying Oh just coz you hate Bush or whatever. Live up to the fact that some of his choices have made the world a worse place for a whole number of reasons and stop blaming it on the fact we're looking at reasons to pick at your hero.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Hey, as long as it shows the current administration in a bad light, it must be the only thing that matters out of Afghanistan!
Well, I haven't heard much else about our efforts to apprehend real terrorists, that intelligence confirms actually masterminded and executed attacks on the U.S. within this decade. Since we're discussing the war on terror, I just thought I'd ask. :saint:
-Melissa
2/3rds of Al Qaeda leadership dead or captured, mainly dismantling the entire organization, leaving only small pockets of its former self to continue to fight.
Yeah your right we have not managed to do anything in the War on Terror;)
How ever are we going to stop all the bombings that continue to occur after 9/11. Daily on American streets, women and children are dying or losing their husbands and fathers to terrorist bombings and attacks. Damn this administration and its lust for oil. The Election was rigged!!
[Edited on 4-15-2005 by Dave]
One interesting side-effect of the war on terror is that Al Queda is now in Iraq where it never was before.
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
One interesting side-effect of the war on terror is that Al Queda is now in Iraq where it never was before.
I certainly wouldn't use the word "never" in that statement. When you do, it makes it false.
Since there is not a guy named Al Queda, there is no way of knowing if any of their members were in Iraq.
Truth is, they were very much in Afghanistan and they had the Afghan government giving them protection. We came in and kicked their teeth in.
Originally posted by Backlash
One interesting side-effect of the war on terror is that Al Qaeda is now in Iraq where it never was before.
Why is that bad? Al Qaeda (the base) was a list of people who answered the call of Jihad in the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Those people mostly follow radical forms of Islam and after the war were willing to continue attacks against the "Unbelievers" in the form of terrorism. So now Al Qaeda is in Iraq, now we know who and where they are. Oddly enough we have150,000 us troops in the area searching them down and killing them. To me that sounds like a pretty damn good after affect to the war in Iraq. Something not planned, but very beneficial to our security as a country. Its better to have them busy fearing for their lives than planning how to take down the Sears Tower in the middle of the afternoon.
[Edited on 4-15-2005 by Dave]
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Backlash
One interesting side-effect of the war on terror is that Al Queda is now in Iraq where it never was before.
I certainly wouldn't use the word "never" in that statement. When you do, it makes it false.
Since there is not a guy named Al Queda, there is no way of knowing if any of their members were in Iraq.
Truth is, they were very much in Afghanistan and they had the Afghan government giving them protection. We came in and kicked their teeth in.
Then by that standard we should invade every country in the world?
Yes they were in Afghanistan. I didn’t even mention it because Afghanistan isn’t Iraq.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Hey, as long as it shows the current administration in a bad light, it must be the only thing that matters out of Afghanistan!
Well, I haven't heard much else about our efforts to apprehend real terrorists, that intelligence confirms actually masterminded and executed attacks on the U.S. within this decade. Since we're discussing the war on terror, I just thought I'd ask. :saint:
-Melissa
Who cares about what you hear? You're still clueless.
Xcalibur
04-15-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by StrayRogue
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yes. Afghanistan's heroin crop is now effectively doubling the rest of the world's again. Yeah, America!
Hey, as long as it shows the current administration in a bad light, it must be the only thing that matters out of Afghanistan!
Sorry PB, but your total ignoral of matters when it pertains to things resulting to war (because of the current administration of the US) is just stupid. You can't fob everything off by saying Oh just coz you hate Bush or whatever. Live up to the fact that some of his choices have made the world a worse place for a whole number of reasons and stop blaming it on the fact we're looking at reasons to pick at your hero.
The world has changed since 9/11.
The world is better since the fall of Hussen
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by StrayRogue
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Yes. Afghanistan's heroin crop is now effectively doubling the rest of the world's again. Yeah, America!
Hey, as long as it shows the current administration in a bad light, it must be the only thing that matters out of Afghanistan!
Sorry PB, but your total ignoral of matters when it pertains to things resulting to war (because of the current administration of the US) is just stupid. You can't fob everything off by saying Oh just coz you hate Bush or whatever. Live up to the fact that some of his choices have made the world a worse place for a whole number of reasons and stop blaming it on the fact we're looking at reasons to pick at your hero.
Bush is hardly what I would consider my hero. I simply believe that for every bad thing that "you" types bring up, there are more things that have happened that are good and doesn't get reported BECAUSE it's good.
So when I see the one sided posting, I'll call you on it. Call it being my way of being "Fair and Balanced".
I'm here to help. :)
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Backlash
One interesting side-effect of the war on terror is that Al Queda is now in Iraq where it never was before.
I certainly wouldn't use the word "never" in that statement. When you do, it makes it false.
Since there is not a guy named Al Queda, there is no way of knowing if any of their members were in Iraq.
Truth is, they were very much in Afghanistan and they had the Afghan government giving them protection. We came in and kicked their teeth in.
Then by that standard we should invade every country in the world?
Yes they were in Afghanistan. I didn’t even mention it because Afghanistan isn’t Iraq.
So by your logic, we should never have attacked Afghanistan because that's where Al Queda was?
I mentioned Afghanistan because that's where Al Queda was until we blasted the fucking shit out of them.
Now, they're in Iraq.
I have never said or even suggested Afghanistan was the mistake Iraq is. So I don’t see how you are coming to the conlusions you are, or the point you are trying to make based on my saying an odd side-effect of the war on terror is that Al Queda, who was not in Iraq before the war, now is.
:?:
Actually, al Qaida was in Iraq prior to the war, it's the links between them and Saddam's government that are tenuous.
CrystalTears
04-15-2005, 12:46 PM
Wait, wait.. let me answer for the libs...
BUT IT WASN'T BIN LADEN SO IT DOESN'T COUNT, THEREFORE WE HAD NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!
Or maybe we can go with...
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
Or better yet...
WE WERE LIED TO ABOUT THE WMD AND WE SHOULD HAVE BOMBED NORTH KOREA IF THAT'S ALL WE CARE ABOUT IT.
And let's not forget...
WE WERE LIED TO SO THAT THE EVIL BUSH CAN HAVE A REASON TO GET OIL! YEAH! HE HAD PEOPLE KILLED FOR SELFISH OIL!
Did I cover the usual comebacks, or did I forget something?
[Edited on 4/15/2005 by CrystalTears]
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Wait, wait.. let me answer for the libs...
BUT IT WASN'T BIN LADEN SO IT DOESN'T COUNT, THEREFORE WE HAD NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!
Or maybe we can go with...
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
Or better yet...
WE WERE LIED TO ABOUT THE WMD AND WE SHOULD HAVE BOMBED NORTH KOREA IF THAT'S ALL WE CARE ABOUT IT.
And let's not forget...
WE WERE LIED TO SO THAT THE EVIL BUSH CAN HAVE A REASON TO GET OIL! YEAH! HE HAD PEOPLE KILLED FOR SELFISH OIL!
Did I cover the usual comebacks, or did I forget something?
[Edited on 4/15/2005 by CrystalTears] How can you be even remotely surprised that some American's are genuinly taken aback by the lies that frothed from the mouths of our politicians (Democrat and Republican) leading up to the invasion. I mean... yes, we were lied to. It happens in politics all the time. Guess what, people are going to have a problem with that even if you don't and will question the agenda of the administration when the subject is raised.
CrystalTears
04-15-2005, 01:00 PM
You people call it lies, I call it being misinformed. There were intelligence reports being used by the whole world, foreign intelligence agreeing with ours and so forth. But you're right. Bush is an evil bastard. I can't make anyone feel differently about it. Just want people to call it as it is and stop making it this evil or corruption and that he was alone in the planning, was all his doing, and is corrupt. :shrug:
Originally posted by CrystalTears
You people call it lies, I call it being misinformed. There were intelligence reports being used by the whole world, foreign intelligence agreeing with ours and so forth. But you're right. Bush is an evil bastard. I can't make anyone feel differently about it. Just want people to call it as it is and stop making it this evil or corruption and that he was alone in the planning, was all his doing, and is corrupt. :shrug: Well, damn.. I hope you didn't get from my post that I'm saying Bush is an evil bastard. This has nothing to do with Bush as a person to me. I could say all politicians are evil, corrupt, cunning and so on but that means squat in the world of politics. Those are survival traits to an extent. It has everything to do with the war as a whole. War is a big deal as I'm sure it is to those for and against. Sure, intelligence deserves a portion of the blame but that is quite a heavy burden to only place on intelligence when the end result is an all out invasion on an entire country, and not just their "evil dictator", with no out plan in place.
Skirmisher
04-15-2005, 01:14 PM
Now now., I wouldn't call Bush evil.
An egocentric, self-indulgent frat boy of limited intellect perhaps, but not evil.
And I do not find fault with the removal of Saddam, only with the execution of that plan. They let politics enter into things and in an attempt to make the coming invasion look more pallatable changed things the pentagon asked for.
CrystalTears
04-15-2005, 01:47 PM
Well I said you, but I didn't mean you specifically, DeV. I haven't heard you go as far as calling Bush evil or whatnot, but it has been said previously and it gets to me is all.
I'm not this huge Bush supporter as he DOES do butthead things, and I agree that there could have been a better way to explain the need to go to war and not saying it's all about the WMD, but I do support the war.
Originally posted by RangerD1
Actually, al Qaida was in Iraq prior to the war, it's the links between them and Saddam's government that are tenuous.
There were no links between Al Qaida and the Iraq Government. If anything Iraq was fighting terrorism like we were.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm
There has been speculation that a few members of Al Qaida were in the northern part of Iraq where many Kurds live. At the time as that was part of the no-fly zone, Saddam didn't have total control over that area. These reports have come from the same people who said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and were an imminent threat.
The idea of Bin Laden collaborating with Saddam has been proven false. The are/were enemies. Bin Laden is a true believer who won't go in the same room as a women who is having her monthly or who isn't covered head to toe, according to his sister in law on CNN. Saddam was a drinking, whoring, viagra using tyrant with a Christian for a deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz.
Lets not forget that Al Qaida is in America. Being in and collaborating are two separate things. If having members of Al Qaida in your country is justification for an invasion then the UN should have invaded America.
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by xtc If having members of Al Qaida in your country is justification for an invasion then the UN should have invaded America.
That one kinda made me giggle... thinking about the mighty French army marching into the US.
Hehe.
CrystalTears
04-15-2005, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by xtc If having members of Al Qaida in your country is justification for an invasion then the UN should have invaded America.
That one kinda made me giggle... thinking about the mighty French army marching into the US.
Hehe.
He got off light with you. I actually laughed out loud.
Skirmisher
04-15-2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
That one kinda made me giggle... thinking about the mighty French army marching into the US.
Hehe.
Hey there, leave the poor French alone.
I mean after all, they already had the misfortune to be born French, what else would you wish upon them? :D
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Wait, wait.. let me answer for the libs...
BUT IT WASN'T BIN LADEN SO IT DOESN'T COUNT, THEREFORE WE HAD NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!
Or maybe we can go with...
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
Or better yet...
WE WERE LIED TO ABOUT THE WMD AND WE SHOULD HAVE BOMBED NORTH KOREA IF THAT'S ALL WE CARE ABOUT IT.
And let's not forget...
WE WERE LIED TO SO THAT THE EVIL BUSH CAN HAVE A REASON TO GET OIL! YEAH! HE HAD PEOPLE KILLED FOR SELFISH OIL!
Did I cover the usual comebacks, or did I forget something?
[Edited on 4/15/2005 by CrystalTears]
I don't consider myself my a liberal and I was once a Republican.
That Al Qaida had no connection with Saddam was determined by the 9-11 Commision which was appointed by Bush. Same goes for Iraq not having any involvement in 9-11, it was determined by Bush's 9-11 Commision.
It was only American intelligence that claimed that Saddam had WMD, England relied heavily on US intelligence. It was only these two nations that made this claim, no other nations did.
Oil is probably the single most valuable commodity in the world today followed by drinking water. To under estimate its value is to be naive. In 1991 do you really think we were interested in Kuwait? We were interested in protecting oil. Saddam lit the oil wells on fire all over Kuwait because he knew this. In 1991 at least we could hide behind the pretense that it wasn't about oil because Saddam had attacked another sovereign nation. This time there is no such pretense.
September 12, 2001 Donald Rumsfield sat in a room with Bush and other senior Whitehouse staff and talked about bombing Iraq. Defense Analyst Richard Clark and other intelligence staff told Rumsfeld that Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq. Rumsfeld continued to press in his desire to attack Iraq.
Even prior to 9-11 this administration had a plan to attack Iraq. It is was and will alway be about the oil.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Well I said you, but I didn't mean you specifically, DeV. I haven't heard you go as far as calling Bush evil or whatnot, but it has been said previously and it gets to me is all.Gotcha. I just don't want that particular connotation to be associated with my personal reasons for being against the war.
I'm not this huge Bush supporter as he DOES do butthead things, and I agree that there could have been a better way to explain the need to go to war and not saying it's all about the WMD, but I do support the war. One can't help but to be impressed with the ease at which the war was reasoned, justified, and then unleashed. Our differences lie in the fact that you support the war and I not only don't support, I disagree with everything it stands for from inception to execution. So, when I see the argument being used that people like me are only against it because Bush r evil, or There are no WMD's but good things are coming from it, or so what the entire was "misinformed" so no one should be held accountable, it sets a negative precedent in my opinion. It also makes it easier for the facts to be overlooked and to go without question.
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 02:16 PM
You are making alot of assumptions in your last post xtc. I wish I had the inside information you do where you know the stuff you are posting is the truth and not some political spin.
And to say it's just about the oil would be mistaken in my opinion. I think it would be foolish of our government NOT to protect our oil interests in that area of the world... but it's not the only and sole reason we did what we did.
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by xtc If having members of Al Qaida in your country is justification for an invasion then the UN should have invaded America.
That one kinda made me giggle... thinking about the mighty French army marching into the US.
Hehe.
THE WORLD'S TEN LARGEST ARMIES
1. China - 1,700,000
2. India - 1,200,000
3. North Korea - 900,000
4. South Korea - 560,000
5. Pakistan - 520,000
6. United States - 475,000
7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course.
8. Myanmar - 325,000
9. Russia - 320,000
10. Iran - 320,000
THE WORLD'S LARGEST AIR FORCES - BY NUMBER OF COMBAT AIRCRAFT
1. Russia - 3,996
2. China - 3,520
3. United States - 2,598
4. India - 774
5. Taiwan - 598
6. North Korea - 593
7. Egypt - 583
8. France - 531
9. Ukraine - 521
10. South Korea - 488
THE WORLD'S LARGEST NAVIES - BY PERSONNEL
1. United States - 369,800
2. China - 230,000
3. Russia - 171,500
4. Taiwan - 68,000
5. France - 62,600
6. South Korea - 60,000
7. India - 53,000
8. Turkey - 51,000
9. Indonesia - 47,000
10. North Korea - 46,000
It is a lot harder fighting a war on your own soild.
My point was rational.
CrystalTears
04-15-2005, 02:20 PM
And my point, about three pages back, is that if this was about just oil, where is all the oil that we attained from this war, since it's been proven that we've been getting LESS oil from them since the war began?
I'm not saying oil wasn't part of it. I'm sure it was. But it wasn't the main reason and I don't appreciate people who think it was ALL about the oil. There were many reasons for going to war, and I wish they would have just stated most, if not all, of the reasons to the public, so that they wouldn't cling to the one and be disappointed when it was proven false.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
And my point, about three pages back, is that if this was about just oil, where is all the oil that we attained from this war, since it's been proven that we've been getting LESS oil from them since the war began?
I'm not saying oil wasn't part of it. I'm sure it was. But it wasn't the main reason and I don't appreciate people who think it was ALL about the oil. There were many reasons for going to war, and I wish they would have just stated most, if not all, of the reasons to the public, so that they wouldn't cling to the one and be disappointed when it was proven false.
What were the other reasons?
Al Qaida? nope not active there before the war.
9-11? He had no involvement
WMD. Nope none there.
Freedom of Iraqi people? Didn't seem to bother us when Saddam was doing our bidding.
Oil. ding, ding, ding, and we have a winner. There has been a slight dip in production because of oil wells and pipelines have been attacked but as soon as all of Iraq is secure there will be no interruptions and one of the largest reserves of oil in the world will be flowing to America. What do you think Haliburton is doing there? Upgrading the oil wells, they aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart, they are securing America's oil. What levels do you think production will be at once they are done and Iraq is secure.
Let's not forget that Saddam has twice in the past 5 years turned the taps off completely. This must have scared the shit of the US Government.
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 02:28 PM
<7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course. >
Heh.. and you saw how quickly we dismantled that mighty army. We aren't considered the world's only superpower due to the size of our army.
IT'S NOT THE SIZE, IT'S WHAT YOU DO WITH IT. :P
Originally posted by Parkbandit
<7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course. >
Heh.. and you saw how quickly we dismantled that mighty army. We aren't considered the world's only superpower due to the size of our army.
IT'S NOT THE SIZE, IT'S WHAT YOU DO WITH IT. :P
Is that what you tell your wife? j/k
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by Parkbandit
<7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course. >
Heh.. and you saw how quickly we dismantled that mighty army. We aren't considered the world's only superpower due to the size of our army.
IT'S NOT THE SIZE, IT'S WHAT YOU DO WITH IT. :P
Is that what you tell your wife? j/k
It is. I tell her that just because it's gigantic.. doesn't mean it's gonna kill her.
CrystalTears
04-15-2005, 02:45 PM
If you're convinced that it was all about the oil, there is nothing I say that will prove to you otherwise, so why bother asking. You'll debunk it all anyway.
Originally posted by Dave
Originally posted by Backlash
One interesting side-effect of the war on terror is that Al Qaeda is now in Iraq where it never was before.
Why is that bad? Al Qaeda (the base) was a list of people who answered the call of Jihad in the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Those people mostly follow radical forms of Islam and after the war were willing to continue attacks against the "Unbelievers" in the form of terrorism. So now Al Qaeda is in Iraq, now we know who and where they are. Oddly enough we have150,000 us troops in the area searching them down and killing them. To me that sounds like a pretty damn good after affect to the war in Iraq. Something not planned, but very beneficial to our security as a country. Its better to have them busy fearing for their lives than planning how to take down the Sears Tower in the middle of the afternoon.
[Edited on 4-15-2005 by Dave]
Just caught this, Dave, sorry. What you describe is bad because its at the expense of the innocent Iraqi public who have nothing to do with any of this.
They are fearing for their lives...? Huge assumption there.
They became extremely active in Iraq after our soldiers landed there, not before. I'd say that is not fearing for much of anything with the suicide bombs going off almost daily now.
ElanthianSiren
04-15-2005, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by CrystalTears
You people call it lies, I call it being misinformed. There were intelligence reports being used by the whole world, foreign intelligence agreeing with ours and so forth.
http://www.m-w.com
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
something that misleads or deceives
Incorrect.
The Niger reports came from the delusional ramblings of one chemical engineer from Iraq who fell in with the Germans. The Germans outright told us he was delusional. The French outright told us we were mistaken, so then we had to create Freedom Fries cuz they didn't agree.
The Niger reports are btw the "intelligence" used to link Iraq to WMDs. However, by a top CIA official's own admission (the former head of counterterrorism btw):
Originally uttered by Vincent Cannistraro, ex head of Counterrorism.
VC: I think that’s certainly the objective. To lay it off to the intelligence community. But, it’s very disingenuous. It’s like saying, ok, the intelligence community that we whipped into a frenzy in order to provide information to sustain our policy conclusions that Saddam had a WMD program and that he was an imminent danger . . . that that intelligence community provided information that now turns out not to be correct, and that’s why we were mislead into saying what we did say, and doing what we did do. And that’s very disingenuous, because that’s not the case at all. The case was that this was not a fact-based policy that the US government adopted. It was a policy-based decision that drove the intelligence, and not the other way around. And that’s, of course, the reverse of the process. You had a lot of people who played along to get along, and they understood that in that kind of administration, you couldn’t say exactly what it is that you really believed.
The intelligence community was pushed to find the correlation between Iraq and WMDs before the intelligence even existed. That correlation is not a mistake; it's an intentional lie that put us in a war we had no business being in.
Presently, I'm still doing some trading, but I'll be posting a little later on in response to the nonexistent "changes" the Bush administration has brought about in the middle east that everyone likes to give them credit for.
http://www.ianmasters.org/breaking_news_040305.html
link is to the quote.
-Melissa
CrystalTears
04-15-2005, 03:03 PM
I have a feeling suicide bombs were occuring just as much before the war as now, just that now we hear of it more because our guys are there getting hurt in the process.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
I have a feeling suicide bombs were occuring just as much before the war as now, just that now we hear of it more because our guys are there getting hurt in the process.
That's extremely not correct.
The perceived enemy of the United States has been provoked to the point where they feel that by spontaneously self-combusting along with perceived infidels, that they will meet 72? virgins in the afterlife.
They're not afraid of dying. They're not indifferent to dying. They look forward to death.
Good luck fighting an enemy like that.
ElanthianSiren
04-15-2005, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by CrystalTears
I have a feeling suicide bombs were occuring just as much before the war as now, just that now we hear of it more because our guys are there getting hurt in the process.
I don't believe that's correct if you examine Saddam's regime pre-invasion. I'll be the first to tell you, he was a bad bad bad man. I know, you're sick of reading that. People are afraid to disagree under regimes of bad bad bad men for fear of loss of their families, careers, and lives.
This guy was such scum that it's repudated one of his generals, a direct relative, dared to disagree with him at a closed council meeting, so he shot him in the head on the spot. I'm sure people were afraid to suicide bomb for the simple fact of what would become of their families under such a tyrant. Let's not make the assumption that Iraqiis are godless people who don't love their families, children, or lives.
In fact, grief over the loss of their families, children, and lives is probably what is driving the internal protests via suicide bomb. Note, internal. There's a whole capitalistic facet of this war in regard to radicals shipping in people from other countries to suicide bomb and paying off their families poste mortem. That's not included in that statement.
-Melissa
edited to correct my grammar.
[Edited on Fri, April th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]
CrystalTears
04-15-2005, 03:55 PM
Perhaps I'm confusing myself with suicide bombs and the ones that are going off all the time in cars and stuff. :?:
Bomb-laden cars *usually* do not drive themselves to targets.
Originally posted by xtc
It was only American intelligence that claimed that Saddam had WMD, England relied heavily on US intelligence. It was only these two nations that made this claim, no other nations did.
um, it was Brittan that said Saddam was getting nuclear material from Africa.
Originally posted by xtc
Originally posted by RangerD1
Actually, al Qaida was in Iraq prior to the war, it's the links between them and Saddam's government that are tenuous.
There were no links between Al Qaida and the Iraq Government. If anything Iraq was fighting terrorism like we were.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm
There has been speculation that a few members of Al Qaida were in the northern part of Iraq where many Kurds live. At the time as that was part of the no-fly zone, Saddam didn't have total control over that area. These reports have come from the same people who said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and were an imminent threat.
The idea of Bin Laden collaborating with Saddam has been proven false. The are/were enemies. Bin Laden is a true believer who won't go in the same room as a women who is having her monthly or who isn't covered head to toe, according to his sister in law on CNN. Saddam was a drinking, whoring, viagra using tyrant with a Christian for a deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz.
Lets not forget that Al Qaida is in America. Being in and collaborating are two separate things. If having members of Al Qaida in your country is justification for an invasion then the UN should have invaded America.
Did you read what I said?
Latrinsorm
04-15-2005, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Incorrect.
Vincent Cannistraro is a consultant on international security affairs, and is former senior CIA official, who was also a special assistant for intelligence at the Pentagon, before his retirement in 1991.Makes you wonder.
Parkbandit
04-15-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
In fact, grief over the loss of their families, children, and lives is probably what is driving the internal protests via suicide bomb.
Yea.. it must be the grieving fathers out there blowing themselves up.. because of grief. It can't be something like Saddam's old lackies that are pissed they have shit for power now.
Let me ask you this.. if it WERE the grievers.. why the hell would they be targetting the new Iraqi police force? They sure as hell didn't drop any bombs on their wives and children.
Warriorbird
04-15-2005, 05:37 PM
Because those of us who actually understand something about world religion understand the Shiites and the Sunni hate each other.
Suppa Hobbit Mage
04-15-2005, 05:42 PM
Do the contents of these threads ever actually change? Or is it just same shit, different day?
Warriorbird
04-15-2005, 05:47 PM
Yes.
Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Do the contents of these threads ever actually change? Or is it just same shit, different day?
The only difference I see is less people defending and more people agreeing.
ElanthianSiren
04-15-2005, 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by RangerD
Who cares about what you hear? You're still clueless.
I could say the same for you, but honestly, I'd rather just debunk your war hawk drivel that I've been attempting to ignore for the past few days. Okay, here we go.
Intro:
Even if you were to accept that the war resulted, intentionally, in the spread of democracy, as some here seem to, serious moral problems arise in whether it was justified. For the purposes of this argument, I'm going to drop other concerns and address this one specifically, in a hope to appeal to a little logic. Without the arguments over intelligence, counterrorism, and al'queda, what's left? Following a neoconservative view, it seems the argument is that the only way to curb the spread of terrorism in the Middle East was to remove authoritarian governments there. If you believe that the invading administrations had the best intentions, this is a case of attempted lead and follow. At the core: a coup of Saddam followed by elections endeavors to make Iraq a shining example of democracy. In response to this beauty, other countries would CHOOSE to transform to emulate the New Iraq.
Synopsis:
What all this means is that in practical terms, there are only two explanations that exist for Bush's undertaking in Iraq: direct intervention (pressure) or the 'inspiration' stemming from the Iraq lead and follow situation. This is where I disagree with Ranger about the war needing to continue to be strong! Due to the conditions already expressed by other posters both in participating governments and the region and the lack of accomplishment in the goals of pressure and inspiration expressed by the war's own supporters, it has already failed imo. I have explained below and used several historical examples for your enjoyment.
Crash Course in Middle Eastern Regimes:
Primarily, Washington's Iraq policy, despite its proponents' arguments and justification, is not innovative. Regime change in the Middle East via foreign invasion and military coup was actually pretty standard and prevalent in the past. Some examples: The Israelis banished the PLO from Lebanon, attempting to establish a pro-Israeli government in Beirut in 1982. Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser's militarily intervened to help revolutionaries expel the Shiite imam of Yemen in the 1960s. Saddam Hussein expelled the Kuwaiti monarchy in 1990, thus prompting Desert Storm and Desert Shield. In fact, those individuals who have studied a little political science will note that Saddam himself came to power via a coup. The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein was nothing new in the history of Middle Eastern power transformation. By contrast, a peaceful/orderly change of regime, it seems, would have been an innovation, or at least a rarity. -So who was Shock and Awe really in place to impress?
Abroad:
Since D wants to take this argument outside of Iraq, let's examine if Bush's direct pressure has produced any kind of real measurable results outside of Iraq — where it manages only something close to a failed state, in chaos and disorder, with larger infrastructure problems than those present under tyranny. Right wing partisans point to Libya's abandonment of its nuclear program and terrorism. Those are definitely beneficial things; however Libya, vastly injured by economic sanctions has pursued reconciliation for years. In addition, Gadhafi has decidedly NOT moved Libya toward a democracy.
http://www.juancole.com/2003_12_01_juancole_archive.html
link that and search for:
Lessons of Libya -- way more info than I could ever want to condense into a post; you can, of course look it all up on the internet for follow up if you chose.
Iran and Syria:
Immense pressure has been put on Iran and Syria since the oust of Hussein's regime, with minimal obvious effect. Since the Invasion of Iraq, Iran has clamped DOWN on its reform movement and excluded thousands of candidates from running in parliamentary elections. Democracy at its finest? -Hardly. Further, the Baath regime in Syria exhibits no sign of ceasing its presence as a single-party regime. Moving onto Syria's partial withdrawal from Lebanon: this occurred in the presence of local and international pressures, (including France -- yes, those evil French! and the Arab League). This hardly marks it as a unilateral Bush administration triumph. In fact, that entire situation sounds suspiciously like the definition of U.N. activities. Hmmm...
Lead and Follow?... on a leash:
Principally, the history of the Middle East does not suggest that political policy moves from one country to another. The area is a collection of republics, absolute monarchies, and constitutional monarchies, typified by various states of repression. Very few past regimes have affected their neighbors by setting an example. Keywords to google here for those less inclined to believe me may be Ataturk + Turkey + secularism. Ataturk, a charismatic leader and a great revolutionary with regard to modernization, amassed little to no following in the Arab world with his series of very acclaimed reforms. A similar fate befell the Lebanese confessional system. This system strove to accommodate Lebanon's many religious communities after that country's independence in 1943. It remains unique. Similarly, Ruhollah Khomeini's 1979 Islamic Revolution did not inspire satellite regimes of a similar mind. If Middle Eastern countries cannot trust one another and do not trust the United States, in general, what leads anyone to believe they will follow a government influenced by such countries? There is very little doubt in my mind that they will not.
http://www.sephardicstudies.org/ataturk.html
http://www.ataturk.com/reforms.htm
http://www.blackmask.com/books113c/lebastudex.htm
http://i-cias.com/e.o/khomeini.htm
Then, we have the question of the worthiness of Iraq as a model for either of these principles. The Bush administration itself sought to avoid one-person, one-vote elections in Iraq, which were finally forced on Washington by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Again, if our mission in Iraq was to spread democracy, why would our politicians have hemmed and hawed so much about the semantics of the election that closely modeled our own system? Despite backing/funding secularists, the election itself went to the fundamentalist Shiite Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution. Still further, the elections themselves were not exemplary with allegations of voter fraud and internal violence. What was once an orderly country, despite opinions of its past leadership, is presently racked by a guerrilla war, lack of utilities, lack of employment, ongoing crime, and a foreign military occupation with little heard from its new regime. Security prior to the elections, if you will remember, was so horrendous that even the candidates running for office could not reveal their identities, and the entire country was put under a strict curfew for three days, with all vehicular traffic forbidden. It definitely sounds like a benchmark of peace, reform, and an advancement beyond the past volatile, violent coups and re-establishment of other middle eastern governments.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/08/sprj.nirq.main/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/12/sprj.nirq.main/index.html
Present:
Little supports the argument for change through inspiration, even on a closer historical timeframe (we're getting there). Iraq is not Iran. Egypt is not Saudi Arabia, and attempting to model Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran after a new Iraq will fail because there is nothing to bind principally and morally different, and in many cases, estranged, countries. Changes in the region that are hailed as benchmarks of the 'innovative, proactive' Bush policy are either chimeras or unconnected to Iraq, as illustrated. Further, the Bush administration has not shown signs that it will provide the same push for democracy in countries where freedom of choice would lead to outcomes unfavorable to U.S. interests.
Saudi Arabia:
Saudi Arabia's municipal elections were held in February and covered widely on CNN. However, in these elections, voters are permitted to choose only half of the city council. The other half are appointed by the monarchy, as are the mayors. Saudi Arabia and the absolute monarchies mentioned earlier in this posting, remain absolute monarchies. Authoritarian states, like Ben Ali's Tunisia, show no evidence of changing.
Egypt:
While Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak recently announced that he would allow other candidates to run against him in the next presidential election, a roadblock remains in the fact that the only candidates who may run are candidates from officially recognized parties. Those familiar with this government will know that parties are recognized by Parliament. Parliament is dominated by Mubarak's National Democratic Party. There is another country in the Middle East operating on a similar system. That is Iran, where only candidates approved by the government may run and hold office. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which is the most prominent and most oppositional party, is excluded from fielding candidates under its own name.
Further, Egypt is less open today than it was in the 1980s, with additional offices appointed by the president and with more opposition/moderate members removed from Parliament. As with the 'municipal elections' in Saudi Arabia, the change in Egyptian election processes is little more than window-dressing. Personally, I find it a bit naive and ill-informed to expect the entire Middle East to change below the surface, which is what we are really after if we are looking to reform to democracy.
Lebanon:
The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was the catalyst for the sweeping changes in Lebanon post mid-February. Syria was blamed by the Lebanese political opposition. Maronite Christians, Druze, and a sect of Sunni Muslims, (Hariri was a Sunni), briefly toppled the pro-Syrian premier's government (you can google Omar Karami if you wish). Protesters demanded the withdraw of Syrian troops, which occupied since 1976 in an attempt to calm the country's civil war. It is important to note that, with Syria out of Lebanon, the strength of Israel's position is multiplied exponentially. Proponents of the administration named the situation in Beirut the "Cedar Revolution," but Lebanon itself remains more divided societally with more ambiguous politics than the post-Soviet Czech Republic and Ukraine. It is hardly the portrait of a budding democracy.
On March 9, the Shiite Hezbollah Party hosted overflowing pro-Syrian demonstrations in Beirut. These demonstrations dwarfed the earlier opposition rallies, and the majority of Parliament members wanted to bring back Karami. The Hezbollah street demonstrations and the elected Parliament's internal consensus produced a pro-Syrian outcome disconcerting to the Bush administration. Since then, the opposition has staged its own massive demonstrations, rivaling Hezbollah's.
So far, the demonstrations and counterdemonstrations in Beirut have been remarkably peaceful and frank with regard to the political aims of their respective groups. Rather than reference Washington, they point to the ineptness of dictator Bashar al-Assad, who changed the Lebanese constitution to extend the office term of the pro-Syrian president, Gen. Emile Lahoud. Although some manipulative, (and traditionally anti-American), opposition figures attempted to invoke Iraq to justify their movement, it is difficult to see what events in Lebanon possibly have to do with Baghdad. Lebanon has held parliamentary campaigns for decades, and the flawed Jan. 30 elections in Iraq would have likely elicited pity rather than admiration in sophisticated Beirutis.
Successful Moves from Authoritarianism:
Ironically, most democratization in the Middle East was pursued without the United States. Several Middle Eastern regimes began experimenting with parliamentary elections years ago. For example, Jordan held elections in 1989, and Yemen offered its third set of elections in 2003. Morocco and Bahrain hosted elections in 2002. Every election has flaws, of course. Typically, restraints come in the form of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty, for those who don't know, is idea that government is for the people, by the people, all the people. In the future, several of these parliaments show promise to evolve in a more democratic direction, but even if they do, it will be for local reasons. It will be a decision by people based on introspection and desire for change as it was for the United States, not forced change via an invasion or anything that has happened in Baghdad.
Bush's invasion of Iraq leaves the center and north of the country in a state of long-term guerrilla war, the devastating effects of which, will be felt LONG after he is out of office in 2008. The fumbled war has also exposed Iraq to a form of parliamentary politics dominated by Muslim fundamentalists. History shows that this combination has little appeal elsewhere in the Middle East, thus eliminating the lead and follow cases. The Middle East may open politically, and no doubt Bush will try to credit his administration for that direction, however, history will show that democracy in Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon and other states predates Bush. This is another blow to the idea of lead and follow or the spread of democracy.
The idea that the war was conceived to pressure other misbehaving nations is further rebuffed as above. I held off on this post because it was long, but that is my opinion on why even the most positive takes on this war have failed, espousing upon some obvious omissions in earlier posts by some individuals as to how this war is benefiting every nation near to Iraq. I also omitted a bit about Israel. It was long and would require more history.
-Melissa
Skirmisher
04-15-2005, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I could say the same for you, but honestly, I'd rather just debunk your war hawk drivel that I've been attempting to ignore for the past few days. Okay, here we go.
-Melissa
I think that generally I would be included with the liberal posters here so do not make the error of thinking I am defending the Bush administration or something, but to dismiss Ranger's posts as war hawkish or drivel is an error.
To say such a thing tells me that you either are not reading the entirety of his posts or that you are auto defend mode or something.
He does not at all seem to be a knee jerk defender of the administration or their policies and to imply such does him and ths discussion a disservice.
Sure he can post in an overly blunt manner sometimes, but he also is an independent thinker willing to agree or disagree with the left, right and center as he sees fit on most subjects.
There are more than one or two rather conservative posters on this board who can be counted on to chime in on almost any political topic in an extremely predictable manner, but Ranger is not one of them.
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Skirmisher]
ElanthianSiren
04-15-2005, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Skirmisher
I think that generally I would be included with the liberal posters here so do not make the error of thinking I am defending the Bush administration or something, but to dismiss Ranger's posts as war hawkish or drivel is an error.
To say such a thing tells me that you either are not reading the entirety of his posts or that you are auto defend mode or something.
He does not at all seem to be a knee jerk defender of the administration or their policies and to imply such does him and ths discussion a disservice.
Sure he can post in an overly blunt manner sometimes, but he also is an independent thinker willing to agree or disagree with the left, right and center as he sees fit on most subjects.
There are more than one or two rather conservative posters on this board who can be counted on to chime in on almost any political topic in an extremely predictable manner, but Ranger is not one of them.
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Skirmisher]
Warhawk: From Merriam Webster
One who clamors for war.
IMO Ranger is very smart. He managed to skirt around logical arguments against his view that the war in Iraq is benefitting all the countries around it. The difficulty in arguing against his argument lies in tedium of researching the information or knowing it off hand and having the ability to back up what you are stating easily.
Personally, however, I've found that Ranger's two principle arguments lack substinance, proof, and most importantly historical basis. Yes, I have read them. I have read them many times, from people other than Ranger. For these reasons, and the fact that they exemplify the self-dubbed "war hawk" position of this administration in regard to this issue, I have labelled the present argument (not the poster, as I don't even know him) as war hawkish in nature.
I try not to personally attack other posters in posts. It really only demeans yourself if you can't provide an argument and choose to rely on that.
-Melissa
edited for spelling. Choose chose ugh. It's late.
[Edited on Sat, April th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]
People before profits.
Real people. Like you and me.
Hulkein
04-16-2005, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
http://www.m-w.com
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
something that misleads or deceives
-Melissa
I prefer this definition for lie, also from Merriam Webster
Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
I'd just hate to be called a liar for telling my mom her keys are on the table, when in fact they were moved by someone else without my knowledge.
Hulkein
04-16-2005, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
No one can, but the fact remains that the U.S. struck another country preemtively. It was a landmark in history.-Melissa
Heh, wasn't planning on replying to anything else in this thread, but I had a nice laugh at this.
It's hardly the first pre-emptive attack in history.
The Romans made great use of it around 2000 years ago, and they weren't the only ones.
Might want to qualify 'history' with modern next time.
Also, couldn't you call the attack on Pearl Harbor a pre-emptive strike?
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Hulkein]
Hulkein
04-16-2005, 12:48 AM
I don't know if Nero was faced with the possibility of biological/chemical/nuclear terrorism. ;)
Warriorbird
04-16-2005, 12:59 AM
"Also, couldn't you call the attack on Pearl Harbor a pre-emptive strike? "
Couldn't you also call it a deplorable loss of human life... or say, a fucking tragedy?
Originally posted by Skirmisher
There are more than one or two rather conservative posters on this board who can be counted on to chime in on almost any political topic in an extremely predictable manner, but Ranger is not one of them.
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Skirmisher]
You could have just said Edine/Dave Skirmisher.
When I agree with things I tend to speak my mind, and I agree with a lot of what is going on.
Keller
04-16-2005, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Do the contents of these threads ever actually change? Or is it just same shit, different day?
The only difference I see is less people defending and more people agreeing.
IE - Same shit, different day (less interest).
Skirmisher
04-16-2005, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Dave
You could have just said Edine/Dave Skirmisher.
When I agree with things I tend to speak my mind, and I agree with a lot of what is going on.
Hmmm. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, you were not on my mind when I wrote that.
That is not to say it could not apply, simply that there was no intent at the time.
wow... I will have to work on it then Skirmisher, my facade seems to be failing...
But thank you.
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Dave]
Libya: I never mentioned Libya. Qahadfi is a very smart man who has no intentions of giving up any power in his life time. It is true that he has felt internal pressure to democracize but I sincerely doubt he'll do so in his life time.
Iran: Iran is in a world apart from the rest of the world at this part, and yes you can thank the speaches claiming that they are one of the great three evils in the world.
Syria:
Moving onto Syria's partial withdrawal from Lebanon: this occurred in the presence of local and international pressures, (including France -- yes, those evil French! and the Arab League). This hardly marks it as a unilateral Bush administration triumph. In fact, that entire situation sounds suspiciously like the definition of U.N. activities
Syria is already in the plans to make a full withdrawl from Lebanon. I know things didn't have instaneously but you have to imagine that third world countries are running low on teleportation devices. The fact is I never claimed that the things happening in Syria were a direct result of the Bush administrations policies towards the Middle east, nor did I claim that they were the only factors inherent in any decisions.
What I did claim was that they did *contribute* to the overall process and possibily expediated the it by several years.
Principally, the history of the Middle East does not suggest that political policy moves from one country to another. The area is a collection of republics, absolute monarchies, and constitutional monarchies, typified by various states of repression.
I think you may want to look in your textbook a little bit more. The reason why Ataturk didn't have near the influence that he should have was because A) He was a turk, not an Arab and B) He managed to alienate many important people in too short a time.
Islam itself is a political entity and if you doubt the pervasiveness of it I suggest you look into what all went into the Muj against the Russians in Afghanistan or how people like Nassar were viewed by the entire Arab world.
The Bush administration itself sought to avoid one-person, one-vote elections in Iraq, which were finally forced on Washington by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani
Good for Sistani, I never agreed with Bushon his views of the post war Iraq, and I thought the premise that we weren't going to nation build a stupid one. Good thing that all changed.
What was once an orderly country...
Please stop. There have been several revolutions and uprisings in the region in the last decade and the only reason that anything even close to order had been established is because anyone with a tendency to lash out was murdered along with their family.
We could easily achieve order in the country, but it would be to the tune of several thousand more dead. I don't think you want to be advocating this course of action or even bring up past exampels of Law and order in the area.
Iraq is not Iran. Egypt is not Saudi Arabia, and attempting to model Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran after a new Iraq will fail because there is nothing to bind principally and morally different, and in many cases, estranged, countries
Thanks for the update. I was so utter lost that I was able to confuse several different countries with distinctly different populations and existing modes of government. Way to go.
You know, I'm about done with replying to this post. You're not refuting anything I said at all and are only arguing some imaginary opponent who does not exist on these boards. Mischaracterizing what I said is not refuting my argument. It's simply babbling incessently about shit you don't even have a realistic grasp on.
To reiterate the basic premise of what I have been saying: The governments of the middle east have all been feeling the pressure to move towards popular governments, where authoritarian governments have prevailed.
Each country, being inherently different from one another, has had varying degrees of success and have gone about things in differing ways. That said, the United States has had a positive effect on several countries through it's actions in the regions in the past several years. That doesn't mean that we are the only contributing factor, far from it.
Oh, and before I forget, It's not all about the war. No one really likes war, the whole dying and maiming thing tends to turn people off. What does set the example is when people millions of people turn out to vote even with a deteorating security situation. That is what gives people in Lebenon the courage to step up and demonstate with the fear of military retaliation from Syria, or allows emboldens the people of Egypt to push for even more reforms despite the fact that they woulda been dead 20 years ago for doing the same shit.
Take from it what you will, and please catch a clue.
ElanthianSiren
04-16-2005, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by RangerD1
To reiterate the basic premise of what I have been saying: The governments of the middle east have all been feeling the pressure to move towards popular governments, where authoritarian governments have prevailed.
Each country, being inherently different from one another, has had varying degrees of success and have gone about things in differing ways. That said, the United States has had a positive effect on several countries through it's actions in the regions in the past several years. That doesn't mean that we are the only contributing factor, far from it.
Wow, I want to ask, did you read my post?
Those two statements go right along with:
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
What all this means is that in practical terms, there are only two explanations that exist for Bush's undertaking in Iraq: direct intervention (pressure) or the 'inspiration' stemming from the Iraq lead and follow situation. This is where I disagree with Ranger about the war needing to continue to be strong! Due to the conditions already expressed by other posters both in participating governments and the region and the lack of accomplishment in the goals of pressure and inspiration expressed by the war's own supporters, it has already failed imo.
I then go on to explain how it has failed using specific examples from the region... or didn't you get that far? I know it was a long post. They have been feeling the pressure, yes, but nothing has changed. It is window dressing in the two countries you cite in your triumph examples.
If you have other examples, we can debate those, but putting a mask over one party elections and monarchies does not make a democracy. It only makes a sly loophole imo.
Second Point, and here's a short recap:
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Principally, the history of the Middle East does not suggest that political policy moves from one country to another. The area is a collection of republics, absolute monarchies, and constitutional monarchies, typified by various states of repression. Very few past regimes have affected their neighbors by setting an example.
You refute my point by saying "Oh, it doesn't matter because Ataturk was a turk! Turkey is a middle eastern country, as well were the examples I cited near the end of the post. You further, do yet another disservice to your point by aknowledging that I'm correct and choosing to ignore Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, and Bahrain.
Since you seem to have missed it and seem more intent on accusing me of not understanding your points, I will absolutely post my conclusion again for you, that not only accepts your points as valid arguments from the conservative side of this, but rebuttes both of them.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Bush's invasion of Iraq leaves the center and north of the country in a state of long-term guerrilla war, the devastating effects of which, will be felt LONG after he is out of office in 2008. The fumbled war has also exposed Iraq to a form of parliamentary politics dominated by Muslim fundamentalists. History shows that this combination has little appeal elsewhere in the Middle East, thus eliminating the lead and follow cases. The Middle East may open politically, and no doubt Bush will try to credit his administration for that direction, however, history will show that democracy in Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon and other states predates Bush. This is another blow to the idea of lead and follow or the spread of democracy.
The idea that the war was conceived to pressure other misbehaving nations is further rebuffed ...
...by citing that business is as usual, or even more authoritarian and closed, in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and even Iraq.
So there are your two points:
Democracy not moving forward in "awe!" of our great Iraq example.
Governments window dressing under pressure that I agree does exist on some regimes, but it hasn't changed more than aesthetics.
-Melissa
Valthissa
04-16-2005, 08:05 AM
a phrase my father used on me when I was much younger comes to mind:
beyond rational discourse
I can't even remember why I started reading this thread.
C/Valth
Parkbandit
04-16-2005, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Do the contents of these threads ever actually change? Or is it just same shit, different day?
The only difference I see is less people defending and more people agreeing.
Or the defenders are tired of spinning their wheels and have moved on to let you sit here and agree with yourself.
Originally posted by Hulkein
I don't know if Nero was faced with the possibility of biological/chemical/nuclear terrorism. ;)
No, back then it was all spies and poison.
The new government in Iraq is not a Democracy. Its more a model of a Republic than we are.
Originally posted by Skirmisher
There are more than one or two rather conservative posters on this board who can be counted on to chime in on almost any political topic in an extremely predictable manner, but Ranger is not one of them.
Word. The people who DO respond spout the same old propaganda we were fed at the start. You can tell by their constant mixing of 9/11 and Iraq.
When the Pope died I noticed the flags in the city were at half mast. Thats a nice homage, isn’t it? Our flag should have been at half mast from day one of the invasion because the Iraqi people and the soldiers there are innocent victims of an unnecessary war.
Slider
04-16-2005, 09:15 AM
Ok, lets try this one more fucking time for the IQ impaired... Once again, this is from the UNSCOM websight detailing their activities in Iraq. You do remember who these folks where, right? The people who where actually IN Iraq conducting the inspections for the UN to dismantle Iraqs WMD programs. So, Melissa, lets compare your statement "There are/were no WMDs in Iraq" to UNSCOM's very own, official report on their activities, shall we?
UNSCOM MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS
1. UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of these programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of Iraq's serious efforts to deceive and conceal. UNSCOM also continues to try to verify Iraq's illegal unilateral destruction activities. The investigation of such undeclared activities is crucial to the verification of Iraq's declarations on its proscribed weapons programmes.
2. Examples of what has been uncovered since 1991 include: the existence of Iraq's offensive biological warfare programme; the chemical nerve agent VX and other advanced chemical weapons capabilities; and Iraq's indigenous production of proscribed missiles engines. Following these discoveries, UNSCOM has directed and supervised the destruction or rendering harmless of several identified facilities and large quantities of equipment for the production of chemical and biological weapons as well as proscribed long-range missiles.
3. UNSCOM has supervised the destruction of the following proscribed items.
MISSILE AREA:
- 48 operational long-range missiles
- 14 conventional missile warheads
- 6 operational mobile launchers
- 28 operational fixed launch pads
- 32 fixed launch pads (under construction)
- 30 missile chemical warheads
- other missile support equipment and materials
- supervision of the destruction of a variety of assembled and non-
assembled "super-gun" components
CHEMICAL AREA:
- 38,537 filled and empty chemical munitions
- 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agent
- more than 3,000 tonnes of precursors chemicals
- 426 pieces of chemical weapons production equipment
- 91 pieces of related analytical instruments
BIOLOGICAL AREA:
- the entire Al-Hakam, the main biological weapons production facility
- a variety of biological weapons production equipment and materials
March 1998
Oh, and just so we are clear, and I don't get accused of making this all up, here's the link from the UN's own web-sight
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Achievements/achievements.html
Damn Melissa...look there, 690 tonnes (got that? TONNES) of "non-existant, he never had them" chemical weapons. And an entire biological weapons production facility...that "he never had" and 48 long range missiles, etc. etc. Whole lotta "non-existant" shit there that was found, and I qoute from the report itself "in the face of Iraq's serious efforts to deceive and conceal" UNSCOM's efforts to find. But if he never had them, what was he trying to conceal?
And just to make it a bit easier for you all to swallow, here's a link to photos of UNSCOM teams destroying these, again, imaginary WMD that Saddam "never had".
http://www.un.org/Photos/unscom.html
Ok, now lets look at the date of the report...1998...huh...2 years before Bush was President. In fact, if I recall, that would have been during the Clinton administration. Now, lets look at what happened AFTER this.
20-27 Mar 1998 The Commission and Iraq conduct a further technical evaluation meeting (TEM) in Vienna dealing with all aspects of Iraq’s biological weapons programme.
8 Apr 1998 The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council (S/1998/308). As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequa
14 Jul 1998 As a consequence of the high-level talks between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Executive Chairman in June 1998, a team of UNSCOM international biological experts is assembled in Baghdad to review, for the third time, Iraq’s declaration on its biological weapons programme. The experts conclude that the declaration is not verifiable.
3 Aug 1998 During a visit to Baghdad, the Executive Chairman is told by the Deputy Prime Minister that he must certify to the Security Council that the requirements of section C of resolution 687 (1991) have been met. The Chairman responds that he is not in a position to do so. The Deputy Prime Minister suspends the talks (S/1998/719).
5 Aug 1998 The Revolutionary Command Council and the Ba’ath Party Command decide to halt cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA pending Security Council agreement to lift the oil embargo, reorganize the Commission and move it to either Geneva or Vienna. In the interim, Iraq would, on its own terms, permit monitoring under resolution 715 (1991).
6 Aug 1998 The Executive Chairman briefs the Security Council on Iraq’s position and the results of his talks in Baghdad (S/1998/719). The Security Council’s President terms Iraq’s actions "totally unacceptable".
12 Aug 1998 The Executive Chairman informs the Security Council (document S/1998/767) that, in addition to halting all disarmament activities, Iraq’s actions with respect to monitoring have impinged on the effectiveness of the monitoring system and the Commission could not continue to provide the Security Council with the same level of assurances of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to reestablish its proscribed weapons programmes.
18 Aug 1998 In a letter from the President of the Council (S/1998/769), the Security Council reiterates its support for UNSCOM in the full implementation of its mandate and notes that Iraq is obliged to provide UNSCOM with cooperation necessary for it to undertake activities, including inspections.
19 Aug 1998 The Executive Chairman proposes, in a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister that Iraq and the Special Commission resume the full range of activity. This is rejected by the Deputy Prime Minister in remarks to the press stating that Iraq does not trust the Executive Chairman or the elements dominating UNSCOM and that it does not believe that there is any use in resuming work with them.
3 Sep 1998 The Executive Chairman briefs the Security Council on the status of UNSCOM’s work in Iraq, including three incidents where Iraq has placed further limits on the Commission’s rights and activities with respect to monitoring.
9 Sep 1998 Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections.
24-25 Sep 1998 The Commission holds a second international expert meeting in New York to discuss the results of 1998 analyses conducted on remnants of Iraq’s missile warheads.
6 Oct 1998 The Commission submits its semi-annual report to the Security Council (S/1998/920).
13 Oct 1998 The Executive Chairman briefs the Council on the Commission’s semi-annual report.
22-23 Oct The Commission convenes a further international expert meeting to discuss the 1998 analysis of samples taken from remnants of Iraq’s special warheads. The report of the meeting which is submitted to the Council.
31 Oct 1998 Iraq announces that it will cease all forms of interaction with UNSCOM and its Chairman and to halt all UNSCOM’s activities inside Iraq, including monitoring. The Security Council, in a statement to the press, unanimously condemn Iraq’s decision to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM.
4 Nov 1998 The Executive Chairman informs the Council (S/1998/1032) that, as a result of Iraq’s actions, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Council with any level of assurance of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to retain and not to reestablish proscribed activities.
5 Nov 1998 Security Council resolution 1205 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s actions and demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally its decisions of 31 October and 5 August.
15 Nov 1998 Press Statement by the President of the Security Council in which the Council takes note of Iraq’s statement of 14 November to cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the IAEA. The Council members underline that their confidence in Iraq’s intentions needs to be established by unconditional and sustained cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA in exercising the full range of their activities. The Council members also reaffirm their readiness to proceed with the comprehensive review once the Secretary-General has confirmed, on the basis of reports from the Special Commission and the IAEA that Iraq has returned to full cooperation on the basis of resolution 1194 (1998) and the Council President’s letter of 30 October to the Secretary-General (SC/65/96-IK258).
3 Dec 1998 The Special Commission submits the first of a series of weekly reports on its activities during the period 17 November to 2 December 1998. The report covers inspection activities during that period and also provides an account of correspondence exchanged with Iraq regarding matters such as the provision of documents, clarifications on a number of points previously raised with Iraq and asking that Iraq provide new substantial information on its biological weapons programme.
9 Dec 1998 The Special Commission submits its second weekly report to the Security Council describing monitoring activities and the difficulties encountered in the course of those activities, including blockage at a site.
15 Dec 1998 The Special Commission reports to the Security-General concerning UNSCOM’s activities and the status of Iraq’s cooperation with the Commission in the period since 14 November 1998. The Executive Chairman concludes that Iraq did not provide the full cooperation it had promised on 14 November 1998 (S/1998/1172)
16 Dec 1998 The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq.
January 1999 The Council discusses informal proposals submitted by France Russia and Canada including on ways to re-establish dialogue and cooperation between Iraq and the United Nations.
25 Jan 1999 The Executive Chairman submits a report (S/1999/94) to the President of the Security Council on disarmament and monitoring.
30 Jan 1999 Through a note (S/1999/100), the President of the Security Council announces that the Security Council has decided that it would be useful to establish three panels to, inter alia, provide the Council with recommendations on how to re- establish an effective disarmament/ongoing monitoring and verification regime in Iraq.
27 Mar 1999 The Chairman of the Panels forwards the reports of the Panels to the President of the Security Council (S/1999/356)
9 April 1999 The Commission submits its semi-annual report to the Security Council (S/1999/401).
30 June 1999 Mr. Richard Butler completes his two year tenure as Executive Chairman of UNSCOM.
8 October 1999 The Commission submits its semi-annual report to the Security Council (S/1999/1037).
17 December 1999 Security Council adopts resolution 1284 replacing UNSCOM by the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).
Again, UNSCOM never, repeat NEVER completed it's survey of Saddam's WMD program, he threw them out of the country before they could. In retaliation for this, You Dems Golden-boy Clinton bombed the shit out of him and gave the following statement to the press
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office. Clinton said he decided weeks ago to give Hussein one last chance to cooperate. But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate -- and had in fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors."
So, if Saddam never had them, then Clinton must have lied to you as well, and bombed Saddam for no reason whatsoever. Also note that UNSCOM left the country on 16DEC1998...got it? NO ONE was in Iraq to prevent him from making more of these weapons, and no one went BACK into Iraq untill AFTER we invaded.
Parkbandit
04-16-2005, 09:23 AM
Can I get a fucking pwned please?
ElanthianSiren
04-16-2005, 10:06 AM
Your own report documents the dismantling of WMDs. Further, we still have not found any WMDs upon CURRENT inspection. To the contrary, the reports following found that there WERE no WMDs and that governmental links to specific terror did not exist. -So I suppose they made all that up too?
1998 to 2003 is a hell of a time frame if Iraq planned to bomb someone or use nerve gasses on them. :yawn:
-Melissa
Shes such a cute little liberal isn't she.
Your worse than The E was and me on the opposing side, hell you even have other libs telling you to :stfu:. But true to form you think yourself to be intellectually superior to everyone that disagrees with you. It's sad really, your the type of person that makes republicans dislike the democratic party.
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Dave]
ElanthianSiren
04-16-2005, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Slider
You Dems Golden-boy Clinton bombed the shit out of him and gave the following statement to the press
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office. Clinton said he decided weeks ago to give Hussein one last chance to cooperate. But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate -- and had in fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors."
So in effect, you are saying, we bombed a country blindly based on intelligence that WMDs were dismantled 5 years earlier... and you point to that as sound reason to go to war?
Clinton sure did a decent job bombing them for something they actually did/possessed. The difference seems to be that in 2002, they did not possess what we said they did, and we bombed them anyway.
-Melissa
ElanthianSiren
04-16-2005, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Dave
But true to form you think yourself to be intellectually superior to everyone that disagrees with you. It's sad really, your the type of person that makes republicans dislike the democratic party.
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Dave]
Wow? I do? I don't remember ever once claiming that. If you can point to where I said 'I'm intellectually superior to everyone arguing against me', I'll gladly admit to a lapse of judgement. In fact, I don't believe I ever even bothered to aknowledge comments about my intelligence made directly in this thread, so you can kindly :stfu:.
-Melissa
CrystalTears
04-16-2005, 10:39 AM
He had them once before, he had the potential to make them again. He killed his own people. He was a bad, bad man that needed to be taken out of power. That was good enough reason for me to go to war.
Now you're just arguing semantics because they were not found NOW. They found plans for WMD though, but it's still not good enough. It's like saying that a drug dealer shouldn't be arrested because at the time of arrest he didn't have drugs on him, despite past evidence and convictions. With that logic we should never arrest people again who murder since they are usually never caught in the act yet after the fact. I don't see why Saddam should be any different.
Better example, it's like someone who was in jail for drug possession and use, and is on parole. His parole officer tells him that he has to show up for drug screening once a month. He does show up for a few months then stops going, breaking parole. He is found and arrested again. He says "I haven't taken drugs, I'm clean, I don't need to go", gets tested and is true, but he still violated his parole and agreement to show up for past convictions. That's Saddam.
[Edited on 4/16/2005 by CrystalTears]
Originally posted by CrystalTears
He had them once before, he had the potential to make them again. He killed his own people. He was a bad, bad man that needed to be taken out of power. That was good enough reason for me to go to war.
You went to war? Gosh, I hope you made it out ok.
CrystalTears
04-16-2005, 11:06 AM
Haha, good enough reason, for me, to go to war. Damn punctuations. :D
Slider
04-16-2005, 11:09 AM
Goddess woman, are you just trying to be stubborn, or are you really so out of touch with reality? I responded to YOUR statement that Iraq "never had" WMD by proving that they did, in fact, have them. Furthermore, I gave evidence that the very people who where responsible for ensuring that Iraq's capability to produce those weapons was destroyed, in accordance with UN resolution 687, where unable to complete that mission, and that they (UNSCOM) had stated that they still believed that Saddam had more of them and still had the capability to produce them.
Need I remind you that it was NOT Bush (SR or JR) that decided that, for the betterment of the entire world, and more specifically, the Middle East, that Saddam Hussein was to be denied these weapons, that the ENTIRE UN Security Council, voted unanimously that Saddam was going to be disarmed because of "the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishement in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons". (Quote from UN resolution 687) This was way back in April of 1991. So, again, I'll ask you, when Bush said that we where going to war because of Saddam's WMD program posing a significant threat to peace in the region, how did he lie? UNSCOM was the ONLY group that was responsible for the dismantling of Saddams WMD program, and they specifically state "We didn't finish the job, he still has them".
As for him not using them, wich you must believe means he didn't have them, He didn't use them in Kuwait either, did he? So, by your logic, the entire UN resolution thing, and the efforts of UNSCOM after that where unjustified as well, huh? And as far as finding them goes? I have no idea. Did they get moved to Syria, get buried out in the desert, or destroyed during the war? Your guess is as good as mine.
But that is not what I am talking about. Hind sight is 20/20. Please tell me what fucking crystal ball Bush should have looked into back before the war started that would have told him those weapons weren't there? UNSCOM specifically told the UN "He's got them, we did not find all of them, and he still has the capability to make more". That is what he had to work with then, not current intelligence, not current inspections, not some fucking pie-in-the-sky "we think he doesn't have them". But UNSCOM's report saying he still had them.
Oh, and just for shits and giggles, here's a somewhat more recent report concerning Iraq's WMD program.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13988&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=weapon
Wonder what they are removing/dismantling at those sights? Non-existant weapons no doubt.
And I never once mentioned anything about ties to terrorism by Iraq once in my post, so what again is your point here?
We should use WMD dog sniffers next time.
Wow, I want to ask, did you read my post?
^
Unfortunately, I did. Which made it so glaringly obvious that you didn't read mine, as your whole rebuttal didn't have jack and shit to do with anything I had said in the past.
Originally posted by Slider
Slider’s posts
You put a lot of effort into them. I read them, as long as my attention span holds out... and hella kudos for the effort... but your argument is based on two things that make this war a bad idea.
1) POSSIBILITY. Of course Iraq had rockets, missles, SCUDs what have you that COULD be used for biological/chemical/nuclear vehicles. Aluminum pipes?
2) You are citing the UN. The very organization we decided was not worth listening to. So you are just using the UN as you see fit for your agenda.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Originally posted by Dave
But true to form you think yourself to be intellectually superior to everyone that disagrees with you. It's sad really, your the type of person that makes republicans dislike the democratic party.
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Dave]
Wow? I do? I don't remember ever once claiming that. If you can point to where I said 'I'm intellectually superior to everyone arguing against me', I'll gladly admit to a lapse of judgement. In fact, I don't believe I ever even bothered to aknowledge comments about my intelligence made directly in this thread, so you can kindly :stfu:.
-Melissa
Its your demeanor Melissa, the way you preset yourself as all knowing and right. One does not have to say things for them to be obvious.
2) You are citing the UN. The very organization we decided was not worth listening to. So you are just using the UN as you see fit for your agenda
^
I haven't actually gotten around to reading all of Slider's posts but you run the risk of being hypocritical if you discredit his posts based merely on this. If the UN is an organization to be respected then it should be, regardless of what someone may have said or done.
Originally posted by Dave
But true to form you think yourself to be intellectually superior to everyone that disagrees with you. It's sad really, your the type of person that makes republicans dislike the democratic party.
I don’t recall her saying that. Or is it just people who actually think for themselves instead of eating what they are fed that pisses off republicans?
CrystalTears
04-16-2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
I don’t recall her saying that. Or is it just people who actually think for themselves instead of eating what they are fed that pisses off liberals?
There, I fixed it. :D
Originally posted by RangerD1
2) You are citing the UN. The very organization we decided was not worth listening to. So you are just using the UN as you see fit for your agenda
^
I haven't actually gotten around to reading all of Slider's posts but you run the risk of being hypocritical if you discredit his posts based merely on this. If the UN is an organization to be respected then it should be, regardless of what someone may have said or done.
That was one half of my point.
Originally posted by Dave
Its your demeanor Melissa, the way you preset yourself as all knowing and right. One does not have to say things for them to be obvious. I think it's just your own personal feelings about the argument she's presenting.
Hell I can admit that I am bad, but she is a bit over the top.
Originally posted by Dave
Hell I can admit that I am bad, but she is a bit over the top. Then why don't you counter her arguments instead of expounding on how over the top you think she's being?
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Originally posted by Backlash
I don’t recall her saying that. Or is it just people who actually think for themselves instead of eating what they are fed that pisses off liberals?
There, I fixed it. :D
:clap:
Karl Rove would be proud.
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Dave
Hell I can admit that I am bad, but she is a bit over the top. Then why don't you counter her arguments instead of expounding on how over the top you think she's being?
Because I have realized it is pointless. Do you honestly think there is any way to change her views? RangerD who is currently in Iraq cant do it, why should I bother?
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Dave]
Parkbandit
04-16-2005, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
2) You are citing the UN. The very organization we decided was not worth listening to. So you are just using the UN as you see fit for your agenda.
I realize that this is a broken record with you.. but we have ourselves another fucking:
HYPOCRIT ALERT!!!!
Originally posted by Dave
Because I have realized it is pointless. Do you honestly think there is any way to change her views? RangerD who is currently in Iraq cant do it, why should I bother?
I honestly don't think you could Dave.
I don't think anyone can. People are set in their views. Unless by their own devices, or by some major event that occurs in their lives, the views they hold will not change.
Originally posted by Dave
I don't think anyone can. People are set in their views. Unless by their own devices, or by some major event that occurs in their lives, the views they hold will not change. Exactly.. which is why countering an argument is not so much about changing someones views, but more along the lines of checking for flaws in their argument, and challenging the points you disagree with.
You said she was over the top which I found funny coming from you.
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Backlash
2) You are citing the UN. The very organization we decided was not worth listening to. So you are just using the UN as you see fit for your agenda.
I realize that this is a broken record with you.. but we have ourselves another fucking:
HYPOCRIT ALERT!!!!
Isn’t using the UN’s reports as a cause to go to war hypocritical without backing of the UN to do it?
Parkbandit
04-16-2005, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by DeV
You said she was over the top which I found funny coming from you.
So do I because I can't get this bad movie out of my head now.
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Dave
I don't think anyone can. People are set in their views. Unless by their own devices, or by some major event that occurs in their lives, the views they hold will not change. Exactly.. which is why countering an argument is not so much about changing someones views, but more along the lines of checking for flaws in their argument, and challenging the points you disagree with.
You said she was over the top which I found funny coming from you.
What we have here is a classic Socratic Dialogue. Its point/counterpoint until a conclusion is reached by both parties.
I actually like that movie... lol
Parkbandit
04-16-2005, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Isn’t using the UN’s reports as a cause to go to war hypocritical without backing of the UN to do it?
No.
Parkbandit
04-16-2005, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by DeV
I actually like that movie... lol
You just lost so many cool points with me.
Well Dev my views are well known,. I even compared her to myself on the opposing side of matters. I don't see the point in having this argument again, all you need to do is go though the 50 other threads about it and see the same information presented, and the same rebuttals. In the end it gets us nowhere.
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by DeV
I actually like that movie... lol
You just lost so many cool points with me. I was 8.
Originally posted by Dave
I even compared her to myself on the opposing side of matters.Please don't.
ElanthianSiren
04-16-2005, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
What we have here is a classic Socratic Dialogue. Its point/counterpoint until a conclusion is reached by both parties.
I think we reached one; that being that the two sides of this issue will not ever agree.
-Melissa
Originally posted by Dave
Well Dev my views are well known,. I even compared her to myself on the opposing side of matters. I don't see the point in having this argument again, all you need to do is go though the 50 other threads about it and see the same information presented, and the same rebuttals. In the end it gets us nowhere.
I disagree completely. Otherwise we’d all still be wallowing in the middle ages. Although... it is VERY similar. And trust me, I understand the frustration of what seems like a futile effort.
I don't think the arguments here would affect the grand scheme of things backlash, so to me it is futile. If she was Nancy Pelosi, it might be something I would waste my breath on right now, aside from that, no thanks.
[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Dave]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.