[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
I happen to lived through most of those things, and it kinda annoys me. [/quote]
Are you Serbian? If no, what nationality?
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
I happen to lived through most of those things, and it kinda annoys me. [/quote]
Are you Serbian? If no, what nationality?[/quote]
Yes. And a former Missoulian.
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
I happen to lived through most of those things, and it kinda annoys me. [/quote]
Are you Serbian? If no, what nationality?[/quote]
Yes. And a former Missoulian.:-)[/quote]
Ha! I am as well! Small world.
Ya. You smelled like a Serb. I went to school with 2 Serbians and got to hear all about Kosovo and hyperinflation and the bread lines. Pretty good perspective. Two lines I got used to hearing – “Boy - you dont know shit!” and " (insert girls, food, healthcare, etc) is better in Serbia" . Things were always better and more natural in Serbia… haha, quite the paradox.
Are you living in Serbia right now? My buddy graduated with a triple major in Business and he is having a tough time finding work. If so, what do you do?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
DBCooper, I like you. I disagree thoroughly with you on a lot of what you post in this forum but you generally have a well thought out post or process to your positions.
And I thoroughly agree with your posts in this thread.[/quote]
Shit dude. Don’t stop there; tell me more! In all seriousness, thanks. I know I’m not always right. I just try to present a reasonable argument and stick to the issue rather than personal attacks and so forth. I’ll tell you man, when I AM wrong, it’s a well-reasoned argument/explanation that makes me reassess my stance on something. Even if someone was telling me that 2 + 2 = 4, I might not be quick to agree with them if they’re being a total ass about arguing why they are right.[/quote]
Absolute and total agreement there. I’ve always been on the rational side of things. I was like that when I first started up in PWI here, but my fuse has gotten shorter the longer I stay here. It’s about time for a sabbatical to regain my composure and poise!
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
I happen to lived through most of those things, and it kinda annoys me. [/quote]
Are you Serbian? If no, what nationality?[/quote]
Yes. And a former Missoulian.:-)[/quote]
Ha! I am as well! Small world.
Ya. You smelled like a Serb. I went to school with 2 Serbians and got to hear all about Kosovo and hyperinflation and the bread lines. Pretty good perspective. Two lines I got used to hearing – “Boy - you dont know shit!” and " (insert girls, food, healthcare, etc) is better in Serbia" . Things were always better and more natural in Serbia… haha, quite the paradox.
Are you living in Serbia right now? My buddy graduated with a triple major in Business and he is having a tough time finding work. If so, what do you do?[/quote]
Off-topic:
Yeah, I’m home now.
I’m still in college, I have to redo some stuff I did in the USA. I’ll go abroad soon, and I’ll probably finish my education in the Western Europe. Most of the young, ambitious guys do that and then find a job there, because here you need to be freakishly lucky to find a good job without using ‘connections’ or bribery.
But then, when the best guys leave, the system uses the average and below average to fill itself, and circle continues. So yeah, your buddy is far from being the only one.
As for ‘the paradox’: this is a beautiful, untamed place, and a simple, ‘no bullshit’ lifestyle where you can really appreciate the better things in life - and still it’s poor as f*ck, claustrophobic and freakin depressing.
It’s like having the poverty, high crime rates and war criminals, conveniently spiced up with hot tubs, online RPGs, pop music and fast food.
In short, it’s a beautiful place to live, and a horrible place to work, and educate yourself.
But still, feel free to visit. I know you heard this one before, but it’s still true - parties are much better in Serbia!
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[
The basic reason we went to war in Iraq BOTH TIMES dates back to 1991 when Saddam mercilessly invaded Kuwait. There was a lot more in play than WMDs.
[/quote]
Yes. Oil.[/quote]
less the 20% of the oil. that that US consumes. comes from the Persian Gulf. most of the oil. in that region go’s to China and Europe. I hate when people make the oil argument. we are there for other REASONS.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[
The basic reason we went to war in Iraq BOTH TIMES dates back to 1991 when Saddam mercilessly invaded Kuwait. There was a lot more in play than WMDs.
[/quote]
Yes. Oil.[/quote]
Precisely.
Oil is the lifeblood of the 20th and 21st century. Without it nations including the US dry up and die. Without it you don’t have the wherewithal to type words of wisdom on the internet. Without it life as we know it changes drastically.
So when a bloodthirsty madman who had used chemical weapons in a needless war with Iran invades the heart of world’s crude oil supply and threatens wholesale imperialism and destruction THEN has his ass handed to him THEN repeatedly violates the treaty he signed THEN WITH HIS TRACK RECORD threatens more belligerency against neighboring oil producing nations and Israel THEN is found in complicity with a plot to assassinate a former US president THEN is found in several 69 position with terrorist groups/leaders THEN hints at renewed use of chemical/biological weapons THEN denies access to chem/bio producing facilities as per the treaty he signed…THEN some prudent men may indeed deduce that it’s time for him and his ilk to go.
BTW, we always have and still do BUY our oil from the Middle East. We’ve never stolen it.
However[/quote]
This is a completely distorted revision of the reasons the Bush administration justified war in Iraq. But historical revisionism to suit your argument seems to be par for the course.
The Iraq Resolution contained the justifications for going to war. Let’s address them point by point:
-
They were in non-compliance with the 1991 cease-fire and interfered with UN inspections.
In reality, the only aspect of the cease-fire that would have warranted a full-blown invasion was the order to stop developing chem/bio weapons. Evidence clearly shows that Iraq had complied with condition -
Another reference to wmd’s that, again, did not exist. But the Bush administration did not need to invade to find this out since an undercover CIA agent (Valeerie Plame) along with the UN inspections had already failed to find any evidence that the weapons existed.
-
Iraq’s repression of its citizens.
This was going on, but it happens to a comparable degree in all sorts of countries that we have not invaded and have no plans of invading. China immediately comes to mind. -
Iraq’s willingness and capability to use wmds.
It’s pretty hard to use wmds without actually having them. -
An alleged plot to assassinate former President George HW Bush in 1993.
First of all, the plot was attempted after Bush left the office. As heinous as it is to attempt to assassinate Bush, it’s simply not the same as attempting to kill a sitting President. Also, there is virtually no evidence linking the conspirators to Iraq or specifically to Saddam Hussein. The fact that the invasion occurred ten years after the attempt lessens its credibility even further. -
An alleged link between Al Qaeda, 9/11, and Saddam Hussein.
This one is downright laughable. The entire intelligence community, as made clear in both the Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq and the 9/11 Commission Report, gave no credibility to claims of links between Hussein and Al Qaeda. The fundamental differences in ideology are clear: Hussein was a secularist whose behavior and lifestyle was akin to what Al Qaeda was and still is so fervently against. To think that the two would work in conjunction on anything at all is sheer ignorance. -
The need for the U.S. to fight terrorists, including the perpetrators of 9/11 and those who aided or harbored them.
Again, according to the entire intelligence community, this would eliminate Iraq since there was NO evidence whatsoever linking Hussein with any terrorist acts committed against the U.S. -
The same as 7. This point simply cited the actual authorization by the Constitution for Congress and the President to fight terrorism.
-
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 states that it should be the policy of the U.S. to remove Hussein and instill a democracy in Iraq.
Why? By this logic, we should do the same thing to China and other like-minded regimes.
And the war isn’t for oil either, at least not oil for us. We have never received more than 10% of our oil from Iraq and since 1991 we have rarely ever received more than 5% of our oil from there.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So when a bloodthirsty madman who had used chemical weapons in a needless war with Iran invades the heart of world’s crude oil supply and threatens wholesale imperialism and destruction THEN has his ass handed to him THEN repeatedly violates the treaty he signed THEN WITH HIS TRACK RECORD threatens more belligerency against neighboring oil producing nations and Israel THEN is found in complicity with a plot to assassinate a former US president THEN is found in several 69 position with terrorist groups/leaders THEN hints at renewed use of chemical/biological weapons THEN denies access to chem/bio producing facilities as per the treaty he signed…THEN some prudent men may indeed deduce that it’s time for him and his ilk to go.[/quote]
What? No, then it’s time for a Strongly Worded Letter from the UN.
“Hans Brix, you’re breaking my balls here!!”
Did the UN weapons inspectors believe he had WMD, I wonder? No one is disputing that Iraq had WMDs at one point, but did they have WMDs in 2003? No.
They believed he was refusing to prove that he destroyed them and his materiel that could be used to rapidly make more.
They didn’t just believe that actually: they knew it for a fact.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
To those that say we went there for WMDs: “we” is quite a big word. I was a part of we and I volunteered after finding out there were no WMDs. I as a part of we, went to remove a vicious dictator who violated human rights to a much greater degree than these fuckass Europeans on this board will ever contemplate. For if they do, their own cowardice may well be too much to bear.
mike[/quote]
That is not true.
The question is if you subscribr to a consequentialist, i.e., utilitarian or a deontologocal approach.
In other words, do you believe that ALL THE WORLD is your responsibility and you are morally responsible for acting or even not acting if someone else mistreats other people or if you are only responsible for your own actions, because the world is a cruel place to begin with.
Those are distinctly different views when it comes to the human experience as a whole, and I, as a European, would argue that the first view, held by a significant part of Americans is dangerously naive.
There is only so much you can do and “il faut cultiver son jardin”.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The ENTIRE WORLD believed he had them. Left. Right. Moderates. Marxists. John Birchers. The French. The Congolese. The penguins in Antarctica.
[/quote]
I don’t know where you got this, but it’s simply not true. Not all in the USA bought it, (remember the rallies) and the huge majority of the rest of the world, including the British and the rest of your allies did not believe it. The public opinion just didn’t match the statements made by their governments.
Somebody lied to you.