[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It appeared that Communism was about to gobble up the globe.
McCarthy called and he wants his line back.
If you think that the so-called “fight against Communism”, was worth all the blood that went into it then I give up.[/quote]
The people I know that escaped from behind the Iron Curtain feel it was.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They don’t share your views at all.
Think again.
Travel around. I’ve seen tags around Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America that litteraly said “Fuck U.S.A.”. Heck, I’ve seen five of those in Uppsala, Sweden.
[/quote]
Only a moron puts anything like that on his car.
[quote]
While many do not understand why we are fighting the war the way we are does not mean they are anti-American.
Insightful. And yet you insist on calling me anti-American for no other reason that my strong resentment towards US foreign policy.
I theorize that it is precisely because they understand why you fight that don’t like you very much.[/quote]
Only the morons. Or the enemy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You’re suggesting that America is in Iraq to spread democracy and has no interests whatsoever in the region.[/quote]
First, I didn’t suggest it, the phrase “the myth that you’re bringing Democracy to the world” suggests that there are interests and Democracy is not one of them. I was/am working under the assumption that it’s not an either/or proposition and the gateway to further US interests (and world interests) lies in a democratic Iraq.
I wonder how crass Ahmadenijad would be if the UN, as a whole, had swooped down, crushed Saddam, and erected a free and independent Iraq. It would make inspectors seem pretty non-invasive.
Second, foothold to what? Do you think we’re going to take over the Middle East and make it the 51st State (even then, they’d be better off than under Saddam)? You keep suggesting these ulterior motives as if they far exceed what we’re doing in Iraq and as if their totally self-serving and nefarious.
Third, saying the Military-Industrial Complex is the reason is like saying a car is the reason I’m at work. Were we fighting a symmetric opponent and amassing arms and forces I might agree (much like if I worked at a car dealership or automotive factory).
But the war is costing money, not making it. The armed forces are stretched “to the limit” rather than growing and expanding. Further, if Iraq and the insurgents have done anything, it has shown (and continues to show) how bloated and obsoleted the MIC is. Hell, IMO, the mess began by trying to do more with less.
Having manners and respect for those individuals, I wouldn’t presume to speak on their behalf. But I am of the mind that they surely don’t want you doing it much less after having labeled them the “apologetics” crew. I’m also of the mind that I’m fairly “apologetic” in comparison to some.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
…I disagree. Iraq was not the good place to start, being as it was probably the least dominated by psychotic Islamic elements. …[/quote]
Iran or Saudi Arabia would have been better but far harder to justify.
Iraq was the only realisitic choice for trying to introduce real democracy and western values into an oil rich country in the middle east.
[quote]lixy wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Then what, pray tell, are we doing in Iraq? It’s not getting us any oil, it’s not making us any money.
You’re suggesting that America is in Iraq to spread democracy and has no interests whatsoever in the region. I don’t think anyone of the apologetics crew (Zap, JeffR…) is gonna back you up on this one. They’re more in touch with reality, and know that getting a strong foothold in the region is one reason and that the military-industrial complex is another. It’s been extensively covered elsewhere, so go get yourself a copy of “Why we fight”, watch it and get back to me.
[/quote]
We are introducing democracy exactly because we have interests in the region.
That is the reason for all foreign policy.
The fact that we set up a democratic system and let the Iraqis elect their leaders and we buy oil instead of stealing the oil and appointing a dictator speaks volumes to the moral superiority of America.
We believe our system is the best and do not want the horrorshow of communism or radical Islam dominating.
[quote]david dunne wrote:
Blowing up mommies at the mall or teenagers standing in line at a disco isn’t “openly at war”. It’s just killing.[/quote]
Yes dick.
You bombed 28 countries after WWII. Isn’t that blowing up mommies in their homes or kids in the classrooms?
I don’t wanna sound like I’m defending Saddam or anything, but you can’t deny that Israel ignited the conflict by unilaterally attacking Iraq in 1981. Did anyone bomb Dimona when they were making nuclear weapons?
There’s not much difference from where I stand between a suicide bomber or a Tsahal soldier. Both are terrorists.
Then I’m sure you haven’t been paying close
Now you’re the one talking nonsense. I don’t like conspiracy theorists and I do my best to discredit them. The truth shall always prevail.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I talked about killing for a cause. Self-defense isn’t a cause, it’s an innate mechanism.[/quote]
cause-the reason or motive for some human action.
mechanism-the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
I’m gonna call CYA backtracking bullshit.
You said “wouldn’t even contemplate”. That pretty decidedly excludes “if given no other alternative”.
WRT Iraq, what exactly would’ve been the penultimate resort? Where would you have drawn the line and said, “Okay, now we go to war.”? And “Not where the US did.” is not a valid answer. This (hypothetically) would be international policy, being vague means nothing gets accomplished.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Then what, pray tell, are we doing in Iraq? It’s not getting us any oil, it’s not making us any money.
You’re suggesting that America is in Iraq to spread democracy and has no interests whatsoever in the region. I don’t think anyone of the apologetics crew (Zap, JeffR…) is gonna back you up on this one. They’re more in touch with reality, and know that getting a strong foothold in the region is one reason and that the military-industrial complex is another. It’s been extensively covered elsewhere, so go get yourself a copy of “Why we fight”, watch it and get back to me.
We are introducing democracy exactly because we have interests in the region.
That is the reason for all foreign policy.
The fact that we set up a democratic system and let the Iraqis elect their leaders and we buy oil instead of stealing the oil and appointing a dictator speaks volumes to the moral superiority of America.
We believe our system is the best and do not want the horrorshow of communism or radical Islam dominating.[/quote]
Iraq was a terrible choice because it consisted of three ethnic groups that hated each others guts, had no real history of Democracy and is far too large.
Lebanon, Syria, if it has to be the politics of power, those would probably have been better targets.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
cause-the reason or motive for some human action.
mechanism-the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
I’m gonna call CYA backtracking bullshit.
[/quote]
From the context, it’s obvious that the cause I referred to was “a principle which is advocated”.
But even supposing your mind comes with blindfolds, and insist on distorting my word to make my “cause” a mere “reason or motive”, you’d realize that the conscious mind is not involved when one is cornered and faces imminent death. Ten of thousands of years hardwired that into us.
I will repeat myself. It is ludicrous to think that a country that endured a military operation of the magnitude of “desert storm” and more than a decade of economic strangulations to make up a threat to the world’s sole superpower. Israel alone could have taken Saddam down. But they didn’t because they knew he wasn’t a threat. Check out Israeli intelligence reports on the matter. In any case, most of the crew involved in 9/11 was Saudi and it has been proven that the Al-Saud finance Al-Qaeda and all kinds of terrorist organizations. They mistreat their women and have a dictator in power. Why not invade them?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We are introducing democracy exactly because we have interests in the region.
That is the reason for all foreign policy.[/quote]
Thank you. I started losing hope that anyone will acknowledge that.
Glad to see that you live in the real world.
I don’t think so. Why punish the Palestinians and Lebanese when they voted the “wrong” way?
You only support democracy if the victor is on your side. Allende? Ortega? Chavez? I can go on with the names of the democratically elected people the US attacked or tried to overthrow. So please, it’s offensive to the memory of victims caught in the middle to claim any moral superiority (or any moral at all for that matter)
And so did Hitler.
This is a washed up excuse that sold very well in Europe back in the colonial era. Reminescent of the alleged inherent superiority of the white guy trying to civilize the indigens. It lead to all kind of abuses and unspeakable horrors.
But when Bush gets his commands from God Almighty, it’s a diferrent story…
[quote]lucasa wrote:
First, I didn’t suggest it, the phrase “the myth that you’re bringing Democracy to the world” suggests that there are interests and Democracy is not one of them.[/quote]
You’re very naive if you think that it ever came up in the minds of the strategic planners as something other than a motive.
[quote]I wonder how crass Ahmadenijad would be if the UN, as a whole, had swooped down, crushed Saddam, and erected a free and independent Iraq. It would make inspectors seem pretty non-invasive.
[/quote]
Hold it right there. Iran has, under the non-proliferation treaty, the right to nuclear energy provided it’s not used for military applications. If you wanna take it away, offer something in return besides “we’ll kick your ass”.
This sentence is quite laughable :“What we’re doing in Iraq”. You’re doing squat in Iraq. You’re beating a dead horse. You are killing and raping kids. Your presence there is helping terrorists recruit by the boatload.
I read that twice and couldn’t make any sense out of it. One of us should get a coffee.
As far as you’re concerned, yes, that is the case. That’s precisely why the majority of Americans oppose it.
The war is also costing lives.
I’m intimate with the crew. They called me names much worse than “apologetics”. So, I presume that they won’t be offended but that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I will repeat myself.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure I didn’t ask you to repeat yourself. I’m positive I didn’t ask you to quote Israeli intelligence to me. I asked you what you would’ve done wrt to Iraq. More sanctions? More resolutions? Repeal sanctions and resolutions? Say “Fuck all” and let the UN deal with them? Bomb the Saudis? Fight an underground anti-terror war via the NSA and CIA a la the war on drugs? Stay home and take a nap? What?
For someone who’s so convinced he’s right and the US is wrong, you sure aren’t offering much. Pretty honorable, and noble to criticize the man and/or administration that’s in the hot seat and then refuse to even get into the theoretical hot seat yourself (On an internet forum no less!).
And just so you know, many of us on the board realize that you’re full of shit and that you don’t exist to help people, fight for a cause (any cause worth killing for anyway), or generate solutions. And we know that is why when asked, “What would you do?” you hesitate, waffle, and stammer rather than answer. You should take notes from members of the anti-war group like FightinIrish, vroom, or even Nominal Prospect. They at least have the brain to generate alternatives and the spine to defend them and the good sense to know the difference between bitching about coulda/shoulda/woulda and actually making change and advancing solutions.
Let me help you, I would’ve told Rumsfeld to cram it with a fork, listened to my generals and put the number of boots on the ground required to get the job done as quickly as possible. Shock and awe is synonymous with ‘all show and no go’ in my book. I probably would’ve dropped as much food and supplies as my generals felt safe and necessary as well. I would’ve then immediately followed up with a massive reconstruction effort that would’ve rivalled the Marshall Plan. Some of what I intended may be wrong or impossible and my congress may’ve killed it from the get go, but that’s all in the hypothetical.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We are introducing democracy exactly because we have interests in the region.
That is the reason for all foreign policy.
Thank you. I started losing hope that anyone will acknowledge that.
Glad to see that you live in the real world.
The fact that we set up a democratic system and let the Iraqis elect their leaders and we buy oil instead of stealing the oil and appointing a dictator speaks volumes to the moral superiority of America.
I don’t think so. Why punish the Palestinians and Lebanese when they voted the “wrong” way?
[/quote]
We still them money and support their elected governments. We do not support the large terrorist group living in their midst and we think they should do something to eradicate it.
If you are democratically elected and you actively work against US interests as Chavez does he risks having the US work against him.
In case you are missing it he is actively meddling in neighboring countries. Do you think this is OK when he does it and not OK when the US does it?
Hitler brushed his teeth too. Does that make me a Nazi because so do I?
[quote]
This is a washed up excuse that sold very well in Europe back in the colonial era. Reminescent of the alleged inherent superiority of the white guy trying to civilize the indigens. It lead to all kind of abuses and unspeakable horrors.
But when Bush gets his commands from God Almighty, it’s a diferrent story…[/quote]
This is reality. The fact that you call it an excuse and try to play the Nazi card shows me you know it is the truth and you have nothing to counter it but you do not want to lose an internet argument.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You’re very naive if you think that it ever came up in the minds of the strategic planners as something other than a motive.[/quote]
At this point, I admire people like ssn0 and JTF. At least they have the gall and conviction to say that really “spreading democracy” is just a cover so that the US can invade and assimilate the entire Middle East en route to world domination. And even then, they might find that a little far-fetched.
I think you’re actually getting dumber the longer this thread progresses. This is a misrepresentation of both what I said and of reality. The “trade” you propose isn’t so much of a trade as an outright threat or command. The trade in reality is the ability to freely develop nuclear energy technology in exchange for full disclosure. Furthermore, this is the UN’s stance, not necessarily the US’s, a move which you criticized earlier in this thread.
and
I asked “What we’re doing in Iraq” in response to the assertion that we’re not establishing democracy in Iraq. If it’s laughably trivial that people ask questions in response to your assertions, why do you even make them in the first place? I guess if your life has no value, you tend to behave a little differently.
It’s you.
Person A: “We’re fighting in Iraq.”
Person B: “Why?”
Person C: “The Military-Industrial Complex is the reason.”
[sarcasm]and the Military-Industrial Complex[/sarcasm]
I get the impression that the names they called you were apt and applied directly to you whereas the names you call them were inappropriate blanket categorizations.
I assume you mean after 9/11. Here’s what I would have done:
That would take away the very reasons Al-Qaeda exists in the first place. But it’s not realistic, since US interests depend on the Saudi family staying in power. The Jewish lobby is also very influencial in Washington and would have never allow any government to withdraw the UNCONDITIONAL support to Israel.
[quote]orion wrote:
Because the Mommy and Baby killing bombs that fall out of an American plane are oh so different than the ones that suicide bombers use.
And the pilots are heroes and not terrorists.
And “shock and awe” is not a tactic that is designed to inspire feelings of instense anxiety, gut wrenching fear, well, um terror…
And anyhow it is different because Americans soldiers are God fearing men that fight for their country and what they believe in, whereas those terrorists only fight for mindless propaganda and an ivisible man in the sky that does not exist anyway.
[/quote]
That funny coming from someone who likes evil people better.
[quote]orion wrote:
I like evil people better.[/quote]
If you like evil people, then why would you be upset if the ‘evil Americans’ engaged in the same activities?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We still them money and support their elected governments. We do not support the large terrorist group living in their midst and we think they should do something to eradicate it.[/quote]
No you didn’t. You let Israel blow them into oblivion. You consider Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (just like the AUC of Mandela back in the days), and the people voted for Hezbollah. Is that your definition of supporting elected governments? For the record, three countries only share the US’ stance on listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization; Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands
Well, his vehement opposition of the US foreign policy was exactly what got him the support needed to get elected.
I don’t think you guys play in the same league. The US meddles with the whole world, plus every couple of years or so, decides to slaughter a country.
Chavez, as bad as he turned out to be, is a saint in comparison.
[quote]We believe our system is the best and do not want the horrorshow of communism or radical Islam dominating.
[…]
This is reality. The fact that you call it an excuse and try to play the Nazi card shows me you know it is the truth and you have nothing to counter it but you do not want to lose an internet argument.[/quote]
I was refering to the Brits, French and others empires around the 16th century. Look at the documents from that period; It’s exactly the way they put it.
And that wasn’t an argument on your side. You were just telling me that you believed in your system. I believe in a lot of things too, but that doesn’t give me the right to go forcefeed them to others.
The horrorshow of communism and radical Islam? Have you missed the one of savage capitalism and ?
[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
orion wrote:
Because the Mommy and Baby killing bombs that fall out of an American plane are oh so different than the ones that suicide bombers use.
And the pilots are heroes and not terrorists.
And “shock and awe” is not a tactic that is designed to inspire feelings of instense anxiety, gut wrenching fear, well, um terror…
And anyhow it is different because Americans soldiers are God fearing men that fight for their country and what they believe in, whereas those terrorists only fight for mindless propaganda and an ivisible man in the sky that does not exist anyway.
That funny coming from someone who likes evil people better.
orion wrote:
I like evil people better.
If you like evil people, then why would you be upset if the ‘evil Americans’ engaged in the same activities?
[/quote]
Did I not write that the differences between those ghastly, lice infected terrorists and those physically and spiritually healthy Americans are obvious?
How can you question that everything that is touched by the forces of good, i.e the American military is blesseth by the Lord?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Have you missed the one of savage capitalism and ?[/quote]
I have missed that too.
This capitalism savagely freed hundreds of millions of people from poverty, diseases and lack of basic education.
The horror!
[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
Have you missed the one of savage capitalism and ?
I have missed that too.
This capitalism savagely freed hundreds of millions of people from poverty, diseases and lack of basic education.
The horror! [/quote]
Orion the ever-present negative nelly. Read this and learn.