[quote]dukefan4ever wrote:
pookie wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Why had your administration to lie about WMDs, links between Saddam and OBL, etc. to drum up some modicum of public support for the war?
How many times do we have to prove there WERE links between Saddam and al Qaeda? Even the Dems poster boy said so.
“Yeah, that was the pitiful media spin that was being attempted…It didn’t work…Even this poster boy now concedes the point”
I think you are missing the point that there were/are demonstrable terror ties between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda. It is well-documented, and two different administrations and the US Senate came to the same conclusion.
As for the direct link between Saddam and OBL, no one has information on it, if it even exists, but then again, no one is advertising that they do.
I think the problem might be that “ties” has had it’s meaning streched to the point that having OBL see Saddam on TV might be construed as a “tie”.
What has not been proven, is that there was a “tie” in the sense of actual cooperation between both parties.
There were mentions about OBL not liking Saddam at all, as he thought he was too much of a secular leader; that he wasn’t a devout enough muslim. They probably could still cooperate, but the evidence supporting it was pretty tenous.
The problem is that such a weak link was blown out of all proportion and basically presented to the public as “Saddam paid for the plane tickets” of the hijackers. The goal was to attack Iraq, regardless of whether or not it was involved in the attacks. To do that, Bush & Co. simply linked them in any way it could, regardless of evidence.
Pooks, interesting comments on my post. Did you see the cheesetastics thread at all? It’s old. Anyway, seeing as how I’m naive, perhaps you or elk could explain to me just how effective those UN sanctions were. Maybe y’all could point out where the weapon inspections (when they were actually allowed to inspect, that is) were helping to prevent Saddam from giving money to suicide bomber’s families.
WE KNEW HE HAD WMD’S BECAUSE HE USED THEM ON THE KURDS.
How hard is this for you guys to grasp? I guess Saddam used every chemical weapon he had on those Kurds, and didn’t save anything for later, then? This asshole was busy developing missiles he wasn’t supposed to have under the UN sanctions, and half of the population of Iraq didn’t have clean drinking water! Priorities, man!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Pooks, interesting comments on my post. Did you see the cheesetastics thread at all? It’s old.[/quote]
No, missed that one. I come here when I get free time; sometimes, I miss a week or two.
I don’t think you’re naive; you just seem to want very badly to hold on to a point of view in the face of overwhelming evidence against it…
The sanctions appeared to be working; Iraq was pretty well contained for 10 years. Don’t tell me you spent 1991-2001 worrying about Saddam attacking you or your allies in the region? Were you losing sleep?
As for the payoffs to the families, I presume they’ve now stopped? Doesn’t seem to help much in preventing suicide bombing does it?
Was that the ones you sold him back in the 80’s when he was your buddy?
Yup, he had them. Past tense. There was no evidence he still had any. He didn’t use any in Koweit or during Desert Storm; and didn’t use any during the 10 years of sanctions. Inspectors found nothing. Your spy satellites and planes found nothing for the inspectors to go after. After deposing the regime, your own troops found nothing. The insurgents haven’t used any.
How many times must you find nothing before you give up on the WMDs?
Only when you decided to invade Iraq did this “outrage” about Saddam gassing the Kurds suddenly appear in every speech your Chimp-in-Command gave.
Priorities? A large part of the human population of the planet doesn’t have clean drinking water. Why was there that overwhelming need to quench the thirst of the Iraqis? There’s a lot of much poorer African nations that could use drinking water… and AIDS medecine… and education, technology, etc.
Don’t give me that fucking bullshit about how you couldn’t stand the thought of all those little Iraqi kids drinking muddy water.
If you’re refering to the current situation in Iraq, I’d say that’s pretty much your fault. Who’s fault could it be, if not yours? Peru?
[quote]pookie wrote:
If you’re refering to the current situation in Iraq, I’d say that’s pretty much your fault. Who’s fault could it be, if not yours? Peru?[/quote]
I will ignore the earlier stuff because we have done it to death, but this comment above gets to what the topic at hand is about. Or in your case, aboot.
If I had to blame any one single entity to take the brunt of the blame for the Iraq mess, I would blame Saddam first and foremost.
Yeah, Iraq was a paradise before the US showed up. WTF???
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I will ignore the earlier stuff because we have done it to death, but this comment above gets to what the topic at hand is about. Or in your case, aboot. :)[/quote]
Well, in everyday life, I speak french. So mange de la marde, eh?
That’s nice. You (the US) are the ones who helped put him in power during the 70’s and 80’s. He was your secular ally in the region against Islamist Iran, remember? He didn’t have WMDs at the time, but no problem you sold him some. And lent him a few billions here and there to help finance his war against Iran.
Fact is, while it suited you interests, you not only turned a blind eye to all his human abuse, you helped him along as best you could.
No, it was probably closer to Hell, but you’re the ones who put their Satan on the throne.
Only when Saddam got to big for his britches and moved into Koweit did you suddenly flip-flop and cross out his name from your “allies” list to put him on the “evildoers” list.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There are a lot of folks that still posit the theory that Western foreign policy - especially American - is the primary ‘root cause’ of Islamic fundamentalism and terror. This debate continues to go back and forth in the media after the attacks in London and Egypt.
But a question. Start with would-be terrorist, someone who would qualify as ‘at-risk’ to become a jihadist in the Arab world by whatever your preferred criteria. Again, this revolves around not just an angry Muslim, but a true ‘potential terrorist’.
How many of these would-be terrorists were not moved to join the cause because of the war in Afghanistan but were moved to join the cause only after the war in Iraq?
I don’t expect mathematical figures, of course, but I am curious to hear from those that think the war in Iraq created more terrorists (and anyone else): how many terrorists are out there now solely on the basis of the Iraq War??[/quote]
I can’t be sure of numbers but the C.I.A. has estimated a sharp rise in the recruitment of terrorists due to the invasion of Iraq.
[quote]mfurci wrote:
The United States foreign policy has nothing to do with terrorism today. Our country has been getting attacked for decades by so-called Islamist fundamentalists. Our military personnel have been getting attacked for decades outside our country by so-called Islamic fundamentalist.
The entire Middle East has been a violent sess-pool for centuries. Islam is anything but peaceful. The koran advocates killing nonbelievers. Why hasn’t one Islamic (Cleric) leader denounced 911 or any other attacks? Because they agree with the killing of inocent people in the name of Islam. Peaceful my ass. Take the bleeding heart Democrat view with a grain of salt. Read the Koran for yourself. The United States is the best thing to happen to the men and especially women of the Middle East. Our attack is long over due. We can no longer be called a “paper tiger” [/quote]
Listen to what you say! You state our foriegn policy has nothing to do with terrorism but complain that our soldiers are being attacked outside the U.S. That is non-sense!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Pooks, interesting comments on my post. Did you see the cheesetastics thread at all? It’s old. Anyway, seeing as how I’m naive, perhaps you or elk could explain to me just how effective those UN sanctions were. Maybe y’all could point out where the weapon inspections (when they were actually allowed to inspect, that is) were helping to prevent Saddam from giving money to suicide bomber’s families.
WE KNEW HE HAD WMD’S BECAUSE HE USED THEM ON THE KURDS.
How hard is this for you guys to grasp? I guess Saddam used every chemical weapon he had on those Kurds, and didn’t save anything for later, then? This asshole was busy developing missiles he wasn’t supposed to have under the UN sanctions, and half of the population of Iraq didn’t have clean drinking water! Priorities, man!
And I guess that’s OUR fault, right?[/quote]
Alright loth, last time. Was Saddam a rotten asshole? I think we all agree yes, he was much like little kim over in North Korea is a rotten asshole.
Was Saddam a justifiable threat that had the capability to hurt America with his own conventional or nuclear weapons (which he didn’t have) worthy of sacrificing not only American lives but many innocent Iraq lives as well? … NO, no, no, not in the least!
Don’t give us a load of crap about mysterious ties shadowy ties to Bin Laden (grasping at straws). Don’t give us a load of crap about the poor suffering people of Iraq (pure BS people in the US starving and suffering Iraqi’s dying daily). Don’t give us a load of crap about terrorists flying planes into buildings (Saudi Arabia). Don’t give us any more BS because none of it has panned out or was true in the first place.
All of your arguments for justification could be used on ten other countries.
They though it would be easy loth, they saw profits, they saw strategic control of the Middle East, they said this is going to be easy and sooo profitable.
You can think whatever you want of my motives or reasons for expressing what I do. You can think of me as loud and foolish, but the bottom line for me is I would rather live and have a good productive caring long life then die in a shithole for someone who couldn’t relate to me if my life or theirs depended on it.
You keep saying that this was so necessary Iraq, but I say this. The ones who orchestrated the Vietnam War (yes democrats) who sold it on “we must stop communism there are it’s the end of the western world as we know it” were wrong and 58,000 Americans died for it.
In twenty years it will probably be the same thing. People crying at a war memorial for lost friends, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, who died in a war for a country that will be as unfriendly and hostile as it was in Saddams hands maybe even more!
When I hear of another soldiers death, I think of a young life cut short and it makes me think of my own mortality. I know, I want to be on this earth, in this existance for as long as possible barring the unforseen act of God. I hate to think these lifes are being lost for someones stupidity!
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
mfurci wrote:
The United States foreign policy has nothing to do with terrorism today. Our country has been getting attacked for decades by so-called Islamist fundamentalists. Our military personnel have been getting attacked for decades outside our country by so-called Islamic fundamentalist.
The entire Middle East has been a violent sess-pool for centuries. Islam is anything but peaceful. The koran advocates killing nonbelievers. Why hasn’t one Islamic (Cleric) leader denounced 911 or any other attacks? Because they agree with the killing of inocent people in the name of Islam. Peaceful my ass. Take the bleeding heart Democrat view with a grain of salt. Read the Koran for yourself. The United States is the best thing to happen to the men and especially women of the Middle East. Our attack is long over due. We can no longer be called a “paper tiger”
Listen to what you say! You state our foriegn policy has nothing to do with terrorism but complain that our soldiers are being attacked outside the U.S. That is non-sense![/quote]
I hit the submit botton on accident. But back to the point. Our prescense in MANY foreign countries is the very reason our soldiers are being attacked.
Guys… aw, hell. Come ON. This thread is about “blaming the west”, and y’all are briniging up some good points here. But y’all are still missing the major part of this, I think. The violence. The poverty. The conflict.
Is this not fall-out from an unyielding and unadaptive medieval mindset struggling against a modern world? The extremists cannot envision a world where all races and creeds work alongside each other in harmony, so they commit heinous crimes in a vain attempt to turn back the clock and seize some measure of control. That is what the fear is for.
If we are to blame the West for this, we must neccessarily go back to reasons for why the West feels it important to stick our noses in Middle-Eastern affairs. Oil? Okay, let’s run with that for a second:
I blame Henry Ford. His ambition to see a car in every household has been realized beyond his wildest imaginings. Easy access to quick transportation changed the very face of America, and imbued in us a dependence on a natural resource which is found readily available in Saudi Arabia and its neighbors.
DAMN YOU HENRY FORD!! DAMN YOU!! You just had to be so efficient (assembly line) and figure out how to mass-produce stuff, didn’t ya? Now we’re like crack addicts. Thanks a lot, asshole.
Of course, Henry had no way of knowing the effect of his innovations on industry and the world in general, so we can’t hold him PERSONALLY responsible for it. Rather, we should blame the American Spirit, and the way that we reward enterprising and innovative individuals. It is our rugged and even dogged determination to succeed and the drive and willpower behind successful people which we celebrate in our society that turns out people like Henry Ford, who in turn change the world.
You guys are right. I blame US ALL. I have changed my mind about this. It is quite obviously our corrupt capitalist ways which have sown the seeds of destruction for all life on this planet. No, we shouldn’t hold terrorists responsible for their own actions… that would be stupid.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Is this not fall-out from an unyielding and unadaptive medieval mindset struggling against a modern world? The extremists cannot envision a world where all races and creeds work alongside each other in harmony…[/quote]
I’d say that we can’t envision this world either. If so, then why are our western corporations allowed to exploit and pollute third world countries in ways that would never be tolerated here?
Corporation will use child labor in countries where it’s “tolerated”; they will pollute without a second thought if they can get away with it; anything goes in the name of profit.
Why are you trying to shift the discussion to something completely unrelated? The root cause is not the invention of the automobile or of the combustion engine; the problem stems from what we tolerate from countries that have large quantities of oil (to illustrate your example) and that are willing to sell it to us.
Saudi Arabia’s current regime denies what we’d consider the following basic rights to its citizen:
Freedom of expression and association.
Political parties.
Independent local media.
Peaceful anti-government activities.
They also infringe on privacy, engage in widespread institutionalized gender discrimination, impose harsh restrictions on the exercise of religious freedom, and use torture, disfigurement or dismemberment as penalty of law.
Would you accept this kind of permanent government for the USA? If not, why do you support it abroad? It appears doubly hypocritical when Bush talks about the US being the “Bearer of freedom and democracy in the world.” Don’t make the mistake of thinking all those arabs are stupid and uneducated and that they can’t see right thru the lies and propaganda. They experience the reality of US foreign policy daily.
[/quote]
"Saudi Arabia’s current regime denies what we’d consider the following basic rights to its citizen:
Freedom of expression and association.
Political parties.
Independent local media.
Peaceful anti-government activities."
True.
“They also infringe on privacy, engage in widespread institutionalized gender discrimination, impose harsh restrictions on the exercise of religious freedom, and use torture, disfigurement or dismemberment as penalty of law.”
Yep.
“If not, why do you support it abroad?”
We have - and have had for some time, across numerous administrations - a strategic relationship with the Saudis. We have - and always have had - trade relations with nations that do not share our version of government or society.
So, what is your suggestion? Only trade and deal with countries that mirror our own society? I am not discounting that as a choice, but are you prepared for the trade-offs of isolationism?
"It appears doubly hypocritical when Bush talks about the US being the “Bearer of freedom and democracy in the world.”
Nonsense. Liberating one country does not require that you liberate all of them. So such utopian plan exists. Moreover, slowly removing ourselves form relationships with unsavory nations requires time and patience, something that will require a sustained effort beyond this administration.
Further, all this talk of ‘bad nations’ that don’t observe ‘human rights’ completely refuts al the Leftist garbage about ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘respecting sovereignty’. The Saudis run their own ship the way they see fit and sell us oil in international markets - who are we to judge them and their society? (Hint: I don’t actually believe that, but then again, I don’t profess relativism).
“Don’t make the mistake of thinking all those arabs are stupid and uneducated and that they can’t see right thru the lies and propaganda. They experience the reality of US foreign policy daily.”
Long before the US came along, Arabs committed themselves to autocratic government. They have never experienced an Enlightenment - which formed, in large measure, the basis for the French and American Revolutions - and Islam has never experienced a Reformation. If our foreign policy keeps Arabs from democratic government, what explains why they didn’t have it before the US came along?
Corporation will use child labor in countries where it’s “tolerated”; they will pollute without a second thought if they can get away with it; anything goes in the name of profit.
[/quote]
As a business owner, I feel I need to speak up for a second here off topic. Statements like this perpetuate the stereotype that corporations are evil. They are not. Not everything goes in the name of profit. Not all companies will outsource, not all will use sweatshops, and consumers have the choice not to buy products or services from companies that do. Personally, I will not buy Nike products.
There is a growing movement of ceos leading corporations into a more environment and human rights awareness culture. And as consumers, we have the choice to support them. But if the quote above is all that people hear, then they will not search for these companies or not start companies themselves.
[quote]pookie wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Is this not fall-out from an unyielding and unadaptive medieval mindset struggling against a modern world? The extremists cannot envision a world where all races and creeds work alongside each other in harmony…
I’d say that we can’t envision this world either.[/quote]
Dude, where’s your heart? I don’t know about you, but I can envision a world where all races and creeds get along just fine. Freedom and Justice for all, man!
[quote]I blame Henry Ford.
Why are you trying to shift the discussion to something completely unrelated? The root cause is not the invention of the automobile or of the combustion engine; the problem stems from what we tolerate from countries that have large quantities of oil (to illustrate your example) and that are willing to sell it to us.[/quote]
I was going off of the “War for Oil” concept which has lodged itself into the minds of pretty much everyone who is against the Iraq war. Why do we need oil? Cars. Where did the cars come from? A combination of national prosperity and Henry Ford, mostly. Without the assembly line, there just wouldn’t be manufacturing in the way that we know in our modern world. And the idea of an affordable car for every family would be nigh impossible. Henry Ford started all of that.
[quote]Saudi Arabia’s current regime denies what we’d consider the following basic rights to its citizen:
Freedom of expression and association.
Political parties.
Independent local media.
Peaceful anti-government activities.
They also infringe on privacy, engage in widespread institutionalized gender discrimination, impose harsh restrictions on the exercise of religious freedom, and use torture, disfigurement or dismemberment as penalty of law.
Would you accept this kind of permanent government for the USA? If not, why do you support it abroad? It appears doubly hypocritical when Bush talks about the US being the “Bearer of freedom and democracy in the world.” Don’t make the mistake of thinking all those arabs are stupid and uneducated and that they can’t see right thru the lies and propaganda. They experience the reality of US foreign policy daily.
[/quote]
I have said it before. A dozen times, at least. All things in good time. Give us a fucking MINUTE to get our shit squared away here. We are trying to save the damn world, man. If you want to speed this up, we will accept your help. Thank you.
Sheesh! Why do some of us forget so quickly who the good guys are?
Your view of the world is dangerously simplistic.[/quote]
Actually, there’s a bit more to it, but I’m posting in a forum thread, not writing a book.
[quote]
We have - and have had for some time, across numerous administrations - a strategic relationship with the Saudis. We have - and always have had - trade relations with nations that do not share our version of government or society.
So, what is your suggestion? Only trade and deal with countries that mirror our own society? I am not discounting that as a choice, but are you prepared for the trade-offs of isolationism?[/quote]
But you see, it’s this approach that makes the West and the U.S. in particular unpopular. “Strategic Relationship” means that because it’s more convenient for us to have a stable Saudi Arabia, we let them do as they please. The “Saddam was an evil dictator that tortured his own citizen” is used to justify invading Iraq; while the same thing is going on in S.A. But they’re strategic allies, so it’s okay.
And yes, favoring countries that do recognize basic human rights might be a way to pressure the ones that don’t to improve. The more countries you could get to join the movement, the better it would work. Of course, those with brutal dictatorships probably wouldn’t cave in of themselves, but various other pressures could be brought to bear, up to and including military intervention. With a REAL coalition and majority support from the U.N.
As to the question of whether people here are ready to accept higher prices and/or a lower standard of living while the world truly becomes democratic; that’s a whole other question.
[quote]"It appears doubly hypocritical when Bush talks about the US being the “Bearer of freedom and democracy in the world.”
Nonsense. Liberating one country does not require that you liberate all of them. So such utopian plan exists. Moreover, slowly removing ourselves form relationships with unsavory nations requires time and patience, something that will require a sustained effort beyond this administration.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right. That’s why the often repeated claim of “We’re bringing them freedom and democracy” is so dishonest. You wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t in your best economic/political interest to do so; freeing the Iraqi people is simply a smoke screen to paint a veneer of nobleness of the invasion of a sovereign nation.
There’s a difference between respecting sovereignty and actively supporting oppressive regimes.
[quote]“Don’t make the mistake of thinking all those arabs are stupid and uneducated and that they can’t see right thru the lies and propaganda. They experience the reality of US foreign policy daily.”
Long before the US came along, Arabs committed themselves to autocratic government. They have never experienced an Enlightenment - which formed, in large measure, the basis for the French and American Revolutions - and Islam has never experienced a Reformation. If our foreign policy keeps Arabs from democratic government, what explains why they didn’t have it before the US came along?[/quote]
The West has been meddling in their affairs for a very long time. Before the US, their were Imperial Britain and France. You helped put the shah in power in Iran… you helped put Saddam in power in Iraq; you’re support to Israel is the only reason it’s still on the map.
It’s hard for a people to revolt against a despotic ruling party when that party has the support of the US behind it.
They’re also the possibility that they don’t want democracy; that they’re not thirsty for it. Maybe they like Taliban-like Islamist Republics.
Corporation will use child labor in countries where it’s “tolerated”; they will pollute without a second thought if they can get away with it; anything goes in the name of profit.
As a business owner, I feel I need to speak up for a second here off topic. Statements like this perpetuate the stereotype that corporations are evil. They are not. Not everything goes in the name of profit. Not all companies will outsource, not all will use sweatshops, and consumers have the choice not to buy products or services from companies that do. Personally, I will not buy Nike products. [/quote]
I agree, not ALL corporations are like that. Unfortunately, enough of them ARE. Many people boycott Nike products; but many more buy them, because they’re unaware or they don’t care or both.
It’s also harder for an ethical corporation to compete with an unethical one. If you must pay 12$ to make a pair of shoes and Nike get them for 12 cents, you’re not on an equal footing (no pun intended.)
Part of the problem stems from the fact that corporation, while enjoying most of the rights of a living human being; have none of it’s responsabilities. It’s only obligation is profit for the shareholders.
If breaking laws is cheaper than abiding by them, many corps will simply put the fines in the cost of doing business column and do as they please.
You can’t throw a corporation in jail. You can fine it; jail members of the board, etc. but the corporation itself endures.
Passing harsher laws to reign back some of that corporate excess is also very difficult, as lobby groups and political contributions go a long way in keeping things like they are.
I hope that’s not all they hear, and I applaud the movement for more ethical corporations. But as long as most of it is voluntary, there will always be a majority (yeah, I’m a cynic) of corporation that will see it as an advantage to squeeze the lemon for all it’s worth, regardless of any human or environmental costs.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Dude, where’s your heart? I don’t know about you, but I can envision a world where all races and creeds get along just fine. Freedom and Justice for all, man![/quote]
What I meant was that we talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. Everybody is for Peace and Justice; but a lot fewer are ready to make any sacrifice for it.
Envisioning it is the easy part. Making it a reality is hard work.
Yes, but you’ll agree that because we are so dependent on oil for our way of life, we accept that some nations repress their citizens. Because oil is too important; and that too much instability in the Gulf region might endanger our supply, we’ll go to great lengths to ensure the statu quo.
We prefer a brutal repressive dictatorship that is stable, than a series of coup and revolutions that might endanger our supply.
That’s why all the “we’re liberating them” rethoric sounds hollow and hypocritical. Invading Iraq has not much to do with actually liberating it’s citizen. If you can pull it off (and I sure hope you eventually succeed) it’ll be a nice bonus; but it’s certainly not the main reason for your presence there.
[quote]I have said it before. A dozen times, at least. All things in good time. Give us a fucking MINUTE to get our shit squared away here. We are trying to save the damn world, man. If you want to speed this up, we will accept your help. Thank you.
Sheesh! Why do some of us forget so quickly who the good guys are?[/quote]
If we had to be invaded by anyone, I’d like it to be you. I’d bet you could even find us on a map.
Seriously, I’m sure that most of your people and troops believe that; but a lot of the world is weary of the true motives of your current administration. To many lies have been used to justify this war; too much spin; too much backpedaling done. Good guys shouldn’t need to lie and hide so much.
