Flypaper Theory

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
And also for shits and giggles, Mossadegh was ousted with the massive help of the CIA because he nationalized Iran`s oil fields.

Now we could not have that.

A democracy in the ME that is held stable and progresses at an impressive rate, helped along by enormous oil profits?

A shining example for the whole region?

Wait, is that not what you try to establish in Iraq now?

Is it any wonder people question the wisdom of US American interventionism?

A self proclaimed libertarian supporting a communist sympathizer nationalizing oil fields?

Was he not better than everything that came after him?

Was he not better than everything else in the region?

Would you not call it a success if Iraq turned out that way?

The US policy regarding Iran has destroyed a Democracy AND lost the oil profits.

Excellent!

edit: its even better.

That oil profits now sponsor radical Islam all over the world.
[/quote]

Having a Soviet stooge in Iran probably wouldn’t have been the best idea. It didn’t seem to work out too well in Afghanistan.

202

[quote]lixy wrote:
In that case, start another thread. This one is about the “flypaper theory”.
[/quote]

Why are you telling me this instead of Orion?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Your tax money is used to kill people and wage wars of aggression, and if I’m not mistaken, your post tried to rationalize that.
[/quote]

You are mistaken.

[quote]lixy wrote:
I support the Al-Sauds?

Your government does.
[/quote]

Then why do you keep typing “you” instead of “your government”? Is that about as logical as me typing “you” when referring to Al-Qaeda because you are a Muslim?

203

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
And also for shits and giggles, Mossadegh was ousted with the massive help of the CIA because he nationalized Iran`s oil fields.

Now we could not have that.

A democracy in the ME that is held stable and progresses at an impressive rate, helped along by enormous oil profits?

A shining example for the whole region?

Wait, is that not what you try to establish in Iraq now?

Is it any wonder people question the wisdom of US American interventionism?

A self proclaimed libertarian supporting a communist sympathizer nationalizing oil fields?

Was he not better than everything that came after him?

Was he not better than everything else in the region?

Would you not call it a success if Iraq turned out that way?

The US policy regarding Iran has destroyed a Democracy AND lost the oil profits.

Excellent!

edit: its even better.

That oil profits now sponsor radical Islam all over the world.

Having a Soviet stooge in Iran probably wouldn’t have been the best idea. It didn’t seem to work out too well in Afghanistan.[/quote]

And you think that a SU “stooge” would have been worse?

It must be great to be American-No matter how terribly you fuck up, at least you prevented worse.

Is that how your reality works?

204

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Then why do you keep typing “you” instead of “your government”? Is that about as logical as me typing “you” when referring to Al-Qaeda because you are a Muslim? [/quote]

Here’s the deal: if I was financing a group and justifying their actions, you then could use me and said group interchangeably. It won’t matter since I’ll be espousing its views.

That said, I apologize if I misinterpreted your statements. For all I know, you may be totally opposed to the rampaging interventionist policy of the US.

205

[quote]lixy wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Then why do you keep typing “you” instead of “your government”? Is that about as logical as me typing “you” when referring to Al-Qaeda because you are a Muslim?

Here’s the deal: if I was financing a group and justifying their actions, you then could use me and said group interchangeably. It won’t matter since I’ll be espousing its views.

That said, I apologize if I misinterpreted your statements. For all I know, you may be totally opposed to the rampaging interventionist policy of the US.[/quote]

I’ve been opposed going to war with Iraq since Powell’s presentation to the UN. I just think that many of your (and Orion’s) arguments don’t make sense logically.

206

[quote]orion wrote:

Saddam Hussein even offered to leave.

The Mage wrote:

Sorry, when?

orion wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/02/saddam.exile/

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) – Days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein agreed in principle to accept an offer of exile from the United Arab Emirates, but the deal fell through, a UAE government senior official told CNN.[/quote]

The deal fell through? Your argument was that he was going to leave, but now you say the deal fell through. That makes it a non-argument, non-issue. Yes that would have been good, but he was unwilling to do anything on anyone else’s terms.

[quote]That would have been cool, huh?

Free elections, international monitoring and the eternal gratitude of the Iraquis.

Then, there was no problem with Hussein being a murderous monster when he fought the slightly less disgusting regime the US helped create in Iran.[/quote]

Yep, America is to blame for everything.

Now this is a good point. We did abandon them, and that is something we should be ashamed of.

Your what?

Actually that was why we had trouble at first getting the Iraqis on board because they didn’t actually believe we were going to stick around, which unfortunately too many with political agendas were trying to get us to do.

But do you remember posting this earlier?:

You can do math can’t you? Yes 47% say leave immediately, but 34% say stay, + 10% say stay, + 2% say stay. That equals 47% saying stay longer for one reason or another, meaning the Iraqis are now split 50/50. (Ok, 47/47.) That is not a majority saying they want us to leave. Half want us to stay. Think about that.

207

Well Saddam did not go because Bush would not let him?

Why would he, the troops would be greeted with flowers.

Then you can dismiss it all you want, Hussein was a-ok when he was your guy.

Afterwards he was a monster, when he was no longer needed.

So, once again, cut the moral relativism BS.

The US has a history in that region and none of them have forgotten it, those that survived it that is, even if you have.

They do call you Big Satan for a reason you know?

208

[quote]orion wrote:
…Is it not true that you can have a 9-11 every day in Iraq without even a 1/1000 of the media coverage of one 9-11 in the US?
[/quote]

Do you watch any real news source, or just “entertainment” crap which passes as news. The news I read talks about the attacks and loss of lives in Iraq on a daily basis.

The fact that you call those responcible for the carnage “freedom fighters” is what astounds me more than anything.

209

[quote]orion wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
Right now al Jazeera does more to fight Islamo fascism than you do.

Yeah, by broadcasting Osama Bin Laden and his al-qaeda aids speeches so more people could see them? How is that fighting Islamo-fascism?

First it does not actively recruit among young Muslims, which is technically enough to do more than you do and then they are a news channel.

They are giving them an non western independent voice.

And, God is great, no OJ or Britney.

[/quote]

Way to dance around the issue. How does carrying the broadcasts of a wanted terrorist leader and mass murderer fight Islamo-fascism? Seems to me like it is broadcasting the enemy’s message.

210

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
…Is it not true that you can have a 9-11 every day in Iraq without even a 1/1000 of the media coverage of one 9-11 in the US?

Do you watch any real news source, or just “entertainment” crap which passes as news. The news I read talks about the attacks and loss of lives in Iraq on a daily basis.

The fact that you call those responcible for the carnage “freedom fighters” is what astounds me more than anything.[/quote]

If you look a bit closer I wrote something like terrorists/ freedom fighters/ insurgents and/or simple gangsters.

211

[quote]lixy wrote:
“rampaging interventionist policy of the US.”

[/quote]

Is the china non-intervention policy of screw you, you can kill yourself and starve to death as long as we get our money any worse? Or would you propose we adopt their policy?

212

[quote]orion wrote:
If you look a bit closer I wrote something like terrorists/ freedom fighters/ insurgents and/or simple gangsters.
[/quote]

. . . Depending upon which side you are on. ok, fair enough. But anyone who would call al-qaeda or the Baathist freedom fighters should be entitled to whatever “freedom” they get out of the deal. Which is slim to none.

So in your opinion, we should just let governments stomp their people into the ground if they wish and as long as they are no threat to us, not intervene?

In other words, take “morality” out of dealing with nations.

Sort of like China, who deals with Canada, the US, Nigeria, Sudan and Iran?

213

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
Right now al Jazeera does more to fight Islamo fascism than you do.

Yeah, by broadcasting Osama Bin Laden and his al-qaeda aids speeches so more people could see them? How is that fighting Islamo-fascism?

First it does not actively recruit among young Muslims, which is technically enough to do more than you do and then they are a news channel.

They are giving them an non western independent voice.

And, God is great, no OJ or Britney.

Way to dance around the issue. How does carrying the broadcasts of a wanted terrorist leader and mass murderer fight Islamo-fascism? Seems to me like it is broadcasting the enemy’s message.
[/quote]

214

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
“rampaging interventionist policy of the US.”

Is the china non-intervention policy of screw you, you can kill yourself and starve to death as long as we get our money any worse? Or would you propose we adopt their policy?[/quote]

yes, please do so.

Nobody can blame you then.

You could of course be a flawless, prosperous democracy, a shining city on the hill, the beacon of freedom, impossible to ignore…

215

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:
If you look a bit closer I wrote something like terrorists/ freedom fighters/ insurgents and/or simple gangsters.

. . . Depending upon which side you are on. ok, fair enough. But anyone who would call al-qaeda or the Baathist freedom fighters should be entitled to whatever “freedom” they get out of the deal. Which is slim to none.

So in your opinion, we should just let governments stomp their people into the ground if they wish and as long as they are no threat to us, not intervene?

In other words, take “morality” out of dealing with nations.

Sort of like China, who deals with Canada, the US, Nigeria, Sudan and Iran?[/quote]

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation.

Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Double that for the ME.

They are barking mad.

216

[quote]100meters wrote:
They want us to leave or kill us if we don’t. How many more will die if keep staying (Jeez how many are left, many neighborhoods now ethnically cleansed, millions of refugees fleeing or fled (except not let in U.S.–our backs literally turned on them). Damn, but I forget “you know history”.
[/quote]

Do you back these people? The ones who have ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, killing the civilians are the ones we are fighting. You could say they did not exist in Iraq before we invaded, but where were these people?

If the majority of these so-called “freedom fighters” are the Baathists or their troops, then it stands to reason that the “terrorists” were in Iraq before we invaded. The reason they are fighting us is not to free their country from occupation, they are fighting us to get themselves back in control. Are these the people you want to rule Iraq?

217

[quote]orion wrote:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation.

Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Double that for the ME.

They are barking mad.

[/quote]

These rules of conduct. When were these put into place? Before or after Europe colonized half of the world?

220

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
orion wrote:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation.

Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Double that for the ME.

They are barking mad.

These rules of conduct. When were these put into place? Before or after Europe colonized half of the world? [/quote]

After.