The Real Iraq

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
You don’t need to blockade the Chinese. Isn’t it enough that your country be doing the moral thing?

What moral thing? Stopping selling weapons and letting an amoral country like China do it would be worse not better.

How would that be different? They are already committing numerous human rights abuses, and you continue to offer them weapons, military aid, and training for their troops. They are a despotic monarchy, enforcing the most extremist Islamic regime around now that the Taliban is gone. What difference would there be if another country offered them these services, other than that yours would no longer be aiding the oppression of Arabia? [/quote]

I believe SA would be an even worse place if China was their main trading partner. As bad as it is now it could be worse.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So basically what you are saying WTP, is none of our choices make moral sense. We stick up for the Saudi Arabians and we are supporting a dictator and breeding AQ.

We take down a dictator and we are also breeding AQ.

We stick up for Fatah because we are interested in a peace treaty between Palestinians and Israelis, yet are critisized for not backing Hamas, who wants no peace with Israel. Any logical person could see there is nothing to gain by backing Hamas and Fatah is the choice if you are looking for peace.

Are any other nations brokering peace between the Palestinians and Israelis? Name them if they are.

I am just tired of people taking pot shots at the US every time you turn around, everything our country does.

There is no morality to be had when every thing we do no matter what it is is considered to be morally wrong.

[/quote]

They are preaching isolationism and it never works. I hate the Saudis and would love to see them replaced with a moderate govenment but I do not see how. They are the lesser of two evils for now.

[will_to_power]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
You don’t need to blockade the Chinese. Isn’t it enough that your country be doing the moral thing?

What moral thing? Stopping selling weapons and letting an amoral country like China do it would be worse not better.

How would that be different? They are already committing numerous human rights abuses, and you continue to offer them weapons, military aid, and training for their troops. They are a despotic monarchy, enforcing the most extremist Islamic regime around now that the Taliban is gone. What difference would there be if another country offered them these services, other than that yours would no longer be aiding the oppression of Arabia?

I believe SA would be an even worse place if China was their main trading partner. As bad as it is now it could be worse.[/quote]

You’ve said this several times, but have given no reason why. The Sauds are committing human rights abuses and you do nothing. What difference would it make if China was supporting them? Aside from the fact they would not even support them to the degree that America does.

They are preaching isolationism and it never works. I hate the Saudis and would love to see them replaced with a moderate govenment but I do not see how. They are the lesser of two evils for now.

Can you only think in extremes? You don’t have to either be an isolationist or attempting to control every government in the world. We are preaching non-interventionism in other countries domestic issues, particularly when that intervention is supporting despots.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
You don’t need to blockade the Chinese. Isn’t it enough that your country be doing the moral thing?

What moral thing? Stopping selling weapons and letting an amoral country like China do it would be worse not better.

How would that be different? They are already committing numerous human rights abuses, and you continue to offer them weapons, military aid, and training for their troops. They are a despotic monarchy, enforcing the most extremist Islamic regime around now that the Taliban is gone. What difference would there be if another country offered them these services, other than that yours would no longer be aiding the oppression of Arabia?

I believe SA would be an even worse place if China was their main trading partner. As bad as it is now it could be worse.

You’ve said this several times, but have given no reason why. The Sauds are committing human rights abuses and you do nothing. What difference would it make if China was supporting them? Aside from the fact they would not even support them to the degree that America does.

[/quote]

We don’t do “nothing” although we do not do enough and most of what we do is hidden. We push for reforms, some form of democracy etc. The Chinese would not even bother.

[quote]

They are preaching isolationism and it never works. I hate the Saudis and would love to see them replaced with a moderate govenment but I do not see how. They are the lesser of two evils for now.

Can you only think in extremes? You don’t have to either be an isolationist or attempting to control every government in the world. We are preaching non-interventionism in other countries domestic issues, particularly when that intervention is supporting despots. [/quote]

We need more intervention in SA’s domestic issues. right now we are not doing enough. Selling them arms isn’t intervention. It is trade.

[rainjack]

The whole thing is about oil. A safe, reliable oil supply. Like it, or not - the world depends on the US to provide this for them whether they want to admit their hypocrisy, or not.

Dealing with the Saudis is a necessary evil. Allowing the Chinese to hold the big stick would not be a wise move.

Love us or hate us - you know what you are getting with the US. The same cannot be said for China.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The whole thing is about oil. A safe, reliable oil supply. Like it, or not - the world depends on the US to provide this for them whether they want to admit their hypocrisy, or not.

Dealing with the Saudis is a necessary evil. Allowing the Chinese to hold the big stick would not be a wise move.

Love us or hate us - you know what you are getting with the US. The same cannot be said for China.

[/quote]

[/thread]

[Sloth]

Iraq.

Edit: Oh damn…This thread actually IS about Iraq. Don’t mind me.

[will_to_power]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The whole thing is about oil. A safe, reliable oil supply. Like it, or not - the world depends on the US to provide this for them whether they want to admit their hypocrisy, or not.

Dealing with the Saudis is a necessary evil. Allowing the Chinese to hold the big stick would not be a wise move.

Love us or hate us - you know what you are getting with the US. The same cannot be said for China.
[/quote]

I was explaining how to stop people from becoming terrorists, though yes, this is why your leaders don’t do as I suggested. So long as you continue that approach though, people will hate you and try to kill you. Whether that’s worth it or not is up to you, I guess, but so long as you aren’t trying to argue you’re taking the moral course at least you’re honest.

[Gkhan]

So, do you condone the actions of the Iranians? Do you think they took the moral course by taking our people hostage, by killing our marines on a peace keeping mission? By funding Hezbollah?

Yes, we can stop selling weapons to the Saudis.

What assurances do we have that our enemies will not attack us once we do, and not take this as a sign we have weakness, or are laying down?

What’s to stop other nations from filling the gap once we move along, like the Soviets did in Iran once the Iranians became our enemies?

And who’s to say, if we stop arming our allies, that the people funding and arming their and our enemies will stop?

We have also learned a lesson from history. Trust your enemies to be enemies regardless of your actions.

[will_to_power]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, do you condone the actions of the Iranians? Do you think they took the moral course by taking our people hostage, by killing our marines on a peace keeping mission? By funding Hezbollah?
[/quote]

Some I do, some I don’t, some I think are wrong but understandable. I have repeatedly referred to the present Iranian regime as flawed, and that I disagree with some of what they do. It’s not the point. The point is, they are your enemies because you installed the Shah. They were not always your enemies. The example parallels why every Islamic group that wants you dead hates you.

Yes, we can stop selling weapons to the Saudis.

What assurances do we have that our enemies will not attack us once we do, and not take this as a sign we have weakness, or are laying down?

Why would they attack you in response? Just leaving Saudi Arabia will not lead to a cessation of attacks, but it’ll be one less reason for Arabs and Muslims to hate you, and that means that many fewer people willing to join up to terrorist organisations.

What’s to stop other nations from filling the gap once we move along, like the Soviets did in Iran once the Iranians became our enemies?

Nothing. Those countries will then likely be subject to the ire of the common man and terrorist organisations rather than yours, not to mention that you would have the moral high ground [if that matters to you, some people don’t care obviously].

And who’s to say, if we stop arming our allies, that the people funding and arming their and our enemies will stop?

I doubt Osama will stop. He is what he is now, and he will likely hate you no matter what you do. He’ll have a hard time finding recruits though, instead of apparently having to turn people away.

I tend to consider these things long term though, as well as short term. I care what happens to my country in a generation, two generations. I care what position it’ll be in when I die, and when enough time has passed those who still carry the bitterness of your actions today will lose their teeth, and that’s how it’ll end. It won’t end instantly, but it’ll slow down. Note that this requires more than just not supporting the Sauds, they’re just the example we’re using because it’s simple.

Also, I’m suggesting you pick your allies more carefully rather than that you do not arm them. And that you don’t overthrow the government/oppress the people of other countries.

We have also learned a lesson from history. Trust your enemies to be enemies regardless of your actions.

I hear the British are just waiting to pounce again.

[Gkhan]

[quote]will to power wrote:

We have also learned a lesson from history. Trust your enemies to be enemies regardless of your actions.

I hear the British are just waiting to pounce again.[/quote]

Nice.

“I doubt Osama will stop. He is what he is now, and he will likely hate you no matter what you do.”

This is exactly what I was talking about.

[rainjack]

[quote]will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The whole thing is about oil. A safe, reliable oil supply. Like it, or not - the world depends on the US to provide this for them whether they want to admit their hypocrisy, or not.

Dealing with the Saudis is a necessary evil. Allowing the Chinese to hold the big stick would not be a wise move.

Love us or hate us - you know what you are getting with the US. The same cannot be said for China.

I was explaining how to stop people from becoming terrorists, though yes, this is why your leaders don’t do as I suggested. So long as you continue that approach though, people will hate you and try to kill you. Whether that’s worth it or not is up to you, I guess, but so long as you aren’t trying to argue you’re taking the moral course at least you’re honest.[/quote]

If the ME was really serious about stopping terrorists, money would be spread around so that everyone received the benefit of the US’s money. To blame us for the greed of those that control the incalculable wealth of the select few is idiocy.

You want to blame terrorism on someone? Put it on the sheiks. The US is only trying to keep the oil flowing.

Getting to the real truth involves only the simple task of following the money. Blaming the US is the easy way out.

[lixy]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The whole thing is about oil. A safe, reliable oil supply. Like it, or not - the world depends on the US to provide this for them whether they want to admit their hypocrisy, or not.

Dealing with the Saudis is a necessary evil. Allowing the Chinese to hold the big stick would not be a wise move.

Love us or hate us - you know what you are getting with the US. The same cannot be said for China.

I was explaining how to stop people from becoming terrorists, though yes, this is why your leaders don’t do as I suggested. So long as you continue that approach though, people will hate you and try to kill you. Whether that’s worth it or not is up to you, I guess, but so long as you aren’t trying to argue you’re taking the moral course at least you’re honest.

If the ME was really serious about stopping terrorists, money would be spread around so that everyone received the benefit of the US’s money. To blame us for the greed of those that control the incalculable wealth of the select few is idiocy.

You want to blame terrorism on someone? Put it on the sheiks. The US is only trying to keep the oil flowing.

Getting to the real truth involves only the simple task of following the money. Blaming the US is the easy way out. [/quote]

I don’t think he’s blaming the US here. He’s saying that arming the thugs and handing them piles of cash, is reinforcing their tyranny and makes any popular uprising very difficult.

And no, the US is not just interested in keeping the oil flowing. That is a ludicrous statement. What it wants, is that power don’t fall in the hand of the people, because they then might claim their natural resources. Keeping a few easily bribed dictators in power is much more interesting for Washington. That has been standard policy of every imperialistic power for a long time.

[rainjack]

[quote]lixy wrote:
And no, the US is not just interested in keeping the oil flowing. That is a ludicrous statement. What it wants, is that power don’t fall in the hand of the people, because they then might claim their natural resources. Keeping a few easily bribed dictators in power is much more interesting for Washington. That has been standard policy of every imperialistic power for a long time.[/quote]

Your ignorance of the US is exceeded only by your desire for prepubescent girls.

It’s about money. If we wanted to own your rat infested land, we would - and you know it. Your bullshit stinks even worse at night.

[will_to_power]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
will to power wrote:

We have also learned a lesson from history. Trust your enemies to be enemies regardless of your actions.

I hear the British are just waiting to pounce again.

Nice.

“I doubt Osama will stop. He is what he is now, and he will likely hate you no matter what you do.”

This is exactly what I was talking about.

[/quote]

Right, but he would be hamstrung if you cut his support from the people. And eventually, he will die. If you keep as you are there will always be someone to replace him.

[H4rdc0r3]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What assurances do we have that our enemies will not attack us once we do, and not take this as a sign we have weakness, or are laying down?
[/quote]

IBM’s

[lixy]

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Once again, the point being made is that the US is attacked and hated because we deserve to be. If we would just leave other people alone, they’d all become quite peaceful and leave us alone in return.

Islamic extremism, xenophobia, refusal to acknowledge one’s responsibility for one’s own situation, exagerated and distorted views of what the US can and does do, and a cultural proclivity toward violence play little or no role.

The US has no business trying to exert control over the world in which it finds itself (though all other countries do so to the best of their abilities),and is, in fact, responsible for the terrorism in today’s world. [/quote]

That’s not the point being argued. If you “just leave other people alone”, Al-Qaeda will still be attacking you, but they might not be flooded with suicide candidates. Tackling them becomes easier, especially when you work on the legitimate issues that makes the majority of the world hate your guts. It makes the job of progressists and moderates easy, and the regular folks would not be so ambivalent vis-a-vis the people trying to kill innocent Americans.

Terrorism has roots. People don’t wake up one morning and decide to blow themselves or buildings up. Ask ETA, the FARCs, Polisario or Hamas.

The main point Will_to_Power is trying to make, is that the current US foreign policy is the best thing that could have ever happened to Al-Qaeda. You reap what you sow, and if you’re not careful, 10 years from now, what you are doing around the world will bite you in the ass. Will_to_Power is saying don’t come crying and asking “why do they hate us?” when Iraqis blow up American civilians in the US. That it will happen is a certainty and no amount of shampoo grabbing at airports or privacy trumpling will stop that.

The US has no business exerting control over the world, period. Europeans learned that the hard way. America, as a country, is a childish brat who didn’t learn that bullying has consequences yet. It is at the peak of its power, so can only go downhill from here (relatively to the rise of China and a unified Europe). If you don’t change strategies, you’re basically asking for what’s coming to you. A significant chunk of Americans is starting to realize that and that’s the good news. Times have changed baby.

[will_to_power]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The whole thing is about oil. A safe, reliable oil supply. Like it, or not - the world depends on the US to provide this for them whether they want to admit their hypocrisy, or not.

Dealing with the Saudis is a necessary evil. Allowing the Chinese to hold the big stick would not be a wise move.

Love us or hate us - you know what you are getting with the US. The same cannot be said for China.

I was explaining how to stop people from becoming terrorists, though yes, this is why your leaders don’t do as I suggested. So long as you continue that approach though, people will hate you and try to kill you. Whether that’s worth it or not is up to you, I guess, but so long as you aren’t trying to argue you’re taking the moral course at least you’re honest.

If the ME was really serious about stopping terrorists, money would be spread around so that everyone received the benefit of the US’s money. To blame us for the greed of those that control the incalculable wealth of the select few is idiocy.

You want to blame terrorism on someone? Put it on the sheiks. The US is only trying to keep the oil flowing.

Getting to the real truth involves only the simple task of following the money. Blaming the US is the easy way out.

[/quote]

I do blame the Sheiks, did you not notice my referring to the Sauds as despots and human rights abusers in basically every post? I am not a fan.

My problem with the US is you keep them in power. You stopping your backing of those regimes doesn’t mean they will instantly dissolve, but the people would then have a chance because they would no longer be facing the most powerful military in the world.

And again, you would no longer share in the blame, and you would no longer be the target of terrorism.