The Real Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]will to power wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

We take ourselves out of the ME, and who’s going to guarantee a safe, dependable source of oil for the rest of the world?

Like I said - love us or hate us, we are doing what we have to do, and supporting who we have to support to keep the cars of the world running.

I really don’t give a crap if the US is hated. That will happen no matter what. There will always be a lixy, or a schwartzy, or someone of their ilk that will hate whatever the US does. Popularity contests are for high school girls.

222

[quote]rainjack wrote:
We take ourselves out of the ME, and who’s going to guarantee a safe, dependable source of oil for the rest of the world?

Like I said - love us or hate us, we are doing what we have to do, and supporting who we have to support to keep the cars of the world running.

I really don’t give a crap if the US is hated. That will happen no matter what. There will always be a lixy, or a schwartzy, or someone of their ilk that will hate whatever the US does. Popularity contests are for high school girls.

[/quote]

Yes, who cares if a few million people are oppressed, so long as you get their oil?

223

[quote]will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
We take ourselves out of the ME, and who’s going to guarantee a safe, dependable source of oil for the rest of the world?

Like I said - love us or hate us, we are doing what we have to do, and supporting who we have to support to keep the cars of the world running.

I really don’t give a crap if the US is hated. That will happen no matter what. There will always be a lixy, or a schwartzy, or someone of their ilk that will hate whatever the US does. Popularity contests are for high school girls.

Yes, who cares if a few million people are oppressed, so long as you get their oil?[/quote]

Not just me. The rest of the civilized world, as well. It sucks, but life sucks sometimes.

Tell me - do you walk everywhere you go? Do you use plastics at all?

It’s easy to sit in the comfort of your little world - you are in Australia, no? - and make the US the bad guy. But you are being a hypocrite if you think for one second that you don’t depend on what we do in the ME when you are getting on the bus, train, plane, or car.

Your hands are just a bloody. When you can rid yourself of the hypocrisy, then you can preach to me about the oppressed people. Until then - how much do you really care?

224

[quote]rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
We take ourselves out of the ME, and who’s going to guarantee a safe, dependable source of oil for the rest of the world?

Like I said - love us or hate us, we are doing what we have to do, and supporting who we have to support to keep the cars of the world running.

I really don’t give a crap if the US is hated. That will happen no matter what. There will always be a lixy, or a schwartzy, or someone of their ilk that will hate whatever the US does. Popularity contests are for high school girls.

Yes, who cares if a few million people are oppressed, so long as you get their oil?

Not just me. The rest of the civilized world, as well. It sucks, but life sucks sometimes.

Tell me - do you walk everywhere you go? Do you use plastics at all?

It’s easy to sit in the comfort of your little world - you are in Australia, no? - and make the US the bad guy. But you are being a hypocrite if you think for one second that you don’t depend on what we do in the ME when you are getting on the bus, train, plane, or car.

Your hands are just a bloody. When you can rid yourself of the hypocrisy, then you can preach to me about the oppressed people. Until then - how much do you really care? [/quote]

Trading for oil is not what I’m talking about here. It’s using your military to guarantee the regimes of despots. It’s a condition that doesn’t have to be there for continued trade.

And it’s not like you leaving the Middle East militarily would mean oil production would somehow stop.

225

Six people have been killed in a US air strike near the Iraqi town of Samarra, with some reports suggesting they were US-allied anti-al-Qaeda Sunni fighters.

The US denied claims by a police source and a militia member that those killed at the checkpoint were members of an Awakening Council.

The US-funded groups are credited with helping to curb the level of violence.

It came as four more US soldiers were killed in Iraq, bringing the death toll since the 2003 invasion close to 4,000.

Three soldiers died when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle near Baghdad on Saturday, the US military said.

Another US soldier died after a rocket or mortar attack on Friday, bringing estimated US fatalities to 3,996.

226

[quote]lixy wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Will to power also expects us to do the moral thing. Is blowing up Americans the moral thing to do? Do you support this action? Then when they begin rounding up Muslims as a result of this “certainty” will you support this action as well? Because one will not come without the other. It is also certainty.

227

[quote]lixy wrote:
The US has no business exerting control over the world, period. Europeans learned that the hard way.
[/quote]

Did you ever stop to think it is the Muslims who should stop doing this. Stop exporting Jihad. Then you would have no problems with The US and many other countries.

228

[quote]will to power wrote:
And again, you would no longer share in the blame, and you would no longer be the target of terrorism.[/quote]

So basically give in to all of Al Qaeda’s demands?

229

[quote]will to power wrote:
Yes, who cares if a few million people are oppressed, so long as you get their oil?[/quote]

Maybe we should blow up the oil production. Then everyone loses.

230

[quote]will to power wrote:

Trading for oil is not what I’m talking about here. It’s using your military to guarantee the regimes of despots. It’s a condition that doesn’t have to be there for continued trade.

And it’s not like you leaving the Middle East militarily would mean oil production would somehow stop. [/quote]

And I brought up a perfect example which shows how our foreign policy REALLY could work, and you refused to even comment on it. You and Lixy.

Do you think the US would have supported the moderate regime of Bhutto had she gotten into power in Pakistan?

231

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
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.

Will to power also expects us to do the moral thing. Is blowing up Americans the moral thing to do? Do you support this action? Then when they begin rounding up Muslims as a result of this “certainty” will you support this action as well? Because one will not come without the other. It is also certainty. [/quote]

No, to all of the above.

Will_to_Power don’t expect you to do the moral thing. He just is sick of you claiming the moral high ground when you kill innocents and create refugees by the boatload, torture people and support the overthrow of democratically elected regimes. At least, RJ and others don’t delude themselves.

You, on the other hand, remain convinced that the US represents Good and is somehow God’s gift to Humanity. You then go on to rationalize every action, by bringing up ludicrous justifications.

Blowing up anyone is never the moral thing to do. With the exception of defending yourself against an attacker.

If some people on this board had their way, they’d already be “rounding up Muslims” going on. But no, I do not think it’ll take place in our lifetimes. The erosion of liberties is indeed ongoing over there, but not nearly at the pace necessary to sell internment camps to the population. Meanwhile, blowing up countries overseas will continue. Business as usual for America.

232

[quote]lixy wrote:
No, to all of the above.

Will_to_Power don’t expect you to do the moral thing. He just is sick of you claiming the moral high ground when you kill innocents and create refugees by the boatload, torture people and support the overthrow of democratically elected regimes. At least, RJ and others don’t delude themselves. You, on the other hand, remain convinced that the US represents Good and is somehow God’s gift to Humanity. You then go on to rationalize every action, by bringing up ludicrous justifications.

Blowing up anyone is never the moral thing to do. With the exception of defending yourself against an attacker.

If some people on this board had their way, they’d already be “rounding up Muslims” going on. But no, I do not think it’ll take place in our lifetimes. The erosion of liberties is indeed ongoing over there, but not nearly at the pace necessary to sell internment camps to the population. Meanwhile, blowing up countries overseas will continue. Business as usual for America.[/quote]

They are not ludicrous justifications, no more than your justifications of suicide bombings. I am just doing what you are doing, explaining why things are the way they are from our perspective.

Like I said in another post, nothing happens in a vacuum. Would Iran have been better with a Stalinist dictator instead of the Shah? Probably not, but what other choice was there at the time? You condemn the Saudis, but say squat about the Stalinist heading Turkestan.

As far as business as usual goes, you can say the same for jihadists in 50 or more countries world wide.

Now, what about Bhutto or her party heading Pakistan?

233

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Like I said in another post, nothing happens in a vacuum. Would Iran have been better with a Stalinist dictator instead of the Shah?
[/quote]

“Stalinist dictator”? Where do you get this stuff?

Mossadegh was a nationalist first, and a socialist second. He had nothing to do with Stalin.

But the main point is: WHY THE F$*# DO YOU ASK IF IRAN WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER? It’s not your country. Leave Iranians decide what is best for them. What they do inside their borders is none of your business. It’s called the right to self-determination and is a universally approved Human right.

Oh, I don’t know…respect the will of the Iranian people?

Turk-what-now? What is that?

Do you see anyone here voting for the “jihadists” or financing them?

Over Musharraf’s dead body.

234

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Like I said in another post, nothing happens in a vacuum. Would Iran have been better with a Stalinist dictator instead of the Shah?

“Stalinist dictator”? Where do you get this stuff?

Mossadegh was a nationalist first, and a socialist second. He had nothing to do with Stalin.

But the main point is: WHY THE F$*# DO YOU ASK IF IRAN WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER? It’s not your country. Leave Iranians decide what is best for them. What they do inside their borders is none of your business. It’s called the right to self-determination and is a universally approved Human right.

Probably not, but what other choice was there at the time?

Oh, I don’t know…respect the will of the Iranian people?

You condemn the Saudis, but say squat about the Stalinist heading Turkestan.

Turk-what-now? What is that?

As far as business as usual goes, you can say the same for jihadists in 50 or more countries world wide.

Do you see anyone here voting for the “jihadists” or financing them?

Now, what about Bhutto or her party heading Pakistan?

Over Musharraf’s dead body.[/quote]

If he was a socialist, he probably would have alligned himself with the Soviets, hense, Iran would have fallen behind the iron curtain and probably have ended up with a dictator anyway. But, hey, if the Iranians wanted a dictator, then by all means, they should have had one…oh wait.

Turkmenistan. My mistake. Sort of like when Taiwan is part of China.

Turkestan is where the Jihadists from China are hanging out.

Voting for jihadists? Wait, Iran just had elections, didn’t they?

Hypothetical question (for the 4th or 5th time) if Bhutto had not been assassinated and became President of Pakistan, would the US have supported her?

235

If we should no longer give out weapons to countries, we should no longer give out aid or food.

If the countries have what they deserve, then they need no help from us.

Better to help our own next time there’s a hurricane, than to help jihadis in Pakistan or Indonesia next time there’s an Earthquake or Tsunami. Let the governments of their choosing bail out their people.

237

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If he was a socialist, he probably would have alligned himself with the Soviets, hense, Iran would have fallen behind the iron curtain and probably have ended up with a dictator anyway. But, hey, if the Iranians wanted a dictator, then by all means, they should have had one…oh wait. [/quote]

This is a severely twisted logic. By definition, the Third World was neither aligned with the Soviets nor with your country. Iran defined itself in that way, despite Tudeh being in Mossadegh’s government. And if they wanted a dictator, they have every right to pick him/her. A foreign power has no business messing around with sovereign countries.

Yeah…so? Is the ruler of Turkmenistan somehow preaching a murderous radical ideology and exporting it to the whole world like the Saudis are doing?

I answered that already. If Benazir was alive today and had 51% of Pakistanis supporting her, she still wouldn’t have a chance at the presidency. That position is under Pervez’s control and he’s not giving it up while there’s breath in his lungs.

Given that Musharraf’s rule is supported by the US, I don’t think I understand the question.

238

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If we should no longer give out weapons to countries, we should no longer give out aid or food.[/quote]

You’re a nice fellow. So let me put it in nice terms: STICK IT UP YOUR ASS!

The food and “aid” you’re giving to other countries is part of the problem. It created an assisted generation waiting for the others to feed them. Any aid should be structural or should not be. If it ain’t helping them make a buck, forget it.

Plus, your country looks like it could use the money anyway. I hear plenty of Americans die because of the cold or 'cause they can’t afford to see a doctor.

239

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Oh my God! Stop the presses! People are dying in a war!!! [/quote]

You missed the part where the war was unnecessary.