Why Chavez Always Wins

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:
…
Sure, everyone fighting the US is a terrorist, the US is not trying to kill Iraqis, except Iraqi terrorists of course, which is why it does not matter how many Iraqis die because of US´s actions.

If we narrow down our concept of responsibility long enough and make the concept of terrorism broad enough the US is not responsible for a single death in a war in undoubtedly started.[/quote]

Since terrorists are killing Iraqis at higher than a 600:1 ratio than the US is, I am not sure what your point is.

The US is hardly killing any innocents. The terrorists are killing many, many innocents. Saddam killed many, many innocents.

Saddam will kill no more because of the US. US soldiers are doing their best to stop terrorists from killing.

Blaming the US is bullshit.

62

[quote]lixy wrote:
…
The US (and its allies) are blameless with regards to the horrific situation in Iraq. They didn’t bomb, invade and occupy Baghdad; they liberated it!

You should be blaming Venezuela, Switzerland, China and the others for the emergence of market bombs in Iraq. A rule of thumb is that the ones who don’t speak English are the “bad guys” whereas the ones with the star spangled banner are the “good guys”.

You guys are blinded by the “liberal media”, “anti-Americanism”, and your sympathy for terrorists. Sheesh…[/quote]

Iraqis were killing Iraqis at a tremendous pace before the US got there. The US and its allies are the only ones trying to stop it.

You would have the US leave and let the killings unabated.

Piss off.

63

I don’t blame the US and the UK entirely. I’ll just say again that surely there must be some shared responsibility…at the very least, a degree of accountability for the complete lack of foresight about the sectarian violence which has indeed occurred…and the total lack (so it seems) of any adequate plan to deal with it…

Zero responsibility - I’d rather not use the word ‘blame’ - sounds very suspicious, very odd. Like kids hurrying away from the scene of a broken window…‘‘it wasn’t me, I didn’t see anything’’…

64

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Iraqis were killing Iraqis at a tremendous pace before the US got there. [/quote]

Americans are violently killing Americans at one of the most important rate worldwide. I’ll start a coalition to invade the country. See how you like it then.

65

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Iraqis were killing Iraqis at a tremendous pace before the US got there.

Americans are violently killing Americans at one of the most important rate worldwide. I’ll start a coalition to invade the country. See how you like it then.[/quote]

Bring it on.

66

But when the war is over, and Republicans and Democrats start killin each other in the streets,lixy aint responsible…

Heh, am done, no way I’m sticking around for this!
Laters…

67

[quote]pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
red bull wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Everytime a bomb goes off in the Baghdad market, the blame is on the USA.

You are an idiot. No one should take you seriously. Every time you post you should be derided.

Go away.

Well to be fair, I would say there does have to be a certain amount of shared blame…

After all, if/when peace is restored to Iraq, the country gets a proper functioning democracy etc - Washington and London will not be shy in taking the credit…

In that sense, surely they should shoulder some of the moral responsibility for a climate where bombs explode in market places…

Saddam killed his own people at an incredible rate. Saddam killed countless people in his invasions of Iran and Kuwait.

Since the US deposed Saddam, terrorists have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of Iraqi civilians casualties. I believe the ratio of victims of terrorism to innocent victim killed by the US is over 600:1.

So before the US invasion Iraqis were being murdered at a high rate by Saddam. Since the US invasion Iraqis have been murdered by terrorists.

The only parties in the last 30 plus years that have been trying not to kill Iraqis are the US and its allies.

This blame the US stance is bullshit.

Sure, everyone fighting the US is a terrorist, the US is not trying to kill Iraqis, except Iraqi terrorists of course, which is why it does not matter how many Iraqis die because of US´s actions.

If we narrow down our concept of responsibility long enough and make the concept of terrorism broad enough the US is not responsible for a single death in a war in undoubtedly started.

That was a sad attempt.[/quote]

I know, that is why I pointed it out :-)…

68

[quote]red bull wrote:
I don’t blame the US and the UK entirely. I’ll just say again that surely there must be some shared responsibility…at the very least, a degree of accountability for the complete lack of foresight about the sectarian violence which has indeed occurred…and the total lack (so it seems) of any adequate plan to deal with it…

Zero responsibility - I’d rather not use the word ‘blame’ - sounds very suspicious, very odd. Like kids hurrying away from the scene of a broken window…‘‘it wasn’t me, I didn’t see anything’’…

[/quote]

True. Post war plans were entirely inadequate.

69

[quote]Sloth wrote:
True. Post war plans were entirely inadequate.[/quote]

As opposed to what? Pre-war intelligence?

Seriously though, I believe that the ensuing chaos was part of the plan all along. Turning Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground was the perfect excuse to keep troops in there indefinitely. Fits perfectly into the PNAC’s agenda.

70

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
True. Post war plans were entirely inadequate.

As opposed to what? Pre-war intelligence?

Seriously though, I believe that the ensuing chaos was part of the plan all along. Turning Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground was the perfect excuse to keep troops in there indefinitely. Fits perfectly into the PNAC’s agenda.[/quote]

Pre-war intelligence was horrid. And unfortunately, I can’t help but suspect that bias played a large role in overreliance on what should have been questionable material.

As far as PNAC, to their defense they actually believed Saddam would be contained. I’ve read the document in question. In it, they even make a case for long term military posts in the Mid-east in order carry out a containment policy against Saddam for the long haul. Not that they were opposed to him being overthrown, mind you.

I see no conspiracy. I see a rush to judgment based on fear of nuclear/biological attacks in American cities. Extreme negligence, and not conspiracy.

71

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
True. Post war plans were entirely inadequate.

As opposed to what? Pre-war intelligence?

Seriously though, I believe that the ensuing chaos was part of the plan all along. Turning Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground was the perfect excuse to keep troops in there indefinitely. Fits perfectly into the PNAC’s agenda.[/quote]

Wow, I didn’t know your ass was a good source for factual information. Throw an Ethernet card in there and hook it up to the web. That way I can access it when searching for facts.

74

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Were the US GOVERNMENT to be responsible, I’d like it just fine!

But that’s not the case.[/quote]

Sure. You’re safe up there in Japan. A lot of Iraqis who are living abroad actually welcomed the bombings and invasion.

And to get technical, the US GOVERNMENT is responsible for its fair share of deaths.

76

[quote]Chushin wrote:
I wasn’t hatched from an egg and then flew to Japan at age one, Lixy. I’ve still got plenty of friends and family in the US. And I’d STILL welcome it, as would my friends and family, for the most part. Some things are worth suffering and / or dying for. Most of the Americans that I know understand that. [/quote]

Look, if you country came out of the colonialism shackles 50 years earlier, that a devastating war was left your country in shambles, that sanctions killed countless children, that the occupying forces were handing out contracts to their pals, that your natural resources were to be exploited by the occupiers’ corporations, that their leader gets all religious in his speeches, that military bases are set on you soil indefinitely, etc., you’ll have a whole different perspective.

Most Americans know that some things are indeed “worth suffering and / or dying for”. But there’s no way in hell they’ll allow foreign forces to decide their fate. And of course, you conveniently overlook the fact that “liberation” took the stage only after it was evident that Iraq had no WMDs worth speaking of, nor was there a plot between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Believe me, I perfectly understand your point. There’s no need to clarify it. I come from a place where the government regularly abducts, tortures and kills dissidents, and I would be more than happy to see a regime change to make it more democratic. But if foreign troops ever invaded it under the guise of liberation, I’ll immediately go to defend the same government I loathe so much. Even if it means taking a bullet for the dictators. Not only because I have seen them support the dictators throughout the worse atrocities, but also because I believe in national sovereignty. I do not believe for a second that a majority of Americans would react any differently than Iraqis if they switched places.

Why so? It is among the most lethal governments out there. Look at what they did to the natives. Look at the number of executions each year…

It’s an expression, you clod!

78

How’d this turn into a postulation on the Iraq war?

Chavez is an asshole and he gets his votes by buying them, threats and intimidation. There we go, back to the topic.

79

Question for Lixy, why when bashing the US can you go back into our history and talk about Native Americans, and when I go back into the past and bring up Europeans or Muslim atrocities, you and Orion cry foul?

Let’s establish some rules here so that we can trash one another equally.

If it is ok for you to bring up Native Americans to show “how bad” America is, how about I bring up The Ottoman’s extermination of the Armenians, Bulgarians, Kurds…Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, to show that America is not “among the most lethal governments out there.”

“I come from a place where the government regularly abducts, tortures and kills dissidents, and I would be more than happy to see a regime change to make it more democratic. But if foreign troops ever invaded it under the guise of liberation, I’ll immediately go to defend the same government I loathe so much. Even if it means taking a bullet for the dictators.”

Interesting take. Maybe it’s because the liberators are American and you hate them?

The Iraqi dissidents living abroad had a different take. People like Chalabi for instance.

80

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Well then you and I have different perspectives, don’t we.
[/quote]

I guess we do.

Of course it’s irrelevant. My statement was about switching places with the Iraqis. Anybody would react the same way, no matter their origin. I picked Americans because they were the instigators of the whole war on Iraq.

I was trying to make the point that the US government kills plenty of people too. It is evidently not comparable to Iraq, but the point should be clear nonetheless. How would have 18th century Americans reacted if some foreign power invaded them? Would they have shot at them? welcomed them with flowers simply because the invaders claimed to end a genocide?

Also, keep in mind that Saddam was not opposed to the idea of going into exile.

If you are willing to maintain that the majority of Iraqis welcomed the US intervention, let me tell you that you’re seriously deluding yourself. Even the hardcore pro-war crowd is not that much out-of-touch in general. This is common sense. If you can’t see it, well…there’s not much I can do to convince you.