EPT
Iraq
| Blogs > RebelHeart |
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
| ||
|
Schones_Chaos
United States226 Posts
| ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
imagine the games we could get out of that war, the iraq war has produced NO GOOD GAMES iran VS usa has much more game potential | ||
|
Pressure
7326 Posts
people keep dying even if it seems like our efforts are wasted, at least more people arent dying | ||
|
azndsh
United States4447 Posts
like masturbation is bad | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
|
Schones_Chaos
United States226 Posts
On September 01 2007 13:52 Kennigit wrote: YOU, should stay because you elected a president not once, but twice who wanted in the country. If you spill the beans, clean dat shit up what about those who did not vote for him? | ||
|
mcmascote
Brazil1575 Posts
Leave them. If they want a dictator thats their fucking problem. If they don't like Christians thats their fucking problem. Americans didn't like blacks in the past, yet nobody declared war to help the black people. Iraq society will evolve like the modern societies did, the problem is that their religion blinds them and they are doing in 2007 what Christians did centuries ago. Nothing more, nothing less. But a lot of African countries are in civil wars right now, why americans don't help them too? ^^ Pressure: MORE people are dying. But thats not the point. USA didn't invade Iraq to help them. Why USA didn't sent troops to fucking Haiti? They are at a civil war right now.. the answer? Haiti is one of the poorest country in the world, theres no benefits in invading a poor country. | ||
|
EpiK
Korea (South)5757 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
The US military leaving Iraq would alleviate the problems its causing by being there. Please articulate what problems you think the US presence in Iraq is preventing/limiting and maybe there could be a meaningful discussion on whether leaving is a bad idea. Here's the potential problems I've heard mentioned, they may not be the problems you're thinking of: The US Needs to Prevent Civil War-- 1) Iraq's civil war isn't any of the US' business. 2) I don't think the US presence is helping the situation even if it were their business. 3) Why should the US care about a civil war in Iraq unless... The US Must Gain Strategic Macro-economic and Military Control of the Region-- I suspect this is the primary reason the US has such a vested interest in Iraq, and why they won't leave. The issue here is that if this is the reason the US is there, they cannot allow democracy in Iraq to develop. A democratic Iraq would likely have a theocratic flavor, and would be friendly with Shiite Iran-- much to the disappointment of the US and their Sunni allies in Saudi Arabia. The US Must Dissuade Islamic Terrorism-- This is a joke concern. Its pretty clear that the US presence in Iraq is flaring terrorism, not dissuading it. If you've got other problems in mind. Mention them. | ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:31 EpiK wrote: People say there is violence because of the presence of US troops in Iraq. It is true that they might have caused it to escalate to its current state but pulling them out won't cause the violence/mayhem to get better. If they leave, the mess they've left will only worsen because the areas they had control over will turn into bloody battlegrounds. I don't think the US should have gone in to Iraq in the first place but they couldn't help their arrogant, greedy selves. They shouldn't just leave after causing such a big mess, its their responsibility to correct it. Agreed. What we need to do is STOP GIVING EVERYONE FUCKING WEAPONS. Let's face it, before the interference in the 80's of the world super powers, the middle east had SHIT weapons. And now with the US desperately trying to find allies in the middle east they are giving even more weapons to the people there who may or most fuckingly will shoot the shit outta their enemies. The US Needs to Prevent Civil War-- 1) Iraq's civil war isn't any of the US' business. 2) I don't think the US presence is helping the situation even if it were their business. 3) Why should the US care about a civil war in Iraq unless... Would this be where the UN would come in as a Peace Keeping force? | ||
micronesia
United States24745 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:35 Tadzio00 wrote: The US Must Dissuade Islamic Terrorism-- This is a joke concern. Its pretty clear that the US presence in Iraq is flaring terrorism, not dissuading it. Actually there turns out to be some logic to the argument that 'fighting them in their turf means we don't fight them here' although probably not for any of the originally provided reasons. If you want to know the exact reason why let me know and I'll explain tomorrow. | ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:38 micronesia wrote: Actually there turns out to be some logic to the argument that 'fighting them in their turf means we don't fight them here' although probably not for any of the originally provided reasons. If you want to know the exact reason why let me know and I'll explain tomorrow. yah, but you guys have went about the wrong way or are still going about the wrong way about it. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:38 micronesia wrote: Actually there turns out to be some logic to the argument that 'fighting them in their turf means we don't fight them here' although probably not for any of the originally provided reasons. If you want to know the exact reason why let me know and I'll explain tomorrow. Except... Iraq wasn't "their turf." Al Qaeda's turf was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The US is in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia is an ally in the region, so... the US fights them in Iraq? w.t.f. There's not logic there, brother. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
In fact, no governing nation has the right to police the world. And an international entity like the UN has proven itself to be ineffective, full of pompous hot air, unable to enforce its standards. The burden is too heavy for one nation. A confederation of sovereignties is too-loosely bound, and revealed as impotent in the ways of enforcement. To be plainly honest, the only viable long-term solution is to eradicate the followers of corrupt ideology, lest it further spread and cause countless more genocides, injustices, and acts of inhumanity. Fight fire with fire, cut it out like cancer. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
I don't think the US should allow a dysfunctional institution to influence her. | ||
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
| ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On September 01 2007 15:00 HeadBangaa wrote: The US should not police the world. It is not the responsibility of the US to save religious minorities, or end civil wars, or even to stop genocide; we did not enter WW2 because of the holocaust. In fact, no governing nation has the right to police the world. And an international entity like the UN has proven itself to be ineffective, full of pompous hot air, unable to enforce its standards. The burden is too heavy for one nation. A confederation of sovereignties is too-loosely bound, and revealed as impotent in the ways of enforcement. To be plainly honest, the only viable long-term solution is to eradicate the followers of corrupt idealogy, lest it further spread and cause countless more genocides, injustices, and acts of inhumanity. Fight fire with fire, cut it out like cancer. Right...so who or what is going to eradicate these followers of corrupt ideology? What FIRE are you talking about? You've just rejected the idea of any ONE nation doing it or any groups of nations therefore WHAT is going to eradicate said evils? | ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On September 01 2007 16:10 Beyonder wrote: There's something terribly wrong with the concept of 'invading a country to spread freedom.' It makes no sense. But now that America is there, they have to fix it. If they do not fix it, then they lose little credibility they have and leave the country without any proper structure at all. Invading doesn't make a lot of since, liberating does, but the americans didn't liberate much =/ that's the only problem...i mean saddam had to go, just the americans weren't the right people to do it. =/ | ||
|
Texas
Germany2388 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On September 01 2007 15:16 HeadBangaa wrote: What good is an international governing body when it relies on volunteer compliance? Should only the law-abiding countries be imposed upon? The faults are similar to poorly-implemented gun laws, with the same trap-doors. I don't think the US should allow a dysfunctional institution to influence her. An international governing body is as useful as national governing bodies. The only difference is scale. When Congress passes a law, it uses police forces to enforce it. UN peacekeepers serve in that utility. I don't understand why you suggest only law-abiding countries can be imposed upon. When an outside influence threatens the US, negotiations are initiated, and if that fails, Congress declares war. There is nothing to prevent the UN from doing the same. It doesn't take great imagination to come to the conclusion that the UN is as effective as the member-nations make it. With a veto system in place, the UN can only serve the combined interests of the veto powers, and non-veto power members must hope those interests coincide with their own. If the UN is ineffectual, it is because its member nations wish it to be. Its not unable to enforce its standards, but unwilling. Bush II may lament that characteristic, but I think its perfectly acceptable; its democracy, even if only in a limited way. Remove the veto system, and the UN more fully resembles a democratic organization and can only be resisted by overwhelming strength. The nations capable of resisting UN influence are quite easy to identify: the US and possibly China, though I strongly doubt that even the US-- despite its unmatched military strength-- would want to defy the will of a UN coalition once all diplomatic options had been exhausted. Rogue states-- countries that ignore international law-- must by their nature be strong or face severe consequences. Dissolving the UN would not remove any perceived inadequacies in the application of international law. It would destroy the capacity to create law. It would more fully subject weaker nations to the mercy of the strong and make international cooperation and assistance more difficult. Dissolving the UN to improve the enforcement of international law would be like dissolving the US government to improve the performance of FEMA. Its a fundamentally flawed attitude. If you want the UN to work better, dedicate the resources to improving it and remove the processes that prevent majority will from being executed. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On September 01 2007 16:11 Phantom wrote: Right...so who or what is going to eradicate these followers of corrupt ideology? What FIRE are you talking about? You've just rejected the idea of any ONE nation doing it or any groups of nations therefore WHAT is going to eradicate said evils? Good questions. Modern culture hesitates to label any ideology as inferior. But if all people could agree on basic humanitarian standards, and avoid political abuse of international governance, then I would be inclined to say that a collective of nations would be charged with enforcement. And just as the atomic bomb ultimately saved more lives than it took, so would a cleansing of inferior ideology. Unfortunately, relativism and neo-tolerance are enthusiastically embraced by the current and incoming generation. Consequently, there exists no such objective reference, and therefore, nobody is qualified to police the world. Full circle with my original post. My point is that the 'naïve solutions' do not work, and the viable solutions are too 'progressive' to be compatible with contemporary mores. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On September 01 2007 16:40 Tadzio00 wrote: An international governing body is as useful as national governing bodies. The only difference is scale. When Congress passes a law, it uses police forces to enforce it. UN peacekeepers serve in that utility. I don't understand why you suggest only law-abiding countries can be imposed upon. When an outside influence threatens the US, negotiations are initiated, and if that fails, Congress declares war. There is nothing to prevent the UN from doing the same. It doesn't take great imagination to come to the conclusion that the UN is as effective as the member-nations make it. With a veto system in place, the UN can only serve the combined interests of the veto powers, and non-veto power members must hope those interests coincide with their own. If the UN is ineffectual, it is because its member nations wish it to be. Its not unable to enforce its standards, but unwilling. Bush II may lament that characteristic, but I think its perfectly acceptable; its democracy, even if only in a limited way. Remove the veto system, and the UN more fully resembles a democratic organization and can only be resisted by overwhelming strength. The nations capable of resisting UN influence are quite easy to identify: the US and possibly China, though I strongly doubt that even the US-- despite its unmatched military strength-- would want to defy the will of a UN coalition once all diplomatic options had been exhausted. Rogue states-- countries that ignore international law-- must by their nature be strong or face severe consequences. Dissolving the UN would not remove any perceived inadequacies in the application of international law. It would destroy the capacity to create law. It would more fully subject weaker nations to the mercy of the strong and make international cooperation and assistance more difficult. Dissolving the UN to improve the enforcement of international law would be like dissolving the US government to improve the performance of FEMA. Its a fundamentally flawed attitude. If you want the UN to work better, dedicate the resources to improving it and remove the processes that prevent majority will from being executed. I disagree. A domestic government has infinitely-more cohesion than an international body, which loosely couples a group of nations based on their common interests. These common interests inevitably collide, and as we have seen, nations do not hesitate to place their own needs above the collective. This is not just true for the US, as we have seen France use the veto in political maneuverings, as well. Additionally, there is a subjective commitment to the agendas of the collective with respect to each individual nation, as we've seen from the heavily-imbalanced troop commitments. I don't see how you can say the only difference is "scale". That is a very problematic viewpoint and will lead to fallacious conclusions; rethink it. I'm not saying an international body is not going to work. It just won't work until there is a more unifying theme, other than ephemeral common interests. Oh, and I said that only law-abiding nations will be imposed upon, because the UN has shown that it will not backup it's sanctions when they are violated, else they would have burned Baghdad 10-15 years ago. Thus, there is no fear of force, and no vehicle of enforcement. | ||
Liquid`HayprO
Iraq1230 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On September 01 2007 17:03 HeadBangaa wrote: I disagree. A domestic government has infinitely-more cohesion than an international body, which loosely couples a group of nations based on their common interests. These common interests inevitably collide, and as we have seen, nations do not hesitate to place their own needs above the collective. This is not just true for the US, as we have seen France use the veto in political maneuverings, as well. Additionally, there is a subjective commitment to the agendas of the collective with respect to each individual nation, as we've seen from the heavily-imbalanced troop commitments. I don't see how you can say the only difference is "scale". That is a very problematic viewpoint and will lead to fallacious conclusions; rethink it. I'm not saying an international body is not going to work. It just won't work until there is a more unifying theme, other than ephemeral common interests. Oh, and I said that only law-abiding nations will be imposed upon, because the UN has shown that it will not backup it's sanctions when they are violated, else they would have burned Baghdad 10-15 years ago. Thus, there is no fear of force, and no vehicle of enforcement. K. We disagree. Allow me to attempt to illustrate my position. A proper allegory for the UN is the US. Consider: States (nations) act according to their own self interest based on artificially created, but universally recognized geographic borders. They pass and enforce state laws (national laws), and weigh taxes as they see fit. So they have a level of autonomy. They submit to the federal government (UN) and federal laws (international laws) guided by the principles of a Constitution (UN Charter) to facilitate and take advantage of mutual protections and benefits. Using progressive taxes (UN assessments), they cooperate to supply the federal government with funding to operate as well as manpower to fill roles in government (Ambassadors at the UN assembly), military (UN peacekeepers), and federal law enforcement (UN observers). When comparing the characteristics of the US government and the UN, the significant differences between the two governing bodies can be pinned down to scale, number of official languages, the fact that the original 13 US states can't veto the rest of the US, and the age of the governing bodies in question. As far as I'm concerned, cohesion shouldn't matter in a democratic government, only in an authoritarian one. US Congressmen and Senators from different states disagree on bills all the time. If cohesion is so important to governance, why hasn't the US erupted into another civil war? And I don't think you should use the Iraq sanctions to prove your point. Regardless of whether the sanctions were absolute, they were so effective that they left Iraq's population impoverished and its government without the means to defend its population against foreign aggressors. A good example of an ineffectual UN would be the number of UN Council Resolutions leveed against Israel that are unenforced. Why are they unenforced? Oh, because the US vetoed nearly every one of them as they came before the General Assembly. Get rid of the veto and the UN's effectiveness will be dramatically improved. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24745 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:49 Tadzio00 wrote: Except... Iraq wasn't "their turf." Al Qaeda's turf was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The US is in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia is an ally in the region, so... the US fights them in Iraq? w.t.f. There's not logic there, brother. Fine I won't explain what I mean since you obviously aren't interested. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24745 Posts
On September 01 2007 23:30 Tadzio00 wrote: Why should I be interested in the completely unconvincing "well, Iraq's a good location to stage a war that has nothing to do with Iraq" argument? I said I can explain something, and should be able to in a couple of sentences. If you want to be closed minded I won't stop you. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24745 Posts
On September 01 2007 23:47 Tadzio00 wrote: I'd be happy to read your explanation if it includes some recognition of the audacious levels of narcissistic jingoism required to accept the premise as sane policy. Uh anyway, the thinking goes, Al Qaeda doesn't want there to be a US presence in their region. They also are interested in Saudi Arabia. However, our presence in Iraq means we are in the way of their unrelated affairs in Saudi Arabia, so they seriously want us out of Iraq. These problems we create for them have the likely effect of distracting them from terror outside of their region, but that is debatable. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On September 01 2007 16:40 fusionsdf wrote: Arent you supposed to get a new account? Mani wasn't happy  | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
| ||
| ||
