ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY | January 12, 2010 09:36 PM EST | AP
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned.
The administration also plans to tell Congress next month that its central military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.
The administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration's budget plans through 2015.
The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with a goal of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and expansion of Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013.
The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.
The request for that additional funding will be sent to Congress at the same time as the record spending request for next year, making war funding an especially difficult pill for some of Obama's Democratic allies.
Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public. Story continues below
U.S. officials outlined the coming requests on condition of anonymity because the budget request will not be sent to Congress until later this month.
Obama's request for more war spending is likely to receive support on Capitol Hill, where Republicans will join moderate Democrats to pass the bill.
But the budget debate is also likely to expose a widening rift between Obama's administration – it sees more troops and money as necessary to winning the war – and Democratic leaders, who have watched public opinion turn against the military campaign.
"The president's going to have to make his case," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters last month at her year-end briefing.
The 2010 budget contains about $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That figure would rise to $159 billion next year under the proposals prepared for Congress.
The Pentagon projects that war funding would drop sharply in 2012, to $50 billion, and remain there through 2015. That is a calculation that the United States will save money from the withdrawal of forces in Iraq, as well as a prediction that the Afghanistan war will begin to wind down in the middle of 2011.
Obama has promised that U.S. forces will begin to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, but his defense advisers have set no time limit for the war.
The Pentagon projects that overall defense spending would be $616 billion in 2012; $632 billion in 2013; $648 billion in 2014; and $666 billion in 2015. Congress sets little store by such predictions, which typically have fallen short of actual requests and spending.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are expected to testify to Congress about the budget and the policy review in February.
The four-year policy statement is a more important statement of administration goals. For the current wars, the policy statement focuses on efforts to refocus money and talent on beefing up special operations forces, countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism threats and on cyber security and warfare.
For example, the Pentagon would like to expand special operations forces' aviation by expanding the gunship fleet from 25 to 33.
Why is the Defense Department's budget so inflated? Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost?
The war in Iraq was specifically created to enrich the corporations. The official rationale for the war was WMDs, which was shown to be patently false. The unofficial rationale for the war was oil. But is it? It seems to me that the no-bid contracts given to corporations like Halliburton for billions of dollars were nothing more than the members of the Bush Administration making money for themselves. Many people in government refused to give up their ties to the corporate world, although this is required by law and augmented their personal wealth, as well as the financial status of their respective companies using the influence of their governmental positions. Many companies were given billions of dollars in government contracts to help rebuild Iraq. They took the money, but did very little, if anything at all to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure or help Iraqi unemployment, basically stealing money from the American taxpayers and the future of the Iraqi people. Even the war itself is beginning to become privatized, with mercenaries from Xe Services taking part in raids and fighting besides American soldiers. Why are we still funding this war?
I thought people still referred to it as Blackwater and that the company changed its name because of the bad press its activities in Iraq was giving it.
I'm not convinced by the corporatist argument for the cause of the Iraq war. I agree with what you ruled out but think it might have been part personal vendetta from the crew who let Saddam back into power after the First Gulf War.
ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY | January 12, 2010 09:36 PM EST | AP
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned.
The administration also plans to tell Congress next month that its central military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.
The administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration's budget plans through 2015.
The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with a goal of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and expansion of Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013.
The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.
The request for that additional funding will be sent to Congress at the same time as the record spending request for next year, making war funding an especially difficult pill for some of Obama's Democratic allies.
Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public. Story continues below
U.S. officials outlined the coming requests on condition of anonymity because the budget request will not be sent to Congress until later this month.
Obama's request for more war spending is likely to receive support on Capitol Hill, where Republicans will join moderate Democrats to pass the bill.
But the budget debate is also likely to expose a widening rift between Obama's administration – it sees more troops and money as necessary to winning the war – and Democratic leaders, who have watched public opinion turn against the military campaign.
"The president's going to have to make his case," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters last month at her year-end briefing.
The 2010 budget contains about $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That figure would rise to $159 billion next year under the proposals prepared for Congress.
The Pentagon projects that war funding would drop sharply in 2012, to $50 billion, and remain there through 2015. That is a calculation that the United States will save money from the withdrawal of forces in Iraq, as well as a prediction that the Afghanistan war will begin to wind down in the middle of 2011.
Obama has promised that U.S. forces will begin to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, but his defense advisers have set no time limit for the war.
The Pentagon projects that overall defense spending would be $616 billion in 2012; $632 billion in 2013; $648 billion in 2014; and $666 billion in 2015. Congress sets little store by such predictions, which typically have fallen short of actual requests and spending.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are expected to testify to Congress about the budget and the policy review in February.
The four-year policy statement is a more important statement of administration goals. For the current wars, the policy statement focuses on efforts to refocus money and talent on beefing up special operations forces, countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism threats and on cyber security and warfare.
For example, the Pentagon would like to expand special operations forces' aviation by expanding the gunship fleet from 25 to 33.
Why is the Defense Department's budget so inflated? Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost?
Because if he wins it with a small number of troops, it looks good. If it doesn't he was trying to do it efficiently and when the Dems come in and boost it to the levels it needs to be to win, it makes the dems look bad.
That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.
ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY | January 12, 2010 09:36 PM EST | AP
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned.
The administration also plans to tell Congress next month that its central military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.
The administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration's budget plans through 2015.
The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with a goal of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and expansion of Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013.
The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.
The request for that additional funding will be sent to Congress at the same time as the record spending request for next year, making war funding an especially difficult pill for some of Obama's Democratic allies.
Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public. Story continues below
U.S. officials outlined the coming requests on condition of anonymity because the budget request will not be sent to Congress until later this month.
Obama's request for more war spending is likely to receive support on Capitol Hill, where Republicans will join moderate Democrats to pass the bill.
But the budget debate is also likely to expose a widening rift between Obama's administration – it sees more troops and money as necessary to winning the war – and Democratic leaders, who have watched public opinion turn against the military campaign.
"The president's going to have to make his case," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters last month at her year-end briefing.
The 2010 budget contains about $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That figure would rise to $159 billion next year under the proposals prepared for Congress.
The Pentagon projects that war funding would drop sharply in 2012, to $50 billion, and remain there through 2015. That is a calculation that the United States will save money from the withdrawal of forces in Iraq, as well as a prediction that the Afghanistan war will begin to wind down in the middle of 2011.
Obama has promised that U.S. forces will begin to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, but his defense advisers have set no time limit for the war.
The Pentagon projects that overall defense spending would be $616 billion in 2012; $632 billion in 2013; $648 billion in 2014; and $666 billion in 2015. Congress sets little store by such predictions, which typically have fallen short of actual requests and spending.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are expected to testify to Congress about the budget and the policy review in February.
The four-year policy statement is a more important statement of administration goals. For the current wars, the policy statement focuses on efforts to refocus money and talent on beefing up special operations forces, countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism threats and on cyber security and warfare.
For example, the Pentagon would like to expand special operations forces' aviation by expanding the gunship fleet from 25 to 33.
Why is the Defense Department's budget so inflated? Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost?
Because if he wins it with a small number of troops, it looks good. If it doesn't he was trying to do it efficiently and when the Dems come in and boost it to the levels it needs to be to win, it makes the dems look bad.
It's a win-win doing it that way
Party politics played little to no role in it. Rumsfeld's ego and his desire to show up Powell were far more important.
On January 15 2010 00:49 cz wrote: That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.
Vietnam was fucking awesome, what are you trying to say here?
Simply put...this war is a cancer. Some company is being awarded about $200 million to upgrade the M1A2 Abram tank. Recently Lockheed Marting sold 24 F-16's to Egypt for 3.6 billion...which would seem to be a move to increase it's stock value sadly. We have learned nothing from Gandhi damnit.
On January 15 2010 00:42 ghostWriter wrote: Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost?
Attempting to streamline the military into lighter, modular forces isn't a bad thing, it was just near impossible to make that transition during an actual war. Rumsfeld may have been a great peace time Secretary.
While it's fun to say in pop culture that the WMDs were fabricated, it's simply not true. I know it's not in your style to do any research, but the US army deployed fully expecting its soldiers to be attacked with chemical weapons, and most of the IRG forces expected they'd have the weapons available to attack with. No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted.
I'm sure there's some corporatism involved, but that's the way the American political system works and has always worked. There's always an economic component, and I don't think they ever tried to hide the fact that oil played had a role in rebuilding the country. In fact, I'm almost positive Wolfowitz, as big of an asshole as he is, openly said as much. It certainly isn't the only factor, however, as there are way better countries to invade if you just want oil money. It may not be as much fun, but you can't ignore the political or social motivations as well.
On January 15 2010 01:43 Jibba wrote: No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted.
If only someone had spoken up and said "hey maybe he doesnt have WMDs". Why didnt anyone think of that ?!?!?!?!
On January 15 2010 00:42 ghostWriter wrote: Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost?
Attempting to streamline the military into lighter, modular forces isn't a bad thing, it was just near impossible to make that transition during an actual war. Rumsfeld may have been a great peace time Secretary.
While it's fun to say in pop culture that the WMDs were fabricated, it's simply not true. I know it's not in your style to do any research, but the US army deployed fully expecting its soldiers to be attacked with chemical weapons, and most of the IRG forces expected they'd have the weapons available to attack with. No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted.
I'm sure there's some corporatism involved, but that's the way the American political system works and has always worked. There's always an economic component, and I don't think they ever tried to hide the fact that oil played had a role in rebuilding the country. In fact, I'm almost positive Wolfowitz, as big of an asshole as he is, openly said as much. It certainly isn't the only factor, however, as there are way better countries to invade if you just want oil money. It may not be as much fun, but you can't ignore the political or social motivations as well.
I know it's not in your style to do any research, but I suppose you meant the chemical weapons that America sold to them to use against Iran during the Iraq-Iran war and that were used to gas the Kurds. Those chemical weapons, correct? And I'm sure Saddam wanted his country to be invaded and destroyed while he was deposed and killed. That seems to be EXACTLY what he wanted.
he can't back out now. Bush and the right wing got America into this mess, Obama has no choice but to conitinue pumping troops into the middle east to appease the right wing and try and maintain stability that was thrown into question when America drove most middle eastern governments into hiding.
ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY | January 12, 2010 09:36 PM EST | AP
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned.
The administration also plans to tell Congress next month that its central military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.
The administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration's budget plans through 2015.
The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with a goal of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and expansion of Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013.
The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.
The request for that additional funding will be sent to Congress at the same time as the record spending request for next year, making war funding an especially difficult pill for some of Obama's Democratic allies.
Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public. Story continues below
U.S. officials outlined the coming requests on condition of anonymity because the budget request will not be sent to Congress until later this month.
Obama's request for more war spending is likely to receive support on Capitol Hill, where Republicans will join moderate Democrats to pass the bill.
But the budget debate is also likely to expose a widening rift between Obama's administration – it sees more troops and money as necessary to winning the war – and Democratic leaders, who have watched public opinion turn against the military campaign.
"The president's going to have to make his case," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters last month at her year-end briefing.
The 2010 budget contains about $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That figure would rise to $159 billion next year under the proposals prepared for Congress.
The Pentagon projects that war funding would drop sharply in 2012, to $50 billion, and remain there through 2015. That is a calculation that the United States will save money from the withdrawal of forces in Iraq, as well as a prediction that the Afghanistan war will begin to wind down in the middle of 2011.
Obama has promised that U.S. forces will begin to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, but his defense advisers have set no time limit for the war.
The Pentagon projects that overall defense spending would be $616 billion in 2012; $632 billion in 2013; $648 billion in 2014; and $666 billion in 2015. Congress sets little store by such predictions, which typically have fallen short of actual requests and spending.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are expected to testify to Congress about the budget and the policy review in February.
The four-year policy statement is a more important statement of administration goals. For the current wars, the policy statement focuses on efforts to refocus money and talent on beefing up special operations forces, countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism threats and on cyber security and warfare.
For example, the Pentagon would like to expand special operations forces' aviation by expanding the gunship fleet from 25 to 33.
Why is the Defense Department's budget so inflated? Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost?
The war in Iraq was specifically created to enrich the corporations. The official rationale for the war was WMDs, which was shown to be patently false. The unofficial rationale for the war was oil. But is it? It seems to me that the no-bid contracts given to corporations like Halliburton for billions of dollars were nothing more than the members of the Bush Administration making money for themselves. Many people in government refused to give up their ties to the corporate world, although this is required by law and augmented their personal wealth, as well as the financial status of their respective companies using the influence of their governmental positions. Many companies were given billions of dollars in government contracts to help rebuild Iraq. They took the money, but did very little, if anything at all to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure or help Iraqi unemployment, basically stealing money from the American taxpayers and the future of the Iraqi people. Even the war itself is beginning to become privatized, with mercenaries from Xe Services taking part in raids and fighting besides American soldiers. Why are we still funding this war?
lolollolol.
This news doesn't shock me one bit. One more promise broken by the Obamination Administration.
By the way I want to go on record with an "I told you so" for the whole increase in government spending thing... I mean $700 billion wasn't enough or anything last year... we can definitely fork up an additional $33 billion that we don't have this year
After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment. Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive.
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding.
We should have had some kind of election where we can all vote between the "pull out troops" and "stay the course" options. Darn how come no one ever thinks of these things?!
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment. Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive.
On January 15 2010 01:43 Jibba wrote: No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted.
What are you talking about ?
Even Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission for Iraq and WMDs stated that the UK and US government were lying about WMDs. Also i don't know what international community means for you ( Uk + Us i guess ) but the opposition to the war in France and Germany was important because nobody believed that Iraq had still WMDs ( except maybe some expired leftovers made before the first war ). Seriously man you have a major in International Relations ? -.-
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
On January 15 2010 01:06 meegrean wrote: I guess the US will just keep borrowing more money from China.
Except, the US isn't really borrowing money from China. The US is now borrowing money from /us/, the taxpayers and money that could be used to create government jobs instead of just shipping folks overseas as a half assed approach to fixing employment. For those who don't get this statement, think about how much troops we have stationed there. Remember we have a 10% unemployment rate. Now imagine ALL those troops coming back home when we're still at 10% unemployment and having to find jobs for these returning vets as well. Ughh ... the more I think about it, the worse I feel =(.
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment. Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive.
Are all Europeans this uninformed about America?
Most definitely not. But really the uninformation goes both ways (:
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
The problem with occupation is that you CAN'T pull out without them saying that they were better off before. Might as well just cut all ties and back out 100% now because no matter when it happens the same things will be said.
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Generally leaving a central government with little or no means to assert control leads to a failed state. Incidentally since the Iraq surge in 2007 Iraq has seen an improvement in its failed state Index, moving from 2nd behind Sudan to 6th, not a huge increase but certainly an improvement that was correlated (I won't conclude causation on 1 observation) with an increase in troop presence. So the anecdotal evidence suggests that the presence of an army that backs the central government is beneficial to the countries stability. Another example here that is off topic + Show Spoiler +
According to the political economist Paul Collier, Oxford, the 2 main risks to a weak state are rebellion and coups. In the case of Zaire, President Mobutu at the time thought the chances of a coup were too high, so he practically dismantled the army. The upshot was when the far far far smaller Rwanda invaded they were able to overthrow the government with consummate ease.
In this case not having a large standing army contributed to the fall of the state and since this lack of an army was due to fear of a coup the presence of a foreign army that supports the central government does not pose the threat of a coup (well I don't believe Obama would order one and so has the upside of helping quell rebellion but not the downside of a coup which would be equally bad for the nation
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment. Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive.
Are all Europeans this uninformed about America?
Most definitely not. But really the uninformation goes both ways (:
Yet I see a lot more non-Americans speak their unwanted comments about the US when they're in the dark than the other way around.
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Generally leaving a central government with little or no means to assert control leads to a failed state.
Good now predict what happens if we stay. Good points of reference would be a country that is similar to Afghanistan like say Afghanistan.
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Generally leaving a central government with little or no means to assert control leads to a failed state.
Good now predict what happens if we stay. Good points of reference would be a country that is similar to Afghanistan like say Afghanistan.
Well if the US and indeed NATO as a whole is trying to turn Afghanistan into a tributary state or a colony then they are doomed to fail just as Russia in the EDIT * 80's excuse me* and the UK in the 19th century. If they are trying support the central Afghani government then they have a chance, nothing of course is guaranteed but I'd rather Hamid Karzai in power than the Taliban given their track record.
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Generally leaving a central government with little or no means to assert control leads to a failed state.
Good now predict what happens if we stay. Good points of reference would be a country that is similar to Afghanistan like say Afghanistan.
Well if the US and indeed NATO as a whole is trying to turn Afghanistan into a tributary state or a colony then they are doomed to fail just as Russia in the EDIT * 80's excuse me* and the UK in the 19th century. If they are trying support the central Afghani government then they have a chance, nothing of course is guaranteed but I'd rather Hamid Karzai in power than the Taliban given their track record.
You can hold up any thing you want and say "No this time it will be different." But that doesnt change the fact that America is single handedly trying to prove every lesson of history wrong. And so far History appears to be winning.
On January 15 2010 00:42 ghostWriter wrote: Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost?
Attempting to streamline the military into lighter, modular forces isn't a bad thing, it was just near impossible to make that transition during an actual war. Rumsfeld may have been a great peace time Secretary.
While it's fun to say in pop culture that the WMDs were fabricated, it's simply not true. I know it's not in your style to do any research, but the US army deployed fully expecting its soldiers to be attacked with chemical weapons, and most of the IRG forces expected they'd have the weapons available to attack with. No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted.
I'm sure there's some corporatism involved, but that's the way the American political system works and has always worked. There's always an economic component, and I don't think they ever tried to hide the fact that oil played had a role in rebuilding the country. In fact, I'm almost positive Wolfowitz, as big of an asshole as he is, openly said as much. It certainly isn't the only factor, however, as there are way better countries to invade if you just want oil money. It may not be as much fun, but you can't ignore the political or social motivations as well.
The evidence the Bush administration used to support the case that Saddam had WMDs was misconstrued. The threat Saddam posed to the U.S. and his "WMDs" were exaggerated to gain public support for the war. In fact, the Bush administration leaked stories to the press and then went on news talkshows and quoted the stories as evidence that Saddam had WMDS and supported terrorism. After the gulf war, the U.S. had a containment policy of Iraq and continued to strategically bomb targets to prevent Saddam from ever rebuilding a strong army and develop weapons programs. Ironically, Desert Fox occurred under the Clinton administration, which was a missle strike that destroyed the majority of Saddam's weapons and his capability to make them. As for Wolfowitz, he really is a warhawk and he has wanted to get rid of Saddam since the first Gulf War. What is scarier than Wolfowitz's obession with getting in to Iraq, is the fact that President Bush truely thought that he could transform the middle east with democracy. He believes it can work anywhere and that the Iraqis would realize how superior our system of democracy was compared to their own and conform. Now I admire the fact that Bush wanted to transform the middle east into something better, because I feel that in some way we all would like to see positive change over there. However, it was a miscalculation to think that we could solve 2000+ years of fighting with the removal of Saddam and the implementation of a puppet government or at the very least a government that would be pro American. It is important to note that there were no Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq until we got there.
Our Afghan and Pakistani partners, as well as our close Iraqi and Yemeni friends, need all those billions, as well as those weapons and that training we are giving them, "to watch out for Al Qaeda." When Iran gets nuclear weapons, no doubt we will give a few nukes to our Egyptian and Saudi allies to maintain the balance of power. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong.
Listen going into iraq for WMD's was *kind of* a lie. (There was plenty of mustard gas there, just ask the kurds.) however i feel that some people forget this:
1. Saddam was a bad guy. I would venture to guess that Most Iraqis were rather happy with the crazy man out of the picture.
2. America was doing the right thing in that respect, however we now are facing the problem of pulling out.
3. I don't think that much for thought was given to what our prolonged millitary stay has done to the Iraqi people. Frankly, we had gone to liberators- and now we are nothing more than an occupying force in there eyes. We over stayed our welcome big time.
4. Going back to point 3- we are so deep in Iraq now, because of the fact that we had to *conveniently* destroy iraqi public works buildings, generally leaving the cities in disarray, with no electricity and running water.
So then one must ask- was iraq better with saddam and running water/ electricity, or is it now better with the US of A slowly rebuilding everything we blew up- all the while our army is slowly becoming nothing short of an occupancy?
Frankly there is no right decision, and Obama the christ cannot rectify this situation, nor can a measly 33billion. I have said this years ago, and i will say it again: Iraq/Afghanistan is our new Vietnam. We just can't leave. We will never leave. So yay for insurgents and the like. Acting like the world police force is slowly bleeding the taxpayers to death.
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Generally leaving a central government with little or no means to assert control leads to a failed state.
Good now predict what happens if we stay. Good points of reference would be a country that is similar to Afghanistan like say Afghanistan.
Well if the US and indeed NATO as a whole is trying to turn Afghanistan into a tributary state or a colony then they are doomed to fail just as Russia in the EDIT * 80's excuse me* and the UK in the 19th century. If they are trying support the central Afghani government then they have a chance, nothing of course is guaranteed but I'd rather Hamid Karzai in power than the Taliban given their track record.
You can hold up any thing you want and say "No this time it will be different." But that doesnt change the fact that America is single handedly trying to prove every lesson of history wrong. And so far History appears to be winning.
History doesn't say anything about relative merit of the Afghan central government and the Taliban EDIT Or other insurgent groups.
Personally what I want to see is a moderate (by central asian standards) Afghan government with de facto control over its territory and an eventual withdrawal of NATO-ISAF. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the people of Afghanistan that the Taliban or other extremist insurgent groups should be back in power, nor do I believe that these groups are the natural leaders of Afghanistan as opposed to the current central Afghani government
On January 15 2010 00:42 ghostWriter wrote: Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost?
Attempting to streamline the military into lighter, modular forces isn't a bad thing, it was just near impossible to make that transition during an actual war. Rumsfeld may have been a great peace time Secretary.
While it's fun to say in pop culture that the WMDs were fabricated, it's simply not true. I know it's not in your style to do any research, but the US army deployed fully expecting its soldiers to be attacked with chemical weapons, and most of the IRG forces expected they'd have the weapons available to attack with. No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted.
I'm sure there's some corporatism involved, but that's the way the American political system works and has always worked. There's always an economic component, and I don't think they ever tried to hide the fact that oil played had a role in rebuilding the country. In fact, I'm almost positive Wolfowitz, as big of an asshole as he is, openly said as much. It certainly isn't the only factor, however, as there are way better countries to invade if you just want oil money. It may not be as much fun, but you can't ignore the political or social motivations as well.
The evidence the Bush administration used to support the case that Saddam had WMDs was misconstrued. The threat Saddam posed to the U.S. and his "WMDs" were exaggerated to gain public support for the war. In fact, the Bush administration leaked stories to the press and then went on news talkshows and quoted the stories as evidence that Saddam had WMDS and supported terrorism. After the gulf war, the U.S. had a containment policy of Iraq and continued to strategically bomb targets to prevent Saddam from ever rebuilding a strong army and develop weapons programs. Ironically, Desert Fox occurred under the Clinton administration, which was a missle strike that destroyed the majority of Saddam's weapons and his capability to make them. As for Wolfowitz, he really is a warhawk and he has wanted to get rid of Saddam since the first Gulf War. What is scarier than Wolfowitz's obession with getting in to Iraq, is the fact that President Bush truely thought that he could transform the middle east with democracy. He believes it can work anywhere and that the Iraqis would realize how superior our system of democracy was compared to their own and conform. Now I admire the fact that Bush wanted to transform the middle east into something better, because I feel that in some way we all would like to see positive change over there. However, it was a miscalculation to think that we could solve 2000+ years of fighting with the removal of Saddam and the implementation of a puppet government or at the very least a government that would be pro American. It is important to note that there were no Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq until we got there.
Saddam was actually very anti Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden once listed Sadam as one of his prime targets in the region, right up there with the Saudi royal family. The Bush administration's idea was that if Iraq could somehow be transformed into a functional democracy it would serve as a paradigm for the rest of the Middle East to follow. The fact that Sadam was also a brutal dictator was just an added bonus.
I suppose the goal was noble enough, if a bit naive, but the previous administration made several large miscalculations and botched a lot of the execution of the original plan.
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Generally leaving a central government with little or no means to assert control leads to a failed state.
Good now predict what happens if we stay. Good points of reference would be a country that is similar to Afghanistan like say Afghanistan.
Well if the US and indeed NATO as a whole is trying to turn Afghanistan into a tributary state or a colony then they are doomed to fail just as Russia in the EDIT * 80's excuse me* and the UK in the 19th century. If they are trying support the central Afghani government then they have a chance, nothing of course is guaranteed but I'd rather Hamid Karzai in power than the Taliban given their track record.
You can hold up any thing you want and say "No this time it will be different." But that doesnt change the fact that America is single handedly trying to prove every lesson of history wrong. And so far History appears to be winning.
History doesn't say anything about relative merit of the Afghan central government and the Taliban.
Personally what I want to see is a moderate (by central asian standards) Afghan government with de facto control over its territory and an eventual withdrawal of NATO-ISAF. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the people of Afghanistan that the Taliban or other extremist insurgent groups should be back in power, nor do I believe that these groups are the natural leaders of Afghanistan as opposed to the current central Afghani government
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Generally leaving a central government with little or no means to assert control leads to a failed state.
Good now predict what happens if we stay. Good points of reference would be a country that is similar to Afghanistan like say Afghanistan.
Well if the US and indeed NATO as a whole is trying to turn Afghanistan into a tributary state or a colony then they are doomed to fail just as Russia in the EDIT * 80's excuse me* and the UK in the 19th century. If they are trying support the central Afghani government then they have a chance, nothing of course is guaranteed but I'd rather Hamid Karzai in power than the Taliban given their track record.
You can hold up any thing you want and say "No this time it will be different." But that doesnt change the fact that America is single handedly trying to prove every lesson of history wrong. And so far History appears to be winning.
History doesn't say anything about relative merit of the Afghan central government and the Taliban.
Personally what I want to see is a moderate (by central asian standards) Afghan government with de facto control over its territory and an eventual withdrawal of NATO-ISAF. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the people of Afghanistan that the Taliban or other extremist insurgent groups should be back in power, nor do I believe that these groups are the natural leaders of Afghanistan as opposed to the current central Afghani government
"This time will be different."
Well if you've nothing new or constructive to add I'll be off
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Generally leaving a central government with little or no means to assert control leads to a failed state.
Good now predict what happens if we stay. Good points of reference would be a country that is similar to Afghanistan like say Afghanistan.
Well if the US and indeed NATO as a whole is trying to turn Afghanistan into a tributary state or a colony then they are doomed to fail just as Russia in the EDIT * 80's excuse me* and the UK in the 19th century. If they are trying support the central Afghani government then they have a chance, nothing of course is guaranteed but I'd rather Hamid Karzai in power than the Taliban given their track record.
You can hold up any thing you want and say "No this time it will be different." But that doesnt change the fact that America is single handedly trying to prove every lesson of history wrong. And so far History appears to be winning.
History doesn't say anything about relative merit of the Afghan central government and the Taliban.
Personally what I want to see is a moderate (by central asian standards) Afghan government with de facto control over its territory and an eventual withdrawal of NATO-ISAF. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the people of Afghanistan that the Taliban or other extremist insurgent groups should be back in power, nor do I believe that these groups are the natural leaders of Afghanistan as opposed to the current central Afghani government
"This time will be different."
Well if you've nothing new or constructive to add I'll be off
On January 15 2010 02:44 travis wrote: relatively speaking, 33 billion is nothing
money numbers and figures has been blown so out of proportion these days, that 33 billion doesn't seem that much anymore.......
but for us, a billion dollar is still shit load of money, government spends Trillions(billions are so last decade) these days but the average joe still have got less than thousands to spend...
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment. Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive.
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment. Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive.
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment. Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive.
On January 15 2010 00:49 cz wrote: That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.
The US lost the vietnam war because the American people were weak. The media, for the first time in history, exposed in unflinching detail, the horrors of war to the sheltered masses and this had a tremendous effect on the public psyche. That war itself was incredibly cost effective, the ratio of American troops lost in relation to the Viet Cong was something like 200:1. The Vietnamese people are still bitter about the war, not because of the war itself but because the US and its allies abandoned the cause. Right after they withdrew, over 1,000,000 Cambodians were slaughtered in genocide. And to this day they're still in a quagmire of poverty, and communism.
It's actually quite like the blackhawk down incident. The US had the entire navy at the steps of Somelia but as soon as a few dead soldiers are shown on tv, their dead bodies being paraded and desecrated, the following day they withdraw all of the forces. That's pretty much like saying, "We're the most powerful nation in the world, but all it takes for you to beat us is to kill a few of our soldiers." And the results were similar. The country continued to tear itself apart in civil war, the government to this day is unstable, and no country within 100 miles will even touch it, or put in any aid.
You guys need to wake up, we are not leaving Iraq. Ever. There are permanent military bases installed there, this is no temporary thing, as long as theres oil/other ways of profit there. So of course more and more money will be needed to fund the "war".
On January 15 2010 05:06 ProdT wrote: You guys need to wake up, we are not leaving Iraq. Ever. There are permanent military bases installed there, this is no temporary thing, as long as theres oil/other ways of profit there. So of course more and more money will be needed to fund the "war".
We have miltary bases in Japan and Germany is WW2 still on? Not to mention bases we have in countless other countries.
On January 15 2010 05:03 ghostWriter wrote: What's wrong with the Huffington Post? It's a simple article about facts.
LOL are you kidding me. Please tell me you are joking. The Huffington Post is so far from the center (read: Extreme Left).
If you agree with their opinion that's fine but don't try to pass it off as fact.
(read: the article I cited was an article that just had facts. just numbers that the obama administration put out)
It's not an opinionated piece. If you disagree with their opinion that's fine but don't try to pass off facts as opinion.
Agreed, that article in particular is on every other news site. I wasn't talking about this one specifically. Last Romantic questioned why you would cite the Huffington Post. I gave a reason why you shouldn't because it will often be dismissed as you would dismiss something if I pulled it from Heritage.
On January 15 2010 00:49 cz wrote: That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.
The US lost the vietnam war because the American people were weak. The media, for the first time in history, exposed in unflinching detail, the horrors of war to the sheltered masses and this had a tremendous effect on the public psyche. That war itself was incredibly cost effective, the ratio of American troops lost in relation to the Viet Cong was something like 200:1. The Vietnamese people are still bitter about the war, not because of the war itself but because the US and its allies abandoned the cause. Right after they withdrew, over 1,000,000 Cambodians were slaughtered in genocide. And to this day they're still in a quagmire of poverty, and communism.
It's actually quite like the blackhawk down incident. The US had the entire navy at the steps of Somelia but as soon as a few dead soldiers are shown on tv, their dead bodies being paraded and desecrated, the following day they withdraw all of the forces. That's pretty much like saying, "We're the most powerful nation in the world, but all it takes for you to beat us is to kill a few of our soldiers." And the results were similar. The country continued to tear itself apart in civil war, the government to this day is unstable, and no country within 100 miles will even touch it, or put in any aid.
Wow, you really don't know your history do you? Vietnam was an unwinnable war, Americans were only losing ground every month. Vietnamese public resistance was enormous, the war cost absurd amounts, and the damage done to the vietnamese people and land horrific (Agent Orange). It has zero resemblace to Black hawk down, which is also a stupid thing to argue: Why the hell should the US have invaded then? Be dragged down into an unwinnable war, in a quagmire of factionalism in a backwards country? American intervention wouldn't have done any good at all.
On January 15 2010 05:03 ghostWriter wrote: What's wrong with the Huffington Post? It's a simple article about facts.
LOL are you kidding me. Please tell me you are joking. The Huffington Post is so far from the center (read: Extreme Left).
If you agree with their opinion that's fine but don't try to pass it off as fact.
(read: the article I cited was an article that just had facts. just numbers that the obama administration put out)
It's not an opinionated piece. If you disagree with their opinion that's fine but don't try to pass off facts as opinion.
Agreed, that article in particular is on every other news site. I wasn't talking about this one specifically. Last Romantic questioned why you would cite the Huffington Post. I gave a reason why you shouldn't because it will often be dismissed as you would dismiss something if I pulled it from Heritage.
It's true. Truthfully, I agree with many positions that the Huffington Post takes, but in this case, I only used the article as a factual piece from which to jumpstart a discussion. From now on, I'll try to pick my source more carefully, but as you said, it didn't matter in this case.
Bear in mind though, just because a position is in the middle, it doesn't mean that it's not opinionated. Fair and balanced is not always directly between the right and the left. And it's impossible to be completely objective when reporting anyway. There will always be some sort of bias, although the Huffington Post does put it on somewhat strongly.
On January 15 2010 00:48 cz wrote: I'm not convinced by the corporatist argument for the cause of the Iraq war. I agree with what you ruled out but think it might have been part personal vendetta from the crew who let Saddam back into power after the First Gulf War.
On January 15 2010 00:49 cz wrote: That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.
The US lost the vietnam war because the American people were weak.
Vietnam almost broke this country in half. And to charectorize the anti-war side as "weak" makes all too clear what your world view is like.
On January 15 2010 00:48 cz wrote: I'm not convinced by the corporatist argument for the cause of the Iraq war. I agree with what you ruled out but think it might have been part personal vendetta from the crew who let Saddam back into power after the First Gulf War.
On January 15 2010 00:49 cz wrote: That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.
The US lost the vietnam war because the American people were weak. The media, for the first time in history, exposed in unflinching detail, the horrors of war to the sheltered masses and this had a tremendous effect on the public psyche. That war itself was incredibly cost effective, the ratio of American troops lost in relation to the Viet Cong was something like 200:1. The Vietnamese people are still bitter about the war, not because of the war itself but because the US and its allies abandoned the cause. Right after they withdrew, over 1,000,000 Cambodians were slaughtered in genocide. And to this day they're still in a quagmire of poverty, and communism.
It's actually quite like the blackhawk down incident. The US had the entire navy at the steps of Somelia but as soon as a few dead soldiers are shown on tv, their dead bodies being paraded and desecrated, the following day they withdraw all of the forces. That's pretty much like saying, "We're the most powerful nation in the world, but all it takes for you to beat us is to kill a few of our soldiers." And the results were similar. The country continued to tear itself apart in civil war, the government to this day is unstable, and no country within 100 miles will even touch it, or put in any aid.
Wow, you really don't know your history do you? Vietnam was an unwinnable war, Americans were only losing ground every month. Vietnamese public resistance was enormous, the war cost absurd amounts, and the damage done to the vietnamese people and land horrific (Agent Orange). It has zero resemblace to Black hawk down, which is also a stupid thing to argue: Why the hell should the US have invaded then? Be dragged down into an unwinnable war, in a quagmire of factionalism in a backwards country? American intervention wouldn't have done any good at all.
You must get all your knowledge of history from the daily show. Vietnam was a war of propaganda. And that's the only war that the North Vietnamese won. The US and its allies won EVERY MAJOR battle. Let me repeat that, Khe Sanh, the Tet Offensive, the Eastertide offensive, the first battle of Saigon.... In each of these major battles, the North made some pretty grievous military miscalculations and suffered heavy, heavy losses as a result. When the Americans heavily fortified Khe Sanh, the North pelted them with everything they had but they could not gain any ground. Around 200 marines were killed but 10,000-15,000 North Vietnamese were killed. Um.... I'd say, the advantage goes to the Americans.
The US won militarily but lost strategically because of its huge loss in public and political support. The tet offensive was another tactical victory for the US. They lost around 3500 in all, but killed around 35,000 NVA. But this was not how the american public saw it. The media reporting was extremely damaging and shocked the public. As with any democracy you will see, the weakness lies with public/political support not actual military power. When the American people said "no" to the war, the war was already on the slow slide downward.
WarriorMadness is an appropriate name. You have the same soldier thinking process stuck in WW2 mentality as far too many others. Like how you define "won" as who killed the most other guy or who got this hill (only to forfiet it a couple hours later). Or how its "weak" to decide that the war is not the best option.
On January 15 2010 00:49 cz wrote: That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.
The US lost the vietnam war because the American people were weak. The media, for the first time in history, exposed in unflinching detail, the horrors of war to the sheltered masses and this had a tremendous effect on the public psyche. That war itself was incredibly cost effective, the ratio of American troops lost in relation to the Viet Cong was something like 200:1. The Vietnamese people are still bitter about the war, not because of the war itself but because the US and its allies abandoned the cause. Right after they withdrew, over 1,000,000 Cambodians were slaughtered in genocide. And to this day they're still in a quagmire of poverty, and communism.
It's actually quite like the blackhawk down incident. The US had the entire navy at the steps of Somelia but as soon as a few dead soldiers are shown on tv, their dead bodies being paraded and desecrated, the following day they withdraw all of the forces. That's pretty much like saying, "We're the most powerful nation in the world, but all it takes for you to beat us is to kill a few of our soldiers." And the results were similar. The country continued to tear itself apart in civil war, the government to this day is unstable, and no country within 100 miles will even touch it, or put in any aid.
Wow, you really don't know your history do you? Vietnam was an unwinnable war, Americans were only losing ground every month. Vietnamese public resistance was enormous, the war cost absurd amounts, and the damage done to the vietnamese people and land horrific (Agent Orange). It has zero resemblace to Black hawk down, which is also a stupid thing to argue: Why the hell should the US have invaded then? Be dragged down into an unwinnable war, in a quagmire of factionalism in a backwards country? American intervention wouldn't have done any good at all.
You must get all your knowledge of history from the daily show. Vietnam was a war of propaganda. And that's the only war that the North Vietnamese won. The US and its allies won EVERY MAJOR battle. Let me repeat that, Khe Sanh, the Tet Offensive, the Eastertide offensive, the first battle of Saigon.... In each of these major battles, the North made some pretty grievous military miscalculations and suffered heavy, heavy losses as a result. When the Americans heavily fortified Khe Sanh, the North pelted them with everything they had but they could not gain any ground. Around 200 marines were killed but 10,000-15,000 North Vietnamese were killed. Um.... I'd say, the advantage goes to the Americans.
The US won militarily but lost strategically because of its huge loss in public and political support. The tet offensive was another tactical victory for the US. They lost around 3500 in all, but killed around 35,000 NVA. But this was not how the american public saw it. The media reporting was extremely damaging and shocked the public. As with any democracy you will see, the weakness lies with public/political support not actual military power. When the American people said "no" to the war, the war was already on the slow slide downward.
I enjoy the daily show. And it's pretty sad if America won every major battle, but still had to pull out eh? Not exactly winning the war, is it? It was a mistake to go into Vietnam anyway. They rationalized it because they saw it as a war of Democracy vs Communism and thought all communist countries were acting in concert, when Vietnam and China were at odds with one another and have been enemies for a long time.
I think that Warrior Madness wanted to say that the US didn't even use the full potential of their army. The war was completly useless and Ev- but that's another question.
Not so funny fact but quite interesting: the French army lost more people in Vietnam than the American army and nobody remember this war nowadays in France. Yea it happened a couple of years before and most of the casualties weren't metropolitan French or conscripts but still it is kinda interesting to see how 70K casualties and 300K injured soldiers traumatized a country as large than the US. It also showed why conscription is terrible and the tremendous impact of the medias when you fight abroad and your country isn't really endangered.
Most of the post colonial wars have been lost because at one point people in Western countries realized that when you have all the native civilians agaisnt you can't really win. You have either to bring huge amount of troops which is really costly and/or slaugther the population. Hopefully the Western public opinion has matured a lot after the two WW and torture, civilian executions or napalm bombings aren't really popular hence the withdrawal.
On January 15 2010 07:45 Boblion wrote: I think that Warrior Madness wanted to say that the US didn't even use the full potential of their army. The war was completly useless and Ev- but that's another question.
Not so funny fact but quite interesting: the French army lost more people in Vietnam than the American army and nobody remember this war nowadays in France. Yea it happened a couple of years before and most of the casualties weren't metropolitan French or conscripts but still it is kinda interesting to see how 70K casualties and 300K injured soldiers traumatized a country as large than the US. It also showed why conscription is terrible and the tremendous impact of the medias when you fight abroad and your country isn't really endangered.
Most of the post colonial wars have been lost because at one point people in Western countries realized that when you have all the native civilians agaisnt you can't really win. You have either to bring huge amount of troops which is really costly and/or slaugther the population. Hopefully the Western public opinion has matured a lot after the two WW and torture, civilian executions or napalm bombings aren't really popular hence the withdrawal.
Agree, you would have to be absolutely ruthless in order to cow the population. The way it's done now is to create a sense of shock and fear by dropping a ridiculous amount of bombs and such to frighten the population into submission. The problem comes when they recover though, as we are seeing in Iraq. Once they realize that their economic futures are becoming nonexistent, they start to fight back and it becomes a huge problem for the invading army. With the advent of the internet, it's becoming more and more difficult to act brutally without the knowledge of the home population.
But the American public is fickle, we've used torture in Guantanamo and it's public knowledge. Somehow, we have people on TV trying to say that what we did, like waterboarding, was not torture, although it clearly is by the Geneva Convention and by common standards of morality. By any standard, many people in the Bush administration should have went on trial and be in jail for the parts they played in this, but all of them are scot-free and they have actually earned millions of dollars instead, thanks to their corporate interests. We also see civilian executions all the time. However, we don't process it as real people dying, since the media only reports it as a statistic on a page. It's hard to humanize statistics.
On January 15 2010 05:06 ProdT wrote: You guys need to wake up, we are not leaving Iraq. Ever. There are permanent military bases installed there, this is no temporary thing, as long as theres oil/other ways of profit there. So of course more and more money will be needed to fund the "war".
I'm in the Air Force. If I'm correct... aren't the military forces staying in Iraq and a SHIT TON more are going to Afghanistan. If anything there will be more people in the desert. "Bring the military home" gig isn't happening anytime soon lol
On January 15 2010 01:53 ondik wrote: Nobel peace prize is in good hands.
QFT
I voted for Obama, but I haven't been paying too much attention to him, or his administration (I've been too busy to watch news and such) but all I hear is negative things about him, maybe its all just Fox news trying to rally the troops for the next mud slinging campaign, but I don't know anymore.
First off, I never stated anything about the justification of the Vietnam War. I was just responding directly to one of the posters who said that Vietnam was an unwinable war militarily.
On January 15 2010 06:39 Archerofaiur wrote: WarriorMadness is an appropriate name. You have the same soldier thinking process stuck in WW2 mentality as far too many others. Like how you define "won" as who killed the most other guy or who got this hill (only to forfiet it a couple hours later). Or how its "weak" to decide that the war is not the best option.
Yeah.... You're right. Just because one side loses a total of 200 troops and the other side loses 18,000.... It doesn't necessarily mean that one side is "winning". Umm, Okay. Also, since when did I "define" who "won" as the forces who suffer less causalities? (Not to be confused with who's winning). I think you glossed over the part where I wrote that the US won tactically, but lost strategically (Lost the war on propaganda, lost the psychological war, lost the political war).
The north focused their greatest efforts and largest available resources towards propoganda. Towards winning the people's hearts and minds by every means possible, even through gross lies. One such tactic was likening the American troops to the French in the 1946-1954 War. The North Vietnamese readily bought grossly inaccurate stories about atrocities the American troops were committing, with the French War still fresh in the public's minds. The entire population was enraptured by lies such as these and were willing to sacrifice untold amount of human lives in order for victory. Their propoganda was extremely sophisticated, had many goals and aimed at targets all over the world as well, not only in Vietnam.
North Vietnam was a like North Korea is today. They severed all outside contact with the world. So the leaders had absolute control over public opinion, what reached their populace's eyes, and ears, hearts and minds. The tet offensive was by all means a military victory, but somehow it degenerated into a moral defeat in Washington. And it's easy to see why. Whereas North Vietnam had absolute control over what would be heard, and NOT heard, the US and South Vietnam of course did not have such control. Every little piece of news, every little unfavourable detail, every death was plastered all over magazines, radio shows, networks, everywhere.
On January 15 2010 08:54 Warrior Madness wrote: The North Vietnamese readily bought grossly inaccurate stories about atrocities the American troops were committing, with the French War still fresh in the public's minds.
Do you have any idea how America would react if anyone, for any reason whatsoever, tried to "liberate" us? We would do the exact same thing as the Vietnamese. Wed fight them tooth and nail and when they destroyed our towns we would hide in the woods. Wed broadcast messages about fighting back and even though they killed more of us then we did them we would keep fighting until they left.
On January 15 2010 00:49 cz wrote: That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.
The US lost the vietnam war because the American people were weak. The media, for the first time in history, exposed in unflinching detail, the horrors of war to the sheltered masses and this had a tremendous effect on the public psyche. That war itself was incredibly cost effective, the ratio of American troops lost in relation to the Viet Cong was something like 200:1. The Vietnamese people are still bitter about the war, not because of the war itself but because the US and its allies abandoned the cause. Right after they withdrew, over 1,000,000 Cambodians were slaughtered in genocide. And to this day they're still in a quagmire of poverty, and communism.
It's actually quite like the blackhawk down incident. The US had the entire navy at the steps of Somelia but as soon as a few dead soldiers are shown on tv, their dead bodies being paraded and desecrated, the following day they withdraw all of the forces. That's pretty much like saying, "We're the most powerful nation in the world, but all it takes for you to beat us is to kill a few of our soldiers." And the results were similar. The country continued to tear itself apart in civil war, the government to this day is unstable, and no country within 100 miles will even touch it, or put in any aid.
You hit the right string there. The problem with waging wars this days is that the public just can't handle it. They're all about "Hell yeah! Let's kick their asses!", then they realize that sometimes you get kicked back...
And because the death toll isn't as high during the current wars (yet) and because media operate differently now (easier access, more freedom etc.) they're not dealing with "Three hundred thousand people have died today in wherever" but instead "Tom Whatshisname, Steven Hasanametoo and Paul Getsmentionedaswell..." which makes it a lot more personal and unacceptable (not to mention the direct, hq pictures and videos taken within combat zones).
On January 15 2010 00:42 ghostWriter wrote: Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost?
Attempting to streamline the military into lighter, modular forces isn't a bad thing, it was just near impossible to make that transition during an actual war. Rumsfeld may have been a great peace time Secretary.
While it's fun to say in pop culture that the WMDs were fabricated, it's simply not true. I know it's not in your style to do any research, but the US army deployed fully expecting its soldiers to be attacked with chemical weapons, and most of the IRG forces expected they'd have the weapons available to attack with. No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted.
I'm sure there's some corporatism involved, but that's the way the American political system works and has always worked. There's always an economic component, and I don't think they ever tried to hide the fact that oil played had a role in rebuilding the country. In fact, I'm almost positive Wolfowitz, as big of an asshole as he is, openly said as much. It certainly isn't the only factor, however, as there are way better countries to invade if you just want oil money. It may not be as much fun, but you can't ignore the political or social motivations as well.
I know it's not in your style to do any research, but I suppose you meant the chemical weapons that America sold to them to use against Iran during the Iraq-Iran war and that were used to gas the Kurds. Those chemical weapons, correct? And I'm sure Saddam wanted his country to be invaded and destroyed while he was deposed and killed. That seems to be EXACTLY what he wanted.
If it were publicly known that the weapons were destroyed, he would've been at greater threat from other actors within the region. You can certainly argue that WMDs weren't truly the biggest factor (which they likely weren't) but calling them a fabrication is just ignorant. It was fully expected that they'd be used in Nasiriyah and some of the other belts before US troops could enter Iraq, and many Iraqi commanders were only informed of their absence just before the invasion began.
On January 15 2010 01:58 Piy wrote: he can't back out now. Bush and the right wing got America into this mess, Obama has no choice but to conitinue pumping troops into the middle east to appease the right wing and try and maintain stability that was thrown into question when America drove most middle eastern governments into hiding.
I don't think that's the reasoning at all. Yes, let's kill some more poor brown people and our own soldiers so the right wing stays happy.
Most casualty numbers posted by actual nations involved are rarely accurate. If you take a look over figures, there are always various disagreements by historians.
like most said, this war cant be won by soldiers, it will be won by heart. if you really organise that country for that amount and you are out in 1 year. and you got the heart and thankfullness of all living there. ignore the handfull terrorists, the folks will take care on their own on freewill with passion. war over. maybe even 8 months and no chance ever recruiting there for the "terrorists" that want to fight "invaders".
simply art of war. sun tzu. clausewitz not even necessary.
American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way. Britain had a very similar situation in post colonial Malaya (now Malaysia). Anti-colonial forces with international communist backing. However it was dealt with extremely differently (although you could argue the French started going about it the wrong way in Vietnam and the problem was too big to be contained by the time the US got involved). Britain had a lot of experience at exactly this type of war dating back to the 1905 Boer war which they approached in much the same way as America approached Vietnam. The Malayan Emergency was never officially given the status of a war on paper, despite the fact that it was in reality. That technical definition alone helps an awful lot in limiting public protest. The local population were forcibly moved into guarded villages, cutting them off from the guerrillas. These villages were newly constructed for this precise purpose and were in defensible locations and surrounded with barbed wire, floodlights etc. However they were also well furnished and equipped, offering the poorest section of society utilities they previously lacked. Doing this stripped the guerrillas of provisions and recruits and undermined the revolutionary ideals of the population. Britain then struck back with constant special forces operations within the jungle, often using regiments which had fought the Japanese through the jungles of Burma in WWII. These soldiers had all the jungle warfare skills and local knowledge of the guerrillas as well as the ability to call in air strikes and reinforcements. They fought guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare with huge logistical advantages to the British forces. There was a campaign for hearts and minds from the outset which at key moments was supported with amnesties for disillusioned insurgents.
The situation was contained, the support cut out from beneath it and the enemies hunted down. It's kind of retarded that Vietnam actually happened after the Malayan Emergency.
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Well, since I already punched you, I should go ahead and stab you. Oh, I stabbed you, I should go ahead and shoot you. Oh man, I've already shot you, so I might as well kill you.
We shouldn't have gone there to begin with, but to say that there is ANY reason to stay is absurd.
On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote: American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way. Britain had a very similar situation in post colonial Malaya (now Malaysia). Anti-colonial forces with international communist backing. However it was dealt with extremely differently (although you could argue the French started going about it the wrong way in Vietnam and the problem was too big to be contained by the time the US got involved). Britain had a lot of experience at exactly this type of war dating back to the 1905 Boer war which they approached in much the same way as America approached Vietnam. The Malayan Emergency was never officially given the status of a war on paper, despite the fact that it was in reality. That technical definition alone helps an awful lot in limiting public protest. The local population were forcibly moved into guarded villages, cutting them off from the guerrillas. These villages were newly constructed for this precise purpose and were in defensible locations and surrounded with barbed wire, floodlights etc. However they were also well furnished and equipped, offering the poorest section of society utilities they previously lacked. Doing this stripped the guerrillas of provisions and recruits and undermined the revolutionary ideals of the population. Britain then struck back with constant special forces operations within the jungle, often using regiments which had fought the Japanese through the jungles of Burma in WWII. These soldiers had all the jungle warfare skills and local knowledge of the guerrillas as well as the ability to call in air strikes and reinforcements. They fought guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare with huge logistical advantages to the British forces. There was a campaign for hearts and minds from the outset which at key moments was supported with amnesties for disillusioned insurgents.
The situation was contained, the support cut out from beneath it and the enemies hunted down. It's kind of retarded that Vietnam actually happened after the Malayan Emergency.
..you, you, you .. give arguements beeing inequitable, immoral and cruel with more success ?
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
safe your friends, change the situation completely by doing this
On January 15 2010 10:13 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: like most said, this war cant be won by soldiers, it will be won by heart. if you really organise that country for that amount and you are out in 1 year. and you got the heart and thankfullness of all living there. ignore the handfull terrorists, the folks will take care on their own on freewill with passion. war over. maybe even 8 months and no chance ever recruiting there for the "terrorists" that want to fight "invaders".
simply art of war. sun tzu. clausewitz not even necessary.
On January 15 2010 00:46 Disregard wrote: We cant just leave, we will lose our dignity.
edit: Who cares, Blackwater sounds more convert and badass. I'll just stick to that.
thats just being stubborn, not being able to admit that you're wrong. if we made a mistake in going to war, why not just make an agreement to end it? i dont understand why the cost of our pride is so high.
On January 15 2010 04:11 HnR)hT wrote: Our Afghan and Pakistani partners, as well as our close Iraqi and Yemeni friends, need all those billions, as well as those weapons and that training we are giving them, "to watch out for Al Qaeda." When Iran gets nuclear weapons, no doubt we will give a few nukes to our Egyptian and Saudi allies to maintain the balance of power. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong.
This might be jumping to conclusions, which is why I'd only present to an anonymous online forum:
This whole situation reminds me of the Roman Empire in decline. In order to protect it's interests in often undefended provinces, the Romans would hire, train, and feed/pay mercenary "barbarians". Then the barbarians would inevitable rebel against the romans once they had the upper hand and simply turn the Roman training and weaponry against their former bosses. And this doesn't even mention the multitudes of whole legions that completely turned against the state in favour of their general.
rome-america barbarian allies/mercenaries - pakistan/afghan/iraqi/indian people being trained and equipped with american money and advisors
Oh and we need not look as far back as Rome... I mean look at the mujahideen in the 80's... I wonder who supported, trained, and equipped them against the Soviet Union.... WHO?
On January 15 2010 00:46 Disregard wrote: We cant just leave, we will lose our dignity.
edit: Who cares, Blackwater sounds more convert and badass. I'll just stick to that.
thats just being stubborn, not being able to admit that you're wrong. if we made a mistake in going to war, why not just make an agreement to end it? i dont understand why the cost of our pride is so high.
Razor... he [Disregard] was being sarcastic in his comment... this is further supported by the light-heartedness of his edit. Be mindful of each line of every comment young padawan.
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
On January 15 2010 22:58 Trezeguet23 wrote: On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote: American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way.
Yes. There is a right way to fight a colonial insurgency. That was what the rest of my post was saying. That after fifty years of doing it a country gets the hang of it. Contain the situation, isolate the guerrillas from the population, match their expertise and beat their logistics. But the French were shit at that stuff too and the situation was possibly beyond containing by the time the Americans got their hands on it. Still, their "overwhelming force" approach was very much the wrong way.
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
It's true. But I had nothing to do with it.
But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
It's true. But I had nothing to do with it.
But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too.
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
It's true. But I had nothing to do with it.
But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too.
I'm aware, but wasn't that like half a century ago?
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
It's true. But I had nothing to do with it.
But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too.
I'm aware, but wasn't that like half a century ago?
War hasn't changed that much and the United States is effectively an imperial power. Hell, half your air bases are old British imperial possessions which you rent from us and have done since WWII. Personally I think it's a legacy of the American foundation myth of a struggle for freedom against imperialism (which is bullshit anyway) that they refuse to learn the lessons of empire. That said, on the economic front America seemlessly moved into the old holdings of the British Empire and superceded it. It's just a pity that militarily they seem to insist on learning the same lessons Britain learned the hard way.
On January 15 2010 23:21 ItsYoungLee wrote: We still have a huge threat, we need to protect Pakistan from being taken over by the Taliban or we may be f*cked
Pakistan has a huge army, it's been glaring across the border at India for ages. And if the situation ever looks serious India will immediately pull back from the frontier to enable Pakistan to fully focus on the Taliban. India does not want crazy Islamic extremists holding Pakistans nuclear arsenal. MAD only works so long as both sides are rational. They'll even help Pakistan if it comes to that. Edit: And while I'm bragging about the British Empire, that whole Muslims and Hindus hating each other bullshit. We started that. Divide and conquer yo. The division of an entire subcontinent and a war that's been going on for 60 years so far. All completely artificial but once you light the fire of religious hatred it just keeps on going.
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
It's true. But I had nothing to do with it.
But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too.
I'm aware, but wasn't that like half a century ago?
War hasn't changed that much and the United States is effectively an imperial power. Hell, half your air bases are old British imperial possessions which you rent from us and have done since WWII. Personally I think it's a legacy of the American foundation myth of a struggle for freedom against imperialism (which is bullshit anyway) that they refuse to learn the lessons of empire. That said, on the economic front America seemlessly moved into the old holdings of the British Empire and superceded it. It's just a pity that militarily they seem to insist on learning the same lessons Britain learned the hard way.
I'm aware of America's status as an imperial power. However, it was very different from the British model. Rather than going in directly and trying to control the government and the infrastructure of countries (which we started doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and which I think is the wrong way to go about this), Americans went for economic control. They used their influence in the UN and their overwhelming military strength to cow opponents into submission and force them to liberalize their economies. For example, in Yugoslavia, America won by just sending in planes to bomb from the air and in Afghanistan, it defeated the Soviet Union by training and supplying the Afghan people, rather than sending in its own soldiers. This strategy saved a lot of money and avoided the risk of public displeasure by basically contracting out the human costs of war to other entities. However, under Bush, the United States started sending in its own foot soldiers on the ground, which was a huge mistake. Direct control means that the yolk of imperialism is much more visible and that people can see the occupier as soldiers to be killed, rather than a relatively unthreatening McDonald's and Coca-Cola.
I am very sorry to dissapoint you guys, but the wars in the Middle East are not there to bring the people there democracy, a better living standard or whatever arguement was used. The wars there a there to be sustained so that some groups can make profit of war. War means profit on short terms. It provides jobs, it keeps people occupied with what is happening outside of their country so they dont have a clue what is happening in their own country. America's rights are being torn dow none by one and you guys here are arguing about what is best for some foreign country. All of your liberties are vanshing one by one. It's starting In Europe too. We should not focus on foreign wars, but on our own countries and what is happening here.
America (and Western country in general, don't get me wrong) exploits countries which revolt, and then pay billions and billions to fight theses revolted countries.
That's called the "New World Order".
Well, anyway. The anti-production is structurally necessary to the Capitalists (wethere they are Capitalists or State Capitalists such as ex-USSR) system, as the Cold War and its ridiculous weapon race has proven. That has been explained in details by Deleuze 40 years ago.
Obama is the illustration that it's not by taking the power that one can change anything. We knew that already in France, as all left wongs governement have turned centrist / right wing as soon as they have been in power.
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
It's true. But I had nothing to do with it.
But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too.
I'm aware, but wasn't that like half a century ago?
War hasn't changed that much and the United States is effectively an imperial power. Hell, half your air bases are old British imperial possessions which you rent from us and have done since WWII. Personally I think it's a legacy of the American foundation myth of a struggle for freedom against imperialism (which is bullshit anyway) that they refuse to learn the lessons of empire. That said, on the economic front America seemlessly moved into the old holdings of the British Empire and superceded it. It's just a pity that militarily they seem to insist on learning the same lessons Britain learned the hard way.
I'm aware of America's status as an imperial power. However, it was very different from the British model. Rather than going in directly and trying to control the government and the infrastructure of countries (which we started doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and which I think is the wrong way to go about this), Americans went for economic control. They used their influence in the UN and their overwhelming military strength to cow opponents into submission and force them to liberalize their economies. For example, in Yugoslavia, America won by just sending in planes to bomb from the air and in Afghanistan, it defeated the Soviet Union by training and supplying the Afghan people, rather than sending in its own soldiers. This strategy saved a lot of money and avoided the risk of public displeasure by basically contracting out the human costs of war to other entities. However, under Bush, the United States started sending in its own foot soldiers on the ground, which was a huge mistake. Direct control means that the yolk of imperialism is much more visible and that people can see the occupier as soldiers to be killed, rather than a relatively unthreatening McDonald's and Coca-Cola.
I find Mc Donald and Coca Cola much much more globally damaging than all the soldiers you guys have all over the planet.
Wether it's a politico-military or economico-cultural empire, and empire is an empire. And nobody likes to be enslaved. America is as much as an oppressive nation as Britain and France were a century ago. It's more vicious and less obvious, that's it. And it will end up badly. As usual.
Plus the strategies US have used in Afghanistan to fight USSR is basically the reason why we have Al Qaeda today. People are not dumb or nihilists enough to buy the American dream anymore. As it seems that Marxism is not an option anymore, well... there is religion. But the real problem is that people everywhere have good enough reasons to die fighting America, as they had reasons thirty years ago to die fighting USSR.
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote: If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
It's true. But I had nothing to do with it.
But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too.
I'm aware, but wasn't that like half a century ago?
War hasn't changed that much and the United States is effectively an imperial power. Hell, half your air bases are old British imperial possessions which you rent from us and have done since WWII. Personally I think it's a legacy of the American foundation myth of a struggle for freedom against imperialism (which is bullshit anyway) that they refuse to learn the lessons of empire. That said, on the economic front America seemlessly moved into the old holdings of the British Empire and superceded it. It's just a pity that militarily they seem to insist on learning the same lessons Britain learned the hard way.
I'm aware of America's status as an imperial power. However, it was very different from the British model. Rather than going in directly and trying to control the government and the infrastructure of countries (which we started doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and which I think is the wrong way to go about this), Americans went for economic control. They used their influence in the UN and their overwhelming military strength to cow opponents into submission and force them to liberalize their economies. For example, in Yugoslavia, America won by just sending in planes to bomb from the air and in Afghanistan, it defeated the Soviet Union by training and supplying the Afghan people, rather than sending in its own soldiers. This strategy saved a lot of money and avoided the risk of public displeasure by basically contracting out the human costs of war to other entities. However, under Bush, the United States started sending in its own foot soldiers on the ground, which was a huge mistake. Direct control means that the yolk of imperialism is much more visible and that people can see the occupier as soldiers to be killed, rather than a relatively unthreatening McDonald's and Coca-Cola.
Economic control? Unlike the British Empire? How do you think the British Empire operated? The East India Company? British economic hegemony in Central and South America. When it could British companies would work with the local elite to exploit the native resources as a purely private enterprise. The local elite would live in the finest western style and their children would be educated at Oxford as an investment. The companies did not wish to administrate because that was hugely expensive and inefficient and the local elites did not wish to oppose the status quo because it benefitted them personally and they were replaceable. That system worked in South America right up until the British sold the trading concessions to the United States in WWII and continued to work until the socialist uprisings. It's kinda funny that America gets all the blame for that shit when they just took it over towards the end. Actual empire only arises in special circumstances. When a rival imperial power encroaches upon the monopolies of an influencial company and that company lobbies the Government for the official status. When the colonials get bored of being exploited and rise up, threatening the investment. Again the company lobbies the the Government to protect the British investments. A similar example is Egypt in which the King took out huge private loans from British and French banks, went bankrupt and the banks were faced with a huge loss. Unable to seize the assets of an entire country they got their friends with an army to do it for them. Some areas were simply too big or too strategically important to be administered privately. India was a private possession for some time, with the East India Company ruling parts of it and collecting taxes and having their own private army. Obviously a British company could not be allowed to simply become a country, accountable to no-one and able to call upon British support. Nationalisation of India was the only option.
However the British Empire was not founded on the ideal of glory for its own sake. It was not an empire built on conquest. It was an empire built on money. At its height it was far greater than the area shaded in on the map. Nor was it ended militarily (although it did face serious defeats in WWII). It was the end of British global economic hegemony that made empire unfeasable. Without profit there was simply no purpose to it. It should be noted that unlike France Britain engaged in an active policy of decolonisation. Rather than hang onto every inch long after the writing was on the wall Britain established stable states (although many proved less stable), kept as many of the profitable industries as possible in British hands and then left the business of governing to the people.
Edit: In short, you're exactly the same. Not only are you the same imperial model as us but in many cases you just moved in where we moved out. We sold off a lot of out more profitable parts of the empire during WWII, guess who was buying.
On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote: Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term?
Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:
On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote: [quote]
Here is a great question. Why not?
Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
It's true. But I had nothing to do with it.
But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too.
I'm aware, but wasn't that like half a century ago?
War hasn't changed that much and the United States is effectively an imperial power. Hell, half your air bases are old British imperial possessions which you rent from us and have done since WWII. Personally I think it's a legacy of the American foundation myth of a struggle for freedom against imperialism (which is bullshit anyway) that they refuse to learn the lessons of empire. That said, on the economic front America seemlessly moved into the old holdings of the British Empire and superceded it. It's just a pity that militarily they seem to insist on learning the same lessons Britain learned the hard way.
I'm aware of America's status as an imperial power. However, it was very different from the British model. Rather than going in directly and trying to control the government and the infrastructure of countries (which we started doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and which I think is the wrong way to go about this), Americans went for economic control. They used their influence in the UN and their overwhelming military strength to cow opponents into submission and force them to liberalize their economies. For example, in Yugoslavia, America won by just sending in planes to bomb from the air and in Afghanistan, it defeated the Soviet Union by training and supplying the Afghan people, rather than sending in its own soldiers. This strategy saved a lot of money and avoided the risk of public displeasure by basically contracting out the human costs of war to other entities. However, under Bush, the United States started sending in its own foot soldiers on the ground, which was a huge mistake. Direct control means that the yolk of imperialism is much more visible and that people can see the occupier as soldiers to be killed, rather than a relatively unthreatening McDonald's and Coca-Cola.
Economic control? Unlike the British Empire? How do you think the British Empire operated? The East India Company? British economic hegemony in Central and South America. When it could British companies would work with the local elite to exploit the native resources as a purely private enterprise. The local elite would live in the finest western style and their children would be educated at Oxford as an investment. The companies did not wish to administrate because that was hugely expensive and inefficient and the local elites did not wish to oppose the status quo because it benefitted them personally and they were replaceable. That system worked in South America right up until the British sold the trading concessions to the United States in WWII and continued to work until the socialist uprisings. It's kinda funny that America gets all the blame for that shit when they just took it over towards the end. Actual empire only arises in special circumstances. When a rival imperial power encroaches upon the monopolies of an influencial company and that company lobbies the Government for the official status. When the colonials get bored of being exploited and rise up, threatening the investment. Again the company lobbies the the Government to protect the British investments. A similar example is Egypt in which the King took out huge private loans from British and French banks, went bankrupt and the banks were faced with a huge loss. Unable to seize the assets of an entire country they got their friends with an army to do it for them. Some areas were simply too big or too strategically important to be administered privately. India was a private possession for some time, with the East India Company ruling parts of it and collecting taxes and having their own private army. Obviously a British company could not be allowed to simply become a country, accountable to no-one and able to call upon British support. Nationalisation of India was the only option.
However the British Empire was not founded on the ideal of glory for its own sake. It was not an empire built on conquest. It was an empire built on money. At its height it was far greater than the area shaded in on the map. Nor was it ended militarily (although it did face serious defeats in WWII). It was the end of British global economic hegemony that made empire unfeasable. Without profit there was simply no purpose to it. It should be noted that unlike France Britain engaged in an active policy of decolonisation. Rather than hang onto every inch long after the writing was on the wall Britain established stable states (although many proved less stable), kept as many of the profitable industries as possible in British hands and then left the business of governing to the people.
Edit: In short, you're exactly the same. Not only are you the same imperial model as us but in many cases you just moved in where we moved out. We sold off a lot of out more profitable parts of the empire during WWII, guess who was buying.
Absolutely. It is funny how England has made its empire through hundred of isolated trading posts (protected by its army, have to admit that), when France was basically going with its army to conquest new territories. Apparently, the British method worked better.
Technically it was the Dutch method too lol. Everyone forgets we got taken over by the Dutch in 1688. With them they brought Dutch style economic imperialism, the stock exchange and a national bank. Despite being tiny the Netherlands was a highly effective imperial power, combining private enterprise with state backed financial apparatus to gain wealth far beyond its means. When they got their hands on a population the size of Britains shit really got going.
On January 16 2010 00:01 KwarK wrote: Technically it was the Dutch method too lol. Everyone forgets we got taken over by the Dutch in 1688. With him he brought Dutch style economic imperialism, the stock exchange and a national bank. Despite being tiny the Netherlands was a highly effective imperial power, combining private enterprise with state backed financial apparatus to gain wealth far beyond its means. When they got their hands on a population the size of Britains shit really got going.
Really? Wow, I didn't know that. Actually, I never studied Dutch colonial history at all. Point being, what you describe is the birth of global capitalism as we know it today.
Political discussions are mostly sooooo damn ridicilous .
Around 95 % people here have no idea what they are talking about.
Dear Sherlocks,
Of course u damn know that the politics are so simple .
All the implications of tremendously vast network created by manipulation, various interests, influences of various political and non-political , hidden and non-hidden organizations, infighting in them and between them, tremendously vast network of international, global scale hidden and non-hidden manipulation and misinformation systems in which media play important role but its so vast that they aren`t even all that important, new hidden and non-hidden technologies, knowledge, power, all these coupled to intentional and mostly unintentional and unconcious misunderstanding and ignorance of most people who most live with everyday ............................it all does not matter at all, you actually can tell the truth without knowing these elements and u don`t even need to use any complicated logic to do that
You don`t need to look at any larger picture, your logic is right, you are not spreading bullshit and you do not belong to those blind masses with whom you can do whatever you want because it is possible to decrease their sensitivity and intelligence to almost non-existent lvls and they never will find out or even understand any of the actual facts, not to even mention meaning of those facts.
Why even bother about all of these ? Just go to church or follow the law and be a decent man. Its nice to have political views so say something about it from time to time, you are even free to forget that what u say is worthless and meaningless and has nothing to do with reality. Its a good strategy.
Why do you guys keep on connecting the supra-national corporations with the US? It's not like the US government had any direct opportunity to cause global McDonaldization. If anything, the corporations use their lobbies to nudge national governments. It's the invisible hand of the market that causes some of this shit - not that I thought the hand is bad thing per se, it's simply a blind beast feeding itself without any reflection. And as it's become more powerful, it starts to exploit the holes and weaknesses in our political systems, merging with it, mutating.. I guess the zerg are not bad either, just for the poor middle class terrans and hopelessly failing protoss elite.
Getting slightly back on topic. If the United States knew their history they wouldn't be in this situation. They'd have left all the old elites in power and ideally just pensioned off Saddam after explaining to him the other options. They'd have set the Sunni and Shia at each others throats and taken all the oil while nobody noticed. Every now and then they'd give some guns and money to whichever warlord was keeping the oil pumping along with the latest cool gadgets, fastest sports cars etc. They'd educate his heir in the American way of thinking and would never consider sending American soldiers there unless someone else realised they were onto a good thing and wanted in on it. This whole state building thing is far too ethical for empire. Once you create a state it gets a sense of entitlement over its own possessions which really gets in the way of the corporate theft which was the entire point. The best empire is one nobody realises their a part of because they're all too busy making money or making someone else money.
On January 16 2010 00:13 KwarK wrote: Getting slightly back on topic. If the United States knew their history they wouldn't be in this situation. They'd have left all the old elites in power and ideally just pensioned off Saddam after explaining to him the other options. They'd have set the Sunni and Shia at each others throats and taken all the oil while nobody noticed. Every now and then they'd give some guns and money to whichever warlord was keeping the oil pumping along with the latest cool gadgets, fastest sports cars etc. They'd educate his heir in the American way of thinking and would never consider sending American soldiers there unless someone else realised they were onto a good thing and wanted in on it. This whole state building thing is far too ethical for empire. Once you create a state it gets a sense of entitlement over its own possessions which really gets in the way of the corporate theft which was the entire point. The best empire is one nobody realises their a part of because they're all too busy making money or making someone else money.
I doubt they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. I was under the impression that the rebuilding of the state was paid for by the U.S. government in billions of dollars of contracts to companies that didn't even finish the job that they were contracted to do.
On January 16 2010 00:08 UFO wrote: Political discussions are mostly sooooo damn ridicilous .
Maybe if you spelled the word that you bolded correctly, people would take you seriously.
And obviously the British Empire was created for its economic benefits. That's not what I meant to say, even though it came out like that. I meant that I was under the impression that America is less direct in their governance of the territories that it controlled, in a way that is dissimilar to the the British controlled India. I forgot that it started as a bunch of colonies on the coasts and slowly spread inward as the infrastructure was built that allowed for the British to penetrate. Now that I think about it, you're totally correct and my thinking was a bit short-sighted. I was only thinking about the more recent ways that the British empire operated and didn't consider its earlier events.
On January 16 2010 00:13 KwarK wrote: Getting slightly back on topic. If the United States knew their history they wouldn't be in this situation. They'd have left all the old elites in power and ideally just pensioned off Saddam after explaining to him the other options. They'd have set the Sunni and Shia at each others throats and taken all the oil while nobody noticed. Every now and then they'd give some guns and money to whichever warlord was keeping the oil pumping along with the latest cool gadgets, fastest sports cars etc. They'd educate his heir in the American way of thinking and would never consider sending American soldiers there unless someone else realised they were onto a good thing and wanted in on it. This whole state building thing is far too ethical for empire. Once you create a state it gets a sense of entitlement over its own possessions which really gets in the way of the corporate theft which was the entire point. The best empire is one nobody realises their a part of because they're all too busy making money or making someone else money.
I doubt they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. I was under the impression that the rebuilding of the state was paid for by the U.S. government in billions of dollars of contracts to companies that didn't even finish the job that they were contracted to do.
It's still hugely expensive and the bill is going to the US government despite the fact that they're not the ones looking to make the profit. And all the soldiering is being done by them. Another advantage of utilising local elites is that they do the fighting for you which is great because then it doesn't matter how bloody the war is because it doesn't count. No white people die. And what's even more hilarious is that your local puppet is unpopular because he's oppressing the masses on your behalf so he's always struggling to survive. And that means you can sell him the latest weapons at extortionate prices. Not only are you exploiting the resources of the country but you also exploit the population by proxy and you can exploit the guy everyone is blaming for it. As I said, the only time you're stupid enough to actually invade a place is when some other imperial power realises how amazing the scam is and tries to muscle in on it.
On January 16 2010 00:12 antiq wrote: Why do you guys keep on connecting the supra-national corporations with the US? It's not like the US government had any direct opportunity to cause global McDonaldization. If anything, the corporations use their lobbies to nudge national governments. It's the invisible hand of the market that causes some of this shit - not that I thought the hand is bad thing per se, it's simply a blind beast feeding itself without any reflection. And as it's become more powerful, it starts to exploit the holes and weaknesses in our political systems, merging with it, mutating.. I guess the zerg are not bad either, just for the poor middle class terrans and hopelessly failing protoss elite.
Super-national corporations do have a lot to do with US as it is an economic giant, so its important piece on their chessboard so you can`t say there is no connection.
On January 15 2010 22:58 Trezeguet23 wrote: On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote: American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way.
Yes. There is a right way to fight a colonial insurgency. That was what the rest of my post was saying. That after fifty years of doing it a country gets the hang of it. Contain the situation, isolate the guerrillas from the population, match their expertise and beat their logistics. But the French were shit at that stuff too and the situation was possibly beyond containing by the time the Americans got their hands on it. Still, their "overwhelming force" approach was very much the wrong way.
I don't want to be mean Kwark but i don't think at all that the wars lost by the French or the Americans would have been won by the U-K. We all see how good they are today in Afghanistan or Iraq.... oh wait they aren't doing better than the Americans.
However i have to admit that the U-K has always managed to withdraw before things got really messy and bloody which was the smart move.
On January 16 2010 00:12 antiq wrote: Why do you guys keep on connecting the supra-national corporations with the US? It's not like the US government had any direct opportunity to cause global McDonaldization. If anything, the corporations use their lobbies to nudge national governments. It's the invisible hand of the market that causes some of this shit - not that I thought the hand is bad thing per se, it's simply a blind beast feeding itself without any reflection. And as it's become more powerful, it starts to exploit the holes and weaknesses in our political systems, merging with it, mutating.. I guess the zerg are not bad either, just for the poor middle class terrans and hopelessly failing protoss elite.
Nerdy comparison apart, what we call the US is a composite ensemble of the American people, the American government, the American Corporations, the Amrican system, and the American ideology.
Everything is related, as the system makes that government cannot do anything but help by any way possible its big companies, that people vote for their government which helps theses companies, that theses companies are owned by an oligarchy of extremely rich and mediatically powerful people who have extremely closed connection to the power because of the nature of the liberalized political system in the US, etc etc etc etc etc..., all this supported by an ideology which says that liberal democracy and global capitalism is the best system possible and that there is nithing to do to imagine a better one.
On January 16 2010 00:08 UFO wrote: Political discussions are mostly sooooo damn ridicilous .
Maybe if you spelled the word that you bolded correctly, people would take you seriously.
I would be really suprised if people actually did. This is a discussion where your main painter is ego ambition with its ignorance so if someone uses something else than everyone - he can`t be serious, can he ?
That bolded word was spelled that way on purpose - just for that it was sure that someone like you would appear and point it out. It might be useful for what will I say in the future.
On January 15 2010 22:58 Trezeguet23 wrote: On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote: American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way.
Yes. There is a right way to fight a colonial insurgency. That was what the rest of my post was saying. That after fifty years of doing it a country gets the hang of it. Contain the situation, isolate the guerrillas from the population, match their expertise and beat their logistics. But the French were shit at that stuff too and the situation was possibly beyond containing by the time the Americans got their hands on it. Still, their "overwhelming force" approach was very much the wrong way.
I don't want to be mean Kwark but i don't think at all that the wars lost by the French or the Americans would have been won by the U-K. We all see how good they are today in Afghanistan or Iraq.... oh wait they aren't doing better than the Americans.
However i have to admit that the U-K has always managed to withdraw before things got really messy and bloody which was the smart move.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan the war is being directed by America and in both cases the British armed forces have spent the entire time insisting they could do a better job. So I really don't think you can hold that against their record. In fact, I think their point is that you very much can't. Although nobody has any business invading Iraq anyway and a sensible imperial power would know that. Saddam must have had a second in command who knew that if it came to invasion he'd be hung with his president and if he promoted himself no invasion would be necessary. That's how an intelligent country deals with these things.
On January 16 2010 00:12 antiq wrote: Why do you guys keep on connecting the supra-national corporations with the US? It's not like the US government had any direct opportunity to cause global McDonaldization. If anything, the corporations use their lobbies to nudge national governments. It's the invisible hand of the market that causes some of this shit - not that I thought the hand is bad thing per se, it's simply a blind beast feeding itself without any reflection. And as it's become more powerful, it starts to exploit the holes and weaknesses in our political systems, merging with it, mutating.. I guess the zerg are not bad either, just for the poor middle class terrans and hopelessly failing protoss elite.
Nerdy comparison apart, what we call the US is a composite ensemble of the American people, the American government, the American Corporations, the Amrican system, and the American ideology.
Everything is related, as the system makes that government cannot do anything but help by any way possible its big companies, that people vote for their government which helps theses companies, that theses companies are owned by an oligarchy of extremely rich and mediatically powerful people who have extremely closed connection to the power because of the nature of the liberalized political system in the US, etc etc etc etc etc..., all this supported by an ideology which says that liberal democracy and global capitalism is the best system possible and that there is nithing to do to imagine a better one.
Also, the government and corporations are intrinsically related. The government hands out huge contracts worth billions of dollars and bails out corporations in need. As the Bush Administration did for the Military-Industrial Complex, the Obama Administration is doing for the banking industry. Corporations pay millions in lobbyists and gifts and such, politicians pay them back with grants and contracts. To be honest, in the last several years, the lines between the government and the private sector have become very thin.
On January 15 2010 22:58 Trezeguet23 wrote: On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote: American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way.
Yes. There is a right way to fight a colonial insurgency. That was what the rest of my post was saying. That after fifty years of doing it a country gets the hang of it. Contain the situation, isolate the guerrillas from the population, match their expertise and beat their logistics. But the French were shit at that stuff too and the situation was possibly beyond containing by the time the Americans got their hands on it. Still, their "overwhelming force" approach was very much the wrong way.
I don't want to be mean Kwark but i don't think at all that the wars lost by the French or the Americans would have been won by the U-K. We all see how good they are today in Afghanistan or Iraq.... oh wait they aren't doing better than the Americans.
However i have to admit that the U-K always managed to withdraw before things got really messy and bloody which was the smart move.
Hmm...
What about American revolution war? Or all the conflicts in Africa, like the Zulu wars in 1879, etc etc... which were extremely costly in men and money.
Plus Britain didn't hesitate to send its soldiers and its army where their interest where in danger. Like in China, in 1840 and 1856 when the Chineses government decided to stop the trade of opium which was killing millions of Chinese. Despite having it forbidden in Great Britain, England sent its soldiers to fight for "free trade".
On January 16 2010 00:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 00:12 antiq wrote: Why do you guys keep on connecting the supra-national corporations with the US? It's not like the US government had any direct opportunity to cause global McDonaldization. If anything, the corporations use their lobbies to nudge national governments. It's the invisible hand of the market that causes some of this shit - not that I thought the hand is bad thing per se, it's simply a blind beast feeding itself without any reflection. And as it's become more powerful, it starts to exploit the holes and weaknesses in our political systems, merging with it, mutating.. I guess the zerg are not bad either, just for the poor middle class terrans and hopelessly failing protoss elite.
Nerdy comparison apart, what we call the US is a composite ensemble of the American people, the American government, the American Corporations, the Amrican system, and the American ideology.
Everything is related, as the system makes that government cannot do anything but help by any way possible its big companies, that people vote for their government which helps theses companies, that theses companies are owned by an oligarchy of extremely rich and mediatically powerful people who have extremely closed connection to the power because of the nature of the liberalized political system in the US, etc etc etc etc etc..., all this supported by an ideology which says that liberal democracy and global capitalism is the best system possible and that there is nithing to do to imagine a better one.
Also, the government and corporations are intrinsically related. The government hands out huge contracts worth billions of dollars and bails out corporations in need. As the Bush Administration did for the Military-Industrial Complex, the Obama Administration is doing for the banking industry. Corporations pay millions in lobbyists and gifts and such, politicians pay them back with grants and contracts. To be honest, in the last several years, the lines between the government and the private sector have become very thin.
Yes... I don't unnderstand how people keep defending a system which ask so much to be corrupted. It's becoming the same in Europe, though. Sarkozy is linked with the economic oligarchy, Schroeder has concert into one of the highest a Gazprom boss, or someone like Berlusconi who would have never reach power thirty years ago. Without saying anything about Tony Blair who is becoming the principal advisor of Bernard Arnaud, the richest man in France and owner of LVMH.
How people can still think that theses politicians defend the interest of their country? That's amazing.
On January 15 2010 22:58 Trezeguet23 wrote: On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote: American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way.
Yes. There is a right way to fight a colonial insurgency. That was what the rest of my post was saying. That after fifty years of doing it a country gets the hang of it. Contain the situation, isolate the guerrillas from the population, match their expertise and beat their logistics. But the French were shit at that stuff too and the situation was possibly beyond containing by the time the Americans got their hands on it. Still, their "overwhelming force" approach was very much the wrong way.
I don't want to be mean Kwark but i don't think at all that the wars lost by the French or the Americans would have been won by the U-K. We all see how good they are today in Afghanistan or Iraq.... oh wait they aren't doing better than the Americans.
However i have to admit that the U-K always managed to withdraw before things got really messy and bloody which was the smart move.
Hmm...
What about American revolution war? Or all the conflicts in Africa, like the Zulu wars in 1879, etc etc... which were extremely costly in men and money.
Plus Britain didn't hesitate to send its soldiers and its army where their interest where in danger. Like in China, in 1840 and 1856 when the Chineses government decided to stop the trade of opium which was killing millions of Chinese. Despite having it forbidden in Great Britain, England sent its soldiers to fight for "free trade".
Things have not changed very much.
We were young and inexperienced once too. The Boer war was a total mess for example, our Vietnam. We ended up giving South Africa to the Boers to end it (their part of what became South Africa merged with our part and joined the empire but they were given loads of rights and political power and ended up governing it). I just think it's odd that America's closest ally pretty much wrote the book on being an imperial power and yet America refuses to emulate it in many ways.
Didn't the British emulate what the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch have been doing for decades? And America is still pretty young and inexperienced. It's only been like 400 years or so since the country has been in existence and it's been maybe a century or so since America started wielding any kind of power in its international relations.
On January 16 2010 01:20 ghostWriter wrote: Didn't the British emulate what the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch have been doing for decades? And America is still pretty young and inexperienced. It's only been like 400 years or so since the country has been in existence and it's been maybe a century or so since America started wielding any kind of power in its international relations.
Dutch, yes. And by emulate the Dutch I mean get invaded by the Dutch and become them but then hush up the entire affair and pretend it never happened. Spanish, very much no. Spain just stole shit. The Pope divided the world in half and gave the entire west to Spain and the entire east to Portugal to stop them fighting each other (if he was aware it was round he didn't care). Spain found themselves with lots of uncivilised people with gold and silver to fight so just stole shit because it was easy. Portugal, Britain and Holland headed east and were technologically inferior to the people there (sub-Saharan Africa being off limits until steamships and the malaria vaccine). Therefore they were forced to become mercantile powers, as well as occasional piracy (particularly to the Spanish).
America is much more subtle than England has been in terms of economic domination. America is using its cultural and economic supremacy as a huge propaganda machine for its ideology. England owned half of the globe, America owe itself. England considered people all around the world as semi humans who had to be civilized, America as potential consumers and slave of its economic domination.
Soemthing new though: American big companies ineterst are completely foreign to America's interest. That's where Zizek says that even America is a colonized country, a banana republic, and that the new colonizer are faceless multinational corporations and not imperial powers
The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
On January 16 2010 01:33 Biff The Understudy wrote: Hmmm...
America is much more subtle than England has been in terms of economic domination. America is using its cultural and economic supremacy as a huge propaganda machine for its ideology. England owned half of the globe, America owe itself. England considered people all around the world as semi humans who had to be civilized, America as potential consumers and slave of its economic domination.
Soemthing new though: American big companies ineterst are completely foreign to America's interest. That's where Zizek says that even America is a colonized country, a banana republic, and that the new colonizer are faceless multinational corporations and not imperial powers
Yeah the first part is what I meant before. I didn't mean to say that the British didn't have economic interests in mind when the British Empire was coming together.
And yeah, that's what I see too. These huge corporations are cannibalizing taxpayer dollars, which is why government spending is going through the roof and why the debt is increasing so quickly. All you have to do is take a look at places like New Orleans to see that the corporations that were entrusted with the obligations for building good levees and preparing for a disaster like Hurricane Katrina did an awful job, despite the huge amount of funding they got. They totally botched the reconstruction and it's not even close to done although it's been about 5 years.
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
It's such a shame that genocide has become unseemly as a tactical solution, right? Things were so much more efficient in the days of Genghis Khan, when it was commonplace to simply slaughter or enslave the entirety of the defeated population.
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Justification is really a moot point; most people here would be furious if the US were ever invaded, even if all the rest of the world felt it was just.
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
On January 15 2010 23:21 ItsYoungLee wrote: We still have a huge threat, we need to protect Pakistan from being taken over by the Taliban or we may be f*cked
LOLOLOL.
All of our current efforts are working counter productively against this goal.
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
On January 15 2010 22:58 Trezeguet23 wrote: On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote: American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way.
Yes. There is a right way to fight a colonial insurgency. That was what the rest of my post was saying. That after fifty years of doing it a country gets the hang of it. Contain the situation, isolate the guerrillas from the population, match their expertise and beat their logistics. But the French were shit at that stuff too and the situation was possibly beyond containing by the time the Americans got their hands on it. Still, their "overwhelming force" approach was very much the wrong way.
I don't want to be mean Kwark but i don't think at all that the wars lost by the French or the Americans would have been won by the U-K. We all see how good they are today in Afghanistan or Iraq.... oh wait they aren't doing better than the Americans.
However i have to admit that the U-K has always managed to withdraw before things got really messy and bloody which was the smart move.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan the war is being directed by America and in both cases the British armed forces have spent the entire time insisting they could do a better job. So I really don't think you can hold that against their record. In fact, I think their point is that you very much can't. Although nobody has any business invading Iraq anyway and a sensible imperial power would know that. Saddam must have had a second in command who knew that if it came to invasion he'd be hung with his president and if he promoted himself no invasion would be necessary. That's how an intelligent country deals with these things.
You are comparing different countries, different eras, and different OBJECTIVES.
The main problem with Vietnam for France is that it happened just after WWII, basicly nobody has any idea about what to do here because the IV Republic was instable and inefficient and there was no real plan ( give them independance or send more troops ? even politicians didn't know ). Btw the communist party was highly influential ( 25+% of the population ) in France during this period and organized strikes to protest against the war. Also the public opinion didn't care at all about Indochina and was way more worried about the reconstruction of the metropole. So basicly they send in Indochina the leftovers of the colonial army, ffl ( with tons of Germans or Alsacians dudes who had been in the Wehrmacht or the SS during WWII lol ) with no real objectives except "fight the commies". At that time there were no TV in France, conscripts weren't really used so people in Metropolitan France not only didn't care but also had no idea about was happening. Then after Dien Bien Phu the government realized that the war was expensive and that it could not be won ( or at least not lost quickly ) without a massive surge but sending conscripts would have been highly unpopular and Ev- hence the Geneva conference.
The Algerian war was even messier because it was the only French colony with an important colon population that didn't want to leave. Once again the IV Republic failed to solve the problem and did so bad they utimately decided to give the power to De Gaulle. After realizing that the war was highly unpopular and that using conscripts was terrible for the morale France had to withdraw too. The war got messy and bloody and lasted for a while because of the incompetence of the IV Republic and the right wing and colons who formed terrorists groups to fight against the French army. Even De Gaulle didn't know what to do at first ( the famous " français, je vous ai compris " ) because he had to face the two opposites of the political spectrum.
Then the decolonization of the rest of Africa was peaceful because there were no more leadership problem ( V Republic ), because there were no large numbers of colons outside of Algeria and because France wasn't the same mess than just after WWII. Actually it is probably the best example of tricky, malicious and cheap decolonization and what is called neocolonization. Give the power to corrupted local people then trade with them. Once in a while give money to support/prevent a coup.
So basicly you ranting about the "Brits knowing how to do" is irrevelant because U-K was in a completly different situation in Malaysia ( which could not get as much support from China and USSR than Vietnam or North Korea ) and i don't know how a successful war fifty years ago could be related to the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan ( once again different countries involved, different areas, different objectives etc ... ). It is cool they had a plan in the 50's - 60's but i don't know if the massive deportation of civilians that they used in Malaysia would be popular nowadays.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah man, the world is much safer since you are in Irak and Afghanistan. You didn't put a fucking huge mess for three generation there at all.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
2 out of 3? We didn't find any WMDs, Saddam Hussein wasn't linked to Al Qaeda at all and the Iraqi people are doing way worse under the American occupation than they ever did under Saddam.
Saddam was a bad leader. That gives us 0 justification for going into Iraq. You also managed to quote my post and ignore all of my points. Let me repeat, the fighters are in Pakistan, not Afghanistan anymore and most of the hijackers were from Yemen and Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah man, the world is much safer since you are in Irak and Afghanistan. You didn't put a fucking huge mess for three generation there at all.
Do you have other info sources than Fox News?
Friend, do you get your news from anywhere else then Al Jazeera?
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
On January 16 2010 02:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah man, the world is much safer since you are in Irak and Afghanistan. You didn't put a fucking huge mess for three generation there at all.
Do you have other info sources than Fox News?
Friend, do you get your news from anywhere else then Al Jazeera?
He's actually being very reasonable. You seem to be one of the millions of Americans that readily swallowed what the Bush administration and what Fox News told you.
What's extremely sad is that most people seem to have no clue why the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure there are shady parts but some of it is very simple to understand and people from all over the world find ways to distort it.
I followed the US elections really closely and I sided with Obama - I still side with him given that his only serious opposition was McCain who's unarguably worse by a long shot.
I must say I did hope for the "changes". Maybe it was gullible of me to think that finally, an US president would manage to put the country back in a correct direction where all that bullying garbage would go out the window. There's no reason why the US needs to spend above 700 billion dollars a year on their military while the second most expensive military (China) spends roughly 90 billions (pardon me, the figures are approximates and based on data I got in 2009).
Especially during the elections, people were quick to call democrats "SOCIALISTS". Oh, socialism is so bad, it's communism! This not only shows a complete lack of understanding of politics, but also, it's ironic. Ironic because of the biggest "socialist" military they've been HAPPILY overpaying for.
Sure, great things have been done by the US military, but that's only a small fraction of their actions.
And now here were are - personally having given so much support to Obama. Certainly it's better than McCain being elected, but more money to the military? Come on. This really pisses me off.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
2 out of 3? We didn't find any WMDs, Saddam Hussein wasn't linked to Al Qaeda at all and the Iraqi people are doing way worse under the American occupation than they ever did under Saddam.
Saddam was a bad leader. That gives us 0 justification for going into Iraq. You also managed to quote my post and ignore all of my points. Let me repeat, the fighters are in Pakistan, not Afghanistan anymore and most of the hijackers were from Yemen and Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq.
They are in Pakistan because we ousted them... Pakistan is now fighting the Taliban and we have been funding them. Obama has pledged 1.5 billion to Pakistan for the next 5 years for civilian aid and 2.8 billion in aid to the Pakistan military to help us fight the Taliban on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The hijackers were trained in terror camps located in Afghanistan.
The same people that call Obama a socialist also call him a fascist or even Hitler, not recognizing that socialism and fascism are political ideologies that are fundamentally opposed to one another. It's just as dumb as when people were denouncing John Kerry as a flip-flopper (if you have new evidence that leads you to change your opinion, obviously you change your opinion to fit the facts).
And I totally agree, the budget for the Department of Defense is greater than the GDP of almost every other country. Even some of the contracts that the government awards to corporations are larger than the GDPs of many small nation.
On January 16 2010 02:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah man, the world is much safer since you are in Irak and Afghanistan. You didn't put a fucking huge mess for three generation there at all.
Do you have other info sources than Fox News?
Friend, do you get your news from anywhere else then Al Jazeera?
Never watched Al Jazeera in my life.
You just repeat what Bush propaganda machine has been repeating for years like a brainwashed zombie, with 0 analysis.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
2 out of 3? We didn't find any WMDs, Saddam Hussein wasn't linked to Al Qaeda at all and the Iraqi people are doing way worse under the American occupation than they ever did under Saddam.
Saddam was a bad leader. That gives us 0 justification for going into Iraq. You also managed to quote my post and ignore all of my points. Let me repeat, the fighters are in Pakistan, not Afghanistan anymore and most of the hijackers were from Yemen and Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq.
They are in Pakistan because we ousted them... Pakistan is now fighting the Taliban and we have been funding them. Obama has pledged 1.5 billion to Pakistan for the next 5 years for civilian aid and 2.8 billion in aid to the Pakistan military to help us fight the Taliban on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The hijackers were trained in terror camps located in Afghanistan.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:42 Undisputed- wrote: The real problem with this war is that we are not ruthless enough. Fight to win or get out. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is something like less then 30%, I don't think there is any hope of building up that country. We should be there to kill terrorists and nothing more.
Btw to all you lemmings there is no oil in Afghanistan the whole country is a giant rock. That is why no one has ever "won" in Afghanistan because the whole country is useless and isn't worth the trouble.
You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] You are not there for killing terrorist, you are there for making money. Stop being stupid. Making money is not only exploiting oil. Your corrupted government was linked with militaro-industrial complex. Ever heard of that? People who had great interest that you spend hundred billions dollars to fight. Where do the money spent go? Think hard. You get fucked by your own weapons, construction, security etc... companies and you don't even realize it.
And you are creating "terrorists". Irak and Afghanistan invasion have created dozen of thousand of people who are ready to die to fight America. And they are fucking right. If my country was invaded by a foreign country, who come and behave as American army behave there (like shit), I would take a gun, and go try to kill them.
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 01:57 ghostWriter wrote: [quote]
Exactly. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If my country was bombed to shit by some foreign power that had no justification for doing so and I have no more job, electricity or even water, I would be mad as hell. Then when this power brings in thousands of people to do what I used to do and imports materials that I used to make to set up their own system, merely to increase their profit lines and their stock price, I would be mad as hell.
Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Actually German army was calling French resistant "terrorists" during the occupation.
What is sad is that these people have no other discourse than this fascist religious bullshit to fight for as America has jeopardized the concept of freedom and that nobody seems to fight for justice anymore since the end of the XXth century Communist sequence.
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:11 Undisputed- wrote: [quote]
I'm having trouble connecting the dots from France getting invaded by the Third Reich to the U.S. counter-terrorist campaign in response to people flying planes into our buildings.
1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
Here is something for your reading pleasure.
Statement by Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights Item 9: Question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world
April 1, 2003
This Commission's most essential task is exposing and helping to ameliorate egregious abuses committed by governments against their own citizens. Year in and year out, the United States monitors the human rights situation around the world and reports the findings in our annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
Recently some changes for the better which have occurred, give hope and demonstrate the efficacy of efforts to improve respect for human rights around the world. In Bahrain, for instance, the first constitution was adopted; in May, free and fair Municipal Council elections were held; and in October, men and women went to the polls for the first time in nearly 30 years to elect a national parliament. Morocco held free and fair elections in September, and in Qatar, a new constitution has been adopted and municipal elections will be held in April [2003]. We applaud their commitment to democracy.
Democratic political institutions and practices continued to develop in East Timor, with the ratification of a constitution, the election of a president, and efforts to increase respect for the rule of law and human rights protections. We also wish to draw attention to the notable strides taken in Taiwan, particularly the consolidation and improvement of civil liberties in a manner consistent with reforms to make its electoral system free and open.
Sri Lanka made progress in implementing a cease-fire agreement between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil-Eelam [LTTE]. The overall level of violence and abuses has declined sharply. Nevertheless, the situation in Sri Lanka bears continued monitoring as there have been unconfirmed reports that the LTTE continued to commit extra-judicial killings and to conscript children.
In Afghanistan, I am pleased to note, systemic human rights violations have gone the way of the Taliban, and the number of individual cases of abuse has declined considerably. Serious problems remain in some outlying areas where the authority of President Karzai and his government has yet to reach, but the new government is firmly committed to democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The U.S. and many other nations are working closely with the Karzai government to help Afghanistan complete its transition to democratic and pluralist political and social structures.
When we survey the globe, we see that the worst situations are also, in almost every case, the most long-standing ones. These are the ones that present a direct challenge to the effectiveness of this body, and to its member governments. As political scientist B.J. Rummel has demonstrated, over the past century far more men, women and children have been killed by their own governments than in war. Other scholars have corroborated these findings, and have also observed that governments who do not respect the rights of their own citizens are those least likely to respect the rights of their neighbors. This Commission should ponder and confront as a first priority this phenomenon of "Death By Government."
Saddam Hussein's control over Iraq has been officially exercised since 1979 - almost one quarter of a century. His effective control over Iraq has lasted longer. Saddam Hussein's absolute personal power has been characterized from the beginning by extreme brutality. His one-man, one-party police state is a model of arbitrary government. Allow me to elaborate.
There is no question who is in control and therefore who is responsible for the conduct of the Iraqi regime. Saddam Hussein is President, Prime Minister, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party, which under Iraq's provisional 1968 Constitution governs Iraq, and Secretary General of the Regional Command of the Ba'ath party. The most recent justification of the regime's "right" to continue to govern was a "referendum" in which Saddam received 100 percent of the votes. Of course this alleged "referendum" included neither secret ballots, nor opposing candidates, nor free speech, nor assembly. Most voters were reported to fear reprisal if they did not vote for the sole option on the ballot.
Civil and political rights exist under Iraq's Constitution "in compliance with the revolutionary, national, and progressive trend." The Special Rapporteur on this Commission observed in October 1999 that citizens lived "in a climate of fear," and noted, "The mere suggestion that someone is not a supporter of the President carries the prospect of the death penalty." The government, the Ba'ath Party, or persons personally loyal to Saddam Hussein control all print and broadcast media in Iraq. The 1968 Press Act prohibits the writing of articles on 12 specific subjects including those detrimental to the President, the Revolutionary Command Council and the Ba'ath Party. Foreign broadcasts are routinely jammed. Books may be published only with the authorization of the Ministry of Culture and Information.
The government of Iraq has for decades conducted a brutal campaign of murder, summary execution, and protracted arbitrary arrest against the religious leaders and followers of the majority Shi'a Muslim population. Shi'a organizations, as well as those of other religious minorities, are not recognized by the government. Those Shi'a who continue to endeavor to exercise their religious beliefs face ongoing repression and harassment by the secret police, Saddam's Fedayeen death squads and other security forces. The government consistently politicizes and interferes with religious pilgrimages, both of Iraqi Muslims who wish to make the Haj to Mecca and non-Iraqi Muslims who travel to holy cites within the country.
The Kurdish community of northern Iraq has fared no better. Kurdish areas have been the object of forced movement and population transfers. A huge number of secret police and other elements of Iraq's security apparatus are present in northern Iraq to monitor and repress Kurdish life. The infamous Halabja incident of 1988 marked the first time in history that a government utilized chemical weapons against its own citizens. The brutality of the suppression of the Kurdish uprising following Iraq's defeat in 1991 was televised throughout the world and led the Security Council to adopt resolution 688 which, for the first time, declared massive violations of human rights to be a threat to international peace and security.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Although this is the shortest, clearest and most direct article of the Universal Declaration, it is the one which is most often violated by the Iraqi regime. Arbitrary arrest, extrajudicial killings, disappearance, denial of due process and vile forms of torture are all instruments present in Saddam's toolbox of repression.
There is no discrimination against women in Iraq, but they are subjected to the same harsh laws and brutal treatment as men, adapted to take account of physiological differences. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of Saddam's Fedayeen death squads, led by Uday Hussein, publicly beheaded more than two hundred women throughout the country, dumping the severed heads at the doorsteps of the victims' families. The Iraqi government uses rape and sexual assault of women to extract information and forced confessions from their family members, to intimidate members of the opposition by sending them videotapes of the rapes of their female relatives, and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Safiyah Hassan, the mother of two Iraqi defectors was killed after she protested their murder after they returned to Iraq.
Saddam Hussein reinforces his system of fear, intimidation, and repression, with an iron grip on the political process within Iraq. Candidates for the National Assembly must be over 25 years old and "believe in God, the principles of the July 17-30 revolution and socialism." In the National Assembly "elections" of March 2000, out of 250 seats the Ba'ath party won a large majority, and Saddam simply appointed 30 members to represent the Kurdish north. "Independents" won 55 seats, but according to the UN Special Rapporteur, that was because the Ba'ath Party had some of its members run as independents. Uday Hussein received 99.9 percent of the vote for his election.
Virtually all-important national offices are held by members of the Hussein family or by allies of his family from his hometown of Tikrit. Opposition parties are illegal; membership in some is punishable by death. The government does not recognize any of the political groups or parties formed by Shi'a, Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen or others. To engage in political dissent runs the risk of death, torture, imprisonment or simple disappearance for one's self or family members.
The appalling human rights situation in Iraq, which I have only barely described, is not the cause of the current military operations by the U.S.-led coalition inside Iraq. But the effect of the outcome will most certainly be to improve that situation and to restore to the long-suffering Iraqi people their personal freedoms and dignity.
I would like to quote from a statement by the trustees, including myself, of Freedom House:
"The post-war effort to bring democracy to Iraq will not be easy. There are many at home and abroad who are skeptical of even making an attempt to establish democratic governance in an ethnically and religiously complex country ruled for decades by a brutal tyranny. Such concerns cannot be lightly dismissed. But, we are confident of one thing: that the Iraqi people -- like the peoples of post-war Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe -- desire peace, seek the protections of human rights rooted in the rule of law, and want democracy.
"Democracy is not a Western concept, it is a universally desired goal. It has been defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Warsaw Declaration of the Community of Democracies and the OSCE Copenhagen Document among others. [We] urge a commitment to free elections, multiple political parties, freedom of association, independent trade unions, women's equality and rights, an independent judiciary, separation of religion from the state, an independent press, and religious tolerance in Iraq and throughout the region."
President Bush has said to the Iraqi people, "As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against .... neighbors, no more poison factories, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will be gone.... Unlike Saddam Hussein we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty."
It is harder and harder for countries to escape the harsh light of international scrutiny of human rights practices. Developments in Central Asia and South Asia, and other regions -- along with the Middle East examples already cited -- are much more closely monitored and tied to the international human rights agenda. This is why it is vitally important that this Commission and its independent members play their role to monitor and scrutinize the situation in whatever countries require such observation. Such activities by our membership and the mechanisms utilized by the Commission can encourage and support indigenous forces of reform within affected countries.
Governments can violate rights and punish people for exercising freedoms, but they cannot extinguish the free will and the liberty of spirit inherent in all human beings, despite the most brutal attempts at intimidation and repression. We commend the examples of brave people committed to freedom and acting to advance it in oppressive regimes that so many live under.
In Cuba, a one-party state where human rights and fundamental freedoms are routinely violated, the Varela Project, organized by Oswaldo Paya, has proven a powerful tool for the Cuban people to express their yearning for an elected and representative government. For a period, Marta Beatriz's Assemblea provided another venue for Cubans to express their desire for change. The arrest last week of some 75 Castro opponents including independent journalists, librarians and Marta Beatriz herself, is both a glaring challenge to the Commission, and an indication of the increasing repression by Castro and his regime.
This brazen attempt to intimidate the growing number of Cuban citizens who dare assert their desire for more freedom, shows the regime's continuing determination not to loosen its grasp on power. Fidel Castro cannot afford to let the contagion of freedom spread. We renew our call to the Cuban authorities to respect the Cuban people's desire for change -- for change that will end arbitrary imprisonment, permit a decent standard of living, and free Cubans from the grasp of the repressive state that permeates every aspect of their lives.
Repression in Burma is marked by a range of human rights abuses covering every conceivable category: extra-judicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrest, disappearances, rapes, forced labor, and conscription of child soldiers. In this brutal atmosphere, even after years of on-and-off political arrest, harassment and constant surveillance, Aung San Suu Kyi is still wholly committed to bringing democracy and a humanitarian rule of law to the Burmese people. The regime in Burma needs to respect the will of the Burmese people expressed through free and fair elections and return the government to their lawfully elected officials.
The government of the People's Republic of China continues to commit numerous and serious human rights abuses. Despite a promising start in 2002 suggesting China's willingness to pursue meaningful progress in human rights, recent events have raised the question of a serious deterioration in the human rights situation in China. Of special concern are the detentions of more than a dozen democracy activists, the execution of Tibetan Lobsang Dhondup without due process, the lack of religious freedom, and the continued detentions of Rebiya Kadeer, Jiang Weiping, Phuntsog Nyidrol, and others held for their political or religious beliefs. We urge the Chinese authorities to take steps to demonstrate their commitment to cooperating on human rights. In addition, we urge China to act to protect the human rights and the culture of the long-suffering people of Tibet.
Turning to Africa, in Togo, Marc Palanga, a leader of a local opposition movement, has been repeatedly arrested and tortured. In Côte d'Ivoire, civil unrest has given rise to violations on the part of both the government and rebel forces. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, major abuses continue, but Rwanda withdrew its troops by October, and Uganda currently has only around 2,000 troops left in the country.
We are particularly pleased that Kenyans exercised their right to elect a new government in a process that was free and fair. In Sierra Leone, the civil war was officially declared over in January, the Revolutionary United Front was disarmed, and presidential elections were held that were relatively free of violence. War also ended in Angola with a consequent decline in the number of human rights violations, but with a worrisome increase of abuses in Cabinda Province.
Turkmenistan's already poor human rights record worsened dramatically following an attack on President Niyazov's motorcade in November. The accused have been convicted in summary trials, there are credible reports of the torture of suspects, and many family members of the accused have been subjected to government harassment.
In Kyrgyzstan regional by-elections for seats in the Legislative Assembly held in Osh in October 2002 were marred by serious irregularities. Since Spring 2002, the few remaining independent newspapers have been unable to publish without interference, and the leading independent newspaper "Moya Stolitsa" was besieged with lawsuits in December 2002 which threaten its existence. Nevertheless human rights and political activists continue a lively debate in Kyrgyzstan, and the Commission and its members should support their activities. We commend the government for registering the U.S.-funded Media Support Center Foundation, which will provide a non-government printing facility and training for journalists.
In Kazakhstan, harassment of journalists continued, the government selectively prosecuted opposition figures, and a new registration law had the effect of reducing the number of political parties participating in the political process.
The United States believes it important that the Commission address the serious human rights abuses that have occurred in Chechnya. We recognize Russia's right to defend its territorial integrity and itself against terrorism. The broader conflict in Chechnya cannot be resolved militarily and requires a political solution. Human rights violations by Russian forces in Chechnya need to be curtailed, and abusers held accountable.
We believe that most Chechens desire peace and an enduring political settlement to the current conflict. The aim of any political process must be to convince the Chechen people that it is a sincere and legitimate effort to end the violence, end human rights abuses, reconstruct the region and address legitimate grievances. The holding of last week's referendum has begun the search for a broad political process. We are encouraged by the proposals on the elements of a political settlement made by President Putin and other senior Russian officials. We urge these officials and others to make every effort to create a positive environment in which a political process can continue.
We note with great sadness that young children were pulled into many conflicts, including those in Burma, Nepal and Sri Lanka. In Colombia as well, both paramilitaries and guerrillas have unlawfully recruited children, and there is evidence that guerrillas forcibly pressed children into their forces. In Cote d'Ivoire, the unlawful recruitment of child soldiers in the armed civil conflict, particularly by rebel groups, remains an issue of concern.
In Burundi, the government stated that it would not recruit child soldiers in its war against rebel forces, however, there are unconfirmed reports that children under the age of 15 continue to serve in armed forces performing tasks such as carrying weapons and supplies.
In Iran the government's already poor human rights record has substantially deteriorated. Citizens continue to lack the right to change their government, and the government actively represses organized forms of political opposition. There are numerous reports of extra-judicial killings, torture, stoning, flogging, harsh prison conditions, as well as arbitrary arrest and detention. The judiciary remains subject to government and religious influence. Despite the initiation of some judicial proceedings against government officials, many officials continue to engage in corruption and other unlawful activities with impunity.
The Iranian government infringes on citizens' rights, restricting freedom of speech, press and assembly. Women and religious and ethnic minorities face violence and discrimination. The status of Bahais, and other religious minorities, has deteriorated. Property has been confiscated, harassment at schools continues, and short-term detentions have increased. At least four Bahais were among those imprisoned last year for reasons related to their faith. The government fueled anti-Bahai (and anti-Jewish) sentiment for political purposes; Bahais, Jews, Christians, Mandeans, and Sufi Muslims reported imprisonment, harassment, or intimidation based on their religious beliefs. Discrimination continues in areas of employment, education, and housing.
North Korea deserves special consideration under this agenda item. It is hard to imagine the possibility of a country whose citizens endure a worse or more pervasive abuse of every human right. This aspect coupled with the dire famine conditions afflicting North Korea, makes it truly a Hell on earth.
North Koreans have been subjected to totalitarian oppression for nearly sixty years. In a society with the most rigid controls on earth, it is difficult to obtain information, but over the years, defectors and the few international observers who have gained access have consistently spoken of the nightmarish conditions in this country. Generations of children have been completely indoctrinated to swear their allegiance to a regime which has not had to answer to popular sentiment for so long that it has lost grasp of reality. Indeed, political indoctrination takes up more than half of the total educational curriculum. Even with this kind of thought control the regime must utilize the most thoroughly brutal repression to maintain control as its inability to meet even the most basic requirements of life for its citizens threatens to undermine its grasp on power. This Commission must confront North Korea on its abominable human rights record and demand accountability by its leaders.
In Belarus, the Lukashenko regime's human rights record worsened in several areas. The regime continues to take severe measures to neutralize political opponents. Security forces beat and/or harass political opponents, trade unionists, and detainees. Agents closely monitor human rights organizations and hinder their efforts. The regime did not undertake serious efforts to account for the disappearances of well-known opposition political figures in previous years and discounts credible reports regarding the regime's role in those disappearances.
The government of Belarus further restricted freedom of speech, the press, peaceful assembly, association, worker's rights, and religion. It intensified its assault on the independent media, with journalists jailed on libel charges and several newspapers closed down. It prevented the state union federation from becoming independent. It enacted a new law that severely restricts freedom of religion.
Belarus enjoys the dubious distinction of being the only country in Europe that has not abandoned the disastrous legacy of the totalitarian system that held sway for so long in many parts of Central and Eastern Europe. It is an affront to all the nations who have broken with their unfortunate past, and committed to the path of democracy and representative government. This affront must be recognized by this Commission, and the Lukashenko government must be called to account at this session. We must support the brave Belarussian people who continue to struggle against this monstrous regime.
Zimbabwe represents another situation where a brave and persistent opposition requires our outspoken support. The government of Zimbabwe has conducted a concerted campaign of violence, repression, and intimidation aimed at its opponents. This campaign has been marked by blatant disregard for human rights, the rule of law, and the welfare of Zimbabwe's citizens. Torture by various methods is used against political opponents and human rights advocates. War veterans, youth brigades, and police officers act in support of the Mugabe government with sustained brutality.
In the March 2002 presidential election, violence against the opposition escalated. Irregularities in the election were widespread. The process was declared "fundamentally flawed and illegitimate" by international observers as well as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Parliamentary Forum. Local elections held over the past weekend suffered from the same problems.
The Mugabe regime has also targeted other institutions of government, including the judiciary and police. Judges have been harassed into submission or resignation. The news media have been restricted and suppressed, with offending journalists arrested and beaten. Nearly 7.2 million people face food shortages and the possibility of starvation.
In Sudan, twenty years of civil war and unending strife have reduced the population in both the northern and southern regions of the country to a desperate state. The United States welcomes the progress being achieved in the Machakos peace talks. We judge that resolution of the conflict, when it occurs, will have an enormously positive impact on the human rights situation in this long troubled land. Irrespective of that, however, the current status of respect for human rights in Sudan merits the continued scrutiny of this Commission. The newly renewed state of emergency permits citizens to be arbitrarily detained and mistreated for airing political views. Traditional slavery by means of the abduction of women and children by government-sponsored militias continues unabated and the religious freedom promised in law is not respected in practice. We judge that the Special Rapporteur for Sudan plays an important role -- and one that must be continued -- in encouraging greater respect for human rights in Sudan.
This Commission should make its work relevant, and face the most essential task confronting it. The victims of these abuses cry out for meaningful action.
On January 16 2010 04:45 shidonu wrote: yeah we should take the moral high ground and allow innocent people to die so the terrorists don't feel uncomfortable.
I don't see why the guys who died in the World Trade Centre are more innocent than the dozen if not hundred thousand people ytour country have killed duriong theses two murderous wars.
I don't like Al Qaeda, but your country isn't doing a much better job.
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] 1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm Kofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. "
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment. Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive.
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote: [quote]
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm Kofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. "
Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote: [quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm Kofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. "
Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
That's the reason American have given, and it has never been voted. The diplomat in Ghana represents the United Nations. He speaks for the United Nations. (What does it do that he is from Ghana, btw?)
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote: [quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm Kofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. "
Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
This man happens to speak for the UN, which represents far more of the world than a man trying to rationalize a war that his own country has perpetrated.
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote: [quote]
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm Kofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. "
Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
That's the reason American have given, and it has never been voted. The diplomat in Ghana represents the United Nations. He speaks for the United Nations. (What does it do that he is from Ghana, btw?)
Doesn't matter where he is from. The resolutions required already exist.
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote: [quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm Kofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. "
Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
The "diplomat of Ghana" was the Secretary-General of the United Nations and you are an ignorant and despisable person.
Are you comparing water boarding to systematic genocide?
As a matter of fact, no I am not. Now I suggest you open up a couple of valves in your brain and go back. Read carefully, both my post and the one before it.
I don't know if you guys know this (because it kind of went unnoticed) but reports released after Sadam Hussein's death say that the reason he did not allow foreign inspectors (which led the US to believe he was hiding WMD's) was because he did not want to show Iran (rival country) how weak its arsenal really was.
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] 1- because your wars are not "war against the terror". They are wars against countries who didn't ask you to come there, to people who had lives that you destroyded. Iraqi people and Irak in general have fucking nothing to do at all with 11/09. You invaded Irak because it was your interest, or rather the private interest of your corrupted leaders.
2- because there must be a reason why thoses people who destroyded your towers were ready to do so. Why do people give their life to kill you? Because they are stupid evil fanatics? Probably. But that's not enough. Think harder.
I don't think Irakis have more reasons to like Americans than French had to like Germans.
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't.
If it had been, the United States would not have fought to get Security Council Resolution 1441, a resolution which in no way authorized force, passed and then decided to invade when it became clear that Iraq was complying with that resolution and no such authorization for an invasion would come from the Security Council.
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:31 Undisputed- wrote: [quote]
We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 pure and simple. We are there to make sure Afghanistan won't be a launch pad for terrorists around the world. This is not only a national but a global security emergency. We cannot leave Afghanistan until the threat has been neutralized. If we leave it will send a signal to jihadists around the world that we don't have the moral fortitude required to see this challenge through.
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't.
If it had been, the United States would not have fought to get Security Council Resolution 1441, a resolution which in no way authorized force, passed and then decided to invade when it became clear that Iraq was complying with that resolution and no such authorization for an invasion would come from the Security Council.
I find it amusing that when other countries pull this kind of stunt, we condemn them and slap them with sanctions, yet when we do it, we still see ourselves as holding the moral high ground.
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote: [quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't.
If it had been, the United States would not have fought to get Security Council Resolution 1441, a resolution which in no way authorized force, passed and then decided to invade when it became clear that Iraq was complying with that resolution and no such authorization for an invasion would come from the Security Council.
I find it amusing that when other countries pull this kind of stunt, we condemn them and slap them with sanctions, yet when we do it, we still see ourselves as holding the moral high ground.
On January 16 2010 06:57 Draconizard wrote: I would say that it's humanity's norm, at every level from individual onward.
Hmm not necessarly.
It's the human's being norm while considering his ineterests. Luckily, sometimes, we can act without being ruled by our private interests. That's what makes human fundamentally different from animal.
On January 16 2010 06:57 Draconizard wrote: I would say that it's humanity's norm, at every level from individual onward.
Of course it is. Hypocrisy is merely the consequence of people sometimes falling short of their ideals. Hypocrisy is fundamentally different from a lie in that the contradiction can only be seen by indirect inference, and is therefore committed unintentionally. It's the equivalent of moral sloppiness or carelessness.
I'm afraid the behaviour of the American administration on the eve of the Iraq war was far worse than hypocrisy; it was cynical. It will be difficult to assign responsibility for the web of lies fed to the public in the early months of 2003, but there is no doubt today that the conductors of the scheme were set on invading Iraq many months ahead of the event, and the diplomatic charade of the antebellum was quite insincere.
On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:
On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote: [quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq.
"to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm
Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture.
Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority.
At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time.
lol.
So now America represents Justice.
Better and better.
You do nothing but spout bollocks.
Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one.
You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety.
Stop being a sheep.
The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it.
No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm Kofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. "
Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
Why exactly are so many Euros in this thread beefing with Obama? Obama has been against the Iraq war from the start and he has already announced plans to begin withdrawing troops. Now everyone is up in arms over Afghanistan, the country that actually harbored terrorists that attacked the U.S. on 4 seperate occasions and other countries as well. We also went in with a fairly large coallition and it appeared we had international support at the time. Not sure what you guys want from Obama. I'm guessing a lot of Europeans had this unrealistic vision of Obama that he was going to take office and apologize for all of America's "atrocities" and withdraw all of our troops and strip the defense budget. It seems kind of ridiculous, but given the rabid fanaticism towards Obama in some European countries I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually thought that might happen.
Well you can't just leave the mess you have created? Even if Obama dislike the war and it was bad from the start you can't just leave it now, it would just turn into a civil war wich is the last the the population would have wanted.
On January 16 2010 08:22 BlackJack wrote: Why exactly are so many Euros in this thread beefing with Obama? Obama has been against the Iraq war from the start and he has already announced plans to begin withdrawing troops. Now everyone is up in arms over Afghanistan, the country that actually harbored terrorists that attacked the U.S. on 4 seperate occasions and other countries as well. We also went in with a fairly large coallition and it appeared we had international support at the time. Not sure what you guys want from Obama. I'm guessing a lot of Europeans had this unrealistic vision of Obama that he was going to take office and apologize for all of America's "atrocities" and withdraw all of our troops and strip the defense budget. It seems kind of ridiculous, but given the rabid fanaticism towards Obama in some European countries I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually thought that might happen.
And if there is a fundamental difference between the American and British empires, it is this: both came into existence quite accidentally, but once in place, their internal justifications have been divergent. The British saw civilization as a positive process, while Americans see it as a natural process. The British Imperial Mission consisted of civilized peoples taking primitive peoples by the hand and showing them the path to progress. The Americans do not believe in civilized or uncivilized peoples, but they do believe in civilized and uncivilized ideas. Civilized ideas are the enlightenment ideas into which the United States were born, and uncivilized ideas are all its pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment challengers. You cannot teach people to be free, because their freedom is written in natural law; what you can do is free them from "evil" individuals and cliques who act contrary to those natural laws. That is the moral foundation of American Empire.
That the American Empire was the historical successor of the British Empire predicted ipso facto the changing conditions of the 20th century. The moral unsustainability of the British Empire was put expertly over half a century ago by Santayana thus:
England, for instance, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, acted the great power with conviction; she was independent, mistress of the sea, and sure of her right to dominion. Difficulties and even defeats, such as the loss of the American Colonies, did not in the least daunt her; her vitality at home and her liberty abroad remained untouched. But gradually, though she suffered no final military defeat, the heart seemed to fail her for so vast an enterprise. It was not the colonies she had lost that maimed her, but those she had retained or annexed. Ireland, South Africa, and India became thorns in her side. The bloated industries which helped her to dominate the world made her incapable of feeding herself; they committed her to forced expansion, in order to secure markets and to secure supplies. But she could no longer be warlike with a good conscience; the virtuous thing was to bow one's way out and say: My mistake. Her kings were half-ashamed to be kings, her liberals were half-ashamed to govern, her Church was half-ashamed to be Protestant. All became a medley of sweet reasonableness, stupidity, and confusion. Being a great power was now a great burden. It was urgent to reduce responsibility, to reduce armaments, to refer everything to conferences, to support the League of Nations, to let everyone have his own way abroad, and to let everyone have his own way at home. Had not England always been a champion of liberty? But wasn't it time now for the champion to retire? And wouldn't liberty be much freer without a champion?
On January 16 2010 08:22 BlackJack wrote: Why exactly are so many Euros in this thread beefing with Obama? Obama has been against the Iraq war from the start and he has already announced plans to begin withdrawing troops. Now everyone is up in arms over Afghanistan, the country that actually harbored terrorists that attacked the U.S. on 4 seperate occasions and other countries as well. We also went in with a fairly large coallition and it appeared we had international support at the time. Not sure what you guys want from Obama. I'm guessing a lot of Europeans had this unrealistic vision of Obama that he was going to take office and apologize for all of America's "atrocities" and withdraw all of our troops and strip the defense budget. It seems kind of ridiculous, but given the rabid fanaticism towards Obama in some European countries I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually thought that might happen.
Dont charectorize this as a european thing. Allot of us are Americans. In terms of international support I think its pretty safe that its World vs America (maybe half of america).
On January 16 2010 08:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: And if there is a fundamental difference between the American and British empires, it is this: both came into existence quite accidentally, but once in place, their internal justifications have been divergent. The British saw civilization as a positive process, while Americans see it as a natural process. The British Imperial Mission consisted of civilized peoples taking primitive peoples by the hand and showing them the path to progress. The Americans do not believe in civilized or uncivilized peoples, but they do believe in civilized and uncivilized ideas. Civilized ideas are the enlightenment ideas into which the United States were born, and uncivilized ideas are all its pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment challengers. You cannot teach people to be free, because their freedom is written in natural law; what you can do is free them from "evil" individuals and cliques who act contrary to those natural laws. That is the moral foundation of American Empire.
Lol. All that civilisation bullshit was just a retroactive way of justifying how the British Empire was fucking over everyone who wasn't white. It was a profoundly immoral and exploitative empire that developed a conscience and then rationalised its exploitation rather than stopping making money. Edit: I'm rather ambivalent about the British Empire. Obviously it was immoral but equally I take a strange sense of national pride in how good at immorality the British were.
On January 16 2010 08:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: And if there is a fundamental difference between the American and British empires, it is this: both came into existence quite accidentally, but once in place, their internal justifications have been divergent. The British saw civilization as a positive process, while Americans see it as a natural process. The British Imperial Mission consisted of civilized peoples taking primitive peoples by the hand and showing them the path to progress. The Americans do not believe in civilized or uncivilized peoples, but they do believe in civilized and uncivilized ideas. Civilized ideas are the enlightenment ideas into which the United States were born, and uncivilized ideas are all its pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment challengers. You cannot teach people to be free, because their freedom is written in natural law; what you can do is free them from "evil" individuals and cliques who act contrary to those natural laws. That is the moral foundation of American Empire.
Lol. All that civilisation bullshit was just a retroactive way of justifying how the British Empire was fucking over everyone who wasn't white. It was a profoundly immoral and exploitative empire that developed a conscience and then rationalised its exploitation rather than stopping making money. Edit: I'm rather ambivalent about the British Empire. Obviously it was immoral but equally I take a strange sense of national pride in how good at immorality the British were.
I had no idea that you were the missionary type. After all, the British gave their inferiors better deals than permitted by the recommendations of Aristotle.
On January 16 2010 08:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: And if there is a fundamental difference between the American and British empires, it is this: both came into existence quite accidentally, but once in place, their internal justifications have been divergent. The British saw civilization as a positive process, while Americans see it as a natural process. The British Imperial Mission consisted of civilized peoples taking primitive peoples by the hand and showing them the path to progress. The Americans do not believe in civilized or uncivilized peoples, but they do believe in civilized and uncivilized ideas. Civilized ideas are the enlightenment ideas into which the United States were born, and uncivilized ideas are all its pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment challengers. You cannot teach people to be free, because their freedom is written in natural law; what you can do is free them from "evil" individuals and cliques who act contrary to those natural laws. That is the moral foundation of American Empire.
Lol. All that civilisation bullshit was just a retroactive way of justifying how the British Empire was fucking over everyone who wasn't white. It was a profoundly immoral and exploitative empire that developed a conscience and then rationalised its exploitation rather than stopping making money. Edit: I'm rather ambivalent about the British Empire. Obviously it was immoral but equally I take a strange sense of national pride in how good at immorality the British were.
I had no idea that you were the missionary type. After all, the British gave their inferiors better deals than permitted by the recommendations of Aristotle.
The British systematically dismantled the Indian cotton industry so they could buy up cheap raw cotton from slaveowners in the colonies, turn it into cloth and ship it to India for a profit. We did not go to India with civilisation in mind. They already had plenty to go round. There was a deliberate process of deindustrialisation to turn what would be rival exporters into dependent markets for British monopolies.
On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote: At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up?
I think you meant "we Americans"
And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote: At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up?
I think you meant "we Americans"
And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
Most people here either unconsciously or consciously regard the lives of non-Americans to be inherently worth less than the lives of their own kind. I recall there being a rather cynical Onion piece on this very topic. Obviously, it was being facetious, but there was some truth underneath the humor.
On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote: At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up?
I think you meant "we Americans"
And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
Who the fuck cares if the United Nations signed off on the war or not? If the war was unjustified then it was unjustified and if it was justified it was justified and minutiae of what United Nations resolutions did or did not say or whether the war is legally a continuation of a previous one really don't make a fucking difference.
Anyway, the United States does what it's good at, which is invade backwater countries and kill a whole lot of people. It's nothing new.
On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote: At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up?
I think you meant "we Americans"
And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
Americans killed in 9/11 3000
Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan 6000
And thats ignoring everyone else killed.
Kind of an insignificant figure. A lot fewer Americans died in Pearl Harbor than in WWII as well. More people always die in war than any precursor for it, does that mean we tolerate any and all terrorist attacks to avoid war? Or you can look at it another way: Successful terrorist attacks on the US in the 10 years before 9/11: 3+. Successful terrorist attacks in the 10 years after 9/11: 0.
In my opinion, looking into the past at the number of Americans killed by terrorism to evaluate the threat of terrorism happens way too often. Too many people always say "You have a better chance of hitting the lottery than dying by terrorism." The way they calculate that figure is by using data of past terrorist attacks. I can make a equally silly claim and say the threat of nuclear weapons is nil since nobody in America has ever died from them.
Of course I think my chance of dying from a terrorist attack is more or less 0%. I just think it's ridiculous to allow Al Qaeda to have safe harbor while they launch enough attacks to kill more than 6,000 people so we can go to war and say fewer people died in the war than from terrorist attacks. Then you've lost 12,000 instead of 9,000. It's like having termites in your house and waiting until they do $5,000 worth of damage so that you can spend $3,000 to get rid of them.
On January 16 2010 08:33 DarkShadowz wrote: Well you can't just leave the mess you have created? Even if Obama dislike the war and it was bad from the start you can't just leave it now, it would just turn into a civil war wich is the last the the population would have wanted.
..exactly. That's what I was saying before Obama came in. It was obviously a big blunder forom the start (morally, and from the standpoint we didn't get to pillage a lot of oil) but once there and the crap hit the fan, it would have been even worse to leave. That's what I thought through years of people lambasting us for still being there. Now that Obama's in charge suddenly people understand that? Now that it's a leader you like you see why it would suck to just leave?
That said, the time to leave is now (or soon). Things are improving there and it looks like we can leave without chaos ensuing, and if it does, well at some point you have to let it take its course. See Somalia, though nearly two decades on the merits of that pullout can be debated. It still a terrible place, but could we have done anything by staying? I hope Iraq doesn't end up that way, and it looks like it won't. At the very least they have natural resources to hopefully keep from falling into extreme poverty.
But what do I know seriously. I live so far away from all that
On January 16 2010 17:30 EmeraldSparks wrote: Who the fuck cares if the United Nations signed off on the war or not? If the war was unjustified then it was unjustified and if it was justified it was justified and minutiae of what United Nations resolutions did or did not say or whether the war is legally a continuation of a previous one really don't make a fucking difference.
Yep, either way the UN has become completely irrelevant when it comes to conflict. The second war was clearly wrong, but I find it unlikely that you'll ever see an American president hold back while Fortress Europe + China makes up its mind for a year so that it can eventually say no. NATO acts, and the UN picks up afterwards. It's a horrible system, but it's often better than having no action at all.
On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote: At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up?
I think you meant "we Americans"
And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
Americans killed in 9/11 3000
Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan 6000
And thats ignoring everyone else killed.
Do you even read? Americans have KILLED more than we LOST. As in the number of Americans that died is much lower than the number of Iraqi and Afghan bystanders that died because of American military power.
Americans killed in 9/11 3000
Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan 6000
Number of Afghan civilians that were killed? 2,118 in 2008 and 2,412 in 2009 according to the UN. This is just in Afghanistan, 4,500 dead in just 2 years (the war has been going on for 8 years so far). These are just numbers to you, but these are real people with real families.
I honestly believe the "real" reason for the war is purely religious. After all, when speaking of the war in general, be it Iraq or Afghanistan, they call it "the war on terror". Obviously you can't actually go to war with an abstract concept such as terror. So what do they really mean? They are at war with a certain religion that happens to perpetuate terror. A lot of mainstream media outlets, for fear of being branded "culturally intolerant", like to brand terrorist as "Islam extremists", but the truth is the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, in that part of the globe, is far from extreme; it is the dominant, most common, if not ONLY interpretation of Islam by any large number of people. Don't believe me? Visit the middle east sometime. Talk to someone in Saudi Arabia. Ask what their government is like, what it is based on. Fundamentalist Islam is the real Islam, in practice, and when you put far-right Christian fundamentalists like Bush and his entire administration at the helm of one of the most powerful military nations in the world, and it is suddenly at odds with a particular part of the world led entirely by fundamentalists of a different, competing religion? Look out.
It's just one BS excuse after the next for continuing war. America must have enemies. America must protect it's (corporations' ) interests abroad. The legislative branch of government is, by an extreme amount, catering to large wealthy corporations which are believed to be the reason America is so well off. Maybe back when most American companies actually worked hard to produce the best products, this was the case. Certainly it's not now (lol GM).
The dollar should be in serious crisis at this point, but the American government knows that military power is a good persuader. Our entire livelihood in the 21st century is based off of our past reputation and our willingness to blow people up.
This is what exists in America. This is what has always existed in America. If you think there was ever a "golden age" where it wasn't like this, you're wrong. If you think America is unique in trying to protect economic interests, you're wrong. If you think America does it more than most of the first world, you're wrong. If you think the only interest groups that matter are corporations, you're wrong.
Basically, everything you've written is wrong. There's cultural, political and economic factors for entering the war in Iraq. Some are more important than others, but no single factor was enough to start a war, as there was during WWII.
Jibba makes a good point when referencing WWII because America's economy did boom after that...
but this war...it's really stupid to continue because looking at the former Soviet Union, one of the major factors it collapsed was because they spent too much money in Afghanistan, and they STILL failed there. What the U.S. is doing is almost the same thing, and i'm afraid it's economy won't be able to hold out with all this money being spent on it.
The 'WWII helped our economy' argument has been used to sell every war since. Contrary to even the most basic common sense, people still believe it. Of course, they also still believe - like in your case - that there was a singular reason for America entering into WWII. It's never that simple, and I'm not debating otherwise. What I am putting under fire is the thought that there was any remotely decent or moral reason for our recent wars. It should be obvious to even casual observers that this is not the case.
But yes, of course America has long catered to interests. The difference is that in the past those interest groups actually had something to offer to the world. Now they're able to get away with anything, as long as their PR departments are top-notch.
Yes, 'protecting economic interests' has been the norm for quite a while. In the post-empire age it's mostly been relegated to a countries 'sphere of influence', with other powers seeing it as a perfectly agreeable business as long as it's not done near them. It's the new age version of imperialism, and yes it's not unique to America. However, acting like America isn't the biggest culprit is wishful thinking at best. Ever since we decided that we were the world power, and that we would keep everyone 'safe', our scope has been nearly unlimited.
Now we're surprised whenever this ideology upsets someone. What, you don't want your country 'improved' by our exceptional ways? You primitive third-world beasts!
On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote: At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up?
I think you meant "we Americans"
And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
Americans killed in 9/11 3000
Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan 6000
And thats ignoring everyone else killed.
Do you even read? Americans have KILLED more than we LOST. As in the number of Americans that died is much lower than the number of Iraqi and Afghan bystanders that died because of American military power.
Americans killed in 9/11 3000
Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan 6000
Number of Afghan civilians that were killed? 2,118 in 2008 and 2,412 in 2009 according to the UN. This is just in Afghanistan, 4,500 dead in just 2 years (the war has been going on for 8 years so far). These are just numbers to you, but these are real people with real families.
Yeah, you guys both kind of got my point out. If we are in Afghanistan terrorizing everyone's lives then it doesn't boggle my mind that they want some sort of retribution. I read that the number of Iraqis/Afghans killed is quite large, but the effect we have had on the water and electrical supply has ruined the lives of many many more.
[QUOTE]On January 17 2010 00:40 QibingZero wrote: The 'WWII helped our economy' argument has been used to sell every war since. Contrary to even the most basic common sense, people still believe it. /QUOTE] It is true. Deficit spending can help spur the economy. I don't know where you found your common sense, but I'm pretty sure that this is kind of a general economic principle.
On January 17 2010 00:40 QibingZero wrote: The 'WWII helped our economy' argument has been used to sell every war since. Contrary to even the most basic common sense, people still believe it.
It is true. Deficit spending can help spur the economy. I don't know where you found your common sense, but I'm pretty sure that this is kind of a general economic principle.
Broken window fallacy for wars. Wars is wealth destruction, that we do a lot of it forces people to work hard if they want to maintain their current living standards. It does increase economic activity. But economic activity (aka lots of hard work) doesn't mean anything because all of that work is put to destructive ends.
As for deficit spending, that's just mortgaging the future. If you are talking about imprudently living above your means, then deficit spending "spurs the economy."
On January 15 2010 00:49 cz wrote: That's the problem with the system: the voters are too stupid to realize that sometimes you have to fold and you can't win every war. You take this voting group and put it in the 70s and the United States would still be in Vietnam.
Vietnam was fucking awesome, what are you trying to say here?
You're kidding right, i hope its sarcasm. I think Rebirth has a point, voters these days are just becoming apathetic.
On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote: At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up?
I think you meant "we Americans"
And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
Americans killed in 9/11 3000
Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan 6000
And thats ignoring everyone else killed.
Do you even read? Americans have KILLED more than we LOST. As in the number of Americans that died is much lower than the number of Iraqi and Afghan bystanders that died because of American military power.
Americans killed in 9/11 3000
Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan 6000
Number of Afghan civilians that were killed? 2,118 in 2008 and 2,412 in 2009 according to the UN. This is just in Afghanistan, 4,500 dead in just 2 years (the war has been going on for 8 years so far). These are just numbers to you, but these are real people with real families.
Yeah, you guys both kind of got my point out. If we are in Afghanistan terrorizing everyone's lives then it doesn't boggle my mind that they want some sort of retribution. I read that the number of Iraqis/Afghans killed is quite large, but the effect we have had on the water and electrical supply has ruined the lives of many many more.
Exactly the terrorism we know only really came about since WWII after Israel was founded and pakistanis were kicked out.
Also Taliban and Al Khaida were also both funded by the US during the cold war, so was Saddam Hussein.
Basically we are fighting what we created, yet the more people we kill, the more we can expect their families to try and kill us.
EPT
and so has the upside of helping quell rebellion but not the downside of a coup which would be equally bad for the nation
![[image loading]](http://rlv.zcache.com/obama_nobel_prize_tee_shirt-p235774170983263446s564_400.jpg)
seriously. I live so far away from all that
