|
On October 22 2011 12:20 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:09 Euronyme wrote:On October 22 2011 12:03 0neder wrote:On October 22 2011 11:59 aebriol wrote:
I supported the war in Iraq 100% when it started.
Because I believed Bush when he said on TV 'I know that they have weapons of mass destruction'.
More fool me ...
I supported, and continue to support, going into Afghanistan. Because they were behind 9/11.
I didn't and don't support our actions in Libya because I feel they are none of our business.
Either way: getting out of Iraq is good news for pretty much everyone, except maybe Iraqi police officers ... You do know that they found old chemical weapons, right? And that Saddam Hussein was giving $10k to every suicide bomber's family who killed people in Israel? Saddam was placed and funded by the US. If you should invade anyone, invade the person behind that decision's home and bring him to court. I rather smell a heavy odour of oil when it comes to the reasons behind the war. The occupation of Palestine is another illegitimate war that there's no need to bring in to the discussion right now imo. At the time we obviously got into bed with someone we didn't quite understand. It's not like just because people put someone into power that when that person ends up becoming a reprehensible person the people who put him into power in the first place is at complete fault and not allowed to do anything to try to right the situation. Which country can say that they've never been allies with some other country with a reprehensible leader?
So if you place a dictator into power in a foreign country, you're not responsible in any way shape or form?
So basically every country in the world needs to worry about their democracy being torn down and a puppet set up who's a complete madman, and have the country invaded some years later by the country who put the dictator in power, because he's obviously doing terrible things?
I dunno what to think about that. I guess I should start worrying?
|
On October 22 2011 12:09 xevis wrote:
Nine years is not long enough of a punishment for invading Kuwait.
I'm sorry sir, are 2 atom bombs and carpet firebombing enough of a punishment for invading the whole of east and south asia?
|
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing."
|
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country  It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's. Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime. American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally. The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
|
On October 22 2011 12:09 xevis wrote:
Nine years is not long enough of a punishment for invading Kuwait.
Indeed. We should probably invade Germany right now for what they did back in the day. And Italy for what the Romans did. And Greece for Alexander the great. And Russia for the soviet union. And the US for what the north did to the southern confederation. And France for what Napoleon did. And England for their colonies.
Want me to go on?
That is not a valid reason to go to war.
This is not the gulf war.
|
YEAH! And Britain too! Stay the fuck out of the rest of the world! All you world powers (previous and present) need to get out of the rest of the world!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain
Truth of the matter is that by simply being the dominant world power, a country will sooner or later be involved with the "rest of the world". Any country in that position would obviously not only want to push forward
1) ideals that they consider good for the whole world (their image of how the world should be/work)
2) policies that benefit that country
The US has done no worse and no better overall than any other major country in dealing with international relations and waging and dealing with the ending of conflict. The only thing we can hope is that we learn from all the lessons of the past and to not end up making the same mistakes. I'm sad we went to Iraq in the first place and sad at the costs that have accrued during our stay there but I'm happy that the US is finally leaving.
|
On October 22 2011 12:34 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:09 xevis wrote:
Nine years is not long enough of a punishment for invading Kuwait. Indeed. We should probably invade Germany right now for what they did back in the day. And Italy for what the Romans did. And Greece for Alexander the great. And Russia for the soviet union. And the US for what the north did to the southern confederation. And France for what Napoleon did. And England for their colonies. Want me to go on? That is not a valid reason to go to war. This is not the gulf war.
Except that the North was justified in it's war against the South.
|
On October 22 2011 12:35 chaoser wrote:YEAH! And Britain too! Stay the fuck out of the rest of the world! All you world powers (previous and present) need to get out of the rest of the world! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_BritainTruth of the matter is that by simply being the dominant world power, a country will sooner or later be involved with the "rest of the world". Any country in that position would obviously not only want to push forward 1) ideals that they consider good for the whole world (their image of how the world should be/work) 2) policies that benefit that country The US has done no worse and no better overall than any other major country in dealing with international relations and waging and dealing with the ending of conflict. The only thing we can hope is that we learn from all the lessons of the past and to not end up making the same mistakes. I'm sad we went to Iraq in the first place and sad at the costs that have accrued during our stay there but I'm happy that the US is finally leaving.
UK have two ongoing/occupations compared with USA at 13. Try again
|
On October 22 2011 12:27 Euronyme wrote:
So if you place a dictator into power in a foreign country, you're not responsible in any way shape or form?
So basically every country in the world needs to worry about their democracy being torn down and a puppet set up who's a complete madman, and have the country invaded some years later by the country who put the dictator in power, because he's obviously doing terrible things?
I dunno what to think about that. I guess I should start worrying?
I'm sorry if what I wrote came off like that but I totally agree that America fucked up with supporting Saddam in the 80s and that Bush went back to Iraq mainly to be "responsible". They lied to the rest of the world to do this while using all the political power they got from 9/11 but I think deep down Bush actually rationalized it as "We're going to get rid of one more madman in the world, we're doing the right thing,"
Now do I think this is an ok reason? No. I still shake my head at the Iraq War. But I can see his logic.
I think we actually both agree but we're misunderstanding one another lol.
|
|
|
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's. Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime. American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally. The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East. Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
|
On October 22 2011 12:35 chaoser wrote:YEAH! And Britain too! Stay the fuck out of the rest of the world! All you world powers (previous and present) need to get out of the rest of the world! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_BritainTruth of the matter is that by simply being the dominant world power, a country will sooner or later be involved with the "rest of the world". Any country in that position would obviously not only want to push forward 1) ideals that they consider good for the whole world (their image of how the world should be/work) 2) policies that benefit that country The US has done no worse and no better overall than any other major country in dealing with international relations and waging and dealing with the ending of conflict. The only thing we can hope is that we learn from all the lessons of the past and to not end up making the same mistakes. I'm sad we went to Iraq in the first place and sad at the costs that have accrued during our stay there but I'm happy that the US is finally leaving.
Well there's China.... They seem to take it pretty easy when it comes to declearing wars for unknown reasons.
With your argument they should've started picking off small European democracies by now. Havn't heard of it yet, so appearantly there's another way to go about things.
|
wtf nobody told me about this. I guess its not a big deal to them? =/
ANYWAYS, THIS IS GOOD NEWS!
|
When I was younger, I remember standing embarrassed on an overpass with my mom while she protested the war with some friends. That seems like so long ago...
|
Actually, classified documents have revealed that Obama is waiting for 3-3 infantry upgrades and Ravens to detect landmines before he pushes in again. He just slacked on macro as you can see on the debt, and had to hold the position in middle east for more gas for upgrades.
It's not over yet.
|
On October 22 2011 13:06 Rockztar wrote:
Actually, classified documents have revealed that Obama is waiting for 3-3 infantry upgrades and Ravens to detect landmines before he pushes in again. He just slacked on macro as you can see on the debt, and had to hold the position in middle east for more gas for upgrades.
It's not over yet.
Nah the US has been blessed with governments so good at macro that they even make the mineral counter to go to the negative scale.
Bad macro = lots of money in the bank you know ^_^
|
On October 22 2011 12:53 Euronyme wrote:
Well there's China.... They seem to take it pretty easy when it comes to declearing wars for unknown reasons.
With your argument they should've started picking off small European democracies by now. Havn't heard of it yet, so appearantly there's another way to go about things.
China hasn't been declaring wars but it's definitely been trying to further it's own agenda in other insidious ways. It's already made many connections with the corrupt government/business elements in South America and just recently vetoed the UN Security Council's vote of putting sanctions on Syria and previously on Iran.
Just like how America is begrudging allies with Taiwan only to be a thorn in China's side, China only humors North Korea as an ally to fuck with America.
Plus, China's still technically a developing country since the vast majority of its populace is rural agricultural in nature. When it actually becomes the dominate world power I'm sure we'll see more visible displays of its want to further its own interests.
|
Of the 39,000 troops in Iraq, only about 150, a negligible force, will remain to assist in arms sales.
So... the war is over? I don't think so. Actually I'm not even going to post any more than that because it would just piss people off like this whole fiasco has pissed me off. I want all of you to think about the line I reposted from the article.
|
On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing."
Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
